1995.08.13 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 13 Aug 1995 08:21:12 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Wark) wrote (amongst other things):

>Many of us were furious when we eventually did see the "evidence" that
>P & F claimed demonstrated nuclear fusion was taking place and found
>it was total garbage.

The three replicatiing experiments performed in 1989 were flawed. Things 
have moved on very considerably since then. Can I suggest that you read
"Fire from Ice" by Eugene Mallove (1991). It turns out that quite delicate
features of the experimental apparatus condition success or failure. 
However, once again things have moved on, and these are now known.
The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (1995)
have discussed these at length.

Turning to the larger issue of "western science", I would say that the
history of science shows that it is extremely unwise to make a premature
and "once for all time" decision on the basis of one supposed fact. In other
language, you have no right to be furious. There have, since that time,
been many experiments which have yielded positive results.

I am not asking for money to be spent on the commercial exploitation of
cold fusion as there are now a large number of organizations and indiviuals
who are dedicating themselves to this task. I am suggesting that it might be
wise for academic science (ie individual physicists) to spend some time 
investigating these phenomena. This program should be both experimental
and theoretical, with the emphasis of the latter trying to explain the former.
Otherwise academic science leaves itself open to the charge that it prefers
to have its head buried in the sand.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,

Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 /   /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: "Ammons@cris.com" <Ammons@cris.com>
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: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 05:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services	

Black Holes suck! Gravity sucks!
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAmmons cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 /   /  High-topology of Free Energy System
     
Originally-From: "alex" <alex@frolov.spb.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: High-topology of Free Energy System
Date: 13 Aug 1995 16:27:14 +0400
Organization: Alexander V. Frolov, Private Account

              HIGH-TOPOLOGY OF FREE ENERGY SYSTEMS

        Dear Sirs,

        My theory  and  experiments  in energetics of space-time
(zero-point energy) are based on Nickolay Kozyrev's cause-effect
conception. By Kozyrev, time is rate for transformation of cause
in effect. Certain time-rate correspond to certain  velocity for
processes in physical (material world). Modern research in  free
energy and gravity demonstrated that time-rate can be changed as
well as gravity. But it is necessary clear understand that it is
connected with changes of cause-effect connection. In this point
we have for discussion the next: where is the place for soul  in
our life and in our technics that we are creating?
I am not medical specialist, but engineer of free energy systems
must be understanding what have place in physical world when the
over-unity device produce power from time/gravity and  stability
of cause-effect connections in material world changes. Such sort
devices open door in high dimension. It is impossible have power
output more than power input if system is working only as three-
dimensional superposition of its  part. But if inflow of  energy
from outside ( from high-topology part of Universe ) is possible
this system can produce output power more than  consumed  power.
It is technics that open a gate from our three-dimensional world
into high dimensions where such notes as Soul, Infinity, Creator
are acceptable. At last, this technical systems let people  know
that only reality is Creator.

I have to say more ideas  about this conception but only problem
is my limited funds. Please, make your email reply directly.


Best wishes for your own work,

Sincerely,

Alexander V. Frolov
alex@frolov.spb.su
P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024, RUSSIA












>From alex Sun Aug 13 15:17:52 MSD 1995

        Dear Sirs,

        My theory  and  experiments  in energetics of space-time
(zero-point energy) are based on Nickolay Kozyrev's cause-effect
conception. By Kozyrev, time is rate for transformation of cause
in effect. Certain time-rate correspond to certain  velocity for
processes in physical (material world). Modern research in  free
energy and gravity demonstrated that time-rate can be changed as
well as gravity. But it is necessary clear understand that it is
connected with changes of cause-effect connection. In this point
we have for discussion the next: where is the place for soul  in
our life and in our technics that we are creating?
I am not medical specialist, but engineer of free energy systems
must be understanding what have place in physical world when the
over-unity device produce power from time/gravity and  stability
of cause-effect connections in material world changes. Such sort
devices open door in high dimension. It is impossible have power
output more than power input if system is working only as three-
dimensional superposition of its  part. But if inflow of  energy
from outside ( from high-topology part of Universe ) is possible
this system can produce output power more than  consumed  power.
It is technics that open a gate from our three-dimensional world
into high dimensions where such notes as Soul, Infinity, Creator
are acceptable. At last, this technical systems let people  know
that only reality is Creator.

