1995.05.25 / John Logajan /  "Cold Fusion" issue #10
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" issue #10
Date: 25 May 1995 04:28:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I just got issue #10 of "Cold Fusion" which completes (as I understand
it) the first calendar year of publication.

They have some data from Dr. Cravens ICCF5 presentation.

In one run he lists:

V = 3.80 V
I = 0.12 A
f(g) = 1.2 ml/min  (approx gas flow)

I've worked through the numbers and this gas flow rate is within 2%
of the expected gas rate.  So that should lay to rest the idea that
there are multiple mini-cells in electrical series in the Patterson
Power Cell bead pack.

Bruce Klein lists 10.4ml/minute/amp as 100% faraday efficient
dissociation of H2O into H2 and O2.  So keep that handy conversion
factor in mind in future experiments involving H2O dissociation.

In that same run, above, heat output was 1.78 W.

Thus they give three heat yeild ratios:

Measured power in/measured power out    = 1 : 3.7
              with heat loss correction = 1 : 4.2
with heat loss and gas loss corrections = 1 : 4.6


By the way, Jed Rothwell sent me the scan of a nice color photo of the
Cravens PPC demo unit at ICCF5 that I have put up on my www home
page.  Forgive the scale of the picture but I specifically requested
that graphic file size be kept small as I am limited to the number
of bytes I can have on-line.  URL below.

--
 - 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:
cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@linux5.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 25 May 1995 03:11:20 -0500
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <3psrvv$gt9@xcalibur.intnet.net>,
Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@news.IntNet.net> wrote:

>   On page 14 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and
>Matter" we find the following statement:

>  ...Thus light is something like raindrops--[...]

So far, a pretty standard analogy.

>On page 15 of his book he states:

>[...] I'm telling you the way it does behave--like particles.

Ok.

>On page 37 he argues:
>
>  ...Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying
>  that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), 

***************************************************************************
** but the price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by    **
** physics to the position of being able to calculate only the           **
** probability that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a     **
** good model of how it actually happens.                                **
***************************************************************************

Ayup.

>On page 119 he writes:
>
>  ...We must accept some very bizarre behavior: [...]

Ayup.  Just what I learned in quantum mechanics.

[...]
>     Optics students learned alternative explanations for such phenomena in
>  terms of waves like those undulating through water and air.  Feynman was--
>  with finality--eliminating the wave viewpoint altogether.  Waviness was
>  built into the phases carried by amplitudes, like little clocks. ...

Ayup.  Just what I learned in quantum mechanics.  

Dave Cook
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Alan M /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 25 May 1995 10:01:33 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <1995May24.163736.2250@plasma.byu.edu>  jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
> How about it, Tom?  Any comments from those on s.p.f. who contributed to the 
> previous exposee?   At least we have a claim of a working (light) water heater,
> available for purchase.  Makes for a definitive test, one supposes.  And cheap,
> too.  (Speaking of the cost of the device, not of the value of Tom's time.) 
> 

That would certainly have my support.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Laurie Forbes /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: 23 May 1995 19:17:46 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
:  
: >I don't know. If it is, that might be a way out. Anything to get away 
: >from this nuthouse and still have a place for discussing fusion, hot & cold. 
:  

: ..... chop chop
:
: Perhaps, if the insults and the inane attacks from people like
: Blue stop, some real scientists will come here and post real results. 
: ........
 
: - Jed

I can't believe he said that.  Does this man have any idea as to the 
irony of that statement?

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 08:45:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

William Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>Did Rockwell measure a sample for tritium content? Were they even asked
>to? Your statement above i.e., "... I am sure they do." makes a lot of
>assumptions.
 
Yes, they did. So did Los Alamos in that same experiment.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Dysfunctional behavior in government and private industry
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dysfunctional behavior in government and private industry
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 08:47:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
 
     "Inmates of USA seem to have the idea that business operates on a
     completely logical basis, and doesn't make mistakes....  Don't tell me
     that business has no momentum."
 
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) responded
 
     "Human economic activity is a discovery process -- trying to discover
     the best efficiencies, the best utilization of resources, the most
     consistent with our wants and desires. . . . Such a discovery process
     depends wholly on multi-parallelistic "experiments" and a feedback
     mechanism to cull out the misfires.  . . .the feedback mechanism for
     public businesses is totally screwed up.  It is massively delayed,
     politicized, unanswerable to its direct customers, is never expected to
     show a profit or loss statement, etc etc etc."
 
Darwinian competition is the key. It is the mechanism which punishes
dysfunctional behavior and rewards good management. Any institution can
develop what Britz calls "momentum." Any group of people can go off on a
tangent practicing self-destructive, self-defeating, dysfunctional behavior. A
group of managers in private industry is just as likely to start down that
path as a group of managers in a government agency. The difference is that the
corporate managers are punished by the market, whereas the government managers
are rewarded by Congress and encouraged to make the problem worse. When IBM
went off on a tangent in the late 1980s and started to ignore customer demands
for cheap, commodity microcomputers, the market swiftly punished IBM. Compaq,
Dell and many others grabbed a large share of IBM's market share, IBM lost
money, its stock plummeted, and it was forced to fire thousands of employees.
If the managers who made the disastrous decisions to ignore customer demand
did not learn their lesson (or if they were not fired), then eventually IBM
will go out of business.
 
Unfortunately, most government agencies have no competition. They are
monopolies. For example, for a long time NASA was the only non-military
organization capable of launching a rocket. That led to absurd over staffing,
communist style bureaucracy, and gross incompetence, which was described in
the book "The Hubble Wars" by Eric Chaisson (Harper Collins, 1994). It is a
heartbreaking story. Given the dynamics of business and organizations, a
monopoly like NASA will always degenerate in that fashion. Where there is no
competition, there is no mechanism to punish dysfunctional behavior, so the
behavior feeds on itself and gets worse. The DoE hot fusion program is another
classic example.
 
There are potential self-correcting mechanisms in democratically elected
governments. They are not as swift or as carefully targeted as free market
competition. When corruption, waste and stupidity grow to intolerable levels,
the Congress is finally forced to step in and clean house. That is why the SSC
was closed down abruptly, and that is why the PPPL will be closed. I hope that
the rest of the hot fusion program will also soon be axed. Unfortunately, that
is the only way to cure the disease in the public sector.
 
This is economics 101. I apologize for stating such elementary rules of
business and economics, but it appears that Britz and others are unaware of
these concepts.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Thomas Selby /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 25 May 1995 12:44:10 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

As a contributor, my support too.  

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Richard Blue /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super questions
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super questions
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:33:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is refreshing to be able to actually exchange information
this way!  Dieter explained the need for keeping the beads
packed, and Jed supplied the detail about the thumbscrew on
the Cravens device.  I though he had something else in mind
for the thumbscrew!

However, I don't think I have yet run this subject into the
ground so indulge me just a bit further.  In addition to
keeping the beads well packed is there not some concern for
the condition of the conducting surface layer on each and
every bead?

As it has been described the coating on these beads is
complex and, I can imagine, difficult to apply.  Does
the uniformity of the coating match the requirements?
Then, even if the coating is uniform, what possibilities
exist for the formation of nonconducting or poorly conducting
surface layers?  Indeed in some discussions on cold fusion
such layers are said to be essential for "proper" cold fusion
operation.  Have there been any tests on the detailed
condition of the beads?

