1995.02.06 / 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: 6 Feb 1995 12:15:29 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

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

>Really, you "skeptics" are scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempts
>to come up with "objections." For goodness sake! Get real!

There is a very important "objection" at stake here that, alas, I don't
think Mr. Rothwell will ever quite understand.  This is that any competent
scientist knows that any measurement carries with it some amount of 
error, and that in order for a report of a measurement to have meaning,
these measurement errors must be quantified (or at least estimated, with
the methods used to arrive at the estimation explained) and reported.

In your reports of the GG, you have simply stated that the excess energy is
much too large to be due to any measurement errors, but you consistently
refuse to provide any analysis of just what measurement errors there might
be.  We have already found one small error in your conversion factor from
calories to joules.  Now, maybe you are right; maybe I am the only 
person in North America who thought that you knew the length of the rotor
arm to the accuracy you claimed it had been (or rather, could have been)
measured.  But in fact, you measured it with a ruler, which has rather
less precision than the manufacturer's specifications.  If you used your
measurement to calculate the torque, then the measurement uncertainty
propagates through the entire calculation.  Are you still with me?

It may be true that this single error is not sufficient to explain the
effect you claim to be observing.  But until you provide us with *all*
of your measurements *with their associated uncertainties* we have
no way of knowing that.  We can't even know if you are really observing
any effect at all since we don't know what the true error bars are.

As an aside, I might ask that if you made the measurement with a ruler
what relevance your grandfather's ability to measure it to 0.001 inch
or the manufacturer's ability to manufacture it to 0.3 inch has.
--
					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:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: GG
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: GG
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 07:21:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
[SNIP]
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> asks some questions. These were
>covered earlier, but a quick review will not hurt.
>
>     "1) Exactly which operational parameters of the GG does Jim vary in
>     order to get the GG to function in its "over-unity" mode?"
>
>Primarily flow and water pressure. Pressure valves and cut off valves
>regulate the flow and build up pressure within the pump.
>
>
>     "2) When this happens, how rapid is the change from normal mode to
>     "over-unity" mode? i.e. does this take minutes, or a fraction of a
>     second? (You may have noticed the change in the input power meter)."
>
>It takes a second or two at most. The input power suddenly drops. With some
>rotor configurations, he cannot achieve a steady state. The power drops and
>then abruptly goes back up where it was before. It flip-flops. He had trouble
>"tuning" some of the test models I saw. One morning it flip-flopped and
>refused to start for a half hour and we decided to abandon the attempt. He
>opened the output pressure valve a little reducing pressure in the GG. Power
>consumption climbed as high as I had ever seen it go, and I used that run as
>a blank. He later did another blank run with a rotor without holes.
>
>
>    "3) Also, how does Jim detect the change from normal to "over-unity"
>    mode? (Change in pitch perhaps?)"
>
>With the power consumption. The pitch also changes. The noise of the motor
>diminishes. It is readily apparent. However this change cannot be measured
>easily so he relies on the instrument readings. The numbers on the power
>meter and the dynamometer change abruptly.
>
>Reportedly, the other two replications of the GG are much easier to "tune."
>They show a large effect without extensive fiddling around.
>
>- Jed
>--------------------
Given the above, would it be reasonable to assume that power 
consumption drops, when the rotor is primarily surrounded by steam 
rather than water, leading to a drop in friction?
(pity that the housing is not transparent).
This  raises the question, how much power does the GG consume when 
running dry, ie no water at all running through it, just air?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Not quite muonic fusion
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Not quite muonic fusion
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 07:22:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Quick question for Dr. Jones, if he is still watching:

Would a negatively charged particle, with mass greater than that of a 
muon vary the ratio of the production of T to 3He in D-D fusion?
(Assuming it lived long enough). If a variation in ratio were 
possible, what would the limits be?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 6 Feb 1995 17:54:30 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3h1glv$eig@big.aa.net>, knuke@big.aa.net (Michael Huffman) says:
>
>
>To All Interested Parties:
>
>My name is Michael Huffman.  I've developed a small, tabletop device that
>works on some of the same principles that Jim Griggs is developing.  I 
>read in here the other day a post from Bill Beaty describing his initial
>impression of the machine.  I applied for, and have been granted a US patent
>on the technology, which I consider to be an advancement over Griggs' work.
>I built three prototypes which are all operational for testing purposes.
>
>To date, no rigorous testing has been done on the machine because of lack
>of equipment, time, and money.  Perhaps the most astounding thing about
>the machine is that I built it entirely with one tool (a Dremel MotoTool),
>which I bought on sale for $59, and that the entire machine can be made
>for around $150.  For researchers, experimenters, and educators wishing
>to demonstrate various principles of physics, this machine is both 
>affordable and usable in a practicle sense.  With some vary small design
>changes, the machine could also be a commercially viable product.
>
>Anyone wishing to know more about this device can contact me personally at:
>
>Michael Huffman
>1825 Nagle Place #210
>Seattle, WA 98122
>
>Tel. 206-325-2461
>
>E-mail: knuke@aa.net
> 

OK, Jed, I think I have the resources to buy a Dremel tool. The problem
with making claims is that someone can out claim you.  There is an old
saying "The first liar never has a chance".  Of course that saying does
not apply here.  

What is really needed are good experiments.  I agree with Dick Blue.  
First we need an experiment where the COP is 1.000... .  Then we can 
change conditions and will know if we have gone to 0.95 or 1.05.

