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 in
