1995.04.15 / Joseph Wood /  Re: Info on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu (Joseph Bret Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc,sci.med,rec.arts.sf
science,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water
Date: 15 Apr 1995 15:50:06 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <D72qvz.Ltu@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <browe-1504950010080001@192.0.2.1>
>Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water
>William Rowe [browe@netcom.com]  writes
>
>"Huh? Isn't this the basically the same statement in different words?"
>
>No. It is not the same statement.  To wit:
>
>"Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a
> chemically distinct manner in certain rate-sensitive systems."
>     is simply not identical to 
>"Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a chemically similar manner 
>but differ in reaction rates."
>
>  Is it?
>

If I clarify my statement, then it is....  The rate-sensitive systems I was
referring to, are systems with significant competing reactions, which are
not affected by the kinetic isotope effect.  In this case, the rate of one
reaction will be different for D vs H, while the competing reaction will
have an identical rate in both cases.  This will result in different products.

In cases where the competing reactions are first order, with irreversible 
first steps, the change in product ratios A:B(H) vs A:B(D) is equivalent to
the difference in reaction rates, R[A]:R[B(H)] vs R[A]:R[B(D)].

(where A is the product of reaction A, R[A] is the rate, B(H) is the product
of reaction B, when hydrogen is used, B(D) is with deuterium, etc)

And, anytime two species give different products under the same reaction
conditions, they are displaying different chemical behavior.

-Bret Wood
-bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbretwood cudfnJoseph cudlnWood cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.15 / mitchell swartz /  Info on Heavy Water   (kinetics)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.med,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Info on Heavy Water   (kinetics)
Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 23:52:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3mpiiu$ore@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water
Bret Wood [ bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu) wrote:

   >"Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a
   > chemically distinct manner in certain rate-sensitive systems."
   >     is simply not identical to 
   >"Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a chemically similar manner 
    >but differ in reaction rates."
> If I clarify my statement, then it is....  The rate-sensitive systems I was
> referring to, are systems with significant competing reactions, which are
> not affected by the kinetic isotope effect.  In this case, the rate of one
> reaction will be different for D vs H, while the competing reaction will
> have an identical rate in both cases.  This will result in different products.
> In cases where the competing reactions are first order, with irreversible 
> first steps, the change in product ratios A:B(H) vs A:B(D) is equivalent to
> the difference in reaction rates, R[A]:R[B(H)] vs R[A]:R[B(D)].
> (where A is the product of reaction A, R[A] is the rate, B(H) is the product
> of reaction B, when hydrogen is used, B(D) is with deuterium, etc)
> And, anytime two species give different products under the same reaction
> conditions, they are displaying different chemical behavior.

  There are quantitative, not qualitative, difference in the products
for the different isotopes.
  The result is that isotope effects include differences in
densities, diffusion and reactions rates, and as you
correctly point out, equilibrium distributions.

   The statement perhaps ought be corrected further to:

"Deuterium and Hydrogen behave in a chemically similar manner 
but differ in reaction rates leading to quantitative differences."

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




cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.16 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 16 Apr 1995 05:23:28 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <3mpceh$3er@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Feynman argued that Isaac Newton was right and that a
>photon of light is a particle composed of a drop of dynamic ether fluid moving
>through empty space at the speed of light. [...] 

Does anyone have a reference to any paper or any account of a talk where
Feynman discussed this "dynamic ether" theory.  It would be an interesting
research topic.  I asked Mr. Wallace, but he didn't have any references. 

Dave Cook

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.16 /  MHarmer /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int
     
Originally-From: mharmer@aol.com (MHarmer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int
Date: 16 Apr 1995 01:56:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>You have a problem here.  Your use of the word conventional seems to
>>be capricious, since muon-catalyzed fusion is obviously not a 
>>straight form of fusion, although it has been looked into at PPPL
>>(Kulsrud) and suggested by our own S. Jones.  Further, by naming
>>the "unconventional" forms of fusion without including several 
>>references as to where one might seek more information, seems to be 
>>rather judgemental.  This reference section should also include the 
>>other sectional locations in the FAQ where these named things are 
>>discussed.  Or in the instance of cold fusion that it will probably 
>>have its own FAQ and that several books have been published (cite 
>>them) about the topic. 
>>Now for counter example, I find the tokamak very controversial 
>>because I think there was a "rush  to judgment" in closing out open
>>minded research on alternatives.  As a result we are stuck with a 
>>plasma experiment that does demostrate a plasma can generate self 
>>confining components of field and little else beyond.  Although it 
>>has been masquerading as "THE" developable commercial fusion power 
>>generator for a few decades now.  As such it doesn't look good
>>in an engineering sense. IT'S: Complicated, dirty, poorly designed 
>>pressure system, inefficient conversion efficiency, etc.  
>>So Bob, You make the decision here, but let's keep things even as 
>>you can.   You have to Force yourself to counter that tendency of 
>>yours to buck for the ole' Alma Mater and it's sinking Millstone 
>>and anything that might help it over all else under God's Cosmos.  
>>On ball lightning: Try Singer and Barry and for its fusion connect 
>>try Roth.  I sent you a paper with some of the refs.  Also Ilana has 
>>a few in the Meteorology FAQ.  
 
