1995.10.11 / Bryan Wallace / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories, ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese rch,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 11 Oct 1995 08:08:26 -0400 Organization: CyberGate Jim Bowery in his 07 Oct 1995 post in the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion under the topic thread "One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok)" wrote: Yes. The government's involvement in fusion might have been salvaged with my proposed legislation, but as things stand, only a miracle will save the program. I even had 5-years of no-obligation pay going to all those who currently work on fusion, to help them in the transition. They opposed this legislation then and are now paying the price. However, their price is nothing compared with the price civilization paid for their hubris. Robert F. Heeter is a graduate student in plasma physics at Princeton University. He posted the following 15 Sep 1995 letter to the Young Scientists Network mailing list titled "More thoughts on what "PhD" really stands for ...": Reading the humorous reinterpretations of "PhD" (and the other degree acronyms) has been entertaining. Actually, I was inspired to set up a tiny little Web page (http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter/PhD.html) to collect these little gems, and I've added some of my own invention (which are a mixed lot, I'm afraid, although I really like a couple of them). Right now I have 15 different sayings for "PhD". I imagine there are some lurkers out there who have been sitting on some "classic" lines, but didn't want to burden the whole mailing list with them. Please send them to me and I'll add them to the list! If there's enough response I'll add lists for other degree types, do a "top ten" list, get YSN onto Letterman, send copies to retrograde Myth advocates who still haven't Got It yet, etc... :) I suspect that most fusion physicists have "Got It" and are fully aware that fusion research is a farce. The degree acronyms posted to the YSN that Heeter referred to are: AS is Alotta Shit; BS is Bull Shit; MS is More Shit; PhD is Piled hip Deep, Permanent head Damage, and Piled higher and Deeper. I've posted a number of letters on the fusion energy question under the topic thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion and they along with a substantial discussion of my posts by others can be found at the Deja News archives at the web site http://www.dejanews.com/. In my 29 August 1995 post I started with the following comment published on page 12 of the July issue of APS NEWS by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who is Chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Science Committee: Over the past 40 years, U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $9 billion on fusion energy, yet none of the research has achieved "break-even," the point at which the fusion reaction generates the same amount of energy as is put in. To provide commercial power, a fusion reactor has to generate more energy than is put in, and no scientist has been able to tell me that we will reach that goal in less than 40 more years. I next discussed the issues raised in Richard Rhodes new book titled DARK SUN/ THE MAKING OF THE HYDROGEN BOMB. On page 306 of his book he spoke of Teller proposing to use lithium6 deuteride as a fuel alternative to liquid deuterium. The lithium would pick up neutrons releasing fission energy and tritium, then the tritium would react with the deuterium releasing fusion energy and more neutrons, which would repeat the cycle. On page 541 Rhodes wrote about the Shrimp hydrogen bomb that used lithium enriched to 40 percent lithium6 that was expected to yield five megatons, and actually yielded fifteen megatons. They did not know that the other 60 percent of lithium7 had a one neutron in and two neutron out cross section that amplified the yield making it the largest bomb the US has ever tested. I next discussed a 1979 newspaper article reporting that documents obtained from the DOE reveal that a local plant manufactures "neutron generators" that "ignite" a "nuclear explosion like a spark plug sets off gasoline." In doing a literature search for our Eckerd College Ionics Research Project, I came across a series of articles published from 1949 to 1966 in the journal REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS. The articles gave detailed instructions on how to make relatively simple gas discharge tube D + D and D + T neutron generators and how to measure the neutrons produced by them. My log entry dated 8/15/74 shows we could get 10g of lithium deuteride from Merck & Co. for $73 and a 50 liter lecture bottle of 99.5% pure deuterium for $58 from Matheson Gas Products. The Ionics Lab already had all the vacuum and electronic equipment we would have needed for such a fusion reactor research project. Given the information in Rhodes book, I suspect that if we had gone ahead with the fusion project we may well have been able to create a simple low cost fusion power reactor. Dave Wark of