1995.07.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Subject: Revised magnetic fusion law
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:00:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jaboweryDCCGLD.9xL@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>The legislation Paul posted was the original 1980 act, not the 
>replacement act.  I'll try to dig up the replacement act from my tape 
>archives and post it.

Oops!  Sorry about that..  well here is try 2.  

for the good stuff 'grep' (search) for "100,000"  several times.   
 -------------------------Start---------------------------------
Subject: Revised magnetic fusion law

REVISION OF 
PUBLIC LAW 96-389, sec 3
Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1540
CHAPTER 101 -- MAGNETIC FUSION
ENERGY ENGINEERING

(Author's note:  For a legislative history and purpose see 1980
U.S. Code Cong. And Adm. News, P. 3336.)


Sec 9301. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress hereby finds that --

	(1) the United States and the world would enjoy enormous
and critically needed benefits from the commercial availability
of environmentally clean and viritually inexhaustible sources of
energy;

	(2) in theory, the fusion of light atomic nuclei can
provide the basis for such energy sources;

	(3) the theory of fusion energy based on the magnetic
confinement of high temperature plasmas has been the subject of
ongoing government-funded research and development for over three
decades;

	(4) during these decades our understanding of high
temperature plasmas has progressed to the point that, with
appropriate government incentives, the tradition of diversity and
risk management in our free enterprise system can expand the
frontiers of fusion energy technology at a rate far greater and
at a cost far lower than centrally planned programs funded by the
government alone;

	(5) progress in magnetic fusion energy systems is
currently limited by the lack of a diversity in technical
approaches being explored;

	(6) to ensure the timely commercialization of magnetic
fusion energy systems, the United States Government must create
an environment in which the inherent commercial rewards of fusion
energy technology are leveraged by supplementary Federal funds so
as to motivate many diverse inventors and investors in the
private sector who, for their own profit, will freely and rapidly
develop the frontiers of fusion energy technology;

	(7) it is vital that the Federal Government continue its
direct financial support for scientific research in the physics
of high tempurature plasmas as this creates fundamental new
knowledge of immense value which cannot be patented or reasonably
treated as intellectual property;

	(8) it is a proper role for the Federal Government to
stimulate accelerated commercial investment in the development
and demonstration of magnetic fusion energy technologies; and

	(9) the stimulation of commercial investment in the
development of magnetic fusion and public research in plasma
physics can be accelerated through the appropriation of matching
government funds.


(b) It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United
States and the purpose of this chapter to stimulate commercial
investment in the development and demonstration of magnetic
fusion energy systems and continued scientific research into the
physics of high temperature plasmas.  Further, it is declared to
be the policy of the United States and the purpose of this
chapter that the objectives of such a program shall be --

	(1) to promote an orderly transition from the current
research and development program to a new one in which the
private sector capitalizes and manages risks inherent in the
development and demonstration of fusion energy technologies under
the disciplined diversity of free enterprise while the government
continues to directly fund plasma physics research;

	(2) to stimulate private sector investment in fusion
energy technology by matching private investment with public
investment so as to reduce the risk and increase the incentives
to private investors;

	(3) to gradually predictably remove matching public
support for private investment in fusion energy development and
demonstration by reducing public support over a predetermined
time schedule;

	(4) to continue international cooperation in plasma
science for the benefit of all nations;

	(5) to give preferential treatment to aneutronic fusion
cycles;

	(6) to give preferential treatement to fusion cycles that
make use of readily available fuels;

	(7) to stimulate the commercial deployment of competitive
fusion energy sources;

	(8) to demonstrate that United States science in
partnership with commercially financed technology development and
operation continues the tradition of world leadership in science
and technology; and


Sec. 9302.  Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter --

	(1) "fusion" means a process whereby two light nuclei,
such as deuterium and tritium, collide at high velocity, forming
a compound nucleus, which subsequently separates into
constituents which are different from the original colliding
nuclei, and which carry away the accompanying energy release;

	(2) "magnetic fusion" means the use of magnetic fields to
confine a very hot, fully ionized gas of light nuclei, so that
the fusion process can occur;

	(3) "energy system" means a facility designed to utilize
energy released in the magnetic fusion process for the generation
of electricity and the production of hydrogen or other fuels;

	(4) "fusion engineering device" means a magnetic fusion
facility which achieves at least a burning plasma and serves to
test components for engineering purposes;

	(5) "demonstration plant" means a prototype energy system
which is of sufficient size to provide safety, environmental
reliability, availability, and ready engineering extrapolation of
all components to commercial size but which system need not be
economically competitive with then alternative energy sources;

	(6) "Secretary" means Secretary of Energy.

	(7) "scientific research" means activities that discover
knowledge about natural phenomena, which, under existing statute,
cannot be held as intellectual property via patent;

	(8) "scientific knowledge" means knowledge acquired or
discovered through the scientific research;

	(9) "development" means the acquisition of knowledge or
reduction to practice of a system which does not exist in nature
and which has some practical value or which has value as
intellectual property under patent and other statutes;

	(10) "engineering break-even" means the production, by a
fusion energy device, of at least twice the input energy;

	(11) "commercial break-even" means the self-sustaining
operation of a fusion energy device by feeding its power output
back to its energy input without the need for any outside input
save its fuel; and

	(12) "commonly available aneutronic fuel" is any fuel
available on the commercial market for less than $100(1991) per
ounce which, when burned in a fusion energy system, produces
neutron radiation at a rate of less than 100 neutrons per joule
of produced energy.

	
Sec. 9303.  Program activities

(a) Scientific research in areas where lack of knowledge limits
the development of fusion energy systems;

	(1) The Secretary shall survey commercial participants in
fusion energy technology development or potential investors in
same, to determine critical gaps in scientific knowledge.

