1995.09.28 / mitchell swartz /  Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pathological Skepticism!
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 22:07:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <44ejhr$bks@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>  Here is some information for you.
>  Tritium is of low toxicity.  It is not benign, nor relatively
>benign.  Silicone -- once thought benign, or relatively
>benign -- has toxicity.  Silicone.

=rh  "Okay, so tritium is a low-toxicity radioactive element.

  Agree.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

=rh  That makes it relatively benign in the context of
=rh  high-toxicity radioactive elements.  

  Wrong.
  You are twisting the words away from what is in the conventional
radiation, radiobiology, and  medical
texts to serve your own uses. (can only think of three or four reasons
and some are in Orwell's 1984 discussion of 'double-speak')

   Here are the words (after Webster [ibid.]):
  ==================================

  benign = 1. of gentle disposition
                     of gentle character

  toxicity = from toxicum ---->  Latin for poison.

     QED       Get it, grasshopper?   

  ---------------------------------------------------------------

=rh  As I have repeatedly
=rh  pointed out, that doesn't make it "benign" in any absolute 
=rh  sense of the word.  Silicone is still relatively benign
=rh  compared to many other substances.  Get it yet?

  Your ignorance extends from the appearance of induced
sarcomas around silicone to disseminated silicosis and
secondary organ and cellular dysfunction.   
Your naivet‚ is manifest because this partial list
doesn't even include
contaminants, potential emboli, plasticizers, ....
and that is silicone.                                   Get it yet?

  ---------------------------------------------------------------

=rh  Meanwhile, perhaps you might consider defining 
=rh  "toxicity" for the other readers on the group, who have 
=rh  no clue what you're talking about.

>   You were previously given two references and more data showing
>that you were incorrect.   Did you follow any of them up?

=rh  "All your references ..(zip) techniques would also be useful."

  Seems the answer is simply"no".  As a graduate student, this is
your best time to stop being clueless in Princeton, Bob.  

{ Too bad if Bob's effort remains representative of
hot fusion's best effort for quality control and assurance
in radiation medicine, environmental control
and biomedical and structural planning.   
       (Just kidding,   ;-( X             }

 Bob, your FAQ is so good, you really need to put a similar effort
into cold fusion (the only technique of fusion which has
achieved breakeven) and radiobiology.

  Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / mitchell swartz /  Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 01:32:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Xref: world sci.physics.fusion:23487
  In Message-ID: <21cenlogic-2809951304110001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

= "However, your
=objection posits a miracle: not merely does it assume that the specific
=heat is not .85, it also posits that the microwave absorption coefficient
=of water is the reciprocal of the specific heat.....
=
=Objections such as the one raised by you are always possible, because
=there is no way to control for everything. I, however, am satisfied that
=this experiment has strong probative value because of the extremely low
=likelihood that the microwave absorption coefficient of water is always
=the reciprocal of its specific heat, as you imply. "

  NO. That is NOT what is said.  That is NOT what was implied.

     What was said was:

>    No.  this test is insufficient to disprove Horace's suggestion
> because of the dielectric properties of the media in question.
> The rotating turntable is a good start but more is required.
> To wit: The absorption of the electromagnetic radiation varies for the two
> substances - distilled water and "hard" water.
...
>   Given this data involving the different absorbtivities of incident
> microwave radiation, such "proof" involving presumed equal heating for equal
> irradiation times simply does not appear adequate to disprove the comments
> regarding specific heats as discussed by Horace.
>    It actually must be demonstrated that equal amounts
> of energy are transfered to each
> solution in order to disprove it by the cited
> experiment.

  Thank you for considering the issue.

Two comments

1.   Your attention is directed to the fact that nowhere
in the post was what you claim was stated.

 My post only referred to the terms in the equation.  No statement
was made as to anything else.    Please do not jump to such conclusions or
misstate my posts in your own.         Thank you.

2.   Furthermore, you have not
added in the loss during the experiment (to the fourth power of the 
temperature for the radiative component) either.  It might
be instructive to consider it rather than your  "rough and ready"
approach.  
   Here is why.   In the 1770's,  Lavoisier 
and his calorimetric peers were able to 
discern the difference in specific heat between arterial and 
venous blood.   That and the color change led the scientist
to suspect that oxygen (acid-former) was binding to the blood.
    [Too bad the French revolution had no room for scientists of
his magnificent calibre] 

 Given modern equipment, it is a shame when calorimetric technique
cannot even approach that level of accuracy.  

   Best wishes.
  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: dietz@CIN.NET (Paul F Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: 27 Sep 1995 12:18:22 GMT
Organization: Computerese  Information Networks (CIN.net)

Andy Dingley (dingbat@codesmth.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Simon Rowland <simon@curtis.eagle.ca> wrote:

: >   I'm really curious about this He3 stuff, and would appreciate _any_ 
: >info you have.

: OK then, if you want *any* info.  He3 is now being used to map out
: ocean-bottom water currents (according to BBC Radio 4). The
: well-discussed geothermal vents are sources of detectable quantities
: of He3, due to some subfloor radioactive decay process.

Actually, natural 3He on earth is thought by most geophysicists
from the earth's formation.

Another application for 3He recently appeared: its nuclei
can be spin polarized, and retain that polarization for days.
In this spin polarized state (achieved by a laser pumping technique),
3He gives a very strong NMR signal.  Recently, spin polarized
3He was used to do NMR imaging (MRI) of a person's lungs.

This can also be done with xenon, which is more soluble in
tissue and can spread through the body.

	Paul



cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / 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: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 01:12:17 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <21cenlogic-2809951304110001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote the following in response to
Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com):
> 
> Mitch, I was perfectly aware that this objection could be raised when I
> made my post, and yet I made it anyway. To see why, let's forget that we
> are talking about drinking water and suppose that we are talking about
> some gaggable, saturated brew of hugely soluble chemicals which, say, has
> a specific heat of .85, and that we are comparing it to distilled water.
> In accordance with my experimental plan, we put equal amounts in two
> identical glasses and wait until both are at room temperature--70 F., say.
> Next, we place them in a microwave on a rotating turntable, and give them
> a long enough zap to bring the distilled water to, let us say, 150 degrees
> F. Checking the temperature of the "brew," we discover that it is 164.12
> degrees--i.e., exactly what we would expect based on the specific heat of
> .85. Does that tell us anything? Yes: it tells us that the "brew" absorbed
> exactly the same amount of energy from the microwave radiation as did the
> distilled water. 
> 
> Now let's take our gedanken experiment a step further. Suppose that we
> didn't know the specific heat of the "brew," but we strongly suspected
> that it was .85, and we ran the same experiment and got the same results.
> Would that tell us anything? The answer is yes: it confirms our
> hypothesis. When we do the calculation based on the presumed specific heat
> value of .85, we get the endpoint temperature that we actually measured.
> You, of course, will object that the two liquids may not have absorbed the
> same amounts of heat from the microwaves, and will argue that we cannot
> justifiably conclude that the specific heat is .85. However, your
> objection posits a miracle: not merely does it assume that the specific
> heat is not .85, it also posits that the microwave absorption coefficient
> of water is the reciprocal of the specific heat. While this possible, it
> is also extremely unlikely, and that unlikelihood gives strong probative
> value to the results of my experiment. 
> 
> I would add that no experiment is "perfect" in the sense of proving a
> conclusion absolutely and for all time, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> Objections such as the one raised by you are always possible, because
> there is no way to control for everything. I, however, am satisfied that
> this experiment has strong probative value because of the extremely low
> likelihood that the microwave absorption coefficient of water is always
> the reciprocal of its specific heat, as you imply. 
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 
> P.S. I repeated the experiment in my electric oven, and got the same
> result. Are you now going to postulate that the infrared absorption
> coefficient of water is *also* the reciprocal of the specific heat?
> 
> ===========================================================

I hate to reply to my own stuff, but sometimes it is necessary. In this
case, I have been kindly informed via e-mail that the "absorption
factor"--i.e., the ratio of the intensity loss by absorption to the total
original intensity of radiation--is sometimes referred to as the
"absorption coefficient" of the radiation. Since that is not what I mean
by the expression, it behooves me to explain exactly what I *do* mean. 

As I was using it above, the microwave absorption coefficient was the
ratio at which a sample of distilled water gains radiant energy as
compared to (i.e., divided by) the gains of a test sample under the same
conditions. Using this concept, Mitch Swartz's argument could be stated as
follows: "You assume that the microwave absorption coefficient of your
sample is 1--i.e., the same as that in your comparable sample of distilled
water--and so you conclude that the specific heat of your tap water sample
is also 1. However, it is possible that the microwave absorption
coefficient of the tap water is 1.17 and its specific heat is .85. In that
case, the lower specific heat gives the sample a tendency to gain in
temperature more rapidly than the distilled water, but on the other hand
the higher absorption coefficient means that it gains energy more slowly,
in an exactly offsetting pattern. Result: you think the specific heat is
1.0, but it could just as well be .85, or .95, or any other number."

And, of course, such an argument is technically correct. The problem is
that it is *extremely* unlikely that the absorption coefficient would be
the reciprocal of the specific heat. Because of that, the experiment that
I proposed has considerable probative value. And besides, as I noted in
the postscript, I repeated the experiment in an electric oven and got the
same result.

The bottom line is that Horace's suggestion that Griggs used the wrong
specific heat is, itself, wrong.   

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Latest results at TFTR, JET?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest results at TFTR, JET?
Date: 29 Sep 1995 00:58:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article
<Pine.HPP.3.91.950925160932.4693D-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca> Eric
Carruthers, carruthe@candu.aecl.ca writes:
>Do any of the fusion labs have WEB sites or anything where they post 
>their latest results?