Oxford University in a 31 August post wrote: I was waiting for someone else to point this out, but no has, so I guess I will. Such devices are in fact quite common and are commercially available. They consist of a tube with an electrostatic accelerator and a target with deuterium or tritium. They are used to produce neutrons for well logging. They do not by any stretch of the imagination produce net energy gain, however. In my 31 August reply to Wark I wrote: I have a copy of one of the articles in my files. The D + T device yields 6 X 10^9 neutrons per pulse with a pulse length of 10 microseconds and peak voltage of 180 kev. Each D + T reaction generates 17.59 Mev with 14 Mev going to the neutron, a nice multiplication factor. The threshold for the reaction is about 20 kev. The normal safety procedure is to stay at least 3 feet away from the generator when it fires. As I point out in my post, the device is used to trigger the hydrogen bomb and the fuel for the bomb is lithium deuteride. The new information that came from Rhode's book is that lithium7 acts as a neutron multiplier which leads to a chain reaction and lithium6. If they had used the natural isotope ratio of 92.48 % for lithium7 the Bravo explosion would have been even larger. The second important point is that you don't need a thermonuclear temperature to burn lithium deuteride, all you need is a neutron to fission lithium6 and it yields 4.78 Mev and T. This is more then enough energy to ignite the D + T reaction that gives a 14 Mev neutron to continue the process. The melting point for lithium deuteride is 680 degrees C and helium could be used as the heat exchange medium. The flux from the neutron generator and design parameters and perhaps a secondary safety system could be used to keep the fusion reactor under control. In my 03 September reply to the 01 September post of Arthur Carlson of the Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics I wrote: With regard to your arguments "that you need a meter or so of fuel to stop the neutron" and "Your second problem is that your T will usually slow to a stop before reacting" there is a color picture of a disassembled atomic bomb capable of destroying a city on page 12 of the November 3, 1985 issue of the newspaper supplement PARADE MAGAZINE. The title of the article by Andrew Cockburn is "CAN WE STOP A BOMB SMUGGLER?" and it mentions that our special forces are trained in the use of the 58.5 pound nuclear backpack that is almost completely undetectable by even the most sophisticated monitoring equipment. The picture shows a thin walled metal cylinder about a foot long and a foot in diameter. Inside this cylinder is a gray cylinder of lithium deuteride with about a 2 to 3 inch wall thickness, and to the right of this is a cylindrical assembly with an outer wall of black metallic material that may be a U238 neutron multiplier. Inside this assembly is a tube that is obviously the neutron generator. To the right of the assembly is a bunch of electronic components that look like that go inside the assembly and work with the generator. If you read the part of my post that you cut you out will see that I mentioned the use of lithium7 in the deuteride as a neutron multiplier. I only replied to the posts directed toward me with questions. The following is a sample of some of the other posts. Zoltan Szakaly in a 03 September post wrote: A truly intriguing line of thought. It seems to me from the above that I could build a nuclear reactor using a pile of Lithium Deuteride, not quite big enough to go berserk (i.e. supercritical) but just big enough to generate a little heat. I would surround this pile with a neutron absorbing medium and a heat exchanger. In the center of the pile I would have the electric neutron generator described above. When I turn my generator on the emitted neutrons would cause the reactions resulting in neutron amplification. The fast neutrons would be absorbed by the absorbent medium and the heat exchanger would take the heat away where it eventually drives a turbine. Why is this scheme not feasible? Why is it not done? I know it works because the little "shrimp" produced 15 megatons of energy. ... Marshall Dudley in a 04 September post wrote: ... On the surface however, it appears that one could create a reactor with moderators and control rods just like a normal fission reactor. Interesting I have never seen anything on this prior to now. Charles Cagle of Singularity Technology, Inc. wrote the following in his 12 September reply to Barry Merriman of the UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center: ... I consider any national expenditures made past 1958 after closure of Project Sherwood to accomplish fusion to have been pretty much an ongoing con game. Not all players are cons by intent but they are all Welfare Queens In White Coats in spite of their intentions or character. ... My 21 September post was based on the information in T. A. Heppenheimer's book THE MAN-MADE SUN that gave an unprecedented behind-the-scenes look at how fusion research projects are conducted. President Carter's