I have to say more ideas  about this conception but only problem
is my limited funds. Please, make your email reply directly.


Best wishes for your own work,

Sincerely,

Alexander V. Frolov
alex@frolov.spb.su
P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024, RUSSIA













>From alex Sun Aug 13 15:17:58 MSD 1995

        Dear Sirs,

        My theory  and  experiments  in energetics of space-time
(zero-point energy) are based on Nickolay Kozyrev's cause-effect
conception. By Kozyrev, time is rate for transformation of cause
in effect. Certain time-rate correspond to certain  velocity for
processes in physical (material world). Modern research in  free
energy and gravity demonstrated that time-rate can be changed as
well as gravity. But it is necessary clear understand that it is
connected with changes of cause-effect connection. In this point
we have for discussion the next: where is the place for soul  in
our life and in our technics that we are creating?
I am not medical specialist, but engineer of free energy systems
must be understanding what have place in physical world when the
over-unity device produce power from time/gravity and  stability
of cause-effect connections in material world changes. Such sort
devices open door in high dimension. It is impossible have power
output more than power input if system is working only as three-
dimensional superposition of its  part. But if inflow of  energy
from outside ( from high-topology part of Universe ) is possible
this system can produce output power more than  consumed  power.
It is technics that open a gate from our three-dimensional world
into high dimensions where such notes as Soul, Infinity, Creator
are acceptable. At last, this technical systems let people  know
that only reality is Creator.

I have to say more ideas  about this conception but only problem
is my limited funds. Please, make your email reply directly.


Best wishes for your own work,

Sincerely,

Alexander V. Frolov
alex@frolov.spb.su
P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024, RUSSIA













cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenalex cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction time scales
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 15:24 -0500 (EST)

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 shape of the beta energy specrtrum is essentially the same for all isotopes
as far as I know.  It has a peak at 0Kev and drops, in what appears to be an
exponential decay, reaching 0 at the maximum energy.
 
When you view one on a multichannel there appears to be a lower level to the
spectrum, but that is an artifact of the instrumentation's lower threshold.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / Andrew Cooke /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 13 Aug 1995 13:46:00 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh

	one of us is very confused.  i thought i was replying to
	a thread questioning the use of solar power because the
	sun varied.

	if it was just a discussion about plasma physics then my
	apologies.

	anyway, thanks for the rest of the info - very interesting.

	cheers,
	andrew


In article <DD7yoC.EoD@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
[...]
>So who is measuring utility, or what does it to do with anything.  
[...]
-- 
  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / Richard Blue /  Repeatability of cold fusion experiments
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Repeatability of cold fusion experiments
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 16:45:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There is no single simple test that cold fusion experimental
results must pass before they can be certified as being correct
"beyond a reasonable medical certainty."  The question of
repeatability of results provides a fine example for clouding
the issues by citing evidence that is largely of no consequence.

It should be obvious that it is possible to devise an experiment
that gives incorrect results in a very reproducible manner.  In
that case the mere fact that the result is reproducible tells us
nothing as to whether the result is, in fact, correct.

If you wish to reach some conclusions concerning the reproducibility
of cold fusion experiments you really should examine all the results
from all the various runs for that experiment.  However, that data
has almost never been reported.  Instead you see only a pruned
data set - the results that support the claim that cold fusion is
really occuring.  If you saw all the data you may well have seen
that the results were very chaotic.  In that case "reproducibility"
meant only that there was more than one occasion for which the
"excess heat" was large enough to be called a real effect.

On the other hand a simple biasing of the calorimeter calibration
can shift all the data to the plus side and lead to a very
reproducible cold fusion result that is totally incorrect.  A
repeat of the same biased calibration will quite likely lead to
the same "positive" result.

Reproducibility, as a requirement for the acceptance of a given
experimental result, begins to gain some significance when it has
been demonstrated that a positive result can be obtained in a
consistant manner when the experimental variables that should not
be significant are varied.  For example, is it possible to change
the venue of the experiment and the cast of experimentalists
recording and interpreting the data without having the effect
disappear.  I believe the cold fusion advocates will have
difficulty naming very many cases in which essential similar
experiments have been duplicated in detail in an independent
way.