	(2) The Secretary shall initiate scientific research
emphasizing gaps in scientific knowledge as determined from the
survey of commercial developers and investors;

	(3) The Secretary shall fully disclose to the public all
discoveries made in the course of government funded research
under this program;

	(4) The Secretary shall, on an annual basis, convene an
independent panel, no member of which may have received Federal
funds for fusion-related research or development in the last 5
years nor served on the panel in the last 5 years, to review
scientific research activities to ensure those plasma physics
funds are not being used for fusion technology development
purposes instead of research into plasma physics;

	(5) If the independent review panel determines an
activity is development rather than research, the funds used for
such development must be returned to the United States Treasury
to reduce the federal debt;

	(6) Physicists currently receiving most of their taxable
income from government-funded fusion energy research or
development may choose to receive a one-time lump-sum grant of
$100,000 tax free in exchange for becoming ineligible to receive
fusion energy research funding from the government in the future,
but without giving up their right to enjoy matching funds for
commercial development projects as described in 9303.b;

	(6) Commercial fusion enterprises, as defined in 9303.b.1
may enjoin the government from continuing to directly fund
scientific research in plasma physics which they believe to be in
competition with their efforts to develop fusion technology;


(b) The stimulation of commercial investment in fusion technology
development;

	(1) Any private, for profit, business owned or controlled
by United States persons which is primarily engaged in the
development of fusion technology qualifies as a commercial fusion
enterprise.

	(2) Any facility owned or controlled by United States
persons generally used by commercial fusion enterprises and
primarily used for the development of fusion technology qualifies
as a commercial fusion center.

	(3) Commercial fusion centers and commercial fusion
enterprises shall receive a matching funds from the government
for each private investment they make toward the development of
fusion technology;

	(4) Funds provided by the government, as well as the
private funds they match, shall be used to develop fusion energy
technology.  Failure to use such funds to develop fusion energy
technology shall render the commercial fusion enterprise liable
for such damages and criminal penalties as are warranted under
the appropriate statutes against securities fraud currently
enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

	(5) The first commercial fusion enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from
the Fusion Energy Trust Fund, which is hereby established, and
whose contents are to be invested in 30 year Treasury instruments
and whose disbursements are to be administered by the National
Academy of Engineering.

	(6) The first commercial fusion enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even using an cycle burning an aneutronic fuel
shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the fusion Energy Trust
Fund.

	(7) The first commercial fusion enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even using using a cycle burning a commonly
available aneutronic fuel shall recieve $100,000,000 prize from
the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

	(8) The first commercial fusion enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the
Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

	(9) The first commercial fusion enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even with using a cycle burning an aneutronic
fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy
Trust Fund.

	(10) The first commercial fusion enterprise to
demonstrate commercial break-even using a cycle burning a
commonly available aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.

	(11) Interest income on the Fusion Energy Trust Fund
shall be used to increase the value of all prizes according to
the Producer Price Index.  Excess income shall be returned to the
United States Treasury used to reduce the national debt.


Sec. 9304  International cooperation;

Scientific research, as defined specifically in this act, being
of a limited and nonproprietary nature, shall be conducted in a
spirit of academic freedom and openness wherein scientists shall
freely cooperate and communicate with other scientists without
regard to national boundries.


Sec. 9305.  Dissemination of information

(a) The Secretary shall take all necessary steps to assure all
scientific knowledge relevant to magnetic fusion is made readily
available to interested United States persons:  Provided,
however, That upon a showing to the Secretary by any person that
any information or portion thereof provided to the Secretary
directly or indirectly from such person would, if made public,
divulge (1) trade secrets or (2) other proprietary information of
such person, the Secretary shall not disclose such information
and disclosure thereof shall be punishable under section 1905 of
Title 18.

(b) The Secretary shall maintain an aggressive program in the
United States for the provision of public information and
educaitonal materials to promote widespread knowledge of magnetic
fusion among educational, community, business, environmental,
labor, and governmental entities and the public at large.


Sec. 9306.  Annual report

	As a separate part of the annual report submitted
pursuant to section 7321 of this title, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress an annual report of activities pursuant to
this chapter.  Such report shall include --

	(a) a list of significant scientific discoveries in plasma
physics as funded under this chapter;

	(b) a list of commercial fusion enterprises, commercial
fusion centers, their levels of capitalization, Fusion Energy
Trust Fund prize applications and Fusion Energy Trust Fund prize
awards;

	(c) an analysis of the progress made in commercializing
magnetic fusion technology; and

	(d) suggestions for improvements in the national magnetic
fusion program, including recommendations for legislation.


Sec. 9307.  Authorization of appropriations; contract authority

	There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, such
sums as are provided in the annual authorization Act pursuant to
section 7270 of this title.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-8868              Income != Wealth
PO Box 1981                                   Tax Wealth
La Jolla, CA 92038                            Not Income
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
>                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Scott Little /  Re: SF: Planet-sized reactors
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SF: Planet-sized reactors
Date: 28 Jul 1995 15:30:59 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <galileo.40.000E532F@teleport.com>, galileo@teleport.com (John Galt) says:
>
>I need a brave soul to help me cobble together a whimsical model of a 
>manufactured planet having a fusion reaction at its core as a souce of power.  

Assuming no sun in the neighborhood, an emissivity of 0.9 and the same
size as the Earth, I think you'd need 2*10^17 watts to keep the surface
at a pleasant 295 degrees K.  You could do what you wanted with that power
...electricity, mechanical, etc. and since it all ends up as heat anyway
(for the most part) it'd still keep the planet at the right temp.

Who's gonna move there...the Skeptics or the True Believers?