Then we come to the subject of voltage, current, and Faraday
efficiency.  Some have said the voltage was probably too
low for multicell operation in the Cravens device.  However,
I was going on the information given here that said the
"cell" voltage was 5-8 volts.  That seems high enough for
me to not rule out 2 or 3 cells in series.  Of course the
current won't be very high, or so we are told.  Let's see
this operates at input power of 0.3 watts so the current
is....?  Is that a "high current density" situation when
the large surface area is considered?

Next we come to the information concerning the measurement
of the "expected" Faraday efficiency.  John Logajan provides
this information, but I am not sure I agree with John's
interpretation.  If we have multiple cells in series instead
of a single cell does not that make it possible to evolve
more gas than the correct amount for a single cell?  Of course
it only this correct amount is observed that would confirm
the notion that this is a single cell unless something else
is going on.

So my current super question is how do you rule out the
possibility of multiple cells producing excess gas (burp!)
which then gets lost through recombination.  Recombination -
you all remember that old chestnut.  Of course the next
question will be, "What difference does it make?"

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 25 May 1995 10:18:22 -0400
Organization: Win.Net Communications, Inc.

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:

>Somehow I doubt the money remaining in the fund is going to put much
>of a dent in the acquiring and testing the Potapov device.  But have
>fun on your flight to Moldavia. :-)

Not to mention the cost of getting the item in through customs.

Regards,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net
-- 
"This is going to cause more confusion than a mouse in a burlesque show." -
							Foghorn Leghorn.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
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: 25 May 1995 10:20:02 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Gene Preston (gene.preston@access.texas.gov) wrote:
: steve001@adelaide.DIALix.oz.au (Steven Cathery) wrote:
: >I have a theory of my own which I have been carrying with me for some 
: >time regarding the conceptualy paradoxical nature of quantum physics, but 

: >but I know you want more so I have familiarised myself with the creation 
: >science debate and 

: ..Creation science is not science at all, just dogma.  Give an example 
: of a prediction creation science makes that can be tested in a lab.

: gene.preston@access.texas.gov

   As I state in Chapter 2 of my book "The Farce of Physics", Einstein
believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and can't be
detected by experiments.  In Chapter 1 I present the official statement of The
Council of the American Physical Society opposing teaching the biblical story
of creation in science classes in public schools.  The following was taken
from that statement: ... In contrast to "Creationism," the systematic
application of scientific principles has led to a current picture of life, of
the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is
constantly being tested and refined by observation and analysis.  This ability
to construct critical experiments, whose results can require rejection of a
theory, is fundamental to the scientific method. ...
Since neither Einstein's relativity ether theory nor biblical creation theory
can be tested by the scientific method, it is logical to assume that they are
both not legitimate scientific theories!  The title of my book was inspired by
Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics.  Capra, a theoretical physicist
states in Chapter 1:

     The purpose of this book is to explore this relationship between the
  concepts of modern physics and the basic ideas in the philosophical and
  religious traditions of the Far East.  We shall see how the two
  foundations of twentieth-century physics--quantum theory and relativity
  theory--both force us to see the world very much in the way a Hindu,
  Buddhist, or Taoist sees it, and how this similarity strengthens when we
  look at the recent attempts to combine these two theories in order to
  describe the phenomena of the submicroscopic world: the properties and
  interactions of the subatomic particles of which all matter is made. 
  Here the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism are most
  striking, and we shall often encounter statements where it is almost
  impossible to say whether they have been made by physicists or Eastern
  mystics. [1 p.4]

The physicist that thinks that the mysticism that is at the heart of modern
physics does not matter, would do well to read the an article published
11/15/94 on pages 1 and 28 in the prominent newspaper the Boston Globe.  The
title of the article by Anthony Flint was "Science isn't immune to cultural
critique" and the following 4 paragraphs were taken from it:

  At the annual meeting of the National Association of Scholars last weekend,
  the No. 1 topic was the growing influence of theorists who say science
  doesn't deserve its reputation -- and reverence -- as a method of finding
  objective truth.  There is no such thing as a scientific fact, they argue
  -- only realities constructed by those in power, who happen to be mostly
  privileged white males seeking to remain in positions of dominance. 

  At the association's three days of seminars on trends in academia, the
  hallways of the Marriott Hotel here buzzed with talk of the attack on
  traditional science.  ``Yes, I am scared,'' Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg,
  a professor of physics at the University of Texas, said at a session on
  Friday. 

  ``More people in the academic world are questioning the notion of
  scientific objectivity,'' said Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and
  environmental policy at Tufts University.  Their point is ``that science
  can be bought, affected by politics, by bias and by funding sources, and by
  human beings who have a tendency to want their hypotheses to be
  successful.'' 
 
  The end of the Cold War brought an end to the public's reverence for
  science, Holton said, because the public no longer sees science as its
  defense against nuclear Armageddon.  ``There is an ebb and flow in the way
  science is seen by a culture,'' he said.  ``The euphoria for science after
  World War II is gone.  The pendulum has now swung the other way.'' 

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
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: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:38:45 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3q1e38$gg0@linux5.ph.utexas.edu>,
David M. Cook <dcook@linux5.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <3psrvv$gt9@xcalibur.intnet.net>,
>Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>
>>   On page 14 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and
>>Matter" we find the following statement:
>
>>  ...Thus light is something like raindrops--[...]
>
>So far, a pretty standard analogy.
>
>>On page 15 of his book he states:
>
>>[...] I'm telling you the way it does behave--like particles.
>
>Ok.
>
>>On page 37 he argues:
>>
>>  ...Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying
>>  that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), 
>
>***************************************************************************
>** but the price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by    **
>** physics to the position of being able to calculate only the           **
>** probability that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a     **
>** good model of how it actually happens.                                **
>***************************************************************************
>
>Ayup.
>
>>On page 119 he writes:
>>
>>  ...We must accept some very bizarre behavior: [...]
>
>Ayup.  Just what I learned in quantum mechanics.
>
>[...]
>>     Optics students learned alternative explanations for such phenomena in
>>  terms of waves like those undulating through water and air.  Feynman was--
>>  with finality--eliminating the wave viewpoint altogether.  Waviness was
>>  built into the phases carried by amplitudes, like little clocks. ...
>
>Ayup.  Just what I learned in quantum mechanics.  
>
>Dave Cook

Feynman, like Bohm and Herbert were (are) groping for a 'quantum reality'.

There seems some confusion about the wave/particle duality of the photon.

Consider this: Take a photon of frequency n/sec. This photon contains n
wavelets. Each wavelet is an entity unto itself. It expands and contracts
incessantly. The expansion is to a great distance.

In grouping with the others their centers are *not* concentric but linearly
arranged. Because of their flexibility they undergo the mechanics of
superposition -- and of course are proceeding at c.

Now the individual wavelet has a density. When combines with the others,
the density is, of course, greater at the center. This density falls off
as the *fourth* power of the distance from the center (which is not a 
point but a group center).

Therefore, the photon may be considered a particle because of the density
at the center (and that it is a group wave).  BUT at the extremeties the
wave characteristcs manifest and the photon tends to behave with wave
characterisitics.

Thus there is a dual behaviorship accounting for wave entanglement, non-
locality, and diffraction (including the one slit and two slit experiments.)
 