It is easy to say that cold fusion results suffer from a lack of
reproducibility.  That clearly is the case, but the mere fact
that Cravens and Griggs have devices that heat water in a seemingly
reproducible way does not address all the issues that can be
lumped under the question of reproducibility.  For example, we
really need to know why electrolysis of ordinary water in the
Cravens configuration gives an entirely different result from
the electrolysis of ordinary water in the original Pons and
Fleischmann configuration.  Cravens has not "reproduced" the
Pons and Fleischmann results.  I see that as a problem!  One
possible explanation is that neither experiment demonstrates
a real effect.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / Alf Poet /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: alf@epix.net (Alf the Poet)
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: Sun, 13 Aug 95 16:42:34 GMT
Organization: epix.net

In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.950813052856.25375B-100000@mariner.cris.com>,
   "Ammons@cris.com" <Ammons@cris.com> wrote:
:Black Holes suck! Gravity sucks!

What's that giant slorping noise I hear?  AAAAA!!!  A BLACK 
HOOOOOOOOOoooooooo........

Alf

--
Alf the Poet <alf@epix.net>
http://www.epix.net/~alf/

PGP key fingerprint: 65 28 FE C8 67 B0 4E 9E 2B 7B 80 20 E5 AD CE AB
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenalf cudfnAlf cudlnPoet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / Mitchell Jones /  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: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 11:42:02 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <405jep$dq8@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
Potter ) wrote:

> This article is in response to the people who have asked me
> to demonstrate my cycle theory on actual data.

***{At present, my server has 17 articles posted to this thread, all of
which I have read. As for those that rolled off the server in previous
days or weeks, I haven't seen them. Nevertheless, I have become interested
in this stuff, so I am going to plunge in with incomplete information.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Note that this article is over 100 columns wide as it contains
> the printout of a spreadsheet of Solar system data.
> 
> The tangents used herein are dimensionless numbers which are
> functions of mass and time. As a point of reference, the tangent
> associated with the electron is called the "fine structure constant".
> 
> 1. TIME(X) = an external reference cycle count / the cycle count of X

***{Ok, Sam is 20 years old. The time of Sam, or TIME(SAM), by your
formalism, would equal 20, right? The "external reference cycle" is 1
orbit by the earth around the sun, and thus equals 1, right? And the
"cycle count of Sam" is equal to 20, right? Therefore, TIME (SAM) = the
cycle count of Sam/the external reference cycle count = 20/1 = 20. But
that's not what you said; it is the reciprocal of what you said. What am I
missing? --Mitchell Jones}***

 > 
> 2. Two bodies interact about a common point, in a common time.

***{Is this a statement about orbital mechanics? In that case, if we
ignore the other planets, we can say that the Sun and the earth orbit a
common center of mass with a period of about 365 days. Is this an example
of what you mean? --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
>    a. The common time is the natural period of the system. 

***{I.e., the "common time" is the common orbital period (365 days) shared
by both bodies, right? --Mitchell Jones}***

>       ( The number of counts ( Cycles ) of an external reference
>         for each cycle of the system. )

***{E.g., the number of rotations of the earth on its axis corresponding
to one orbit of the earth (or the sun) about the center of mass of the
assumed two-body system, which is about 365, right? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    b. Interaction time is the number of counts ( Cycles )
>       between when a change is observed in a body, and when
>       a causal change is observed in the system.
> 
> 3. TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME / ( 2 pi )

***{I have several problems with this: 

(1) At the beginning you said that these "tangents" are functions of mass
and time, yet here I see no reference to mass. If you are referring
narrowly to the area of orbital mechanics, period and orbital radius are
usually measured, and mass of the central body is inferred from that. So
what about distance (radius)? How do you reduce distance to time? Are you
expressing distance in light years (or light minutes, light seconds,
etc.)? 