Sure do!  For instance, the home page for the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(where I work) includes a "Hot News Items" link, which then gives you 
all the TFTR News Updates (TFTR is the largest magnetic confinement fusion
research device in the US, and holds the world's record for controlled
magnetic
fusion power & energy production).  The News Updates are a bit technical,
alas.  
I'd be happy to give you a translation of anything you want in plain
English,
though.  The URL for PPPL is http://www.pppl.gov, as one might guess.

I should add that the Fusion/Plasma glossary which we have been putting
together - initially as a part of the FAQ - is now *searchable*; the
search
link is right off of the PPPL Web page (still at http://www.pppl.gov).

A fully Web-formatted FAQ and Glossary is in the works, too, along
with a much more extensive Fusion Energy Education Site.  Stay tuned!

>Or is this info hidden somewhere in that really long FAQ I haven't read yet?

Actually it is (of course!) - although I must confess the FAQ is getting
a little out of date and I haven't been working on it much lately.
Anyway, Section 8 is on Internet info resources, and item C is what you
want:

*** C. World-Wide Web:

     * Much of the public-domain fusion info is now available 
       via WWW:  At this time, it appears that most of the 
       major U.S. fusion research labs have information available 
       on the Web, and the amount of available information is 
       growing rapidly.  Available materials include basic 
       fusion information, all sorts of pictures, information 
       about each lab's research projects, and more.

     * Navigating the Web is a little hard to explain, but for fusion,
       the easiest way to start is to go to the Department of Energy's
       Office of Fusion Energy page.  (Address given below.)  From here, 
       you can (I think) move upwards within DOE to the Office of 
       Energy Research, or downwards to many of the fusion labs.  
       Alternatively, once you know the "URL" addresses of a lab's WWW 
       documents, you can open them up directly with the "Open URL" 
       menu command.

     * Address (temporary) for this FAQ:  http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter

     * Some of the Principal Fusion / Plasma URL addresses to try:
     
     http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/			(Office of Fusion Energy)
     http://www-plasma.umd.edu                  (Plasma Science Home Page)
     http://www.pppl.gov/	                  (Princeton Plasma Physics Lab)
     http://demo-www.gat.com/			      (General Atomics / DIII-D)
     http://www-phys.llnl.gov/X_Div/index.html  (Livermore's ICF Group) 
     http://www.jet.uk/                         (Joint European Torus)

     * Additional Web Sites that may be of Interest:
     http://cmfd.univ.trieste.it/cmfd.html      (Trieste, Italy, MHD Site)
     http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/			(MIT Plasma Fusion Center) 
     http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html     (U. Texas Fusion Res.
Center)
     http://www.ornl.gov/divisions/fusion_energy.html (ORNL Fusion
Division)
     
     (Apologies to those labs I left off this list; I figured this 
     would give anyone interested a decent start, and then the rest 
     of the labs are easy to get to.)



 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / GATTIS B /  subscribe
     
Originally-From: Z2G86@ttacs3.ttu.edu (GATTIS, JASON B)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: subscribe
Date: 28 Sep 1995 01:32:22 GMT
Organization: TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

subscribe Jason Gattis
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenZ2G86 cudfnGATTIS cudlnB cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 06:42:42 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-2709950248160001@austin-1-13.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> In article <hheffner-2109950933120001@204.57.193.67>,
> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> > Speaking of harping, since you propose photons accelerate to light speed,
> > how does your theory account for the finite mass (momentum) of the photon
> > at light speed?  Perhaps this feature alone would account for breaking the
> > first law of thermodynamics or conservation of mass.
> 
> ***{Horace, Einstein's mass transformation doesn't work for photons.
> Period. You can't solve it to find the mass at lightspeed regardless of
> whether you treat the rest mass of the photon as 0 or as some number
> greater than 0. Either way, the denominator of the right side of the

This is *my* point exactly, and you are going to haver a similar problem
with a Newtonian interpretation also, unless you assume a large finite
rest mass for the photon. What law of acceleration and what force do you
see involved here? Are you rejecting E=MC^2?


> equation is zero, and the result is undefined. Frankly, this result
> doesn't bother me, because curve fitted mathematics is notoriously flaky
> when used to extrapolate rather than to interpolate. I am satisfied if it
> predicts results that lie between the experimentally determined data
> points, and I do not expect it to work for results that do not. 
> --Mitchell Jones}***
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Horace
> > -- 
> > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> 
> ===========================================================

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Kasagi paper
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi paper
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 06:51:41 -0900
Organization: none

In article <44cj46$1pp@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> Just to expand on my previous comment:
> 
> It seems that before looking for more exotic
> reactions, one needs to simulate the proton and alpha spectra
> that can result from the following reactions:
> 
> Give a population composed of the following energetic potential 
> reactants (species @ energy) (which are present in
> the beam, and as a result of nuclear fusions)
> 
> n @ 2.5  , 14 MeV
> p @ 14   , 3  MeV, 
> D @ 0.15      MeV, 
> 3He @ 1       MeV, 
> 4He @ 3.5, 3.6MeV
> 
> consider the collision of these (coulomb coll. in the
> case of charged particles) with
> 
> D @ 0, 0.15 MeV
> 3He @ 0, 1 MeV
> 
> to produce energized reactants for a 
> 
> D + 3He -> p (14 MeV + extra KE)  + 4He (3.6 MeV + extra KE)
> 
> so that the broad distribution of the ``extra KE'' random variable
> would match the observed high energy tail of p, 4He.
> 
> Also, one could consider collisions between the first population above,
> and 
> 
> p @ 14   , 3  MeV, 
> 4He @ 3.5, 3.6MeV
> 
> to directly add KE to these products, which would could also contribute
> to the observed spectrum.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Aside from the possibility that the anomalous high energy tail 
> comes from collisons as described above, if we consider the proposed
> reaction in the paper, D + D + D -> p + n + a, what is the chance that
> an excited D + D state could last long enough to slam into
> another D nucleus? They do one attempt at estimating this in the
> paper (and its way too small by their calc, because they use
> the prob of two target D's being within a nuclear radius of eachother,
> then getting hit by a beam D).
> 
> Instead, what if one estimated it this way: The original beam 
> D (0.15MeV) hits a target D, and forms an excited nuclear state
> (D + D)*, which is moving at a velocity of ~ 10^6 m/sec. Thus, to
> travel the distance to an adjacent D, which is ~ 1 Ang = 10^-10 m, 
> it would take 10^-16 seconds. 
> 
> Now, the normal lifetime of (D + D)* would be ~ h/dE, where dE is
> the transition energy, which, being ~ 1MeV, gives a lifetime
> of about 10^-20 seconds. So, all we would need is a metastable state 
> that lasts an additional 10,000 x longer to make this feasible....
> possible?
> 
> 

Or the pair must be 10,000 times closer.  Sounds like you have may have
returned to the porpoising deuterons of Marshall Dudley.

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bobp@bga.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 29 Sep 1995 15:35:36 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates

Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:

: The world is no more fearful of France than it already was. France's actions
: may well spell the end of its presence in the South Pacific. It is certainly
: not a good time to be a French Tourist done here. Much like being a South 
: African abroad during appartheid. France has not advanced its cause in the
: world with these tests.

Hmm, how to say this? I think the world is much more fearful of France
now than it was before they restarted nuclear testing. I think the
world is much less respectful of France now. France is doing a very
good job of converting respect (what little it had) into fear.

It's rather like finding out that your neighbors Doberman has rabies.

			Back to lurking

				Bob P.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Kirk Shanahan /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: kirk.shanahan@srs.gov (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: 29 Sep 1995 10:54:45 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

In article <44bfee$npp@news.cin.net>, dietz@CIN.NET (Paul F Dietz) writes:
>Andy Dingley (dingbat@codesmth.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Simon Rowland <simon@curtis.eagle.ca> wrote:
>
>: >   I'm really curious about this He3 stuff, and would appreciate _any_ 
>: >info you have.
>
  {snip}
>
>Another application for 3He recently appeared: its nuclei
>can be spin polarized, and retain that polarization for days.
>In this spin polarized state (achieved by a laser pumping technique),
>3He gives a very strong NMR signal.  Recently, spin polarized
>3He was used to do NMR imaging (MRI) of a person's lungs.
>
>This can also be done with xenon, which is more soluble in
>tissue and can spread through the body.
>
>	Paul
>

I have seen a paper on MRI imaging of guinea pig lungs ('sacrificed' for the 
study) using hyperpolarized 3He, and your description sounds like the paper 
I saw.  If you really did see the application in humans, could you post a 
reference for that perhaps?  I am interested...

Oh and the MRI use of 3He is preferred over Xe since Xe is an anesthetic at 
the levels used in breathable mixtures, while He is not (and is used for 
deep sea diving to avoid the bends!).

BTW, 3He can also be used in cyclotrons to bombard various targets to 
produce isotopes of medical value (tracers I believe).  Several papers and 
patents in the 70's.  Can anyone tell me if those methods were commercially 
viable, why and/or why not?

Thanks in advance...