And of course, the dense center accounts for particlelike behavior.

If anyone is interested, they can find the details (including polarization)
in my monograph ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY located in this
newsgroup.



V.V.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
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: 25 May 1995 10:36:13 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Alan Nitikman (alann@primenet.com) wrote:
: In article <3pcss6$obm@news.bu.edu> Alex Kasman <famulus@acs.bu.edu> writes:
: >From: Alex Kasman <famulus@acs.bu.edu>
: >Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
: >Date: 17 May 1995 13:14:46 GMT

: >>:wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
: >>:
: >>:>Mathematics is a language.  It can't form the foundation of a legitimate
: >>:>scientific theory.

: >I hate people who jump into the middle of a thread with no idea of the 
: original >topic being discussed, but I'm afraid I'm about to do just that!

: >Mathematics is certainly more than a language (although it often does play the 
: >role of a language in science).  It would more accurately be described as a 
: >MODEL. 

: >Alex Kasman
: >Department of Mathematics
: >Boston University

: I think this is becoming more an issue of semantics than math or science:

: There seems to be some looseness in the language here that's gumming 
: up the issue.  Wouldn't it be more correct to say that Mathematics is a 
: discipline in which models may be developed in a symbolic way, according to a 
: set of rules defined for the mathematical system used?  A model may be 
: developed according to those rules (axioms, boundary conditions, conventions, 
: etc.).  What you said then is true,

: >the real test of a model is how well it models whatever "real" 
: >phenomenon you are looking at.  

: but I think calling Mathematics itself a model is like calling Automotive 
: engineering an Automobile.  A set of equations constituting a "model" may be 
: defined within a mathematical system and can be completely valid within that 
: system, yet have no correspondence to the real physical world.  Isn't that the 
: danger you bring up?  In such a case, we toss the model (i.e. an equation 
: or set of equations). 

: If a mathematical formula correctly specifies a given physical system, for a 
: set of given conditions (context), then that formula is a valid model of that 
: physical system.  It is merely an abstract way of saying something that  may 
: be proven to be true in the physical world.  If it doesn't, it's a lousy model 
: for the system it attempts to describe. 

: >The REALLY useful part is that the mathematical model, if it is a 
: >good one, can tell you things about the reality that you would never have 
: >noticed.     

: What you point out about Mathematics making certain facts visible that might 
: be obscured in a complex physical system is definitely a major value of 
: abstraction:  Once you have validated the relationship of the mathematical 
: system to the physical system, you can play with the formulae and derive 
: expressions that isolate relationships that might be difficult to observe, or 
: that no one would think of looking for.  But it all depends on the validity of 
: the model.  And, since most mathematical models are simplifications of a 
: physical system, boundary conditions are critical.  In every case, when new 
: physical data is observed that doesn't jibe with the model , the model must be 
: adjusted, more carefully defined as to boundary conditions, or discarded for a 
: better one.  All of this presupposes that the model is used to describe 
: concretes.  If it isn't, what's being produced may be art, but it isn't 
: science.

I agree!

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
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: 25 May 1995 10:53:41 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Laurence Gene Battin (battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <3ptvgi$5s0@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Gene Preston (gene.pres
on@access.texas.gov) wrote:
: > steve001@adelaide.DIALix.oz.au (Steven Cathery) wrote:
: > >I have a theory of my own which I have been carrying with me for some 
: > >time regarding the conceptualy paradoxical nature of quantum physics, but 

: > >but I know you want more so I have familiarised myself with the creation 
: > >science debate and 

: > ..Creation science is not science at all, just dogma.  Give an example 
: > of a prediction creation science makes that can be tested in a lab.

: It's worse than that, actually. An example of a prediction that _some_
: forms of creation science makes is that the Earth is young. In this
: case, the prediction is already falisified by lab observations, but
: creation science does not accept this result.
: So, IMHO, the problem with creation science is not so much that they
: offer no testable predictions, as much as it is that they refuse to
: accept the _results_ of testing the predictions they _do_ offer.

: --
: Gene Battin, N9XAM
: battin@iucf.indiana.edu

The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / John Logajan /  Re: "Cold Fusion" issue #10
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" issue #10
Date: 25 May 1995 15:11:13 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I wrote:

: V = 3.80 V
: I = 0.12 A
: In that same run, above, heat output was 1.78 W.
: Thus they give three heat yeild ratios:
: Measured power in/measured power out    = 1 : 3.7
:               with heat loss correction = 1 : 4.2
: with heat loss and gas loss corrections = 1 : 4.6

I transcribed the power-out wrong.  Instead of 1.78 W it should read 1.73 W.
Thanks to Mitchell Swartz for indicating the inconsistency of the numbers.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  Visor@globalco /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: Visor@globalcom.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 11:26:10 PDT
Organization: GlobalCom



> 
> >Somehow I doubt the money remaining in the fund is going to put 
much
> >of a dent in the acquiring and testing the Potapov device.  But 
have
> >fun on your flight to Moldavia. :-)
> 
> Not to mention the cost of getting the item in through customs.
> 

Let me know if I can help. I have people in most of the post soviet 
regions. I also have people to handle technical imports from this 
area.



cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenVisor cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 25 May 1995 08:29:11 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <3pod8u$qlh@newsbf02.news.aol.com> guidinglt@aol.com (GuidingLt) writes:
>I find all of the debate about the mechanisms of cold fusion very
>interesting but does it work, what will it cost, and when can we expect to
>see electricity available from it on a commercial basis?
>                              John W. Malenda  E-mail GuidingLy@aol.com


This is the funniest thing I've read all year!

Nobody has really said anything about a mechanism for cold fusion at
all.  What's has happened is that a few people have cited
non-reproducible experiments that have ostensibly generated more energy
than is explainable by chemistry.  But these experiments have not been
subject to SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY.  They have not been fully explained,
documented, and instrumented, in a way that is credible.

And Pons and Fleischmann have been promising a water heater next year,
every year, since 1988.  Nobody's promising electricity yet, ever.
Except maybe Rothwell.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Bob Arthur /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: BArthur@aol.com (Bob Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:20:35 -0500
Organization: Arthur Technology

In article <REw-EYK.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> The New York Times, May 22, 1995, has a front page story about science
> funding: "G.O.P. Budget Cuts Would Fall Hard On Civilian Science." It is about
> how Federal Science establishment will be gutted under the proposed Republican
> budget. This is good news.

  I know it is fashionable for the media to splatter banner headlines that
start with "GOP Cuts Would Fall Hard On ______ (insert name of oppressed
interest group here) ____", but it just ain't so.

  In the May issue of R&D magazine, page 18, there is an article: "GOP
Proposes, Clinton Opposes Streamlined Dept. of Science".  It is all about
how Rep. Robert Walker, chairman of the House Science Committee, is
proposing legislation to create a Department of Science.  This Department
would combine all the various science and technology functions of all the
other agencies, with the exception of Defense.  In short, it would include
all civilian science.

  Personally, I think this is a smart idea.  Currently, government science
and technology programs are a hodgepodge of purpose and direction.  There
is no coordination in administration or congressional oversight, and they
are usually treated like the "poor sister" at budget time.  In short, due
to its diversity, science has no status and no power.