energy czar James Schlesinger's view of fusion research was similar to Cagle's. On page 199 of the book Schlesinger was quoted as calling it a "scientific sandbox" into which hundreds of million of dollars had been poured so that scientists could amuse themselves. The ongoing tactic of the fusion people is to declare every new result a "major breakthrough" in order to maintain or increase their funding. When they talk of the ratio of fusion power produced to power fed into the plasma they ignore the vast amount of power they pour into the magnetic fields of their Rube Goldberg devices. Starting on page 316 we find that when the prominent fusion physicists were confronted with Robert Hirsch's D + T electric fusion device that was already producing up to 10^10 neutrons per second using a small amount of input power, they refused to consider research in this direction, even after he rose to lead the entire fusion program. On page 19 of the April 1979 issue of PHYSICS TODAY, there is an article titled "High-flux neutron source for fusion studies." In the body of the article we find the following information: With the opening of a new Department of Energy facility at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in January, fusion-reactor researchers now have access to 14-Mev neutron sources six times as intense as previously available. The Rotating Target Neutron Source-II, replacing the RTNS-I, which has been used at Livermore for neutron damage studies since 1972, provides experimenters with two independent 10-mm wide, 14-MeV neutron sources, each providing a maximum flux of 10^13 neutrons/sec cm^2. ... The 14-Mev neutrons are released in the standard fusion reaction in which a deuteron and a triton combine to form a helium nucleus. At RTNS- II, a 150-milliamp beam of 400-keV deuterons impinges upon the titanium- tritide coating of a spinning copper target. ... I suspect that the RTNS-II source is a modern version of Hirsch's original device, and that a full scale research project would eventually produce even more neutron output. Page 311 of Heppenheimer's book reports that the actual amount of heat contained within the thin plasma of the modern tokamaks would be quite insufficient to boil water for your morning coffee. To actually produce a usable amount of energy it will be necessary to reach and control plasma at temperatures of up to a billion degrees, and I seriously doubt that this will ever be possible. On the other hand, the modern hydrogen bomb technology show that it should be possible to create enormous amounts of low cost environmentally safe energy from a solid fuel lithium deuteride fusion fission reactor ignited and controlled by an electric fusion device. I expect that it should be possible to create the first such reactor in a very short period of time. The main barriers are political and psychological, and not technological or scientific. I started "The Farce of Physics" topic thread in the sci.physics Internet Usenet newsgroup in November 1994 to discuss the topics, information, and arguments in my free electronic book by the same name, as well as related problems in modern physics. The stats from the EU Net ftp site show a peak of 2013 book copies sent in that month. The book is my contribution to the current scientific revolution and contains 156 references to the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many prominent people including Albert Einstein. There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so if you can't get the book by modem or the Internet, you should be able to find someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout of the book. A paperback non-profit version of the book for about $5.95 plus postage and handling should soon be available from the publisher and I will post information on it when I have it. The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via: URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html The original 311KB ASCII version of the book can be obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the uncompressed text. If you use a graphics interface to ftp the book, like that used by America Online, you may get a file called farce.txt that is still in a compressed form. You can ftp a software package for the PC called gzip124.zip from ftp.aol.com in the directory /pub/compress/ibmpc that will uncompress the book after you rename it farce.gz. Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will also uncompress the .gz format. You can also ftp the current corrected version of the book in an uncompressed form from ftp.gate.net in the directory /pub/users/wallaceb or ftp.intnet.net in the directory /pub/BOOKS/Wallace. The file farce.wp5 is the WordPerfect 5.1 version of the same book, and it contains all the extras like italics and superscripts, etc. The file d.wp5 is a WordPerfect reprint of my 1969 Venus radar paper, and the j.wp5, m.wp5, and p.wp5 files are reprints of my principle dynamic ether published papers, some that include imbedded graphics. The p1.gif file is a picture starting from left to right, of Vladimir Ilich Sekerin, myself, and V. N. Bezwerchy after my lecture at the House of Scientists before the First Russian Conference started. The p2.gif file is a picture of me delivering my paper at the First Conference with Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri doing the translating. The p3.gif file is a picture taken at the closing ceremony of the Second Russian Conference. With regard to the people mentioned in the book: row 1 number 1 me, n.2 Lee Coe, n.3 Pavel F. Parshin; r.2 n.1 Leonid Maiboroda; r.3 n.5 Petr Beckman; r.4 n.11 Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri; r.5 n.5 Vladimir Sekerin, n.8 Alexandra Schpitalnaya; r.6 n.4 V. O. Beklyamishev; r.7 n.4 Konstantin Manuilov. The file readme.txt contains much the same information as this post. If you have email but not ftp I can send a copy of the book by email and if there is a size limit on your system, I can send it in segments with the largest being 55KB for Chapter 3. If you don't have access to the Internet but have a computer with a modem, you can download the book from the Bulletin Board "SIRIUS CONNECTION" in Ontario Canada. The V.32 bis to 14.4K baud data phone lines are 705-737-0728 and 705-737-3030 and you log in as a new user using ANSI or RIP graphics, then log to the BROWSE file library and download the file FARCE.TXT. Chapter 6 of my book is titled "Relativity Revolution" and is devoted in large measure to my participation in the March 1989 First International Conference "Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science", and the Second Conference in September 1991 in St. Petersburg Russia. Neil Munch was a participant in the Third Conference held May 1994 and is the Western contact for information and application forms for the Forth Conference to be held in the Fall of 1996. You can reach Neil at his email address: 70047.2123@compuserve.com Bryan G. Wallace 7210 12th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33710 USA Phone/Fax 813-347-9309 Email wallaceb@gate.net cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Dieter Britz / Patents biblio update Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Patents biblio update Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:00:27 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Patents: Current count = 195 ^^^^^^^ # Koyama N, Hirasawa H, Kunimatsu K (Tekunoba Kk); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 07,146,387, 25-Nov-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 123:125393 (1995). "Generation of excess heat by ac electrolysis of heavy water". ** "In a method using a H isotope-occluding metal as the cathode and occluding the D generated from the electrolysis of heavy water at the cathode to generate excess heat, a sine-wave a.c. having a fixed amplitude is superimposed on the d.c. applied during electrolysis so that the D occlusion ratio (D/Pd) is continuously varied. Excess heat can be generated in a stable manner over a long time". (Direct quote from CA). #...................................................................... Sep-95 Marshall J (Eneco Inc.); PCT Int. Appl. WO 95 12,883, 01-Nov-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 123:154810 (1995). "Glow discharge apparatus and methods providing prerequisites and testing for nuclear reactions". ** "A method and app. are given for experimenting and testing cold fusion or other solid state nuclear reaction processes by means of achieving high pressures of solubilized light fusion elements in solid metal lattices from the gas phase. The app. uses an anode and cathode positioned in a chamber receptive of the fusion element gases to produce controlled conditions compatible with postulated cold fusion for lab. and reactor purposes. Two electrode embodiments are disclosed for use in a glow discharge mode of operation. The electrodes are thoroughly scrubbed of impurities by heating and sputtering prior to experimenting on cold fusion processes. The results of cold fusion experimentation are then monitored and controlled". (Direct quote from CA). #...................................................................... Oct-95 Oota A (Ota Akira); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 07,113,885, 17-Oct-93. Cited in Chem. Abstracts 123:125391 (1995). "Cold nuclear fusion". ** "Cold fusion comprises the steps (1) nonuniform occlusion of heavy hydrogen in a material made of different elements and (2) collision of neutrons with the material at ordinary temp. The different elements are made of <= 1 mu particles. A.C. is applied to the material. A temp. difference is established at 2 ends of the material. Cold fusion can be generated with the prodn. of a large amt. of heat". (Direct quote from CA). #...................................................................... Sep-95 These are now archived in the file cnf-pat How to retrieve the archived biblio files: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try dir fusion.cnf-* and then get or mget what you want. 2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message get fusion.. To find out what there is, send index