1995.08.13 / Walter R /  THE WAVE MODEL OF NEUTRON EXPLAINS COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: "Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THE WAVE MODEL OF NEUTRON EXPLAINS COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 02:54:27 +0200
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy


The Deuton's wave model and the Neutron's wave model explain,
with a real new causal theory the mechanisms of a causal chain
that conduces at a very theorical explaination of Cold Fusion.

A new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.

It is available in  <<  http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >> 

The INDEX of  "The Wave Theory of the Field" is:

LETTER
The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary 
Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ".
The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-.
(The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-

ABSTRACT
It contains arguments of the book translation, published 
in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ",
more widely treated in the next book in 1994:
"Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI"
"Albert Was Right - GOD DON'T PLAY DICE".


INTRODUCTION
It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model
of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody
form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete " 
model of space-time.

PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME
It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time, 
that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical 
structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible, 
discrete, metrical " Ether ".

WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS
Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy  E = m c^2  
and  Planck's energy  E = h v, we make the hypothesis that all 
subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that, 
in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles.

WAVE MOMENTUM
With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary
interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle.

ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS
Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the 
relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves. 

THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE
This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the
unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a 
omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other 
physical dynamics.

THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE
We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's
nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider
the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave structure.

THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the 
Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary
consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction.

TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES
The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time
quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass 
the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce 
its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length. 

THE FIFTH INTERACTION
Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept,
we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that 
describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently,  
we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction 
that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between 
the maxi-bodies, and prevent any indiscriminate increase of masses.  

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers
the inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing
the dream so long time pursued from Albert.

WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT
With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton
effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the Relative Symmetry
Principle's capacities, applying the new unification between QM and GR.

WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON
A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an 
extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the 
possible existence of a creative wave's system, so far called : " particle ".

WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS
The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism
allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE
The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism
that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted 
to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of 
Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system.

THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE
The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave 
structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and
quantified with the electrical charge concept.   

THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES
The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition
particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic
interactions like violations of characteristic  " chirality's properties " 
of the wave mechanism - particles.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY
From the VECTORIAL description of the wave mechanism - particles
we can justify existence of one principle of relative isotropy
that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle.

STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION 
OF SINGLES PARTICLES
We deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent 
in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle, 
in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept 
a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles. 

MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model
show that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetic interactions are 
absent, because are absent the waves that characterize electrical 
interactions. This implies a different point of view for the forces in act.
From this different view we can support an original explication
of Cold Fusion.  

THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL
The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons
conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model.

BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL
The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that 
actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently,
allows the wave nature of Neutrinos.

THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL
From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses,
charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family.

THE WAVE ATOM
The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave
resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's
orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler 
wavelength on the specific orbit. 

THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE
The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature, of Constant
of Fine Structure, conclude from presence of  two relativistic Doppler 
wavelength of two waves that move in opposite directions
on the same resonance orbit, that obey to more parameters
that condition their wave resonance states. 

LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION 
The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and
non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between
two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional 
wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ".

Good reading, and...... please to destroy it, if you be able.

                         Walter E. R. Cassani
**************************************************
                   cassani@linux.infosquare.it

     For FTP of  " The Wave Theory of the Field "
    <<  ftp.infosquare.it  >>  in  pub/theory/ 
     Files: wtf-1.doc , wtf-2.doc  =  1.7 Mb 
     in Microsoft Word 6.
               
 For the Theory in W W Web, with formulae and figures:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>

**************************************************
 








cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 13 Aug 1995 01:12:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <21cenlogic-1008952229050001@austin-1-2.i-link.net> Mitchell
Jones, 21cenlogic@i-link.net writes:
>***{Actually, Jed and I *were* Siamese twins! However, we were not
>separated until we were 20. Just before separation, we played a long (105
>move) chess game to decide who got to use the ***{ thingies. It was
>fortunate that I won, since I invented the ***{ thingie, and would have
>been very disappointed if I had to give up the right to it!  8-)
>--Mitchell Jones}***

:)  Glad to hear it!  Now why don't you play another chess game
to see who gets the use of the Internet connection? :) 
Better yet, read the CF literature, figure out N, where 
N = total number of reaction products produced by CF, 
and then play a "best out of N" series!  Who knows, 
there might be a water heater by the time you finish!

P.S.  When you decide to finally post the results of the
tournament, you can crosspost to as many newsgroups
as you like, and I won't mind.  Actually, crosspost to
all of them!

 -----------------------------------------------------
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 21:36:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vsgl9$9sf@electron.rutgers.edu> bweiner@electron.rutgers.ed
 (Ben Weiner) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>
> [flaming solar versus fusion power]

>I have no opinion here (since I've already flamed Paul Koloc's .sig
>about "Commercial Fusion in the 90s" once this year).  I just like
>saying "WE WILL NEED THE DESSERTS."  It sounds like something Obi-Wan
>Kenobi would say while using the Force on some goon Cholesterol Troopers
>wearing white PVC outfits and carrying laser ice cream scoops:

>  These aren't the desserts you're looking for.
>  - These aren't the desserts we're looking for.
>  We will need the desserts.
>  - You will need the desserts.

Hey, so I want to teraform the deserts in to strawberry bering 
desserts.   I love strawberries;  I'm just sorry my Freudian slip
gave me away.  In fact, my understanding is that, since strawberries
preserve so well at sub freezing temperatures, they will be 
a staple on space cruises.  
>-- 
>As we rush head first into tomorrow's world
>But something must have happened to my antenna!
>I'm gone through a hole in the sky
>bye bye now                                  -- the mekons
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion:  Challenges and Approaches
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 20:23:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <4007mk$o7c@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC4905D1DE01416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 15:26:09 GMT
>
>In article <DCoFAu.Fr2@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>>In article <DCKL24.CAs@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>In article <3vghac$bem@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
>><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>>Even a PLASMAKtm is going to need to recirculate some power 
>>> for compression!

>>Since we can convert  95% of the burned fuel to electric power,
>>most of the power used in recirculation is recovered. That
>>certainly is not the case with a tokamak which may chunk out
>>electric power with a 20 to 35% efficiency.  I'm not talking
>>pie in the sky science numbers, here.   

>Paul, your argument would be a lot stronger if you'd
>present a little more evidence and perhaps use some
>accurate numbers for a change.

>Your numbers are only correct if you get a significant 
>fraction of your fuel to burn.  The power needed to
>compress the plasma is only amplified if you get a decent
>amount of fusion.  You don't have that yet, and where have 
>you demonstrated that it will occur?  

