1995.03.10 / Mark editor /  responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
     
Originally-From: blackice@pavilion.co.uk (Mark Bennett - editor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry
Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation
Date: 10 Mar 1995 21:46:46 GMT
Organization: Black Ice magazine

I am posting this on behalf of the publisher of Joe Champions books. They
do not as yet have access to the net so I offered to post the responce to
the statements by 'A Friend' who uses the Anon service....

Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation
>From: gordon.s@ix.netcom.com (GORDON SANDERSON)
>Date: 8 Feb 1995 23:06:54 GMT
>Message-ID: <3hbiqe$m9e@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>

>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?

Dear Gordon:

Joe Champion is partly a fraud partly onto something.  What he is on to
was given to him by Jack Keller, who is a good friend of mine.  Bockris knows
the story well because Champion defrauded him as well.  Champion has got some
of the direction right but his books are a complete rip-off.  I know,
Keller knows, Bockris knows, and Roberto Monti knows, but we aren't
talking yet.  Maybe by the next cold fusion conference. Don't waste time
trying to replicate what Champion is doing.  Look for Jack Keller's
patent, which I wrote.

A Friend...

__________________________________________________________________________
RESPONCE  

On 8 February, Gordon Sanderson inquired about Joe Champion and his
ability to transmute common elements into precious metals. "A Friend"
answered that Joe was a "fraud", that he had also defrauded John Bockris,
and the books were "a complete rip-off"

   "A Friend" misrepresented the facts. It is true that Keller first
acquainted Joe with thermal transmutation, but that is where Keller
stopped and where Joe leaped light years ahead. Joe's current technology
involves much more efficient procedures than the thermal process, has
_nothing_ to do with Keller has been working with for 30 years and,
therefore, has nothing to do with what Keller may have. Presently, Joe is
producing precious metals at commercial levels, and getting paid for it
from a South African firm. For instance, he's making platinum (500 grams
per day) from laboratory equipment for less than $3.00 per ounce. He's
also been paid for gold made by a different commercial process.

   Regarding Dr. John O'M Bockris, the "Friend's" comments are way off
base. Joe was never involved with any defrauding of Bockris. Bockris is
communicating with Joe on a regular basis and is closely following the
work Joe is doing. Bockris knows there was never any fraud, only
experimental sabotage from someone working within Texas A&M.

   Finally, regarding the books, if the "friend" believes Joe's books are
"rip-offs", it is obvious that he has not read the books, attempted
replication of the experiments or knows anything about science. I have
been told by some readers of Joe's books that they have achieved
commercial levels of production based on processes Joe has described in
the texts. Further, the public has obviously found the books enlightening
when judged by the fact that most buyers of a single book return to buy
additional books. Also, the publisher's money-back guarantee has been
exercised less than 8%, a sure sign that the books are not considered
"rip-offs" by readers.

   If anyone wants to get the facts straight about this, call Roger Briggs
at 714-969-6587 (USA Pacific Standard Time), during California business
hours.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblackice cudfnMark cudlneditor cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Mike Warot /  Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
     
Originally-From: ka9dgx@interaccess.com (Mike Warot)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 13:44:49
Organization: InterAccess,Chicagoland's Full Service Internet Provider

In article <3jsf4r$qbn@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) writes:
>From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
>Subject: Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military.
>Date: 11 Mar 1995 15:20:59 GMT

>In <3jq5se$ce6@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel) writes:
>>
>>Why do weapons need T? The fusion part I thought was Li6.
>>
>   You got me there. I do not have the latest receipe for the fusion 
>bomb. Perhaps when it comes on the surplus market, it can be taken 
>apart. Or perhaps Mr. Close, other than the Defense Dept., has the 
>receipe. :->
>-AK-


According to my "how to" book, you need Tritium and Deuterium gas to supply a 
large neutron flux (by fusion) to get things moving along. The thing that I 
found more interesting was the fact that STYROFOAM is a crucial ingredient in 
the construction of an H-bomb.  

Source: AT WORK IN THE FIELDS OF THE BOMB. ISBN:0-06-055059-7


Have a nice day  8-)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenka9dgx cudfnMike cudlnWarot cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 11 Mar 1995 04:54:28 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3jngvc$79g@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W.  
Cobb) writes:

> Heaven knows we
> have seen this with other large projects. For example, look at how ITER
> cost estimates have been moderately increasing as the design gets refined.
> And if I am remembering correctly, ITER has been a little less ambitious in
> its design margins recently as well. Or for another example look at TPX
> estimates. When BPX was killed, SSAT/TPX was envisioned as a 300-400 M$
> deal. But now congress thinks it is order 700 M$ and I think others put it
> at close to 1G$ (somebody in the "nose" want to comment?).