I keep pointing out that 0.95 is just as interesting as 1.05 but no one
comments.  For belief, one needs to histogram experimental results.  They
should peak around 1.0 and 1.x where x is the real gain.  If they are 
spread out with some below 1.0 and some above 1.0 then there is nothing
of interest. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Mike Griffin /  Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:52:23 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <singtech-0602950110450001@ip-salem-22.teleport.com>
singtech@teleport.com (C.  
Cagle) writes:
> Marshall Dudley wrote that the only real fusiion was hot fusion!  Cold
> fusion was not proven.
> 
> That is uninformed drivel.
> 
> In 1956 it was found that a lightly ionized volume of D2 gas produced a
> detectable number of fusion reactions without any of the reactant
> Deuterons having sufficient energy to surmount the Coulomb Barrier.  They
> wrote it off as "Wave Mechanical Tunneling" or "Barrier Tunneling" or
> "Quantum Tunneling".
> 
Interesting.

Care to mention the researchers' names, or where they published their results?
Were the results reproduced?

Mike Griffin
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / James Crotinger /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: 06 Feb 1995 23:55:19 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <3gr1d5$ae6@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
   There is no question that the process I would define as
   'electrochemically induced cold fusion' -- whether real or not --
   belongs in here.

I believe I said as much in my previous posting. But....

   Perhaps, but there is no motivation for it.  Traffic here is low. 

I completely disagree with this statement. As I've said before, this
group often gets 20-50 messages in a day.  Most of the physicists
I know don't have time to read news daily (ah, to be a postdoc again). 
I'm lucky if I can get to it twice a week. Thus, for example, there
were 131 postings waiting in this group when I logged on today. That's
a lot of stuff to wade through, especially compared to the other
sci groups I check (s.p.research has 1, s.op-research has 29, 
s.mech.fluids has 22, s.p.plasma has 5; only s.math.num-analysis had
close to as many with 126)
 I 
   have seen splits that have failed with higher loads.  And while it is 
   true that a split can produce more interest, it is not clear from the 
   traffic in s.p.research or here that the demand is present.  The rules 
   for a split are pretty strong.  Do you have the votes? 

Well clearly s.p.research is a low volume group, but what does that have 
to do with this discussion? 

Regarding using the subject line, that would be fine, but I don't 
know how to enforce such an idea on other folks. Would all cold fusion
folks please start putting "COLD FUSION:" in their subject lines?
That would make it quite easy.

  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:
cuddy06 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / James Crotinger /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: 07 Feb 1995 00:32:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950206130058.23821B-100000-100000-100000-10000
-100000@panacea.phys.utk.edu> Zaphod <zaphod@panacea.phys.utk.edu>
writes:
    Hey guys,
   i must admit that i agree with this point.  the sci.plasma is the place 
   to read if you want to have serious discussions on magnetic fusion and 
   such.  in fact i have just come from there, they only have 6 postings, 
   so if you really do need to save precious time, go there.  

Except that the charter of sci.plasma states:

  NOTE: The Newsgroup name "sci.physics.fusion" already exists
  and is appropriate for the subset of Plasma Science and Technology
  which focuses on plasmas for energy production (i.e., fusion).  
  The proposed NEWSGROUP for PLASMA is intended to complement the 
  "fusion" group and will primarily orient itself to issues of 
  Plasma Science and Technology other than fusion although plasma-based
  fusion science and issues can also be shared via this Newsgroup 
  [Note: cold fusion is not an appropriate subject for this Newsgroup].  

Also, fusion energy research embodies more than just plasma physics.

  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:
cuddy07 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Gregory Hansen /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu (Gregory L Hansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 00:14:04 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <3gv14o$r6h@lyman.pppl.gov>, Phil Snyder <pbsnyder@pppl.gov> wrote:
>[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.]

Thank you!  This is the most information I've gotten so far.  But I hope 
you don't mind me asking a few questions...

>(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.)

Why is a solid target worse than a plasma?  What kind of energies would 
we need to reliably make fusion reactions in a solid target?  If 
interactions with electrons are important, does it matter if the target 
is a metal, semiconductor, or nonconductor?  If the beam vaporizes the 
target, would the impacting ions have better luck reacting with the gas 
than with the solid?  Would neutral particles be more successful?  Or a 
plasma beam instead of an ion beam?  (I'm not necessarily looking at 
break-even here, just gathering information.)

>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). 

Tokamaks need huge amounts of energy to operate, but the people funding 
the research must think they are the most efficient reactors because 
tokamaks get 90% of the research money.  Why is that?  Are they the best 
possibility because they are the best design, or only because they've had 
the most development?



cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhans0174 cudfnGregory cudlnHansen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Gregory Hansen /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu (Gregory L Hansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 00:16:56 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <3gv14o$r6h@lyman.pppl.gov>, Phil Snyder <pbsnyder@pppl.gov> wrote:
>[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.]
>

Oh yeah, most important, can you give references directly related to ion 
beam fusion?

Thanks.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhans0174 cudfnGregory cudlnHansen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 7 Feb 1995 00:46:01 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

,<3gmg80$la2@borg.svpal.org> <3gnaub$10ju@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: 
Distribution: 



>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:

>Huh? What "pipe" ...mighty odd aerial photos you must have?  
> Most....of the test beam skirts the edge of the berm.

They must be old photos, I received, the information you mailed and 
obviously the photo was out of date. 

> So for calibration reasons we bring a charged particle beam into 
> the detector (at 53mrad angle)  Just so you don't get ideas.....
> there is no way that where confusing events from the two sources:
> there are *seconds* between the fast extraction.....and the slow spill.

Yes, I agree that there is a clear distinction, if one can see the 
incoming charged particle track.  The flash chamber pictures you sent 
clearly show the small angle in the test panels.  Esp. the muon and 
bremsstrahlung in the lower right panels.  I would have liked to seen the 
proportional counter panels along with the test ones to further verify 
the angles from the top views.