-- 
Kirk L. Shanahan                | Like the man said...
                                | Don't get too serious about Life,
(My opinions...noone else's...) | You ain't gonna make it out alive anyway.
                                |                         - Bugs Bunny


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 /  diebolmp@esvx2 /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: diebolmp@esvx23.es.dupont.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:49:18 GMT
Organization: DuPont (Opinions are those of the writer only)

>Mitch, I was perfectly aware that this objection could be raised when I
>made my post, and yet I made it anyway. To see why, let's forget that we
>are talking about drinking water and suppose that we are talking about
>some gaggable, saturated brew of hugely soluble chemicals which, say, has
>a specific heat of .85, and that we are comparing it to distilled water.
>In accordance with my experimental plan, we put equal amounts in two
>identical glasses and wait until both are at room temperature--70 F., say.
>Next, we place them in a microwave on a rotating turntable, and give them
>a long enough zap to bring the distilled water to, let us say, 150 degrees
>F. Checking the temperature of the "brew," we discover that it is 164.12
>degrees--i.e., exactly what we would expect based on the specific heat of
>..85. Does that tell us anything? Yes: it tells us that the "brew" absorbed
>exactly the same amount of energy from the microwave radiation as did the
>distilled water. 
>
>Now let's take our gedanken experiment a step further. Suppose that we
>didn't know the specific heat of the "brew," but we strongly suspected
>that it was .85, and we ran the same experiment and got the same results.
>Would that tell us anything? The answer is yes: it confirms our
>hypothesis. When we do the calculation based on the presumed specific heat
>value of .85, we get the endpoint temperature that we actually measured.
>You, of course, will object that the two liquids may not have absorbed the
>same amounts of heat from the microwaves, and will argue that we cannot
>justifiably conclude that the specific heat is .85. However, your
>objection posits a miracle: not merely does it assume that the specific
>heat is not .85, it also posits that the microwave absorption coefficient

Let me get this straight - you make an assumption, then say that if you
are wrong, it must be nothing short of a miracle!  Why bother to do this
experiment if you are so certain of the results?

>of water is the reciprocal of the specific heat. While this possible, it
>is also extremely unlikely, and that unlikelihood gives strong probative
>value to the results of my experiment. 
>
>I would add that no experiment is "perfect" in the sense of proving a
>conclusion absolutely and for all time, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>Objections such as the one raised by you are always possible, because
>there is no way to control for everything. I, however, am satisfied that
>this experiment has strong probative value because of the extremely low
>likelihood that the microwave absorption coefficient of water is always
>the reciprocal of its specific heat, as you imply. 
>
>--Mitchell Jones
>
>P.S. I repeated the experiment in my electric oven, and got the same
>result. Are you now going to postulate that the infrared absorption
>coefficient of water is *also* the reciprocal of the specific heat?
>
>===========================================================

I don't see how your experiments - either in the microwave or in a 
conventional oven - can measure heat capacity UNLESS YOU ALSO MEASURE
THE HEAT GOING INTO AND OUT OF THE MATERIAL.  That's the whole idea
behind heat capacity - how much temperature change you get when you
add a given amount of heat to a material - not how much temperature
change when you heat it to a certain temperature.

Both experiments (microwave and conventional oven) are, I believe, 
hopelessly flawed.

If I were to put a brick and a glass of water into a 90 C oven, I
would expect them to come out at 90 C, regardless of their heat 
capacities.  For that matter, the air in the oven will also be
around 90 C, despite the fact that it will have a much lower
heat capacity than the water or brick.

As for the microwave, heating rate depends not just on the rate that
you throw energy into the system, but on the rate that it absorbs
the energy.  Consider the following examples; the microwave heat
temperatures are taken from
Minerals and Metallurgurical Processing, page 39, Feb 1988.
and the specific heats are taken from the CRC:

Material   Specific Heat    Microwave temperature
Cobalt        0.11           697 C in 3 minutes
Vanadium      0.12           557 C in 1 minute
Tantalum      0.16           177 C in 1 minute
graphite <1 micron          1073 C in 1.75 minutes
graphite -200 mesh           780 C in 6 minutes
(graphite specific heat is 0.124)

The two graphite examples clearly show how much properties other
than specific heat can effect the temperature reached in a microwave.

An additional complication for microwave heating is that the efficiency
with which materials absorb microwaves is dependant on temperature.
Anyone who had tried to melt butter evenly in a microwave has seen
this.  A few hot spots form, where the butter begins to melt.  These
areas absorb radiation more efficiently than the cold spots, so they
heat up more and more, and pretty soon your butter looks like swiss
cheese.  People often assume that this is due to "hot spots" in the
microwave, but it is actually due to this instability in adsorption.
Another example of this is the "defrost" button on a microwave.  
When run under these conditions, the microwave is actually operating 
only about a third of the time.  The delay between microwave pulses is 
there to give the hot spots a chance to transfer their heat to colder 
areas, and thereby give a more even heating.  If the situation were 
reversed, with the cold areas absorbing heat more efficiently than the 
hot areas, then food could be defrosted on the high setting without
risk of cooking some areas while leaving other areas still frozen.

I am certainly not saying that the heat capacity of tap water is
significantly different from that of distilled water, but what I
am sayin is that if you want to measure heat capacities, you should do 
a true heat capacity experiment (which is not that hard to do), rather 
than a more indirect experiment which has a lot of hidden assumptions 
(such as that the heat flux is constant and the same for two different 
materials).


Mike Diebold

****************************************************************
         Opinions of the author, not of DuPont
****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendiebolmp cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Bruce TOK /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 29 Sep 1995 14:57:35 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul, does that mean you're giving up already?  What a shame...


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Horace Heffner /  Cravens demo of the Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cravens demo of the Patterson Power Cell
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:49:51 -0900
Organization: none

Since discussion of the Griggs device tests have turned to discussion of
the Cravens demo of the Patterson Power Cell, I thought this new thread
might be appropriate for the subject.

First let me say I thought the results of the Patterson Power Cell tests
("Flowing Electrolyte Calorimitry" by Dennis Cravens, Infinite Energy,
Vol. 1 No. 2, 1995) were pretty rigorous and the COP (coefficient of
power) impressive.  I agree with Mitchell Jones (below) that specific heat
was addressed both in the article and in the experiment via a calibration
resistor, and that the points I bring up here may be related to values too
small to significantly affect the COP achieved.  Nevertheless, there is
some effect due to specific gravity change which may be unaccounted for
and thus deserves attention.

Calibration runs were made before and after the heat runs using a
calibration resistor. It was specifically stated (bottom of column 2 page
20) that the second calibration run gave heat ouput that was greater than
you could expect "by simple additive processes."  The article goes on to
state that the intrumentation may overestimate the heat generated, but it
is thought the magnitude of the overestimation is much less than the
measured effect.

The main point I want to make in regard to this experiment is that
specific gravity must be measured at various points in the experiment.
This is because, as the experiment progresses, H2 and O2 gas is produced
the cell. The electrolyte chemistry and specific gravity probably change
during the run (H2 and O2 generated) and during the calibration run (no O2
generated, probably some electrode H2 outgassing effects). The gas
splitter probably is not 100 percent effective.  Since the article
mentions no specific gravity determinations, it seems that this is an
anaccounted for experimental variable.

>
>In article <hheffner-2809950529230001@204.57.193.72>,
>hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
>
>> In article <hheffner-2709951143300001@204.57.193.68>,
>> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <4485to$spv@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little)
>wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <hheffner-2409951335370001@204.57.193.65>,
>> > hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) says:
>> > >
>> > > >Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic
>> > > >solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water.
>> > >
>> > > Horace, roughly how much "salt" do you have to put in to get it down
>> > > that low?
>> > >
>> > > Do you have any data on typical specific heats of tap water?
>> >
>> > First, let me say that there really is no typical tap water.  Water
>> > chemistry can vary significantly even within a single network. I learned a
>> > little bit about this because I am president of our local Class A water
>> > utility (the only person luniacal enough to take this thankless,
>> > bureaucracy entangled, unpaid job), so have attended various water testing
>> > and treatment courses offered by the National Rural Water Association.
>> >
>> > It is true that it may take a lot of "salt" to depress the specific heat
>> > enough to account for the observed 9-10 percent excess heat, but combined
>> > with density decreases due to outgassing, you have a significant
>> > uncontrolled experimental variable.
>> >
>> > To more specifically answer your question, the Handbook of Chemistry and
>> > Physics, 29th edition, pp. 1743-1744 has specific heats of various
>> > inorganic aqueous solutions at different temperature ranges.
>> > Concentrations, for which specific heats are given, are in ratios of water
>> > molecules to molecules of solutes (25, 50 and 100). Here are some
>> > examples:
>> >
>> > Ferric chloride:    0.666, 0.750, 0.854
>> > Magnesium chloride: 0.787, 0.861, 0.914
>> > Potassium carbonate:0.760, 0.851, 0.916
>> > Potassium nitrate:  0.832, 0.900, 0.943
>> > Sodium carbonate:   0.865, 0.907, 0.943
>> > Sodium sulfate:     0.819, 0.878, 0.960
>> Also consider:
>>   Lithium hydroxide:  -----, 0.941, 0.973
>>
>> This implies, for example, using a lithium hydroxide electrolyte as a
>> pumped calorimitry fluid can impart a 6 percent error, not counting any H2
>> microbubble contributions to specific gravity changes in the cell, or
>> specific heat depression by other solutes.
>>
>> Will the culpable please respond?
>>
>> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>Horace, you were in the real world concerning your objections to the
>Griggs calorimetry, since it appears that he did use the specific heat
>values for distilled water. (As I have noted, of course, such values are a
>perfectly adequate approximation to the specific heat of drinking water.)
>However, you are in the land of Nod when you try to apply this reasoning
>to P & F type experiments. Competent electrochemists are perfectly aware
>that specific heats are affected by large concentrations of dissolved
>minerals, and they are careful to use the specific heat values that are
>correct for the solution they are using. In the Cravens demo, for example,
>the electrolyte was a one-molar lithium sulfate solution in water. Its
>specific heat was .95, and this was the value used in the calculations.
>(See the article in Infinite Energy #2.) Bottom line: if anyone is
>"culpable" here, it would have to be you, old buddy!
>
>--Mitchell Jones

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:36:46 -0900
Organization: none

In article <811949958.10639@codesmth.demon.co.uk>, Andy Dingley
<dingbat@codesmth.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> If all it takes is an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, 
> how come AOL haven't written any Shakespeare yet ?