Muon catalized fusion is considered convensional fusion. It isn't any
different except that it requires a muon source and lower tempretures.

As for cold fusion, I support any reasearch there may be in it, but don't
ride on the mumblings of psudo research.  If it works, publish. If it
doesn't, don't give up. But don't slam other sources of fusion just
because you like cold fusion.

Your responce also called convensional fusion dirty.  Pressent Fusion
research uses tritum, and can be called dirty,  but future fusion project
will edventually use 'clean' fuels.  But first we have to understand whats
happening in there.

Also, research continues on other reactor designs, but none of them have
been as promising as the tokomak.  Are you anti-russan or something.

Otherwise, thanks for the alt. info.
                    MHarmer@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmharmer cudlnMHarmer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 06:18:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <D6K7KL.MA@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>:  
>: I have no role in the project, I am an independent, outside observer.

>who stands to make a lot of money if gullible investors can be
>persuaded, however briefly, that there is something in cold fusion and
>therefore buy stock in your patent-holding company.

Few or none.  It's not like the tokamak fusion empire that it's 
government-industry machine has "invested" VASTLY LARGER chunks of 
our citizen's money in a likely worthless scam of commercial tokamak 
fusion development.  You Brits think your not be suckered??? 

Look at it this way, at least these Jed CF type supporters make the choice
using their own money.  The rest of us don't.  

>Ian
>PS This was typed on an Opus PC386SX with Depca Ethernet card and Elonex
>VGA monitor. It therefore cannot be false ...
>PPS (for those who don't get it) ... any more than a power reading from
>a GEC memter can be false.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 06:08:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <JAC.95Apr7233123@gandalf.llnl.gov> jac@gandalf.llnl.gov
(James Crotinger) writes:
>In article <AWC.95Apr5134141@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>
>>   It's interesting how all these questions hang together. If John Cobb
>>   is right that we can't live with copious 14 MeV neutrons, then we will
>>   have to go to D-He3, which ignites at higher temperatures, which will
>>   force us to go to high beta to avoid synchrotron radiation, which may
>>   only be possible with a very low aspect ratio. If you burn D-T, there
>>   is a lower limit on the aspect ratio due to the shielding needed, so
>>   it may be possible to go to lower aspect ratios with D-He. 

But if one uses a PLASMAK(tm) topology and compresses strongly, burning
p-^11B, then a very low aspect ratio is achieved and the cyclotron 
(synchrotron) radiation will be reflected by the Mantle's dense Vacuum 
field bounding electron sheet.  Other unique efficiencies exist.  

>>                                              .. .    .  .Also, a
>>   high-beta, low aspect ratio machine may need to be steady state, since
>>   you don't have any room for a transformer in the core, but the high
>>   beta may increase the diamagnetic currents and the low aspect ratio
>>   may increase the bootstrap current so that steady state becomes
>>   possible. 

Since one doesn't need transformer windings within a PMK plasmoid 
and the burn rate is so fast that 60 hertz operation (effectively
steady state) is feasible. 

>> It's important to think of each suggestion as a package
>>   which is a local optimum, either or neither of which may be a global
>>   optimum. My arguments against the possibility of high beta and the
>>   need for steady state do not apply with the same force or in the same
>>   way to John Cobb's D-He3 concept as to the standard D-T concept.

High beta is more likely in a PMK and D-T would hardly be standard,
since the radioactive Tritium is a pain in the behind.  

>  I can see that D-He3 will help the first wall issue. But the blanket
>thickness is determined by the need to shield the superconducting magnets
>from the neutrons. Does this thickness go down linearly with the neutron
>level, or logarithmically? I suspect it is more like the latter - you just
>can't afford to tolerate neutrons getting to the magnets. Thus the blanket
>thickness in a D-He3 reactor may have to be just as thick as in DT.  And
>if this is true, then the advantage of D-He3 is not nearly so clear.

In a burning PMK the compression shell is fashioned from high tensile 
strength rugged matter, that is well out of the vacuum mag region.  
Consequently, the surface characterestics are not critical, so fusion
driven thermal radiation will not significantly effect its over-all 
performance.  

>>   Two more small points. First, let's just agree that FRC's are better
>>   than tokamaks. :)  (Actually, they are predicted to be MHD
>> .. .