As I recall, the number I saw at Ann Davies talk here 2 weeks back was 
like $765M, and that would of course go up if it has to be spread out longer,
etc.

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything)?
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 03:11:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <D57qDH.3Bw@wave.scar.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything)?
KO KEVIN KINGMAN {90kokevi@wave.scar.utoronto.ca) writes:

== psjrl@cc.newcastle.edu.au wrote:
== : On a science TV show here called Quantum early last year 
==     there was a Panorama (British TV) prog which showed
==   Pons and Fleishmann with  a 1 kW "cold fusion" reactor and
==  the claim that they would make an announcement re a 10 kW unit
= 
= "Greetings.
= Cold fusion was proved to be a hoax,  ...."
=     {zip on old info and incorrect assumptions]

   Despite the too often rabid attacks, cold fusion actually
now includes aqueous, gas, and solid-state systems.
In March 1989 electrochemically-induced nuclear fusion reactions
were reported.  At first, these were very difficult to reproduce and
Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons  underemphasized 
that the reactions and materials are quite complex.
Much early effort has focused upon  the use of alloys, additives, 
and other techniques. 
By 1995 many experiments demonstrated that anomalous
processes occur in  some palladium samples which have been highly
loaded with deuterium,  as well as other systems.  Although these
began using heavy-water electrolysis with palladium cathodes and 
lithium salts, these methods now include light-water electrolysis 
with nickel cathodes and alkali-metal carbonate and other solutions,
molten salt electrolysis with palladium as the anode, gas-plasma
discharge devices incorporating palladium target cathodes, and
other techniques.
There have been quite a few flames and misinformation about
the field        -   Best wishes.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPECIAL OFFER FOR INFORMATION
TO SUPPLEMENT THE UNFORTUNATE MISINFORMATION
REGARDING WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST 
SEVERAL YEARS IN THE FIELD OF HEAT PRODUCTION 
IN THE SOLID STATE 
    The COLD FUSION TIMES
     (Quarterly, $120. per year)
     is entirely dedicated to novel R&D in this field.
    Four back issues are available, along with the current edition
 1)  volume #3, number #1  - $15
or 2)  $39 for five (5) issues to celebrate the six (6th) anniversary of
the field consisting of Vol. 3 number 1 and four additional back issues
(Volumes 1 number 2, 3, 4 and Volume 2, number 1) 
for a savings of ~86%! [*outside US.  +$3.00 S+H , US funds only]

       COLD FUSION TIMES    
        Dept. INFO
        P.O. Box 81135
        Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts  02181



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Gary Steckly /  Re: I Have Returned
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Have Returned
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 02:40:35 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3jq9ol$ar2@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
>Subject: I Have Returned
>Date: 10 Mar 1995 19:36:52 GMT

>I Have Returned                                     10 March 1995

>Well, I am back.  As part of the negotiation, I agreed to send Griggs
>a copy of my report before I post it.  He does not get to change it, but
>I agreed to append his rebuttal to the original post.  This will of course
>take a little time to process.  I expect it will be late next week before
>I can get a copy to Griggs and get his reply.  I took 4 or 5 pages of notes
>there and de-briefed myself for about 10 pages more.  It will take a while
>to write all this up.


well at least give us your one liner in code.  Is the sky really falling or 
is it all done with mirrors?  A rebuttal infers a negative evaluation.  Is 
that what you mean to infer?  The suspense is killing us!

regards

Gary 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Robert Dinse /  Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 11:10:05 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <3jkn88$t3n@wu.labs.tek.com>, arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
> In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu> jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
> >It has been *very* difficult to get SBSL using D2, compared to air.
> >We pulled a vacuum on the clean D2O, while stirring to drive out dissolved
> >air, then backfilled with D2 gas, still stirring.  We repeated the process
> >ten times in order to replace air with D2. 
> >
> >Getting SBSL was then attempted, but very difficult at first.  When we
> >cooled the entire flask to about 10 C, then we started getting SBSL for
> >a few seconds at a time.  (We used a photomultiplier tube to view the SBSL
> >at first; later, we looked in and could see the glowing bubble with the eye
> >in the darkened lab.  But even then the bubble was faint compared to the
> >air-bubble SBSL, which can be seen without turning down the lights in the
> >lab.)
> >
> >It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became
> >more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated
> >bubble.  In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL
> >before the equipment was dismounted.  We looked just for light (with the PMT)
> >and neutrons (with our best detector, underground).  We saw the light,
> >but we saw no neutrons.  
> 
> In the Scientific American article on this subject, it was noted that a
> stable, high light level experiment seemed to be dependent on the
> presence of trace amounts of inert gas - like the argon in air.  Your
> methodology seems to exclude this.

