1995.04.26 /  ProFusion /  ICCF-5--Three Views
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5--Three Views
Date: 26 Apr 1995 00:54:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Here are observations and comments from three different attendants at
ICCF-5. These and perhaps others will be in "Cold Fusion" #10, but I
thought that Scott Little's query should be answered quickly. Apparently
(according to Jed Rothwell's excellent account), nothing worse than
tripping circuit breakers happened, and Monaco is still a congenial place
for oil-rich princes to blow away excess money.
   I believe that there is little replication between these accounts and
Jed's and Bill Page's, except concerning the Patterson Power Cell, which
was the big star of the show.
   It seems more convenient to the reader to post these separately.

   Dr. Wayne Green is publisher-editor of "Cold Fusion," situated in
Peterborough in the beautiful hills of southwestern New Hampshire.

   Professor Hideo Kozima is with the Department of Physics at Shizuoka
University, Japan, and one of our advisors. He is the author, with S.
Watanabe, of the poster session paper "Nuclear Processes in Trapped
Neutron Catalyzed Fusion Model for Cold Fusion" for Theory and Modelling
at ICCF-5

   Dr. Olof Sunden is an associate at CERN, and likewise an advisor for
"Cold Fusion." He contributed "Centripetal de Broglie Wave Fields
Connected to Particles at Rest can Explain Cold Fusion and the Particle
Wave Duality," likewise to the poster session for Theory and Modelling at
the Conference.

   ---Victor Lapuszynski   <ProFusion@aol.com>
     "Cold Fusion"
      70 Route 202N
      Peterborough, NH 03458-1107

      (603) 924-0058 x 327
 fax: (603) 588-3205

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.25 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review of new cold fusion magazine
Date: 25 Apr 1995 05:25:46 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

> And the researcher who is creating new bacteria from energy bursts
> may be onto something bigger than CF---direct conversion of
> electricity into living matter! :-)

This reminds me of some interesting speculation about
the possibility of converting electricity into food,
for use on a very long duration interstellar flight.

The idea hinged upon the possibility of genetically
engineering a bacteria that could metabolize hydrogen
gas.  Water would be electrolysed, and the H2 fed into
the bacteria growth chamber, along with air from the
ship containing, among other things, CO2.  The O2 is
fed back into the air for breathing.  Some bacteria
is periodically removed and placed in a centrifuge to
kill it, and separate out the indigestible nucleic 
acids.  The rest is then eaten.

Yummy.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Scott Little /  A modest proposal to CETI, E-quest, et al
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A modest proposal to CETI, E-quest, et al
Date: 26 Apr 1995 05:48:47 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.

In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
scientists.

I am an experimental physicist with considerable experience in calorimetry.
I have built a number of calorimeters of widely varying design ranging in
scale from milliwatts to kilowatts.  I presently have running a computer-based
differential calorimeter which is quite suitable for cold fusion work.  It is
an integrating calorimeter which is necessary for measuring experiments that
are not particularly stable. The experiment chamber is readily adjustable to
accomodate different sized devices.

In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
one that does produce excess heat).

If you will make the cell available at my lab for a reasonable period, I
will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide a
publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings attached.

Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.

Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.24 / Thomas Wilson /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: thomasj@unlv.edu (Thomas J. Wilson)
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 18:39:20 GMT
Organization: UNLV Dept. of Computer Engineering

In article <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
>
>
>physicists refuse to acknowledge it.  The numerous high quality results such
>as time dilation and the limit of speed c for particle acceleration in the
>earth lab can all be explained by Feynman's dynamic ether.  I challenge Sean
>to prove that my quotes by physics luminaries are "out-of-context" as he
>claims.  					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.....oooooookay...
Feynman's "dynamic ether"?  I don't have his lecture series with me,
but this is about as out-of-context as I can imagine.  From what I've
read of Feynman (almost half the lecture series, most other books),
Feynman did not subscribe to any sort of ether theory.  Oh, god, no no
no no no.  Where did you get that from?  Not QED.  Maybe as a passing
joke in one of his freshman lectures... maybe.  Give me a reference
for this ether thing, and I'll show you how out-of-context it is.


>There is little question that Feynman was a nonconformist.  On page 10 of
>James Gleick's new book "GENIUS, THE LIFE AND SCIENCE OF RICHARD FEYNMAN"

Not a book I'd quote for a scientific assertion, but a good biography.

>Gleick writes:
>
>  ..."Dick could get away with a lot because he was so goddamn smart," a
>  theorist said. ...

He was talking about picking up girls in Vegas and being a smart-ass
at the Nobel Prize ceremony.  (clue: check your context)

>
>  ...But the analogy is unfortunately all too perfect; the infinite answers
>  are all too prevalent and confusing."  So he disposed of the field--at least
>  the old idea of the field as a free medium for carrying waves.  The field is
>  a "derived concept," he wrote.  "The field in actuality is entirely
>  determined by the particles."...

The field concept he debunks here WAS the ether-stuff you claim he
supported.  He made it very clear in QED about the wave nature of
particles, including photons, and how they travel... he never
advocated an ether model.  He was talking about the travelling photons
mimicking a field effect.

Again, you're out of context.  And [flame mode] not a very good
writer.  I don't think I could sit through 55KB of that.

The rest is just Feynman quotes (why not just refer us to Chapter 1 of
QED, instead of typing it all out for us?).  Nothing new, just an
interpretation [void of reasoning] which wants us desperately to accept
your claims.  Have I found enough flaws and misinterpretations?  Do I
win, or will you continue to insist, publicly and redundantly, that
there is an absolute ref frame?  God's frame?  Einstein believed in
God, so at least he had an excuse for the statements you quote.

Forgive me if I quote you out of context, but I haven't a clue what
your context is.

Thomas J. Wilson        |  / `-' (      ,,,  \|/ thomasj@allison.cs.unlv.edu
2013 Jeanne Dr.         |  | I I ||||||[:::] -*- '71 Humbucking Stratatomster
Las Vegas, NV 89108 USA |  \_.-._(      '''  /|\ "Say, is that freedom rock?"

-- 
Thomas J. Wilson        |  / `-' (      ,,,  \|/ thomasj@allison.cs.unlv.edu
2013 Jeanne Dr.         |  | I I ||||||[:::] -*- '71 Humbucking Stratatomster
Las Vegas, NV 89108 USA |  \_.-._(      '''  /|\ "Say, is that freedom rock?"
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenthomasj cudfnThomas cudlnWilson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 06:04:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Apr22183137@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <3mvkag$pdn@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:

>> Dr. Paul Koloc was nice enough to send me copies of three of his published
>> papers on the hot fusion PLASMAK theory a couple of days ago.  However, due
>> to publisher copyright concerns I can't e-duplicate them, so instead, I have
>> interpreted them (using my layman's eye) into a little tutorial.  The tutorial
>> is available via the world wide web at the url in the signature lines below
>> and is expanded from my previous version.

>A worthy goal to make available on the net the answers to basic
>questions that were difficult or impossible to coax from Mr. Koloc
>himself. Whether a concept is good or bad, science and society are
>best served by information which is easily available. 

I don't agree.  Not always, neither for me here or for P&F earlier.  It's
always better to have the time to tie up loose ends before we put stuff
out.  My problem is that such a topic is not fundable, so without support,
I'm forced to search for applications which have commercial value and
sell them to others that agree and are willing to put in the bucks.  That's
not so good for "science" although it is wonderful for society, simply
because although the sci doesn't come until AFTER the commercial products. 
BUT, the commercial products are rippingly better than those which come from 
bureaucracies ... say DoE .. .at least so far.  So you see Art, you
are paid to teach; if I'm paid, it's to develop, and specifically NOT to 
teach.  So remember that..  anything I drip out through the cracks has 
taken a bit of boldness and strength.  

>In this spirit,
>are you interested in adding my critique of the plasmak, or is your
>www entry only intended for plasmak TB's?

Of course we are interested,  ... I am, that is,  John??  
But you have the papers I sent, or didn't you receive them?? 
I sent them your way a week or so ago.  Maybe you can make a few 
of your comments here on the net???  I would be happy to respond; it 
might catch some misunderstandings.  Of course, it's always fun to 
have those with a difference of opinion.  But it's so nice to be able 
to face your ntb's in the open.    Are you an ntb of ball lightning, 
or just an ntb of the PLASMAK(tm) configuration in atmospheric gases.   

your address:  

Dr. Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Boltzmannstrasse 2
Garching bei Munchen
W8046 
Germany 40

Ah! there was a glitch in the printout... so maybe Bruce could run a
copies for you.   Let me know if the nixies piped it through.   

>> Comments on clarity and correctness requested.  Thanks.  All tutorial
>> errors are mine and not Dr. Koloc's, since I haven't had him review it.

>I don't know. I think Mr. Koloc has made a few errors, too.

Havent' we all; but Art, check over your copies of the papers and let's 
hear from you; let's have it.  Shoot the beans.  We are waiting with .. . 
well I'm pleased you would consider an alternative advanced concept from 
the wings of the distribution -- warts and all.  Sorry we are the opposite
side of the academic/commerce partition.  