True!  
The numbers are there for you to compute if you don't believe me.  
I think in the Space Power paper, I presented compression levels, 

Bob, Do you suppose that characteristics of burning plasmas 
can be estimated from reactivities, temperatures, and densities?  
I quite certain the fuel reactivities, temp response, etc., are 
well researched.  Further the numbers I have you on inductive
MHD efficiencies are in the working and accepted range. Also,  
and initial temperatures and densities are reasonable and
therefore likely achievable.  

>                               Also, where do 
>you get 95% conversion efficiencies?  Do you have a 
>writeup that shows how this is possible and explains 
>why your direct-conversion method is more efficient 
>than any of the others I've heard about (which run
>more like 80%)?

These studies were done internally by General Dynamic.  
The work involved the use of plasma jets as source and
superconducting Inductive MHD as the generator.  The
conversion efficiency was 95%. One of the chaps was
named Stecky and I saw him not long ago when he dropped
in for half a day during the meeting the Russians and 
American Bomb chaps attended in November when I gave my 
paper.   That's the one the Conventional fusion Fusioneers 
were blocked from going!  But all the brainy independents, 
including the more advanced alternative concepts chaps.      
Almost sounds like Cold fusion politics... HuH!

>Finally, your numbers on the tokamak are low.  Even a
>boiling water facility can get 30%, and use of helium
>or other advanced coolants should get you 40-50%.

I guess the won't even make 17% number bangs in my head from
the SP100 program, and although it's not a tokamak, it
kind of get's the same level of pending success label.  

The latter is a bit optimistic, since you would have to
run the machine very hot and still collect the Tritium in
the Lithium blanket and transport it to the separation or
diffusion processing structure, (likely another building).  

>Why is it a real issue for a machine that burns?  The
>overwhelmingly dominant power loss mechanism is 
>transport, not Bremsstrahlung.  Only in fuels like D-He3 
>and P-B11 is Bremsstrahlung a significant factor.

Clearly your statement is from your dreams.  Transport includes 
radiation both particle and electromagnetic.  Further, we aren't 
computing some school kids googoo eyed concept of the Bremsstrahlung
without impurity radiation, but you will have plenty and the 
Bremsstrahlung will be forced to radiate plenty.  So get off 
the pump it down, run cleaning shots and then a breakeven.  That
is NOT how the real commercial world works.  So play or take
you little wagon home.  The Business of fusion isn't scaming
congress any more.  Try as you may.    

If you were correct, then your machine would be operating in a very 
risky discharge state, in since the outer edge will be considerably 
more cooling than the internal plasma.  Of course, this drives the 
thermal radial electron gradient transport.  Consequently, AGAIN the 
currents will have a more restrictive cross-section and stability may 
suffer from resistive G-modes.   

For the next point:
Your article gave the context.  Your point was that you could 
gain in performance by enhanced plasma heating though your 
extra heating techniques (other than ohmic).  Since ATC increases
currents and field strength, the plasma is still well confined.
Unfortunately you have spent your full mag load so in this stage
of the discharge that is not an option.  What do you do for extra
energy to heat this plasma???  A bit of all other tecniques?? 

However, all other plasma heating techniques increase plasma
energy (and pressure) without increasing confining power (strength)
of the field, so plasma losses increase proportionally.  This
can be thought of as overfilling a bath tub.  Certainly you can
add more water to a full tub, but the additional water will simply
be lost by pouring out over the edge.   In the tokamaks case, 
anything over a minor percentage or "beta" will pass right on 
through.  

>>Why because an alpha tunneling tokamak doesn't burn or doesn't 
>>radiate!?!?   Neat trick if you can conjure it.  

>Because alpha channeling, if it worked, would *remove*
>the alphas from the plasma.  It actually *reduces* the
>impurity content of the plasma.  The wave-particle 
>interaction physics is such that the theorists believe
>we can simultaneously transfer particle energy to the 
>wave while physically moving the particle outwards 
>in minor radius.  Try reading some of the recent
>papers by Nat Fisch here at PPPL.

Gee plasma heating with no braking??  

The wave-particle interactions!  Couples right into colder,
unburned fusion  fuel ... Great .   what a maxwellian demon
this is.  Why it's almost as good as our Self compression
heating!!   Still you funnel it toward the inner ring
of the torus??    Hmmm!

As I explained above, merely transferring ash into a region of 
already higher density and impurity content (outer ring layers 
on the inbound side of the torus) are lossy and preferentially 
cool by Bremsstrulung. In addition, it is generating both 
non-isotropic regional heating and G-mode fluxations due to density 
variations which will increase the drive of radial gradient and 
turbulent transport mechanisms.  That perturbs current profiles, 
by radial restrictions of cross-section and as well as also 
generating non-isotropies in their flow.  And wouldn't this 
propagate in the sense of old fashion Stellarator modes??   

>Actually, the highest fields in the business (Alcator C-MOD)
>are made using *rectangular* TF coils.  So you're completely
>out in left field here.  JET designers (Rebut et al) showed that 
>D-shaped coils suffer the least stress overall.  I think you should
>study this a little more before you talk about it.

Exactly, and those achievable fields are a huge jump above the 
levels of field you are speaking about for tpx/Doublet/Alcator.    

>>So is that the case for TPX or isn't it more like 0.5 Kb?  

>I'm not your student, and I'm sure you can do your own homework.
>If you want to prove your point, you should get your own numbers.

Ooooo!    Touchy  Touchy ...  Take a couple "melatonin".    

Hey!
  It's the machine -YOU- are tauting and Your facility is
building (with a bit of assistance from the Federal Government).  
What! you don't want to print the facts as you know them best???
If I could walk out in my shop and measure something we build,
consult a sketch,etc., then I would expect to render the numbers.  

>>But, Bob, these fields aren't nearly as large as ITER plans to
>>use.  What were you going to build out there, a POWDERPUFF? 

>Hello?  Alcator fields are already roughly twice ITER fields.
>TFTR fields are greater than ITER's fields will be.

I thought the max in Alcator was 400 ATM  while ITER was 16 T 
or about 1 Kb.  Now am I incorrect on this, or are we measuring 
field strengths at different locations??  Also, consider the 
HUGGGE difference in magnetic volume.  

>Sure, and then you'll have commercial fusion in the nineties.
>But the last article you wrote used a videocamera as a diagnostic.
>I'm not holding my breath.  But I do find your ideas interesting.

Appreciate your sentiment; and I am awed by aspects of your
work.  

What help is the cam-corder Diagnostic?  Certainly not much for
the tokamak that's like a fat hog trust in an iron maiden. Not 
much to see there.   