It's all there, the letters are simply in the wrong order.  8^)

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.27 / Alexey Goldin /  Re: Making He3 and related questions
     
Originally-From: alexey@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Alexey Goldin)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:18:01 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Networking Services

In article <444lm4$png@morgoth.sfu.ca> gay@sfu.ca (Ian D. Gay) writes:



   Well, yes, the catalogs all say they can't export more than $5000. 
   worth without approval. But why are they reluctant to say how much I 
   can buy for 5k?


Well, I've heard numbers around $2000 -- $3000 per mole (3 grams
for He3). He3 sometimes used to cool down cryogenic detectors,
like those to measure cosmic microwave background 
radiation. If you boil it in the vacuum you can easily get
temperature .5K or even less. It is all  recycled, of course.

So if you can bring few tons of stuff from the moon you really
will pay all expences if you sell so expencive. The problem is
that market is not that big.


I was told that  He3 is a product of tritium decay so now after
the end of cold war the stuff is going to be more expencive.

BTW, He3 is not the fuel that is easiest to burn in fusion
reactor. Deuterium plus tritium is much easier. Just for the
case somebody does not know.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenalexey cudfnAlexey cudlnGoldin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.30 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 16:19:58 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

>>How would France feel about posting a suitable "Guarantee Bond" with
>>the World Bank to cover the liabilies that might arise in the future
>>from contamination due to the testing?  I think 100 billion dollars is
>>a small price to pay.  France could of course borrow money against the
>>security represented by this bond so the only *actual* cost would be
>>the interest involved.  The fear in this part of the world is that
>>once testing is complete, France will turn around and declare Tahiti,
>>Mururoa and other territories to be "independant" (under the guise of
>>"you asked for it, you got it"), thus enabling her to shirk any
>>responsibility for future problems.  We need some kind of guarantee to
>>avoid this happening ... and France has proven by her actions over the
>>decades that she can not be trusted to honour her word so a simple
>>assurance or promise is not enough.

> No country (not only France, I would welcome examples) can be trusted
>to honor its word on the matter. Nevertheless, that is true for a lot
>of things. Should we require such a "bond" every time some ship containint
>dangerous substances enter our territorial waters ? Do you ? The potential
>risk of a ship loaded with arsenic is much worse than the Mururoa nuclear
>waste....

Yes, I think an "environmental protection bond" would be a good idea
for *all* forms of toxic shipments.  It would encourage the shipping
companies to take a little more care and could well serve to reduce
the number of evironmental disasters that occur with seemingly
increasing regularlity these days.

> Nevertheless a valid one. A lot of human decisions put "someone" at "some"
>risk. The problem of knowing what level of risk is tolerable in regard to the
>"end" to be achieved is an everyday fact of life for a lot of people. Otherwise,
>there would be no firemen.

But firemen get to make their own choices about whether to risk their
lives or not.  The situation in the south pacific is different --
France is not giving those people the choice.

>>By the way ... just look at what your damned nuclear testing has done
>>to New Zealand already!  A huge volcanic erruption and numerous
>>earthquakes.  Coincidence -- maybe so -- but can you prove it?  :-)
>>
> Sorry, but that is the most irrational statement I have seen for a long
>time ! It is not me that has to prove that there is a coincidence, there
>is you that has to prove the link. Otherwise I could affirm that the
>economic crisis in France is all caused by your bloody sheep exports. Can you
>disprove it ??

I'm sure you spotted my smiley there .... and you no doubt realised
that this *was* a blatantly frivolous statement.

BTW: I hear on the news this morning that France is offering to
provide a "nuclear umbrella" for its neighbours.  That is to say,
France is prepared to offer the protection of its nuclear force to
other European countries such as Germany.

If France is unwilling to rely on the nuclear umbrella offered by
NATO, why sould Germany be prepared to rely on France?  It sounds like
a poorly conceived attempt to counter the objections from Germany
regarding France's testing programme.

Another relevant news item.. France is preparing to make military
moves in a "former" French territory off the coast of Africa.
Apparently a coup has occured and France seems to feel that it has a
right to get involved in the politics of another "sovereign" state's
business.  I am not yet fully aware of the facts so I won't go as far
as to say that this is yet another example of France's eagerness to
become involved in another country's wars... but it is worrying.

Regards

Bruce


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.30 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 16:20:01 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> wrote:

>bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

> True. But that is true for any region of France as well. Only Paris and
>its sorrowndigs are strictly "french". The rest was taken from the Romans,
>the Burgundians, the Britons, the Arabs, and so on. Nice, which today is
>unquestionably considered as being French, was "annexed" to France in the
>middle of last century.

So is annexation an "acceptable" act?

> Tahitians are in a majority to wish to remain French as long as France
>finances a large part of their budget. Why should they have only the "good
>sides" of being french ?

>>Your argument is flawed.  Stopping the tests does not alter the the
>>fact that France already has a significant nuclear deterrent force.

> My argument does not try to prove the nuclear tests are NECESSARY. I am 
>not wholly convinced they are. My argument is that ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN
>ANNOUNCED, THEY MUST BE PERFORMED. If Chirac changes his mind under
>international pressure, the french nuclear deterrent will have no
>credibility whatsoever.

I do not see how Mr Chirac showing common-sense and diplomacy would
make the French nuclear arsenal any less effective.  The processes of
fusion and fission no nothing of politics or credibility.

> See my previous answer. Let's for the sake of the argument accept that
>everybody is persuaded that the French nuclear capability is enough to
>inflict unacceptable losses. But who will believe that Chirac would be
>READY TO USE IT in a crisis if he backs down now under pressure ?

But there is simply no comparison between continuing a course of
action out of sheer bloody-mindedness in the face of world-wide
condemnation and reacting with force to any would-be invader.

> Could you please give me an example ? We are talking of issues where the
>capacity of taking a decision and keeping by it is important (see previous
>paragraphs).

What about President Clinton's decision to send troops into Somalia.
This decision was ill conceived and poorly implemented.  Under
pressure from home and abroad he recanted and the troops were
withdrawn.  He seemed to lose very little credibility from this and
the US has not suffered a lack of credibility as a result.

>>One can't help but be irritated by the way France seems to be pitting
>>itself against the rest of the world.  "Everyone is out to get us"
>>would seem to be the cry on the mouths of French politicians.  What
>>justification does France have for such ludicrous beliefs?  Did her
>>allies not come to her aid each time she called this century?

> No they did not. I lived a long time in Britain so I know Anglo-saxons
>have another view of recent history. But WWII was a classic example. The
>"allies" intervened late, negociated with Petain up to the last limit,
>and wanted to impose on France an American administration (I can give
>you the references if you like). De Gaulle had enormous difficultys to
>prevent the Americans from installing this administration.

I was not aware of this (history was never my strongest subject :-)
If this is indeed the case (and I have no reason to doubt your
claims), then I can see that France may well feel that her allies have
not performed as well as could be hoped.  However, I believe that the
world is a very different place today and that thanks to vastly
improved global communications and an "awareness" of the importance of
cooperation (both economically and militarily) the risk of this
happening again is *very* small -- I'd wager that it's actually
smaller than the risk faced by south-pacific nations faced with
France's nuclear testing.

>>See my comments on France's annexation of the islands which later
>>became French Polynesia way back in 1844.  French Polynesia did not go
>>to France and beg to be made a territory -- they had no choice in the
>>matter.  This is somewhat akin to the USA invading France, claiming it
>>as a US territory and then conducting nuclear tests there.

> May I remind you that the territory where the American tests were carried
>was taken from the Indians in about the same times. Would you object to that ?

Yes.. these issues are also relevant to New Zealand.  The indigenous
peoples were effectively annexed by an invading force which said "sign
here or we take what we want by force".  Only today are we (NZ)
beginning to address the inequities that this produced.  Annexation is
not something to be proud of, or repeat.  I condemn the US's treatment
of the aborigine population also.

>>But his arrogant stubbornness has already ruined his credibility in
>>the global forum.  How credible can a person be when they refuse to
>>listen and simply discount the legitimate concerns of their friends
>>and allies?
>>
> I do not think that arrogance (however irritating) has ruined any politician
>standing. The career of a very successfull british prime minister is there to
>prove it.

But what is more important ... the good of the country or the good of
the country's leader?

>>There is no benefit to New Zealand in French Polynesia gaining its
>>independance -- in fact quite the opposite.  They would most likely
>>turn to us (and Australia) for financial assistance.
>>
>>I think this is more French paranoia.
>>
> I do not know why the Australian Prime Minister chose to take this
>position. But it certainly did.

Well I can't speak for the Australians (even though I was born there).
The Aussie politicians are indeed a strange bunch.. when I found that
I didn't agree with the way the country was being run I moved to New
Zealand which is not without its own problems .. but is at least
substantially more principled and open.

Regards

Bruce


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:56:55 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <199509201520.LAA67772@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:
> 
> Since the chemistry is never discussed in detail I am assuming that
> people such as Miles, McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann have not considered
> the details of cathode surface condition as being anything they should
> devote much of their resources to.  As I recall what we do know is that
> the surface chemistry of the cathode in a long run does undergo significant
> changes.  For want of a better word, the cathode gets gunked up.

