1995.04.24 / Harry Conover /  Re: A question
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 24 Apr 1995 03:14:51 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Visor@globalcom.net wrote:

: Let us say for fun that the unit that did the conversion was very small and 
: used little power. Then no storage is needed, H is created as needed. All 
: one needs is a small amount of water. 

: I am not so interested the problems, more on the effect on the people, 
: goverments and petro companys.

: Any thoughts?

What you're saying is, in essence, suppose magic works.   Since the
real world doesn't work this way, we're speculating on science fiction
or fantasy.  In that field you get to make up your own rules.

I'd speculate that first, you would have no energy companys as such.
However, the tremedious resulting glut of energy would have profound
secondary ramifications (severe global warming, etc.) so that society
would be forced to put mandatory controls on energy availability and
carefully licence/control devices that could accomplish what you are
describing.  Waste energy disposal would become an international
priority, and if you believe energy creation is difficult, you 
should consider the problem of getting the resulting heat!

                                   Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
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: 24 Apr 1995 02:34:08 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

clw@ohsu.edu (Charles Waltemath) wrote:

>   Could someone please resurect Feynman to pronounce an end to this BS!!

Perhaps someone from alt.alien.visitors could help with that? ;-]

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.23 / Steven Enstad /  Society for Scientific Exploration WWW Page
     
Originally-From: chaos@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steven Paul Enstad)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranormal,al
.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.skeptic,s
i.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.fusion,comp.society.f
tures
Subject: Society for Scientific Exploration WWW Page
Date: 23 Apr 1995 21:27:18 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

Announcing the debut of the Society for Scientific Exploration's WWW page at:

http://psi_line.psy.uva.nl/sse/sse_home.html

This home page provides information on the Journal of Scientific exploration
(JSE), the official publication of the Society.  JSE publishes peer-reviewed
research articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the
matrix of present-day science.  Now in it's 8th year of publication, this
quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the presentation, 
scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the established scientific
disciplines.  JSE publishes both "pro" and "con", the only criteria being
quality and scholarship.

Examples of recent articles (all abstracts are on-line):

Survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning UFOs: Parts 1 - 3
	P. A. Sturrock, Stanford University
Anatomy of a Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later
	J. Vallee, San Francisco, CA
Healing and the Mind: Is There a Dark Side?
	L. Dossey, Panel, Mind Body Interventions/Office of Alternative Med.
Strong Magnetic Field Detected Following a Sighting of an UFO
	B. Maccabee, FUR
Experiments in Remote Human/Machine Interaction
	B. Dunne and R. Jahn, Princeton University
Mainstream Sciences vs. Parasciences
	G. Eberlein,  Technical University,  Munich
Review of Approaches to the Study of Spontaneous Psi Experiences
	Rhea White, Parapsychology Sources of Information Center
Ball Lightning Penetration into Closed Rooms: 43 Eyewitness Accounts
	A. I. Grigor'ev et al., Yaroslavl State Univ., Russia
A Guide to UFO Research
	M. Swords, Western Michigan University
A Systematic Survey of Near-Death Experiences in South India
	S. Pasricha, National Institute of Mental Health, Bangalore
Existence of Life and Homeostasis in an Atmospheric Environment
	S. Moriyama, Phys. Sci. Lab., Nihon University, Japan
A Gas Discharge Device for Investigating Focused Human Attention
	W. Tiller, Stanford University
Bayesian Analysis of Random Event Generator Data
	W. Jefferys, University of Texas
Analysis and Discussion of the May 18, 1992 UFO Sighting in Gulf Breeze
	B. Maccabee, FUR

Articles in press deal with topics ranging from cold fusion to an analysis
of metal particles found attached to plants in a crop circle (apparently
of meteroric origin!).  
for more information contact: 

JSE Editorial Office
ERL 306
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
FAX:  415-725-2333

-- 
This message printed on 100% recycled electrons.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchaos cudfnSteven cudlnEnstad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / David Belliveau /  What Will it Be Like?
     
Originally-From: fatspidr@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca (David Belliveau)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Will it Be Like?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 05:42:27 GMT
Organization: FatSpider

I've been excited about cold fusion ever since the Pons Fleischman story broke 
in '89.  I'm no physicist or professional scientist of any kind, but I guess 
you could call me an amateur extropian.  I do have a faith that scientific 
advancement will continue at its constantly increasing pace to improve the 
quality of life for everyone.