As you pointed out in the mailed information, the computer has a *cute* 
time reconstructing the tracks from the flash tubes..   It does require 
some adjustment to correct parallax from the +-10 degrees vertical tubes, 
to be sure.  The grids of the proportional counters do provide a rough 
guide, as can be seen in the CC, NC and diMuon events in your post.  

Clearly, unless these events are artifacts of the detection process, the 
examples do show a neutral entering the detector and causing a shower of 
charged particles.  

 One thing disturbs me, do all your events show a centering along the 
axis of the detector.  I would expect that events could happen along the 
edges as a result of the theoretical divergence, unless the detector is 
biased by the computers reduction of the data.

Regards: Tom.
  



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Gammas & Lightning
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gammas & Lightning
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:04:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <WAF2PCB543100703@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
>In today's Knoxville New Sentinel there is a fairly large article on "New Class
>of lightning found above clouds".  Although I don't put much faith in .. .

>The article claims that there are "gamma-ray bursts of extraordinary intensity
>coming from thunderheads".  I question the accuracy of this report.  Do not
>gamma rays require energies far in excess of the voltages found in lightning
>storms?  If so, then would not gammas indicate that there are some nuclear
>processes going on that should not be, such as fusion?

>I am interested in hearing any additional information on this.
>                                                                Marshall

I had to develop a new theory for lightning in order to explain how
lightning generated ball and bead lightning related to the PLASMAK(tm)
model.   Basically, cloud lightning sprays moving charge DOWNWARD in 
jumps as well as occasionally upward.  The difference is that in the 
down path the electric field lines from the positive ground surface (for
normal usual ordinary bolts)  converge radially inward on the tip of
a descending spurting streamer.  The field is so intense in the vicinity
of the streamer it pulls electrons off and outward from 30 meters near
cloud bottom or a bit further to 20 meters near the ground.  The reason
the electrons spray (diffuse rapidly) only these distances is because
the field drops off and they attach to Oxygen molecules, thus setting 
a charged cylinder.  

So here's the rub.  When the tip of this process nears the ground (there
may be several competing branches), then the cloud to ground potential
is lowered to the remaining gap and it exceeds 2.5megs per meter, pulling
a positive arc off things at ground and up to meet the descending streamer. 
Then the streamer associated charge cylinders are discharged regardless
if they are in other competing branches.  This is why lightning seems
to "stop in air".  

When arc meets, the normally radial field of the (orginally negative)
streamer reverses (becomes ground) and the electrons stored out there
find the potential is now many times the breakdown voltage so cylinder
electrons come screaming in radially at light speed save the path required 
to trap any threaded mag flux from the earth's dipoled field.  At the 
junction they turn and descend along the arc channel becoming tremendously 
more inductive than the incoming flight, thus generating a fast rise 
plasma image current coax.  This couples most of the stored electric 
then magnetic energy into mechanical energy of the shock.  It's NOT nearly 
fast enough, IF the path is curved, (helical) for then the additional 
inductance may decouple the generation of an efficiently formed sheath 
(as many such curved events along a channel form bead lightning); but one 
maybe two would more likely form Ball Lightning.  

So what does this have to do with the problem of upgoing discharge.  

Well as the air from across the ground pulls electrons off leaves and
other sharp edges and surfaces (tribostatic charging), and then rises
to deposit it in the lower thunderhead on round (lower electric potential)
droplets of LIQUID water, that portion of the cloud finds it can store
huge quantities of negative charge and can recharge in vigorous storms 
very fast.  BUT the HUMID air  rises further and releases its water and 
heats, driving it still upward so that it accelerates!  It drives all the 
way up and out the anvil which can be up there 10 + miles.  During the
rise it passes the freezing zone (adiabatic expansion cooling) and
then drops more moisture in the form of ice crystals (dry pointy things). 
These crystals have sharp edges and release electrons when rubbed so
the upper most portion of the cold can become hugely positive as the
electrons are removed and carried out the top of thunderhead and anvil. 
So! the electron rich air, heated and dryed by this process continues on
up so that a huge negative charge would ordinarily be positioned above
the cloud, except that the gas is thin and conductive.  So normally
it would just bleed away to recharge the ionosphere.  

**HOWVEVER** Under very dry conditions and probably out of the slightly 
ionizing influence of the sun dumped charge could accumulate until the 
voltage became sufficient to "punch" through the conditionally 
insulating overlayer where it is dispersed around the world to 
recharge the earth's radial electric field.  

Now looking at the whole process from a "side cross-section", and 
throwing out the cloud, rain, and lightning bolts, and just seeing 
these charging drifts of electrons, here is the picture. (This isn't 
normally seen even below the cloud because of the slow frame rates and 
relatively blinding levels of light in the lightning return stroke.)   

From the bottom of the cloud down to near earth, a bluish reddish 
discharge (spray of electrons outward to the charge cylinder) is seen
which paints a general silouette in the shape of a funnel or tornado; 
that is wide at the top and rapidly at first then more slowly becoming 
of smaller diameter toward the bottom.  The (sort of a mind's eye 
extension) discharge that occasionally takes place above, probably 
comes from a region directly above and forward of the cloud, and it 
too has a  fast widening cross-section until the level of sufficient 
conductivity is reached where the cross-section flowers off.   

So the hot fusion in the sun drives a mechanical fluid system which
produces VanderGraf like charging with flipflop sign and results in
noise, light and a background field which varies with the number
of thunderstorms in process.   Pretty global, which is quite remarkable.

Now if anyone is hoping that cold fusion or the low pressure fusion
of current world delusional studies can ever have any potential
for such effects...  well don't hold your breath.  

For anyone that has held together this long might be interested to
know that we have generated plasmas in ordinary air which appear to
zap along with energetic electrons on the order of 30 gamma.  

