1995.04.26 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 21:36:28 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Barry Merriman writes: >Yes, it was a nice summary---so, now, Tom, are you >going to set up a Patterson style cells? That would >seem to be the quick and easy route to a robust experiment. Droege would not be qualified or able to set up Patterson style cells. As I mentioned in the thread titled "Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars CETI is only working with qualified experts from institutions that enter into formal agreements. They also insist on a formal one-week training course, even for the experts. That is very wise policy, in my opinion. The calorimetry in this experiment is easy, but the other aspects of the experiments (chemistry, electrochemistry and so on) are quite complicated. I know a lot about them and I can report that they are over my head. They are also, of course, trade secrets, so I am not going to discuss them. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Gary Steckly / Re: Certificates Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Certificates Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 01:36:24 GMT Organization: Communications Canada Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) 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. : Tom Droege : Tom Droege I just received mine today. Nice job all around. Thanks! But is that what your labs really like at Fermilab? Maybe we should give them the remaining $700 dollars so they can finish the drywall ;-) And I thought we were having a hard time with cutbacks up here! Thanks again. Gary cudkeys: cuddy27 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Barry Merriman / Re: 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: Re: Anomalous Tritium decay in Ti? (was Re: ICCF-5--Three Views.3) Date: 27 Apr 1995 03:09:07 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3nmhsg$4iu@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: Well, I'll follow up my own post, because I like the subject :-). Forget CF and the vagaries of excess heat---solid state effects altering nuclear decay rates is a much more scientifically exciting idea, mainly because the base experiment is measuring _something_ nuclear (T decay) rather than nothing (heat generation). Thus one can unambiguously monitor solid state effects on a nuclear process. Further, if CF is ``true'', then one would expect perturbations of things like nuclear decay rates as well---i.e. all nuclear processes should be disturbed by the solid state effects if some of the are. Thus, the T decay rate experiments could provide a convenient marker for the reality of the more complex CF claims, much the same way as readily detectable genetic markers are used to locate more complex sequences of genes. One problem I see with doing T experiments is that it beta decays, so the decay product is a low energy (20 keV) electron which has little penetrating power: it can only travel a few cm in air, a few microns in a metal. Thus, if the observed anomaly is an absence of decay electrons, it could just be due to them being blocked by the Ti. On the other hand, if too many decay electrons are observed, one need to be sure that they are not secondary emission electrons kicked out of the Ti by the primary. So, one would need a suitable series of controls to eliminate these possibilities; how feasible this is depends on the size of the observed anomaly. Alternatively , one can try to count the He3 neutral decay product, but that seems like less fun, as one must do spectroscopy and worry about contamination. Perhaps it would be better to use an isotope that emits a neutron, but I don't see any good candidates (good = absorbed well by Ti/Pd, available, and a long enough half life to do reasonable experiments). -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / John Logajan / Patterson Power Cell energy calculations Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Patterson Power Cell energy calculations Date: 27 Apr 1995 06:25:21 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. The ICCF5 Patterson Power Cell demo produced, according to Dr. Dennis Cravens, about one watt of excess thermal power for about 90 hours overal. There was approximately 40 mg of metal in the micro- spheres. There was about 200 ml of 1.0M lithium sulfate lightwater electrolye in a recirculating loop (1.0M Li2SO4/H2O solution.) Given these amounts of unreplenished components and doing some back of the envelope calculations, I get the following energy release figures. Including all H2O/Pd/Ni/Li2SO4 -- 0.3 eV/molecule. Including just Pd/Ni/Li2SO4 -- 16.8 eV/molecule. Including one H2O per Li2SO4 -- 8.4 eV/molecule. Counting one Pd/Ni per molecule -- 5800.0 eV/molecule. Note that there are: 11.0 moles of H2O 0.2 moles of Li2SO4 0.00043 moles of Ni 0.00014 moles of Pd H2O content dwarfs Li2SO4, and Li2SO4 content exceeds Ni and Pd by orders of magnitude. A metal/chemical reaction is simply out of the question as the source of the energy. The best chemical reactions burning Ni and Pd at a 1 watt rate would use up the available metal quantity in under 5 minutes. But if we can get 55 H2O molecules to interact with each of the available Li2SO4 molecules in some unknown chemical reaction, then we can get an average of 0.3eV per starting molecule. However, as we assume fewer and fewer H2O molecules per Li2SO4 reaction, the energy requirement spread among them grows correspondingly greater. For instance, if we assume that only 4 H2O molecules combine somehow with each available Li2SO4 molecule, then we need 3.3 eV per starting molecule -- and we are getting into some of the hotter known chemical reactions. Can Li2SO4 "burn" with H2O, the only two significantly available components at the measured power levels and run lengths? You can get some hydrate formation, at least there is such a compound, but you'd have to get a heck of a lot of it, and I don't think it releases enough energy, maybe about 2.8 eV per Li2SO4+H2O, and we need about three times as much energy. The amount of "ash" would