1995.02.03 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
Date: 3 Feb 1995 16:04:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <D3EyFE.HIK@uwindsor.ca> blazek@server.uwindsor.ca (Robert Blazek) 
writes: 

>
>
>I've read in the latest Scientific American about the phenomenon
>of sonoluminesence.  The authours of the article mentions very
>impressive heating rates and compression as vapour bubbles
>in water collapse, leading to light emissions.  Has there been
>any proposals to use a similar process for a potential fusion
>power source.  Please provide info why or why not.  Thanks in
>advance.
>-- 
>----
>Kids dream they can fly.  Adults dream they can fly first class.
>

  Look into the Journel of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 26, Number 
4T Part 2 FUSTES (4) 1-540 (1994) ISSN: 0748-1896. This issue has 
selected papers presented at the Fourth International Conference on Cold 
Fusion. It is dedicated to physicist Dr. Julian Schwinger, noted physics 
nobelist who died in July 16, 1994. Dr. Schwinger has a foreword article 
in there (pages xiii-xxi) titled 'Cold Fusion Theory, a brief history of 
mine' subtitled 'a progress report of mine'. In this article, he went 
over some cold fusion effect hypothesis then went into a second part of 
his "A Progress Report" dealing with sonoluminescence. 
   To paraphrase the journel, the article amd sidetracking a little on 
your question of harnessing sonoluminescence (SL), SL had its start back 
in 1894 with the British Navy discovering sea water sound cavitation 
problems affecting propeller performance with vibration and 
deterioration. By 1934, confirmation of a 1932 conjecture of light also 
being generated with sound cavitation lead to the subject of 
sonoluminescence. The light conjecture followed on a 1927 observation 
that sound field cavitation was intensive enough to produce a chemical 
effect that produced hydrogen peroxide.
   Then coherent sonoluminescence was oberved in 1970. Then in 1990, it 
was demonstrated that an sonoluminescent stream of light (dim blue light 
pulsed at the sound frequency) could be produced by a single stable 
cavity effected by an acoustic field of proper amplitude and frequency. 
This sound something like what the Grigg's Hydrosonic Pump is doing 
mechanically with a blue light being noticed at the steam output.
   Dr. Schwinger's reaction to coherent sonoluminescence in June 1991 
was that it was "a dynamical Casimir effect".   
   What seemed to Dr. Schwinger in 1991 to be two different phenomena of 
cold fusion and sonoluminescence was by 1993-'94 being seen as "related 
ways of transfering energy betweem macroscopic and microscopic objects". 
"But they both depend significantly on nonlinear effects. Put in that 
light, the failures of naive intuition are understandeble. So end my 
Progress Report".
   Dr. Schwinger was a pioneering theorist and a champion of cold 
fusion. He argued that "The circumstances of cold fusion are not those 
of hot fusion". And he resigned from the American Physical Society 
as a symbolic gesture after being one of its leading member for over 50 
years. This followed because "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I 
have experienced it in editor's rejection of submitted papers, based on 
venomouse critism of anonymouse referees. The replacement of impartial 
reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
   Anything is possible in harnessing this or that phenomena, chemical, 
nuclear, solar, water, physical, and others (telepathy?) as a power 
source but what it boils down to is, is it practical? I am sure 
sonoluminescence, as understanding develops, practical applications will 
be made as its potentials are realized. Then later, what was then 
judged impratical may become practical and off we go again.
   Aki 
   
   
   
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  nachtrieb@max. /  oops... (hot) fusion jargon correction
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: oops... (hot) fusion jargon correction
Date: 3 FEB 95 14:40:02 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

(NdYAG)	neodymium yttrium arsenide garnet 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennachtrieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / John Cobb /  Re: Helium III (3) Bedtime Stories...
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium III (3) Bedtime Stories...
Date: 3 Feb 1995 11:23:07 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <pshanley.791766074@spidle2.humsci.auburn.edu>,
Paul Shanley <pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu> wrote:
 >Dear s.p.f. All,
 >
 >I am doing a report on Helium III (3) and any published or non-published 
 >research that has been done on it.  I am also interested in the laymen's 
 >discussion of mining the Moon and/or using Helium III in the fusion 
 >process, period.  I am pretty much a novice on the subject and will be 
 >doing 'due diligence' on the subject, at my magnificant library.  Any 
 >leads, citations, or bibliographies you can put me onto...would be 
 >helpful.  Thanks.  please reply directly to my e-mail account, as I am 
 >not usually a recipient of this newsgroup.  Thanks double!
 >
 >                     pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu
 >
 >Sincerely,
 >
 >Paul-Sylvester
 >US ARMY Research Fellow
 >Auburn University, Alabama
 >"I'm not an Apple rep but I play one on the 'Net."
 >

Paul,

There is, literally a "ton" of published stuff on this. I would suggest
as a starting point, looking at the July, 1992 issue of Fusion Technology
(Vol. 21). My favorite (considering my bias) is the article on p. 2307
about a Field Reversed Configuration Reactor using a D-3He fuel cycle, but
the whole issue is about this stuff. I think Auburn carries it in its
library.