>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Ralf Guenther /  Re: Impact fusion
     
Originally-From: yuigu01@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Ralf Guenther)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Impact fusion
Date: 26 Apr 1995 08:13:33 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen


On 25 April Dieter Britz remarked that at 10 km/s the kinetic energy of an 
iron atom is about 30 eV and concluded that, because for fusion reactions 
you need about 1 keV, this would not be enough. 

First of all the critical energy of about 1 keV for fusion reactions 
found in textbooks, is derived for a plasma at equiilibrium conditions. 
The main contribution for the fusion rate in this case comes from the Maxwell
tail of the Boltzmann distribution, i.e. from much higher energies. I think 
one has to be very careful to apply this picture to the impact fusion problem.  

Second, as I already mentioned in my last post, there have been demonstrations
by the group of Kaliski and Derentowics that around 10^7 Fusion reactions take
place in system driven by shock waves generated by high explosives, and 
recently a chinese group repeated these experiments with success.

This brings me to the third point: Dieters estimate is much too simple in
totally neglecting the effects of reflected and converging shocks, which
can lead to extreme pressures and temperatures. (As Wu & Roberts have 
shown, this might be the mechanism behind Single Bubble Stable 
Sonoluminescence).

Fourth, there has been a lot of work done on impact fusion in the 60's and 
70's (Winterberg seems to be the first one coming up with the idea that at 
some hundred km/s a gram sized particle could very well initiate fusion 
reactions in a D-T target, as an alternative to laser and ion fusion - 
unfortunately nobody knows how to accelerate macroparticles to this 
velocity...).

Finally anomalous fusion rates in solids can be reasonably expected (see for 
example Ishimarus Reviev in Rev. Mod. Phys. I think in April 1993) and until
now no reproducible experiments have been done to test these calculations.
Combining the conventional impact fusion sheme of Winterberg with these
effects could be interesting, and even if this might not lead to power
production one could lern a lot both about fusions reactions and shock waves
in solids.

Ralf Guenther

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenyuigu01 cudfnRalf cudlnGuenther cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 21:30:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I made a tongue-in-cheek remark to John Logajan suggesting that he does not
need any more data from CETI, because a two week uninterrupted run proves the
point just as much as two years would. These results are so far beyond
chemistry that no rational scientist will doubt that *if the results are real*
they constitute iron clad proof that CF is not a chemical reaction. On the
other hand no sensible person would accept that the results are real just
because Jed Rothwell talked about them on Internet. A sensible person demands
proof in the form of papers, patents, photos and other original source
material from Cravens and CETI. I never believe any result from any scientist
until I have seen copious convincing original source material.
 
I did have a serious point here though. I assert that in some fields of
science, a sufficiently large effect from a properly designed experiment may
not require statistical analysis, or even replication, or even instruments in
some cases. That is a bedrock principle of science, which many people here
fail to understand this. For example, Tom Droege posted this comment, also
tongue-in-cheek:
 
     "John, why in the world would you want to see real numbers?  Or how the
     experiment is set up, or error limits, or ...   Jed says it is beyond
     chemistry.  That is all you need to know."
 
And in a more serious frame of mind, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
writes:
 
     "Jed, I think this is the reason that there is so much dissension on
     this conference. IF you cannot understand why the numerical evidence of
     the experiment is important you cannot grasp scientific method. If you
     cannot do that how could you possibly be any judge of what is real and
     what isn't? . . . BTW, this is a statement not a flame."
 
Kunich has hit the nail on the head. That is a terribly important issue,
central to the whole debate. Kunich Droege and other think that I naive, and I
think they have forgotten some basic principles of experimental science.
Numerical analysis, error bars and other tools that enhance accuracy are *not
necessarily* important. It depends upon the experiment. In the case of the
Cravens work, these things are not important at all.
 
BTW, this statement is not a flame either.
 
I will illustrate exactly what I mean, with examples, in detail.
 
It is sometimes possible to prove a fact with one experiment. You do not
necessarily have to resort to numerical analysis. You may not even need to
repeat the experiment. I do not assert that this is always possible, in every
branch of science. Nobody will believe the top quark findings without
replication. This quark business depends upon statistics and subtle
interactions with, and knowledge of, the experimental apparatus. Droege
specializes in that type of science, so it is not surprising that he thinks
all science works this way. He is forgetting the many counter-examples from
different branches of science and technology. Let us look at a few famous
examples:
 
On July 4, 1897 Charles Parson audaciously interrupted the Grand Review of
Britain's Royal Navy fleet. He drove his boat the Turbinia at 34 knots/hr (40
mph) under the noses of the admirals and naval experts who had been saying for
years that his turbine engine did not work. The Lords of the Admiralty said
that the speeds Parsons claimed were impossible and that a turbine powered
vessel would be "uncontrollable." Yet the Turbinia easily out-maneuvered and
outran the fastest boats in the Royal navy, which took off in frantic pursuit.
This test proved once and for all that Parsons was right and everyone else was
wrong.
 
In 1901, Marconi transmitted long wave radio signals across the Atlantic
Ocean. To accomplish this, he built two gigantic buildings full of
extraordinary, elaborate, high tech equipment worth millions of dollars in
today's money. Before he performed this experiment, scientists believed that
radio waves could never go around the curve of the earth. It did not occur to
them that there might be a mechanism (the ionosphere) whereby radio waves are
reflected back down and around the earth. Based on their experience in
ship-to-ship radio transmissions, Marconi and his people had a feeling that
trans-oceanic radio might work, even though they did not understand the
mechanism. One successful transmission from Europe to Canada proved that
Marconi was right, and the scientists were wrong. *One message* is all it
took! It was not possible for anyone to replicate this experiment at the time,
it took years to set up the elaborate facilities. I doubt that the scientists
believed Marconi when he first announced the successful transmission. But they
must have been convinced after a few weeks of commercial operation, during
which the Marconi Company transmitted thousands of messages in competition
with the undersea cables.
 
(Incidentally, as you would expect, the scientific establishment hysterically
attacked and vilified Marconi during the years he prepared for the
experiment.)
 
On December 17, 1903, the heavier-than-air flight at Kitty Hawk proved once
and for all that controlled flight is possible. Nobody replicated that work
for five years, not even after the patent was issued in 1906. For many years,
only a handful of experts believed the Wrights had accomplished what they
claimed. Yet anyone today will admit that the Wrights proved their point. They
did not need statistical evidence. It does not matter how high above the sand
dunes they flew. It does not matter that the last, longest flight was only 59
seconds, or that the airplane flew only 6 or 8 feet high. The witnesses from
the Lifesaving Station, who had seen dozens of gliding flights, could tell by
looking that the machine was controllable and that it flew on its own power
and landed at the same height as the starting point. They did not need any
instruments. Experts like Chanute, who had read their publications, heard
Wilbur's address to the Western Society of Engineers (Chicago, Dec. 1901), and
observed their glider experiments did not harbor *any doubts whatsoever* that
they had achieved their goal.
 
Perhaps the most famous definitive experiment in history was the Alamogordo
test of the atomic bomb on July 18, 1945. Like a cold fusion experiment, it
produced far more energy per unit of mass than any chemical reaction. There
was no doubt in the minds of any of the observers that a nuclear explosion had
occurred, even before the instruments detected nuclear products. The size of
the blast alone proved it. This experiment was not replicated right away, yet
everyone believed it. Strictly speaking, it was not independently replicated
until 1949, when the Russians exploded their first atom bomb.
 
There is a dramatic, fundamental difference between the kind of scientific
experiment that yields statistical data about quarks, and a test firing of an
atomic bomb. People can -- and will -- argue for years about whether the quark
tests really did prove what Fermilab says. These arguments are based upon
honest differences of opinions between experts. They can only be resolved by
careful examination of the data, close attention to the error bars, and by the
use of statistics and other mathematical tools. It took a long time for a
consensus to emerge at Fermilab that the experiment was complete. Contrast
this to the atom bomb experiment: a few seconds after the bomb went off, any
person soul within 50 kilometers of the test site who knew the size of the
bomb would have known instantly that it was a million times stronger than a
chemical bomb. Both the quark tests and the bomb were experimental tests of
sub-atomic reactions. Both are legitimate scientific experiments. Because of
the limitations in the instruments and techniques, and because of fundamental
physical constraints, the quark test can only give fuzzy, debatable data that
experts must examine carefully to interpret, whereas the atom bomb test
provided certain, direct, and undeniable proof of a nuclear reaction. There is
a vast spectrum of *levels of proof* in experimental science: some experiments
yield fuzzy, debatable, boarder-line answers, while others yield certain
proof. If Droege and the other members of the nit-picking brigade fail to
understand this critical difference in the level of proof, they have lost
sight of the forest for the trees.
 
The Cravens' experiments with the Patterson cell is so big, so obvious, and so
superbly done that it does not require any rigorous statistical examination.
The results are so far above any error bars, no matter how pessimistic your
assumptions about the instruments may be, that it is absurd to call them into
question. Does anyone seriously doubt that Cravens can measure a 2 deg C Delta
T temperature at the lab when he uses thermocouples, thermistors, and mercury
thermometers? Does Droege really need error bars to believe such a gigantic
temperature rise? If the temperature rose only 0.01 deg C then error bars
would be essential, but the errors with any conventional lab thermometer will
be far below 2 deg C. Such gigantic excess heat results do not need
statistical proof, or further replication. On the other hand, they do require
that you take into account the background of previous scientific work in this
field. You must realize that there have been countless top notch experiments
over the years showing conclusive excess heat beyond chemistry. These
experiments were backed up with the most elaborate instruments and statistical
analysis that modern science is capable of. I refer to the work at SRI, the
Amoco Production Company, Los Alamos (both Storms and Claytor), Hokkaido U.,
IMRA, U. Minnesota, etc. These workers do not claim marginal, tentative,
"maybe" results. They do not make wish-washy statements. Their work is utterly
irrefutable, to the point where no "skeptic" even dares to talk about it.
Amoco's internal report does not say "we think we might have excess heat," it
says: "The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within
the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50
kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have been in near molar
amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows that no such
chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of
nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment." Oriani, Kunimatsu and
others do not pussyfoot around, they have proved the point "conclusively," as
Amoco put it.
 