  We have a huge national asset in our national lab system.  If you
combine that system with the NASA centers, as well as EPA and the NSF, we
have capability for basic science and technology research _unmatched_ in
the world.  By fusing all these into a department, we get:

  1. Coordination of purpose.
  2. Unified congressional oversight.
  3. Respect at budget time.

  Oh, and I know that some of you--Jed, included--oppose government
science as being wasteful, and that private research should take over.  I
actually agree with you, to the extent that private research should be
encouraged.  I see things from a pretty conservative stand, and I also get
nervous about government-industry alliances.

  But these facilities and personnel exist, and they already do great
work.  My goal would be to strenghten them, so that they may _help_ in our
free-market economy.  I see no reason why, for example, the Dept. of
Science could not hire itself out to industry to do contract research. 
Maybe a government department could actually _make_ money...

  Opinions, anyone?



> It is a shame the Congress does not plan to abolish the DoE altogether.

  Actually, it does...or at least the House of Representatives does.  In
the House budget resolution, passed last week, the departments of Energy,
Commerce, and Education would be eliminated.

  The Senate budget resolution just eliminates Commerce.  The two will be
resolved in a joint conference committee.


     --Bob Arthur
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBArthur cudfnBob cudlnArthur cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / John Logajan /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super questions
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super questions
Date: 25 May 1995 16:53:14 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: So my current super question is how do you rule out the
: possibility of multiple cells producing excess gas (burp!)
: which then gets lost through recombination.  Recombination -
: you all remember that old chestnut.  Of course the next
: question will be, "What difference does it make?"

I'm aware of recombination, since I *apparently* saw approximately a
23% recombination when I ran a Mills type experiment several years back
(checking only for gas production rates.)

The great benefit of the Cravens data is that he excludes both
the dissociation energy and the thermal energy losses and still
gets a gain of 3.7 (as published in CF #10.)

Exotic amounts of gas production would only serve to further cool
the device and lower the apparent gain.  So Cravens' number are
conservative and do not overstate gain due to *any* rate of
dissociation or recombination.

When he goes out on a limb and adds assumed gas loss and device
thermal heat loss then he gets a gain of 4.6 (as published in
CF #10.)

By the way, in that same data, he lists 3.8 volts at 0.12 amps.
So that is only enough for two "series" mini-cells.  But the
measured gas production is within +or- 2% of expected 100%
faraday efficiency.

It'd be hard to believe that twice as much gas was being produced,
but that magically, exactly half of it recombined.  I suppose it
is in the realm of the possible, but is it probable??

--
 - 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:
cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 13:09:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>The best way to get to the bottom of this question is to construct
>a single cell device using similar materials and then characterize
>the voltage/current performance.
 
Yes. They did that with gold coated beads.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 13:19:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Vetrano <js_vetrano@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>  Just curious.  Have you ever been to a national laboratory?  Ever been
>to DoE headquarters?  I know that you strongly criticize others who speak
>out about subjects they have no expertise in, so I wanted to clarify this
 
I have plenty of expertise in this subject. More than I wish I had. I read
the newspapers and the Congressional testimony describing the fraud,
corruption, and gross incompetance in the SSC project and the hot fusion
program. It is enough to make you throw up. It is what is known as
"fiduciary pornography." If a business organization was to indulge in those
types of fol-de-rol -- grand larceny, grocery store brown bag bookkeeping
and the like -- the entire management staff would be thrown in jail. I do
not need to visit the headquarters of the DOE to see that it is run bu
a gang of criminals. All I need to do is read about their business ethics.
 
>  Also, do these feelings of privatization that you have extend to NASA as
>well?  Do you think that the space program would have accomplished all
 
Yes. Unfortunately it is just as bad. Read the book "Hubble Wars" if you want
to see classic examples of piss-poor management, incompetant engineering,
and larcinous bookkeeping. Large companies on the verge of bankruptcy
sometimes act like that, but fortunately, the market soon puts them out of
their misery. Just before the final collapse of the Pensylvania Railroad
someone reportedly stole several thousand rail cars.
 
Both the DoE and NASA remind me a great deal of the former Soviet Union. I
know a lot about that too. More than I wish I knew. I know people who
lived there, I have read about it, and lately I have had business dealings
there. It is enough to make a grown man cry.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Tom Droege /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 25 May 1995 17:37:56 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3q0tnp$aa0@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
>: > prices start at US$260 for the 12 KW units, in quantity. I do not know the
>: > cost of additional hardware like the pumps, control units and heat
>: > exchangers.
>
>: Suggest that the funds remaining from Tom Droege's inspection of the
>: Griggs device be used now to purchase one of these "CF heaters" as Jed
>: calls them.
>
>I'd like to nominate Scott Little as a recipient, but a major problem
>is actually taking possession of a device.  I think the $260 price

(snip)

I second the nomination of Scott Little as the tester of the Russian 
device.  I figure I need to get rid of the money by December 31 or I
will have a tax problem.  

Looks like Visor@globalcom.ne will figure out how to get it into the
country for us. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Bill Page /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 25 May 1995 16:52:03 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <1995May24.163736.2250@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:
>
>--> Suggest that the funds remaining from Tom Droege's inspection of the
>Griggs device be used now to purchase one of these "CF heaters" as Jed calls
>them.  And that Tom inspect the machine relative to claims which follow:
> ...

As a contributor this proposal has my support. If Tom is reluctant, I
think we should approach Scott Little with the same proposal.

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  JBailo /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jbailo@aol.com (JBailo)
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
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
Newsgroups:
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 25 May 1995 13:54:33 -0400
Date: 25 May 1995 10:53:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.


REPLYING TO: 
<<<
Path:
newsbf01.news.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!uunet!news.IntNet.net!news.Int
Net.net!news-path
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups:
alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.phys
ics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.phy
sics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.res
earch,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 25 May 1995 10:53:41 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

Bryan
>>>

If you can accept that a world can be created whole complete with fossil
records and other "clues" that point a person looking at certain
projections back in the past, then no, there is no difference.   The tools
that we use to date things are all based on linear retro-fitting -- but
who is to say what happened in the last second -- whether the world we're
living in now operates by the same rules as yesterday?






John Bailo · 4045 1st Avenue NE · Seattle, WA  98105 · 206-803-5546
Planning · Science · Art & Architecture · Design · Intelligence
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjbailo cudlnJBailo cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: "Self-Moderating" s.p.f
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Self-Moderating" s.p.f
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:09 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> I am negotiating with Bryan Wallace at the moment; he is reasonable,
-> and tells me that something like half of the replies to him come from this
-> group (I don't know how he knows this but I take his word).
 
I don't think he can know, unless he posts the same message, one at a time to
each newgroup.  One message to all newsgroups will show all newsgroups in the
Newsgroups header, and a reply from any group will have a header identical to
if the reply was from any other group.  At least that is the way it works on
this system.  You might as him how he can tell.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@linux3.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 25 May 1995 14:07:52 -0500
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <3q23mi$6s0@xcalibur.intnet.net>,
Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>   As I state in Chapter 2 of my book "The Farce of Physics", Einstein
>believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and can't be
>detected by experiments.  

I'm sure it's true that you state this in your book.  

>Since neither Einstein's relativity ether theory [...]

There is simply no such animal.