			This is not a comment on cf or on lack or presence of maybes, I have not
read the literature. However, any trained electrochemist (and Pons and
Fleischmann are certainly that, Fleischmann had an excellent reputation
prior to cf) pays attention to electrode surfaces, since they are crucial
to all echem reactions, In fact it is well known that crystallite size and
orientation can have profound effects. And it is not unusual for reactions
to be poisoned by extremely low levels of contaminents, although by what
mechanism is not well understood. Electrodes can get "gunked up", typically
by adsorption of organics that build up with time. Some reactions are more
sensitive to this than others.
> 
> We also know that there are physical changes in the cathode surface.  The
> cathode that comes out of the the electrolysis does not look much like
> the one that went in.

	Anyone who has sorbed hydrogen (I've never worked with deuterium) onto Pd
will notice not only macro effects on the physical state of the electrode
(the electrode if thin enough will bend and have ripples on the surface due
to volume changes inducing stress), but also micro changes (cleavage of
xtal planes, yielding along slip planes, aggregation of Pd atoms). It
should be noted that imperfections within the metal (dislocations, etc.)
will lead to large variations in H solubility within those regions.
> 
> Dick Blue

Cindy Lundgren
All opinions my own
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 28 Sep 1995 16:46:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DFIMzE.MKo@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>  Here is some information for you.
>  Tritium is of low toxicity.  It is not benign, nor relatively
>benign.  Silicone -- once thought benign, or relatively
>benign -- has toxicity.  Silicone.

Okay, so tritium is a low-toxicity radioactive element.
That makes it relatively benign in the context of
high-toxicity radioactive elements.  As I have repeatedly
pointed out, that doesn't make it "benign" in any absolute 
sense of the word.  Silicone is still relatively benign
compared to many other substances.  Get it yet?

Meanwhile, perhaps you might consider defining 
"toxicity" for the other readers on the group, who have 
no clue what you're talking about.

>Tritium has more, and should be handled appropriately.  

I never said you should give it to your kids to play with!
A relatively benign radioactive element is still a radioactive
element, and is generally not benign in an absolute sense.  

I see no reason to rehash this discussion for the twentieth time.
Surely you must have better things to do with your time.

>   You were previously given two references and more data showing
>that you were incorrect.   Did you follow any of them up?

All your references did was show that I wasn't speaking
your language, whatever it is.  I wrote an FAQ intended
for a general audience and you criticized me for not using
highly specialized terminology which no one else would
understand.  You simultaneously failed utterly to understand
the basic contextual use of "relative", by claiming that I
said "tritium is benign", when I said nothing of the sort.  
Despite the fact that I corrected you on this at least 5 times 
last year, you bring it up out of the blue now.  What's the point?
Meanwhile, perhaps you should consider throwing out your 
technical dictionaries and learning a little everyday English.
A course in accurate citation techniques would also be useful.

>   =======================================
>=rh  That aside, I'd also like to see you show and example where 
>=rh  I criticized a CF result or paper without first reading it.  
>=rh  I do my homework, will you?  For the most recent example, 
>=rh  look at my posting on the Kasagi paper.  Or if you want to 
>=rh  dig back in time for something that new readers may not
>=rh  remember, try the Kucherov or Piantelli discussions."

>  Your negative comments were made worldwide against 
>Representative Walker (Rep. PA) only because of his 
>reasonable suggestion to move forward 
>on hydrogen technology including cold fusion.  

Actually, I was criticizing him mostly for apparently not
having a clue about the law of conservation of energy.
One might also figure that I'm personally frustrated that
such a person has jurisdiction over the U.S. energy research
program, and was responsible for cutting the fusion research
budget (which supports the lab I work for) by 35% to 40%.
Cold fusion doesn't have much to do with my concerns about 
Mr. Walker.  You might consider rereading my original article.

Also, your sentence above has nothing whatsoever to do with 
the quote from my article which it followed - you have yet to 
demonstrate any instances where I criticized a CF result or 
paper without justification and prior research.  I'm waiting.  
Your smear tactics are really getting stale.

>Such
>a knee-jerk response is consistent
>with relative technical illiteracy on this
>matter. 

Given that my alleged "knee-jerk" response 
had virtually nothing to do with Cold Fusion, 
your own knee-jerk reaction is misdirected.

I'm still waiting for some evidence of this
alleged "illiteracy" of mine.

>There have been more than two thousand
>papers and publications in this field, and yet not
>a word of substance has made it to your 
>megabyte oft-posted ubiquitous FAQ.

Actually:
  (1) The FAQ is only posted quarterly,
  (2) It's only a few hundred kilobytes, and
  (3) The reason I don't put CF into the FAQ is precisely 
   because there is no agreement on what it is yet, while
   the reigning consensus is that whatever it is, it most 
   likely isn't fusion.  Even Walker agrees with that! :)

You could write a million papers on excess heat phenomena, 
and if the results were as ambiguous about the nature 
of the process as the current set, the topic still wouldn't 
belong in a Fusion FAQ, much less a Conventional Fusion FAQ.

The reason it's labeled the "Conventional Fusion FAQ" rather
than the "Fusion FAQ" is because I wanted to leave room for
someone else to write a cold-fusion type of FAQ.  I don't
claim to be comprehensive.

>  Given your magnus opus-FAQ, given the verifications
@ You mean magnum opus.  Better get out that dictionary again!
>of cold fusion [not only in the solid state, but as you note
>also in the gas-phase and in glow discharge experiments]
> it would just seem quite appropriate to be more
>balanced in your position because of the importance of fusion
> in the future world energy requirement. 

Verifications of what?  Where's the fusion?  What's
the reaction?  What are the products?  Where's the evidence?
Energy release alone does not a fusion process make, even
if the evidence for excess energy were consistent and
believable.

>  If you are unable to give the cold fusion literature the
>detailed survey and study which you gave to hot fusion,
>then perhaps you should consider adding Jed's comments
>on cold fusion to your FAQ.

Perhaps you and Jed should write your own FAQ.  There's no
reason why I should put stuff about unconventional 
"fusion" experiments - which don't come close to proving
that the process involved is fusion - in the Conventional 
Fusion FAQ.  In case you don't understand that, let me 
rephrase it:  I don't see any reason to write a Fusion FAQ 
about excess-energy experiments which apparently do not 
involve fusion reactions as we know them. 

>  Also, the impugning which you made upon 
>the Congressman's knowledge (or what
 @Try "your impugning of the Congressman's knowledge";
   To impugn is a verb; impugning is a verb.  One does
   not "make an impugning on someone's knowledge" any
   more than one "makes an attacking" on their knowledge.
   You might have chosen "impugnment," which is a noun;
   the grammar would still have been terribly awkward.
>you claimed is a lack of it) is also consistent with the
>double-speak biology revision discussed above.
>Isn't it?

I merely reported on what I saw in a published
interview.  Obviously that's a limited data set.  But what
he said made it pretty clear that he didn't know that 
a real energy source is needed to make a 
hydrogen-powered economy work.  That's, well, sort 
of a critical fact.  His committee cut the budgets for 
both renewables and fusion energy research, which are 
the two primary candidates for hydrogen supply in a 
hydrogen energy economy.

I don't see how an assessment of Walker's scientific
knowledge can be construed as having any connection
with the characteristics of tritium, much less being
"consistent" with it.

>Worse, such ad hominem attack and 
>revision of radiobiologic data is not a real substitute
>for science.   Is it?

I don't think Walker understands conservation of energy 
and is therefore technically illiterate, and I don't
think you understand standard English constructions
like "relatively benign", "to impugn", and "magnum opus" 
and are therefore of suspect English literacy yourself.  
That's about as ad hominem as it gets with me, you 
low-down, good-for-nothing, yellow-bellied, 
CF-brainwashed, obnoxious mutant clueless scum!  ;-)  
(YES, I'M JUST KIDDING!)


 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / 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: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:25:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-2809950529230001@204.57.193.72>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <hheffner-2709951143300001@204.57.193.68>,
> hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
> 
> > In article <4485to$spv@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little)
wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <hheffner-2409951335370001@204.57.193.65>,
> > hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) says:
> > > 
> > > >Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic
> > > >solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water.
> > > 
> > > Horace, roughly how much "salt" do you have to put in to get it down
> > > that low?
> > > 
> > > Do you have any data on typical specific heats of tap water?
> > 
> > First, let me say that there really is no typical tap water.  Water
> > chemistry can vary significantly even within a single network. I learned a
> > little bit about this because I am president of our local Class A water
> > utility (the only person luniacal enough to take this thankless,
> > bureaucracy entangled, unpaid job), so have attended various water testing
> > and treatment courses offered by the National Rural Water Association.
> > 
> > It is true that it may take a lot of "salt" to depress the specific heat
> > enough to account for the observed 9-10 percent excess heat, but combined
> > with density decreases due to outgassing, you have a significant
> > uncontrolled experimental variable.
> > 
> > To more specifically answer your question, the Handbook of Chemistry and
> > Physics, 29th edition, pp. 1743-1744 has specific heats of various
> > inorganic aqueous solutions at different temperature ranges.
> > Concentrations, for which specific heats are given, are in ratios of water
> > molecules to molecules of solutes (25, 50 and 100). Here are some
> > examples:
> > 
> > Ferric chloride:    0.666, 0.750, 0.854
> > Magnesium chloride: 0.787, 0.861, 0.914
> > Potassium carbonate:0.760, 0.851, 0.916
> > Potassium nitrate:  0.832, 0.900, 0.943
> > Sodium carbonate:   0.865, 0.907, 0.943
> > Sodium sulfate:     0.819, 0.878, 0.960
> Also consider:
>   Lithium hydroxide:  -----, 0.941, 0.973
> 
> This implies, for example, using a lithium hydroxide electrolyte as a
> pumped calorimitry fluid can impart a 6 percent error, not counting any H2
> microbubble contributions to specific gravity changes in the cell, or
> specific heat depression by other solutes.
> 
> Will the culpable please respond?
> 
> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

Horace, you were in the real world concerning your objections to the
Griggs calorimetry, since it appears that he did use the specific heat
values for distilled water. (As I have noted, of course, such values are a
perfectly adequate approximation to the specific heat of drinking water.)
However, you are in the land of Nod when you try to apply this reasoning
to P & F type experiments. Competent electrochemists are perfectly aware
that specific heats are affected by large concentrations of dissolved
minerals, and they are careful to use the specific heat values that are
correct for the solution they are using. In the Cravens demo, for example,
the electrolyte was a one-molar lithium sulfate solution in water. Its
specific heat was .95, and this was the value used in the calculations.
(See the article in Infinite Energy #2.) Bottom line: if anyone is
"culpable" here, it would have to be you, old buddy!

