1995.02.11 / dowen@vaxc.cc. / The Second Mission to Griggs.......... Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: The Second Mission to Griggs.......... Date: 11 Feb 95 23:07:12 +1100 Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia Hi folks, have a nice day :) ........ From the following post it appears that a second mission to the Griggs phenomenon is being planned. If Marshall would be so kind as to let an Australian "investinaut" join the second mission, I can take advantage of a tentative launch window from Australia between the 28th March to about the 1st of May 1995. Because of the longer trajectory from this side of the planet, I will have severe weight restrictions and the only "equipment" I can bring will be my sense of humour and enquiring mind. In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------snip---------- > > I have had a third party who follows this group express an interest in > going as well. Anyone who is interested in studying the science of this > device, and wishes to come with us is invited as far as I am concerned, > as long as the group does not become too large. Of course Griggs would > have to appove any additional people, but I don't think there would be a > problem with that. Even though I will feel that I am taking advantage of > Griggs's good nature, I will try to reschedule to another date. I don't > know at this time if he would be willing to entertain a second > disruptive day to his business or not. > Marshall ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regards to all, Daryl Owen. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / John Logajan / Re: What's TT anyway? Re: The Tesla Turbine Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's TT anyway? Re: The Tesla Turbine Date: 11 Feb 1995 16:45:58 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote: : I am equally curious to know what the Tesla turbine was actually supposed : to be. I am not satisfied with advertisement-like material, especially : when they indulge in controversial issues of this type! So I'd say, : coincidence if any between a GG and a Tesla turbine would be accidental. I wasn't aware that Tesla turbines were claimed to go o/u, but I do recall reading Tesla bios and a turbine like device was described for which high efficiency was claimed. The device was fairly simple. Thin stacked disks with a small space between each. The water/steam/or air was injected tangentially. The rotor was therefore motivated via viscous drag. It wouldn't seem to be a device that would induce cavitation, but my intuition could be wrong about that. -- - 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 - cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / 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: 12 Feb 1995 20:11:11 GMT Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link > Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes: > (snip) > Huh? I've already shown you, with the plot of the observed energy > distribution compared with theory that there is NO WAY IN HELL > THAT THE CROSS SECTION IS ENERGY INDEPENDENT OR > DECREASING WITH ENERGY. Whoa! Are you referencing to Figure C.1? There is a *higher* low energy peak due to pion decays, and a *lower* peak at high energy due to kaons. No linear increase with energy in those plots. I know there are electron type neutrinos and muon type neutrinos, but I am reasonably sure that those neutrinos do not (cannot) penetrate light years of lead, have a cross section that *increases* with energy, and travel at the velocity of light. These three characteristics are mutually exclusive. > I don't see how....care to show us anything more significant than your > blind assertion that they are. Sure. We know why the photon travels at (c) = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s from Maxwell's equation, giving it a wave particle duality, momentum and energy. How can the neutrino travel at (c) and carry energy and escape the wave particle duality that all known natural entities require? Every particle, including the photon, has a cross section that *decreases* with energy, how is it possible fro the neutrino to violate this rule? Unless these (and other) questions have cogent answers, the neutrino detection claims are moot. It is not a question of *disproving* all the ambiguous experiments. The basis theory of neutrino actions has to be justified. Failing that, it then becomes the experimenters job to find an escape clause. Neutrinos exist, but cannot be claimed to have ever been *directly* or *unambiguously* detected. The reason particle physics has failed is that models should start with energy, then we could tell how energy *knots* up into the several particles, and we would *know* what characteristics (and particles) are possible and which are not. See for example "VECTOR PARTICLE PHYSICS" ISBN 0-9631546-1-3 for the structure of the electron type and muon type neutrinos, knotted from an energy model. Regards: Tom. -- Thomas N. Lockyer 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 Tel. (415)967-9550 cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Anonymous / cmsg cancel <9502111030.AA28753@nately.UCSD.EDU> Originally-From: nobody@nately.ucsd.edu (Anonymous) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <9502111030.AA28753@nately.UCSD.EDU> Date: 11 Feb 1995 12:06:09 EST cudkeys: cuddy11 cudennobody cudlnAnonymous cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Cameron Bass / Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:41:25 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article <3hhr08$nj2@stratus.skypoint.net>, John Logajan wrote: >Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote: >: As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs >: pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it. Is there >: possibly a problem with this data? > >Surely there can be no doubt that 60 HP of turbulent energy into a liter >or so volume of water is going to generate a few phonons! :-) > >I don't think the question is so much whether there is ultrasound, >but rather what is the spectral density of various chaotic sound >components. Is the spectrum highly spread? Is it concentrated in >certain frequency ranges? Is it mostly chaotic? Or is there a high >degree of periodicy? > No, the question is why 'we' care about sound that is a consequence of the cavitation. Observation that we have been offered absolutely no energy spectrum just begs the more fundamental question, to wit, 'Who cares?' The observation that one can cause localized bubble formation using appropriately directed ultrasound seems to have no bearing on Griggs device at all beyond Jed's and others' apparent misapprehensions. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Alan M / Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 09:15:00 +0000 Organization: Home In article: <1995Feb10.125131@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: > or a competent third party, > (maybe Jed?) The mutually contradictory concepts, 'competent third party' and 'Jed' do not sit easily in the same paragraph. -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.08 / Ira Blum / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti le,sci.research,sci.research.careers Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 8 Feb 1995 19:24:15 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC I think its a conspiracy. -- Ira iblum@utdallas.edu Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!) 'Any fan of the game with any intelligence at all can define most things that are and are not "in the best interest of baseball"' Scott R. Susor Please direct all flames to /dev/null cudkeys: cuddy8 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Heard any good ultrasound lately? Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:25 -0500 (EST) blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: -> As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs -> pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it. Is there -> possibly a problem with this data? I agree. That is why a microphone, maybe a throat mike, is on my list of equipment to take. I will try and record it, but it may be above the recorders cut-off, if it exists at all. A Scope, or even better yet a spectrum analyzer are on my list as well. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / Bryan Wallace / cmsg cancel <3hgkr3$bdb@acasun.eckerd.edu> Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <3hgkr3$bdb@acasun.eckerd.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 00:55:36 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. Cancelling spam. See explanation in news.admin.misc. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.10 / prasad / Re: Real Fusion Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Real Fusion Date: 10 Feb 1995 14:39:45 GMT Organization: sometimes In article <3hdld8$r00@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, geof@harold.phy.umist.ac.uk () writes: |> A vote for a `real' fusion group. |> |> I certainly stopped reading this group because of all the snow. |> |> How about `sci.physics.plasma_fusion' as an uncontroversial title? Hmmm... Not much entertainment, for sure! ;]? -- // email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Matt Kennel / Re: Ion Beam Fusion Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion Date: 13 Feb 1995 04:17:16 GMT Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD Gregory L Hansen (hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote: : In article <1995Feb9.210432.1434@Princeton.EDU>, : Philip B. Snyder wrote: : [...] : >>Thank you! This is the most information I've gotten so far. But I hope : >>you don't mind me asking a few questions... : > : >I don't mind, but I certainly don't have all the answers. Anyone : Well thank you again, then. : >>Why is a solid target worse than a plasma? : > : >Well, because ions exert a strong coulomb repulsion on each other, : >they can only be pushed close enough together to fuse (with any : >reasonable probability) if they come at each other with a : >lot of energy (barring cold fusion type magic). For D-T : But that's also true of a plasma. : And electron interactions aren't as important because the electrons are : free instead of bound, and have such a small mass? That doesn't change : the repulsion between nuclei, so is electron interactions essentially the : biggest difference? The important difference between beam-target fusion and thermal plasma fusion is that when you excite electrons in the target, that energy is lost. You still have ion/electron collisions in a plasma but they are *elastic*: the energy stays in the plasma. Some energy you give an electron you hope will be recycled back into some other ion. Therefore the key in plasma fusion is to reduce overall system losses of energy. Keeping anything at 100 million degrees is thermodynamically damn hard for anything smaller than a star but you can see that once the energy production just starts to exceed loss rate a little bit the whole thing may start providing a whole lot of net energy very quickly, especially considering the increase of nuclear x-section with energy in the high-energy tail of the distribution. Thus, plasma fusion reactors will be big and expensive and produce buttloads of energy. -- -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: cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / ASHWOOD / Trip Originally-From: HFC6ASHWOOD@cluster.north-london.ac.uk (", DAVID ASHWOOD ;-) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Trip Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:47:06 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Hello, I am new to this forum so if what I state has already been stated then I apologise now.... I write concerning the preposed trip and some peoples suggestions that the Marshall visit be made on a separate day. Would it not be better, for future analysis, for them to witness the *same* experiment? This helps in several ways: 1) It is surely harder to fool a few people then to fool 1 person on their own. By saying this I am not saying Tom would be fooled but 1 person cannot concentrate completely on an expeiment *and* people in the room simulaineously. 2) If information is to be drawn from the data, surely it would know from the start that the initial conditions were exact than otherwise. 