     If it was the article I am thinking of, it was exactly Argon, and also
around 1% present in the atmosphere was "just right".

-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Stan Bischof /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: stanb@sr.hp.com (Stan Bischof)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 11 Mar 1995 14:29:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sonoma County

 COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)

Lot's of folks trying various experiments.

Lot's of folk's conning other folks to part with $$$ given the 
supposed outcomes of these experiments.

Heck- there's even magazines supporting themselves over
'cold fusion'.

Anything real? Maybe, but I've never seen or heard of it.

--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Bischof   Hewlett Packard Company   707-577-3994  stanb@sr.hp.com
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenstanb cudfnStan cudlnBischof cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Scott Little /  Disappearing articles
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Disappearing articles
Date: 11 Mar 1995 15:23:09 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Something strange is going on here.  I see two people responding to Tom
Droege's "I have returned" post but I don't see his post anywhere!?

How can that be?  Presently, my sci.physics.fusion contains 68 articles,
the oldest of which is dated 03/03 "Re: Solar -VS-Fusion" by jonesse@vanlab

Is this what the rest of you are seeing.  Are the rest of you seeing Tom's
post that I mentioned above?

Marshall Dudley has complained about his articles not making it into the 
newsgroup.... is his problem related to mine?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / Tom Droege /  I Have Returned
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I Have Returned
Date: 10 Mar 1995 19:36:52 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I Have Returned                                     10 March 1995

Well, I am back.  As part of the negotiation, I agreed to send Griggs
a copy of my report before I post it.  He does not get to change it, but
I agreed to append his rebuttal to the original post.  This will of course
take a little time to process.  I expect it will be late next week before
I can get a copy to Griggs and get his reply.  I took 4 or 5 pages of notes
there and de-briefed myself for about 10 pages more.  It will take a while
to write all this up.

The confidentially agreement went fairly well.  I negotiated an addendum that
lets me say almost anything.  Here it is:

_____________________________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM TO CONFIDENTIALLY AGREEMENT

The undersigned does not wish to have any confidential information disclosed
to him.  In the event of accidental disclosure, HDI will identify the
confidential material and the undersigned will hold it in confidence.

The undersigned is here to review the experimental procedures that have led to
a claim of excess energy.  The undersigned intends to make public a report of
this review to the Internet news group sci.physics.fusion.  The undersigned
also intends to outline procedural changes that can lead to acceptance of the
results by the scientific community.
____________________________________________________________________________

I note here that they did not identify anything as confidential.  Actually
there were a number of things disclosed that were really confidential.  I will
keep these secret as I do not think it ethical to pick up such information and
release it even though the agreement so allows.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 /  Kennel /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 10 Mar 1995 16:19:27 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>  
> What do you make of that? Can you read plain English? It says ALL THE ARIES
> DESIGNS WOULD NOT BE COMPETATIVE WITH RESPECT TO ALWR. That's *all*, as in:
> every one of them. Got it? Not cost competative means there is no
> economic justification for building them.

It depends on what your costs for disposal of fission waste may be.

Depending on the political climate this may be infinite. 

> - Jed

--matt
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 /  Kennel /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 10 Mar 1995 16:26:04 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu wrote:
> I just received private e-mail berating me for suggesting that biomass
> could serve as an alternative for power production -- since plants have
> "incredible inefficiency" (he said) for capturing solar energy.

> This objection is ill-founded.  In fact, "some algae can convert nearly
> 10% of available light energy to biomass.  Sugar cane is about 2% efficient,
> and corn about 1% efficient."

Q: 
What is the efficiency of eating biomass upto utility-grade power?

What is the energy input needed to grow sugar and corn at modern 
agricultural yield?  (water too might be the most difficult
resource limitation.)