Well, Let's see.  I suppose, we could see and measure the whole 
lifetime of the plasmoid,  we could see it's polar magnetic 
protuberances, we could see the ejections points (line) of knockon
electrons and see the beams themselves.,  we could see the direct 
fluorescence of Nitrogen by localized plasmoid energetics,  we 
could see the shape of the object, and color of the object and 
texture of parts of the object all over its lifetime.  Further, 
we could see spectral highlights of the plasmoid overits lifetime, 
and we could even see a stereo-scopic pin hole camera picture 
captured on a X-ray phosphor with a beam splitter and amplified 
with a microchannel plate  continuously throughout it's lifetime, 
which plate could be viewed through macro from a pair of low light 
Hi8 cadcams.    And there you have it a movie of its currents, in 
three D!!   Now what and the immeasureble Whale (tokamak) have 
to say to that.  

Then we can consider multiplicity of other diagnostics, but who
here, really cares.  All we did, after all, was to respond to 
a snide remark.     Probably just some mug from New Jersey.  

So Bob, we were reporting the first series of shots of a scale
model of the device which wasn't expected (true!) to have the 
energy to form such beasties in ordinary Air.  Sorry we didn't
outfit for the improbable.  

>>Unfortunately, the stresses won't allow your shaped program to be
>>utilized since the torques eat your chosen one's over all structural 
>>strength alive.  

>Not like you can't engineer a supporting structure or anything.
>Funny, but Alcator has done just fine by engineering against the 
>various stresses in a high-field (9 Tesla, remember?) system.

9 T doesn't cut it.  And remember Alcator is a volume pee wee by 
comparison to ITER which with 16 T fields would contain vastly 
more explosive magnetic energy.  

>>Certainly, I have an argument.  if you peak density, it's only because
>>you apply your available coil pressure to a smaller cross-section.
>>You do not have a magic way of increasing pressure, your beast is
>>pressure limited due to the use of physical solid state magnet coils.  

>Actually, one point of profile control is that you *can*
>increase the pressure limit by controlling the shape of the plasma
>profiles.  For instance, reversed shear on TFTR has demonstrated
>roughly a tripling of the core pressure limit.  The beta limit
>in a tokamak is not a hard limit impervious to innovation, 
>at least not yet.   

Well I hope not, at those puny Beta's with which it originally 
started to work.  By the way, has any of the big machines jumped 
into the second region of Beta stability??  I believe it was 
around 60%??? Now, I really think the there is a fundamental 
topological flaw in the tokamak coils design.   So these moves to 
dress up the tokamak in the latest fad, don't really address the 
nut of of institutional difficulty to sever ties with past flagships, 
touch stones and the like.  So let's break the handcuff to this 
toroidal form and see which one of these devices can best accommodate 
those features that seem to be net positive in thrust.  Several
have been mentioned by RF Heeter.   

>>So, you can get a higher density and temperature (Higher pressure) by
>>concentrating the product T*n on axis.  BUT this makes it more
>>unstable to kinking...

>Not necessarily, and that's a key point.  

YES, necessarily!   Physics makes no exceptions here that I know
about.  

> The beta limit varies with the profiles.  

So what! That doesn't help the kinking instability!  

>The other key point is that fusion reactivity scales
>with density squared, but pressure only scales with density, so if
>you can focus the density to peak in the center, you get much more
>fusion power.

And the really ramms you up a creek without a paddle, because
you are going to sharpen your temperatures even more along the 
axis, which will shrink the currents and tilt the big while like
a slug that's tripping on ammonium nitratre crystals.  

Now if you had hyper conducting electrons, you wouldn't have
to worry about localized thermalizations.  You could heat that
fat slob with a monster microwave and it it would still remain
in the full channel current mode.   Now compress the devil out
of ALL of your plasma, not just the thread down the middle, and???

Imagine how we feel when we will take a PLASMAK(tm) fuel ring up 
to essentially pressure, unlimited??? This can happen since, we 
can work at 20 Kb levels of applied pressure and perhaps 3 times 
this in fuel pressure!!!  Now that moves burn rates from 
milliwatts/cc to megawatts/cc.  

>Actually, what ideas like profile control and reversed-shear do
>is to *expand* the pressure box.  For instance, TFTR's reversed
>shear results show a tripling in n and a large increase in tau
>without any change in T.  That *is* progress in n*T*t, and that's
>the whole point!

Then you:   ***  HAVE TO INCREASE STABLE BETA BY 3.   ***

How are you going to do that.  I know you have no room to increase
pressure.   

This hasn't happened except on paper.  I don't think this is the
place to utilize such techniques, as I said.  Spheromaks and
our PLASMK(tm) configurations are better.  

snipped interpretive stories about budget 

>Okay, X-ray measurements are an improvement.  But you should
>at least see about getting a high-speed video camera so you
>can have more than a couple of frames per plasmoid.

We' ll use bigger generators.  4 Kj was a bit small to set
timing on,  don't you think.  Of course it still has L/R's 
longer than anything your shop could generate of comparable 
size, simplicity, density and with a lack of sustaining 
energy feed.  

>>I guess you
>>chaps are beyond the VCR camera level.  

>Well, we do have a plasma TV just to look at the shots.
>It's useful for telling when the plasma marfes, disrupts,
>or generally does other unfortunate things in a shot.
>Plus it looks cool.

Ooooo ... Well we thought they looked cool too.  
Unfortunately we won't be able to see the hot ones.   :-)

>Yes, we do: a TFTR shot runs for a couple seconds.  That has 
>no feeds or attachments.

I liked your (tokamaks) runway currents discharges that 
TK Chu studied.  

>You missed out on the latest auction of excess equipment
>here, and I don't have the clout (or the desire) to send
>you stuff.  But as for diagnostics - you might try
>getting a microwave interferometry setup going so you
>can measure densities.  That shouldn't be too expensive.
>If you do it right (use a polarized source) you can use 
>Faraday rotation effects to perhaps get a sense of the 
>plasmoid's internal B-fields.

We thought we would use rotation of light through a multiloop
light pipe  .. perhaps a polarized HeNe laser.   Of course,
I doubt if we can get "in" with a microwave interferometer.   
That shell is one electron dense puppy.  

>If you're running in air then you shouldn't see much in the
>way of UV line emission; wouldn't most of it be absorbed
>by the intervening air?  Ditto for low-energy (< 1 KeV)
>X-rays, I should think.  

Except for optical filters (some charged N lines), we don't 
look X-ray-wise until above about 18-20 KeV.  The REALLY 
energetic stuff within the beast can be get out and travel
within the chamber to just about ** anywhere ** .  

>Some useful equipment may become available cheaply after 
>the budget axe falls October 1; you should try to hook 
>in to the excess equipment auction mailing lists (but 
>you'll have to go through DOE to get the info).

Certainly?  A really cooperative helpful organization to 
competitive resources.  Perhaps Congress should have worked
them down to size first.   (as in harnessed) 

>Yes, and why won't you have the same problem in spades when you
>try to do a compression burn?  