3) The scientific method doesn't break down when more than 1 scientist is involved. The reproducability of an experiment doesn't include the number of scientists involved. Does the working of a car stop when more than 1 person watches it?? Thanks for listening to my opinions, If somebody tell me how to contibute to the fund, I will gladly send on some cash.. David Ashwood. ----------------------------- End of forwarded message 1 cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenHFC6ASHWOOD cudfn cudlnASHWOOD cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / STUDIO GO / Re: COLD FUSION CULT Originally-From: studiogo@aol.com (STUDIO GO) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT Date: 13 Feb 1995 03:58:11 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) True. TAANSTAFL is 19th Century mechanistic thinking. Fruit trees go right on making fruit whether I work and eight-hour day or not. What we need is a tree that bears computer chips and crude oil, or the technological equivalent thereof. Woops, I just made 96% of the human race obsolete. Oh well...TAANSTAAFL. Bruce Bruce Lewis, Studio Go! LA California USA 818.995.01Go! studiogo@aol.com bchan@mowonder.com fax 818.834.9022 OPINIONS EXPRESSED NOT NECCESARILY THOSE OF STUDIO GO!, OK? ---------------------------------------------------------- Studio Go! Intelligent comics for intelligent readers. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenstudiogo cudfnSTUDIO cudlnGO cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Richard Blue / cross section to reaction rate Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cross section to reaction rate Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:00:54 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway If we can divide the deuteron population into "targets" and "projectiles" the calculation of a reaction rate goes as follows. We need the areal density of target deuterons as seen by a projectile, and we need the projectile current (deuterons per second) entering the target volume. Then the reaction rate is just the product of those two numbers multiplied by the reaction cross section. To generalize that to other situations makes my head spin just now. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Richard Blue / Don't buy no untested gadgets! Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Don't buy no untested gadgets! Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:16:36 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Look folks! Anyone can stir water. When I see the suggestion that $500 is a reasonable price to pay for a "miniature Griggs device" I begin to wonder if I shouldn't market a kit which consists of one Dremmel tool and a tin can. Are there any takers - only $149.95 and I'll pay the shipping. Seriously, what do you think would constitute a legitimate test of the Griggs effect? If my test kit heats water with a C.O.P of just 80% what does that prove? Haven't we been down this road before? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.09 / prasad / was Re: Griggs Questions for Tom D. Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: was Re: Griggs Questions for Tom D. Date: 9 Feb 1995 14:30:49 GMT Organization: sometimes In article <1995Feb8.011747.20349@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter writes: |> |> In article <1995Feb7.201035@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> , |> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: [snip] |> > 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? Since dowen@vaxc was referring to my report, I feel obliged to set the record straight. Heeter's figure of 1.1-1.2 is too low! The gain Griggs was referring to was AC input -> heat output. That's why it was only 1.35 or so. When I asked him about Jed posting figures more like 1.68, Griggs clarified that Jed was correcting for the motor inefficiency, but since the inefficiency was only a guesstimate, he (Griggs) preferred to stick to the overall (and more modest) figures. So, 1.35 is w.r.t. total AC in, WITHOUT correcting for motor inefficiency. (btw, I find it an amusing coincidence that we have an RF heater trying to figure out an a.c. water heater... we used to have professors with initials PD (2 nos), RC, etc. in our EE dept. but all I can do is p! :) ----- // email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com cudkeys: cuddy9 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / c Here / light not heat Originally-From: cwright@auckland.ac.nz (c.c.wrightYour Name Here) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: light not heat Date: 13 Feb 1995 02:58:54 GMT Organization: The University of Auckland ua.test cudkeys: cuddy13 cudencwright cudfnc cudlnHere cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / Akira Kawasaki / Helium 3 and Helium 4 questions Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Helium 3 and Helium 4 questions Date: 12 Feb 1995 02:07:10 GMT Organization: Netcom As I gather from reference literature, Helium 4 is almost the sole Helium isotpe existing in the natural state on earth. Helium 3 exist to the extent of 1.37X10^-6 percent. It was observed that the percent of Helium 3 output from volcanic vents was higher than this. Thus there was the speculation by Jones and his group about cold fusion deep under earth with the Deuterium contained in natural water. My questions here are: Where was the Helium sample obtained to determine the reference isotope ratio? The goverment stockpiles Helium gas as a strategic reserve. And this helium is (or was?) obtained as a byproduct from petroleum oil (or natural gas?) fields. What is the Helium isotopes' ratio from these sources? Then what processes causes Helium to be there? And are these questions more appropriate to sci.physics or sci.chem newsgroups to get an answer if not here on sci.physics.fusion? AK cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / Paul Koloc / Re: Some ball lightning stories Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Some ball lightning stories Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 06:17:58 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <3hc1kc$odi@newsbf02.news.aol.com> danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes: >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: > > .. . 