Best of Luck,

-john .w cobb


-- 
John W. Cobb	16% of all Perot voters believe that if Dolphins
                are so smart, they should be able to get out of 
		those nets.  --Michael Moore, TV Nation

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / W Weingarten /  Re: Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Questions
Date: 3 Feb 1995 17:58:13 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <3gs999$el1@elvis.vnet.net>, jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
wrote:
> 
> I, too, would like to know under exactly what conditions are the power
> meter and dynamometer designed to give accurate results, and are they
> operating under those conditions.
> 
> In particular, someone once pointed out that the two rotors (motor and GG)
> connected by a rigid shaft make sort of a tuning fork. If this "tuning fork"
> is vibrating, it could be developing torques far greater than the normal
> operating torque. This is my prime suspect for jamming the power meter.
> It might also affect the dynamometer, but my prime suspect there is
> the high shaft temperature. (Especially with all the talk about melted
> rotors.  :-)
> 
> I once suggested that a clamp-on current meter would not respond to
> such jamming in the same way as the power meter, and thus would
> provide an easy sanity check. An oscilloscope would be better, of
> course. (And you can thread the scopes probe through the current meters
> clamp-on thing to make a transformer.  :-)  Has Griggs done any of this?
more deleted....
If the shafts are rigidly coupled, the oscillation would likely be a
twisting
oscillation with energy interchange between the mass of the two rotors (ie
the electric motor & the GG rotor).  This twisting vibration might show up
as a high frequency torque variations which then might be transfered to the
3-phase line current. If the current variation frequency is above the
frequency response of the wattmeter than this component may not be measured
correctly. The suggestion of current monitoring by an oscilloscope would
show any significant component of higher frequency current.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950123
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950123
Date: 3 FEB 95 14:20:02 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   ALCATOR C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    Jan. 23, 1995

Alcator C-MOD is continuing plasma operations. Three runs were
scheduled and completed this week. The major highlight of the week was
the successful coupling of 3.5MW into the plasma (approximately 4 MW
at the source). Other experiments included measurements on neutral
density profiles in the plasma core, experiments on impurity transport
in the divertor,and pellet injection in combination with radio
frequency (RF) heating. In addition, calibrations were carried out for
the divertor neutral pressure gauge and the neutral gas injection
array (NINJA) capillary gas puff system as well as the B-side valve
used for impurity puffing experiments.

Up to 3.5MW of ion cyclotron radio frequency (ICRF) was coupled to the
plasma during piggy-back operation on Wednesday. This power level,
corresponding to approximately 4MW at the source, is the nominal
maximum power level for the current campaign, using both D-port and
E-port antennas.  Central electron and ion temperatures in the 4-5 keV
range were obtained at line-average density of 1e20/m3 and a plasma
current of 800kA. The stored energy in the plasma exceeded 100kJ for
the first time.  Preliminary assessments indicate the confinement was
consistent with standard L-mode scaling.

Heating experiments at the 3MW level continued on Friday, at higher
density of 1.3 and 1.7e20.  Virtually all shots with high RF power
(two antennas) at these densities transitioned into H-mode.  We were
able to sustain the H-mode (edge-localized mode (ELM)-free then
becoming ELMy) for the duration of high power RF (200msec).  Following
the density rise in the ELM-free period, a new steady-state density
level is maintained, with strong ELM activity, until the RF pulse is
terminated.  One shot had a lithium (Li) pellet 50msec injected prior
to the RF pulse, and a record neutron rate (almost 1e14/sec) was
obtained during the pellet enhanced performance ("PEP") phase when the
density profile is highly peaked.

On Thursday, an investigation of impurity screening was carried out,
using trace impurities (neon (Ne), helium (He), and argon (Ar)) puffed
from capillary tubes in various poloidal locations. Comparisons were
made for puffing at the inner wall, the private flux zone of the
divertor, and the outer scrape-off layer (SOL). Preliminary analysis
indicates the core neon signal, e.g., varies by less than a factor of
two for the different source locations.

Measurements of neutral density profiles, employing the technique of
looking at charge exchange recombination of highly ionized Argon
(miniproposal (MP) #049A), were also carried out. The previously
observed up-down asymmetry in the neutral density was confirmed, but a
more quantitative assessment of the neutral profile was not possible
due to the limited number of satisfactory shots.

A Review of the C-MOD program was held at MIT on Tuesday and
Wednesday.  Participants from US Department of Energy (DOE) (Tuesday
only) were Don Priester and Milt Johnson; attending as members of the
C-MOD Advisory panel were G. Nielson, P. Edmonds, S. Allen,
R. Hawryluk, and F. Perkins. Presentations on recent C-MOD results and
future plans were made by I. Hutchinson, B. Lipschultz, M. Porkolab,
R.  Wilson (PPPL), M. Greenwald, S. Wolfe, R. Granetz, J. Irby,
D. Gwinn, and E.  Marmar.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennachtrieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950130
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950130
Date: 3 FEB 95 14:20:40 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    Jan. 30, 1995

Alcator C-MOD operation continued this week. Four run days were
carried out as scheduled. The principal experiments included ion
cyclotron radio frequency (ICRF) heating, high elongation equilibria,
and divertor detachment studies with ICRF and different geometries.

The effects of increasing RF power on divertor parameters, including
detachment characteristics, were studied in a series of discharges on
Wednesday. The standard lower single null (SN) configuration with the
strikepoints on the inclined divertor plates was used. RF power was
varied during the pulse at constant core density and plasma current;
several target densities were explored.  Increases in divertor density
and temperature, as well as divertor radiation, were observed, with
the divertor density being affected more than electron temperature
(Te).  The divertor radiation shifted from near or above the x-point
down to the vicinity of the strikepoint as the power was
increased. For discharges which were initially completely detached, a
low initial RF power level was sufficient to reattach most of the
common flux region; however, the separatrix and private flux regions
remained detached up to the highest powers used.