Dave Cook
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Steven Piet /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: RXFN56A@prodigy.com (Steven Piet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 25 May 1995 03:25:55 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Jed, as an employee at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 
obviously I find your remarks unacceptable and uninformed.  It is 
certainly true that DOE bureaucracy is crummy, but any big bureaucracy 
(government lab, company, agency, labor union, etc.) has its problems.  
The DOE labs collectively have produced a tremondous amount of good stuff 
for this country.  The biggest problem is that private industry in the US 
does not think long enough into the future that they do not make use of 
alot of the ideas and creations - rather the Japanese take it.

Hot fusion may or may not make it as an energy source.  But, consider the 
alternatives for the next century:
Oil and gas - won't be enough
Coal - serious environmental effects
fission - works but has become politically difficult to move forward
hydropower - serious environmental effects
solar - most aren't practical, most aren't economic, several have serious 
environmental effects when you think about supplying alot of power from 
them
fusion - has potential, but none of the fusion approaches can be shown to 
work yet.

I therefore conclude that all long-term energy supply options should be 
researched to see if they are practical and attractive.  To me, that is 
fission, fusion, and some solar.  Because our utility/government 
structure does not allow real profit from electricity generation, there 
is insufficient private incentive to do the ground-breaking research for 
new energy sources.  Therefore, we are stuck with the government 
supplying funds for new energy sources.  I say this even though I'm a 
Libertarian-Republican conservative.  I know much about tokamaks, other 
magnetic confinement approaches, and a bit about inertial fusion.  I 
cannot commit that they will "work"but the potential is there and given 
the limited number of long term energy options for the future, it is 
imprudent for society not to explore all such options at a small net cost 
compared to what society spends on energy.

Finally, even if I thought the PPPL work was low-payoff (which I do NOT), 
I would not be so joyous that a bunch of short-minded 
lawyer/bureaucratic/politicians seem headed to cut research budgets.  Do 
not ask for whom the bells toll - it tolls for thee.  Experience shows 
that when the politicians cut one type of scientific/engineering research 
(or company's cut it), they don't just hand it out to something else.  So,
 the best approach is to raise the conciousness of the need to supply 
energy options for the next century - and do our damnest to find at least 
one that is attractive and several that are clearly options.  A rising 
tide lifts all boats.

-
  STEVEN PIET  RXFN56A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenRXFN56A cudfnSteven cudlnPiet cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  KAnko /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kanko@aol.com (KAnko)
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: 25 May 1995 15:27:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Mr. Wallace,

Before I take exception to your work, I would like to agree with you on
something.  I agree that scientists who are unwilling to test their
hypothesis are not good scientists.  I agree that modern physics is theory
driven today, which is wrong.  Someone who derives a theory and then heads
out to prove it are doomed to prove whatever they want.  Science should be
about observing-theorizing-testing-retheorizing-and so on.  However, much
like Rush Limbaugh, you have started with sound footing and have left the
path.

Since I studied particle physics, that is where I will start.  For what I
could get out of your book you do not believe in quarks??  If this is
true, how do you explain away the results from both electron-positron
colliders and proton-antiproton colliders??  If you collide an electron
and a positron above a certain energy, jets of hadrons emerge.  Where are
these coming from??  Also as you increase the energy of the C.O.M. system,
new jets emerge.  The ratio of e+e- >> jets / e+e- >> mu+mu- jumps in
steps as each new qaurk can be made.  The coupling is consistant with 1/3
or 2/3 electric charges being involved.  And this is QED, maybe the most
tested theory in nature.

In proton collisions, how do you explain large tranverse momentum events
without quarks.  If protons have no underlying structure, then p+p-
collisions would yeild a mush of stuff down the collider pipe.  However,
both UA1 and CDF have seen events where jets of particles are thrown
almost perpendicular to the collider pipe.  This certainly seems like
quarks colliding.

I will stp here to allow you a chance to reply, but there is much more. 
Again, I agree with you when you sopeak out against a theory driven
science.  Science must make observations first and then attempt to explain
them.

Take you for your time,

Dr. Kevin Ankoviak
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenkanko cudlnKAnko cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
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: 25 May 95 20:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
[snip]

>     Einstein's theory fails the Cavendish experiment, insists Huseyin Yilmaz
>  of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts University in Medford,
>  Mass., and Hamamatsu Photonics in Hamamatsu City, Japan.  In other words,
>  the equations of general relativity have no solutions in which two bodies
>  of finite size actually attract each other.
>     "Thus, strictly speaking, according to general relativity, and apple
>  detached from its branch would not fall to the ground," Yilmaz declares.
[snip]

Yilmaz's work in this area has some serious errors.  A rigorous derivation
by Frittelli & Reula, Commun. Math. Phys. 166:221 (1994) shows that
general relativity has a good Newtonian limit.

Yilmaz has advanced his own theory of gravity, which has been shown to
have serious problems by Misner, (preprint 9504050, gr-qc@xxx.lanl.gov).
Misner has shown that Yilmaz's theory has static solutions!  It would
allow a solar system in which the sun and planets are at rest.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
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: 25 May 95 21:00:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

[snip]

>The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
>second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
>Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
>the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

What evidence?  I have not seen any evidence from you that refutes
general relativity nor any of it's postulates.  Your claims that data
from interplanetary spacecraft disprove GR are wrong.  The fact that
JPL uses GR in it's orbit calculations is explicitly stated in Ch 5 of
the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac".  I do not
accept your conspiracy theory that implies that JPL scientists lie
about their work.

I don't know of any astronomer who claims "the all powerful
ether/space/vacuum made the Universe in a Big Bang".  All they claim
is that a "Big Bang" appears to have happened.  I am not aware of any
theorist who claims to know the "cause" of the "Big Bang".
Furthermore the "Big Bang" theory makes predictions that are being
tested by observation.  These include the observed motion of the
distant galaxies, primordial abundances, and the microwave background.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Paul Robinson /  Re: The Farce of Physics 
     
Originally-From: Paul Robinson <robin6@server.uwindsor.ca>
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: Thu, 25 May 1995 21:09:20 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada


> The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
> second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
> Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
> the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

> Bryan

Sure, the Creationist theory begs the question, "Then who made God?"
The Relativists skip the middleman.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrobin6 cudfnPaul cudlnRobinson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Blue comments on possible recombination in Cravens work
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue comments on possible recombination in Cravens work
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 17:37:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "It is refreshing to be able to actually exchange information this way!"
 
Yes. It is kind of fun, too. Kind of like stumbling around in a dark room dead
drunk. On the other hand, if you actually want to learn something about the
experiment, I recommend you read the scientific papers and patents published
by Cravens and Patterson. They have LOTS more information than you will find
here, plus stuff like schematics and tables of numbers. Asking third parties
random questions about the experiment is a funny way to learn science.
Especially when you ask people like Britz, who has never read anything about
the experiment (the papers are not peer reviewed, and he has evidently not
seen the patents.)
 
 
     "In addition to keeping the beads well packed is there not some concern
     for the condition of the conducting surface layer on each and every
     bead?"
 
Yes.
 
 
     "As it has been described the coating on these beads is complex and, I
     can imagine, difficult to apply."
 
No. Not for experts like Patterson. You or I would find it impossible.
 
 
     "Does the uniformity of the coating match the requirements?
 
Yes, or the cell would not work. It would not produce any excess heat. Lots of
them didn't, you know. It took Patterson many years to perfect this thing.
 