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Martin Gelfand /  Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: 28 Sep 1995 13:13:39 -0600
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Mitchell Jones has some serious misconceptions about science;
I'd like to address one that came up in our public conversation.
The attribution header is getting too long to be useful, so I've
axed it.  Mitchell's words are always surrounded by braces
(preceeded by some asterisks) so its easy to tell who's who.
[...]
>> >(even though in practice
>> >> quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every
>> >> experiment one can construct)
>> >
>> >***{Rubbish. "Quantum mechanics" doesn't predict anything whatsoever.
>> >"Quantum mechanics" is an inept attempt to "interpret" the curve-fitted
>> >mathematics of physics in accordance with the precepts of a bankrupt
>> >philosophy. The mathematics itself is what "predicts." And, to the extent
>> >that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, the
>> >results tend to be extremely accurate. But where is the surprise? Once
>> >mathematical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured
>> >data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated
>> >regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What
>> >does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?"
>> >--Mitchell Jones}***
>  
>>   Rubbish yourself.  You have no idea what consitutes curve fitting.
>> Surely there is quite a bit of curve fitting done in physics, for the
>> purposes of summarizing the results of experiments (or calculations),
>> but quantum mechanics and relativity per se don't involve any
>> fitting whatsoever.  If you do a calculation of the "twin paradox
>> effect" (for want of a better name; I trust every knows what
>> the twin "paradox" is) _what is being fit_?  Likewise, if one
>> calculates the spectrum of a hydrogen atom using the Schrodinger
>> equation, where is any fitting being done?
>
>***{You really must be kidding! The implication of your statement is that
>mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, sans data, and make
>up equations! Read a little of the history of physics, for Christ's sake!
>Bohr wrestled with the data for months before he came up with his theory
>to explain the circular orbits of hydrogen. And Sommerfeld likewise
>studied and thought about data for months before he could find the
>mathematical constructs that would explain the other orbits. These guys
>spent every waking hour immersed in data. Einstein did likewise. To
>repeat, there are two basic processes at work in mathematical physics:
>curve fitting, and tweaking. Some mathematical physicists study the data
>and find the constructs that fit it; others study new data and the old
>constructs, and find "transformations" (tweaks) that take the new data
>into account. Period. That's the essence of the process. Your implied
>claim that mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, totally
>unaware of the experimental data, and pull equations out of their behinds,
>is beyond absurdity. --Mitchell Jones}***

This "wresting with data" is what distinguishes theoretical
physicists from mathematicians.  It is _not_ the same as curve fitting.
Let me give a simple example which, I hope, explains why.

From the Schrodinger equation one can calculate the spectrum
of the hydrogen atom (up to hyperfine splittings and other
effects which are "small").  The formula that results has
several parameters in it:  the electron mass (more precisely
the _reduced mass_, which differs from the electron mass
by a small amount that depends on the nuclear mass), the
electron charge, and Planck's constant.  The point is that
all of these parameters can be measured, using methods which
make no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of the hydrogen
atom.  Planck's constant one can obtain from the photoelectric
effect; the electron mass to charge ratio by looking at how
the trajectory of an electron is bent in a magnetic field;
the electron charge can (nowadays) be measured directly 
from the ratio of current to input pulse rate in an
"electron turnstile"; etc etc etc... all methods that make
no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of hydrogen.  And
guess what:  the correct answer (again, up to small corrections
associated with the inexactness of simple Schrodinger equation)
comes out.

You see, there is a huge body of knowledge about the world,
which _overdetermines_ many times the freedom to choose the
few parameters that exist in theories of the world.
No, you don't want to use theories outside of their
range of applicability; but that is a whole hell of a lot
different that saying that theories are mere "curve fitting".

There are indeed two (principal) processes at work in 
theoretical (not quite the same as mathematical!) physics,
but they are not "curve-fitting" and "tweaking".
Rather they are "calculating" and "model building".

Regards,
Martin Gelfand
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:51:55 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-2709952246190001@204.57.193.73>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2609951605590001@austin-2-15.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > ***{The time required for loading of the unit cells depends upon the drift
> > velocities of the electrons and protons within the cathode, and those
> > velocities are a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Such drift currents
> > depend upon the gradient (i.e., the voltage drop) and the resistance
> > within each circuit element, and it is a simple matter to calculate the
> > drift velocities of the electrons if the current, the nature of the
> > conductor, and the conductor cross section are all known. The formula is V
> > = I/(nAe), where V is the drift velocity of the electrons in m/sec, I is
> > the current in amps, n is the number of free electrons per cubic meter of
> > copper, A is the cross sectional area of the wire in square meters, and e
> > is the charge of an electron in coulombs. If, for example, the copper wire
> > leading to the cathode has a 1 square mm cross section and carries a
> > current of 1 amp, the formula gives and average drift velocity for the
> > electrons of 7.8E-5 meters per second, or .078 mm/sec. [For copper, n =
> > 8.0E+28 free electrons per cubic meter, and e = 1.6E-19 coulombs.] Note
> > that these sorts of drift velocities are far, far slower than the slowest
> > snail ever crawled! It is precisely because this velocity is so low, and
> > because of the layout and internal complexities of the cathode, that H+
> > ions have time to disseminate into it before meeting up with an electron.
> > If, as you apparently believe, the electrons were to leap across the
> > cathode at the speed of light, then of course they would be sitting at the
> > surface waiting impatiently for an H+ to appear, and the possibility of an
> > H+ actually working its way into the interior would be zero. That,
> > however, is manifestly not the case. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> > 
> 
> To make discussion more manageable, perhaps dealing with issues in smaller
> chunks is a good idea. I'd like to deal with the easiest issue first:
> electrode voltage gradients.
> 
> The electron drift velocity is completely irrelevant.  

***{AAAUGH! --Mitchell Jones}***

What is relevant is
> the rate at which charge is equalized, i.e. demand is satisfied, voltage
> gradients in the electrode eliminated. To see who is all wet on this
> issue I propose you do a (hopefully just mental) experiment. Take a long
> *empty* garden hose and connect to a faucet. Turn on the water and count
> the n seconds until water runs out nozzel at the end of the hose.  This
> number, divided by the number of feet in the hose, gives an average drift
> velocity analagous to your electron drift velocity above. Now, turn off
> the faucet and point the hose at your face. 8^)  Since, by your reasoning
> above, the water can only move through the hose at drift velocity, you
> will have n seconds to turn the nozzel away from your face, so turn on the
> faucet and at n-1 seconds later turn the nozzel away from your face.  By
> your reasoning you should have turned the nozzel away before the water
> could reach the nozzel.  So, who is all wet?

***{That's very amusing, Horace. However, I never denied that pressure
waves in water propagate far faster than the water molecules move through
a hose. Further, your implied analogy to the flow of electrical pressure
waves through a wire is also exact, but I never denied that either. My
point, however, is that voltage gradients are eliminated at the speed of
light *only if current is not free to move.* If it is free to move, the
gradient cannot be completely eliminated. You continue to miss that point,
and, by implication, you continue to deny Ohm's law. Here, therefore, is a
question for you: if you grant, as you must, that the average drift
velocity of the electrons in my example is correct, and yet continue to
insist that there is no voltage gradient within the conductor, then why do
the electrons keep moving inexorably toward the anode? Do you, perhaps,
deny that a copper wire has resistance? If not, then each specific
electron, drifting in the wire at an average speed of .078 mm/sec, is
encountering a resistive force, and should slow down and stop moving. *Why
doesn't that happen, Horace?* If the electron is moving in the positive
direction at a constant average velocity of .078 mm/sec despite the
opposition of a resistive force F, does that not imply that there is an
equal and opposite force, F', that is pushing it toward the anode? And if
it does, then what do you suppose is the source of this force? Since you
claim that there is no voltage gradient, however tiny, within a conductor,
then F' must come from some other source! Are we, perhaps, dealing with
magic? --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Richard Blue /  Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:25:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cindy Lundgren does an excellent job of summarizing the surface
chemistry aspects of CF electrolysis.  Her comments would, it
seems to me, confirm my notion that the maintenance of rather
fussy surface conditions throughout the entire course of a CF
run would be somewhat unlikely.  That is to say CF involves
chance.  My thinking is that this should be observable in the
statistics of the experimental results.  If it is there that aspect
of the data is being selectively discarded, and that is my
concern.  Post selection of the results is a traditional way to
introduce a bias, if you are so inclined.