be evident. So if there is any hope of a chemical explanation, it has to be some kind of a massive Li2SO4-H2O reaction. -- - 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: cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Dieter Britz / Info for Jeff Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Info for Jeff Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:34:47 GMT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 15:44:00 -500 Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Originally-From: tony.ross@undiscovered.com (TONY ROSS) in FD 3624 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 15:44:00 -500 >Hello .. > I am a Grade 13 student from Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada. (Near >Detroit, Michigan, US) I am currently researching for an independant >study on Cold Fusion. I was wondering if anyone might be able to provide >me with thoughts, or possibly experimental procedures or data, re: cold >fusion. Any and all help will be much appreciated. > Thanks, > Jeff W. Reaume Well, Jeff, this is a big question. I suggest you start by reading a few of the books on the subject. You can get a list of the titles at the ftp site vm1.nodak.edu, where you can log in (i.e. using ftp) as anonymous, giving your email address as password. Go (cd) into fusion and get the file fusion.cnf-books. The main works to read are those by Close, Huizenga, Taubes and Mallove, the last one being only positive one of the major books. Then, if you're still keen, there are close to 1000 abstracts of scientific papers in the files cnf-pap1 to -7. If this seems too much {:] you could try the wais site at sunsite.unc.edu and - having selected cold fusion, narrow it down to, say, review works, a smallish bunch. If you can't do ftp or access the wais site, email me privately. There is not much use following this news group, as it is now dominated by gadgets that seem to me to have nothing at all to do with cold fusion, but rather with perpetual motion and the mythical free lunch. This could change, if we succeed with the new, moderated, group, being voted for/against right now, sci.physics.fusion.research; there we hope to see scientifically oriented discussion of fusion again. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Dieter Britz / RE: Impact fusion Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Impact fusion Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:54:49 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Originally-From: yuigu01@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Ralf Guenther) in FD 3626, Date: 26 Apr 1995 08:13:33 GMT: >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. This reminds me of a favourite ploy of Australian politicians: when something they would like to do, is proved in another country not to be feasible, they respond with, "Well, under Australian conditions...". Physics applies to solids as it does to other states of matter. In fact, your argument goes against you. The velocities of the atoms in a speeding pellet are tightly distributed, there is not much a tail there. >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). OK, here I might agree, and I did say that you are free to postulate some energy concentration as the pellet hits the target (in so many words). I doubt this but can't deny it outright. >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...). Hey, some hundreds of km/s, that does come up to the keV level, where fusion starts, nicht wahr? >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. If you want to invoke "special conditions" then you can imagine what you like. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 06:51:44 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Barry Merriman writes: >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 Ummm. . . Yes, well, it is a relative thing. Perhaps I mistakenly gave the impression that these things are actually simple to use. I did not mean that! Both the E-Quest device and the CETI device require training. The E-Quest device goes out to lunch mysteriously, as it did at LANL during their testing (so they used that no-heat run as a blank and found no helium production). There is a long list of ways to screw up the CETI device too. What I meant to say -- what I had in mind -- was that these things are *relatively* or comparatively robust, simple and reliable. Also, because the excess heat is much larger than the older devices, and the input to output ratio much bigger, the calorimetry is simplified and the S/N ratio is much better. So the calorimetry is easier and it does not require such painstaking precision. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Future Sci.physics.fusion research efforts Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 07:04:04 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Tom Droege writes: >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. That is incorrect. As I pointed out in the paper, the calorimetry for several systems has been improved since ICCF4, and some of them now show more heat than before. I listed sparking and glow discharge. To that I should add: ultrasonic, proton conductors, thin film devices, traditional Pd - D2O cells (at places like KEK and the National Inst. for Fusion Science). In each of these systems, calorimetry has been improved and the excess has increased. Turning to the CETI system, the calorimetry a year ago was mush. It was practically non-existant, to be strict. Just by guess and by golly they figured they were getting three times input. Cravens built them some real flow calorimeters with flowmeters for both the coolant and the effluent gas, and he calibrated every way that I have ever heard of, with numerous data points. He took into account the losses from the cell holder, the effluent gas and so on. His results show that they are getting a lot more excess heat than they thought they were getting previously, which is just the opposite from your assertion. I think if you are going to make assertions like this, Tom, you should try to back them up with specific instances from the literature. Anyone can state a vague generalization that "results are fading" -- or whatever. That does not mean anything, or perhaps it just means you have not followed up to talk to the researchers again lately. Be specific: which results are fading? To what extent? For what reason? Who has retracted? The only retraction that I am aware of is Srinivasan who said that some of his light water excess heat results were from recombination. That's *some*, not all. I have not heard that any other Ni light water or hydrogen people have retracted. I heard informally that Piantelli et al. improved their calorimetry and get better results. More heat at a better S/N ratio. Again, that is just the opposite from what you assert, but as I am sticking to specific assertions about specific people (instead of vauge generalizations) I have it easier than you. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Tim Mirabile / Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int Originally-From: Tim Mirabile Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int Date: 27 Apr 1995 06:40:41 GMT Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210 pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote: > In article <3mqbj3$oe6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mharmer@aol.com (MHarmer) writes: > >>>You have a problem here. Your use of the word conventional seems to > >>>be capricious, since muon-catalyzed fusion is obviously not a > >>>straight form of fusion, although it has been looked into at PPPL > >>>(Kulsrud) and suggested by our own S. Jones. > >Muon catalized fusion is considered convensional fusion. It isn't any > >different except that it requires a muon source and lower tempretures. ^^^^^^ > You have that right. I'd call it conventional because it's been proven and doesn't require any "new physics". cudkeys: cuddy27 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / jedrothwell@de / Re: University of Rochester lab for laser Energetics Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: University of Rochester lab for laser Energetics Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 10:53:08 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) DEddings1 writes: >Is anybody around familiar with what is happening here? A little basic >info please. I am familliar with what is happening. Here is where you will find a lot of basic info. This is a little bit out of date, but it is a good start: General Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, (John Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove $26 (including postage). The definitive book on the subject. E. Storms, "Cold Fusion Heats Up," Technology Review, May-June 1994 issue (MIT), 20-29 Statements and letters entered into the Congressional Record during the May 5, 1993 Fusion Energy hearings, by Rep. Dick Swett, Dr. Edmund Storms and Dr. Eugene Mallove. [E-Mail] The complete record of the May 5, 1993 hearings covering both hot and cold fusion: "FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives," ISBN 0-16-041505-5. Technical Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has published many articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager, The American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back issues of Fusion Technology are available from the APS publications office at 708-352-6611. Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box 48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232 Fax: 801-583-6245 The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4). This conference was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Advanced Nuclear Systems, and by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. It was held December 6 - 9, 1993, at Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. The proceedings can be purchased from: EPRI Distribution Center * 207 Coggins Drive * P.O. Box 23205 * Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 * Tel: 510-934-4212 Another version of the ICCF4 proceedings was published by the American Nuclear Society: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Dec. 6 - 9, 1993, Transactions of Fusion Technology, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T, Part 2 (Dec. 1994), ISSN: 0748-1896. This is a peer-reviewed set of some of the formost papers. Unfortunately, some of the best papers from the conference were either not submitted or they did not pass peer review, so they can only be found in the full proceedings from EPRI. Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 - 25, 1992) in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press, Inc., PR Hogo 5 Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232, Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932. Price 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping: $26.65) P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold Fusion In Nagoya," 43 pages, $5 [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2] The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the Second Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July 4, 1991); contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY. From the Second Annual Conference proceedings, we recommend: M. McKubre (SRI), "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System," p. 419 - 443 M. McKubre et al., "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems," J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55 S. Focardi (Bologna U.), R. Habel (Cagliari U.), F. Piantelli (Siena U.), "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems," Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol 107 A, Feb. 1994, p. 163 - 167 M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell (CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952 M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129 E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. A superb technical introduction to the field. O. Reifenschweiler (Philips), "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles," Physics Letters A, 184 (1994) 149-153 M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J. Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117. H. Gerischer (Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Plank), "Memorandum On The Present State Of Knowledge On Cold Fusion." [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2] Information about the Mills light water experiment. [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2] Media Coverage BBC "Horizon" series science documentary, "Too Close to the Sun." Broadcast March 21, 1994. Scheduled to be shown by the CBC in Canada on April 4, 1994 Popular Science, August 1993 issue, "COLD FUSION Fact or Fantasy," by Jerry Bishop, cover story Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by Neville Hodgkinson, cover story The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993 was devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists included Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University, Peter Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes * Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93) The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) broadcast a superb documentary on cold fusion on June 24, 1993, titled "The Secret Life of Cold Fusion." For a copy, contact: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation * Post Broadcast Unit * Room 5-E, 314 J * P.O. Box 500 * Station A * Toronto, Canada M5W 1E6. The cost is $85 Canadian plus appropriate tax. Specify program title and date. New York Times, November 17, 1992, "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan," by Andrew Pollack, p. B5 The Observer (UK), December 6, 1992, "Western sceptics hand Japan cheap power on a plate," by Michael White - Jed cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.25 / Bruce Liebert / cancel Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranormal,al .alien.visitors,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.skeptic,s i.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.fusion,comp.society.f tures Subject: cancel Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 18:30:09 GMT Organization: University of Hawaii cancel cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Arthur TOK / Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Date: 27 Apr 1995 16:01:51 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching In article pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > In article awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) writes: > >Whether a concept is good or bad, science and society are > >best served by information which is easily available. > > I don't agree. [Exposition of Paul Koloc's heroicism for telling us > anything at all.] I can accept it if you want to play your cards close to your chest for commercial reasons, but then what are you doing here? And how can you criticize the "tokamak community" for not seriously considering your concept if you aren't willing to tell us about it in sufficient detail? > >In this spirit, > >are you interested in adding my critique of the plasmak, or is your > >www entry only intended for plasmak TB's? The crack about TB's was a bit out of line. Apologies to John Logajan. > Of course we are interested, ... I am, that is, John?? > But you have the papers I sent, or didn't you receive them?? They got here. Thanks. (The address is OK, except the new ZIP is 85748.) I've only had time to start looking at them. > Maybe you can make a few of your comments here on the net??? I'm starting to build a web page, in which my plasmak comments will figure prominently. Anything new I will also post here. -- 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: cuddy27 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Labrys / Re: University of Rochester lab for laser Energetics Originally-From: tuttt@cii3130-14.its.rpi.edu (Labrys) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: University of Rochester lab for laser Energetics Date: 27 Apr 1995 01:38:01 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. deddings1@aol.com (DEddings1) writes: >Is anybody around familiar with what is happening here? A little basic >info please. They are doing direct-drive ICF experiments among other things. I work summers in th NOVA group at livermore & we do some work with them. Here is the official paragraph from their brief home page: The Laboratory for Laser Energetics is a unique facility of the University of Rochester. The Laboratory operates OMEGA upgrade and DDL -- two ultrahigh lasers. The OMEGA upgrade facility is a 40-TW 60-beam system and GDL is a one-beam, 1-TW laser. A variety of additional facilities also available at the Laboratory include a Cray Research Inc., Cray YMP2E/232 a very high-speed, two-central-proc ssor system, with a 6-ns minor cycle time. This system is particularly well suited to numerical computations requiring a high degree of accuracy. Active research programs at LLE include laser fusion feasibility studies, laser physics, plasma physics, laboratory astrophysics, x-ray diagnostics and material studies. Although formally an operating unit of the University's College of Engineering and Applied Science, the Laboratory has a number of collaborative projects in progress involving faculty and graduate students of the Department of Physics and Astronomy. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/brochure/lle.html A detailed explanation of both Direct & Indirect Drive ICF can be found at the NIF homepage at: http://www-phys.llnl.gov/X_Div/nif.html I have put together a list of fusion research sites (both magnetic & inertial) at: http://rpinfo.its.rpi.edu:80/~tuttt/fusion.html Regards Teresa ______________________________________________________________________________ Teresa E Tutt | tuttt@rpi.edu /\ | /\ EPHY '96 ( >X< ) "Life need not be easy \/ | \/ provided it is not empty" | -Lise Meitner | http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt | ______________________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy27 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr 28 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------