But, I do wonder about a few things.  What will happen when CF starts to be 
available commercially and cheaply at that?  I live in Canada, and the winters 
are quite cold up here.  If I could get a seemingly endless supply of energy 
at relatively non-existant prices,  what's to stop me from wiring my driveway 
to keep the snow off it?  Or the roof of my house? Or the roads I drive on?  
Heck, what if I could get a set-up that would keep a beachfront property warm 
and summerlike here on the New Brunswick coast in the middle of February?  And 
what's to stop countless others from doing the same?  

All of these people heating their surroundings without the limiting factor of 
cost.  Wouldn't this create the ability to change the global climate?  I 
realize that their will be a void to be filled as far as the global warming 
effect from burning fossil fuels, but that void probably wouldn't take too 
long to fill by people in colder climates taking advantage of this cheap power 
to improve their quality of life.  

I know we'll probably figure out how to handle any problems before things go 
too far, but once CF becomes commercially availble to the masses, a person 
probably wouldn't be wasting their time looking at the possible solutions to 
this possible problem.

David Belliveau
<fatspidr@nbnet.nb.ca>
K,1,1

Just thinking out loud.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenfatspidr cudfnDavid cudlnBelliveau cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Dieter Britz /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 07:42:13 GMT
Date: 20 Apr 1995 20:09:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) in
Fusion Digest 3611
Date: 20 Apr 1995 20:09:29 GMT
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization

 
>Russ Allbery (rra@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: Colin Douthwaite <Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>: >
>: >Sci.physics.fusion is not one of my newsgroups but I hope that the
>: >regular readers of the group vote NO to this renaming - it is
>: >unjustified and unnecessary.
 
 
>> The regular readers of the group should also be aware that Mr.
>> Douthwaite has an obsession with this particular subject, one
>> which he has never backed up with anything more substantial than
>> what you have just seen.
 
>That is your opinion, not fact.
 
[... etc]

All Colin apparently did was to question the proposal for changing the name
of this group by adding .misc to the end. I don't find this "hysterical"; in
fact, I am glad someone is actually discussing this thing. I made that
proposal, as part of a package whose main contents are the establishment of
a new, moderated group, sci.physics.fusion.research, so that we can get away
from nuts and snake oil. I put myself into the hands of the group advisors
and was advised on the accompanying change; this is said to be a trend, etc,
and to have the advantage that the new group doesn't appear to be a subgroup
of the other one. This seemed logical to me. I am aware that a lot of people
don't like the trend, and on news.groups.. groups there are constant flame
wars with words like "dictator" etc freely flung about. I don't care; when it
comes to the vote (which will come any month now, I think), it will be seen
how many people go for it, and how many don't. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / John A /  Mallove's new magazine
     
Originally-From: "John A. Rusi" <windski@eskimo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove's new magazine
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 07:20:42 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Any reader reviews? People chastise scientists for repeating P & F's old   
ideas with low yeild, so why publish in archaic paper? Why not an E-zine? 
The big four new devices, the Potapov, the E-Quest, The Paterson cell,   
and the Grigg's device somebody with a rep like MIT, Caltech, or Harwell   
want to come on into the ring and take a few pokes at these claims? This   
time explain your answers in excruciating detail, show your work for   
extra credit! Let's make that final grade breakdown 90% homework. 5%   
mid-term, and 5% final-exam so our students are motivated to learn by   
active participation! 
 
Also anyone currently using the Grigg's device in the feild please get in   
contact with me. I want user/customer feedback. I want to know about   
feasability for large public pool heating specifically.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenwindski cudfnJohn cudlnA cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / T Quadrophenic /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: Frank@frd760.sb.com (Triple Quadrophenic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 24 Apr 1995 08:36:11 GMT
Organization: DMPK

In article <wolk-0904952152010001@koh-mac75.usc.edu>, wolk@scf.usc.edu (Wendy Wolk) says:
>
>I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
>
>1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
>water) on the human body. In what doses
>2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.
>
>
>Thank you for your help
>   -wolk@scf.usc.edu

From the MSDS for Deuterium Oxide....

EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE
  PROLONGED CONTACT MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION.
  INGESTION MAY IMPAIR KIDNEY FUNCTION, CREATE NERVOUS SYSTEM DISTURBANCES,
  HORMONAL IMBALANCE, AND ANEMIA MAY OCCUR WHEN CONCENTRATION IN BODY FLUIDS
  REACHES 10%.  DEATH OCCURS WHEN CONCENTRATION IN BODY FLUIDS EXCEEDS 30%.


Frank J Hollis_________________________________________
Mass Spec.    |                                       |
SB Pharm      |      The Sinclair C5 of the           |
Welwyn        |     Information Superhighway          |
Herts. UK.    |_______________________________________|
01438 782551      All opinions my own (So I'm told)
    Frank@frd760@sb.com  or Frank_Hollis-1%notes@sb.com
or  Hollis_F%frgen.dnet@sb.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenFrank cudfnTriple cudlnQuadrophenic cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / I Johnston /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:29:35 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: seriously. Other readers might want to know what you are
: up to, though.
:  

Hm, yes. So you categorically state that you have no financial interest
in cold fusion? The 50,000 dollars you invested was solely in the public
interest? 


Ian

PS And Jed, before you go screaming to your lawyer, have another look at
what you have in the past posted about Frank Close, Steve Jones, Tom
Droege ...
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 /  Tommy /  What is happening to the Palladium?
     
Originally-From: amabisca@cybergate.com (Tommy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is happening to the Palladium?
Date: 24 Apr 1995 09:16:13 GMT
Organization: Cybergate Information Services


   Palladium electrodes and heavy water are producing VERY STRANGE
effects!!!.... need more testing ... 

	Anyone with information please
	EMAIL : amabisca@cybergate.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenamabisca cudlnTommy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Infinate [sic] Energy and the Huffman device
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.flame.spelling
Subject: Re: Infinate [sic] Energy and the Huffman device
Date: 24 Apr 1995 12:14:13 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <WAF2PCB706284806@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>There are a couple of negative points though on "Infinate Energy".  Although
>most articles were very readable, the publisher really needs to run a spell
>checker and get a good proof reader.

And he's not the only one, I think.

>This implys that the rotor actually was delivering energy to the motor.  

>an educated guess as to it's characteristics.  

>torque increases as they approach the syncronous speed [numerous further
misspellings of "synchronous" deleted for brevity].

>However I am not certain about speeds which are harmonics of the normal speed.

[N.B. Strunk & White would object both to the improper use of "however" at
the beginning of a sentence and the misuse of "which" for "that".]

>This thrust was sufficient to overposer the 1/3 horsepower motor 
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Dieter Britz /  PS to CFV
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PS to CFV
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 13:12:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Concerning the call for votes for the new group sci.physics.fusion.research:
I don't know how, but it seems that in my original proposal, I left out of
the list of groups it - and the CFV - is to be posted to, this very group.
Molto stupido, pazzo even, but that's what I did. So I have posted the CFV
file myself in a separate posting, without changing the text. This posting
is to explain why it is me posting the other one, rather than the neutral
vote taking party. Sorry about this mix-up.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Impact fusion
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Impact fusion
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 13:32:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On 19 Apr 1995, Ralf Guenther wrote:

> 
> Apart from the conventional (laser, light or heavy ion driven) inertial
> confinement fusion scenarios, there have been some experimental approaches
> using directed kinetic energy to initiate fusion reactions: "cluster
> fusion", which was later identified as an artefact, some russian
> experiments using low velocity projectiles (by "low velocity" I mean
> 200 m/s..), "dust" particles accelerated electrostatically to very large
> velocities (up to 80 km/s). 
> In contrast to the conventional icf targets consisting of pure hydrogen 
> (D or a D-T mixture) these approaches used deuterated targets, e.g. LiD,
> TiD, PdD, because fusion rates in solids might be enhanced by collective
> effects and/or screening of coulomb forces. None of these experiments
> produced reproducible fusion reactions significantly above experimental
> background. 
> There seems to be a combination of mass and velocity not used until now in
> this context, which can be quite easily realized (if a large light gas gun is
> at hand...): gram sized projectiles with velocities up to 10 km/s. Does
> anyone of you know if such experiments have been performed in the past, and
> what do you think they should yield? 
> Thanks in advance!
> 													   
Well, I found an old envelope with a clean back and did some doodling. The
kinetic energy of a chunk of, say, metal of mass m flying with velocity v
(m/s) is 0.5mv^2 total Joules. Convert that to J/mol by dividing by the no.
of moles in the chunk, m/M, where M is the atomic weight of the metal, then
divide by N, the Avogadro (for Germans, Loschmidt) number, and finally multiply
by 6.24*10^18 to convert to eV/atom, you get the formula
E = 0.5 * 10^-5 * M * v^2  eV/atom