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. .. . >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). That's interesting, because if the reddening were due to heat she would have felt it instaneously. Consequently, that leaves approximately uv/euv kinds of radiation, which indicates plasma. Since the BL was so tiny ( of low inductance), it likely had energetic currents, whose small angle scattering could generate the UV as well as the usual source by resonant oxygen+ and nitrogen+ transitions. What I'm saying here is that it could possibly be a Plasmak model type BL. >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. Nice to know if the bowl was metal or fastened with metal (iron - ferromagnetic). Also did she measure the temperature rise in the water and estimate the quantity of water? :-) >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. They also had a fiber glass type insulation attached to paper for pinning to the structure. This stuff wasn't the smooth, long, less- breakable fibers they have today. Instead it was an ugly fiber of variable thickness terminating into a teardrop of glass that would cut into your skin with great efficiency, and leave behind a venom which was developed by the Nazis and used by fiber glass companies as an anti curious kid deterrent. Actually, the wiring was fairly modern in that much of the homes in this area were code which included Greenfield shielding. (They were even more careful during these times than later during the aluminum wire fad.) > There would have been "city water", >though I don't know if either house had indoor bathrooms (and the >associated pipes). Iron water pipes were common during this period. > 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. I know of one case which was absolutely very throughly checked out were a ball lightning came out of the wall and wasted every semiconductor in a very very expensive and advanced computer in this nicely cooled room. The institute had just purchased the device and wasn't amused. It turned out that lightning had struck the outside of the building (witness1) and that the ball came through a small hole in the wall which showed damage of an undetermined nature. It was discovered that behind the partition was a covered over junction box that showed damage as by a strong arc discharge. The BL was about basketball size or twice that size. >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". I spoke to a number of physicist who saw the phenomena as children and they told me that since they often encountered new things at that early age, it was "no big deal". However, they did say that it give them a shiver and it seemed like something to move away from at all costs. >Dan Hicks +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037 | | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 | | VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / 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: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 09:52:49 GMT Organization: University of Minnesota In article <1995Feb9.210432.1434@Princeton.EDU>, Philip B. Snyder wrote: [...] >>Thank you! This is the most information I've gotten so far. But I hope >>you don't mind me asking a few questions... > >I don't mind, but I certainly don't have all the answers. Anyone Well thank you again, then. >>Why is a solid target worse than a plasma? > >Well, because ions exert a strong coulomb repulsion on each other, >they can only be pushed close enough together to fuse (with any >reasonable probability) if they come at each other with a >lot of energy (barring cold fusion type magic). For D-T But that's also true of a plasma. >So, just doing a simple dynamic calculation (or a more complex >quantum calculation) will show that by far the most likely thing >to happen when the 100 keV ion slams into the solid target >is that it will interact with the electrons in the solid and >lose its energy very quickly. > >As I pointed out before, even when the incoming ion does get >close enough to another ion to interact strongly, it is much >more likely to simply bounce off than to fuse. At ideal [...] >Hence, very schematically, what might happen to a 100 keV >deuteron as it slams into a solid target containing a lot >of tritium... [numbers deleted...] >to have a chance of fusing. Adding these chances up, the >total probablility of the deuteron fusing will be at most >a couple tenths of a percent. (more accurate numbers anyone??) A lot of work has obviously been done with. Can you give a reference, or are you working more by memory? >Things change a lot, however, if you can have an entire system >where the particles all have energies in the fusion range of >interest. This system must be a plasma, because at the >relevant temperatures of tens of millions of degrees, plasma >is the only form matter can take, at reasonable densities. And electron interactions aren't as important because the electrons are free instead of bound, and have such a small mass? That doesn't change the repulsion between nuclei, so is electron interactions essentially the biggest difference? >>If the beam vaporizes the >>target, would the impacting ions have better luck reacting with the gas >>than with the solid? > >Again not really. Whether the target vaporizes would depend on >the total energy of the beam and the nature of the target, but >the gas will be much less dense than the solid and it will >have the same problems (incoming deuterons would generally lose >their energy to the electrons in the gas rather than fusing with >the nucleii of the gas molecules). Anyone know the numbers?? An idea I was toying with is to have a cylindrical target with a hole drilled in it, and an ion beam directed into the hole. The target would be vaporized, I don't know what temperature the gas would be but I'd imagine it would be in the hotter plasma range. And the only direction it could go is out the hole and into the beam. Another gentleman on this conference is working on probably a better scheme, to shoot an ion beam into a contained plasma. Thanks for your time. You're being most helpful. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenhans0174 cudfnGregory cudlnHansen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb 14 04:37:05 EST 1995 ------------------------------