I've heard a saying that US agriculture is an industry which turns 
petroleum into food.

cheers
matt

> Source:  Gordon J. Aubrecht II, _Energy_, NJ:  Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 487.

> --Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 /  Kennel /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 10 Mar 1995 16:34:25 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

> The same thing is true
> for hydrogen bombs.  Weapons scientists are making accurate predictions
> for yields but are missing by four orders of magnitude on particle
> production counts.  Why?  The answer is that it works, but they are wrong
> about how it works. 

And how do you explain decades of cyclotron work on nuclear physics if
it's not fusion?

How do you explain the very detailed stellar models which reproduce the
H-R diagram and supernovae if it's not fusion?

I think it's preposterous to think that H-bombs could be as "successful"
as they are without getting a hell of a lot right.

> Voltaire

matt

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / mitchell swartz /  Stability of SBSL using D2 : other species
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stability of SBSL using D2 : other species
Subject:       Re: Stability of SBSL using D2
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 18:36:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <199503100938.TAA07825@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>
Subject:       Re: Stability of SBSL using D2
Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au) writes:

 >Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
  [SNIP]
  [SNIP
 >> ..after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became
  >>more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a 
  >>single levitated
  >>bubble.  In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL
  >>before the equipment was dismounted.We looked just for light (with the PMT)
  >
  >>and neutrons (with our best detector, underground).  We saw the light,
  >>but we saw no neutrons.
  >In the Scientific American article on this subject, it was noted that a
  >stable, high light level experiment seemed to be dependent on the
  >presence of trace amounts of inert gas - like the argon in air.  Your
  >methodology seems to exclude this.
  >However, there might be some adsorbed gas in your system that comes
  >into solution after a period of running, or there might be some
  >diffusing into your apparatus, and that could explain the apparent
  >improvement after some running time.
  >Arnold Frisch
   >Tektronix Laboratories

= Another possibility is contamination with either H2 or O2
        (or even O-- i.e. water with H+'s
= stripped of) produced by high temperatures, x-rays, UV or whatever
    at the surface of the 
= bubble, from the water. O2 would seem the most likely, given that the 
= effect was much more pronounced when using an air bubble.
    I mention O-- because it has 
= the electron configuration of Neon. Perhaps even H2O molecules,
    as these have the same 
= mass as Neon atoms.

   Perhaps more convential moeties might be considered first including
 D2O2,  O2-. ,  OD-. (not to be confused with OD-), and DO2.
which are observed for these systems.
Also some have decay states (1O2) which might even have a roles in
enabling dimole reactions.

      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 23:21:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3jngvc$79g@curly.cc.utexas.edu> John W. Cobb,
johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu writes:
> >Fusion reactors built on *current* technology (ITER-like) are 
> >expected to cost roughly 3 times more than current energy 
> >sources.  But fusion is still evolving, and this "3x" figure 
> >is nothing more than an *upper limit*.  There are a number 
> >of ideas floating around which, if they can be made practicable, 
> >would reduce the cost of fusion dramatically.
> 
> Careful, IMO you are making a statement that is too strong. There are
> conceivable breakthroughs that could reduce cost. However, there are
> also conceivable underestimates in the costing scheme. 

In general I think you're right.  But the reason I said it was an
upper limit had more to do with the fact that the other reactor
design studies (ARIES, ESECOM, and the ones done in Europe) all end
up with costs that are 1x the current cost, and not 3x.

> Heaven knows we
> have seen this with other large projects. For example, look at how ITER
> cost estimates have been moderately increasing as the design gets
refined.
> And if I am remembering correctly, ITER has been a little less
ambitious in
> its design margins recently as well.

ITER is a somewhat pathological case because of the fact that it's an
international project on an unprecendented scale; I think an actual
reactor
built by a single country wouldn't be quite so bad.

> Or for another example look at TPX
> estimates. When BPX was killed, SSAT/TPX was envisioned as a 300-400 M$
> deal. But now congress thinks it is order 700 M$ and I think others put
it
> at close to 1G$ (somebody in the "nose" want to comment?). Granted it
has been
> a moving target in terms of technical objectives as well. It's now a
little
> more ambitious than in the days just after BPX got tubed. Also some
increased
> cost estimates are due to delay and stretch-out expenses. 

I think this accounts for most of the change in cost; I don't think the
initial costing estimate was that far off.  If you really want to know
I can ask Rob Goldston (chief scientist on TPX) and find out.