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Bill Snyder /  Re: 231PU TOTALITY, PHYSICS kills BIO-EVOLUTION, Darwin fakes   and
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 231PU TOTALITY, PHYSICS kills BIO-EVOLUTION, Darwin fakes   and
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:35:47 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <3v9il0$p8h@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

   [the usual drivel mercifully snipped]

Ludwig -- oops, I mean Archie -- looks like you got an especially bad
shipment of drugs this time.  Better see if your supplier has any of
the last load left.

While you sometimes manage to be even funnier and more clueless than
Rothwell (notable feats!), this drooling and raving is just a bore.
--
  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / R Schumacher /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.misc,s
i.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 28 Jul 1995 13:12:23 -0500
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX USA

Tom, the world of physics will never take your work seriously
until you learn how to insult people effectively. Take Richard
"that's Dick to you" Feynman: now he was a world-class flamer.
Look at how far it took him: Nobel prize, the position of
Richard "more Dick!" Chase Tolman Professor of Physics at 
Caltech, stamp collecting, girls, the whole nine yards. Need
we mention ol' Albert "kiss my pimply German ass, shit-licker" 
Einstein. Even P. A. M. "what of it, you wanker?" Dirac has
you beat six ways from Sunday.

Take a freshman physics course. That'll get you started in
the right direction. And don't get discouraged, you're just
in the awkward phase of your, uh, cycle.

Regards,
Richard "you know what" Schumacher
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschumach cudfnRichard cudlnSchumacher cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Sugawara, Ben Bullock, and KEK Japan
Date: 28 Jul 1995 18:15:56 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <69924760wnr@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes:

> (This whole thread started in sci.physics.particle. PA seems to be a 
> mite excited, best ignore & don't reply)

   I have been on the Internet since Aug1993. It took me I would say
1/2 year to get used to the Usenet. The biggest mistake I made was that
I did not save on disc those first 6 months of posts and related posts,
but instead saved them on hard copy. I am still in the process of
either scanning in and double checking or the slower way of hand-typing
some  of those posts onto computer disc. I had perhaps several
thousands of pages of Internet posts.
   And in that 1/2 year of getting used to Usenet I discovered that the
best of Internet is to find people who you can trust and rely with
their knowledge. I met very many of this people and hope they are my
friends as much as what I value them. Then, that leaves the majority of
posters as posters that are just "there". And also there are some
posters who are funny and comical. But it is the worthwhile facts that
are important, not the entertainment. It is the Todd Pedlar's who
taught me that the fine-structure constant is not a constant but a
variable that will outlast all of the laughs on Internet put together. 
    And then there are those posters that are like barking dogs on the
Internet. I pass by a barking dog almost everyday. At first when he
came charging out on the road too close to my bicycle, well, I was not
going to stand for that. Now this same dog continues to bark but he
knows that he should just stay near the house and soon I will be gone.
    There are many  people on the Internet who seldom do any physics,
or math or science. A collection of their posts for 2 years indicates
that more than 95% of their posts are pure ad hominem. Ben Bullock and
what's his face, Barry Merriman fit that description. I have a few of
their posts before I told them to go  to hell, styx. And I know the
Internet should be freedom of speech. But is it freedom of speech when
a person runs up a meter into your ear and screams "your a crackpot or
your insane" every day. This reminds me of the barking dog. How many
times has Barry Merriman opined that he thinks I am insane? How many
times has he posted to the world what his opinion of my mental health
is?  I dare not collect all of those posts because my time is more
valuable  than that. Is it freedom of speech that a Barry Merriman
opines not once that he thinks I am insane,  but rather incessantly and
very frequently? The news groups are sci.math and sci.physics
hierarachy, is it  freedom of speech to scream in someones face every
time they go down the road that you think they are insane or a
crackpot?
   You know I am a reasonable person, I don't want to spend anymore
time with that barking dog than what I need to. He now barks with his
fur humped up on his back but he keeps his measured distance  from me.
And that is fine  I can live with that.
   But I can not live with my name constantly smeared in sci.physics
hierarchy. I give Ben and I gave Ben his measured opinion of me. But I
am not going to "do nothing" while I open up Internet and have Ben
smear my name day in and day out. Same with Barry. Has anyone collected
a near complete Barry Merriman postings? Such a collection I would
imagine would almost preempt him from ever working for any college or
university. I certainly hope  someone has assembled a near complete
collection of Barry Merriman posts.
   Anyway, Barry probably has posted that me, Mr.  Plutonium is
mentally ill or insane, not just once, but I would guess near to 50
times now. How many of Barry's posts contain any science or math at
all? 

   Yesterday and the day before I went to sci.physics to look for the
shewe? News out of chicago? and saw the current rage in sci.physics of
a Ben Bullock crackpot FAQ. So I said to myself. Enough is enough. The
Internet is freedom of speech, but also the Internet is a sifting out
of "incompetents". How many times will Barry Merriman scream "insane"
before someone at his job takes a close look at Barry? Lawsuits are
time consuming and not immediate solutions to problems.

    So then, here we are Ben Bullock and Barry Merriman. Continue your
attacks on me. Continue them and I will involve your coworkers and your
bosses. I am sending this post as an email to a number of these persons
at KEK and at Barry Merriman's California job site. I already emailed
Mr. Tillack. Barry, is Mr. Tillack your boss, because Mr. Tillack has
not yet responded to my request.

  MY REQUEST: I request that Ben  Bullock and Barry Merriman never ever
mention my good name on the Internet. And, not even the slightest hint
of me or my theories. I request that both put me in a killfile. 
    If neither Ben Bullock or Barry Merriman cannot put me into a
killfile, then one by one, I will put all of the job locality people of
these two,  their bosses into a killfile, i.e. I will tell them
publicly to go to hell, styx or acheron that is. Perhaps it means
nothing to Ben or Barry to harass me incessantly, then I take it that
Ben's bosses and Barry's bosses Mr. Sugawara and Mr. Tillack encourage
and foster that social harassement. Enough is enough
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math
Subject: Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
Date: 28 Jul 1995 18:33:14 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <453000319wnr@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes:

> This thread, which started off as a light-hearted dig at a few 
> well-known characters on this group, has got nasty. I don't know who 
> originated it, and I don't think anyone else does.