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  RUSTY.PERRIN@h /  DOE Budget Highlights excerpts
     
Originally-From: RUSTY.PERRIN@hq.doe.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DOE Budget Highlights excerpts
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:59:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I've attached some Fusion related excerpts from the Department of
Energy Budget Highlights released yesterday as part of the
Department's FY 1996 budget request to Congress. The entire
budget highlights document is available by FTP at FTP.DOE.GOV, in
the PUB/BUDGET/HIGHLIGHTS directory, with user name ANONYMOUS and
your internet address as the password. I'm not sure of the file
name, but there should only be a couple files in the directory to
choose from. The file is a WordPerfect v5.1 document, and is
roughly 80 pages long. The request for Fusion Energy within the
Energy Research program in fiscal year 1996 is $366,045K. The
comparable appropriated amounts for FY 1994 & 1995 are $328,638K
and $368,421K, respectively. There is also defense related fusion
work, as mentioned in the third paragraph below, but I don't have
any dollar amounts for those handy.

-----Excerpts from the FY 1996 DOE Budget Highlights follow-----

Our research in fusion energy is aimed at developing an
inexhaustible energy source for the future. Progress over the past
few years--including record-breaking production of fusion energy by
our Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor--has brightened the prospects for
fusion energy. Evidence continues to mount that the next generation
U.S. experiment, the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), will result
in an optimized design for a fusion-powered plant, and that the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will
demonstrate the scientific and engineering feasibility of fusion
power. Our FY 1996 budget for fusion funds the start of TPX
construction and continues U.S. partnership in ITER, in
collaboration with the European Community, the Russian Federation,
and Japan.

[Sidebar text]
A World Record in Fusion

Scientists at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory recently set
a world record of more than 10 megawatts of fusion power, enough to
power more than 2,000 homes if sustained on a continuous basis. The
experiments at the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor are a significant
step toward demonstrating the scientific feasibility of fusion
power.
[End sidebar text]

...

In October 1994, the Department decided to proceed with the
preliminary design and engineering of the National Ignition
Facility (NIF), a laser research facility intended to achieve
thermonuclear fusion in the laboratory. As a key element in the
Department's science-based stockpile stewardship program, the NIF
will provide research opportunities that will attract world-class
scientists and engineers, thus helping ensure that the Nation's
continuing National security challenges will be addressed by
experts second to none in the world. 

...

Fusion continues to offer the promise of a safe, environmentally
attractive, secure, and competitively-priced source of energy.
Operation of fusion power plants would not contribute to acid rain
or global warming problems and the deuterium fuel required for
fusion is plentiful and could be readily obtained from sea water,
and the other fuel, tritium, can be produced within the fusion
power plants from lithium.

The FY 1996 budget request of $366.0 million allows us to focus on
the most critical scientific and technological issues which must be
resolved in order to achieve the promise of fusion. These issues
include ignition physics, fusion nuclear technology, magnetic
confinement configuration optimization, and low activation
materials development.

The Magnetic Fusion Energy budget provides for a concentrated
effort on the tokamak design concept and on an integrated
international approach to demonstrate the scientific and
technological feasibility of fusion power. Four essential elements
of the fusion plan are all supported by the FY 1996 budget. The
first is completing the analysis of the deuterium-tritium (D-T)
experiments in the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at the
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). TFTR is the first
program to perform extensive D-T experiments that provide important
data on the effects of fusion products on fusion fuel. Recently,
deuterium-tritium experiments in TFTR were successfully conducted,
resulting in production of over 10 million watts of fusion power.
This represents a new world record and is a significant milestone
towards achieving the scientific and technical feasibility. The
second element is U.S. participation in the engineering design
phase of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) project. The purpose of ITER will be to demonstrate the
scientific and technological feasibility of fusion. An engineering
design agreement was signed in 1992 between the U.S. and Japan, the
European Community and the Russian Federation. The third element is
to construct an experimental facility to explore the physics of
improved power plant concepts that could lead to a more efficient
and, therefore, a more attractive demonstration power plant. The
Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX) will have the capability to
operate for long pulses and will feature advanced tokamak operating
modes. TPX will be the first new major U.S. fusion research
facility built since the present generation of tokamaks were
designed in the mid-1970s. It will replace TFTR and re-use much of
its facilities and equipment. Conceptual design is completed and
engineering design began in FY 1994. Funds are included for TPX
construction in FY 1996, pending review and recommendations by the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The
fourth element is a strong base physics and technology research
program required to support ITER, TPX, and a demonstration power
plant.

------- End excerpts ------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPERRIN cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / R Schroeppel /  splitting the newsgroup - another option
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: splitting the newsgroup - another option
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:59:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Another option to splitting the newsgroup:  Make a mailing list.
The Listserv or Majordomo software already exists at a lot of
sites.  The mailing list charter requires no vote, and we might
find a volunteer (or a program) to sift s.p.f traffic and forward
to the mailing list.  (This could work like a selective version of
Scott's fusion-digest mailings.)  We could auto-forward the mailing
list articles back to s.p.f, since the slight extra traffic would
not be noticed.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Phil Snyder /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@pppl.gov (Phil Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: 6 Feb 1995 12:06:43 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950204164330.138739A-100000@pegasus.unm.edu>,
Sigma9  <aavd@unm.edu> wrote:
>On 3 Feb 1995, Phil Snyder wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>This is not entirely true. Although the cross section of a D-T
>reaction does peak at 5 barnes, it does so at just over 100keV,
>not 70keV.
>
>	-Sigma9
>	 C.E.O Digitalis Development
>	 Light ion fusion theorist and computational experimentalist

Sorry, I should have been a little bit more clear here.  The D-T fusion
cross section peaks at about 65 keV of energy in the center of mass frame.
The peak value of the cross section is about 5.06 barns.

If you assume moving deuterons colliding into stationary tritons, a
center of mass energy of 65 keV would correspond to a deuteron energy
of E_d = (m_d+m_t)/m_t * E_cm, or roughly 108 keV.