(2) Assuming that you are using light travel times to measure distance, it
looks to me like you are going to have to divide all times by the speed of
light to make such a formalism work. For example, suppose that you have
the radius of the earth's orbit: r = 1.5E+11 meters; and you have the
period: T = 3.15E+7 seconds. In that case, the velocity of the earth in
its orbit is roughly V = 2¼r/T = 3E+4 meters/sec. That is simple. However,
if you use light travel times to measure distance, the formula becomes: V
= [2¼(r/c)]/[T/c] This formula will give the same answer for the velocity
of the earth in its orbit as the previous one, but only because the use of
light times to measure distances (e.g., r/c instead of r) is accompanied
by the division of all times by the speed of light (e.g., T/c instead of
T).  

(3) The expression  "TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME / (
2¼)" is mathematically unclear: a/(b/c) is not the same as (a/b)/c except
in the special cases where c = 1 or -1. Which do you intend? I note that,
in (2) above, I can bring 2¼ down from the numerator, getting: V =
[r/c]/[(T/C)/2¼] My guess, therefore, is that (T/c)/2¼ is your "common
time" or "period." 

(4) In the 4th row, third column of your table of calculated values, I
find the value 2.97842296E+4, which appears to be velocity of the earth in
its orbit in meters/sec, carried out to more digits of accuracy than I
bothered with above. Your general formula for that table was PROPERTY(X) =
TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O. When I apply the exponent
values of L,M,N,O = {0,1,1,0}, the formula reduces to PROPERTY(X) =
1*TAN(B)*TIME(C)*C. Logically, therefore, we have PROPERTY(X) =
{INTERACTION TIME(B)/[(T/c)/2¼]}*TIME(C)*c. Therefore, [INTERACTION
TIME(B)]*TIME(C)*c = r/c. Therefore [INTERACTION TIME(B)]*TIME(C)  =
r/c^2. How do I go further? Well, just guessing, let's say that
INTERACTION TIME(B) = T/c. If so, then TIME(C) = r/Tc. Result: it all
works, and you get the right answer. 

Unfortunately, the latter stages of this reasoning do not make any sense
visually. Something is wrong somewhere, and I quite frankly have only a
vague idea of what you are talking about, despite spending several hours
racking my brain in an attempt to make sense out of your post. Any
comment? --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold fusion!?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion!?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 19:43 -0500 (EST)

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
 
-> 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.
 
Maybe the Patterson Cell is repeatable, but on the other hand it could be
random and simply averaging.  For instance if we have a chunck of palladium
which will on the average reach "ignition" about once a month, randomly, and
take that palladium and put it in a thin film on hundreds or thousand of beads
then it is possible that various beads are reaching "ignition" throughout the
day, each one averaging ignition only once per month, but when all are viewed
at once the experiment looks continuous.
 
Now I don't believe this is what is happening, but it does show that even a
process which is random in nature can be used effectively if you can subdivide
the process such that several will be occuring at any one time.  Thus
non-repeatablity is no reason to ignore intriguing data.
 
                                                                   Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / 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: 13 Aug 1995 22:21:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <21cenlogic-1308951142020001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
>
>In article <405jep$dq8@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
>Potter ) wrote:

<snip>

>Unfortunately, the latter stages of this reasoning do not make any
sense
>visually. Something is wrong somewhere, and I quite frankly have only
a
>vague idea of what you are talking about, despite spending several
hours
>racking my brain in an attempt to make sense out of your post. Any
>comment? --Mitchell Jones}**

I will look over your post offline and try to make a coherent response
to it tomorrow.

Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter 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.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 20:53:15 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vo4ks$59f@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>: >Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
>: >: Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com) wrote:
>
>: >: [...]
>
>You think we can make a fusion reactor that will produce output
>even above or below expectations for several hundred years?
>Of course there are issues of storage of energy. But these all seem
>more tractable than fusion. Keep in mind that we can use solar
>energy to make just about any fuel. It is only a question of cost,
>efficiency and the environmental impact of the entire cycle of
>manufacturing and using the fuel.

Actually it is a hybrid form of fusion energy which produces no
neutrons.  The fuel is protium (ordinary hydrogen) burned with the
most abundant form of boron (^11B).  About a liter of it is
required to power a plant for a day operating at 10 gigawatts 
electric.  Storage is a problem since UPS could tranport the needs
and they could be stored in a closet.   