>  It is also limited by wall loading, assuming DT. So even if your
>transport gets real good and you maneuver past the beta limits, you're
>still constrained to a minimum size by the fact that the first wall
>can only take something like 5 MW/m^2. This, combined with the need to
>shield the toroidal field magnets from the neutrons, makes it pretty
>easy to calculate the minimum volume of the blanket (and thus a
>minimum cost), and the answer is uncomfortably large!

In a PMK the blanket is at liquid densities, so it can handle the order
10 megawatts/cc radiation emitting from a burning PMK Kernel of limited
and selectable fuel capacity.  To reiterate, mag coils are not used to 
confine the plasma; only ordinary pressure wall backed mechanical fluid 
pressure (although considerable).   

>>   power, the divertor problem becomes 5 times harder since those
>>   friendly neutrons are no longer carrying away 80% of your power.

Friendly neutrons???  What planet do you come from.  What's friendly? ..
they tan your bone marrow or something?  What kind of silliness is this? 
What's the problem if the plasma is simply radiating all the energy by 
Bremsstrahlung?? ?

>  Right. Proponents of advanced fuels spout "direct conversion". But I
>remember that Lidsky bagged on DC just as hard as he bagged on MFE
>back when I was at MIT (I TA's his intro class and took his reactor
>design class the year he wrote his Tech. Review article, which was the
>last year he taught fusion courses). DC would require very big and
>complex converters, all under very tight vacuum. This does not look
>cheap.

In our case, the energy of each several milliseconds burn pulse of 
sixty hertz pulse rate machine goes into the blanket, and the fusion 
heated plasma blanket generates an inductive pulse on expansion cooling, 
which generates electric power by direct drive.  As far as I know 
Lidsky likes (thinks it makes reasonable engineering sense) this concept.  

Paul
>  Jim
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------/\---------------------------
>James A. Crotinger   Lawrence Livermore N'Lab  // \  The above views are mine
>crotinger@llnl.gov   P.O. Box 808;  L-630  \\ //---\  and are not necessarily
>(510) 422-0259       Livermore CA  94550    \\/Amiga\  those of LLNL.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.16 / Martin Sevior /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 12:22:44 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

Martin Sevior <msevior> wrote:
>
>The protons could come from the H2O contamination in
>the heavy water. It's bound to be at the 1% level since most D2O comes
>from the Canadian Heavy water program. They need it to moderate their
>beautiful CANDU reactors which burn natural Uranium. With light
>water concentrations at 1% of heavy the reactor can achieve criticality.
>

I looked up my notes and found that "reactor grade" heavy water is 99.8%
D2O not 99%. 

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: 13 Apr 95 14:42:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In "What's wrong with E-QUEST results?", Dick Blue notes that the E-Q
folks (Stringham and George) claimed 3He (very little) and 4He (substantial)
production.  Then Dick asks:

"Was the ratio of 3He to 4He actually measured for the atmosphere in the
room where the E-Quest results were confirmed?"

The answer:  No.  Indeed, the atmosphere in the room** was not sampled for
either 3He or 4He during the experiments.  I found this out by asking
Russ George the question, on Bill Page's e-mail net.  I pointed out to
Russ that without these measurements  of background gases *during* the
runs, E-Quest claims of 3He and 4He production are *not* compelling.

**The experiment in question was performed in Tom Claytor's lab at
Los Alamos National Laboratory.  The possibility of high concentrations
of 4He and even 3He (relative to normal atmospheric concentrations) in
that lab cannot be ruled out without direct measurements, which E-quest
failed to do.  Hopefully, in future experiments, such needed measurements
will be made.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.13 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1995Apr13.142229.2179@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1995Apr13.142229.2179@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 95 14:42:42 -0600

cancel <1995Apr13.142229.2179@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.16 /  Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 16 Apr 1995 23:01:56 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Stanley T.H. Chow (schow@bnr.ca) wrote:

> Without looking up anything and without calculating anything, I am willing to
> bet that it takes more than 11 orders of magnitude to span a single electron
> on one end and planetary orbit on the other.

> [SR is exceeding well verified, just not over its entire claim operating range].

Well the most (or second most) recent Swedish Gold Star went to the
observation and calculation of neutron star slowing due to gravitational
radiation.  That's predicted by GR which surely needs SR to even have a 
chance of working.

And then there are the orbital spacecraft; oh say like your pocket GPS
system which rely quite quantitatively upon details of SR and GR to get the
right answer.  Which they do.

It's impossible to imagine a conspiracy to suppress real experimental
evidence against SR: it would make a scientists career to actually
find a real hole.

> -- 
> Stanley Chow;  schow@bnr.ca, stanley.chow-ott@nt.com; (613) 763-2831
> Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
> Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.

mbk

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Apr 17 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