OK, now plug in 10 km/s = 10^4 m/s, and let's assume an iron projectile (M=56)
and we get about 30 keV/atom, quite respectable. You expect to be able to see
some fusion at 1 keV or more, so this might do it, if shot at a deuterated
target such as LiD, used by the Russians. How about the Russians, with their
pellets flying "slowly" at 200 m/s? I get about 12 eV/atom, not enough, unless
you invoke some hitherto unknown bla bla.

You could of course argue (as some have, in efforts to account for cluster
impact fusion, now defunct and disproved as an artifact), that the energy
is not divided equally between all the atoms but given to a small fraction,
say near the impact end of the pellet. That would multiply the impact energy
imparted to the LiD by some factor. It seems that you could get fusion by
this, mechanical, means. We are talking about conventional, hot, fusion,
where you expect all the usual signatures like neutrons, protons (50:50)
etc plus secondary x-rays etc.

No doubt the acceleration of the pellets or dust particles requires more
energy than you would get out, which is why this is not being done, I
guess.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 08:36:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
     "Is the Patterson Power Cell anomalous heat nothing more than chemistry?
     Recall that there is a reservoir of lithium sulfate/water solution.
     Furthermore, the cell contains Ni and Pd among other materials."
 
The cell has been run for weeks at high power. The net energy output from it
exceeds the limits of chemistry even when you add in the mass of the
electrolyte (which is not large). Furthermore, no chemical change in the
electrolyte commensurate with the heat has been found. Patterson has been
working on this for many years, he has had plenty of time to check for things
like that.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fus
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fus
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 08:39:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
     "Wing lift is a result of the Bernoulli principle. . . . These
     principles were published in 1738 by Bernoulli in  his Hydrodynamica. I
     find it difficult to believe the Wright brothers were not aware of
     physics published more than 50 years prior to there first flight."
 
The connection between Bernoulli's theories and wing lift was not established
until the 1920s. I have described this in detail here before. Rather than
repeating myself, let me suggest that you read some of the standard references
on early aviation. I recommend the books by Tom Crouch, who is the curator at
the National Air and Space Museum.
 
 
     "An effective demonstration of what? Excess energy? Fusion? ZPE?"
 
Excess energy. Whether it is fusion, ZPE or something else is immaterial.
 
 
     "This is the problem. Without a theory, i.e. a basic understanding of
     how it works, the probability of scaling the device to commercial power
     production seems extremely remote."
 
That is incorrect. Devices have already been scaled up and they are being sold
profitably. Events have already proved that your statement is wrong.
 
You are also ignoring the fact that CF is the focus of intense research by
many of the world's best R&D organizations, therefore it is likely that the
mechanism will be discovered soon. Great progress towards that end has already
been made, there is no reason to think the job will not be finished.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Dallas Kennedy /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kennedy@quark.phys.ufl.edu (Dallas Kennedy)
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: 24 Apr 1995 13:52:22 GMT
Organization: National Center for Supercomputing Applications

No, special relativity has nothing to do with the expansion of space -- that's
general relativity.  And, yes, apparent FTL can occur in GR as well, although
for other reasons.
    
Dallas
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenkennedy cudfnDallas cudlnKennedy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Warren Lavallee /  CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
     
Originally-From: warren@syra.net (Warren Lavallee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization
Date: 24 Apr 1995 11:50:22 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

                          FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
                 moderated group sci.physics.fusion.research
   unmoderated group sci.physics.fusion.misc (replaces sci.physics.fusion)

Newsgroups line:
sci.physics.fusion.research     Nuclear fusion (hot & cold). (Moderated)
sci.physics.fusion.misc	Nuclear (cold) fusion.

Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 10 May 1995.

This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only contact Warren Lavallee <warren@Syra.NET>.  For
questions about the proposed group contact Dieter Britz
<britz@kemi.aau.dk>.

DISTRIBUTION
This CFV has been cross posted to:
        sci.chem
        sci.chem.electrochem
        sci.energy
        sci.energy.hydrogen
        sci.physics
        sci.skeptic
        sci.philosophy.tech

CHARTER

The scholarly discussion of fusion, including hot and cold, both of
ongoing actual research and results as well as discussion of fusion;
reports of advances in fusion science/technology and national policies on
fusion.

It is simultaneously proposed that the existing group's name be changed
to sci.physics.fusion.misc. The main argument for this is along the
lines that this is a trend, removing some administrative problems in the
setting up of the new group; it would also prevent the presentation of
the proposed new group as a subgroup of the old one. This proposal would
be voted independently of the main one. Since this is a name change
only, the charter of this 'new' group would be that of the existing one,
sci.physics.fusion.

MODERATION

Scott Hazen Mueller (zorch@uunet.uu.net) has agreed to moderate the
proposed group, to some extent automatically; i.e. there will be a
positive list of posters whose postings will be accepted automatically.
The list will initially be open to all, but may be modified according
to posting behaviour; i.e. whether the postings are indeed scholarly
and express a scientific interest etc as outlined in the charter above.
Elementary enquiries and FAQ's will be passed on to the existing
unmoderated group, sci.physics.fusion. Scott Hazen Mueller at present
collects, mails and archives the Fusion Digest, containing all postings
to sci.physics.fusion and is well respected and generally recognised as
a neutral party.

RATIONALE

Motivation for the proposed new group is that in the existing group,
sci.physics.fusion, there is a large volume of postings that are not
about fusion. There are many cross postings about unrelated issues,
there is propaganda for what amounts to perpetual motion machines under
the catch cry of 'cold fusion' and plain crank postings. Moderation
would reduce this to a smaller number of postings that those of us
interested in the science of fusion would be interested in reading,
instead of spending time skipping past most messages.

In order to escape the unrelated postings, a private mailing list has
been started recently, specifically to discuss a forthcoming cold fusion
symposium and issues likely to be raised there. That mailing list has
attracted the sort of argument one would like to see in the proposed
group and it is our belief that this shows that there is a sufficient
body of people interested in such discussions, given an appropriate
group to post to.


HOW TO VOTE

Erase everything above the top "-=-=-=-" line and erase everything
below the bottom "-=-=-=-" line. Do not erase anything between these
lines and do not change the group name. Basically, remove everything
except the ballot - we have to save them all on disk.

Give your name on the line that asks for it. Place a YES or NO in the
brackets next to the group name to vote for or against it. Don't
worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.

Send MAIL to: voting@Syra.NET Just Replying should work if you are not
reading this on a mailing list.

-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
sci.physics.fusion reorg Ballot    <SPF-0001> (Don't remove this marker)

Give your real name here:
If you do not give a real name your vote may be rejected.

[Your Vote]  Group
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
[         ]  sci.physics.fusion.research
[         ]  sci.physics.fusion.misc (replaces sci.physics.fusion)
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Neither ABSTAIN nor CANCEL messages are counted as votes; they serve
only to cancel any previous vote. Abstentions are noted in the final
vote list, whereas CANCEL removes your vote from that list entirely.
(This is the only difference between the two.)

Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.  The
votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.

If you later change your mind you may vote again; only your last valid
vote will count.

Standard Guidelines for voting apply: no more than one vote per person,
no more than one vote per account. If you attempt multiple votes or
other vote fraud, all your votes may be canceled and your name published.

The complete vote list will be posted with the vote result, including
how each person voted. Note that Usenet votes are not done by secret
ballot.

There will then be a five-day period during which the published vote
list may be corrected and any irregularities addressed. The
requirements for group creation are 100 more YES votes than NO votes,
and 2/3 of all counted votes being YES.