Experiments to optimize the gain settings on the vertical position
control for high elongation equilibria were carried out on Thursday. A
systematic mapping of the proportional and derivative gain space was
performed for a constant equilibrium configuration with elongation
around 1.75, with amplitude and frequency of the observed
vertical oscillations being tabulated, as well as disruptivity. These
results are being compared with modeling predictions based on the
perturbational equilibrium approach. Using optimized gain settings
based on these experiments, we then increased the elongation up to
1.85, and maintained this configuration for the entire flattop
without disruption. This marked the first time we had exceeded our
nominal design elongation of 1.8 in a sustained manner.

Experiments on the effect of divertor geometry on detachment were
continued on Friday. The "flat-plate" geometry, with the strikepoints
located on the top of the divertor structures, proved to be
significantly harder to detach than either the standard or "slot"
configurations. The line-averaged density was raised to 3.4e20 in
800kA ohmic discharges with the "flat-plate" geometry, but complete
detachment was not obtained except with impurity injection. The
density at which local detachment was obtained (2.9e20) was clearly
higher than that for comparable inclined plate (2.1e20) and slot
(1.7e20) configurations.

The multi-pulse neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet (NdYAG) core Thomson
Scattering system observed scattered photons for the first time this
week.

Earl Marmar participated in a meeting of the DIII-D program advisory
committee in San Diego. While there, he also presented a talk to the
DoE-JAERI Technical Planning Meeting, summarizing the C-Mod program
(results and plans), and one to the TPX physics meeting, concentrating
on C-Mod divertor results.  Prof. Ian Hutchinson presented a seminar
on recent C-MOD results at PPPL.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennachtrieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 16:39:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>Now I certainly was left with the impression initially that you had made the
>measurement with a precision of 0.001 inch or better.  Dick Blue, I note,
 
How ridiculous. You are the only person in North America who got that
impression. What I said was that I am sure whoever fabricated the arm
surely must have used some technology more advanced than Paleolithic
Metalurgy. Any person fabricating a metal arm anytime in the last four
thousand years could *very easily* have measured the thing to within
better than 0.3 inches. Not only that, but people have known the value of
Pi to one or two digits since the earliest dynasties in China.
 
Really, you "skeptics" are scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempts
to come up with "objections." For goodness sake! Get real!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /   /  Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:00:00 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Robert Blazek wrote:

> 
> The authours of the article mentions very
> impressive heating rates and compression as vapour bubbles
> in water collapse, leading to light emissions.
> 

	Sonoluminesence will never by an effective power source for fusion.
For those of you who don't know sonoluminesence is the process of turning 
sound into light. When the authors say "impressive heating rates" they 
mean impressive for the couple of photons that are produced in the 
process relative to similar systems. However these heating rates are 
essentially zero on a fusion scale and are insignificant compared to the 
power of the ion beam

	(Geez, I sound like Obi-won Kanobi)

	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion theorist and computational experimentalist
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Matt Austern /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: 03 Feb 1995 23:57:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <JU+YTKf.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> How ridiculous. You are the only person in North America who got that
> impression. What I said was that I am sure whoever fabricated the arm
> surely must have used some technology more advanced than Paleolithic
> Metalurgy.

This sure sounds like he's saying that he didn't measure the length of
the arm at all, but simply relied on the specifications provided by
"whoever fabricated the arm".

It would be nice if he said that explicitly, instead of dancing around
the actual procedure, but at least we now have an answer.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Mike Griffin /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 23:42:22 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <JU+YTKf.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
>  
> >Now I certainly was left with the impression initially that you had made the
> >measurement with a precision of 0.001 inch or better.  Dick Blue, I note,
>  
> How ridiculous. You are the only person in North America who got that
> impression. What I said was that I am sure whoever fabricated the arm
> surely must have used some technology more advanced than Paleolithic
> Metalurgy. Any person fabricating a metal arm anytime in the last four
> thousand years could *very easily* have measured the thing to within
> better than 0.3 inches. Not only that, but people have known the value of
> Pi to one or two digits since the earliest dynasties in China.
>  
> Really, you "skeptics" are scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempts
> to come up with "objections." For goodness sake! Get real!
>  
> - Jed

.. and how did *you* measure it, Jed?

You didn't, did you?  You're completely transparent!

Don't *ever* stop posting to this group.  You're sooooo entertaining!

If you keep this up, your reputation may soon rival that of Archimedes
Plutonium on sci.math.  And when your career of pulling wool over people's
eyes runs its course, you have another waiting in virtual comedy!

Thanks for being you Jed, and for all the chuckles you provide.

Cheers,
Mike Griffin
(expressing my own opinions.)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Griggs questions
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs questions
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 00:16:17 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

I have been known to have made "mischievous" comments about
"cold fusion" claims, but some people are going bananas about
the Griggs machine.

My understanding is that Jed has claimed that at any time you can
divert the flow of output steam (or hot water) into a barrel of
cold water, and measure the temperature rise over, say, 5 minutes.
By "at any time" I mean you can choose a time during steady state
operation.

At the same time a power meter is measuring the input ac to the motor.

Now this is kind of an elementary undergraduate exercise.  Of course in
the Physics 101 lab with some kind of electrically driven dissipation
device the hypothesis would be that the input and output powers match, and
the students would probably get that result, within say 5%.