Since as I explained, as far as the Mantle is concerned, and
that's the only external matter interaction region we have to 
deal with, there isn't a serious problem once formed.  The 
compression is self-similar, so that mean free paths contract,
and in fact since the whole system is heating and fusion initiates,
the Mantle equilibrium thickness will extend and envelop the 
compression chamber itself.  Thus the problem there is also 
becomes more or less trivial.  In a sense, the power densities 
vastly overwhelm such dense gas blanket's ability to transport
or even engage some transport mechanisms in such a small time 
period.   

>What is the mean free path for a neutral particle traveling into
>the PMK?  And what is the mean free path for an escaping fuel
>ion which has charge-exchanged and is now flying rapidly outwards?

Assuming Compressed

for a neutral into the Mantle -- Incredibly small by comparison 
to the Kernel plasma and it varies with the effective gradient 
temperature.  

For H-^11B (actually ^4He) in the Kernel plasma it is is about 
2 millimeter.  

>(Hint:  mean free path for escaping fuel ion will be longer than
>for incoming neutral.)  Have you done a serious calculation of
>the equilibrium neutral population during a gas-pressurized
>compression burn?  What will you use as a compression gas and why?

The flux density at such densities precludes it.  Evidence it is
sealed against internal presence of neutrals is given by the polar 
Jets (a natural divertor).  

What compression gas?? Anything.  We will even change it during 
compression phases.  

>>Besides.. .if it would supposed to work as you say then ...???  
>>Why doesn't this happen in a turbulent wind to ball lightning.  

>It's not my responsibility to answer that question, it's yours.

This was more directed as a counter example to your suggested 
hypothesis.   Sorry you read it as a query.  Anyway, who gave
me that assignment, and when's the money coming.      :-)  

>But as you mentioned, the fact that charge exchange doesn't
>lose you much energy unless the plasma and neutral gas are at
>significantly different temperatures could be part of it.
>Only in a fusion compression burn would charge-exchange losses
>eat you alive.

This happens ONLY in machines whose fuelcores are surrounded 
with non-plasma state walls that are subject to such losses, 
such as the large surface area tokamak.  This advantage of having
a ionized plasma shell (even though radiant driven) protects 
the PLASMAK(tm) concept from charge exchange with its extra-hot
fuel.   

>>Also, candles burn with low power, yet burn on and on even
>>though such cooling mechanism could steal the heat from them.

>The flame is only very slightly ionized though, and atmospheric
>density is also very low compared to your proposed P-B11 burn
>densities.  We're talking vastly different regimes from a 
>megaKelvin P-B11 compression burn.

Absolutely! It is only the Kernel plasma which is compression 
heated to fusion burn (megaKelvin P-^11B).   

Nevertheless the flame has a sustained burn, has ignition, and
is quite happily doing its thing for pennies, while we toil like
hell trying to lift the tinier central cores of much of each of
the same type of material to also begin a burn, albeit more 
ascending.  

Guess there are two, and too many parts of which to keep track 
for this PLASMAKtm concept???    I was thought it was kind of
simple, but then maybe I'm a basically simple fellow.  

>Suppose the initial PMK is like a candle flame.  

Bob, IF it were like a candle flame, Then it would have 
no magnetic energy, no magnetoplasmoidal topology, no 
hyperconductivity, and only the chemistry of the
remaining fuel and oxygen.   One may get a twinkle out of
of a slam bang compression, but not much more.  And I dare 
say, to do this the compression would likely have to be 
extremely fast and three D.   

>  What you propose
>to do is compression-heat that candle flame using a blast of 
>(much colder) compressed air.  What I want to know is how you 
>can be sure that the cooling effect of the air (due to
>charge-exchange losses of the ions from the plasma) won't snuff
>out your flame.  After all, an easy way to put out a candle flame
>is simply to blow hard on it, right?

Absolutely!  So I guess we have come here to discovery that
a PLASMAK(TM) topology is NOT a candle flame.  Nope, needs
energy, conservation and self protective mechanisms, etc.  

>>Don't you mean you would be more comfortable with the 
>>only way you know that plasmas are compressed by obsolete
>>laboratory vacuum plasma technology? 

>I'm not sure you're following me.  The toroidal current
>in your spheromak-like configuration can only enclose so
>much vertical magnetic flux through the core, because
>the flux through a near-ideal conducting loop must always
>be constant.  So if you run an external vertical field 
>through the axis, and crank it up from a Gauss to a Tesla
>or something, you should force the area enclosed by the 
>spheromak's current loop to decrease by a factor of 10,000.
>That forces the radius to decrease by 100, and the volume
>to go down by roughly 1,000,000.  I figured those
>sorts of compression numbers would be comparable to your
>gas-compression scheme, only without the problem
>of charge-exchange cooling.

The CE is sort of a big problem, but for the sake of argument, 
agree you are throwing numbers that get you in the ball park.  
One thing you should note, that the difference between cranking 
from outside (fixed magnet volume) and inside (compressing
hyperconducting shell) is that the energy scaling varies with
the compression ratio from 100 down to 10, respectively.  
                     Nice!     Huh?

>>Besides.. .
>>It's not stable to tilting mode.  You should know that!

>But how quickly is it unstable?  If you can ramp the
>vertical field up before the tilting mode kicks in,
>you can burn so fast that the tilting mode won't have
>a clue what hit it.  

It's a rotor, like in a motor.  

As it ratchets to an initial slightly shrunken volume, 
the tilting tendency becomes stronger very fast.  Your 
"quick jump" argument while a bit valid at first, begins 
to fail quickly and then hugely more speedily as the 
compression proceeds.  The little sob gets mighty 
independent, sort of a "Yosimite Sam type". If you could
do this, I'll give you the 'cat herders' award of the 
century.   

> Besides, once there's an
>appreciable vertical field the tilting mode will have to
>bend the vertical field in order to occur, and that
>ought to stabilize it a bit.  

Gee Bob, Sounds Great!.. . Turn it into a PLasalar column 
"plasma proof".  Actually dear bean, this fellow will happily 
reconnect his way through this stuff as fast as the tilting 
tendency urges him.  .. which is .. faster .. and faster .. .   
Remember, we are forcing a South directed magnet pole to 
point North!   Damn Yankees!@#   
    
I assume that this beast is a Princeton made 'do-thingy' 
which has NOT been equipped with the fine hyperconductivity
the our fellows have.               ;-) 

>Think about it; I could
>be wrong, but I don't think you can just dismiss
>the idea without some thought.  Especially because
>it gets you away from having to worry about
>charge-exchange losses of your hot core ions.

When the Kernel is NOT protected, it is in harms way, 
including charge exchange and those mighty light flashes
as the neutrals hit their (plasma's) abode.  We want that 
stuff " Away out thar .. . in the Oort (Mantle), sorta."  