Let me emphasize that this proof is gift wrapped and certified with exactly
the kind of statistical evidence that Droege, Jones, Kunich and so many others
have been clamoring for. The mainstream labs like KEK, SRI, Amoco, Canon and
IMRA have done rigorous work accompanied by ironclad hairy statistics and
error bars galore.
 
As I said, you must understand the scientific background before tackling the
Cravens work. You have to read these papers from KEK and SRI, or you have no
context to judge whether Cravens might be right. Furthermore, you have to know
Cravens. I know him and his work well. I know exactly how he goes about
measuring various things. I am in a position roughly analogous to Chanute's in
1903. One phone call from Cravens convinces me, because I have known Cravens
for years, I know exactly what he is doing, and I know what others in the
field have accomplished. A telegram from Wilbur Wright was enough to convince
Chanute, because he understood the field and he knew they were on the verge of
controlled, powered flight. He did not need the details.
 
Furthermore -- and this is an important point -- the Cravens experiment
produces a *much larger effect* than these gift wrapped mainstream experiments
at KEK or SRI. The input to output ratio is an order of magnitude larger, and
the excess heat is much steadier and more predictable. Power levels and the
water temperature Delta T are higher than most other experiments. This makes
the heat a cinch to detect. The signal to noise ratio is high. Elaborate
statistical proof is not needed to evaluate these results any more than it was
needed at Alamogordo. It is a presence or absence test. When there is no
excess heat in the Cravens calorimeter, the Delta T temperature is a fraction
of a degree C. This is seen during calibration with the joule heater and
during the 10 minute start up period. When the heat turns on, the temperature
Delta T rises to 2 deg C, and occasionally as high as 4 deg C. That
temperature difference is so great that any thermometer ever made could
measure it with confidence, and Cravens uses three types of thermometers. He
backs up other parameters with at least two fundamentally different types of
instruments: one precise and high tech, one no-nonsense, old fashioned, and
indisputable. You can read the liquid flow rate from a high tech precision
gizmo, or you can read it by turning the stopcock and counting how many
seconds it takes to fill the 5 ml graduated test tube. You can read the power
settings from computer hook up, or from stand alone meters, or you attach my
$12 El-Cheapo Radio Shack analog meter. (Cravens & Co. use the best
off-the-shelf meters money can buy, and their equipment was recently
calibrated to NIST standards.) The effect is so large and so obvious, and
the redundant instrumentation is so superbly designed that a debate over error
bars is ridiculous.
 
There is no need for high precision here. This is such an elementary aspect of
science that I am amazed people like Droege fail to understand it. If you want
to measure the length of an object to within a fraction of a millimeter, you
must have precision equipment and you better know the error limits. But, if
all you want to do is measure a pencil to within a centimeter, any ruler will
do, and no rational person will demand error bars or National Bureau of
Standards certification. A wooden ruler from Woolworth shows that a pencil on
my desk is a tad over 16 cm (roughly 16.2 cm). The ruler costs me 68 cents. It
works just as well as the most precisely calibrated machine tool on Earth
would *because I am only looking for centimeter level precision!* I don't need
error bars to measure centimeters, or degrees C, or watts when output is ten
times input.
 
What is the source of this dissension that Kunich talks about? Why do we
disagree so much? It is because there is a cultural gap between people like
Cravens and me on one hand, and Droege on the other. My gang looks for
gigantic effects that can be detected with any instrument. We want power
levels that drown out the noise. We demand big output to input ratios. Droege
spent his time searching for a tiny little milliwatt effect at 1.01:1.00
ratio. Even if Cravens or I saw a milliwatt effect -- even if we were using
the best high precision calorimeter in the world -- we would not believe it.
(Cravens and I have often discussed this, we see eye-to-eye on these issues.)
We want robust results, that are easily detected with standard, simple,
foolproof, old fashioned equipment. We believe passionately in the engineer's
"KISS" formula: Keep It Simple Stupid. If you must resort to statistical
analysis to prove there is no mistake, your proof is not convincing enough for
us. If the results are not ten times above any conceivable error bars then
they are not high enough for us. If you must build specialized equipment or
use heroic techniques, you are not getting enough heat to satisfy us. We want
results that stand on their own, based on first principles, from experiments
so simple that they do not require any processing except the conversion of
calories to joules.
 
This is a gap of culture, philosophy and background. The scientists are
interested in theories, tiny milliwatt effects, and ultra precise instruments.
We want practical results. We *throw away* the kind of results Droege and SRI
spend their time searching for! We never bother with such marginal results,
precisely because they require elaborate statistical processing, sophisticated
analysis, expensive, infernally unreliable equipment, and computers. (Both
Cravens and I profoundly mistrust computers.) Droege looked for tiny results
that can only be detected with ultra-high-tech finicky gadgets. I want
gigantic results that any calorimeter built in the last 200 years could have
detected without fail. Droege wants to prove he can measure a few milliwatts
thermal using heroic techniques and sophisticated processing. Cravens wants to
measure a signal a thousand times larger, because it is a thousand times
easier to see. He wants a reaction so hot and an experiment so easy that any
junior high school kid in my daughter's class could do it. Droege is trying to
build an airplane that will fly exactly three millimeters above the sand at
Kitty Hawk, and he wants to build an altimeter capable of measuring height to
0.01 mm. Cravens and I want to see the machine fly six or eight feet in the
air. We don't need an altimeter, we don't care exactly how high it goes. We
can see it is flying.
 
A scientist at SRI once said to me that high precision calorimeters are "white
elephants" with three orders of magnitude more precision than the job calls
for. Using milliwatt precision to look for CF heat is like using an electron
microscope to read the small print in a newspaper. It is overkill. It does not
improve the experiment, it muddies it, and confuses the issue. Cravens and I
want big excess heat that will lead to commercial applications, not milliwatt
reactions that may or may not be instrument artifacts. We want such high
levels of heat that instrument artifacts can be ruled out. We want palpable
levels of heat. Ultimately, of course, we want self-regenerating machines.
 
 
Let me add one more note, to avoid confusion. When I say that the Cravens
experiment is so simple any junior high-school kid could perform it and
correctly interpret the results, I refer to the calorimetry. I certainly do
not mean the chemistry or cell preparation is easy! The manufacture,
installation, and priming of the beads, the chemistry of the electrolyte and
many other aspects of this experiment are extremely complex and require many
years to master. CETI has wisely decided that when an institution enters into
a cooperative research agreement with them, they begin by giving a qualified
expert from the institution an intense week-long training session. You cannot
possibly just pick up this experiment and run with it, any more than you can
casually manufacture a computer chip, an airplane, or a Parson marine turbine
engine. My point is that *you can observe and evaluate the experimental
results easily*. You can demonstrate that there is excess heat. But you need
expert help getting the thing going. It is a remarkable robust experiment
compared to most, and I am sure the technology has a future, but at this stage
it like a circa 1897 turbine engine or a circa 1903 airplane, which required
days of tweaking and tender loving care between runs. All technology starts
out complicated, finicky, and difficult to use. Then it grows easier and more
reliable. I well remember the nonsense personal computers required back in
1979, and my mother remembers the joys of driving automobiles through New York
City back in the days they had to be crank started and the accelerator was on
the steering column.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Followup on C&EN report on CF; E-quest claims challenged
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Followup on C&EN report on CF; E-quest claims challenged
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 08:25:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> writes:
 
>I claim therefore that George and Stringham of E-quest 
>cannot rule out helium contamination.  Until they measure helium levels in
 
This hypothesis is completely wrong, as I showed in the thread:
Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium.
 
There is not a shred of evidence to support the Jones hypothesis. I am
amazed that he himself did not see allof the reasons why it must be
incorrect. I thought of seven reasons immediately (listed in the other
thread). I suppose a trained scientist like Jones would have thought of
these seven plus seven more.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Allen Hunter /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: Allen D Hunter <adhunter@cc.ysu.edu>
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: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 08:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net

 On 25 Apr 1995, Jeff Suzuki wrote:

> 
> Dick King (king@ukulele.reasoning.com) wrote:
> 
> : I suspect that Wendy Wolk wants to know whether Mars may have excessive Heavy
> : Water so that the colonists can start getting sick from having their drinking
> : water come from the Martian ice caps, not so the colonists can set up a nuclear
> : fusion plant.
> 
> In which case I hope she comes up with a good explanation why Mars'
> protium/deuterium ratio is so much different from Earth's.  
> 
> Jeffs
> 
It is expected that the martian water would be enriched in deuterium as 
the planetary surface/hydrosphere has lost most of its original water.  
This "distilation" preferentially enriches the residual water in the 
heavier isotope.  In fact, this effect causes measurable effects here on 
earth.  The dead sea and the great salt lake in Utah both have relatively 
large concentrations of deuterium in their water.