The "Griggs hypothesis" is that the output power is at least 30%
greater than the input power. I've heard somewhat hysterical criticisms
of the power measuring techniques (e.g. questions about the calibration
of the power meter) but to my believe nobody has come with a 30%
error mechanism.

So if Tom Droege's investigation *does not* uncover a 30% error
mechanism, there is a (how can I put it?) *interesting* situation to
be looked at.

Among the possible explanations would be: 1.  New physics (great, if
true), and 2.  Hocus pocus.  But I certainly would not pre-judge *before*
Tom reports.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Phil Snyder /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@pppl.gov (Phil Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: 3 Feb 1995 23:43:59 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

[I'll try to give an illustration of the general problems
of ion beam fusion.  Note that I'm not trying to be
precise, just to relate the nature of an important
(hot) fusion issue to those that might be unfamiliar.]

In article <1995Feb2.151938.13367@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:

>When colliding with a target, an ion is far more likely
>to simply bounce off (due to the electrical repulsion) than
>it is to fuse with the target nucleus.  This is the whole reason
>why you have to confine a plasma, or trick the nuclei into
>getting closer to each other by using muonic molecules,
>in order to generate fusion energy.
>...

To help illustrate this, I'll throw out some rough numbers.
For fusion of deuterium and tritium (the reaction with
by far the largest cross section in the energy range of 
interest), the fusion cross section has a maximum of
around 5*10^-24 cm^2 at an energy of around 70 keV.

By contrast, the cross section for being deflected by 
10 degrees as a result of the electric
repulsion between ions is roughly 2*10^-20 cm^2 at the
same energy of 70 keV (note that this doesn't correspond
to the usual definition of the coulomb cross section
which uses deflection by 90 degrees).

Now we simply collide a deuterium beam with
a tritium beam, so that the energy in the center of 
mass frame is 70 keV.  If we consider an ion to have left the
system when it has been deflected by 10 degrees, the ions 
will be roughly 4000 times more likely to be deflected
out of the system than to fuse.

So we might optimistically hope to get one fusion
for each 4000 pairs of ions.  

The problem is that those 4000 pairs of ions cost us
4000*70 keV=280000 keV=280 MeV to produce.  And the energy
yield of the fusion is only 17.6 MeV.  If we consider
reasonable beam efficiencies of ~.3 and conversion of
fusion energy to electric energy of ~.4, we can see
that we are getting less than 1% of the electric energy
out as we put into the beams initially.  Clearly, we
must do *much* better. (using different beam energies
or a more accurate calculation will change the
numbers, but it won't get us over 10%, and we need >100%)

(Using a solid target rather than two beams does not improve
the situation.  Now the incident beam ions will not be 
deflected out quickly, but they will lose their energy
quickly, primarily through interactions with electrons 
in the lattice, and a similarly small fraction of the
incident ions will fuse.)

Because the coulomb cross section is always much larger
than the fusion cross section (at reasonable energies)
it seems that we want to somehow confine the ions so that 
they can undergo several coulomb collisions (which will
cause the ions to thermalize) before they and/or their
energy is lost from the system (hence "thermonuclear"
fusion, because the ions and electrons will relax
to roughly thermal distributions after a few collisions). 

One way to accomplish this is to use a strong magnetic
field to confine the plasma.  The ions (and electrons) will 
(roughly) follow the field lines, and when collisions occur
the ions may be knocked from one field line to another,
but in general they can be confined in the system long
enough to undergo several collisions.
For example, in a tokamak like TFTR, ions can be confined
for around a second, in which time they will have gone
around the donut shaped tokamak thousands of times and 
undergone of order 100 coulomb collisions.  Of course
in a tokamak, energy is lost mostly by other means
than particle transport, and we will have to do much better
than TFTR to produce a cost-effective reactor.

Other approaches include inertial confinement fusion, in
which an implosive force (produced by lasers or particle beams, 
or directly by an explosion, as in a hydrogen bomb) provides
confinement of the ions and electrons for several collision
times.

The only approach which completely sidesteps the above
problems is muon catalyzed fusion (excepting other forms
of cold fusion discussed here, but not widely accepted by the
scientific community).  In muon catalyzed fusion, the primary
problem is that the muon costs quite a bit of energy to
produce, and so each muon must catalyze over 100 (1000?) fusions
for the process to be cost effective.  Because the muons
tend to stick to the alpha particles produced in the
fusion reactions, this is difficult (theoretically
impossible according to some) to achieve.

For more information on much of the above see the conventional
fusion FAQ.  Please correct, question, and expound upon the
above.  Let's get some non-Grigg's gadget discussion going again
in this group.

Phil Snyder
pbsnyder@princeton.edu
speaking only for myself
grad student in plasma physics at princeton

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
>As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!


-- 
Phil Snyder		Graduate College
pbsnyder@pppl.gov	Princeton NJ 08544
			609 258-7865
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhil cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Phil Snyder /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@pppl.gov (Phil Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: 3 Feb 1995 23:51:36 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

[I'll try to give an illustration of the general problems
of ion beam fusion.  Note that I'm not trying to be
precise, just to relate the nature of an important
(hot) fusion issue to those that might be unfamiliar.]