>Did anyone actually try magnetic compression of a
>spheromak?  Is there literature on this?  

Sure, Wells.FL,  Hammer-Hartman LLNL, Jarboe LASL in 
some classified stuff (likely declassisfied), and 
others,  a large number of "mag pushing around events"  
could be interpreted as compression, if one looks carefully.  

After all it was one big way to heat, and conductivity
was the problem with most of these guys.  (Spheromak
experiments)   Actually the tilting and slipping 
instabilities were discovered by squeezing.  What size
does a spheromak have to get to before a "confining"
becomes a "Squeezing".   

>>Also, one can only reach a tiny fraction of the pressure 
>>one can reach with simple fluid pressure compression.  

>Are you sure?  If you form the thing at 1 bar and you
>get a factor of 1,000,000 compression as I described
>above, that should bring you to an average pressure of 
>1 Mbar, which is a factor of 50 higher than what you
>claimed way back up there (20 Kbar).  

Yep! but I was speaking of magnetically achieved pressure
versus fluid-mechanical.  The former blows up or goes 
non-superconducting if pushed too far.   

So show me a superconducting coil that can hold a spheromak
size experiment for 1 second at 1 megagauss field. ???  
Then how high can you practically get.. probably better
expressed in KATM (Kb) pressure.   

>I think you're just dismissing the idea out of hand
>because it comes from someone at PPPL.

Now I've lost the train of thought.  Which idea,
I'm a discriminating chap.  

>>Bob, your tok's a creaker!

>Again, it isn't *my* tokamak!  You seem to be off
>using your royal "you" again.  

YES!  You are still being paid by them, and picking up
their jive tok talk.  

Look, This stuff I'm doing is blurring out, because others
are making some really significant contributions.  So
it's not mine either (in the singular sense) but it 
is mine in the "it's OURS"  "all of us" ho ho ho "back-hoe"
Concrete, rebar, lead shielding, rad block walls RF shielding 
piping etc.,etc.,.. get it!. Sort of blood and guts -- ours.  

                     "YOU -tokamak- PPPL 
                 "We -PLASMAK(tm) Technology- US."   
                           Bad Guys
                          Good Guys     

                        It just Ain't 
                          that simple. 

whew*  what big feet.  
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / A Plutonium /  Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.
lectromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
Date: 12 Aug 1995 19:51:24 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

MOONS & PLANETS, 1993, William K. Hartmann,page 270

 -------------------------------------------------------
          Table 9-4
  Surface Planetary Magnetic Fields
 -----------------------------------------------------
Object     Magnetic field   approx inclination
                  (nT)a              of dipole to                      
                                         rotation axis
 -----------------------------------------------------
Sun          200000b                    6degrees
Mercury      220                       <10degrees
Venus            <30                           ?
Earth         30500                      11degrees
Moon               10                          --
Mars               40                           --
Jupiter      420000                   9degrees.5
Saturn          20000                  <1degree
Uranus          23000                 58degrees.6
Neptune      ~100000               46degrees.8

Note: Field values are variable from place to place, typically by about
a factor of 2. Values from Taylor (1982); Van Allen, 1990; Hubbard,
1990.
aThe tesla is the preferred SI unit for magnetic field strength, though
values have traditionally been given in gammas or gauss until quite
recently. 1 nT = 10^-9 tesla = 1 gamma = 10^-5 gauss. For comparison,
the interplanetary field in the inner solar system is typically a few
(~3) nanoteslas.
bHighly variable, up to 10^8 nT in sunspots.


  The planet Earth and Solar System did not originate from that quant
idea of a nebular dust cloud, old wifes tale.

  The planets and stars are born as "Schroedinger electron density
distribution dot" and grow by a mechanism that PAM Dirac first
hypothesized (book Directions In Physics). 

  This mechanism is Radioactive Spontaneous Neutron Materialization
(rsnm). It occurs in all astro bodies which have a magnetic field. RSNM
(pronounced resin) is directly proportional to a bodies magnetic field.
Rsnm has the character of accelerating, slowing down and even shutting
off.

  Pulsars have this eerie perfect timing as a radioactivity clock.
Pulsars mysteriously shut down.
  Pulsars are the universes finest example of Radioactive Spontaneous
Neutron Materialization. It is the entire stars clock of rsnm.

  At the Cretaceous KT boundary lasting 100,000 years the Earth's
magnetic field really kicked in. Anyone out there have the data on the
Earth's magnetic field at the KT?
   Anyway, during the KT the Earth went from 80% of its present radius
to approx its present radius. This happened in such a short spurt of
time, the 100,000 years that it extincted all the animals and plants
that were out of "shape" to such an increased gravity g.
   Another mass extinction in Earth's history occurred before the KT,
due to another spurt in Earth's Growing radius. Anyone able to provide
information on these earlier mass extinctions? There is proof in
Growing Earth and on and off again rsnm increasing gravity g, by the
fossil record of enormous plants and flying insects which are
impossible to exist in an Earth of rather constant size and constant g.

  The present science of cold fusion in test tubes of water is
misnamed. It is not fusion. It is RSNM, and a better way of achieving
rsnm and tapping into this great source of energy is to mimic what the
Earth, Stars center is. These centers are supplied with large Magnetic
Fields, so forget running electricity through test tube water. And
these centers are chemical compounds near the element iron in the
periodic table. This suggests that tapping RSNM would be elements
around iron, not heavy water.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: 12 Aug 1995 16:04:31 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <40fijk$jlu@otis.netspace.net.au> 
rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>
>Is the shape of the energy distribution curve, the same for all known
>beta decay reactions, or is it sometimes lop-sided in special
>circumstances?

The details of the Kurie plot tell you about forbiddenness, etc. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | "What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been."       
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 12 Aug 1995 16:14:55 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <40h1db$sdr@martha.utk.edu> 
mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:
>
>: Philip Morrison quotes J. Robert Oppenheimer: "So I think it really not
>: too improbable that a ten centimeter cube of uranium deuteride (11.4 Kg)
>: . might very well blow itself to hell."
>
>Well no, even if you did get a 10cm cube of highly enriched
>uranium deuteride it would not blow itself to "hell" if your idea of
>"hell" is Hiroshima, 1945.  

My idea of hell is being in Hiroshima.  You can work the numbers 
and see if that mass would do the trick if you were the person in 
the room who put the two halves together.  That is what they were 
talking about. 

>If you do happen to get enough to exceed criticality you will get a nuclear
>reaction, and enough localized heating to disassemble the thing until
>it's no longer critical.  

Yeah, it would disassemble all right.  

Whether it would be "rapid rupture" would depend on how much you 
exceed prompt critical and how you put it together.  There was a 
reason they did those sorts of experiments where they did at Los Alamos. 
It might not be 20 kT, but it would be a mess. 