If moving tritons are shot at stationary deuterons, the same center
of mass energy of 67 keV would correspond to a triton energy of
roughly 163 keV.

Hope this clears things up,
Phil

my reference is Bosch & Hale, Nuclear Fusion 32 (1992) 611
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhil cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
Date: 6 Feb 1995 22:05:21 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: As I mentioned in an earlier post, Associate Professor Chris Illert and
: Daniela Reverberi of the Institute for Basic Research in East Corrimal,
: NSW, Australia, expound on the implications of the existance of halo-nuclie
: in two articles in the current issue (#6, vol 1) of "Cold Fusion."

: They say that halo-nuclie have been detected, such as 11Li (lifetime 0.0085
: seconds) by Klapisch at CERN in the mid 1970's.  Further that Tanihata at
: LLL found evidence by 1985 that 11Li was essentially a nucleus of 9Li 
: "surrounded by a diffuse halo (tens of fermis thick) formed by a dineutron
: orbiting at great distance from the nuclear "core," well beyond the range
: of simple [pi] meson exchange."

So how were these weird intermediate states detected?  Ionizing radiation
reaction products or (cough) thermal calorimetry?

: Their case is rationally argued, and the manner in which they correlated
: their evidence is presented.  Very nice article.  Food for thought.

Do they try to explain how to get watt levels of nuclear reactions
without at least billions of energetic particles per second?

(haven't you read the stories about Fermi's first reactor: when it finally
 went critical the radiation counters pegged their needles "off scale".
 That was one watt.)

: --
:  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
:  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
:  -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Summer University on Plasma Physics
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Summer University on Plasma Physics
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 21:00:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3g5s3h$ouu@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Klaus Woerle <woerlek@sa
.ipp-garching.mpg.de> writes:
>
>Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995
>The Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP) in Garching near Munich
>is organizing a Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995.
>The course will cover the main aspects of plasma physics with emphasis
>on nuclear fusion. It is being held for European physics students who have
>passed their basic courses and have not yet started a doctoral (PhD)
>thesis. The lectures will be presented in English and scripts will be
>provided to all students selected. Cost of accomodation and boarding
>will be covered. Limited funds are available for travel expenses for
>foreign students.
>
>The following lectures will be offered: basic plasma physics - particle
>trajectories - kinetic theory, MHD - equilibrium, stability and transport
>in tokamaks - plasma heating - experimental results on tokamaks -
>stellarators - computer simulation of plasmas - plasma-wall interaction -
>plasma diagnostics - inertial fusion - fusion technology, safety and
>environmetal aspects - plasma technology.

Could they include a course on the application of the Virial Theorem
to the PLASMAK(tm) model of Ball Lightning, in spite of its internal
discontinuities of current, plasma and fields.   

>The course will include visits to the large plasma experiments,
>ASDEX Upgrade (tokamak) and WENDELSTEIN 7-AS (stellarator).
>Information on the optimized stellarator WENDELSTEIN 7-X to be 
>built in Greifswald (Germany) will be provided. The Max-Planck-Institut
>fuer Plasmaphysik is host to an international design team for the next
>step fusion experiment, ITER, the status of which will be reported. 

Paleofusion studies?? 

>Mrs. Ch. Stahlberg
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik
>Boltzmannstr. 2
>D-85748 Garching b. Muenchen
>Germany
>
>phone: Germany / 89 / 3299 - 2232
>fax:   Germany /89 / 3299 - 1001

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / W Weingarten /  Re: Griggs Questions
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Questions
Date: 6 Feb 1995 15:38:49 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <woweinga-030295125018@techmac8.tech.mtu.edu>, woweinga@mtu.edu
(Warren Weingarten) wrote:
> 
> In article <3gs999$el1@elvis.vnet.net>, jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
> wrote:
> >{ Deleted}
> > 
> > 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.

An estimate of the magnitude of the current components necessary to account
for the observed excess heat could be made as follows:

Assume one sinusoidal frequency above the cut off frequency of 
the Power meter & 1.3 COP.
 Power Total= i^2R=(i1^2)R+(i2^2)R where i1 is 60 Hz component & i2 is the
high frequency component of current. Dividing out the R and substituting
the COP of 130%
      1.3= 1+i2^2    =>  i2 ~ 0.55   
I can't imagine this magnitude could occur but it certainly would not be
difficult to detect.   Of course with the reported vibration of the GG, it
maybe possible.   It is usual procedure to couple shafts with a damping
material such as rubber or fiber to eliminate problems of  exact alinement
of the shafts.If such a coupling is used in the Griggs machine then the
oscillation would  probably not occur due to the damping thru the coupling.
 Looking at the pictures of the Griggs setup, I could not tell if such a
coupling is used.  This would be useful information for Tom to obtain.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 /  prasad /  Re: MRA test clarification
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: MRA test clarification
Date: 6 Feb 1995 14:15:04 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3gtelk$r28@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
|> ...
|> 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.
|> ...
|> 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
|> ...
|> Therefore it was not a matter of MRA performance but a matter of
|> measurement technique that disconfirmed the over-unity results.


Thanks, Scott.

-- 
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / James Stolin /  Re: COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: 6 Feb 1995 16:24:06 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>Though apparently the innkeeper has forgotten to charge us for
>the 6 x 10^24 kg planet, the large fusion reactor 1 AU away,
>the supply of fresh water, and the 3 billion years of R&D to 
>produce the wheat and beef on our table.

Brad,

   Charges for the above have been added to our lodging bill.  Charges 
for damage to the "room" have been added to the bill.  Now, will that be 
VISA, MC or AmEx?    :-)
 
-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com    


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / I Johnston /  Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:55:05 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote:

: An induction motor wants to run at its rated speed, and it would take
: many times the motor's power rating to make it run faster.