In article <1995Feb2.151938.13367@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@princeton.edu> wrote:

>When colliding with a target, an ion is far more likely
>to simply bounce off (due to the electrical repulsion) than
>it is to fuse with the target nucleus.  This is the whole reason
>why you have to confine a plasma, or trick the nuclei into
>getting closer to each other by using muonic molecules,
>in order to generate fusion energy.
>...

To help illustrate this, I'll throw out some rough numbers.
For fusion of deuterium and tritium (the reaction with
by far the largest cross section in the energy range of 
interest), the fusion cross section has a maximum of
around 5*10^-24 cm^2 at an energy of around 70 keV.

By contrast, the cross section for being deflected by 
10 degrees as a result of the electric
repulsion between ions is roughly 2*10^-20 cm^2 at the
same energy of 70 keV (note that this doesn't correspond
to the usual definition of the coulomb cross section
which uses deflection by 90 degrees).

Now we simply collide a deuterium beam with
a tritium beam, so that the energy in the center of 
mass frame is 70 keV.  If we consider an ion to have left the
system when it has been deflected by 10 degrees, the ions 
will be roughly 4000 times more likely to be deflected
out of the system than to fuse.

So we might optimistically hope to get one fusion
for each 4000 pairs of ions.  

The problem is that those 4000 pairs of ions cost us
4000*70 keV=280000 keV=280 MeV to produce.  And the energy
yield of the fusion is only 17.6 MeV.  If we consider
reasonable beam efficiencies of ~.3 and conversion of
fusion energy to electric energy of ~.4, we can see
that we are getting less than 1% of the electric energy
out as we put into the beams initially.  Clearly, we
must do *much* better. (using different beam energies
or a more accurate calculation will change the
numbers, but it won't get us over 10%, and we need >100%)

(Using a solid target rather than two beams does not improve
the situation.  Now the incident beam ions will not be 
deflected out quickly, but they will lose their energy
quickly, primarily through interactions with electrons 
in the lattice, and a similarly small fraction of the
incident ions will fuse.)

Because the coulomb cross section is always much larger
than the fusion cross section (at reasonable energies)
it seems that we want to somehow confine the ions so that 
they can undergo several coulomb collisions before they and/or 
their energy is lost from the system (hence "thermonuclear"
fusion, because the ions and electrons will relax
to roughly thermal distributions after a few collisions). 

One way to accomplish this is to use a strong magnetic
field to confine the plasma.  The ions (and electrons) will 
(roughly) follow the field lines, and when collisions occur
the ions may be knocked from one field line to another,
but in general they can be confined in the system long
enough to undergo several collisions.
For example, in a tokamak like TFTR, ions can be confined
for around a second, in which time they will have gone
around the donut shaped tokamak thousands of times and 
undergone of order 100 coulomb collisions.  Of course
in a tokamak, energy is lost mostly by other means
than particle transport, and we will have to do much better
than TFTR to produce a cost-effective reactor.

Other approaches include inertial confinement fusion, in
which an implosive force (produced by lasers or particle beams, 
or directly by an explosion, as in a hydrogen bomb) provides
confinement of the ions and electrons for several collision
times.

The only approach which completely sidesteps the above
problems is muon catalyzed fusion (excepting other forms
of cold fusion discussed here, but not widely accepted by the
scientific community).  In muon catalyzed fusion, the primary
problem is that the muon costs quite a bit of energy to
produce, and so each muon must catalyze over 100 (1000?) fusions
for the process to be cost effective.  Because the muons
tend to stick to the alpha particles produced in the
fusion reactions, this is difficult (theoretically
impossible according to some) to achieve.

For more information on much of the above see the conventional
fusion FAQ.  Please correct, question, and expound upon the
above.  Let's get some non-Grigg's gadget discussion going again
in this group.

Phil Snyder
pbsnyder@princeton.edu
speaking only for myself
grad student in plasma physics at princeton

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
>As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!

-- 
Phil Snyder		Graduate College
pbsnyder@pppl.gov	Princeton NJ 08544
			609 258-7865
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhil cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / John Logajan /  "Cold Fusion" issue #6 now published
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" issue #6 now published
Date: 4 Feb 1995 05:22:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I got my copy of "Cold Fusion" issue #6 (formerly Cold Fusion Update,
formerly Cold Fusion Magazine.)

This issue is almost exclusively theoretical. Articles by Moon, Sunden,
Illert and Reverberi, Golds, Gluck, Chubb and Chubb, Carter, and Deak.

There is also quotes from the internet edited by Milton Laurie.  Snippets
from: Phil Andrews, Tom Droege, Matthew Austern, Ian Johnston, me, Dave
Davies, Richard Blue, William Hawkins, Harry Conover, Jed Rothwell, Steven
Jones, and Peter Gluck.

Illert and Reverberi have an interesting theory about halo-nuclei.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
Date: 4 Feb 1995 05:33:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3gurd6$knd@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris 
Parkinson) writes: 

>
>In <3gtk5k$c76@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira 
Kawasaki) writes: 
>
>>
>snip...
>
>>   To paraphrase the journel, the article amd sidetracking a little on 
>>your question of harnessing sonoluminescence (SL), SL had its start 
back 
>>in 1894 with the British Navy discovering sea water sound cavitation 
>>problems affecting propeller performance with vibration and 
>>deterioration. By 1934, confirmation of a 1932 conjecture of light 
also 
>>being generated with sound cavitation lead to the subject of 
>>sonoluminescence. The light conjecture followed on a 1927 observation 
>>that sound field cavitation was intensive enough to produce a chemical 
>>effect that produced hydrogen peroxide.
>
>At what molar consentration can H2O2 be produced. If the concentration 
is around 
>say 70% then one does have an energy source, indeed. Run this past a 
heated 
>silver bed, ignite the output gas and one has a rather nice rocket 
motor, free of 
>all polutants.