>It's why a nuclear reactor isn't going to ever incinerate a city in a
>millisecond.  There's nothing keeping together fuel even when it's going
>gangbusters with fast neutron fission.  Still, you can be an idiot if you
>design something criminal like Chernobyl and allow a criticality accident to
>start a fire. 

Chernobyl exploded.  The fire followed. 

Analysis of the fission products indicated that it was blown apart 
by a prompt-critical fission reaction.  True, it was more like using 
gunpowder rather than plastic explosive because of the lack of a 
tamper, but it did blow up. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | "What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been."       
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR
Date: 11 Aug 1995 22:38:09 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <40d02u$npg@moe.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:

 > I was just browsing through my copy of Science that usually comes
 > to my house way late, and I came across a small box next to the
 > reporting on the fusion budget that said tht PPPL is proposing to
 > try to get some ignition experiments out of TFTR's DT shots...
 > So my questions are:

 > 1) Is the reporter on drugs or is there really some idea like that
 > floating around?

   He may be on drugs, but even sober reporters get the details that
confused.  However, in one sense this has been a "stealth"
announcement, because this really is a technique pioneered in magnetic
mirror machines, not a "new" scientific breakthrough, just (very) good
engineering.  (But don't consider me a "grumpy old man."  I prefer to
praise results, not affix blame for not trying it sooner.)

 > 2) If there is what is it?

   Reversed shear.  Basically the plasma splits into two regimes, with
the inner plasma denser and hotter.  The magnetic field lines are
twisted in opposite directions in the two areas making it effectively
two plasmas one surrounding the others.

 > 3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?
 > Isn't that kind of like saying my wife's abdomen is pregnant but neither of
 > her legs are?

   I think it just means that the reporter had a MEGO (my eyes glaze
over) attack.  But as you can see from the above, most of the burning
will occur in the core.  (The scientist being interviewed may have
said something about "achieving ignition temperatures in the core"
which looks well within reach.)

 > 4) What are TFTR's chances of achieving ignition, even with an extension of
 > DT run-times?

   Define ignition...  Seriously, if they do achieve "scientific"
breakeven, the plasma will be heating itself.  I doubt that they can
run a long enough burn to shut down external heating and have the ion
temperature keep rising, but they may be runs where they shut off the
neutral beams before the end of the burn, and continue to produce
fusion energy.

 > 5) Could the reporter have been confusing Breakeven with ignition?

   Yes, but I am not sure that enough is known about this mode at
TFTR, to know if the one can be achieved without the other.  Certainly
they are going to try to minimize the transport between the core and
the outer plasma, and to maximize the fraction of the total particles
trapped in the core.  I can conceive configurations where you get
ignition temperatures in the core without breakeven and vice-versa.
My guess is that if they get one, they will also be pretty close on
the other.

  > I'm really puzzled, especially since I've missed any conversation
  > about it here on s.p.f. It was in the Aug. 4 issue of Science, so
  > it has been available at least to the press for a week. What
  > gives?

    When I saw the first reports from Princeton I was also surprised
at the lack of comment here.  Even if it is an experiment first
attempted in the sixties, Princeton deserves full credit for finally
achieving the mode.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Josh Lack /  Nice, France
     
Originally-From: lack@kanga.lbl.gov (Josh Lack)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nice, France
Date: 12 Aug 1995 20:48:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA



I think that this is one of the most interesting newsgroups around and
admit to having lurked here over a year. Like many, I thought cold
fusion was pretty much dead. Of course the evidence for
cold fusion is completely underwhelming but I think it's the enormous
potential, however remote, that continues to draw interest even from
skeptics.

The colorful characters and variety of threads here ranging from the Wright
Brothers to quantum mechanics have continued to make 
for interesting, sometimes educational and always entertaining reading. 
Indeed, having just finished my dissertation (in a completely unrelated
field), I thank everyone for having made the late nights somewhat
more bearable.

The point of this note is to say that I am going to be in Nice, France
in a couple of weeks and I thought that it would be a hoot to try to 
visit the Pons and Fleishman lab.  So, any suggestions on how to accomplish
this? (even an address or phone number would be helpful). If successful, 
I'll write up a report and submit it here.

				- Josh Star-Lack
				lack@imasun.lbl.gov


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlack cudfnJosh cudlnLack cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 12 Aug 1995 04:10:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DD3K8y.5C7@nntpa.cb.att.com> guiness.mv.att.com!gfp,
gfp@docunet.mv.att.com writes:
>Fusion will likly be realized from an entirely different approach, one 
>that has not been thought of yet.

Perhaps, but if it is, it will only be because the research being done now
will have given us such a good understanding of the plasma physics that 
it will be possible to evaluate new ideas with less effort, and to see
the way to think up that new idea.  I'm afraid you can't simply sit
down in your garage and invent a better fusion reactor.

>Also, by the way, the latest TFTR 
>update (are they ever going to shut that machine down?) makes a big deal 
>about reverse shear or something similar-

That's right.  And presumably they'll only shut it down when it stops 
producing extremely interesting results.  So far that hasn't happened,
as the enhanced-reversed shear experiments indicate.

>didnt the ZETA of the fifties 
>use something like that-it didnt work either. 

Actually ZETA was a pinch machine, and worked (or didn't work) 
in a significantly different way.  Of course, if you actually
know what you're talking about, I'm willing to listen.  But
you could at least take the time to refresh your memory and 
present a clear argument before attempting to damn TFTR 
with half-remembered confusions.

>I would like to see the results of a  calculation as well-

Try PPPL-3117 for starters.  Or wait until it comes out in
Phys Rev Letters.  The excitement over the reversed shear
results stems from a confluence of theoretical calculations
and experimental evidence.  I posted another article on the
reversed shear subject earlier today, so you may want to read 
that.  

>why dont they forget about the "wet 
>wood burner two component torus"

That's precisely what the reversed shear experiments can
do for you.  

>and just aim the beams at each other? 

Actually, TFTR does that too.  Where have you been?

>(one D and one T).Power output for $ input might be more cost effective.

You can't fly before you at least learn how to crawl into 
the cockpit.  You get a lot more power output per $ input by
figuring out what you're doing first.  Plus that way you won't
crash the plane.

>How is  Q=1 coming, by the way? (20 MW output doesnt cut it).

Actually, one of the Reversed Shear Q=1 (D-T) scenarios
for TFTR involves only 20 MW of input power, so 20 MW of
output power would do nicely.


 -----------------------------------------------------
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 07:53:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.95Aug11183809@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <40d02u$npg@moe.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:

>   He may be on drugs, but even sober reporters get the details that
>confused.  However, in one sense this has been a "stealth"
>announcement, because this really is a technique pioneered in magnetic
>mirror machines, not a "new" scientific breakthrough, just (very) good
>engineering.  (But don't consider me a "grumpy old man."  I prefer to
>praise results, not affix blame for not trying it sooner.)