-- 
Warren Lavallee                    Owner           Consultix Computer Services
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenwarren cudfnWarren cudlnLavallee cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fus
     
Originally-From: wjrowe@ccgate.hac.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fus
Date: 24 Apr 1995 16:51:38 GMT
Organization: T4-32-00

In article <pa59pRc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:

[snip]

>  
>      "An effective demonstration of what? Excess energy? Fusion? ZPE?"
>  
> Excess energy. Whether it is fusion, ZPE or something else is immaterial.
>  
>  
>      "This is the problem. Without a theory, i.e. a basic understanding of
>      how it works, the probability of scaling the device to commercial power
>      production seems extremely remote."
>  
> That is incorrect. Devices have already been scaled up and they are being sold
> profitably. Events have already proved that your statement is wrong.

Exactly what devices are you referring to? The Griggs device? From what
has been presented here, it doesn't seem that the Griggs device has
anything to do with fusion. In fact, it is not even conclusive that the
Griggs device could be used as a source of power.

Lacking a basic theory of how CF works implies scaling it to commercial
power production must be done experimentally. Trying to scale something
via experiment is an extremely inefficient process assuming it can be done
without theory at all.

To repeat: no theory/basic understanding means it is unlikely I'll be
posting via a computer powered by a CF source.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenwjrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
Date: 24 Apr 1995 16:48:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
: > Is the Patterson Power Cell anomalous heat nothing more than chemistry?
:  
: The cell has been run for weeks at high power. The net energy output from it
: exceeds the limits of chemistry even when you add in the mass of the
: electrolyte (which is not large). Furthermore, no chemical change in the
: electrolyte commensurate with the heat has been found. Patterson has been
: working on this for many years, he has had plenty of time to check for things
: like that.

That's what I need to know -- I hadn't seen any run times specified or
any total energy claims, just power-in/power-out computations.  Of course,
I'd still like to see the actual numbers. :-)

With 10W+ anomalous heat out, one is producing 36kJ+ per hour and 864kJ+
per day.  It wouldn't take a long time to exceed possible chemistry at this
rate, but ... I gotta see the real numbers.

--
 - 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:
cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Patterson Power Cell chemistry?
Date: 24 Apr 1995 17:10:32 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Patterson has been working on this for many years

I've tried to reconstruct a timeline on this.

From the date of one of his patent applications, he was working on it
before mid 1993.  I also found his name in the list of attendees at ICCF-4.
Just about that time (ICCF4) his patent #5,372,668 was officially issued.

In a wais search of the s.p.f. archive, the first mention of Patterson
was in September of 1994 when you (Jed) suggested people take a look at
Patterson's patent.

We got some additional details leading up to the Jan '95 MIT Cold Fusion
Day.  And after that articles in "Cold Fusion" and Infinite Energy, and
now reports out of ICCF5.

So somewhere prior to mid 1993, Patterson had already perfected his
Patterson Power Cell -- what led him to do this in the first place?
I know he has decades of research into his micro-spheres for other
chemical processes, but why and when did he decide to pursue CF
applications? 

--
 - 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:
cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 /  jonesse@plasma /  First comments on ICCF-5, from Bill Page
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: First comments on ICCF-5, from Bill Page
Date: 24 Apr 95 10:46:20 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

{Originally posted 4/19/95; reposted 4/24 since we have had News service
problems and this may not have gotten out...]

I would like to pass along some observations from Bill Page, who
attended the ICCF-5 CF conference in Monaco last week.  These notes were
sent out via e-mail to me and several others, and I think these will
be of interest to many of you.  Hope Bill will post here further reflections!
I will quote a few items that struck me, and keep this brief:

"Notably absent from the main conference proceedings was Stanley Pons.
It was explained that Pons was suffering from a serious flu. ...
Martin Fleischmann, however, was very much in evidence during the four
days of the conference...  Unfortunately, all that he said can be summed
up basically as   'no news is good news'.  He did  not  discuss  any
new results..."

"The theory papers were in general rather poor.  No significantly new theories
were presented and there was too much 'weird science', in my opinion.
It makes me wonder why Pons and Fleischmann are so willing to surround 
themselves by 'far-out' theorists.  The opening talk was given by Dr.
Julian Preparata, who seems to think of himself as a sort of 'new-age'
physics guru, whose message is being either ignored or suppressed by the
conventional physics community.  ...