Allen
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenadhunter cudfnAllen cudlnHunter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re:  Infinate Energy and the Huffman device
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re:  Infinate Energy and the Huffman device
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 14:15:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Infinate Energy and the Huffman device
>Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 13:01 -0500 (EST)
>[snip]
>I believe this explains this experience using ordinary physics.  Even without
>excess energy we simply have a case in which water is stored in a spiral
>turbine.  The water is under high pressure along the periphery, and low
>pressure toward the center.  The boiling point of the water near the center is
>
>depressed, so it initially boils first.  This causes the water to be expelled
>very rapidly (like in a geyser), giving a thrust to the turbine.  This thrust
>was sufficient to overposer the 1/3 horsepower motor momentarily, and the moto
>r
>then resycnronises at a speed which is slightly less than a harmonic of the
>syncronous speed.
>
>Thus the entire episode, I believe, can be explained using normal physical
>laws.
>
>                                                                Marshall

Marshall,

Just for the record, what is/was the direction of curvature of the 
holes, relative to the direction of rotation of the motor?
I.e. would the "turbine-effect" help or hinder the motor in its 
rotation?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  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: Wed, 26 Apr 95 09:25:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

     "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."
 
It may not have anything to do with fusion, but that is immaterial. The Griggs
device and the metal lattice CF devices may be based on totally different
physical mechanisms. From a businessman's point of view, they do the same
thing, they are functionally equivalent, so the physical differences are
irrelevant. We don't care where energy comes from: coal, fission, solar,
geothermal, hot fusion, metal lattice CF, Plasmak (TM) or the Griggs effect.
All we care about is the price. We want to know how much it costs per KWH, and
how much environmental damage it does (which is another cost that must be
factored in). We don't care what causes it -- we leave that problem for the
scientists to puzzle out.
 
 
 
     "In fact, it is not even conclusive that the Griggs device could be used
     as a source of power."
 
That is incorrect. It is quite conclusive that the Griggs device is already
being used as a source of power. I proved it, and so did 40+ scientists who
visited Griggs. Droege attempted to unprove it by speculating that perhaps the
thermocouples are affected by the machinery. He was wrong about that. Many
people have checked for that error, and for the other possible errors he
speculated about. He could have checked himself in 30 seconds, but he chose
not to.
 
 
 
     "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."
 
To repeat: CF is now the focus of intense research by some of the world's best
laboratories; places like KEK, the National Inst. for Fusion Science, Tokyo
Inst. of Technology, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Canon, BARC, INFN, MADI, Shell Oil,
etcetera. These investigations are likely to reveal the physical mechanism of
reaction, because scientific research usually does find answers. If you don't
think so then I must say you do not have much faith in the scientific method.
What will prevent these people from finding the answers they seek? Do you
think that CF is much more difficult to understand than HF,  semiconductors or
HTSC? A great deal of progress has been made already in only six years with
microscopic funding levels. Laboratory CF devices have already generated
hundreds of times more energy than the best hot fusion experiment at Princeton
ever did, or ever will. There is no reason to think that additional progress
will not be made, and no reason to think the mystery will remain unsolved much
longer.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 26 Apr 1995 13:44:23 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <D7Lx1J.A8B@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

> In article <AWC.95Apr18163829@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
writes:

>>>>>>>>(and so on, regressively)

> >Current experiments are limited to a few seconds every ten or twenty
> >minutes (although I believe JET and Tore-Supra have had discharges
> >over a minute), sometimes by power supplies and sometimes by flux in
> >the ohmic heating coils. Such things are easy to extrapolate to a
> >reactor grade plasma.
> 
> But from an engineering point of view, how valid is this.

Incomparably more valid than an extrapolation from a spark in a garage
to a rocket to Mars.

> >> >> Also, there are other fatigue modes that you might have missed.
> >> The wall deterioration from fusion product exposure.
> 
> >This is a problem, but it has nothing to do with pulsed vs. continuous
> >operation.
> 
> Well for example, there is a large torque on placed on the toroidal
> field coils, and although stress is relieved through cross members,
> the constant loading and unloading will take its toll.

Exactly. The cyclic forces related to thermal and magnetic stresses
are relevant, well understood, and dominated by the occasional total
shutdown rather than the cycling forced by inductive current
drive. "Wall deterioration" is irrelevant here.

> >Tritium loss from a storage facility will be negligible.

> I'm certain of that, but the difficulty with leaky tritium, is that
> it can easily be "detected", that is cause a "click" for someone 
> counting "geigers" ;-), and that person could be any semi-educated 
> greeny with access to a press.   With some people, no level is 
> "acceptable".  So good luck on that problem.

I'm sure we can count on your help to correct public misconceptions
about the dangers of tritium.

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Dick Jackson /  Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened at ICCF-5?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 14:46:09 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <3n4uoa$5j7@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
<much deleted>
>Lightwater excess heat --- hmmmm.  Theorists, where are you?  :-)

Water heater, where are you?
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
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: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:49 -0500 (EST)

jeffs@math.bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki) writes:
 
-> Dick King (king@ukulele.reasoning.com) wrote:
->
-> : I suspect that Wendy Wolk wants to know whether Mars may have excessive He
-> : Water so that the colonists can start getting sick from having their drink
-> : water come from the Martian ice caps, not so the colonists can set up a nu
-> : fusion plant.
->
-> In which case I hope she comes up with a good explanation why Mars'
-> protium/deuterium ratio is so much different from Earth's.
 
That might not be too difficult.  Deuterium is roughtly twice as heavy as
protium.  At one time it appears that Mars did have lots of water.  Now if we
assume that the water over time was disassociated by UV in the upper
atmosphere, and the temperatures were hot enought for protium to reach escape
velocity, but not hot enought for the heavier deuterium to reach escape
velocity, you would expect a concentration of deuterium on Mars.  Of course you
still have the mystery of what happened to all the oxygen from the
disassociation.
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:56 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> 5. The helium isotopic ratios are far different from ordinary terrestrial
-> ratios. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where someone in the lab is
-> venting enough helium-3 into the air to make the 3He:4He ratio change by a
-> factor of over 1000. The 22Ne levels in the gas samples were also measured,
-> and the ratio of 22Ne to 4He also proves that the helium is not of normal
-> origin.
 
Could you elaborate on the significance of the 22Ne to 4He ratio?  I think I
know what you are hinting at, but want to know for sure before making any
comments about this.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: 26 Apr 1995 11:00:06 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <D79q1n.E2J@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <3mjkog$46a@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <D6r5ts.AxJ@prometheus.UUCP>,
>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>>In article <3lpc6n$9i6@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.ed
 (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>>>In article <D6EHuv.1zq@prometheus.UUCP>,
>>>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>>>>In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.
du (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>

[much deletia]

John:
>>It could be because the flame is fairly cool, much less than fusion
>>ignition temperatures and moreover, much of the energy of the flame is
>>leaving in the form of visible of infrared radiation because it hasn't
>>"burned through the ioniztion barrier. The really hot plasmas don't glow, 
>>they are dark. Radiation == cooling.
>
Paul:
>Right, but we aren't talking about the Kernel plasma, that is bounded 
>by a vacuum and dense strongly insulating field.  It gets very much
>hotter than the Mantle plasma.   
>
>Here we are talking about the Mantle plasma which is bounded on its
>out surface by the blanket atmosphere at whatever compression induced 
>density.  So at its inner vacuum surface it intercepts whatever 
>Bremsstrahlung (cooling) radiation emminates from the Kernel plasma 
>(compression heated hot and dense).   

Paul:
>>>If you think about this John, you will see that the Mantle is an onion 
>>>of layers upon layers of plasmas and gas mixtures and radiation 
>>>environments that filters the radiated energy from the Kernel plasma 
>>>on its way out to freedom,  absorbing and reemitting it at lower energy 
>>>over and over again producing a avalance of gradient regimes, which ease 
>>>the energy out of there hoarding it as if they were Scottish bankers 
>>>at a gold minting festival.  
>

John:
So let me see if I have this straight, the Plasmak "Onion" consists of a
small core that is at thermonuclear temperatures. Just outside of this core
is a high magnetic field region that contains a very high pressure "mantle"
gas which is at about ionization/recombination temperatures. The mantle is
supposed to be very thin and amzingly insulating. The mantle is also dense
enough to be optically thick and it is a transport barrier. Outside of the
mantle is normal gas that is undergoing periodic compression expansion. This
compression is communicated through the mantle to the core by pressure balance
and this is the prime "initiator". The core plasma is heated to ignition
conditions by compressive heating.

Now I haven't received the papers Paul talks about below, but let me go out
on a limb and make some comments. hopefully the papers will come soon and I 
promise to make an effort to look at them.

1) Never underestimate the power of compressive heating. Take for example in
TFTR today. It is a big and costly thing to get 20 MW of heating power from
NBI. This is really a technological feat of which they should be proud. 
However, compare this to compression heating. discharging a capacitor bank
in a pulsed device like a pinch and you can get compressive, or adiabatic
heating over 100 MW without much trouble. The issue is that compressive heating
is by its nature pulsed. So pinches had gobs of heating, but the shot lasted
for microseconds while TFTR last for seconds. So compressive heating is an
easy way to high power input, but only in pulsed mode.