But it was induced by external coils with no plasma currents as in the
case of the tokamak.  However, this was first accomplished on a much
larger scale in the "ZT40" machine at LANL and the estimated that 
they could achieve a breakeven burn in a machine costing far less than
TFTR.   However, they were conveniently, ordered to disbanned and 
destroy  (bulldoze into the canyon)  in what now seems to be a vain 
effort by DoE and chums to save the tokamak empire.   It is now more
likely that the moth balled alternative concepts will be dusted off,
given a fresh coat of paint, and some clever "pickens" from the defunct
devices of the Los Alamos crew with which to feature their new born 
again concepts.   Really funny stuff -- -   ho ho.  I hope Congress
sees this crap coming.     

> > 2) If there is what is it?

>   Reversed shear.  Basically the plasma splits into two regimes, with
>the inner plasma denser and hotter.  The magnetic field lines are
>twisted in opposite directions in the two areas making it effectively
>two plasmas one surrounding the others.  

Except, that it's in the same device, and it has the same total field
energy to expend, and where will not be the total particle inventory.  

> > 3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?
> > Isn't that kind of like saying my wife's abdomen is pregnant but neither of
> > her legs are?

Couldn't you pick a different view, .. of course it does so of fit a 
tokamak.  

> > 4) What are TFTR's chances of achieving ignition, even with an extension of
> > DT run-times?

None!

>  > I'm really puzzled, especially since I've missed any conversation
>  > about it here on s.p.f. It was in the Aug. 4 issue of Science, so
>  > it has been available at least to the press for a week. What
>  > gives?

This is a well timed publicity gimmick.  I must say they are reaching
for this one.     

>    When I saw the first reports from Princeton I was also surprised
>at the lack of comment here.  Even if it is an experiment first
>attempted in the sixties, Princeton deserves full credit for finally
>achieving the mode.

Not a chance, although since they have shut off LANL, I suppose they 
can crow to the four winds as if no one else would remember.  

Too bad the NM champs or the Board of Regents of the University of CA
can't sue Princeton for theft and misuse.   
Using reversed shear on tokamaks???  .. . what a letdown.   
>					Robert I. Eachus
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Radiation by charges in a varying B-field
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radiation by charges in a varying B-field
Date: 12 Aug 1995 12:46:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <40d5b9$9l6@knot.queensu.ca> Mark Higgins,
mark@astro.queensu.ca writes:
>I presume that this work has been done before, possibly in
>accelerator physics research, but haven't been able to find
>any references (it may be that they're very old... I don't know).
>I've been bashing my head against this problem for a few weeks
>now, and haven't got very far, so I hoped that someone out there
>might be able to give me some sort of clue.

Well, the *motion* of charged particles in varying B-fields
is covered in any introductory plasma physics text, usually
with the assumption that the scale length of the B-field
variations is much less than the gyroradius of the particle
about a given field line.  As for the synchrotron radiation
of the particles in varying B-fields, I would suggest
(a) looking in Hutchinson's book, _Principles of Plasma
Diagnostics_, which provides a lot of information on
radiation from plasma particles, and will probably have
a reference to what you want even if it doesn't cover
your topic itself; and (b) you may also want to try posting
on sci.physics.plasma, which is read by many more scientists.
I would be really interested if you found that your particular
problem hadn't been studied yet!

 -----------------------------------------------------
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: solar/fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solar/fusion
Date: 12 Aug 1995 12:55:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <40cd3k$nav@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> David Wyland,
dcwyland@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Running the numbers for collectors can be interesting. Using the above
>numbers as a guide, let's look at what we get just using the roofs over
>our heads. The above 1.5e6 sq km = 1.5e12 sq m/5.5e9 people = 273 sq m.
                                                              *per
person*       
>For a 1000 sq ft house => 100 sq m with 4 people per house, we get just
>about the area we need: 4 x 273 = 109 sq m.
                                   *try 1092!*

Wait, you need 273 sq m of solar cells per person.  A 1000 sq. foot
("footprint", not interior floor space) house has 100 sq. m. of 
effective surface area.  If you have 4 people, then you need
1092 sq. m of photovoltaic surface area.  This is a factor of 10
larger than your house!

And it only gets worse when you have urban communities.

One of the best calculations I've seen concluded that
you'd need the entire state of Arizona to be a giant solar
farm in order to power the U.S. with solar.  Who knows what
the environmental impact of that would be.  Japan certainly
isn't going to power itself with solar, and a fully industrialized
China with 1.4 billion people would need twice as much
energy as the U.S., so I guess there goes Tibet and Sinkiang. 

I think we need every decent energy option we can find.

 -----------------------------------------------------
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 09:56:33 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <40e13j$7rj@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <40an57$qsv@agate.berkeley.edu> cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff
Frost)  
> writes:
> >> 
> > Just wondering if you'd caught on yet to the Jed Jones/Mitchell Rothwell
> > paradox.  The big questions are: 
> > 
> 
> Have they ever been seen together at one time? :-)
> 
> Really, I have no desire to rile either one. I appreciate the 
> info on cold fusion news that Jed supplies (even though I don't
> appreciate the tone in which it is usuaually suppplied :-). I
> have respect for people who put their ``money'' (time, effort,etc)
> where their mouth is, and Jed seems to do so. Whether I think he
> is misguided or not is a secondary issue there. And as for 
> Mitch Jones, he is not that unreasonable for a CF believer :-).
> 
> I simply await more information, by and large.
> 
> While I am *extremely* skeptical about the reality of cold fusion,
> I remain hopeful. (I was proposing research on cold fusion before
> Jed Rothwell ever heard the names P & F---but I didn't have 
> a very clear conception of how to do it. (nor do I now...))

***{Buy a "Hydrosonic Pump" from Griggs, create a calorimetric setup as
per your specifications (you know: one where you account for the energy
invested in the warmup phase), use the flow, input water temperature, and
power specs recommended by Griggs, do a steam run, and see if you get
excess heat. Simple. If you then get a percentage COP of 160 or so, as
reported by Jed, then you are in business. I would love to see you do it,
Barry. Of course, if you got the percentage COP of 160, your "hot fusion"
colleagues would tear you limb from limb, but why worry? That's a small
price to pay for making history, right? :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR
Date: 11 Aug 1995 13:48:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <40d02u$npg@moe.cc.utexas.edu> John W. Cobb,
johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>All fight fellers, what's going on at PPPL these days?