"This year, J.P. Vigier did not present any further developments of this 'tight
Bohr orbits' theory, nor was anyone talking about the Mills shrunked hydrogen
theory, but there were, however, some intriguing reports of strange results on
Nickel cathodes (Srinivasin, DuFour) which relate directly to this line of
thinking.

"There were 31 other theory papers presented as posters, of which mine was one.
... I am not at all sure that I liked the company of so many 'weird science'
theorists.  Of course, I don't view my paper as being in this category, but
perhaps other people did.  This seems unfortunate to me."

"In short, the lack of a credible theory contiues to show 'CF' in a negative
light..."

"An apparently 300%... excess heat demonstration was operated by Dennis Cravens
and Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI). ... 
The demonstration cell used  light  water ... and a cathode consisting of thin
Nickel / Palladium / Nickel / Copper layers on several thousand small plastic
polymer beads."

"During what was suposed to be a summary talk entitled 'Charting the Way
Forward'  Tom Passell of EPRI presented Kevin Wolf's 'un-published' anomalous
characteristic gamma-ray spectrum - apparently without the author's approval as
revealed by a question from Douglas Morrison.  Tom Passell's position wat that
discussing these results at the conference did not constitute 'publication' --
certainly a fine point.  ...
there apparently has been no replication of Kevin Wolf's result and all that
remains is a still somewhat radioactive Palladium cathode and a mystery."

Thanks, Bill, for the advance information!
--Steve Jones

 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1995Apr19.151046.2187@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1995Apr19.151046.2187@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 95 10:47:06 -0600

cancel <1995Apr19.151046.2187@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 /  jonesse@plasma /  Followup on C&EN report on CF; E-quest claims challenged
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Followup on C&EN report on CF; E-quest claims challenged
Date: 24 Apr 95 11:06:16 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Chem. & Eng. News of April 10, 1995, provides an update on the CF poster
session at the Anaheim meeting of the ACS.  Recall that this business was
discussed here a few weeks ago.

"THe cold fusion poster session at the American Chemical Society national
meeting in Anaheim was decimated when a majority of the researchers, who months
ago had eagerly signed up to give presentations on their work, didn't show up
in Anaheim."

"Fourteen researchers had thought they would be giving talks at an oral
session, but their submitted abstracts were assigned instead to the SciMix
poster session... Three presenters officially withdrew their papers weeks ago,
and an additional six  were  no-shows  at Anaheim."

"One of the missing presenters was cold fusion pioneer Martin Fleischmann..."

Russ George of E-quest Sciences is referred to prominently in the article:
"George tells C&EN that the 'super-dense plasma' formed during sonication
blasts the metal target with deuterium atoms, forcing them into the lattice and
triggering unspecified nuclear reactions."

"The helium levels are 10 to 1,000 times greater than that found in the
atmosphere, they claim. ... "We can completely rule out contamination as the
source of the helium we're measuring," George says."

How?  They don't say.  But let me remind the cautious reader that, as I have
pointed out here and to Russ George previously, comparing the helium level
with that found in the *atmosphere* is irrelevant and misleading.
The relevant comparison is with the helium level in the *laboratory*, which
may very likely be much higher than that of the atmosphere.  As I have reported
before, I have visited Tom Claytor's lab where these measurements were taken
(we were told), and I have seen a bottle of helium gas in that laboratory!
Tom says he uses helium.  

So what is all this talk of helium level in the E-quest experiments being
much greater than the *atmospheric* concentration?  Rather, one must ask:
what was the helium concentration in the lab *during the experiments*?

I asked this of Russ George (not at Ph.D. scientist, incidentally), and he
replied that the helium concentration in the lab during the experiments
was *not* measured.  I gather that they have not measured the helium levels in
the lab *at all*. 

I claim therefore that George and Stringham of E-quest 
cannot rule out helium contamination.  Until they measure helium levels in
the *laboratory* during their experiments, their results will remain 
inconclusive and questionable.  Potential investors in their company ought to
be made aware of these facts.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Ralf Guenther /  Re: Impact fusion
     
Originally-From: yuigu01@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Ralf Guenther)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Impact fusion
Date: 24 Apr 1995 20:30:37 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: On 19 Apr 1995, Ralf Guenther wrote:

: > 
: > Apart from the conventional (laser, light or heavy ion driven) inertial
: > confinement fusion scenarios, there have been some experimental approaches
: > using directed kinetic energy to initiate fusion reactions: "cluster
: > fusion", which was later identified as an artefact, some russian
: > experiments using low velocity projectiles (by "low velocity" I mean
: > 200 m/s..), "dust" particles accelerated electrostatically to very large
: > velocities (up to 80 km/s). 
: > In contrast to the conventional icf targets consisting of pure hydrogen 
: > (D or a D-T mixture) these approaches used deuterated targets, e.g. LiD,
: > TiD, PdD, because fusion rates in solids might be enhanced by collective
: > effects and/or screening of coulomb forces. None of these experiments
: > produced reproducible fusion reactions significantly above experimental
: > background. 
: > There seems to be a combination of mass and velocity not used until now in
: > this context, which can be quite easily realized (if a large light gas gun is
: > at hand...): gram sized projectiles with velocities up to 10 km/s. Does
: > anyone of you know if such experiments have been performed in the past, and
: > what do you think they should yield? 
: > Thanks in advance!
: > 													   
: Well, I found an old envelope with a clean back and did some doodling. The
: kinetic energy of a chunk of, say, metal of mass m flying with velocity v
: (m/s) is 0.5mv^2 total Joules. Convert that to J/mol by dividing by the no.
: of moles in the chunk, m/M, where M is the atomic weight of the metal, then
: divide by N, the Avogadro (for Germans, Loschmidt) number, and finally multiply
: by 6.24*10^18 to convert to eV/atom, you get the formula
: E = 0.5 * 10^-5 * M * v^2  eV/atom

: OK, now plug in 10 km/s = 10^4 m/s, and let's assume an iron projectile (M=56)
: and we get about 30 keV/atom, quite respectable. You expect to be able to see
: some fusion at 1 keV or more, so this might do it, if shot at a deuterated
: target such as LiD, used by the Russians. How about the Russians, with their
: pellets flying "slowly" at 200 m/s? I get about 12 eV/atom, not enough, unless
: you invoke some hitherto unknown bla bla.

: You could of course argue (as some have, in efforts to account for cluster
: impact fusion, now defunct and disproved as an artifact), that the energy
: is not divided equally between all the atoms but given to a small fraction,
: say near the impact end of the pellet. That would multiply the impact energy
: imparted to the LiD by some factor. It seems that you could get fusion by
: this, mechanical, means. We are talking about conventional, hot, fusion,
: where you expect all the usual signatures like neutrons, protons (50:50)
: etc plus secondary x-rays etc.

: No doubt the acceleration of the pellets or dust particles requires more
: energy than you would get out, which is why this is not being done, I
: guess.



Dieter Britz pointed out, that from a simple back of the envelope 
calculation one should expect neutron emissions from such hypervelocity 
impacts. I may add that neutron emissions have been measured 
experimentally in the early seventies in experiments on explosive driven 
fusion (Derentowicz and Kaliski). 

I don't think Dieter's reasoning why such experiments have not been performed
is correct. These fusion reactions in a deuterated solid are 
interesting in their own, because there has been a lot of discussions on 
anomalous fusion rates in deuterated solids, which might be tested by such 
experiments. One should also not forget that many attempts to explain "cold 
fusion" experiments use a local "hot fusion" picture.
Imagine that using different impact velocities and measuring the respective
neutron flux a lot could be learned on fusion reactions <and> shock waves 
in solids. 
These should be reproducible fusion experiments in a nontrivial context -
I think we had enough of the non-reproducible ones?!
Ralf 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenyuigu01 cudfnRalf cudlnGuenther cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Paul Poydence /  Uranium / Fission question
     
Originally-From: poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu (Paul A. Poydence)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Uranium / Fission question
Date: 24 Apr 1995 17:49:19 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	

I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions,
and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material.
What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so.  Please
help.  If you have the answer or suggestions about where I may find it,
please respond via e-mail.  Thanks.

 --------------------------------------
Paul A. Poydence
poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu
University of Nebraska--Lincoln
College of Law
 --------------------------------------
--
   Paul A. Poydence           paulp@unllib.unl.edu             Homo-Sapien
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
   Wherever a man goes, men will pursue him and paw him with their dirty
   institutions and, if they can, constrain him to belong to their 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpoydence cudfnPaul cudlnPoydence cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr 25 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