 You may as well get used to it now, the Internet  will be used for
ACCOUNTIBILTY, ACCOUNTABILITY. People will be hired or fired based on
their Internet exposer. I have it in mind to start a petition to ease 
out Ben Bullock and Barry Merriman from their present jobs to ones
should I say that "more closely fits their ambitions and aptitude".
Something like the side-window attendant at MacDonalds hamburger shops.
Anyone want to start a petition here on Internet to be submitted to the
bosses respective of Ben Bullock and Barry Merriman?

      Ben Bullock   (for)   (against)   (abstain)   (disdain)
      Barry Merriman  (for retaining present job) (against retaining
present job)  (for revoking Internet priveleges for an entire year)

  Personally if Barry or Ben owned a dog, I doubt that their dogs would
vote favorably for them?

   Get used to the Internet, what you post can be eternally held
against you. And as I remarked before, that perhaps 50% of the regulars
to Usenet have now eliminated their chances of ever being high
political figure, because their posts evince their bigotry and
prejudices and plain dumb stupidity.

   Alot of these newsweeklies have a weekly article about the Internet,
and I am thinking of New Scientist especially. But their evaluation of
the Internet misses the big point. The big issue is not freedom of
speech, or superhighway of news. The big issue is accountability. Never
before in Earths history have so many people and organizations been
held accountable. That is the big deal of the INTERNET, it is
ACCOUNTABILITY
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: 27 Jul 1995 22:02:11 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) wrote:
>
>Huh? You think that Cravens mistakes are Cold Fusion, but that Morrison and
>blue are "dodo-brains" for agreeing with you? Obviously.
>

Can you tell me what Cravens mistakes are? I'd really like to know.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 28 Jul 1995 11:17:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul27.205336.13243@news2.den.mmc.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com
(Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes: 

>
>In article <3v5ucv$53v@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <3v5opt$igf@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 
>>
>[...]
>>Learn dimensional analysis and you won't despair so.
>>
>
>Seems that M.D. O'Leary knows dimensional analysis already.
>>>M.
>>>
>>>PS. My comment on the thread: changing unit conventions doesn't reveal
>>>fundamental things about nature, 
>>>just as changing the language a book is written
>>>in doesn't change its contents appreciably. In this case its an interesting
>>>exercise, and may even have some utility for spotting relationships more
>>>clearly, but because you can express mass as time doesn't mean it is _made of_
>>>time. Seems a naive leap to make, with no evidence.
>>
>
>Very well put, IMO. Messages are invariant under linguistic
>transformations. As a writer-wanta-be, I just loved reading this
>analogy. Thanks.
>
>>Seems to me that accepting mind created, unneeded, and distorted concepts like 
>>space and mass is more like a naivee crawl.
>>
>
>Tom,
>
>When you post stuff, it gets read.
>
>It was you who tried to argue with me that "perception shapes reality"
>and somehow the "Sun orbits the Earth", etc. Now you SAY that "Seems to
>me ... a naivee crawl." Are you AWARE of how incoherent you write
>yourself to be? Who is in charge of your typing?

I have a Klarton model v42.x psycho-motor EKG to PC, optically coupled translator.

>>By this reasoning, if you are color ( colour ) blind, I should only
>>see the colors you see. In other words, you are substituting mind creations
>>for global, symmetrical, indivisible, quantum  reality.
>
>Say what? Are you now saying there's an OR=Obective Reality? What
>happened to your "mind stuff"? You FLIP/FLOP more times per second than
>a CRAY-MP! Maybe that's where your "cycles" are a reality. As the
>marketing guys try to sell you: "What you perceive is what you get!". 
>
>>Why write the book for color blind people?
>
>Why should scientific knowledge be dumbed down to suit the a priori
>expectations of the logically challenged? 

I agree, that's why I trying to teach you that the Earth does not
orbit the Sun.

>Nobody cares what you BELIEVE or how much,

You are wrong again, oh blind one.
My children, my grandchildren 
and most of my family and friends
care about what I believe.

> as you say, FUN you get from
>science. Enjoy yourself silly. But stop getting yourself into name
>calling wars. I thought "Pret T Moot" was very clever; and didn't resort
>to body parts trash that YOU'VE started. There's no place for it here.
>
>When you post something scientifically erroneous and insist that you are
>trying to correct misconceptions, you are threading on dangerous waters.
>I doubt sci.*.Real.Scientists.People would let *ANYONE* just mouth-off
>with such callous disrespect as you've demonstrated. 

Are you trying to draw aid to your support?

>If you want to have FUN with science, learn what it is. Robin Williams
>makes fun of humans. But first, he studies them and learns what they are
>about. His knowledge of people makes his fun funny. When you better
>understand science, maybe your FUN with it will become genuine.

I'm laughing pretty hard right now.

>Mahipal,
>|meforce>

Mahipal, as usual, you are grasping at straws.

I try to give people what they are asking for.
If they ask for a pleasant exchange, I try to please.
If they ask for an intellectual exchange, I try to please.
If they ask for an exchange of flame by posting subtle or
not so subtle insults, I try to please.

You are the one, in these forums, who has proved his
ignorant of physics with your continued insistence that
"the Earth orbits the Sun".
This is not physics,
This is a niavee subjective perception of physics.