   I'm sure H2O2 generation was a valid observation back in 1927. As to 
what molar H2O2 evolved, you are free to do the research of the original 
material. If the production was voluminous, there probabily be a 
record of it. Perhaps in 1995, things have changed. It wouldn't hurt to 
re-confirm the 1927 experimant if you are curious. It only costs money. 
I'll take the original 1927 words, whatever they were. Who knows, 
perhaps new information can be gleaned from repeating a 1927 experiment. 
I was paraphrasing Dr. Schwinger's article which outlined the history 
leading to sonoluminescence as it was being studied at UCLA by Dr. 
Putterman even back around 1990. 
AK 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Akira Kawasaki /  Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
Date: 4 Feb 1995 05:42:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3gurd6$knd@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris 
Parkinson) writes: 

>
>In <3gtk5k$c76@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira 
Kawasaki) writes: 
>
>>
>snip...
>
>>   To paraphrase the journel, the article amd sidetracking a little on 
>>your question of harnessing sonoluminescence (SL), SL had its start 
back 
>>in 1894 with the British Navy discovering sea water sound cavitation 
>>problems affecting propeller performance with vibration and 
>>deterioration. By 1934, confirmation of a 1932 conjecture of light 
also 
>>being generated with sound cavitation lead to the subject of 
>>sonoluminescence. The light conjecture followed on a 1927 observation 
>>that sound field cavitation was intensive enough to produce a chemical 
>>effect that produced hydrogen peroxide.
>
>At what molar consentration can H2O2 be produced. If the concentration 
is around 
>say 70% then one does have an energy source, indeed. Run this past a 
heated 
>silver bed, ignite the output gas and one has a rather nice rocket 
motor, free of 
>all polutants.

You know, maybe H2O2 is being generated in the Griggs' Hydrosonic Pump 
which gives rise to the pitting on the aluminum rotor among other 
things.
AK
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Scott Little /  Ed Storms paper - where is is?
     
Originally-From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ed Storms paper - where is is?
Date: 4 Feb 1995 07:13:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Is is possible to receive via the Internet a copy of Dr. Edmund Storms
recent publication entitled something like "How to Reproduce the Pons-
Fleischmann effect" published, I think, in Fusion Technology 1995.

This paper is referenced in a recent massive work (177 refs!) by 
Storms that reviews a ton of work that has been done on CF.

Please email responses to little@eden.com.  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminesence & fusion?
Date: 4 Feb 1995 03:13:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3gtk5k$c76@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes: 

>
snip...

>   To paraphrase the journel, the article amd sidetracking a little on 
>your question of harnessing sonoluminescence (SL), SL had its start back 
>in 1894 with the British Navy discovering sea water sound cavitation 
>problems affecting propeller performance with vibration and 
>deterioration. By 1934, confirmation of a 1932 conjecture of light also 
>being generated with sound cavitation lead to the subject of 
>sonoluminescence. The light conjecture followed on a 1927 observation 
>that sound field cavitation was intensive enough to produce a chemical 
>effect that produced hydrogen peroxide.

At what molar consentration can H2O2 be produced. If the concentration is around 
say 70% then one does have an energy source, indeed. Run this past a heated 
silver bed, ignite the output gas and one has a rather nice rocket motor, free of 
all polutants.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 15:19:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <eeeD36zsG.6z2@netcom.com> Mark Thorson, eee@netcom.com writes:
> Quoting from _Project_Sherwood:_The_U.S._Program_in_Controlled_Fusion_
> by Amasa Bishop (Addison-Wesley, 1958) page 181:
> 
> "Historically, fusion reactions between deuterium ions were first
> produced in the laboratory in the late 1930's by bombarding a
> solid deuterium compound with high-energy deuterons.  For a number
> of reasons, however, this approach is not suitable for a practical
> fusion device.  The principal difficulty is that the impinging particles
> fritter away almost all their energy in useless ionization of the target
> atoms.  As a result, only a very tiny percentage succeed in colliding
> with target nuclei with sufficient energy to undergo fusion.  The
> energy yield from these few reactions falls far short of compensating
> for the energy input required to produce the beam initially."

This is essentially correct.  Apparently most of the actual plasma 
physicists have cut back on reading the group.  I haven't even seen 
Steven Jones answer questions about sonoluminescence or 
muon-catalyzed fusion recently.

When colliding with a target, an ion is far more likely
to simply bounce off (due to the electrical repulsion) than
it is to fuse with the target nucleus.  This is the whole reason
why you have to confine a plasma, or trick the nuclei into
getting closer to each other by using muonic molecules,
in order to generate fusion energy.