In fact, an induction motor wants to run at 120 * f / n rpm where f is
the supply frequency and n the number of poles: most commonly met
induction machines are 4 poles and therefore have (in the UK) a no-load
speed of 1500rpm. At this speed - the synchronous speed - the power
factor is zero, so to produce power the motor runs at a lower speed, and
the slip between the rotor's magnetic field and the stator's produces
the necessary torque: hence the service speed of the average washing
machine motor is 1450rpm.

In short - it doesn't matter what you do, you won't get the motor to run
faster than synchronous.

Ian

PS Unless you put power in ... which might unscrew the rotor of the pump
.. devilish grin...

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: GG
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG
Date: 6 Feb 1995 17:19:16 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <pS3abcf.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> asks some questions. These were
> covered earlier, but a quick review will not hurt.
>  
>      "1) Exactly which operational parameters of the GG does Jim vary in
>      order to get the GG to function in its "over-unity" mode?"
>  
> Primarily flow and water pressure. Pressure valves and cut off valves
> regulate the flow and build up pressure within the pump.
>  
>  
>      "2) When this happens, how rapid is the change from normal mode to
>      "over-unity" mode? i.e. does this take minutes, or a fraction of a
>      second? (You may have noticed the change in the input power meter)."
>  
> It takes a second or two at most. The input power suddenly drops. With some
> rotor configurations, he cannot achieve a steady state. The power drops and
> then abruptly goes back up where it was before. It flip-flops. He had trouble
> "tuning" some of the test models I saw. One morning it flip-flopped and
> refused to start for a half hour and we decided to abandon the attempt. He
> opened the output pressure valve a little reducing pressure in the GG. Power
> consumption climbed as high as I had ever seen it go, and I used that run as
> a blank. He later did another blank run with a rotor without holes.
>  
>  
>     "3) Also, how does Jim detect the change from normal to "over-unity"
>     mode? (Change in pitch perhaps?)"
>  
> With the power consumption. The pitch also changes. The noise of the motor
> diminishes. It is readily apparent. However this change cannot be measured
> easily so he relies on the instrument readings. The numbers on the power
> meter and the dynamometer change abruptly.
>  

This sounds to me like the difference between a pump filled primarily with
liquid water, and one filled primarily with vapor.  The input power would
be quite a bit lower in the "vapor locked" pump, and heat built up in the
warmup stage could account for the sudden vapor lock.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: 6 Feb 1995 12:22:02 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <9502051651.aa07309@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk> 
m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) writes:
>
>While many of your other points are valid, the lack of hot-fusion traffic
>here is not because of a lack of interest, but because real scientists have
>run for cover rather than wading through the treacle that pervades this
>group. The signal to noise ratio is too low.
>
>In any case, the sheer weight of traffic here, three or four _digests_ a
>day, could well shrink without running the risk of petering out.

My last comment on this subject: 

(1) If you want a hot fusion group, then go out and do it. 

   Either create alt.fusion.hot (not recommended, since alt groups are 
   not propogated as fully as the sci groups, so your full audience 
   may not be able to read it) immediately and go at it, or 

   Put out a formal RFD to start the required process for new-group 
   creation -- see the news.answers FAQ for details.  There you will 
   note the requirements of a super-majority and minimum vote count 
   that will govern the final acceptance.  If the votes are not there, 
   the group will not be created.  Certain high-traffic groups have 
   done this more than once, and there are people who will help you. 

(2) Use sci.physics.plasma or sci.physics.research.  

    The former is well suited to all the tokamak work, but might also 
    be a place to drum up support for a fusion group that includes 
    lasers and migma, etc, so you can survive a CFV. 

    The latter is moderated (lightly) but has very low traffic.  You 
    might need to nominate an additional moderator if load increased, 
    but there are procedures to deal with that sort of thing.

    I would also suggest sci.energy, but that group is unusuable (or 
    was last time I looked).   

(3) Given the status of other groups, the only place I have seen where 
    signal drives out noise is in the fortran group and certain rec 
    groups.  Every new sci group seems to attract all sorts (and I do 
    mean all sorts) of new readers that know nothing of the charter 
    but happen to have some pet theory or bias.  The groups that survive 
    are the ones where signal literally drives out the noise, by talking 
    sense and ignoring (or flaming via e-mail) the junk.  You cannot 
    keep them out unless the group is moderated -- and that means you 
    have to have a plan for moderating it before you start! 

    This group does *not* have very much traffic.  I, and others, can 
    point you to groups where there are hundreds of posts per day.  If 
    there really are 100 people who want a hot-fusion group, and 10% of 
    them post and discuss each other's posts, and maybe use a keyword 
    on the subject line to help smart newsreader sorters, you will be 
    able to do everything you want here with no more hassles than in 
    any unmoderated sci group. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Doug Shade /  [humor] On splitting the group
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [humor] On splitting the group
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:39:51 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <D3HG18.B4J@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> The relevant point here is that there does not appear to be anywhere
>      near enough traffic for a group strictly devoted to 
>      hot fusion.

(oops...  I'm not sure the above attribute is correct...)

In any case, the point about there not being enought HOT fusion traffic
to warrant a split is a chicken-egg thing isn't it?  HOT fusion traffic
would likely increase in a group not encumbered by GG, MRA, SBSL and
other such topics.  (It would however be a waste of time to read a
group with only "PRO" this or that voices....)

A Poem...

Verbal abrasions,
and ego contusions,
suffered by all,
arguing cold fusion.

My "unread" listing, daily
reaches critical mass,
with Protons Rothwell,
and Electrons Bass.

Any more postings,
and I'm afraid she'll blow!
We're inserting a control rod;
off to Georgia, Tom must go.