2) What about interchange instabilities? If you are undergoing strong 
compression, then your statement about the direction of gradients doesn't
seem correct. It seems that you will have exactly the same problem that the
ICF guys do with Rayleigh-Taylor modes. Even if the compression is fast, it
must be so strong that the growth rate is still short compared to the
compression time. The only way around it that I see is to have a profile that
is interchange stable, but to do that the compression must be slow or one must
allow the plasma to re-adjust on mhd time scales like in an RFP. Then you
lose a lot of your compression energy to turbulent transport. Now let me give
a suggesttion why one might not see these effects for small-scale experiments
in the 10-30 ev range. In that case a large energy loss channel is light.
That is much of the compression energy goes into creating ionization that
then recombines and gives off light that is lost to the system. Such radiative
loss channels can act to quash a large number of instabilities, given the
right conditions. Thus one may not see interchange instabilities in 10-30
eV plasmas, but when the next large device that effectively burns thorugh
the radiation barrier is built, these instabilities will be observed and
there will not be a loss channel to damp the modes. I'll try to look at this 
aspect when I get the papers you sent.

3) The concept of the mantle seems a bit schizophrenic to me. On the
one hand I seem to be hearing that it is thin and can support huge
temperature gradients. On the other I hear that it is dense enough and
thick enough to be optically thick (i.e. traps the outgoing light). I
think there is a pickle here. If it is optically thin, then the 
ionization/recombination boundary is going to radiate like gang busters and
the core will cool much too fast. That means to me that you must intend this
boundary to be outside of the "mantle" or at least in its outer edges. If that
is the case, then the inner part of the mantle will be completely
ionized. Therefore you must rely on the rather weaker absorption mechanisms
in the continous spectrum rather than the strong resonance line absoprtion
paths for light capture. This means the mantle must be even more dense and
thick. The mantle is then going to have to have quite an energy inventory.
While you may say that in steady burn this will come from the core, one seems
to have a starting problem of how to get the required energy into a mantle.

4) The ionization/recombination boundary can still be subject to instability.
Yes it is possible to find profiles that are stable, but in my experience
they are rare and special. They don't just naturally happen. I suspect this
is one of the reasons that ball lightening is so controversial. Usually, no
stable configuration is seen. However, in some cases stable fronts are
formed and they can exist for a while (on an energy transport time). However,
late in their life they slowly evolve to a profile that is not 
ionization/recombination stable and in a fraction of an instant they go "pop"
out of existence.

I promise to try to read the papers and I will try to comment on these 4
points.

John:
>>                            .. . .    If so, why is there a
>>transport barrier. Remember, dense gas is NOT a better insulator than
>>vacuum. 
>
Paul:
>Let's not rush to judgement here.    Two points to consider.  
>
>1. 
>First place dense gas that doesn't CONVECT IS an excellent insulator. 
>Call it "dead dense gas" or ddg.   Think of your home in Minnesota
>*oops wrong John*.  and all that 8 cm Pink Panther fiberglas insulation.
>That's pretty much what we use here, except it's the weak field that 
>diffused into the Mantle during formation that replaces the pussy cat. 
>This magnetic far field stuff got in there before the PMK  became
>hyperconducting (runaways ran above _Vcrit_).   This field clamps radial
>electron diffusion by about 3 orders, which is just fine.  The poles
>are an exception, but the divergence layer collects all the excess 
>plasma produced over the whole surface and (acting like a natural 
>divertor) ejects it from the poles.  (you saw the blue phophorescence 
>from the metastables of the Copper seed in the color photos I sent to 
>Logajan's site.) 
>
>2.  A vacuum is a terrible insulator for radiation.  Look at the sweat
>that rolls off Tokers when Lidsky walks by.  Naw, even with a Mag
>field, all that might happen to that radiation is it may experience
>a bit of Faraday rotation.    :-) 
>So for insulating a fueled and burning plasma, a vacuum  SUCKS.  A 
>Mantle at 20 kbars + is GREAT!  p-^11B only burns for a few milliseconds.  

I think we are talking on the same wavelength here now. However, dense,
quiescent gas (ddg) is not an insulator for radiation either. You must either
have an absorber or even better a reflector. Now what I think I hear you
proposing is that the mantle will be dense and thick enough to be an absorber.
Well this still means that the core will lose its radiative power to the mantle
almost instantaneously. Now given this big heat source into the mantle, how
does it get rid of the energy in steady-state --- i.e. what is the power
balance. Well, If I had to answer, I would say by thermal conduction. And
given no other information, I would say that most of the energy would flow
OUTWARD, not INWARD, so the core still cools rapidly. Now Paul seems to suggest
that there is some anisotrpic configuration that will make the effective
thermal conduction much less in the outward direction than in the inward 
direction. I.E. there is some sort of insulator just outside the mantle
that keeps the heat directed inward. Now this is a neat idea (at first glance)
but I don't see how it occurs. The devil is in the details on how to get
this thing to happen.

However, suppose for a second that this outer insulator is available. What
does that imply? Well it seems to me that it implies that in steady
state, the mantle is as hot as the core. Look, the core radiates big time,
depositng energy into the optically thick mantle. The mantle them thermally
conducts energy back into the core (without convection according to Paul's
hoped for operating mode) without any energy proceeding outward. What then
is the mantle equilibration temperature? It seems to me based on very 
fundamental thermodynamics that interacting systems will equilibrate at the
same temperature. So the entire mantle is heated up until it becomes part of
the core. If you want a mantle to be cooler, then there must be heat flow
outward, or you must turn off (or reflect) the radiation. If you do it in
many stages, the same seems to hold.

John:
>>I'll grant that a liquid first wall has engineering advantages over a
>>solid wall. For example, its really easy to install a new liquid wall.
>>However, the catch is it has got to work.
>
Paul:
>Think in generic terms...  Think   "FLUID" wall.  
>As for your comment about FRC's, that's why I moved the evolution this
>far.  It was to find something that works.  Now, it certainly does have
>characteristics more similar to stars.  It can be compression heated
>efficiently, and well ... we shall see.   Should burn on the first 
>attempted run with full compression and fuel loaded Kernel plasma.  
>
Paul:
>>>You remember we have made these things in air? 
>
John:
>>I'm not being silly. If its glowing, it must be giving off energy (how
>>else could you see it?) So given the same internal core temperature,
>>I'll take the dark plasma over the glowing one anyday because it means
>>it is probably better at confining energy. 
>
Paul:
>Your missing the point.  If you were inside the sun you couldn't see me 
>if I was standing next to you.  But far enough out, the temperature has 
>abated tremendously.  Here due to the density and Z differences (we are
>speaking of the fusion case here)?  As long as the Kernel plasma doesn't
>conduct like tokamaks due or radiate due to high Z impurities, then
>we can cook it through compression to burn.

This is the big IF. In the sun, we have hundreds of thousands of kilometers
for the photons to bounce around before they escape, but in Plasmaks, we have
at most centimeters. Using the insulation analogy, if the sun uses the 
fluffy pink fiberglass insulation, then plasmaks will need a super
asbestos.


-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Tom Droege /  Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: 26 Apr 1995 16:21:54 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3nkf8j$sbv@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:

(snip)

>He's a nice guy, and very careful about what he will claim and what he
>will not.  In fact, he prefers to publish data and let the conclusions
>be drawn by others.
>
>--
> - 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    -

Do I detect a trend here?  Be a "nice guy" and present data that appears
to show excess energy without all the technical detail that is really 
required to back up an experiment.

Sorry, the "conclusions" section of the paper is a vital part of the 
scientific process.  Present the data, then put your reputation on the
line by stating an opinion on what it means.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Tom Droege /  Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts
Date: 26 Apr 1995 16:34:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3nk0t4$83v@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>
>According to ICCF5 (via Jed), the easy path to CF is in these
>light-water & Pd coated bead systems, and ultrasonic cavitation
>devices. These devices seem mechanically and chemically simple, 
>generate excess heat on demand, and perform robustly. So, are 
>any researchers within eye-shot of this note planning to do any 
>_scientific_ research on these devices in the near future? (Jed
>has made it clear he is only interested in the commercialization).
>And are any of these devices being made available to neutral/skeptical
>parties for further analysis?
>
>I mean, really, if the Patterson cell quickly, consistently, robustly 
>and reproducibly produces ~1000% excess heat, and several actual 
>watts of excess power, it should be fairly trivial to diagnose
>what is really going on in it. This should attract the attention of
>Steve Jones, Tome Droege, and others who have struggled with the much
>more complex electrochemical systems.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math

If you have been observing Jed for a while, you will note that when each
new device comes along, Jed says something like "here is the way to
go, abandon those hard to make work *P&F* cells which don't give much 
power and concentrate on @Takahashi@ cells".  For the current thing just
shift the word between the @ to between the * and insert the new device
between the @.  

There is a reason for this.  New experiments have larger error limits 
than old ones that have been perfected.  So new devices (sometimes)
show large excess energy.  

Quoting Huizinga who quoted me " ...that the whole process could be 
noise."