> All I am saying
> is thet the 3X current cost estimate (or whatever it is) is a best
estimate.
> but it has error bars on both sides. It is not a lower or upper bound.

I agree that the 3x "data point" for the ITER-class reactor design 
study has errors bar on it, but my idea was that this is only
a single "data point" within the set of design studies results,
and it is among the highest of all the "data points" that have 
been put forth by the design groups.  Because it *does* represent 
only current technology, I think it is still reasonable to consider 
3x our best estimate (with error bars) of the worst-case scenario 
for fusion.  

Alternatively, to take your perspective and think of the 3x as
a single estimate, I would (in my optimistic way) tend to believe
that the error bar on the lower side is substantially longer than
the one on the upper side - it seems to me unlikely that we'll
have to increase the costs much beyond ITER, and likely that there
will be improvements which can substantially reduce the cost.

I am hoping in the next few days to present some technical 
information on one of these possible improvements (on which my research 
group is currently working), since I think it would interest
the readers here.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.10 / David Seghers /  Re: Waiting for Droege....
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Waiting for Droege....
Date: 10 Mar 1995 19:00:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <3jnpjt$1f2@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>
>Well, Tom, come on---I can't wait for your Griggs report!
[snip]
>--
>Barry Merriman

I suspect that the longer the delay, the more likely Tom is ordering a
Griggs pump for his basement....  If Tom finds an obvious hole,
I would suspect his report would be pretty fast, anything else would 
take time.

David (gnawing at nails in anticipation) Seghers 
(seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Barry Merriman /  where is Tom...
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: where is Tom...
Date: 11 Mar 1995 03:02:43 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Hmmm, since Tom Droege has not posted to the internet
since his trip, I guess that must be his signal 
that Griggs works---he's too busy working on replication.

Or, does that mean that Griggs doesn't work, and he's totally lost
interest in it and all of CF?

Or, is Griggs holding him captive in a sub lab dungeon, for fear
that certain damaging secrets would get out :-)



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / Edwin Strojny /  Re: The Expense Report
     
Originally-From: estro@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us (Edwin Strojny)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Expense Report
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 16:18:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege alluded to the message of the Oracle at Delphi.

Is this message "the purpose of war is not to annihilate the enemy but 
get him to mend his ways"?

Ed Strojny

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenestro cudfnEdwin cudlnStrojny cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Glossary to be Posted Soon!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 16:20:44 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
> In article <jaboweryD4rrG1.DJu@netcom.com>,
> Jim Bowery <jabowery@netcom.com> wrote:
>  Ideally there would
> be a single program which would take a set of plain-text files
> and build the hypertext (Web) version automatically, provided
> the Web version satisfied certain formatting constraints.

Tools like Doc2Help create technical manuals in printed as well
as *.hlp form, but don't create HTML.  

In general, plain ASCII is pretty easy to generate from any word 
processor text output format by applying a bit of reformating 
with a tool like PERL.

I suggest you give preference to a kid who can hack PERL code.

BTW, I ran across a friend of the founder of Autodesk, John 
Walker, who says Walker was being harrassed by the IRS so much
and his tax accountants were so incompetent that he finally 
obtained the ASCII of the entire tax code, and wrote some 
PERL scripts to automatically convert them into HTML format
just so he could navigate Byzantium in his own.  

I'll see if I can get a copy of Walker's Byzantium-Buster PERL 
scripts for application in busting the semantic Byzantium of
con-fusion.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Ed Matthews /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 17:54:56 -0800
Organization: University of Oregon




On 9 Mar 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:

> In article <singtech-0303950409570001@ip-salem-15.teleport.com>  
> singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
> 
> > 
> > Princeton has been sucking the taxpayers dry.  It has to stop!  Don't let
> > them continue to con you.
> > 
> > C. Cagle
> 
> C:
> 
> Well, lets see---the entire Fusion Energy Budget is about
> $350 million/year, so thats about $3.50 per taxpayer per year.
> Of that, at most $1 went to princeton.
> 
> Ouch, I know that $1 you gave to PPPL last year really hurt!
> 

Geez, I hate comments like this.  It's the _principle_ that matters.  If 
it was $1.50, $500, or $0.50, the principle is still what matters.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ed Matthews                   | Modern art is what happens when 
   ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu            | painters stop looking at girls and 
         Physics major                  | persuade themselves that they have
 Philosophy and Mathematics minor       | a better idea. - John Ciardi