Cindy makes another comment that I think might be questioned.
The assertion is oft repeated that Pons and Fleischmann are
electrochemists of excellent reputation.  Therefore they are
unlikely to have failed to properly address any issue relating
to electrode surface conditions.  We all have been informed
that lesser mortals should not expect to be able to replicate
what the electrochemists have done. (;-)

I am left to wonder, however, just exactly what Pons and Fleischmann
had by way of experience with the techniques involved specifically
in the CF measurements.  Did they have extensive experience with
calorimetry?  What was their level of experience with analytical
chemistry?  We certainly know they did not understand even elementary
nuclear physics as they bungled very badly the attempt to incorporate
nuclear measurements into their experiment.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.29 / Richard Blue /  Re: Griggs simplicity incarnate
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs simplicity incarnate
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:35:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since the question of water purity has come into the debate over
measurements of the performance of the Griggs device I thought
I would remind everyone that a portion of the evidence put forth
by Jed Rothwell involves operations of the Griggs device in
carpet mills where the water is certainly not potable.

Indeed one of the claimed advantages of the Griggs device over
conventional steam generators is that it runs well on trashy
water.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:18 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <44a387$ob4@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> I see two obvious problems with your protoneutron theory:
> 
> Stripped of non-essential details, you imply the fundamental
> reaction is
> 
> p + e + gamma(0.7MeV) -> n
> 
> If such were the case, there would be three rather
> easily observed effects:
> 
> (1) free neutrons would be emitted from the device. 
> While the cross-section for n + H -> D is large, there is still
> a mean free path of inches for free thermal neutrons
> in H20 (for an example medium), and so a fair number of them 
> would escape the experimental cell. Such copious neutrons
> would be easy to detect, and probably fatal.

***{OK, Barry, let's review the preconditions for protoneutron formation:
(1) There must be insufficient space for the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits. (2)
There must be insufficient energy for the reaction p + e  + .78 Mev gamma
--> n. (3) There must be insufficient thermal energy to enable the
electron to escape from the grip of the proton.

Since the protoneutron is wildly unstable and subject to thermal
disruption, it can only exist if there are zones of quiescence in the
loaded palladium lattice--places where protoneutrons can accumulate
without being subject to thermal disturbances. (Any protoneutrons that
begin to form elsewhere will be broken up by thermal hits into unconnected
protons and electrons, and kept in a kind of low-temperature hydrogen
plasma state.) Do such zones exist? The answer is yes: temperature does
not manifest itself in a crystal lattice in the same way as in a gas. In a
gas, there are 3 degrees of freedom per particle, and the result is a
buzzing maelstrom of random motion, where no zone of quiescence can endure
for more than a tiny fraction of a second. However, in a crystal lattice
the particles are constrained by contact forces exerted by their
neighbors. Result: the thermal "lattice wave," as described in textbooks
on solid state physics. And the lattice wave behaves like other waves in
solids (e.g., sound waves) in one crucial respect: it has nodes--zones of
quiescence where, due to cancellation of crests by troughs, there is no
thermal motion at all. It is in these nodes of the lattice wave that the
protoneutrons form and accumulate, because these are the only places where
such wildly unstable particles can endure. 

Since any protoneutrons that move out of the nodes are immediately
disrupted, this means that the only protoneutrons that endure are those
which have, for practical purposes, zero velocity relative to the lattice.
They ain't moving at the "thermalized" average velocity of 2200 m/sec,
Barry! Which means: the neutrons they produce ain't thermalized, either!
Result: they ain't got no steenking "mean free path!" They just sit there
in the nodes of the lattice wave, in a sea of protoneutrons, waiting for a
disturbance to set them into motion. What disturbance? Maybe the
experimenter bumps the table, giving them a tiny velocity, and they drift
into nearby nuclei. The question then becomes this: what is the absorption
cross section of the slowest slow neutron that ever crawled, snaillike,
through a lattice? Thirty eight barns, you say? No way: that figure
applies to 2200 m/sec neutrons, not to 1 inch/sec neutrons! For a neutron
that slow, the cross section would be sixty or seventy thousand barns!
Result: that puppy is gone before he can ever begin to get thermalized!
Result: there won't be any "copious neutrons" to detect! --Mitchell
Jones}***    
> 
> (2) D would be produced in large amounts. 
> The n that do not escape are most likely to engage in a n + H -> D
> reaction, and so plenty of D should be produced in a pure H system.
> Also easy to detect, simply by weighing the distilled effluent water.

***{Would it? I think not. But why make assertions about a matter for
which the calculations are so simple. Consider the Cravens demo at ICCF-5,
for example. According to the May-June 1995 issue of Infinite Energy, pg.
8, the input power was .4 watts. Output heat, as measured by the delta
temperature in the electrolyte, was .14 watts before the "cold fusion"
reaction turned on, and averaged about 2.1 watts afterwards. This means
that the power produced by the "cold fusion" reaction averaged 2.1 - .14 =
1.96 joules/sec. Since 1 electron volt = 1.6E-19 joules, we have an excess
energy output of 1.96/(1.6E-19) = 1.225E+19 eV/sec = 1.225E+13 Mev/sec. If
the only two reactions driving the process are p + e +.78 Mev gamma --> n,
followed by p + n --> d + 2.22 Mev gamma, and assuming that it all gets
converted to heat as per the scenario I sketched out in the protoneutron
theory, then we have 2.22 - .78 = 1.44 Mev of energy released per deuteron
created. This means the reaction produces (1.225E+13)/1.44 = .851E+13
deuterons per second. In that case, assuming that the apparatus runs
continuously for a week and recycles the same effluent water, that water
will contain 7 x 24 x 60 x 60 x (.851E+13) = 5.15E+18 new deuterons. Since
a gram atomic weight of any substance contains 6.02E+23 atoms, and the
atomic weight of deuterium is 2.014, we have added [(5.15E+18)/(6.02E+23)]
times 2.014 grams, which is 1.72E-5 grams! In other words, we have
.0000172 grams of new deuterium in the effluent! That's about two one
hundred thousandths of a gram, Barry! Looking at the photo of the
apparatus, I would say that there were a couple of liters of water
involved. Even granting your false assumption that this represents a net
gain in the weight of the effluent, I don't hardly think this would be
"easy to detect, simply by weighing the distilled effluent water." Hell,
Barry, a fingerprint on the effluent bottle would weigh more than that!
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> (3) Gamma's should be produced.
> Your proposed gamma source is n + H -> D + gamma(2.2MeV), and
> even *ignoring* the frequency mismatch (your proto-neutron wants
> a 0.7 MeV gamma, but mainly 2.2 MeV are created---we will ignore
> this, because in your world view QM does not hold)

***{My brief is against the interpretation, not against the math. But
that's irrelevant here. The real reason for ignoring the "mismatch" is
that it is a fundamental postulate of my theory that each protoneutron
will take up to .78 Mev from a gamma. If the full amount is available, the
protoneutron becomes a neutron and absorbs no kinetic energy, leaving the
gamma to continue with the energy that is left, if any. If less than .78
Mev is available, the protoneutron takes it all in the form of kinetic
energy, and dissipates it as heat through collisions in the lattice. 

To repeat: the reason you should accept this is not because I reject
"quantum mechanics," but rather because this postulate is part of the
theory we are discussing. --Mitchell Jones}***

  again, the cross
> sections for stopping these gamma's would require on the order of a meter
> of shielding to prevent them from escaping the device. 

***{Yes, but this applies to situations where the emission is not
surrounded by protoneutrons. It is irrelevant here. --Mitchell Jones}***

There would
> not be enough proto-neutrons to alter this situation---e.g. in the 
> Griggs device, the proto-n's are created at cavitation centers,
> _which is an extremely small fraction of the working fluid volume_.
> Any conceivable cross section for gamma capture by a proto-n
> is limited by the extent of the coulomb field around the proto-n,
> and that extends only on the order of submicrons. Thus even with classical
> reasoning there is no way for the capture cross section to be big enough
> to prevent significant gamma escape. Again, easy to
> detect, probably fatal.

***{Not so. The magnetic field is also involved, and I believe that the
protoneutron would be hypermagnetic: that its magnetic field would be
enormously bloated and immensely powerful for a particle of its size. The
result would be a *huge* gamma ray absorption cross section, particularly
for gammas in the process of formation and not yet up to lightspeed.
Having said that, I must add that getting into this aspect of the theory
serves no purpose: I await the verdict of experiment, and I will abide by
the result. It is entirely conceivable to me that the protoneutron theory
is false, either when applied to the Griggs device, or when applied to the
Pons-Fleischmann type cells, or both. But we will just have to wait and
see. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> 
> I would say (1), (2) and (3) alone---without invoking many other
> obvious problems---eliminate your theory.

***{Nope. You made a good effort, Barry, but you don't get a cigar.
--Mitchell Jones}***

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

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:04:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Sep18141737@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) writes:
>In article <jaboweryDF18xI.3Kv@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>> How about we go for a much nearer term claim that is just as incredible
>> according to your prior posts ridiculing Paul Koloc's supposed failure
>> to grasp basic principles of physics like the virial theorem:


>     .. . ...     .    .    . As it stands, just requiring a proven
>equilibrium which looks something like a plasmak, I would give odds
>not too much better than 1:1 because I believe such an equilibrium
>exists. (Whether Paul Koloc can prove it is the interesting question.)
>If the criterion is explicitly added that this equilibrium must
>violate the virial theorem, I would offer some very favorable odds, if
>anyone is interested.

The Virial theorem has been promoted to supercede the power of the
divergence theorem from which it is derived by people of education,
experience and intelligence.  So I don't feel that your position
is "wrong" or in any way bad because we disagree.  But the principle 
of the disagreement is that my position is the Virial can't be 
applied to systems with internal pressure bearing surfaces (tensile
surfaces enclosing volumes); so it's not a matter of being "violated".  