May the "|meforce" be with you,
and the bird of paradise fly up your nose.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR Update July 21, 1995
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update July 21, 1995
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:33:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.95Jul26184921@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <199507241827.OAA11426@pppl.gov> rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk) writes:

> > If these enhanced stability configurations can be obtained in TFTR
> > along with the extremely low core transport observed in the ERS
> > mode experiment, the fusion performance is predicted to be
> > strongly enhanced and potentially greater than 20 MW.  In
> > particular, the central heating of the bulk plasma by the
> > fusion-generated alpha particles is predicted to be significant.
> > Further experiments are required to explore and fully establish
> > the experimental scaling of the stability and transport in this
> > new regime and determine its full potential.

>   Wow!  Does anyone else read these postings?  This sounds like
>exciting results from actual research at the TFTR.  (It also sounds
>suspiciously like some Project Sherwood work by Christhofsen(sp?) many
>years ago, and some of the work of Paul Koloc, all of which involve a
>plasma confining a higher energy/density plasma.)

More like Christolphilis, but that's probably not quite it. His fusion
patents were well written and claimed far more "patent space" than
just his Astron device would suggest.   

I just love the jargon .. ERS.  I'm probably more interested in 
'WHY?' the core transport was minimized.  Was it conductivity 
increase?  By alpha heating?  By electron resonance heating?  
Or is a combination of these and perhaps other effects?  

As for energy density, well that still requires sustained 
confinment pressure.  Both the Astron and tokamak depend on external
coils which can't exceed much over a kilobar, and in the case
of the tokamak, it's toroidal beta is really low  (Bob??) so
my guess the 'nkt' would be something like under a joule/cc 
(energy due to the plasma kinetic pressure).   

We are hoping for a bit of cooperation and in the opportunity
to demonstrate our technology on a device operated by another 
company, which would give us about 2.5 hundred times the energy 
of our present small device.  That would put us well in the 
park for E-burn shots after another year or two using their
compression facility.  This will involve achieiving plasma 
energy densities (nkT) of several tens of kilojoules.  It 
should not be a serious problem for this approach.   

Anyone owning funds are welcome to inquire.  We are NOT 
interested in turning glitz; we are going to do the real thing,
and the required blood, sweat, and guts are not an obstacle.   
We are getting so close my hyper sensitive nose can "smell" 
it.                      :-)

>--
>					Robert I. Eachus
>
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:53:36 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <3v5ucv$53v@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3v5opt$igf@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 
>
[...]
>Learn dimensional analysis and you won't despair so.
>

Seems that M.D. O'Leary knows dimensional analysis already.

>>M.
>>
>>PS. My comment on the thread: changing unit conventions doesn't reveal
>>fundamental things about nature, 
>>just as changing the language a book is written
>>in doesn't change its contents appreciably. In this case its an interesting
>>exercise, and may even have some utility for spotting relationships more
>>clearly, but because you can express mass as time doesn't mean it is _made of_
>>time. Seems a naive leap to make, with no evidence.
>

Very well put, IMO. Messages are invariant under linguistic
transformations. As a writer-wanta-be, I just loved reading this
analogy. Thanks.


>Seems to me that accepting mind created, unneeded, and distorted concepts like 
>space and mass is more like a naivee crawl.
>

Tom,

When you post stuff, it gets read.

It was you who tried to argue with me that "perception shapes reality"
and somehow the "Sun orbits the Earth", etc. Now you SAY that "Seems to
me ... a naivee crawl." Are you AWARE of how incoherent you write
yourself to be? Who is in charge of your typing?

>By this reasoning, if you are color ( colour ) blind, I should only
>see the colors you see. In other words, you are substituting mind creations
>for global, symmetrical, indivisible, quantum  reality.

Say what? Are you now saying there's an OR=Obective Reality? What
happened to your "mind stuff"? You FLIP/FLOP more times per second than
a CRAY-MP! Maybe that's where your "cycles" are a reality. As the
marketing guys try to sell you: "What you perceive is what you get!". 

>Why write the book for color blind people?

Why should scientific knowledge be dumbed down to suit the a priori
expectations of the logically challenged? 

Nobody cares what you BELIEVE or how much, as you say, FUN you get from
science. Enjoy yourself silly. But stop getting yourself into name
calling wars. I thought "Pret T Moot" was very clever; and didn't resort
to body parts trash that YOU'VE started. There's no place for it here.

When you post something scientifically erroneous and insist that you are
trying to correct misconceptions, you are threading on dangerous waters.
I doubt sci.*.Real.Scientists.People would let *ANYONE* just mouth-off
with such callous disrespect as you've demonstrated. 

If you want to have FUN with science, learn what it is. Robin Williams
makes fun of humans. But first, he studies them and learns what they are
about. His knowledge of people makes his fun funny. When you better
understand science, maybe your FUN with it will become genuine.

Mahipal,
|meforce>


>
>
>


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Bill Rowe /  Re: autoradiographs
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: autoradiographs
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:27:15 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <DCBzGF.Jns@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>  In Message-ID: <9507261451.AA11883@pilot08.cl.msu.edu>
>Subject: Re: autoradiographs
>blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
>
> -db  "Mitchell Swartz's answer to my suggestion that experimental
> -db  evidence concerning the radioactivity of CF electrodes has
> -db  been contradictory is the tired old suggestion that I read
> -db  the literature and cite references.  Mitchell, I can't cite
> -db  information in the literature if it is not there!
>
>  If it is "not there", how could it have "been contradictory"?
>Seems like this was one more case of  simple vaporcriticism.
>

In your reply to Dick Blue what does it refer to? Are you refering to
information not being in the literature regarding radioactivity of the
electrodes or the radioactivity not being there?
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Richard Blue /  Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:25:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I seemed to have generated some confusion with my posting of the value
10^-40 sec as a time scale for a nuclear process.  Let me try to clear
that up just a little bit.

One important point that just does not seem to register with CF advocates
is that such numbers as the time constant for a nuclear transition must
be taken into account.  When one starts to paste up some sort of explanation
for the experimental data that is said to indicate that CF does occur you
can't just flush all existing experimental data down the drain.  Measurements
of the branching ratios and decay time constants for excited 4He do not
vaporize just because you don't like the numbers or the implications of those
numbers.