Newsgroups like elements,
nature's laws must obey,
can only get so big,
without being forced to decay.

This newsgroup then,
with its too many missions, 
teeters on the edge of, 
a spontaneous fission.


Enjoy your day...
Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: COLD FUSION CULT
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT
Date: 6 Feb 1995 17:55:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3h3p4u$173@newsbf02.news.aol.com> arctorch@aol.com (ArcTorch) writes: 

>
>I work at  a large federal government laboratory
snip.....

Who are you?
Where do you work?
What contract does your company have?

Are you for real?
If so prove it!

CP

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: GG
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG
Date: 6 Feb 1995 17:59:51 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <ts_zemanian-060295091325@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, I wrote:

[Jed Rothwell describesf the two GG modes (over-unity and "idling"), and
the transition between them]

> 
> This sounds to me like the difference between a pump filled primarily with
> liquid water, and one filled primarily with vapor.  The input power would
> be quite a bit lower in the "vapor locked" pump, and heat built up in the
> warmup stage could account for the sudden vapor lock.
> 

Thinking about this a bit further I came up with a scenario involving the
vapor lock description.  If the GG builds up heat during the liquid filled
mode faster than the water can carry it away, then when the temperature
gets high enough to vapor lock the pump the friction afforded by the liquid
is seriously reduced.  The input power to the pump then drops, and the
steam carries away the stored heat, until the temperature drops enough to
allow liquid to refill the pump.

Note that this is a rehash of the stored heat hypothesis, with an added
astable hysteresis.  It would, however, explain the flip-flop behavior that
Jed has described.

The question then is: does the GG remain in over-unity mode indefinitely,
or does it cycle between the two modes?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
Date: 6 Feb 1995 18:10:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <D3Krnv.1tr@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes: 

>
>John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote:
>
>: An induction motor wants to run at its rated speed, and it would take
>: many times the motor's power rating to make it run faster.
snip
>In short - it doesn't matter what you do, you won't get the motor to run
>faster than synchronous.
>
>Ian
>
>PS Unless you put power in ... which might unscrew the rotor of the pump
>.. devilish grin...
 all that aside....

I recomend you contact the comapany's that are supplying 0 to 150% slip speed 
motors to Chrysler Corp for use in their electric vehicles. I think you will find 
in the data books that there is a mode called *regenerative mode*, that does 
exactly as implied; feeds power back through the buss. This feature is planned 
for the use of regenerative power for the batteries. 

I think your data is about five years old. You need to see what has recently come 
out from any of the motor manufacturers. The way they do it is to make super duty 
motors vis-a-vis larger armatures and higher temp insulations. The results are a 
three phase motor that can be optimised to run at high effeciencies no matter 
what the speed of the motor is and regeneration at over slip speeds.

CP

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 /  Zaphod /  Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
     
Originally-From: Zaphod <zaphod@panacea.phys.utk.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:06:38 -0500
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

> 
> (2) Use sci.physics.plasma or sci.physics.research.  
> 
>     The former is well suited to all the tokamak work, but might also 
>     be a place to drum up support for a fusion group that includes 
>     lasers and migma, etc, so you can survive a CFV. 
> -- 
>  James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 

 Hey guys,
	i must admit that i agree with this point.  the sci.plasma is the place 
to read if you want to have serious discussions on magnetic fusion and 
such.  in fact i have just come from there, they only have 6 postings, 
so if you really do need to save precious time, go there.  

Peace and Long Life,

	zaphod
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		"these are but random thoughts from a random physicist"> 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenzaphod cudlnZaphod cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / 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: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 11:32:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>
>As a veteran of Forrestal, C Stellerator et al, my perception is that any 
>shortfall of hot fusion discussion here is because realistically slow 
>progression of events in the field, and not because of the noise level.
>
>Stop looking for scape goats!
>

If the flood of stuff here about cold fusion is a guide to progress made in
that field, then by now the planet should be covered with CF power stations.
I haven't seen one yet. Perhaps your yardstick for progress is what is up
the pole, not my assessment of the reasons for a slow flow if information
hereabouts.

On the other hand, I have to agree with you that hot fusion is moving ahead
(?) at a snail-like pace. I too am a veteran, albeit only 25 years ago. I
was then told that it might take 25 years to build a fusion power station.
25 years later the message is that it will be at least 40 years. 

Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:56:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello all,

Here we go, with the first 7 out of (my latest count {:]) 67 papers out of
Fusion Technol. 26T. I am doing them not in subject order, as in that volume,
but alphabetically, which is easier for me. I won't say much about these.
Bockris clings to his dendrite theory but not a word of explanation, to be
expected after Frank Close's pretty convincing demolition of that idea, being
that you can't get keV acceleration energies from something like 20 V cell
voltage total. This leaves as the only way out some mechanism for generating
a high voltage at the interface, and I don't mean a high voltage gradient.
Bush weighs in with not only a transmutation experiment where he finds Cs as
a fusion product of Rb with a proton (both isotopes, too, from those of Rb),
as well as his theory that wraps up all the mysteries of 'cold fusion' in one
fell swoop. He even shows why some people don't find tritium: they used too
high a D/Pd loading. Stay tuned for more of this as I get the chance to read
the papers.

