1995.04.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A question
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 21:41:00 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3njcul$laq@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov writes:
>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>> {what if there were free energy}.

>> I'd speculate that first, you would have no energy companys as such.
>> However, the tremedious resulting glut of energy would have profound
>> secondary ramifications (severe global warming, etc.) so that society
>> would be forced to put mandatory controls on energy availability and
>> carefully licence/control devices that could accomplish what you are
>> describing.  

Consider that most of the energy generated by electric power utilities 
today doesn't go into electricity but rather into heat which is piped off
to water or air through giant cooling towers (even part of a nuclear
plants symbol.  

Although tokamaks will be a bit worse, our approach is much more promising
since it should cut waste heat by an order of magnitude.  Further, there
are a bevy of more efficient ways of doing things with power devices,
so the expected outlay of man-made waste energy could be reduced  for
decades to come.  Consider that with our technology, near term space 
colonization becomes even probable, there could be an transport of humans
to a number of aneutronically powered planetoid habitats.  

>Unless the heat generated by human activities is a substantial fraction
>of the total solar energy being deposited on the Earth, it won't
>make much difference.

Even a 14 % increase variance in solar output at centuries long minimum
and maximum, had some very significant effects on human life and noticeably
tree growth.  

>The total solar flux is really *big*.
Yes, but it is increasing since our last minimum just a few centuries ago.  

>Global warming is a problem if the physics and chemistry change the 
>equilibrium *temperature* at which radiated heat equals the heat coming
>in plus heat generated internally. 

But it's driven by near surface fusion processes in the sun and biological
feed back on the earth's surface.  An increase in total CO2 atmospheric
inventory as additional input to the atmosphere by a factor of 2 or 3 
wouldn't have much effect on heating, since the biosphere would simply 
expand to cover the desserts and increase the biomass surface density.  
Perhaps also, it would increase growth areas much nearer the poles.  
The change in albedo, would counter the sun's effect of normal heating, 
and the additional polar melting could be trapped by bio modified land 
surface characteristics (more lakes and ponding as well as cellulose.   
One very nice outcome of an increase in biomass is the greatly reduced 
extinction rates of local human nations, plant and animal.  

>Using free energy without changing this equilibrium would not have
>super-harmful effects until you start to come close to the Sun's output
>striking the earth.

I think that is a bit optimistic.  
>>                                    Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.29 / Jasper Li /  Rest of FAQ files
     
Originally-From: ab391@torfree.net (Jasper Li)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rest of FAQ files
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 07:42:20 GMT
Organization: Toronto FreeNet

Can anyone forward me a copy of the rest of the FAQ files for this 
newsgroup.  I can only find 0/11.  If possible, can you just send me the 
first 3 to start.
-- 
ab391@freenet.toronto.on.ca (Jasper Li)
Student, Programmer, and overall nice Canadian
- no animals were hurt in the posting of this message, but I did forget 
to feed my goldfish.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenab391 cudfnJasper cudlnLi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.29 / William Rowe /  Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 17:39:30 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Jed points out some experiments such as the Wright brothers flight or the
atomic bomb don't need error bars to be beleived. He goes on to point out
others such as the evicence of the top quark need error bars and
statistical analysis. I would agree with this assessment. However, I think
Jed fails to point out the key difference.

Things like the Wright brothers first flight or the atomic bomb can be
observed without the assistance of any instrumentation. Things like the
top quark need very sophisticated instrumentation to be observed.

Now consider the Patterson cell. Jed states this provides a 2-4 degree
temperature difference. I would agree this does not take very
sophisticated instrumentation to detect. However, I can't detect a
difference this small without some instrumentation and I doubt that many
could.

Jed implies the easily detected heat puts the Patterson cell in the same
category as heavier than air flight. I would argue this isn't the case. If
instrumentation is needed to observe the effect then error bars are
needed.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.29 / William Rowe /  Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fus
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fus
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 17:58:25 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <Jk4-pL5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[skip]
> 
>     "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

[skip]

Tom Droege's speculations aren't the point. What he found was a lack of
rigour in keeping track of things i.e. no log books, no calibration
curves. Tom's report doesn't show the Griggs device can't be over unity.
It does show the data is not conclusive. Hence my comment.
> 
> 
> 
>     "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."
>
 
[skip]

>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.

None of my comments imply I lack faith in the scientific method. I am glad
there are qualified researchers looking for answers and assume they will
eventually have some success.

The point I am making is if you don't have a basic understanding of the
process, you really don't know what aspect of the process needs scaling.
In fact, the point of my original post was to take issue with your views
on theory vs experiment. I believe both are equally important for progress
to be made. Experimental data is not very useful without
understanding/theory. Likewise, theory without confirming data is not very
useful.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.29 /  Kennel /  Re: A question
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 29 Apr 1995 21:43:46 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:

> >Global warming is a problem if the physics and chemistry change the 
> >equilibrium *temperature* at which radiated heat equals the heat coming
> >in plus heat generated internally. 