 
     "Then, even if the coating is uniform, what possibilities exist for the
     formation of nonconducting or poorly conducting surface layers?"
 
Lots of evil possibilities exist in any CF experiment. That's why so many of
them don't work. It takes an experienced expert in material sciences a long
time to learn to make good CF cathode material. You have thought up a few
interesting potential problems here. Patterson, Storms or Mizuno could give
you list of a few dozen other problems, some a lot worse than this, all
certified real.
 
 
     "Indeed in some discussions on cold fusion such layers are said to be
     essential for "proper" cold fusion operation.  Have there been any tests
     on the detailed condition of the beads?"
 
Yes. Many, many tests. They were done by a real expert in thin film surface
chemistry who has been doing tests of this nature since the 1950s.
 
 
     "Next we come to the information concerning the measurement of the
     "expected" Faraday efficiency.  John Logajan provides this information,
     but I am not sure I agree with John's interpretation.
 
You don't agree that gas flowmeters work? What does this mean? Are you arguing
with the flowmeter, or with John Logajan? I tested the gas flowmeter. It works
fine.
 
 
     "So my current super question is how do you rule out the possibility of
     multiple cells producing excess gas (burp!) which then gets lost through
     recombination.  Recombination - you all remember that old chestnut.  Of
     course the next question will be, "What difference does it make?"
 
You rule out that possibility with a gas flowmeter -- which is exactly what
Logajan reported. Do you know of a better way? The next question: "What
difference would it make" is purely hypothetical, because we know for a fact
there is no recombination. We know that because they *measured* that fact with
instruments. It is not a matter of interpretation, and not something you can
disagree with. In any case, suppose we consider a hypothetical case that all
of the gas from electrolysis recombined at the cathode. Since output is as
much as four times total input (I*V), total recombination could only explain
15% of the excess heat. Not much. And since the heat flow is stable and steady
and positive for many days, it could not be explained by occasional bursts of
trapped gas being recombined, or any other similar "stored energy" fairy tale.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / John Cobb /  Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
Date: 25 May 1995 16:56:22 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3pioa5$9tp@soenews.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
                      ^^^^^^^^

Barry, is this a new machine you are posting from, or am I just now noticing
it. I like the naming scheme though. What are the names of the other 
computers in this cluster, and what name does the server get? :>

>
>We had two talks this week (Ono from Princeton, Stambaugh 
>from GA), both basically advocating spherical tokamak
>(i.e. low aspect ratio, near 1.25) experiments as the foundation
>for possible advanced tokamak designs that would undercut the 
>trend set by ITER towards enormous machines.

There is a lot going on. Last Summer there was a very good workshop
organized by M. Peng at ORNL to talk about ST's. I think the collected
papers are available. I know people in Princeton and GA were there
and participated.

I was lucky enough to attend just to watch. Just one personal opinion.
There was a culture shock there. A lot of the people (I'll leave out
names to protect my butt) who have a long history with alternate
concepts were there, from reactor-study guys all the way to basic
plasma phenomena fellows. They kept pointing out in their talks that
in many ways the issues in ST's are very similar to what would have
been the next step in compact toroids like spheromaks (or FRC's). However,
the people with the long pedigrees in large tokamaks seemed very
ignorant of the large body of experimental results and literature
in the area. Very often I would here someone get up and explain about
this brand new approach that ST's could use that conventional tokamaks
could not. The irony being that this was usually a well known fact
from spheromak, or RFP, or FRC research. This was especially true about
how extremely low aspect ratio greatly helped the MHD stability. Another
one I remember was a number of people remarking on how Jarboe's 
Helicity injection experiment was such a new and novel idea. Although it is
clearly a neat, clean and innovative idea, its been around quite a long time. 
Just ask Jarboe when he started thinking about it and you'll see. 

There are two reasons to be excited about ST's. The first is that they
can avoid many of the reactor problems that have been discussed here
in the ancient and recent past. Particularly gross size.

The second reason (at least in the U.S.) is politics and money. CIT
dies because it was too expensive, as did BPX. TPX has grown to 1 G$
and appears to be dieing as well. The astute will note that nothing over
100 M$, actual as built cost, will probably be built. ST's can do some
interesting stuff there. So instead of making a clean break from Tokamaks,
it is a incremental broadening of the DOE fusion program to consider 
alternatives without having to overtly admit a policy flip-flop. As I have 
said before here, I don't know what the next "big machine" built in the U.S. 
will be, but it will be called a Tokamak.

>
>However, on the other hand, our local reactor experts suggest such
>devices would not have a future as a power reactor, since they
>lose too much energy to resistive heating of the copper in the
>thin center post (they use copper magnets, since they do not have room
>in the center for the shielding needed for superconducting magnets---the
>centerpost must be kept small in order to get the low aspect ratio).
>(They could, perhaps, be used for a compact neutron source,if they were
>succesful...)

Which is better, to fail because of inability to design a central
core, or to fail because the size is too large and costly? Both are
ultimate failures. It does not appear at this time that we can nail
down a conceptual power plant design that has a better that 50% chance
of being economical. Moreoever, we are nowhere near the point of being
able to say what design is the most optimized. However, there is very
good reason to look on past advances and conceivable future results to
think that a viable design is not only possible, but probable given a
diversified research program. ST's cause people to think outside of
the box. That's good. Some other innovation might help solve the
central core problem as well. (I'll try to suggest some below).

Just to re-iterate what you probably hear in those seminars, one of the
best advantages of ST's is their large beta_toroidal. For the extremely
low aspect ratio (e< 1.1), they can get betas near the large values
accessible by spheromaks and FRC's. However, most proposed devices
aren't gutsy enough to try to design a central core that small.

>
>Does our resident tokamak critic (Koloc) have any comments on
>the pluses/minuses of 
>Sperical Tokamaks vs  Tokamaks vs Spheromaks vs Plasmaks?

I'll not comment on plasmak's here becuase I still haven't completed
Paul's papers that he so kindly forwarded to me, but my opinion is that there
is a spectrum Conventional tokamaks, ST's, compact toroids.

People often look at these as a spectrum where aspect ratio is varied.
However, In my mind an important distinction is the time-length of the
shot. A lot of spheromaks and FRC's have very short shots (measured in
milliseconds). This is becuase they are created and lose their
flux. Tokamaks have the linked transformer so they can inductively
drive toroidal current. Now consider a tokamak without any (absolutely
zero) Volt-seconds. Then it could drive no current ohmically. It would
have to rely on neutral beam current drive, RF current drive and
bootstrap current, totally. Ask that of the tokamaks and boom, you
quickly find that their experiments would be 2 or 3 generations behind
today's results. But it is a double edged sword. Ask the power-plant
designers about the headaches from the central loop and the need to
have cap-banks for long shots. It is bad news. One thing the ST
discussion has done, is to bring the issue of current drive to
the front of consciousness. Even a lot of the conventional reactor
studies are now pointing out the fact that high bootstrap current
fraction is a requirement for a successful reactor, if only to
decrease the amount of circulating power.