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
Date: 12 Mar 1995 01:52:12 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D5Av94.D1E@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)  
writes:
> In article <daryl.17.00116D5E@weaver.dungeon.com> daryl@weaver.dungeon.com  
(Savage Henry) writes:
> 
> >I've been told that you guys may be able to assist me.
> >I'm interested in any information regarding the possible links 
> >between ball lightning and various anomalous phenomena.
> >Reports of spontaneous human combustion often evidence 

> 
> One can look a people as bags of lightly watered oil and they can 
> burn for a long time like a large bloob of fat or tallow.  
> 

The basic theory, which I haven't seen credibly discounted, 
is that cases of spontaneous combustion usually involve
someone drunk or otherwise severley impaired, falling
asleep with a cigarete or other flame source. Then, they 
burn like a candle, as Paul K says, due to the ample amounts
of bodyfat available as fuel.

(Of course, popular accounts of these cases have often severely
distroted these facts, to make them more intriguing; the more
prosaic explanation is fairly clear in well-researched cases
I've seen.)




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / F Loygorri /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: fernando@eskimo.com (Fernando Loygorri)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:58:22 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Kennel (mbk@.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:
> Nicholas Rich (ncrich@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > I came across a copy a few days ago and haven't been able to put it 
> > down. Though I'm not at all technically proficient, it's written so the 
> > layman can understand. Based on the research of Hannes Alfv'en, it 
> > points out multitudes of apparently irreconcilable contradictions in the 
> > BB theory--which are resolved by postulating fantacies like dark matter 
> > (apparently 99% of the universe), cosmic strings, etc.

> And what about the redshift, the radiation background (with appropriate
> sized fluctuations thanks to COBE) and primordial helium fusion?

I read the book a couple of years ago, when it came out, I think (I don't
have access to it, right now) and I found it impressive. I seem to recall
that his point was that the real picture was far from being as clear cut as
the "official" story line would want it. For example, I think it was him
who wrote that when the first radiation background fluctuations were
measured, they came out several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted.
Then, the theory had to be modified (in a quasi ad hoc fashion) to match
the experimental results, rather than even try to re-think the process.

I don't have the technical expertise to tell whether people like Lerner, Arp
or Hoyle are right or wrong, but their books certainly point out clearly
that the scientific research may be tainted by money, power and inflated
egos.

-- 
Fernando Garcia-Loygorri                                   Bellevue, WA.
fernando@eskimo.com                                               U.S.A.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenfernando cudfnFernando cudlnLoygorri cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 19:17:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3jsc4q$r02@canyon.sr.hp.com>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Stan Bischof (stanb@sr.hp.com) wrote:

= COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
=
="Lot's of folks trying various experiments.   ....
=Anything real? Maybe, but I've never seen or heard of it."

 Read any of the recent literature yourself? 
Given your extensive material and electronic background,
how about some scientific comments on some of the articles?
E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About
The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433, or
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush
and J.J. Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and
helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium
cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99, or
The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4), 
sponsored by EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems,December  1993
for starters.      Thanks in advance.

  Best wishes.     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / john baez /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: baez@math.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 11 Mar 1995 12:35:57 -0800
Organization: University of California, Riverside  (Dept. of Mathematics)

In article <D5AI1A.56I@eskimo.com>,
Fernando Loygorri <fernando@eskimo.com> wrote:

>I don't have the technical expertise to tell whether people like Lerner, Arp
>or Hoyle are right or wrong, but their books certainly point out clearly
>that the scientific research may be tainted by money, power and inflated
>egos.

No, we're all saints, honest.  




cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbaez cudfnjohn cudlnbaez cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 23:25:04 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1995Mar4.154832.421@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <singtech-0303950409570001@ip-salem-15.teleport.com>
>C. Cagle, singtech@teleport.com writes:
>
>> Barry, get real.  Present projections are pack of lies if they even
>think
>> they could ever get break even.  
>
>What makes you say this?  TFTR is already at 28% of breakeven
>(Fusion power out = 28% of heating power in).  It's not that hard to
>extrapolate to a machine that will achieve breakeven.  Actually,
>JET, in England, is expected to achieve breakeven either next year,
>or in 1997.

Robert,  Please don't be so vague.  Scientific Breakeven, isn't that
what you are referring too?  Engineers could get the wrong idea and
think that perphaps tokamaks have nearly solved the commercial fusion
problem.   