When it comes to the implications of the experimental numbers there has been
a tendency of the CF crowd to cry "That is just theory, we have experimental
evidence that 'proves' cold fusion is occuring."  Well, that is an
exaggeration.  The data alone proves nothing.  You must have a theoretical
context within which the data is to be interpreted before you have anything
that "proves" CF.  The context, by default, generally includes the basic
theory of quantum physics for atomic and subatomic systems.

Now anyone, such as Marshall Dudley, who proclaims that they have a theory
for cold fusion ought to be willing and able to tell us how their theory
copes with the obvious constraints provided by basic quantum mechanics and
all the experimental facts that have bearing on the question.  I have
pointed out that a deterimination of the appropriate time scale for the
processes being hypothesized does place a serious constraint on Marshall's
theory - or anyone elses, for that matter.

Now where did I get a number like 10^-40 second?  That was not intended to
be the normal time scale for the decay of an isolated nuclear state.  It
is much too short.  Several others have correctly pointed out that the
appropiate times to be considered for "normal" nuclear transitions in the
context of fusion are more like 10^-23 to perhaps 10^-20.  Take your
pick.  I don't think it makes any difference which end of that range
you wish to operate in, but those seeking an explanation for CF experimental
results need to consider those numbers and not to just ignore them as
Marshall seems intent on doing.

The ongoing claim by all cold fusion advocates is that nuclear decays important
for CF are not "normal."  The decay process, they assert, is altered
significantly by something atomic, or many-body, or statistical, or special,
or magical in nature.

Marshall's claim was that his process is "faster" that normal decay processes.
I was trying to get him to say, "How much faster is that?"  He still has
not given us a number so I threw out 10^-40 seconds as baint to see if he would
counter it with a better number.  That was never intended to represent a
real nuclear decay time.  It is not a real nuclear decay time, but Marshall's
nuclear reaction process is not real either.  One reason that we can be
certain that his picture of cold fusion has no connection with reality is
the fact that he is operating in the wrong time scale.  If he would put
down some numbers for the time scales he is considering it would become
obvious that something is wrong with his theory for the cold fusion process.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Richard Blue /  beta energy continuum
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: beta energy continuum
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:30:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Marshall Dudley

The energy spectrum of the electrons emitted in beta decay does not
mirror the transition energy for the decay because beta decay is
a 3-body process, not a 2-body process.  The fact that the electron
energy spectrum is continuous from zero out to some maximum energy
is a result of the fact that the total energy release for the transition
is divided between the electron and a neutrino.  You have heard of
neutrinoes, have you not?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.28 / Dave Davies /  Re: Recoilless decays
     
Originally-From: Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recoilless decays
Date: 28 Jul 1995 05:08:37 GMT
Organization: Speaking for MYSELF

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
 >The discussions concerning the decay of excited nuclei in a lattice
 >all seem to be missing some very simple physics.  I would, once
 >again, like to drag this out into the light.
 >
To me, you seem to be missing the point that Ds and the lattice 
possibly form one quantum system that is not just a combination of
its elements but a complete system. When it breaks down it might do
so releasing two Ds or a He. What happens to the energy when He is
the outcome depends on what has happened in the combined system and
we wont know that until someone is able to accurately model it. The
difference in behaviour between this total system is comparable to
difference between D2 (deuterium molecule) and the He atom. The
combination is not the sum of its parts and has quite different
properties.

 >The assertion from the CF camp is that two deuterons fuse to form
 >a single 4He that then delivers some 25 MeV to the lattice in the
 >form of phonons.
  
Which is *not* what I am saying above. 

 >                    I think something gets lost through the use of
 >the word "phonon".  It is important, I think, to keep in mind that
 >a "phonon" is a way of refering to a quantum of excitation in the
 >lattice.  It is not a particle in the same sense that the 4He is
 >a particle.

Again we differ. I think it is useful to use the word particle for 
a phonon to stress my point. Likewise it seems useful to use the word
to describe a collection of quarks and whatever that form the helium
nucleus. We know nothing of the internal structure of either system
really until they interact with some other system. Can we really say
that quarks exist in the nucleus or are they just common breakdown 
products? 

 >
 >In order to discusses phonons intelligently one should specify
 >what degrees of freedom are involved.  I believe, in the case
 >of a PdD, lattice the phonons involve the spatial coordinates of
 >the centers of mass for each nucleus in the lattice.  Thus, the
 >energy content of the phonons in that lattice is, in a more
 >fundamental sense, a combination of the potential energy and the
 >kinetic energy of vibration as each nucleus oscillates about
 >its equillibrium position in the lattice.  Is there anything
 >wrong with this statement?

Yes, I think it is too classical. 
 >
 >The excitation energy of the 4He nucleus is something completely
 >different.  The coordinates of the center of mass of that excited
 >nucleus are not involved in any way.  In order for the excitation
 >energy to become phonons there must be a coupling between the
 >internal coordinates of the nucleus and the coordinates that
 >describe the motion of the center of mass.  Normally, for a free
 >nucleus that coupling is totally lacking.  

Yes, by definition. But do we necessarily have a free nucleus?

 >                                           Hence it is not possible
 >for a nucleus in isolation to deexcite by speeding up, i.e. to transfer
 >energy from the internal degrees of freedom to the kinetic energy of
 >translation unless something is emitted.  That is to say you can't
 >have a recoil without something to recoil from.
 >
 >If you are following this you now should see that the CF assertion
 >that the emission does not occur because lattice absorbs the recoil
 >is asking for the impossible.  There is no recoil to be absorbed by
 >the lattice unless something is emitted.