Well, ST's are compact toroids with a current down the central axis.
So you can talk about having compact toroids with long shot times.
Then you can explore how radical geometry changes affect micro-instabilities
and transport. For instance in FRC's the shortest decay time was usually
the flux-loss time, so studies of energy and particle confinement times
had large error bars. Also, cna one really be sure that transport will
not change when the heating comes from external beams and RF rather than
compression heating? Well, there were no steady FRC's or spheromaks, so
those questions couldn't be answered. The whole industry of "beam-induced
H-mode", "Ohmic H-mode", "RF-H-Mode", "Limiter-H-Mode", Divertor-H-Mode",
etc. has not been explored for compact toroids. It promises to be very 
interesting.

Also I don't want to give the impression that ST's are just a mixed breed,
they have a history all their own. Look how long Peng has been publishing
about them. For instance, they seem to be very robust to internal tilt modes 
(unlike some CT's) because of the center post. They also appear robust to
vertical displacement that can plague normal tokamaks.

The key in my mind would be to have some way to self-generate all of the
current needed for steady-state operation with using a transformer. This
is one of the things you will here the ST advocates crow about. They
have designs with "bootstrap current" ~80% and are very proud of it.
However, when more and more details get put in to make a real device
proposal, these numbers drop some. Also, I put "bootstrap current"
in quotations because it is another example of the mainline tokamak
folks extending a bad use of terminology. Only part of the current is
really bootstrap. A lot of it is actually diamagnetic current, especially
for extremely low aspect-ratio devices. You don't get much diamagnetic current
for low beta devices like TFTR, DIII-D, etc., so that term is often
neglected.

If the self-generated + beam + RF current fraction was 100% (and
you could get a startup scenario), then there would be no need for
a center post. This is the physics challenge for ST's. So while
current designs don't extrapolate well to reactors, the next two
generations of ST experiments hold great promise in finding a way to
reduce (or perhaps even eliminate) the need for the center post.
Of course, eliminating the transformer immediately is such a radical
concept to most fusioneers, that they don't understand how to do it, 
so they don't embrace it. Of course it is easy for me to take pot-shots
like that when I don't have someone breathing down my back asking why my
multi-million dollar experiment hasn't produced its first plasma yet, or
why the plasmas it produces are cold, dirty, and wimpy.

Certainly ST's explore some different options. Since we do not have a
clearly economical workable design, diversification is called for.
THE big issue is the center post. It's size determines the minimum
aspect ratio that can be used, so one wants to keep it small in radius,
but it has to pack the toroidal coil, the breakdown coil, inner tiles
(which may take a great deal of the exhaust blast), and cooling and support.
It must be designed to allow thermal expansion and magnetic torquing.
It is a very tough design problem.

>
>Ono's group at Princeton, using salvaged parts from other devices, says 
>they could build their design in 2 years for 18 million dollars, 
>yielding a device sufficient for experimental exploration of the 
>performance in low aspect ratio regime.
>

I've seen some of the PPPL presentations as well. At least from their 
organizational charts and presentations they look like they have been
doing a GREAT deal of design work. The engineering drawings already
have a lot of detail, and there have been a good number of equilibrium
and stability studies as well. They call it NSTX I believe, as an
acronym for THE National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment. I'm a bit
surprised at the 18M$ figure (even considering the site credits). Have
they rescoped their designs recently? Howe serious was this number?

At the summer workshop, GA presented an idea about an ST 2 generations
from now that they could put into their DIII-D bay. It would be of 
comparable physical size at DIII-D, but would be more like TFTR in
terms of parameters pushing. I don't think they meant to use it for
nuclear operations like a volume neutron source or burning studies,
but I'm not sure.

Also, the University of Texas has prepared a proposal for a ST experiment
to follow on to TEXT-U. They used to call it ETG (for the Spanish for "The
Fat Torus" or "The Fat Bull" - It is a Texas-Longhorns pun) but have
renamed it ULART for Ultra-Low Aspect-Ratio Tokamak. Their key is to
get realy, really low aspect ratios to study the really interesting stuff
that happens there.

But some of the really exciting stuff is happening outside the U.S. and
one should really take note of it. The START experiment at Culham has had
some excellent results and has restarted operations with some upgrades.
I believe the Globus-M project in Russia is off the ground and going (does
anyone have more info). Also the EC has approved a process to built MAST
(the Mage-Amp Spherical Tokamak) at Culham as a follow-on to START and the
replacement for JET. If it gets built, MAST should be really exciting. It
could produce some beefy plasmas.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / John Cobb /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 25 May 1995 17:42:52 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <BArthur-2505951120350001@dd09-025.compuserve.com>,
Bob Arthur <BArthur@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <REw-EYK.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>
>  In the May issue of R&D magazine, page 18, there is an article: "GOP
>Proposes, Clinton Opposes Streamlined Dept. of Science".  It is all about
>how Rep. Robert Walker, chairman of the House Science Committee, is
>proposing legislation to create a Department of Science.  This Department
>would combine all the various science and technology functions of all the
>other agencies, with the exception of Defense.  In short, it would include
>all civilian science.

Two items:
1) I believe it would exempt all of NIH, which one should remember is one
of the largest areas of scientific research, any way you measure it 
(especially money).

2) Even Walker has backed down from this idea. Seems it didn't sit well
with Kasich and Gingrich to proclaim the need to streamline government
by getting rid of cabinet depatments on the one hand and creating a new
one on the other. However, Walker might bring it up later.

>
>  Personally, I think this is a smart idea.  

I don't.

>Currently, government science
>and technology programs are a hodgepodge of purpose and direction. 

Just think we could unify it into one giant screw-up instead.
Seriously, the problems that beset the organizinations aren't caused
by just the top two levels of the organizational chart and won't be cured
by changing them. First find the root cause of the problem, then deal
with it.

> There
>is no coordination in administration or congressional oversight, and they
>are usually treated like the "poor sister" at budget time.  In short, due
>to its diversity, science has no status and no power.

This is absolutely wrong, IMO. Science has no natural constituency. If
you ask it to wage a political tug-of-war in the "gimme-gimmme" of
federal budgeteering, it will lose, and lose big time. Support of science
is good policy but not good politics. A politician screams cut foriegn
aid, and no constituents complain. He screams, stop immigration into
the US, and no constituents complain. He screams, stop silly science
research, and very, very few constituents complain. When he whispers
social security in his sleep though, he is hanged in effigy. So
consolidating science into one department, takes many small targets
and consolidates them into one large target. I think it is a dumb idea,
unless your purpose IS to have governmental support of science cut, then
it is pretty shrewd.

However, there is a bigger issue. What is the purpose of the governmental
support of science? Far too many of my research colleagues act as if it
is an entitlement due to someone of their class and privilage. Sure
they spout mantras about future economic gain, vague spinoff, inability to
predict the future, therefore we must explore everywhere and so forth.
Some may actually  believe it consciously. But when you push and probe
and suggestt hypotheticals, you find that most scientists think that if
they are doing excellent work on a scientifically interesting problem,
then they should be funded to do that work, really without regard to
the ultimate benefits to the society that is paying for it. I DON'T
subscribe to that all too prevelent view. The purpose of government
science is to provide a utility service for those government functions
that require it. For instance, research on pesticide effects on the 
environment help to determine what the proper regulatory framework 
should be. Or cooperative, pre-competitive, peer-reviewed, research
such as SEMATECH or HPCC lay groundwork for technology that drives economic 
growth. Becuase of the large required effort and the firm non-specific
gain, the private sector would never make these investments, yet they
are vital. Often the "Utility Service" that government science provides is
the non-specific stimulation of research, education, and training, such as
is the mission of the NSF.