Would anyone object if I added this little discussion to
the Conventional Fusion FAQ?  I'm not sure this question
is answered there.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  nachtrieb@max. /  Some common (hot) fusion jargon
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some common (hot) fusion jargon
Date: 3 FEB 95 14:21:31 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

(APS)	American Physical Society 
(Ar)	argon
(CAMAC)	Computer Automated Measurement and Control 
(CCD)	charge coupled device 
(CY)	calendar year 
(D)	deuterium
(DOE)	U.S. Department of Energy 
(DPP)	Division of Plasma Physics 
(ECDC)	electron cyclotron discharge cleaning
(ECE)	electron cyclotron emission
(EF)	equilibrium field electromagnet coil
(ELM)	edge-localized mode 
(ESNET)	Energy Sciences NETwork 
(FY)	fiscal year 
(GN2)	diatomic gaseous nitrogen
(H)	hydrogen
(He)	helium 
(HIREX)	hi-resolution x-ray spectroscopy 
(IAEA)	International Atomic Energy Association 
(ICRF)	ion cyclotron radio frequency 
(IR)	infrared 
(ITER)	International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
(LCFS)	last closed flux surface 
(Li)	lithium 
(LN2)	diatomic liquid nitrogen
(M1)	magnetic dipole 
(MDS)	Model Driven System; a programming environment 
(MP)	miniproposal 
(NdYAG)	neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet 
(Ne)	neon
(NINJA)	neutral gas injection array 
(OH)	ohmic heating coil 
(OH1)	ohmic heating coil number 1
(OH2L)	ohmic heating coil number 2, lower portion
(OH2U)	ohmic heating coil number 2, upper portion
(PCS)	plasma control system
(PCX)	neutral particle analyzer
(PEP)	pellet enhanced performance 
(PF)	poloidal field magnetic coil
(PLC)	programmable logic control
(PPPL)	Princeton Plasma Physics Lab 
(RGA)	residual gas analyzer
(RF)	radio frequency 
(SN)	single null 
(SOL) 	scrape-off layer 
(Te)	electron temperature 
(TC)	thermocouple
(TCX)	tangential charge exchange
(TCI)	two-color interferometer
(TF)	toroidal field magnetic coil
(TFTR)	Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
(Ti)	titanium 
(TRANSP) Princeton TRANSPort computer code 
(UV)	ultraviolet
(Xe) 	xenon 
(W)	tungsten 
(YAG)	yttrium-arsenide doped garnet crystal


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennachtrieb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update: a peripheral
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update: a peripheral
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:52:52 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Hello all,

here's just a quickie peri item, on the fly. More coming next week.

Peripherals: current count: 89.
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Scharber SR, Smith JJ;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 380 (1995) 1.
"Cyclic voltammetry of Pd + D codeposition".
** Some basic research on the reduction of heavy water at Pd, deposited from
solution along with the reduction of water. A gold cathode is used as base,
to contain the deuterium formed. The technique used is CV, and the authors
draw some mechanistic conclusions.
#...................................................................... Feb-95

Have to run.

---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Mike Griffin /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:42:30 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <BCw67+X.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
>  
> >Yes, but do you know the length of the rotor arm of the GG, and if so,
> >what instrument did you use to measure it?
>  
> Forget it Richard. I will not waste my time with you. Like I said before,
> I went over that with Richard Blue and I will not go over it again.
>  
> - Jed

Gosh, Jed, that's an interesting attitude to take, considering that you want us
to take your data about excess heat seriously.

Are you saying that the length of the rotor arm is not important?  Are you thumbing
your nose at all of us who may have missed the exxhange with Dick Blue?

One conclusion is very tempting here: you didn't measure it at all!  Why else would
you waste time refusing (repeatedly) to answer the simple question?

My hat's off to you for your integrity.  You refuse to lie by naming an instrument
that you never used!  You never did that measurement, did you Jed?  Come on, get it
off your chest! You'll feel better, and Mr. Schultz will stop bothering you with this
annoying question.

Mike Griffin
(expressing my own opinions.)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Scott Little /  MRA test clarification
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: MRA test clarification
Date: 3 Feb 1995 14:30:12 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Clarification of MRA Test Condtions
used for report dated 20January 1995
Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
Scott Little and H. E. Puthoff 
3 February 1995

A number of persons have commented upon one particular aspect of the
test conditions we employed to generate the data presented in our
original report, namely the resistor we placed in series with our
amplifier output.

It should be noted that this resistor is controversial because the
inventors of the MRA device have repeatedly claimed that, when they
add such a resistor, the over-unity performance of the MRA is
significantly diminished.

As we emphasized in our original report, we conducted our tests with a
Pioneer 160 watt power amplifier that had a much lower output
impedance than the 35 watt Radio Shack amplifier used by McClain and
Wooten.  The resistor we added should be considered only as a
modification of our power amplifier to make it match McClain and
Wooten's amp.

Some people have suggested that the presence of this resistor is the
reason that our MRA device did not  produce over-unity results.  This
is not the case.  With the resistor present we observed the same over-
unity results claimed by McClain and Wooten when we used their
measurement procedure.  Specifically, at a frequency just below
resonance, where the DC output is about 85% of maximum, we
demonstrated with our equipment that the McClain and Wooten method of
input power determination yields an efficiency of 536%.  In other
words, we reproduced the results of McClain and Wooten perfectly.  The
MRA worked just as they claimed it would.  At the same operating
frequency we recorded high- resolution traces of input voltage and
current with our digital scope and used them to compute the true input
power to the MRA.   This data showed the MRA to be only about 50%
efficient.

Therefore it was not a matter of MRA performance but a matter of
measurement technique that disconfirmed the over-unity results.