Well, there is no single CF assertion but, putting that aside, what
you seem to be avoiding is the suggestion or hypothesis that the D+
are not isolated in the lattice. They do not even exist in any real
sense until the system they became part of disintegrates. Any real
measurement or significant incoherent interaction from outside will
destroy the coherence of that system. As it disintegrates it might
evolve two Ds or take the lower energy path of emitting a 4He instead.
The energy of formation of 4He might have been transformed to some 
other form long before.

To those emersed in Quantum Solid State theory and practice this
perspective of yours is not so obviously appropriate.
 >
 >In order for the 4He to deexcite without emission there must be a coupling
 >between the internal degrees of freedom of the nucleus and the lattice
 >coordinates.  My assertion is that NO ONE, NO WHERE has ever made any
 >presentation that describes in a rational way any such coupling between
 >the internal degrees of freedom of 4He and a lattice of any description
 >with no accompanying particle emission.  There is no theory for the
 >process because it is patently absurd!
 >
 >Dick Blue
 >
Perhaps that is because you are framing the problem incorrectly by insisting
on the assumption of an isolated 4He* nucleus. Can you offer any real proof
of absurdity or is that just a guess?

"The only thing proved by impossibility theories is lack of imagination" Bell



dave (being absorbed into another, incoherent system for a week or so)

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendavies cudfnDave cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:41:04 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3un2bs$h0c@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> In article <3ugg94$bpr@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> Tom Potter,
> tdp@ix.netcom.com writes:
> [...]
> >Space and mass are sensory perceptions of a simple matrix of cycles
> >and cycles ratios. From the standpoint of physics, it is better to
> >reduce the sensory properties to the simplist expression.
> [...]
> 
> All this is very interesting, but it does not belong in
> sci.physics.fusion.  We all know where to find this info
> and there's no need to waste bandwidth with superfluous
> crossposting.  Please show a little more respect for
> the rest of us on the internet.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Heeter
> Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
> http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
> Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.

God, will this never end? First, it was Wallace who was allegedly "off
topic," and more articles were posted arguing about whether he was or was
not, and what to do about it, and whether attempts to do something about
it were censorship, and on and on, than were being posted in the clearly
relevant part of the forum! Now Heeter claims that discussions of
gravitation are "off charter," and suggests that those who think such
matters relevant should shut up or get out! So here we go again! 

Here is my message for you, Bob: since you claim that discussions of
gravitation are irrelevant, I take it that you know what the proper
explanation of "cold fusion" is, and that it lies outside the framework of
gravitaitonal theory. Therefore, please enlighten the rest of us. Tell us
what is going on here, in this so called "cold fusion" area, and explain
it with crystal clarity and total lack of ambiguity, so that we can be
absolutely sure that gravitational theory has nothing to do with it. Once
you have done that, then we will all in unison shout "Get a rope!" and we
will go out and hang the "off charter" offenders from the nearest tree!
And, of course, if you fail to produce such an explanation, then we will
have to hang you instead!

Alternatively, you might avoid the risk of being hanged by not starting up
another time-wasting, interminable thread in which would-be censors flame,
and are flamed by, those who believe in freedom of speech. If you prefer
that approach, here is the way to behave: when you see a thread that you
believe to be "off charter," simply skip forward to the next thread! 

See how simple that was? 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:09:10 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3us74h$s78@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <DBywqn.C69@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
> writes:
> 
> >   Child-like individuals like Mr. Schultz -- who hide in wait
> > as trolls (quite a projection on his part)  and post to interrupt
> > discussion, science, and communications --
> >  need never concern themselves with the truth apparently.  
> > 
> 
> Hmm...as long as we are making character judgements: I seem
> to recall several individuals in this forum who repeatedly
> refer to all DOE scientists as wellfare cheats, stealing
> the tax payers money, as part of an enormous scam, not
> competent to even work as garbage collectors, and also
> that hot fusion is an utter failure, has not even the possibility
> of success, has made no progress whatsoever, has contributed
> nothing worthwhile at all, ect, etc.
> 
> So, what judgment do you render about the progenitors of 
> those statements? The product of rational, reasonable,
> adult minds?
> 
***{Damn, I've been busy elsewhere for more than a week, and I figured you
"hot fusion" guys would have stopped whining by now and resumed mugging
the taxpayers! But not old Barry, by gum! Barry doesn't stop whining until
he is damn good and ready! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Kevin Fultz /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: kevinf@sequent.com (Kevin Fultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 20:32:23 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <DC2qp4.94t@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>,
Dani Eder <ederd@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>>[ sci.physics removed from the newsgroups list to eliminate
>>unnecessary crossposting. ]
>
>>In article <3ue2dl$crm@mtnmath.mtnmath.com> Paul Budnik,
>>paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com writes:
>>>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
>>>
>>I share your sentiments about the sun, but if you take the time
>>to do the math you'll discover that it's going to be pretty damned
>>difficult to harness the sun's energy without doing incredible
>>environmental damage due to the land-use and materials requirements 
>>of solar-based energy sources.  Furthermore, solar energy is very
>>unevenly distributed around the world.  From a purely 
>>environmental standpoint fusion is a better bet, especially if you
>>would like to actually get out into space.
>
>In the US we have 24,000 square kilometers of surface area tied up
>in roads.  With photovoltaics averaging 18 MW/square km, you could
>generate 432,000 MW by roofing over roads with solar panels.  Since
>roads are already black, mostly, the absorbtion wouldn't be any
>higher than it is now, and you can power the microwave transmitters
>to feed power to electric autos conveniently.
>
>Then there is the roof area of houses and buildings and parking lots
>to consider.  I suspect you could supply all the power you want
>for the US just by re-using surface area already covered in asphalt.
>
>Dani Eder
>

There is no real problem of finding space for photovoltaics, it's 
finding the money to pay for them that is the problem.  