My position is that the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid is a bit too
complex and therefore be computed using the volume integral of
the magnetic energy.  This means the fields must be iteritively
derived numerically.  There is shear (matched magnetic field and 
current) within the the toroidal structure, and for the simple 
case, no shear outside the toroidal volume, but inside the outer 
portion of the PMK, the Mantle boundary.   

I guess this is far too much work for today's busy busy plasma
theorist, or numerical mathematician.    So to study or  . . Not
to study,  ... . to finish ... or just to  slide on by?   Still
simmering?   

>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 06:25:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <43hji1$1qpt@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
>Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>: validity of Paul Koloc's MHD model of a stable compound plasma 
>: configuration (plasma shell containing a vacuum poloidal field containing 
>:  a toroidal plasma with relativistic currents).
>
>Sorry, Jim, but I'd never accept something like this.  To me it is
>similar as the equally incorrect claim that resistive g-mode turbulence
>and ExB shear is responsible for the L-H transition in tokamaks.  

Of course it is one thing to claim another incrorrect, and another
to additionally add as description of yourown mechanism for the 
Lo-hy transition in tokamaks.  I tend to agree with your contentious 
position on this point, nonetheless.    

>reasons that claimed violation of the Virial theorem is garbage:
>fundamental conservation constraints are violated.  But they still
>believe: they want it to be true so they can go to DOE and claim they've
>understood something of fundamental importance.  [Yeah, violate energy
>conservation and you can do most anything in a theory or model.]

Hmmm!  and that has you chewing buffalo?? 

>The difference is that we do indeed have a reproducible L-H transition
>in the experiments.  It just isn't understood yet.

Understanding doesn't necessarily follow the data aquisition , either.  

>If Paul and you publish the model including those relativistic currents
>as a valid equilibrium _including the model calculation_ by December 31,
>1996, I will buy each of you a bottle of good champagne, publicly if you
>like.  

We first must aquire data to verify the possible presence of such 
features.  It's not dissimilar to what you suggested above.  That's
tough without government support.  From what I here it may be getting
tough even with government support.  (I heard about the -250 a couple
of days ago at Princeton).   

If math isn't your style, find a coauthor who will do that part.
>The list of journals which qualify is: any AIP journal, Nuclear Fusion,
>Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Reviews of Scientific
>Instruments[*], Journal of Plasma Physics, Journal of Nuclear Materials,
>Soviet Journal of Plasma Physics[**], and Soviet Physics JETP[**].

Great!, but we aren't particularly interested in publishing, yet,
since this has little value unless we can also generate them viably
in p-^11B (low Z media), and then, it might become a topic worth the 
while of publication demands.

>Note that 1996 is no typo; I do mean 1996.  That gives you 14 months
>plus. 

Nevertheless, by that time, we will be interested in popping these
rascals into a whompingly effective compressor with the object of 
burning the little beasties.  

>You can leave stability aside; just get the equilibrium.  All I am
>asking of you is what Wu and Chen did.  Nobody knows whether their
>equilibrium is stable to general perturbations.

And who would care if such theoretical plasmoids can't be formed in 
low Z nuclei, and have long lived states even during dense compressions.   

>Note that Physics Letters A does _not_ count!  They've published a very
>bad Pons and Fleischmann article.  Bad in the sense of experimental
>documentation. 

Don't be so prissy.  

>[*] This may be an AIP journal, but I am not sure.

>[**] Or whatever it has been renamed to.

Ya ya.  
>--
>Mach's gut!
>Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:21:25 GMT

In <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link
net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

>At this point, we have to ask ourselves how a gamma photon gets spat out
>as the isotope shifted nucleus drops to ground state. The question is, do
>we visualize a series of transitional states in which the photon
>accelerates to the speed of light, or not? By the "quantum mechanical"
>mode of thinking, there is not merely no problem in imagining an entity
>leaping from zero velocity to the speed of light without passing through
>all of the intervening transitional states, but such images are positively
>to be encouraged! However, as I have noted elsewhere, such imagined gaps
>in motion violate the principle of continuity. However brief the velocity
>rise time may be, the principle of continuity requires that the photon
>pass through all the intervening states of motion. Period. The fact that
>we have not measured such states does not mean they do not exist. Indeed,
>they must exist because the principle that requires their existence (the
>principle of continuity) supports the entire structure of human knowledge.
>To question its validity self-reduces to an absurdity.

But the photon never was at zero velocity. There is no such animal. A photon
is, by its nature, born travelling at velocity c in whatever direction it is
going in (modulo a little Heisenberg uncertainty, maybe).

	
-- 
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 161 437 4506                           Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.28 / 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: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:04:11 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DFLLwx.F00@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>   In Message-ID: <21cenlogic-2709952031530001@austin-2-16.i-link.net>
> Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
>   and  hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) debate:
<big snip> 

>Mitchell Jones:
> "As always, Horace, you posts are intelligent and excellent food for
> thought! You ask fascinating questions!
> "Now, down to business: the requirement that city water be drinkable is
> what defeats your idea. Human beings are enormously sensitive to
> impurities in water, and those sensitivities impact on the policies of the
> providers of drinking water. Result: drinking water that seems "hard" to
> human tastes generally contains mere trace levels of dissolved minerals.
> Result: the specific heat of drinking water differs negligibly from that
> of distilled water. But, of course, why should you believe me? Here is a
> simple experiment that anyone can do: get two identical glasses. Fill them
> to the same level, one with tap water, the other with distilled water, and
> let them set until they are in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding
> air. Then measure their temperature and record it. Next, place the two
> glasses in your oven,  turn it on, and leave them long enough to kick the
> temperature up to 150 F. or so. Then take them out, and measure their
> temperatures. (Be careful to place the two glasses so that they are equal
> distances from the heat source. If you use a microwave, place them on a
> rotating turntable.) I just did this with my own household water (which
> incidentally, is back country well water that is far too hard to be
> drinkable), and I found that the temperatures were identical to within the
> half degree or so accuracy of the instrument. I suggest that you try this
> experiment where you live, and that others who read this also try it.
> (Perhaps someone will read this who lives in Rome, Georgia, where Griggs
> did his experiment, and we can lay this idea completely to rest!)
> Anyway: another good try, Horace, but no cigar! 
> --Mitchell Jones"
>              -----------------------------------
>          
>    No.  this test is insufficient to disprove Horace's suggestion
> because of the dielectric properties of the media in question.
> The rotating turntable is a good start but more is required.
> 
> To wit: The absorption of the electromagnetic radiation varies for the two
> substances - distilled water and "hard" water.
> 
> You might try to write out the differential equation involving the 
> loss tangent and the specific heat.  
> 
>   Here is some represenatative data (MIT, RLPC) all at 25C
> 
> =====================================================================
> Real part of the complex permittivity (i.e. dielectric "constant") and the
> loss tangent of "pure" water and 0.5 molar water.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> freq.       10^6           10^7         3 x10^8      3 x 10^9      10^10
> ====================================================================
> 
> conductivity water
> relative permittivity (real part = dielectric constant)
>              78.2           78.2           77.5         76.7          55
> 
> loss tangent  400            46             160          1570         5400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0.5 molal aqueous NaCl
> 
> relative permittivity (real part = dielectric constant)
>                                               69           67          51
> 
> loss tangent                                39000        6250        6300
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>   Given this data involving the different absorbtivities of incident
> microwave radiation, such "proof" involving presumed equal heating for equal
> irradiation times simply does not appear adequate to disprove the comments
> regarding specific heats as discussed by Horace.
> 
>    It actually must be demonstrated that equal amounts
> of energy are transfered to each solution in order to disprove it by the cited
> experiment.
> 
>   Best wishes.
>     Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

Mitch, I was perfectly aware that this objection could be raised when I
made my post, and yet I made it anyway. To see why, let's forget that we
are talking about drinking water and suppose that we are talking about
some gaggable, saturated brew of hugely soluble chemicals which, say, has
a specific heat of .85, and that we are comparing it to distilled water.
In accordance with my experimental plan, we put equal amounts in two
identical glasses and wait until both are at room temperature--70 F., say.
Next, we place them in a microwave on a rotating turntable, and give them
a long enough zap to bring the distilled water to, let us say, 150 degrees
F. Checking the temperature of the "brew," we discover that it is 164.12
degrees--i.e., exactly what we would expect based on the specific heat of
.85. Does that tell us anything? Yes: it tells us that the "brew" absorbed
exactly the same amount of energy from the microwave radiation as did the
distilled water. 

Now let's take our gedanken experiment a step further. Suppose that we
didn't know the specific heat of the "brew," but we strongly suspected
that it was .85, and we ran the same experiment and got the same results.
Would that tell us anything? The answer is yes: it confirms our
hypothesis. When we do the calculation based on the presumed specific heat
value of .85, we get the endpoint temperature that we actually measured.
You, of course, will object that the two liquids may not have absorbed the
same amounts of heat from the microwaves, and will argue that we cannot
justifiably conclude that the specific heat is .85. However, your
objection posits a miracle: not merely does it assume that the specific
heat is not .85, it also posits that the microwave absorption coefficient
of water is the reciprocal of the specific heat. While this possible, it
is also extremely unlikely, and that unlikelihood gives strong probative
value to the results of my experiment. 

I would add that no experiment is "perfect" in the sense of proving a
conclusion absolutely and for all time, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Objections such as the one raised by you are always possible, because
there is no way to control for everything. I, however, am satisfied that
this experiment has strong probative value because of the extremely low
likelihood that the microwave absorption coefficient of water is always
the reciprocal of its specific heat, as you imply. 

--Mitchell Jones

P.S. I repeated the experiment in my electric oven, and got the same
result. Are you now going to postulate that the infrared absorption
coefficient of water is *also* the reciprocal of the specific heat?

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep 30 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