In our original report we explained why the methods of McClain and
Wooten yield erroneous results.   For the basic AC circuit theory that
underlies our discussion we would recommend any of a number of
excellent texts on this subject, for example "Principles of Linear
Networks" by Friedland, Wing & Ash, McGraw-Hill, 1961.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: 3 Feb 1995 18:27:29 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <BCw67+X.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
> 
>>Yes, but do you know the length of the rotor arm of the GG, and if so,
>>what instrument did you use to measure it?
> 
>Forget it Richard. I will not waste my time with you. Like I said before,
>I went over that with Richard Blue and I will not go over it again.

And as I said before (I hope Mitchell Swartz will at least give me credit for 
knowing the difference between "like" and "as"), you never answered the 
above question.  You made two statements:  one was that your grandfather
*could* have measured the length to 0.001 inch (i.e. that the technology
was available to him), and the other was that you had used a yardstick.
Now I certainly was left with the impression initially that you had made the
measurement with a precision of 0.001 inch or better.  Dick Blue, I note,
was not so naive.  Given your consistent refusal to provide us with any
sort of error analysis, and your preference for blustering about how
you had "gone over that" (which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you have
in fact never done) to simply answering my question, there is an obvious
conclusion that one could reach.  Some people seem to have reached that
conclusion already.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.01 / Brian Greiner /  list of Migma Fusion papers
     
Originally-From: bgreiner@inforamp.net (Brian Greiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: list of Migma Fusion papers
Date: 1 Feb 1995 02:02:15 GMT
Organization: InfoRamp inc., Toronto, Ontario (416) 363-9100

As requested, here's a listing of the MIGMA-related papers that I've 
seen.  Hope it helps.

"The Migma principle of controlled fusion"
 Bogdan C. Maglich
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods III (1973), p 213-235

"An experimental model of migmacell"
 Maglich, Mazrakis, Galayda, Rbinson, Lieberman, Weber, et al
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 120 (1974), p 308-319

"A study of the feasibility of fusion power wiht negligible neutron
 production"
 James Treglio
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 141 (1977), p 353 - 361

"Conditions for a boron fusion reactor in the MeV range"
 James Treglio
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 144 (1977) 65 - 68

"Advanced fuel fusion application to manned space propulsion"
 Roger Ho
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 144 (1977), p 69 - 72

"Unified criterion for proximity to controlled fusion"
 Bogdan Maglich
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 144 (1977), p 77 - 80

"The 1976 status of the migma program of controlled fusion"
 Bogdan Maglich
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 144 (1977), p 33 - 42

"Migmacell - A low-gain "driven" fusion power amplifier as an interim
 energy source"
 Bogdan C. Maglich
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods 151 (1978), p 1 - 27


The papers include an address :

    Migma Institute of Clean Fusion
    Fusion Energy Corporation
    P.O. Box 2005
    Princeton, NJ   08540

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbgreiner cudfnBrian cudlnGreiner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Hot fusion, anyone? 
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion, anyone? 
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 18:01:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>
>	I am willing post a brief introduction to this field if anyone's
>interested. I shall try as much as possible to use laymans' terms, being at
>heart (and knowledge) a layman myself. :)
> 

Alex 


I'd be interested. Does it have any impact on heating methods for tokamaks?
Why do you need further diagnostic techniques? What does your method tell
you that other techniques cannot? My expereinec of plasma diagnostics goes
back to doing the very first laser scattering measurements and I was under
the impression that there weren't many problems on this front, unlike cold
fusion which still doesn't seem to have any satisfactory way of showing what
the heck is going on.

I didn't know that Sydney had fusion research. ANU and Adelaide yes. (I've
visited both teams.)

Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.04 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 18:01:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>>For example, there was more physics posted in the TFTR report than
>>in all of the CF posts of the last month.  But not a single followup
>>from any of the hot fusion people in this thread.  Why?  When the
>>first DT shot happened, there *was* a lot of discussion, but not now.
>>Just do it!

Why no comment? Because it would be lost among the fluff.  And because the
CF chit chat may well have driven real scientists away. (Frank Close quit
late last month.)

The latest issue of Science -- or was it Nature? -- carries a piece about the US
wanting to postpone ITER so that the Princeton machine gets built. I would
love to discuss this with people in the know. Mention it here and some
nutcase with an electronic alias will prattle on about Life, the Universe
and Everything (=42) and how his Rottweiler will eat me for breakfast.

Michael Kenward


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /   /  Jed still doesn't understand fusion
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed still doesn't understand fusion
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 10:09:48 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


Jed -

The idea of low collision energies must have been concieved in Super
Mario Land (No offence, Mario).

With low collision energy the interacting ions simply won't have the
energy to 'push' past the electromagnetic forces repelling the ions. At
low energies the fusion cross-section (the effective 'target' area that
one ion has to be attracted by the nuclear forces) is effectively zero.
This cross-section is a function of the ion's kenetic energy and peaks at
about 100KeV or 0.1MeV for a D-T reaction. Other reaction are even higher
(500KeV for D-He3) This is proven by basic machanics and backed up by the
imperical data in Glastone and Loveberg's book "Controlled Thermonuclear
Reactions" Read it. You might accidently learn something.

                -Sigma9
                 C.E.O Digitalis Development
                 Light ion fusion theorist and computational experimentalist

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs blue mist probably not important
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 16:32:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Regarding the space ship powered by bombs, someone informed me that I am
confusing "Project Orion" (the bomb propelled ship) with with an early space
shuttle like craft (dyna soar). Somehow the "Dyana Soar" name and the bomb
propelled craft seem to go together. It is such an apt name!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb  5 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