Given that governmental science is a utility service to the legitimate
functions of government, then it makes as much sense to consolidate
all governmental science into an umbrella Dept. of Science as it does
to consolidate all governmental auditors and accountants into a federal
departments of CPA's.

Now if the real purpose is to allow better collaboration across
deparments, then this is a very laudable goal. Heaven knows it is
very difficult at the present time. But a department of science is
the WRONG medicine for that sickness.

>
>  We have a huge national asset in our national lab system.  If you
>combine that system with the NASA centers, as well as EPA and the NSF, we
>have capability for basic science and technology research _unmatched_ in
>the world.  By fusing all these into a department, we get:
>
>  1. Coordination of purpose.

Not unless you change the "corporate culture" further down the organizational
chart. Heavens look at the cat-fights we get here in s.p.f when we talk
about different approaches to fusion. Do you think that Martha Krebs or
Hazel O'leary micromanage to that degree?

>  2. Unified congressional oversight.

There is no barrier to that now. In fact this congress has done a
lot of that already. Historically, the lack of unified congressional 
oversight is due more to turf-battles between congressional chairmen.
Consolidating into a single department won't cure that.

>  3. Respect at budget time.

No way. Not until scientists call their congressmen in as great a
number as AARP does, or the NRA does. Scientists really do not
represent their cause well at all in Washington, by in large. I think
the biggest reason is they don't get to an unequivocal bottom line
quick enough. Don't submit a 20 page report on a cost-benefit-analysis
of the inclusion of Russian partnership in the space station. Write a
1/2 page letter saying get the Russians in, keep the Russians out,
kill the space station, or whatever. Many times a staffer will get off
the phone with a scientist constituent and shake their head and say, I
just spent 10 minutes on the phone with this guy, and I still don't
know what he was asking the member to do.

>

just my 2 cents thrown in at 100% discount.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / John Cobb /  Re: operating spheromaks
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: operating spheromaks
Date: 25 May 1995 17:54:30 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950522224332.10776A-100000@rigel.oac.uci.edu>,
James Danielson  <eapu523@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am looking for information on the spheromaks in the world that are
>currently in operation.  Is a spheromak the same as a low-aspect ratio
>tokamak?  I know of only two so-called low-aspect ratio tokamaks: START in
>the UK (at JET I believe), and MEDUSA at the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 
>Does anyone know of any others?  Or of any distinguishing characteristics 
>that would make a spheromak different from a low-aspect ratio tokamak?

Although they are very similar in some respects, they are not the same
thing. a low aspect ratio-tokamak (or ST) usually has a conductor down the
central axis while a spheromak doesn't. Also a spheromak tends to be very
short-lived because of flux decay.

I seem to remember some current experimental work in them in the U.S.
I think Livermore was using them and accelerating them in the RACE program
to use for a heavy-ion driver for ICF. Los Alamos used to have an
experimental program in the STX series. I don't think it survived the 1990
bloodbath though (although many of the folks are still around). There was
also some work at Saskatoon and TdeV on using spheromaks as a reactor
scale fueling scheme since pellets have no hope of central fueling.

Here are some refs. that look like fairly recent exps. (I haven't looked
at most of these papers)


AUTHOR(s):       Nagata, M.  
                 Kanki, T.  
                 Masuda, T.  
TITLE(s):        Relaxation oscillations and toroidal-current regeneration
                   in a helicity-driven spheromak.                            

           In:   Physical review letters.  
                 DEC 27 1993 v 71 n 26  
         Page:   4342  

AUTHOR(s):       Chin-Fatt, C.  
                 DeSilva, A. W.  
                 Goldenbaum, G. C.  
TITLE(s):        Formation and decay of spheromak plasma.  

           In:   Physics of fluids.  B,  Plasma physics :  a publ  
                 JUN 01 1993 v 5 n 6  
         Page:   1816  

 
AUTHOR(s):       al-Karkhy, A.  
                 Browning, P. K.  
                 Cunningham, G.  
TITLE(s):        Observations of the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo effect in a
                   spheromak plasma.                                          

           In:   Physical review letters.  
                 MAR 22 1993 v 70 n 12  
         Page:   1814  

 
AUTHOR(s):       Martin, R.  
                 Gee, S.J.  
                 Browning, P.K.  
TITLE(s):        The direct determination of the current density and
                   mu-profiles of a spheromak.                                

           In:   Plasma physics and controlled fusion.  
                 FEB 01 1993 v 35 n 2  
         Page:   269  



AUTHOR(s):       Browning, P.K.  
                 Cunningham, G.  
                 Gee, S.J.  
TITLE(s):        Power flow in a gun-injected spheromak plasma.  

           In:   Physical review letters.  
                 MAR 16 1992 v 68 n 11  
         Page:   1718  

AUTHOR(s):       Ono, Y.  
                 Morita, A.  
                 Katsurai, M.  
TITLE(s):        Experiemental investigation of three-dimensional magnetic
                   reconnection by use of two colliding spheromaks.           

           In:   Physics of fluids.  B,  Plasma physics  
                 OCT 01 1993 v 5 n 10  
         Page:   3691  

  

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

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 25 May 1995 16:51:12 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <JW+ekiF.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
........
.....
...
>Cravens uses a packed bed. In some configurations, there is a thumbscrew
>which you tighten up to push the beads together. When they get loose, the
>cell does not work. If you tighten them too much though, they fracture and
>bits of metal float out and up against the mesh. Getting just the right
>pressure is a little tricky.

Everything about this stuff seems to be "a little tricky".  So there is
a built-in excuse for why I can't do what he does.

Does astrology have anything to do with it?

How about the phase of the moon?

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 / Mark Muhlestein /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 25 May 1995 19:01:26 -0600
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah

In article <3q2cjj$dh0@netfs.dnd.ca> wspage@ncs.dnd.ca writes:
>In article <1995May24.163736.2250@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:
>>
>>--> Suggest that the funds remaining from Tom Droege's inspection of the
>>Griggs device be used now to purchase one of these "CF heaters" as Jed calls
>>them.  And that Tom inspect the machine relative to claims which follow:
>> ...
>
>As a contributor this proposal has my support. If Tom is reluctant, I
>think we should approach Scott Little with the same proposal.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill Page.

I would be very happy to see the money go to either Scott or Tom to look
into this matter. My position is that I would like to use the money as
originally intended: to investigate CF claims.

Mark Muhlestein  -- mmm@park.uvsc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Lawson English /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: english@primenet.com (Lawson English)
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: 26 May 1995 01:48:07 GMT
Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet (602)395-1010

Paul Robinson (robin6@server.uwindsor.ca) wrote:

: > The Relativists refuse to accept the evidence against the first and 
: > second postulates, and claim the all powerful ether/space/vacuum made the 
: > Universe in a Big Bang.  The Creationist claim the all powerful God made 
: > the Universe in six days.  Is there a significant difference between them?

: > Bryan

: Sure, the Creationist theory begs the question, "Then who made God?"
: The Relativists skip the middleman.


In the Vedic theory, God is the Unified Field made Self-Aware.

The Relativists also have a problem: "What came before the Big Bang?"




--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenenglish cudfnLawson cudlnEnglish cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May 26 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