Tom Droege

>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Tom Droege /  Certificates
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Certificates
Date: 26 Apr 1995 16:45:12 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I have received several mailings thanking me for the certificate.
I hasten to point out that Scott Hazen Mueller and Nancy did the 
work of printing the certificates.  I just signed them and mailed 
them out with the picture.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  ProFusion /  ICCF-5--Three views.1
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5--Three views.1
Date: 26 Apr 1995 12:59:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I forgot about the time lag in posting messages here. Wanted to respond to
my own posting, and make a nice neat thread, but it's taking forever to
show up, so I'll just do it this way.

   ---Vic
 --------------------

From Wayne Green

Monaco!

   ICCF5 is now history. On the positive side it afforded an opportunity
for about 200 scientists and promoters from around the world to get
together and talk. It also provided some wonderful paid vacations for
those with the funding. On the negative side, in a field desperate for
exciting news, there really wasn't any.
   There were 63 registrants from the US, 44 from Japan, 39 from France,
35 from Italy, and a scattering from 11 other countries. With Monaco being
just a relatively short drive for the French and Italians, it's easy to
see why they were there in good numbers. Without the large Eneco entourage
from the US the Japanese might have outnumbered us.
   The closest thing to excitement was the live demonstration of Jim
Patterson's patented cell, which he had sitting there on a tabletop,
perking away, generating 300-500% excess energy. Dozens of the world's top
cold fusion experts checked the unit carefully and did the calculations,
which confirmed that excess energy was being generated.
   Also on the positive side, the number of cold fusion detractors present
was down to one [Doug Morrison], though he was voluble enough to make up
for those missing. But with so many reports of success there was little
for him to do but nit-pick and try to shout down the speakers over trivia.
   In a field which is so desperately in need of positive media coverage
it was disappointing that not one journalist was there from any of the
major media to report on the progress that's been made, incremental as it
turned out to be. For some reason the organizers seem to have planned
this. While most of the conference organizers in other fields go out of
their way to attract the media, this one put one road block after another
in the way (for instance, insisting that press members pay the full $700
conference fee just to attend).
   In a field where visibility to the world via the media is desperately
needed if funding is going to be provided for continued research, a great
opportunity was muffed. Indeed, the results of world publicity could have
done far more for the participants than any exchange of information, at
least at this stage of development.
   Observers were quietly there from Wall Street and several major energy
corporations, keeping their fingers on who's been doing what. The oil and
power companies are not blind to the potential impact of cold fusion once
it gets out of the lab and into production. They see the potential for
revolutionizing power generation and distribution, but they have to be
guided by realities rather than hype.
   Yes, there was the usual internecine backbiting. That's sad, but
scientists are still people and some display their psychological
disabilities, no matter how brilliant their work.

The Patterson Cell

   It was disappointing to me that after six years of development in the
cold fusion field that there was only one live exhibit at the conference.
It seemed to me that this was big enough news for the major media to pay
attention, but my phone calls and faxes to alert CNN, etc., did nothing.
Since the conference was organized by Professors Pons and Fleischmann, and
was in their back yard, I was expecting them to have something to show.
   They not only showed nothing, they were singularly unforthcoming in
their papers. Not only was no visit provided to their nearby legendary
laboratory, the place was closed during the conference, thus preventing
any enterprising visitors from seeing it.
   The Patterson Cell, as described in detail in "Cold Fusion" #8,
provides an opportunity for researchers to get proven working cells for
their experiments. While the cell produces a simple way to quickly
initiate the cold fusion reaction, there is still a great deal of
developmental work needed in exploring the action with different metals,
electrolytes, temperatures, pressures, RF and AF excitation, voltages,
current, waveforms, etc. Lacking an accepted theory for what is happening,
experimentation is still empirically driven. We're still in the phase
where anyone anywhere could come out of a laboratory with a big winner.
   Dennis Cravens was there to help set up and nurture the Patterson
demonstration. That a professor from a small Texas community college,
working at home entirely with his own money, should turn out to be an
American leader where our leading research laboratories and universities
should be vying, seems to support those who claim there is a criminal
conspiracy to prevent the US from progressing in this new field.

Theories

   Yes, something very unusual is going on in those metal lattices.
Something which seems to defy the Coulomb Barrier. Something far beyond
the possibilities of a chemical reaction which is generating heat, yet is
not producing enough radioactivity to be explained as a normal nuclear
reaction. The parallel between the scientists who refused to look through
Galileo's telescope, those who refused to look through Pasteur's
microscope, more recently Royal Rife's microscope, and the refusal of some
scientists to even look at the Patterson Cell in operation is striking.
Some things don't change.
   Several theory papers were presented at the conference, with many of
them being more in agreement than at odds. Since I've come into this field
with little scientific baggage, and as neither a skeptic nor a
proselytizer, I've been developing my own theories. I'm not a chemist. I'm
not a physicist. Nor a mathematician. My background is in electronics,
communications, and computers. So I've been reading as many recommended
books as possible and talking with anyone who will put up with my
questions.
   I couldn't help but be struck by the similarities in the ideas
presented by Lerner in his "The Big Bang Never Happened," and the
Phillips' "The Direct Perception of Quarks," to the theories of Olaf
Sunden, M. Srinivasan, and Milo Wolff on the cold fusion reaction. Well,
we'll see. But when I see macro-macro, macro, normal, and micro theories
all seeming to come together, it almost is enough to get me to think.

The Papers

   I'd hoped that some of the papers to be given at ICCF5 could be
published before the conference so the attendees would have an opportunity
to look them over and come with well-considered questions. I tried to get
some word from the conference people about this, but the program was in
the hands of Professor Fleischmann, who was not responsive. Perhaps his
irritation with the humiliation he suffered in the U.S. extends to me. Or
perhaps he was too busy, considering his Euro-patent problems coming due
during the conference.
   Frankly, my hope was that there would be some papers being presented
which might be powerful enough to attract the major media. This would have
given me an opportunity to push them to cover the conference, despite the
lack of press facilities and cooperation. The Patterson Cell was big news,
but there was no assurance before the conference that it would be
permitted to be set up and run as a demonstration. The French, Monacan, or
even hotel authorities could have prevented it.
   In retrospect, though there were many interesting papers, I can't think
of any except the Patterson demonstration which would have provided the
news break the major media would need to make it worth their expense to
cover the conference. Research is progressing in Russia, Italy, Japan, and
a few other countries, but none are yet in a position to build commercial
cold fusion energy sources. There were, of course, rumors that P&F are
much further along than they're admitting, and that they may have some
commercially viable power sources about to be announced. I got more
information about their progress from the British and Canadian TV
documentaries made a year ago than from this conference.
   The above is my perspective. I'm interested in hearing from other
attendees as to their perception and conclusions. I've been promised
several reports on the conference and would like to see more.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  ProFusion /  ICCF-5--Three Views.2
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5--Three Views.2
Date: 26 Apr 1995 12:59:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

A Short Report on ICCF-5 by Hideo Kozima

At the Conference, I felt that it is a time to abandon the "odd-is-better"
principle, and to take into our community a common sense which is already
brewing and recognized among our members--even if reproducibility is very
bad, experimental procedures and interpretations should be scientific.

Another point I want to stress is that it is now necessary to introduce
into our society concepts of qualitative (or statistical) and quantitative
reproducibility. Reproducibility of cold fusion phenomenon was improved
very much recently in the former sense. Even in Patterson Power Cell,
excess heat does not correspond one-to-one to input power. Some tendencies
of effects were obtained for the cause(s) (or the experimental condition).
To clarify the characteristics of cold fusion phenomenon, it is desirable
to use appropriate terminology in our community.

The general impression I had of ICCF-5 made me consider the above two
things. On the other hand, a tendency in experimentalists gave me a
pleasure. What is the tendency? It was to measure several nuclear
products, including high-energy gammas (up to ten MeV), simultaneously.
This is what I have predicted and been proposing according to my model.
Encouraging plans are proceeding in several laboratories including
Universite "La Sapienza," IMRA Europe, Advanced Technology Research Center
(Mitsubishi Heavy Industry).