Journal papers: Current count: 980
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Aoki T, Kurata Y, Ebihara H, Yoshikawa N;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 214.
"Helium and tritium concentration in electrolytic cells".
** Experimental. Electrolysis, excess heat, helium, tritium, neutrons,
** gamma, correlations. Res+
Electrolysis, with a "30*25*1t" (mm^3?) Pd sheet as cathode ad a larger Pt
sheet as anode, in 0.1M LiOD, D2O electrolyte. A cooling coil calorimeter was
used. Some controls, using a Pt cathode in H2O were run. Helium was detected
by gas chromatography out of the effluent gas. Recombined water above the
cell was sampled at intervals for tritium, analysed by its beta emission.
Neutrons were detected by a 3He device and gammas by liquid scintillation.
Excess heat up to 30% waas found, scaling in two linear regimes with current
density, and none found for the controls. None of the other possible fusion
products were found in significant amounts or amounts above those in the
controls. The authors mention that any He or T might, however, take a long
time to come out of the Pd, so it might have been there.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Bartolomeo C, Fleischmann M, Larramona G, Pons S, Roulette J, Sugiura H,
Preparata G;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 23.
"Alfred Coehn and after: The alpha, beta, gamma of the palladium-hydrogen
system".
** Discussion, history, experimental, transport, deuterons, electrochemical
** compression.
The authors believe that the work of Coehn, early in this century, is
important for its implications for 'cold fusion'. Critics of cnf have the
wrong ideas of the behaviour of deuterium in a Pd lattice. An experiment in
deuterium diffusion along a Pd wire was done to add to Coehn's results. Some 
anomalous behaviour is observed, not following simple electrodiffusional laws.
An unknown factor is the difference between behaviours in the alpha and beta
phases. Nothing is yet known about transport in the beta phase. Deuterons do
indeed repel each other (as stated by the critics) but the facts are more
complex than this; some inportant properties remain unknown, such as the
nature of deuterium in Pd at high loading, etc.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Barrowes SC, Bergeson HE;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 365.
"Linear, high precision, redundant calorimeter".
** Calorimetry design, experimental, res-, no FPH/Jones ref.
A precision calorimeter design is described. A closed cell with recombination
is used and the calorimeter has inner and outer metal blocks connected by a
larhe number of thermoelectric elements. This eliminates heat transport by
convection or radiation. A 54 day run showed zero excess heat within
+- 0.025%, both for a silver and a palladium-boron alloy cathode.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Bertalot L, De Marco F, Violante V, De Ninno A, Scaramuzzi F, La Barbera A,
Felici R;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 122.
"Deuterium charging in palladium by the electrolysis of heavy water:
measurement of the lattice parameter".
** Experimental, fundamental, x-ray diffraction, crystal structure, res0,
** no FPH/Jones ref.
A 1 mm thick, 12 mm diameter Pd membrane was exposed to vacuum on one side and 
an electrolyte on the other, where electrolysis was also applied at a low
current of 20 mA for some days. at 7 days, gas began to emerge into the
vacuum. At this side, energy dispersive x-ray diffraction was used to monitor
the crystal structure of the Pd. There was clear evidence of both alpha and
beta phase PdD, and the lattice parameter changed in sigmoid fashion from
4.025 A to 4.05 A for a D/Pd loading change from 0.58 to 0.78. A pulsed
current was then applied: square wave, 20 mA alternating with 200 mA with
periods varying between 4400 and 6000 s. A maximum loading of 0.78 was
reached. The loadings were inferred from the lattice parameters but checked
by some degassing in vacuum with measurement of the gas. Some difference in
behaviour between the samples was observed and could not be explained.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Bockris JO'M, Sundaresan R, Minevski Z, Letts D;
Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 267.
"Triggering of heat and sub-surface changes in Pd-D systems".
** Experimental, theory, electrolysis, excess heat, tritium, stimulation
** dendrites, pulsed current, transmutation, res+
The authors try various ways to trigger 'cold fusion' in electrolysis
experiments, mostly using Pd plates. In some cases, the current was pulsed
between low and high (in a Takahashi-type cell); in others, radiofrequency
radiation at several frequencies was applied, and magnetic fields were tried.
All these Everything worked: excess heat was found, and in those cases where
it was tried, it did not work in cells containing H2O, providing controls.
Tritium, measured from aliquots taken out, rose to three times the original
level and stayed there. D/Pd loadings, measured by resistance in situ
(calibrated by coulometry) attained > 0.8. Some theory follows to explain
these findings, and the dendrite theory seems favoured, along with
Hegelstein's (sic) neutron transfer, leading to higher atomic mass
transmutations, besides the usual helium and tritium.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Bush R, Eagleton R;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 344.
"Evidence for electrolytically induced transmutation and radioactivity
correlated with excess heat in electrolytic cells with light water rubidium
salt electrolytes".
** Experimental, Mills scenario, transmutation, light water, Ni, res+
** No FPH/Jones refs.
The Mills theory predicts that not only potassium but also rubidium carbonate
should favour the formation of hydrinos at a Ni cathode in light water under
electrolysis. The present authors have gone beyond the Mills theory, believing
that there is fusion of K or Rb. K was previously found to produce Ca; now
they look for Sr, the product of fusion of Rb with hydrinos. The Cs was
analysed at the Ni cathode surface by SIMS (secondary ion mass spectrometry)
by a secret national laboratory. Indeed Cs was found, confirming "lattice
assisted nuclear transmutation" or LANT. 6 references, all to Bush et al.
#..................................................................... Feb-95
Bush RT;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 431.
"A unifying model for cold fusion".
** Theory, zpe, transmutation, res+
Bush starts with a list of problems in 'cold fusion'; his theory can account
for them all. It is based on a paper by Boyer (1975) and Puthoff (1987) and
invokes zero-point energy. On this basis, he is able to calculate the ground
state of hydrogen, and for the Pd/D system, the function of excess heat with
loading, as well as tritium, etc. Tritium production peaks at a loading of
about 0.83, and falls to zero again at higher loadings, explaining many
results. Li, while not essential, can also help. This model does not invalidate
the author's transmission resonance model, and is not the same as Mills, whose
theory is chemical, rather than nuclear, as this one is.
#...................................................................... Feb-95


How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.


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




cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb  8 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
