1995.02.08 / Gary Steckly / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 02:21:54 GMT Organization: Communications Canada Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote: (deletia) : After some debate here, I had come to the conclusion that it would be : best to make a quiet trip to see what Mr. Griggs had to offer. I : at least made clear that the press was not inviting a member of the : press that had asked to come along. I have no particular need to make : this trip. So I would not object if some other went in my place. One : small problem is that I have already spent of order $150 on a cheap plane : ticket and am not sure I can get a refund. : Tom Droege I re-read your post a few times Tom and I'm not entirely certain what you are asking. Are you saying that you don't want Marshal and his friend from ORNL to watch? I would think that perhaps one or two more pairs of eyes couldn't hurt eh? (oh no...my nationality is showing). I don't think that their presence would turn the trip into a circus or anything like that. I mean, they aren't from the media, and it was Marshall who brought up that fascinating revelation about the error in the published steam tables. Perhaps their "insights" could be valuable? I wouldn't want you to bow out at this late date by any means, however my vote is to let them observe. best regards Gary cudkeys: cuddy8 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.09 / Michael Kenward / Re JET Labs fusion stuff Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re JET Labs fusion stuff Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:11:51 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway >I'm interested in something that I vaguely remember seeing on TV about >a year ago. It was on a documentary about the JET nuclear fusion >project here in good ol' England, and the bit I want to know about >was some "incident" in 1983(4) when the plasma "do-nut" inside their >reactor twisted and lifted the whole thing 2cm off the ground. > >Firstly, is it true. Did it really happen ? >Secondly, has anyone got any solid details on it. > Yes. It is true. Contact the PR people at JET for details. It is no great secret. I cannot remember exactly what happened. It may have been a plasma disruption that dumped the current into the wall. The magnetic forces on that thing are BIG. They have subsequently beefed up the hardware. And Paul Rebut isn't there any more trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of the creature. Unlike TFTR, JET is seen as a research device that isn't trying to set records for fusion power produced, although it is a fair bet that put a properly balanced DT mixture into JET and it will deliver far more fusion neutrons than TFTR. They don't want to make the machine too 'hot'. It has more work to do before that. Michael Kenward cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Peter Card / Re: JET Labs fusion stuff Originally-From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter Card) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: JET Labs fusion stuff Date: 8 Feb 1995 09:53:52 -0000 Organization: JET Joint Undertaking Steve Lake writes: >Hi, >I'm interested in something that I vaguely remember seeing on TV about >a year ago. It was on a documentary about the JET nuclear fusion >project here in good ol' England, and the bit I want to know about >was some "incident" in 1983(4) when the plasma "do-nut" inside their >reactor twisted and lifted the whole thing 2cm off the ground. >Firstly, is it true. Did it really happen ? >Secondly, has anyone got any solid details on it. >Cheers >Steve Yes, that's right. When a plasma disruption occurs, "considerable force" is exerted on the structure. The 1984 incident opened a few eyes, and a system of vessel supports was retrofitted that keeps the vessel rigid and stationary. On the other hand, when heating up / cooling the vessel, you have to allow for thermal expansion, so the supports are unlocked and the shift techs keep a beady eye on the force and displacement plots in case one of the legs gets stuck, which would be a Bad Thing. -- They don't talk for me, except when they say .... =============================================================================== The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking =============================================================================== cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenpjc cudfnPeter cudlnCard cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / jedrothwell@de / Re: GG Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: GG Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 08:46:34 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Leonard Norrgard writes: >Are these other two replications of the GG at independent sites, or >are they over at Hydrodynamics? Ie., has the GG now been independently >replicated? Independent sites. One of them was built years before Griggs built his, by Shaefer in Chicago. It is referenced in the Griggs patent. The other one is still under wraps until ICCF5. A third replication was recently announced by Huffman. This needs a little more work to verify the calorimetry. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 08:50:31 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) I Johnston writes: >Are you now claiming that these small pumps produce mechanical power as >well as excess heat? Yes. This one does, and it would even if there was no excess heat. The holes in the rotor make it act as a steam turbine. If there was no excess heat, then of course the mechanical turning effect would not add to overall energy balance any more than the vibration from the machine would. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / jedrothwell@de / Re: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely.... Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely.... Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 08:55:35 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >Now, the "tuned" system -must- require -more- input current >(and therefore power) -just in order to generate the powerful >ultrasonics- responsible for the "...*massive melting* that No, that is incorrect. It takes much less input current when it is generating the powerful ultrasonics. The current drops quite noticably, but 20 to 30 percent. I cannot explain why that is so, but that is what I observed. Before the ultrasonic sound kicks on, there is no excess energy. Input and output balance. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Cameron Bass / Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...] Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why NOT split the group? [was: Moderated group, ...] Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 01:49:53 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article <9502051651.aa07309@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>, Michael Kenward wrote: >> >> The relevant point here is that there does not appear to be anywhere >> near enough traffic for a group strictly devoted to >> hot fusion. In any case, it does seem a bit odd to suggest that >> the predominant and historically-appropriate traffic go elsewhere. > >Dale > >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. Feel free to start a new group. That's the point. Look to the accelerator group, however, as an example of end result if it manages fly. On the other hand, it seems odd to suggest CF go away on the basis of nonexistent traffic that might happen if CF goes away. In any case, 'treacle' provides the basis and much of the entertainment of Usenet. As opposed to technical journals, incorrect articles can be entertaining. >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. > >As to the name, call it what you like, but the label 'fusion' would more >normally be seen as describing the hot stuff. Boeing is free to start >calling its big flying things bananas if it wants to, but there might be >some confusion on the part of travellers. And the people who grow those bent >yellow things might be a bit miffed. Okay, sci.fusion.big.flying.bananas it is. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Robert Heeter / Griggs Questions for Tom D. Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Griggs Questions for Tom D. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 01:17:47 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article <1995Feb7.201035@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> , dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: > So, we have a pump which, with a "normal" rotor (no holes), will > generate heat by means of hydro-friction with an efficiency of > somewhat >90%. So far so good, I have no problem with this..... > When holes are drilled in the rotor and the pump "tuned" by varying > the input water parameters (flow and pressure I believe, from one > of Jed's posts), the device generates ultrasonics which by some > -unknown- mechanism, are responsible for the approx 1.35:1 ratio of > heat output to AC power input.(This is the "over unity" gain.) I thought the ratio was more like 1.1 or 1.2:1, and that it was the ratio of heat output to *motor shaft power input*, not AC input. Griggs corrects for the motor inefficiency by measuring with the dynamometer, right? Now, something no one has discussed here recently (at least not to my knowledge, or within my memory) is this: What do we know about the (presumed) ultrasonics? Has anyone tried to measure them? If so: How, and what were the results? Why are they what they are? Do they tell us anything about the device? If not: Why not? Isn't this the alleged mechanism for excess energy production? Why haven't they been measured? Why hasn't anyone reported an ultrasound spectrum along with the "excess heat" data? Wouldn't the ultrasound travel through the housing? I think these are questions which, if not answered before Tom Droege's trip to Georgia, he might be interested in asking. It seems to me these are important questions which might influence one's desire to attempt a replication. Now, back to pondering wave interactions with charged fusion reaction products in TFTR... *************************** Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton! cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Andy Wilkins / Re: MRA test clarification Originally-From: acw@ioc.co.uk (Andy Wilkins) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy Subject: Re: MRA test clarification Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:54:54 GMT Organization: The Intelligent Office Company In <3gtelk$r28@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes: >Clarification of MRA Test Condtions [snip] > >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. [snip] Pardon me if this is naive, but is your average domestic electricity meter able to pick up the high frequency transients that caused the erroneous readings for the MRA? Have Messrs McClain and Wooten invented a new way of committing fraud? Could this explain the alleged satisfied customers for the Griggs device, whose power bills have decreased? Just a thought. ______________________________________________________________________ Andy Wilkins acw@ioc.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenacw cudfnAndy cudlnWilkins cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / 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: 8 Feb 1995 19:09:37 GMT Organization: Netcom In ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes: > snip > >Which is exactly what I said, dear boy. If the motor in this small >device is producing power it will have a maximum speed, and will only >exceed that if it's absorbing. Did you read the PS to my posting? > >Are you now claiming that these small pumps produce mechanical power as >well as excess heat? > >Ian > > oh so sorry, I guess that I shouldnt read these pesky things so late at night. As far as making power, one cannot say without personally testing one. I doubt it but I've seen stranger things. If it does generate over unity power than yes I would believe that the motor is running in the regenerative phase. But I also note that this can only reasonably occur in 3 phase motors. I have never seen this effect in a single phase motor but do not rule it out. The problem here comes in the serious matter of the math involved in calculating this effect. You have to take into account so many variables and without proper test equipment on all three phases one cannot verify the hypothesis. This is where the Griggs test comes under fire. You will need to dynamically follow the phases as they relate to one another throughout the test. You will also need to follow the currents both Iload and Ireverseload. The easiest part is the voltage as that should stay at 120 VAC per phase throughout the test. Three phase motor testing is more of an art than a science as the amount of testing that goes into it is subject to so many other variables. To do any serious testing of either this device or the Griggs device should be conducted by individuals familiar in the 3 phase motor arena. But I do have an alternative... To satisfy that regenerative mode is happening I suggest that one spends the money on a 3 phase multi speed motor connected to a matched controller that uses an internal DC bus. Instead of connecting the controller to the power company directly, open the unit up and connect a DC power supply to the buss. One would also have to remove the input circuitry so that one doesnt receive a nasty shock from the plug or worse yet short out the unit. This then will allow the unit to be run at various speeds and the voltages and currents can be followed much more easily via the DC buss. All that would be left to do is monitor the temprature and speed of the motor so that you do not burn it out. Its an expensive approach but a simple and reliable one. CP cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / William Beaty / Is Ball Lightning an aerogel? Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Is Ball Lightning an aerogel? Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:05:06 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever I wonder if anyone is aware of any investigations on the Ball Lightning / aerogel connection besides the Corum&Corum paper? I noticed the accidental formation of aerogel when a friend was welding some galvanized electrical boxes. The welding was done on the outside of the box adjacent to a small hole. Near the inside of the box, near the hole, a few cc's of blue/white matter built up. It was almost transparent, could not be felt with fingers, and when dropped would fall as slowly as thistledown. It most probably was aerogel created when vaporized zinc rapidly condensed in some sort of fractal network. Or possibly it was zinc oxide soot, rather than the metal itself. Anyway, if aerogel can be formed so easily, then maybe the experiments of Corum and Corum are the answer to BL: superheated fragments of carbon aerogel, or possibly CuO aerogel, which glow brightly while drifting on the breeze, which might fall UPWARDS if hot enough, and which might leave almost no residue when they cool down or when they strike a cold surface. Their still is no explanation for the spherical shape of the Corum's BL, nor for the tendency of their small BLs to explode. Perhaps yet there is plasma physics involved here, but plasma which is coupled with a solid structure provided by the aerogel. -- ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Jorge Stolfi / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: 8 Feb 1995 17:54:28 GMT Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil > [Tom Droege:] After some debate here, I had come to the > conclusion that it would be best to make a quiet trip to see > what Mr. Griggs had to offer. Marshall and Matt, perhaps you could arrange a separate visit? I think that any extra company will make Tom's expedition less effective. Think a bit about the social mechanics of a group excursion, I hope you will agree. For one thing, a big party is more likely to get only the standard guided-tour speech, or a bunch of quick answers to random questions, instead of a coherent two-way dialogue. --stolfi cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Matt Kennel / Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull Date: 8 Feb 1995 20:36:25 GMT Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD Mike Griffin (mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com) wrote: : In article 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". Yeah so? As far as I know tunneling has been an integral part of QM-calculated fusion cross sections since Bethe's day. All the tokamaks and stellar fusion calculations know about this. -- -Dr. Matt Kennel mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu -Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego - - Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs (***SITE CHANGED!!**) - --> ftp://inls.ucsd.edu <-- cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / G SANDERSON / Joe Champion and Transmutation Originally-From: gordon.s@ix.netcom.com (GORDON SANDERSON) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation Date: 8 Feb 1995 23:06:54 GMT Organization: Netcom Does anyone out there know anything about Joe Champion's past? Apparently he had some fraud associated with his past. He is promoting/researching the transmutation of elements and has had some dealing with cold fustion researchers at A & M. Does anyone else support his theories on transmutation? cudkeys: cuddy8 cudens cudfnGORDON cudlnSANDERSON cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Danny Melvin / test- just ignore Originally-From: ab985@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Danny Melvin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: test- just ignore Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 23:37:31 GMT Organization: Chebucto FreeNet -- cudkeys: cuddy8 cudenab985 cudfnDanny cudlnMelvin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / DanHicks / Some ball lightning stories Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Some ball lightning stories Date: 8 Feb 1995 22:19:40 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Not trying to start anything here, but since the topic has come up before I thought I'd at least relate a couple of stories I heard re ball lightning: I'm a member of a Wednesday afternoon creative writing group whose membership is comprised primarily of retired and semi-retired folks. (It's nice being the youngest person around simetimes.) In our discussion today the subject of lightning came up and two ladies related stories of what I would interpret as ball lightning. I would guess that both ladies are in their late fifties, and both experiences happened when they were children, so this is looking back forty-five or fifty years. However, the memories seemed clear. Also, though this is a creative writing group, I have relatively little reason to believe that the stories are "creative". In the first case the lady (as a girl) was sitting in a chair reading a book during a thunderstorm. There was a floor lamp next to her chair (no doubt in the classical over-the-shoulder position that was once believed to be manditory to prevent premature blindness). There was a nearby lightning strike and a ball of lightning (her words) apparently originating from the lamp, dropped into her lap, ran down her leg, and then dissipated on the floor. Afterward she found that her leg was reddened, much like a moderate sunburn (no blistering or peeling). In the second case, the family was sitting in a room (the kitchen, I think) during a storm. A ball of lightning (again her words) came through the wall and moved across the room, finally dissipating into a dog's water bowl (apparently attracted to the water). It wasn't clear from the description whether the ball floated through the air or ran along the floor, but the general impression was that it all happened rather quickly. In neither case was there any noticeable damage to the house. Both ladies were raised in this area of the country (small towns in southeastern Minnesota), and the houses would most likely have been standard wood clapboard over wood frame construction, reasonably tightly built and either uninsulated or insulated with something like sawdust or vermiculite. Electrical power and telephones were common, but electricity was used primarily for lighting, so there would not have been a large number of wires in either house. There would have been "city water", though I don't know if either house had indoor bathrooms (and the associated pipes). Lightning rods were common in the country, but would have been unlikely in town. I would assume that these construction details (wood with minimal metal throughout the structure) were conducive to (or at least not suppressive of) the ball lightning effect. Note that in both cases the ladies described a "ball" of lightning, entirely without any prompting. However, neither one exhibited any awareness that the "ballness" of the lightning was somehow unique or special, so it seems unlikely that either story was either consciously or unconsciously "enhanced". Dan Hicks cudkeys: cuddy8 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb 10 04:37:03 EST 1995 ------------------------------