:)  I've been trying to figure that out myself.  I was planning to
explain what
I know over the weekend.  Give me a day to gather up my articles and my
thoughts, and I'll be able to give some technical details.  In the
meantime,
here's the gist of things:

>I was just browsing through my copy of Science that usually comes to my house
>way late, and I came across a small box next to the reporting on the fusion
>budget that said tht PPPL is proposing to try to get some ignition experiments
>out of TFTR's DT shots. I'm not sure the reporter had it all together, or
>whether the idea was just bizarre. The gist of the article seemed to say
>that there was an idea that TFTR's core might reach ignition since the plasma
>physicists had discovered a way to control a certain plasma instability. The
>reporter's language seemed a little disconnected. He did throw around 
>Zarnstorf's name (did I misspell it again?).

I'm not sure how Science got wind of this, but on Monday at the weekly
TFTR physics meeting, Dr. Zarnstorff gave a presentation on the latest
state of the experiments which have found an enhanced confinement mode
in Reversed Shear plasmas.  (See Science, July 28 1995 for details; the
whole thing will be in Phys. Rev. Letters soon too I believe.  If you have
access to PPPL reports, try PPPL-3117.)  All of what follows is my
own (probably limited) understanding of what's going on.  The TFTR group
had gone through of a review of the TFTR-AP (TFTR Advanced Performance)
extended-operation proposal a couple weeks earlier, so maybe that's how
it leaked out.

>So my questions are:
>
>1) Is the reporter on drugs or is there really some idea like that
>floating around?

The experimental results are that in some cases (particularly above
a certain threshold in beam power), transport in the reversed-shear
region drops precipitously, by roughly a factor of 50, to 
*sub-neoclassical* levels.  The core particle density takes off on a
linear increase as though all the fuel particles injected by the 
neutral beams simply accumulate in the core.  They've been able to
get roughly a tripling of the core density before they hit the new
(and significantly higher, it seems) beta limit, and the plasma disrupts.
That's the gist of the new idea.

>2) If there is what is it?

There was a theoretical predicion of this effect (I'll give the reference
tomorrow), and they have theoretical modeling which indicates that
the beta limit depends strongly on the minimum q in the q-profile
(which looks roughly like this:  \/\/ as you scan across a poloidal
cross-section from the inboard to the outboard side).  They think that
by fine-tuning the parameters of the shots, they may be able to
increase the density limit further so as to avoid the disruption.

They have done some modelling which suggests that, to a first
approximation,
they may be able to achieve 20 MW of fusion power output with 20 MW of
beam power input - i.e., scientific breakeven, once they do these
experiments
in D-T (so far all the reversed-shear work is in D-D).  Another scenario
had
38 MW out vs. 40 MW in, and a third (the most optimistic, as I recall) had
38 MW out with only 20 MW in - i.e., Q=2.  Then they tried to
do the same modelling taking into account the 5-10 MW of alpha-particle
heating of the core plasma, and they found that they couldn't get their
code to converge on a fusion power output - basically, the core of the
plasma reaches ignition!  HOWEVER, SO FAR THIS IS ONLY A THEORETICAL 
EXTRAPOLATION OF A MUCH LESS DRAMATIC EXPERIMENTAL RESULT.  However,
you do have people talking about the *possibility* of being able to pull
off ignition, or at least breakeven, using the "enhanced reversed shear" 
confinement mode.  They are pursuing a set of followup experiments this
week and next, but the neutral beam systems are acting up, so progress
has been slow.  (Although they took advantage of that yesterday to do
some additional experimental work on IBW-alpha interactions, which
*also* had some really wild results (though not in the direction of
ignition - but more on that later.)

I can say is that this is an incredibly exciting time to be at PPPL.
Regardless what happens, the idea that anomalous - and even neoclassical
- 
transport rates can be conquered is just really really cool.

>3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?
>Isn't that kind of like saying my wife's abdomen is pregnant but neither of
>her legs are?

"Core ignition" as I understand it is a reference to a particular idea;
the
key point is that the ignition is due purely to the transport barrier 
erected by the shear reversal, located roughly at r/a of 0.3 and near the
location of the minimum q surface.  I guess this is different from, say,
an H-mode ignition regime, where the main suppression of transport is
at the outer edge, and thus the whole plasma sort of ignites.  If someone
knows more than that I'd be interested in hearing it.  I'm not sure where
"core ignition" originally came from, but I'm looking for anwers...

>4) What are TFTR's chances of achieving ignition, even with an extension of
>DT run-times?

I'm not qualified to say, but I do know that the chances of achieving
breakeven
seem to be significant.  I think the possibility of getting some flavor of
ignition is not nearly so remote as one might initially think.  Only time 
(and the whimsy of the funding process) will tell.  I will try to post
what
I learn during the rest of the reversed shear experiments this week and
next.

>5) Could the reporter have been confusing Breakeven with ignition?

Not this time; at the meeting on Monday ignition was mentioned, although
the actual title of the slide was "Breakeven in TFTR is a Reasonable Goal"
or something like that.

Well, better get back to work.  Never know what they'll have thought of
next!

 -----------------------------------------------------
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold fusion!?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion!?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 21:04:19 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <USE2PCB87493642@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote:

> Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
>  
> -> The weak
> -> point of cold fusion experiments is that thy cannot be repeated
> -> at will. An an experiment which gives a different result every
> -> time it is tried is essentially suspicious.
>  
> That should not be a weak point at all.  It is information and it how we use
> the information that is important.  If one were to assume that you cannot
> develop a theory because an action is not repeatable is a fallacy.  Rolling
> dice, the roulette wheel, even playing black jack all give different results
> every time you test them, but the theory has been so well developed that Las
> Vegas and casinos throughout the world are making millions a day from them.
>  
> Likewise, no one can predict when a meteor will be seen or a meteorite will
> hit.  The random nature of the event is very important in developing the
theory
> of where they come from and how they get here.  Once again, the theory must
> embrace the non-repeatability of the event, not ignore the event and say that
> meteorites don't exist since it is impossible to predict when and where the
> next one will occur.  That would be the easy way out, and was tried for many
> years before the evidence made such a "head in the sand" attitude impossible.
>  
> And of course such a attitude would have made QM impossible.  It was the
> random nature of results that resulted in the development of the QM theory,
> and verified its reality.
>  
> A similar argument was used in describing chaos for decades until finally
> chaos theory caught up with the seemingly non-repeatable experiments.  And
> of course decay of atoms is a random event, which is not repeatable as well.
>  
> Maybe cold fusion is a random event, or maybe it is extremely dependent on
> something which is not being addressed.  Only research and a strong
theoretical
> approach will be able to decipher which.  But to ignore it will never
get us to
> the point of understanding, or maybe at some point using, it.
>  
>                                                              Marshall
>

Well said. I would add that some of the results are now routinely
repeatable, as evidenced by the Patterson Power Cell at ICCF5, which
according to reports (I wasn't there) performed reliably throughout the
conference. The Griggs device is yet another example, if we agree to
categorize it as "Cold Fusion."  

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Aug 13 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