>> And you must know this.  If you don't
>> then you might consider that you are beyond help.
>> 
>> Princeton has been sucking the taxpayers dry.  It has to stop!  Don't
>let
>> them continue to con you.
>
>There we go!  I knew it!  I should have guessed it all along!  
>(NOT!)  Where on earth did you get this idea?

>Fusion researchers have made better progress in advancing the key 
>parameter (fusion power output from the reactor, or even the ratio
>of fusion power out to heating power in) than the semiconductor
>industry has in advancing, say, the number of bytes of RAM that
>can be stored on a single chip.  (Fusion power production has
>increased by roughly 8 orders of magnitude in the last 25 years.
>Chips have increased by maybe 6 orders of magnitude.)

I suppose if one measured the difference in power out from a gasoline
engine trying to burn water with one that burns gasoline, the same
improvement might be seen.  Should this be the basis for claims of 
improvement??  I think not.  Seems rather chicanerous.  

>If you call that sort of progress "sucking the taxpayers dry," 
>(note also that the cost of *all* energy research is miniscule 
>compared to energy's contribution to the economy, so this
>progress isn't even that expensive) then one might consider 
>that you "are beyond help."

What do you think Robert?  Would you pay such huge amounts for
the orders and orders improved gasoline engine based on the 
comparison of a non-fuel to fuel performance?   Certainly the 
gasoline engine with fuel can out power a tokamak burn volume 
to burn volume.  Can you imagine that kind of money for something
that can't compete within several orders of magnitude for power
density??  Perhaps we pause development of tokamaks and spend 
five on much more promising although risky alternative and
advanced concepts.  We see by the dollar devaluation there isn't
enough to do both.  Sorry Robert.   Realities ..  

But hark! they can be dealt with --  Guts, ingenuity, and committment.   
>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter
>Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 23:43:52 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <daryl.17.00116D5E@weaver.dungeon.com> daryl@weaver.dungeon.c
m (Savage Henry) writes:

>I've been told that you guys may be able to assist me.
>I'm interested in any information regarding the possible links 
>between ball lightning and various anomalous phenomena.
>Reports of spontaneous human combustion often evidence 
>an intense heat source with a restricted area of effect, sufficient 
>to incinerate bone while leaving nearby fabrics untouched. 
>Poltergeist  reports often include evidence of unusual electromagnetic 
>phenomena. In Manchester a poltergeist has been blamed for a fire 
>in a pub, where one wall was left completely untouched (Manchester 
>Evening News, 2.4.1994.). The haunting included another localised 
>fire, noises and misbehaving electrical equipment.
>Many reports exist of whole towns suffering from "weird smells". 
>This may be linked to the strange smells experienced by many 
>who suffer frontal lobe seizures.  These seizures are easily 
>produced by electrical stimulus.

>Are the plasma forms discussed here capable of being generated 
>by this planet's magnetic fields, weather or even regional geography? 
>Is it possible for them to cause these events?

Many of these events could be analyzed using physics, chemistry, 
and fire science.  

One can ignite paper with hand held Tesla coils. People's brains are
subject to damage by electrical shock, rather natural or man made.  
If the house is equipted with grounded water pipes or lightning 
arrestors and rods, such events would likely be eliminated.  

As far as slowiy burning people are concerned, such incidents likely 
take place where the the heat wasn't reflected by surrounding walls,
so the temperatures didn't intensify.  Reflecting walls will have
the effect of concentrating heat which will accelerate burning rates.  
A large chunky person in the right room could provide the fuel mass 
and burn rates to "cook" furniture, walls, etc. to a crisp, without
necessarily inflaming such surrounding objects.  

One can look a people as bags of lightly watered oil and they can 
burn for a long time like a large bloob of fat or tallow.  

>I'd love to hear your opinions, although you may have to humour me 
>with the local jargon.
 
>I have net access through a friend's account who will pass on
>your answers. Andrew Morriss.
>daryl@weaver.dungeon.com
>Voice +44 01353 676237
>"I know where you live..." - Revelations 2:13
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 00:18:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <singtech-0403950037380001@ip-salem-17.teleport.com>
singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
>Robert Golka conducted many experiments with huge tesla coils at Windover,
>Utah/Nevada in the early and mid-seventies.  He was trying to reproduce
>ball lightning for use in fusion experiments.
>
>If anyone knows where he is: Please send phone, address, fax, email address.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>C. Cagle
>Chief Technical Officer
>Singularity Technologies, Inc.
>1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
>Salem, OR  97304
>503/362-7781
>
>email to:  singtech@teleport.com

This is from the official International BL listing (few years old).  