As an exersize for the doubtful:  Compare the cost of 1 sq km of land
with 1 sq km of photovoltaics.  Call up a supplier of each to check on
availability.

And I think you will find that the price of photovoltaics is about 3
orders of magnitude higher than asphalt.  


kevinf@sequent.com


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenkevinf cudfnKevin cudlnFultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / A Plutonium /  Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: CRACKPOTS FAQ - REVISED VERSION
Subject: ben bullock of KEK JAPAN, DRUMMED OUT OF PHYSICS
Date: 27 Jul 1995 20:12:30 GMT
Date: 24 Sep 1994 19:28:12 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <3v7tj9$h04@innserv.iprolink.co.nz>
rt@iprolink.co.nz (Ray Tomes) writes:

> Ben Bullock aka Mos Burger, DORAEMON, an211894 / N: Reorganise
> sci.physics / P: Claims to have a PhD but difficult to say as most
> posts are about crackpots & reorg of sci.physics /S: Sends anonomous
> posts and prone to more frequent name changes than Plutonium / C: very
> abusive when he doesn't get his own way or doesn't get his facts right
> but sometimes graciously apologizes / W: None known but has a pretty
> map of England available by finger showing all the places he has been
> clever

  Plutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) actually like these type of
characters like Ben Bullock, a fat tub of lard behind a computer.
Reminds me of another fat tub of lard here in the States -- Berry
Merriman. And what PAF is storing and collecting from these nasties is
the day PAF will be to send a bill to the employers of these rather
stupid peoples. This is on top of the fact that both Barry Merriman and
Ben Bullock genetic and photon souls are condemned to STYX, Atom.
Stupid people never know, understand or realize what has been done to
them.



Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: ben bullock of KEK JAPAN, DRUMMED OUT OF PHYSICS
Date: 24 Sep 1994 19:28:12 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <361ukc$ch8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <1994Sep20.112402.24127@kekux.kek.jp>
ben@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:

> Philip Gibbs (phil@eurocontrol.fr) wrote:
> 
> > If somebody posted an article claiming that the universe was a
> > hologram would you put them in your kill file? If so you had
> > better add Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft.
> 
> Indeed I had better, if they start posting on this group.
> 
> Let me give you some examples.
> 
> Dirac spent a large ammount of time in his later years trying to
> multiply various physical constants together in order to get a
> (dimensionless) number close to 1, and then claiming that it was a
> result of some significance, and also saying quantum field theory was
> meaningless, even despite its successful comparison with experiment.
> 
> Eddington thought that he could prove that the fine structure constant
> was 1/137 using number theory. (people who don't know might like to
> know that it is now measured accurately enough that we know it is not
> equal to exactly 1/137 anyway)
> 
> If Dirac and Eddington posted these kind of nonsenses here, yes, I
> would put them in a kill file.
> 
> Don't think that just because it comes from Gerard 't Hooft, it has
> any more validity than if it comes from Ludwig Plutonium.  Scientific
> theories are judged by comparison with phenomena, and not by the
> status of the person who creates them.  Certainly they are not judged
> by their creativity or imaginativeness, or else Ludwig Plutonium would
> be the Nobel Prize winner of 1994.
> 
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics)
>               1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401
 --------------------------------
In article <361sks$9bo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>    PU, PLuto condemns the photon and genetic soul of "  Ben Bullock @
> KEK (National Lab. for High Energy Physics) 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki,
> JAPAN : tel. 0298 64 5401 and the bosses of Ben Bullock at KEK who are
> responsible and accountable to Ben's show of ignorance " to the River
> Acheron. PU, PLuto, make done. ATO------- end of a 1994 post -----
****************
KEK has quite a bit of money in that organization

more than what the other "fat tub of lard out in California" Barry
Merriman has going for him

And the Japanese are more vulnerable to a lawsuit, they rather settle
for the money before they go through with a court procedure of it

  Ray, or anyone else, can they please inform me what Ben actually does
at KEK? His posts indicate he is far too stupid in physics for whatever
work he is involved with there. My guess is that he is just a Japanese
- English translator

Can someone please post me the names of the 3 top officials, managers
of KEK and Ben's boss there at KEK? 

And while I am at it, would someone post the name of the boss of Barry
Merriman?
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / John Galt /  SF: Planet-sized reactors
     
Originally-From: galileo@teleport.com (John Galt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SF: Planet-sized reactors
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:19:24
Organization: The Observatory

I need a brave soul to help me cobble together a whimsical model of a 
manufactured planet having a fusion reaction at its core as a souce of power.  
(i.e. It is a closed system where all materials are constantly being recycled)

Whether or not you believe it would actually work doesn't matter, though, 
obviously, it would help if you did. :)

Galt
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengalileo cudfnJohn cudlnGalt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.27 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: 27 Jul 1995 23:38:38 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2607951820110001@austin-1-6.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> Surely you are aware that many of the initial articles written in response
> to the Pons-Fleischmann announcement--i.e., in late March and early April,
> 1989--were also inclined to take the claim at face value. Would you cite
> those articles as evidence that the media did not reject the
> Pons-Fleischmann claims?
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 


Yes. Certainly the popular media in no way rejected the 
P&F claims. Also, the scientific media was pretty accepting,
at first. Later, it polarized, with certain journals like Nature
wanting nothing further to do with CF, and others, like Fusion
Technology, still readily accepting papers.

The reason for these polarizations is not clear---i.e. to what
extent it represents personal biases of the editors, vs the
extent it represents the spotty record and nature of the field
itself. Fusion Technology has a long history of welcoming 
speculative ideas in fusion, both in letters and articles, so
it is not surprising they picked up the ball. But it is also 
understandable that more general purpose journals may not
want to report speculative ideas in fusion, as it is too far 
off their topic and specialty.





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


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul 29 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