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  ProFusion /  ICCF-5--Three Views.3
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5--Three Views.3
Date: 26 Apr 1995 12:59:20 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Report on ICCF-5 by Olof Sunden

  ICCF-5 was accomplished in the magnificent Loew's Hotel, Monte Carlo,
April 9-13th 1995 with about 200 attendants. Here cold fusion (CF)
appeared dressed in economic profusion, much in contrast to the
restrictive conditions under which many of its researchers have to perform
their difficult and unthanked work.
  Anyhow, the adherents of CF had good reason to celebrate the results of
their endeavors with a little profusion. The generation of excess heat
during D/Pd electrolysis, as it was claimed by Fleischmann and Pons in
1989, is now scientifically proven and even established as a manageable
laboratory process. Also, in other solid systems (like perovskites),
confined deuterium has shown a proven release of nuclear energy. Even the
very first step of technical development has been taken by an electrolysis
cell, designed and patented by Dr. J. A. Patterson. It is characterized by
a thick cathode layer of small plastic spheres, covered by thin layers of
nickel and palladium, pressed in contact to one another and separated from
the Pt anode by another layer of small spheres without metallized surfaces
(see "Cold Fusion" #8 & #9). At the conference, Dr. Patterson displayed
his cell in operation. During four days, it continuously delivered an
energy output 3-5 times higher than the energy input.
  The significance of this verification of CF as a physical fact will be
tremendous both for physical science itself and for the public conviction
that the physical theories of our century would be eternal truths. With
respect to the totally negative and scornful reaction toward CF and its
discoverers, delivered in 1989-91 by the physical establishment in the US,
and by CERN in Europe, public confidence in physics as a trustworthy and
flawless science will be wrecked. Less public funding, and many qualified
physicists out of both work and goal, will be the tragic result of this
overweening pride displayed by the physical establishment.
  The erroneous criticism and scorn showered upon CF has been based on
present quantum mechanics (QM) and its various branches such as quantum
electrodynamics (QED). These QM theories are efficient mathematical
bookkeeping principles for energy and energy levels and they have earned
good esteem in academia due to their ability to predict the outcome of
academic experiments, even if they do not explain them. But they have been
of little or no use to technical inventors and developers of this century
(e.g., W. Shockley, the transistor, and T. H. Maiman and A. Javan, the
laser). No technical developer seems to express any gratitude towards QM,
in sharp contrast to most academic researchers. With respect to heavy
nuclides (other than the alkali-metals) which are of interest for CF, QM
has never been able to give an acceptable image, nor a reliable
prediction. In case of CF, the QM theories have not only failed to predict
the outcome, they have displayed total incompetence. So CF is at present
an anomalous phenomenon, to which no accepted theory can give the
slightest explanation, nor guidance for its further technical development.
  This was also the serious truth, that appeared as a dark shadow in many
of the 130 papers presented at the conference. Nevertheless, the
organizing committee seemed not to have paid regard to this serious
situation. Instead, it had favored all those papers, which reported on
experiments during which some excess heat had been measured. The author of
this resume, who is well experienced in the industrial development of
projects with insufficient or no theoretical background, got the
impression that the committee, in academic zeal, tried to collect as many
new proofs of CF phenomenon as possible, in spite of the fact that it is
proved well enough, exemplified by the good technical functioning of the
Patterson Cell. Such academic behavior has too often delayed and even
ruined many good opportunities for the true pioneers of a discovery.
Anyhow, the papers of session 4, concerning the search for explanations
and new theories that could favor the understanding of the CF-process and
also contribute to its technical development, were neither duly organized
nor favored.
  The twenty participants who had presented theoretical explanations of
the CF phenomena were grudgingly treated and their papers degraded as
merely posters without oral presentations and without a possibility of
discussion before a broader audience, unless they also reported on excess
heat or instrumentation. A reason for this may be the academic mischief
displayed by too many of these twenty authors, to propose several--even as
many as four--papers per author. Why, totally thirty-six theoretical
papers were proposed by them! Under such conditions, there could not be
time for general and fruitful discussions of this, the most urgent problem
of CF. Only four papers were orally presented, and they all treated QM-QED
modifications.
  Professor G. Preparata turned his earlier criticism against CF into
acceptance according to his matchless Italian temper. He now considers the
existence and correctness of CF as proved. Nevertheless, its adherents
were to blame as responsible for the previous confusion because of their
earlier efforts to explain CF as a phenomenon outside the scope of QED and
because of their presumption that ultrasound could influence a QED system
like CF. He said he now understood that CF was only the tip of a large
iceberg, and that he now had modified QED to the extent that it was
complete, and covered both CF and discoveries to come. At a private chat,
he said that he was anxious to avoid a good theory like QED being thrown
out too early, because we must take care of the scientific gains already
achieved. Professor J. P. Vigier gave an excellent lecture and foresaw
some more specific and firm modifications of QED in the CF context. He
supposed that CF phenomena might be understood if we in QED better
considered the real magnetic manifestations inside the nuclear well.
Professor P. E. Hagelstein fought against the ghosts of the Three
Miracles, still confined in the cul-de-sac of QM, which Prof. Huizenga so
cleverly has arranged in order to trap and disarm CF and the efforts of
its adherents.
  Among those, who considered a more profound change of QM, was X. Z. Li
from China (presently with the University of Hawaii). He proposed a slow,
weak x-interaction (of ~104 seconds) inside the nuclear well of strong
interaction as an explanation of CF. He considered the penetration of the
coulomb barrier possible due to a constructive resonance or interference
between the tunneling wave and the slowly attenuated reverberating wave
inside the nuclear well. He further supposed that this resonance would
depress the fast reaction channel and favor the slow reaction channel to
4He without the radiation of neutrons and gamma photons. This paper seems
to be one which could bring the explanation of CF forward, but some QM
supporters did not agree with this interpretation. It must be admitted
that it suffers from general QM ambiguity. How can Schridinger's wave
function, a purely mathematical device without reality, interfere and
cause such real effects? It is about time to wreck the Born-probability
interpretation of Schridinger's wave function and instead consider it as a
real, spherical de Broglie wave connected to matter at rest. Then both the
nucleus and its coulomb barrier will be endowed with phase dependency,
enabling tunneling while the connection to a concentric wave-field enables
those real interferences that Li presumes. We would then have a framework
to a theory that both explains CF and unifies it with sonoluminescence as
phenomena of centripetal wave actions.
  Of the twenty-two papers referring to  Calorimetry and Excess Power,
most applied to Pd-Li-D electrolysis. Six of the papers were American and
not less than eleven were of Japanese origin, including a report
accounting for the broad funding and support given to Cold Fusion Projects
since 1993 by Japanese industries and authorities. Outside the dominant
Pd-Li-D field, an interesting French paper was presented by J.-P. Biberian
dealing with excess heat from electrolysis of deuterium confined in a
perovskite structure of AlLaO3. In this structure several deuterons can
replace a La ion at the center of the cubic lattice and the electrolysis
including the movement of deuterons can be followed as a blue-white-red
change in color. Perovskite as medium for anomalous deuterium reactions
has been and was also now treated by several Russian authors from the
Institute of High Temperature Electrochemistry in the Urals.
  The fusion of deuterium in perovskite structures may be technically
difficult, due to the destruction of the structure at high temperature,
but it gives interesting information about the fusion process. Here it is
obvious that the fusing deuterons are compressed at the center of a cubic
lattice and 'catalytically' aligned or oriented by attraction to the O
ions and by repulsion to the Al ions. But in a Pd lattice, they can not be
aligned by electrical forces but shielded by a Pd ion and thus placed
diametrically on both sides of it, whereupon they fuse by a constructive
interference between their waves. The reason why Pd cathodes are efficient
media for D fusion, but not Pt cathodes, is then that the Pt nucleus has a
too large diameter (slit-distance) for allowing two real "deuteron de
Broglie waves" to interfere so that they can fuse.
  Section 3, Nuclear Measurements and Instrumentation, contained
thirty-three papers of which eleven were Russian/Belarussian, eight
Japanese, eight Italian and only three American. These statistics account
for those countries where nuclear instruments are made available to CF
research. A remarkable point is that the Russian interest reaches far
outside the limited Pd-D electrolysis and includes perovskites, KD2PO4,
niobium, and tungsten. O. Reifenschweiler, from Philips Research
Laboratories in the Netherlands, gave an interesting paper regarding the
decreased radioactivity of tritium when confined in a Ti lattice. This is
also a discovery in severe conflict with present physical theories. It
seems to indicate that radioactivity may be a causal process, depending on
energy fluctuations in a still unspecified aether, and not the
statistic-probabilistic process presumed by present physics.
  Section 5, with twelve papers, was devoted to Cathode Loading and
Materials and was of the same abundant and repetitive character as the
papers of Sections 2 and 3. In contrast to these sections, Section 6, New
Developments, with twenty-seven papers (mostly from Japan, the US, and
France) was looking forward and considered technical and economic aspects,
plus interesting sonoluminescence and ultrasonic effects. These effects
are centripetal energy and wave manifestations that physics has not
studied in spite of the fact that they represent intense concentrations of
energy to points in space without any accompanying linear momentum to be
conserved as in particle collisions. When the author once asked prominent
US physicists about the reason for this sin of omission, the answer was
that any such studies were not required. One had only to change the sign
in the equation for centrifugal waves, which were well studied. We here
meet the profound and superstitious belief, often displayed in modern
physics and QM, that an inherent wisdom exists in dead mathematics. But
what really happens at the center of a centripetal wave is much more
complex and intriguing, and it is a lesson to physics that we, not even
after fifty years, are able to explain the phenomena.
  Finally, we have to deal with a serious problem that must be solved
before CF can be the environmentally pure source of energy that we hope
for. At present, CF produces only warm water, perhaps up to 100 deg C, and
we do not know how sensitive Pd cathodes will be to higher temperatures.
Warm water is a product of little or no value for power production. Our
power stations, which use either nuclear or fossil fuels, waste at least
65% of energy as warm water for which we can not find any practical use
(except perhaps if villas and apartments in the vicinity can take a minor
part of it for heating during the winter). CF will probably be the energy
source we dream about for the future only if its energy can be extracted
up to 100% directly as electrical energy. This may appear as pure
illusion, but if it is considered in the light of centripetal de Broglie
wave  mechanics instead of in Schridinger-Born probability, some vague
signs appear that this illusion may be realized for a slow nuclear
reaction like CF. This is another reason why it is utterly important and
urgent that we learn to understand the process and the machinery behind
CF. We must study CF together with other centripetal energy phenomena in a
broader context and perform those preliminary, not too expensive
experiments, that such studies require. Hopefully, the 1996 ICCF-6 in
Japan will give some new hints in this direction.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Certificates
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Certificates
Date: 26 Apr 1995 17:21:10 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3nltao$iou@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> I have received several mailings thanking me for the certificate.
> I hasten to point out that Scott Hazen Mueller and Nancy did the 
> work of printing the certificates.  I just signed them and mailed 
> them out with the picture.  
> 

And a fine picture it is.  But tell me, how do you know that the IBM PC
keeps the cat off the far end of the bench without checking to see whether
kitty has tunnelled through; and if you must check, what's the point of
the PC?