R. K. Golka**
400 Warren Avenue
Brockton, MA 022401

Probably wrong but my last (615)-586-7320    

**Ball Lightning Investigator
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / Joe Landman /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu  (Joe Landman)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.physics.particle,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 12 Mar 1995 02:22:59 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.

In <3jt1jd$hfk@math.ucr.edu>, baez@math.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>In article <D5AI1A.56I@eskimo.com>,
>Fernando Loygorri <fernando@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't have the technical expertise to tell whether people like Lerner, Arp
>>or Hoyle are right or wrong, but their books certainly point out clearly
>>that the scientific research may be tainted by money, power and inflated
>>egos.
>
>No, we're all saints, honest.  

So people like Carlo Rubbia are saints? I guess winning the nobel makes you
one... :-)

But if we are all saints... then how do we handle those of us whose 
religion (or lack thereof) does not include the idea of sainthood ?

Nah...  thats too hard a question... I will go back to my simulation
of certain being dancing on a pin head... er... thats head of a pin... :-)


        --=< Joe Landman >=--        ||  Phone:  313 577 2720  || 
       Computational Physicist		 ||    Fax:  313 577 3932  || 
       Wayne State University,		 |+------------------------+| 
 Department of Physics and Astronomy ||	"Compute for insight,  || 
          Detroit, MI 48202			 ||	 not numbers"		   || 
    landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu    ||	 		       Hamming ||


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlandman cudfnJoe cudlnLandman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Disappearing articles
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disappearing articles
Date: 12 Mar 1995 04:45:05 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
: Something strange is going on here.  I see two people responding to Tom
: Droege's "I have returned" post but I don't see his post anywhere!?
: How can that be?
: Is this what the rest of you are seeing.  Are the rest of you seeing Tom's
: post that I mentioned above?

There has been weirdness out on the net for several months now.  Yes, I
saw responses to the Droege post you mention before the original showed up
here.  Unfortunately, there is nothing unusual about that.

On other occasions articles posted by the same person just hours apart
can arrive *days* apart.  Very weird.  But there is not much we can
do about it.

--
 - 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:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.12 / mark fuller /  Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
     
Originally-From: a0014246@unicorn.it.wsu.edu (mark fuller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 04:28:15 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.labs.tek.com) wrote:
: In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu> jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:
: >It has been *very* difficult to get SBSL using D2, compared to air.
: >We pulled a vacuum on the clean D2O, while stirring to drive out dissolved
: >air, then backfilled with D2 gas, still stirring.  We repeated the process
: >ten times in order to replace air with D2. 
: >
: >Getting SBSL was then attempted, but very difficult at first.  When we
: >cooled the entire flask to about 10 C, then we started getting SBSL for
: >a few seconds at a time.  (We used a photomultiplier tube to view the SBSL
: >at first; later, we looked in and could see the glowing bubble with the eye
: >in the darkened lab.  But even then the bubble was faint compared to the
: >air-bubble SBSL, which can be seen without turning down the lights in the
: >lab.)
: >
: >It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became
: >more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated
: >bubble.  In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL
: >before the equipment was dismounted.  We looked just for light (with the PMT)
: >and neutrons (with our best detector, underground).  We saw the light,
: >but we saw no neutrons.  

: In the Scientific American article on this subject, it was noted that a
: stable, high light level experiment seemed to be dependent on the
: presence of trace amounts of inert gas - like the argon in air.  Your
: methodology seems to exclude this.
: However, there might be some adsorbed gas in your system that comes
: into solution after a period of running, or there might be some
: diffusing into your apparatus, and that could explain the apparent
: improvement after some running time.

: Arnold Frisch
: Tektronix Laboratories

Just a thought on the output level.  Could He-4 be responsible for the 
improved stability after a couple of hours?  Given the method you use
to control what gasses are dissolved in solution, there should not be
any He left.  BTW, what is the the most accurate way to quantify 
He and its isotopes in water at the PPB and PPT levels?

Mark Fuller
TANSTAAFL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudena0014246 cudfnmark cudlnfuller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar 13 04:37:15 EST 1995
------------------------------