> But it's driven by near surface fusion processes in the sun and biological
> feed back on the earth's surface.  An increase in total CO2 atmospheric
> inventory as additional input to the atmosphere by a factor of 2 or 3 
> wouldn't have much effect on heating, since the biosphere would simply 
> expand to cover the desserts and increase the biomass surface density.  

Say what?

There's no nuclear fusion near the sun's surface!  (otherwise it would
shine in gammas and neutrons.  "Unless you have 1,000,000 sunblock you
will have a very bad day")

How will the desert start to bloom?  The potential response of local 
climate to changes in atmospheric parameters is not at all clear or
well settled.  Still most research that I've heard about generally seems
to result in greater climate extremes, meaning deserts will stay even
drier.  Unless you can show that rainfall will definitely be different
in deserts I don't know how you can say this.

Deserts are barren because there's not enough water!  

There's plenty of CO2 in deserts, it's obviously not the limiting factor.  
Consider CO2 concentration in Brazil to Algeria.  Pretty similar.  Consider
H20 availability in Brazil and Algeria.


matt
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.29 /  Kennel /  Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars
Date: 29 Apr 1995 21:47:27 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

William Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
> Jed points out some experiments such as the Wright brothers flight or the
> atomic bomb don't need error bars to be beleived. He goes on to point out
> others such as the evicence of the top quark need error bars and
> statistical analysis. I would agree with this assessment. However, I think
> Jed fails to point out the key difference.

There is of course a "prima facie" test for these gizmos.  As obvious
as the Wright brothers, that turbine powered speed boat and the A_bomb.

Have it produce long term net excess electrical *power* without external 
power inputs.

> -- 
> William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
> MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.29 /  RichardFre /  info on hair care
     
Originally-From: richardfre@aol.com (RichardFre)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: info on hair care
Date: 29 Apr 1995 21:26:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I will be glad to mail anybody the latest information on Hair.  I have
devoted my entire medical practice to
hair loss. please send SASE to Dr. Dilon Ellis, 155-21 Cherry Ave, 
Flushing, NY 11355
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrichardfre cudlnRichardFre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's
Date: 28 Apr 1995 13:03:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <AWC.95Apr21094704@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Arthur     
Carlson        TOK, awc@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
> Now to the question of significance. For the standard tokamak reactor
> concept (much criticized in this group), synchrotron radiation losses
> can be neglected. However, if you want to go to alternate fuels, you
> have to go to higher temperatures, where it can be a serious
> problem. The most popular proposal to get around this is to
> simultaneously go to very high beta: If the plasma pressure is
> sufficiently high, the magnetic field within the plasma is low, so you
> have less gyro-motion and less synchrotron radiation.

Hmm.  You make it sound like a high-beta advanced fuels machine can 
have less synchrotron radiation than a D-T machine.  I think this is a 
bit off.  Synchrotron radiation must scale with the number of particles,
so higher beta => higher density and/or temperature => higher radiation.  
However, I think the power loss scales like (beta)*B^4 = nT * B^2.  
Most of the increase in beta (or nT) goes to give you an increase in
fusion reactivity, right, so you can't really cut B that much.
So while synchrotron losses from a high-beta advanced-fuels machine 
will be lower than a low-beta advanced-fuels machine, I think they're 
still going to be higher than your standard D-T tokamak.

> Higher beta also
> gives you a higher power density, hence a cheaper machine for a given
> power level. This, of course, is easier said than done. Another route
> would be to reflect the radiation back into the plasma, but this does
> not seem to be feasible.  

Actually the answer we were given on this in class was that it *was*
possible to reflect *synchrotron* radiation back into the plasma with
a high level of efficiency.

>(Paul Koloc will give you a different
> opinion on both these points.)  The calculations would be relatively
> straightforward, except that a reactor plasma is typically optically
> thick to synchrotron radiation, so you need to take density and
> temperature profiles into account.

Right, it's a messy one.

Synchrotron radiation is lower in fusion machines than in accelerators
primarily because (a) the particles have much less energy, so they
don't radiate as much, and (b) the plasma is generally optically-thick
to the radiation, which provides a certain measure of insulation against
radiation losses.

The dominant method of radiation loss in most fusion plasmas is (I think)
not actually synchrotron radiation, but bremsstrahlung.  Because we have
electrons colliding with ions, the electron bremsstrahlung radiation is
large.  Bremsstrahlung losses also scale unfavorably with plasma beta,
and will be quite a problem for high-beta advanced-fuels machines.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr 30 04:37:02 EDT 1995
------------------------------