The really big energy burner is the 50 giga watts utilized zipping to
Mars and back.  That's about 15 long tons, but you're down in two and
back home in another one week.   The trip down is longer because
of the payload you'll be required to carry and drop off and the climb
up hill.  

>: >could be generated for individual use with solar roofs. You need solar
>: >farms only for industrial or high density populations. There are plenty
>: >of desserts in the world that are not usable for much else. 

High density populations, are a problem for the future like 50 years,
so the hell with them.  Or you could get there butts out there where
the pioneers could re-exist in a new environs, instead of jousting at
windmills, waiting for your turn at the water tap.   Hey this is a
potential paradise, it needs a huge increase in biomass, and we can
do that.  People can live and thrive anywhere where energy and matter
exists and they have the technology with them and devices to to apply
it. 

>: >The *only* long term alternatives are solar
>: >or nuclear (including fusion). There is a finite amount of fossil
>: >fuel and we seem to already be suffering the ill effects of using too
>: >much of this. The origin of the energy in all fossil fuel

There is Tera tons of the stuff on remote planets, but it is more 
useful as building material.  

snipped but agree about learn before we legislate including the 
junk we have already fired up.  

>Fuel from plants (as opposed to fossil fuel) might be a significant
>element in a solar economy.

>The rest of what you suggest is bizarre and dangerous. Lets solve the
>problems we understand. Solving problems we do not understand is a good
>way to get into a great deal of trouble as recent history has demonstrated
>over and over.

Yep just flushing our toilets, has driven the buggers in the ocean
to go for broke on removing CO2.  

Well, we soon may have the power to fix it either way, and I'm
certain that's what the next wars are going to be about.  Me..
I'm defending the plants, and to hell with the loss of available
sun light.    

>Dream on, just please do not try to actually do any of these things.
>Perhaps you should seek employment as a writer for Star Trek.

Well, I'm only producing the ultra clean compact power to make this
possible.  Then I would like to buzz off to another place and try
some of this stuff there, with S discharge lights, such as have been 
recently invented here locally.  

>You cannot say solar power does not work because the world for the
>most part is run on solar power. It is only a question of converting
>to a sustainable and environmentally benign form of solar power.

Sure.  But we are getting at the horses mouth so to speak.  Why
go to sol when we have PMKs to toast our toes.  

>Many companies invest in technological solutions that never pan out.
>I cannot say that it is impossible to develop a clean safe form of fusion
>but I think it quite unlikely with any foreseeable technology.

But this is likely based on natural fusion which occurs in the
outer sun layers, and shows up as blackened plasma spots (cooled). 

Or another example is Ball lightning, although that is compression 
heated nor is it fueled for fusion.  Still it shows similar 
characteristics as far as topology is concerned.  Consequently, this
thing could be an artificial form a some tried and true.  

>In contrast solar can solve the problems economically and with
>existing technology. Some parts of the puzzle such as energy storage
>for transportation are not yet economical but they will be in
>a foreseeable time frame. Were other forms of power required to
>pay their full cost (including pollution damage) solar would be
>widely competitive today.

Well, it's good to have a fall back position and to have a few of 
those around just for the museums or a retreat from the world to
come.  Let's strive to keep this place as pristine and uncumbered
as we can.    

>Paul Budnik
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 22:33:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <DD5F0H.42z@festival.ed.ac.uk> A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk writes:
>	no, i'm just a boring old extra-galactic astronomer.  all
>	i know is that some stars are (called) variable, and some 
>	aren't.

Yes, but those stars REALLY vary.  

>	in general astronomy, a variable star varies by orders of
>	magnitude.  as far as i know that sort of variation is not
>	going to happen with a star like ours (well, not 'til it
>	goes bang, which is a long way away...)

Yes, and we are not speaking of that here.  I would speculate 
that some high speed global process such as a radial standing 
wave is battering the surface with huge density variations 
which generate an enormous pulse of synced fusion burns .. 
(goes as density squared).  Perhaps some type of bizarre 
stimulated fusion could be driven at the surface by type of 
neutrino wave, or other wave which would generate short lived 
catylysts for the reaction.  For us, here, the sudden appeareance 
of muons in a warm dense fusionable plasma would certainly make 
things interesting.   Otherwise, I would not have the slightest 
clue.  