Harnessing QM for better living,

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 /  SunCat /  H->C+Energy
     
Originally-From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H->C+Energy
Date: 26 Apr 1995 13:45:30 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

Need help from a pro with this.  If a gram of Hydrogen is converted
completely to Carbon how much Carbon and energy is produced?  Also what
arer the resction pathways?  How are they designated?

SunCat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
--Adam Smith _Wealth of Nations_ Vol. 1, BookIII, Chapter 4


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkamchar cudlnSunCat cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell
Date: 26 Apr 1995 19:07:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Do I detect a trend here?  Be a "nice guy" and present data that appears
: to show excess energy without all the technical detail that is really 
: required to back up an experiment.

: Sorry, the "conclusions" section of the paper is a vital part of the 
: scientific process.  Present the data, then put your reputation on the
: line by stating an opinion on what it means.  

Tom, Tom, Tom  :-)

Recall that just prior to the paragraph you took issue with, I explicitly
said that all characterizations in the posting were mine -- please do not
infer that my characterization represents Dr. Cravens practice.  My
memory for the details of our conversation is insufficient except for the
notes I was able to scribble down, and those only related to a few
dimensions and quantities.

I'm sure if I was trying to characterize the comments made by yourself
to me over the course of a 40 minute phone call, that you'd appreciate
that I not put words into your mouth -- especially when the choice of
words could convey quite different intended meanings.

If I had more time with Dr. Cravens, then I would feel more comfortable
that I had captured him accurately.  Otherwise, you are putting too
much a burden on me and blaming Dr. Cravens for my failings.

I won't retract that I found Dr. Cravens to be a "nice guy"  as damning
as that may be. :-)

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts
Date: 26 Apr 1995 19:16:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: For the current thing just shift the word between the @ to between
: the * and insert the new device between the @.  

: There is a reason for this.  New experiments have larger error limits 
: than old ones that have been perfected.  So new devices (sometimes)
: show large excess energy.  


But there is more than one potential reason -- another is that the natural
progress of, well, progress, is that devices get better and better.

A gasoline engine of today is lighter, more robust, more fuel efficient,
and more powerful that the engine designs that preceeded it.

The proof is in the pudding, and I think it is a mistake to try to
infer "instant knowledge" by examining trends for which there are
alternate possibilities.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: H->C+Energy
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H->C+Energy
Date: 26 Apr 1995 19:35:27 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <abc4445f03021004a3bf@[35.8.67.225]>, kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
(SunCat) wrote:

> Need help from a pro with this.  If a gram of Hydrogen is converted
> completely to Carbon how much Carbon and energy is produced?  Also what
> arer the resction pathways?  How are they designated?
> 

Eh?  What alchemy are you proposing?  You'll need a source of neutrons to
pull this off, or try some form of electron capture.

However, from a purely mass balance argument, 1 g of protium (at. wt.
1.007822) contains 1/1.007822 mols of protium.  Assuming you create 1 atom
of C12 from 12 H, you end up with 1/(12)(1.007822) mols of C12.  The
atomic weight of C12 is 12 (exactly, by definition).  Thus, you end up
with 1/1.007822 g of C12.

The mass difference is 1-1/1.007822=7.7613E-3 g, which, using E=mc^2,
results in 6.99E18 ergs, or 6.99E11 Joules.

If you want a better answer than that, you'll have to specify the problem
better.  I hope this helps.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / John Logajan /  Re: H->C+Energy
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H->C+Energy
Date: 26 Apr 1995 20:19:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

SunCat (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu) wrote:
: If a gram of Hydrogen is converted completely to Carbon how much Carbon
: and energy is produced?

If you have a table of isotope weights you can work it out.

For instance, hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.007825 atomic mass units.
Carbon has a mass of 12.00000 AMU.  So to assemble, somehow, 12 hydrogen
protons into 6 carbon neutrons and 6 carbon protons, you'd get a
combined weight of 12 * 1.007825 = 12.0939.

So we see that this new carbon would weigh a little too much for what
we know carbon really weighs. The difference is 12.0939 - 12.0000 = 0.0939
AMU's.

This 0.0939 AMU represents the mass converted to energy in the act of
fusion.  You can convert this number to energy accounted in electron
volts by the factor, 1 AMU = 931.5 MeV.

So 0.0939 * 931.5 = 87.5 MeV, per carbon atom produced.

One gram of hydrogen is also one mole of hydrogen, but it takes 12 of
them to produce a carbon, so you end up with 1/12 mole of carbon.

There are 96,400 joules/mole at 1 eV/particle.  So again, since we
have 1/12 mole and 87.5 MeV, 96,400/12 * 87,500,000 = 7.03E+11 joules,
or about 700 giga-watt-seconds of energy.

The mass difference is less than one percent (0.8% or so) so you'd
have around 992 milligrams of carbon after the conversion.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Tom Droege /  Re: Certificates
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Certificates
Date: 26 Apr 1995 20:41:19 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <ts_zemanian-2604951012100001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) says:
>
>In article <3nltao$iou@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
>wrote:
>
>> I have received several mailings thanking me for the certificate.
>> I hasten to point out that Scott Hazen Mueller and Nancy did the 
>> work of printing the certificates.  I just signed them and mailed 
>> them out with the picture.  
>> 
>
>And a fine picture it is.  But tell me, how do you know that the IBM PC
>keeps the cat off the far end of the bench without checking to see whether
>kitty has tunnelled through; and if you must check, what's the point of
>the PC?
>
>Harnessing QM for better living,
>
>--Tom
>
>--
>The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 

I was really only pointing out one of the uses for a Genuine IBM PC 
with a whole 16K Bytes of memory.  Who could conceive of ever loading one
up beyond 640K Bytes?  But suppose we put it to work computing a quantum
jump for GB (after the famous aeroplane).  How long would it take?
Would the other end of the bench still be there?  On the subject, I 
actually built a circuit using a tunnel diode a few weeks ago.  You 
can still buy them, but I think there are more sellers than there are 
people who know they exist or how to use them.

Tom Droege 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Michael Huffman /  Re: Infinate Energy and the Huffman device
     
Originally-From: knuke@big.aa.net (Michael Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Infinate Energy and the Huffman device
Date: 26 Apr 1995 15:15:58 -0700
Organization: Alternate Access Inc. - Affordable, Reliable Internet Access

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:
: >Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
: >Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
: >Subject: Infinate Energy and the Huffman device
: >Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 13:01 -0500 (EST)
: >[snip]
: >I believe this explains this experience using ordinary physics.  Even without
: >excess energy we simply have a case in which water is stored in a spiral
: >turbine.  The water is under high pressure along the periphery, and low
: >pressure toward the center.  The boiling point of the water near the center is
: >
: >depressed, so it initially boils first.  This causes the water to be expelled
: >very rapidly (like in a geyser), giving a thrust to the turbine.  This thrust
: >was sufficient to overposer the 1/3 horsepower motor momentarily, and the moto
: >r
: >then resycnronises at a speed which is slightly less than a harmonic of the
: >syncronous speed.
: >
: >Thus the entire episode, I believe, can be explained using normal physical
: >laws.
: >
: >                                                                Marshall

: Marshall,

: Just for the record, what is/was the direction of curvature of the 
: holes, relative to the direction of rotation of the motor?
: I.e. would the "turbine-effect" help or hinder the motor in its 
: rotation?

: Regards,

: Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

If you have a copy of the article in front of you, the direction of 
rotation is counterclockwise. The tangent of the arc of the curved tube 
is 45 degrees from a line drawn from the center of the rotor to the 
circumferal edge of the rotor - at least in that drawing. The motor used 
was a Dayton split-phase, 1/3HP induction motor, mod. #6K578C, rated at 
3450RPM. There are performance data sheets available by fax from Dayton's 
customer service people. -Knuke
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenknuke cudfnMichael cudlnHuffman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.26 / Barry Merriman /  Anomalous Tritium decay in Ti? (was Re: ICCF-5--Three Views.3)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anomalous Tritium decay in Ti? (was Re: ICCF-5--Three Views.3)
Date: 26 Apr 1995 22:36:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3nlu58$scj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)  
writes:
> Report on ICCF-5 by Olof Sunden
> 
> O. Reifenschweiler, from Philips Research
> Laboratories in the Netherlands, gave an interesting paper regarding the
> decreased radioactivity of tritium when confined in a Ti lattice. This is
> also a discovery in severe conflict with present physical theories.

Now, this is a more promising line of scientific investigation,
since you can monitor a robust, clearly nuclear signal with a 
theoretically well understood behavior, in a solid state,
without worrying about chemistry and heat transfer effects. Is anyone 
going to follow up on this?

(Of course, its a bit of a pain to get T...).



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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr 27 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