>	certainly a variation of say 5% wouldn't be surprising,
>	but then is 5% a problem for solar power?  especially
>	if it's over hundred-year timescales, when the technology
>	is improving much more quickly than that?

Perhaps 15% peak, but locally near the surface.  

>	so if it is significantly variable, where `significantly'
>	means a change which might change a solar power system from
>	viable to useless, then i think astronomers would be
>	surprised.  do you have a reference for the nature article?

So who is measuring utility, or what does it to do with anything.  

Basically the theory has to do with the fact that central core 
burning is not the whole story, and that a radial wave or some
such item ..  could be rolling in this star as well, only very
muted by comparison to variables.  Still it is enough to (most
of the time) to jump conductivities in surface layers sufficiently 
by adiabatice compression heating to exclude flux, which then 
cavitates to form the items whose remnants we see later as sun 
spots.  Of course the plasmoids don't show up until they drift 
upward while adiabatically expansion cooling to the surface 
and thus the cold temperatures in their wash-up remnants.  

The only topology that I know which is formed in these magnetic
cavitations is that of the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  Now 
during formation, the flux cavitates (forms a vacuum region and 
currents) and generates a compression expansion of the 
surrounding mantle of the region and a compression pinch of the 
current channel.  

This channel pulls into the closed Kernel toroidal ring so that 
ring becomes magnetically insulated within the surrounding plasma
or mantle. Due to the displacement effort the ring is compression
heated to a fierce burn, which extinguishes as the mantle expands
to equilibrium pressure with the surrounding sun.  As this happens
the fusion stops, and then the objects ascends due to bouyancy 
adiabatically cooling the insulated ring the whole distance.    

So in this model injects of relatively near surface fusion energy
are injected every 11 years as long as sun spot activity isn't 
null.   

If it is null, then we begin to have a good measure of the solar
constant due to its internal burn rate.  One should be able to 
compute estimates for formation depth, amount of fusion initial
fuel, and burn percentage based on estimates of various sizes, 
numbers, break- through rate (extrapolate for upward drift) from 
poles to equator, which depends upon the declination of the flux 
within the sun.  At the poles is is more vertical so the plamoid 
upward drift should be fastest, allowing the plasmoids to punch 
into the surface there at the earlier dates.  Some of these might
form as large as the USA!  Dat's a big'en 

All models that I know tauting the "SOLAR CONSTANT" are based on 
physics of a lone core fusion generator.  If one includes a bunch
of loose cannon fusioneers who zap out their thing sub-surface, 
that certainly does add a bit of charm to the kettle.  

Andrew, there are a number of places around where bits an pieces of
this fusion concept are strewn, if your interested.  As for the 
application to the sun, well, It seems logical to me.  I love it
when remote pieces of a puzzle start to fit together.   

>	andrew
>-- 
>  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
>    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
>                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
Thanks, for your curiosity.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Ignition in TFTR (yes...)
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR (yes...)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 06:11:18 GMT
Organization: Improving

On 12 Aug 1995 00:03:40 GMT, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
wrote:

>In article <40d02u$npg@moe.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W.  
>Cobb) writes:
>> All fight fellers, what's going on at PPPL these days?
>> 
>> 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?).
>> 
>> So my questions are:
>> 
>> 1) Is the reporter on drugs or is there really some idea like that
>> floating around?

>Yes, the idea is there, and it is backed up by recent numerical calculations
>of Jardin et al, using mhd stability and systems code analaysis 
>and based on their observed reverse shear experimental results.

>> 
>> 2) If there is what is it?
>> 3) What does it mean for the core to be ignited, but not the entire torus?

>Their calculations suggest that, using a particular, presently
>only theoretical, reverse 
>shear field configuration, due to great reduction in 
>radial transport near the center, in that small region
>density and temp go way up and local ignition is achieved. Too

This is reminiscent of Paul's "kernel within a mantel PLASMAK".

>much transport elsewhere to ignite the entire core plasma, but
>they predict that using 10 MW of heating, they could get Q = 4
>from the local ignition.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Aug 14 04:37:08 EDT 1995
------------------------------