fusion This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you. --- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / john-paul may / Re: Fusion Digest 4458 Originally-From: jpm@tweb.com (john-paul may) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 4458 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:29:39 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway >I'd like to see a moderated group as a solution, but I don't >think the support is there, and I don't know anyone who is >willing to handle the flack. > >Does the Bill Page list still exist, and would it be an >appropriate substitute for a moderated list? Does anyone know, is there simply a hot-fusion mailing list to compliment this mailing list, which is good but mainly about cold fusion and other novel ideas? Thankx. * www.tweb.com * cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjpm cudfnjohn-paul cudlnmay cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Richard Blue / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:45:23 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway It becomes clear that Mitchell Jones has a unique interpretation of the connection between physics and mathematics as indicated by his statement that, "My approach to physics has all the numerical values claimed by any other school of physics." I see little connection between "physics" that can match any number that you care to pick from a continuum of numbers and a theory that fits a large data set even though it has no adjustable parameters - nothing that is not determined by measurements on unrelated systems. MItchell starts by saying, "The mathematical constructs falsely claimed by "quantum mechanics" are, in fact, philosophically neutral. They can be interpreted classically or "quantum mechanically." He continues, " . . . the purely evil, anti-rational philosophy underlying "quantum mechanics." How is it that the mathematics employed by quantum mechanics can be "philosophically neutral" yet quantum mechanics itself can be "purely evil"? Can't we just make use of the mathematics to do the physics in a manner that works without getting totally bent out of shape over some "underlying philosophy" that Mitchell says is evil? So it would seem that Mitchell claims that his objection to modern physics does not involve the mathematics it employs, but he attacks vigorously a target he labels the philosophy underlying quantum mechanics. It is then very revealing to see that his attack is directed not at the presently accepted quantum theory of atoms but rather at the Bohr model of the atom. Mitchell, there is little point in kicking the Bohr model around. That is not what most of us mean when we refer to "Quantum Mechanics". Where have you been for the last 50 years? It would appear that your sense of "evil" derives from a misunderstanding as to what constitutes "quantum mechanics." Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.10 / Bill Rowe / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 21:11:44 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-0910951927520001@199.172.8.155>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill >Rowe) wrote: > >> >> OK, the "etherons" didn't have time to fill the channel on the first >> electron orbit. Surely, at some point they do rebound. When they do, isn't >> there going to be some resistance felt by the electron with consequent >> radiation. Unless there is reason to beleive the "etherons" never fill in >> the created channel, all you have shown is the rate of radiation has been >> reduced not eliminated. > >***{There is, in fact, a reason to believe that they don't fill in the >created channel: etherons are mutually repellent particles that are also >repelled by matter. This means that we are dealing with an electronic >cloud, not a gas. Rather than consisting of particles bouncing off of one >another at high average velocities in accordance with the kinetic theory >of gases, we instead have particles that tend to take up equilibrium >positions and hold those positions. This means that if they are to move >back into the channel, they will accelerate toward it from relatively low >starting velocities, and, long before they get there, the electron will >pass by again--over, and over, and over again, in fact. (Remember: >electrons typically circle their nuclei *quadrillions* of times each >second!) In effect, an electron is present at every position in its orbit >at the same time! Its field is, of course, attenuated at any one point due >to its being spread out over the entire orbit. However, that only allows >the etherons to crowd in closely around the orbit before they find >equilibrium positions. It in no way undercuts the validity of the >explanation. I see several objections to your comments above. If the electron is to be treated classically it can't be at every position along its orbit no matter how fast its orbital speed. I understand the idea of mutually repellent particles not being equivalent to a classical gas. However, you stated the "etherons" interact with other particles as well as each other. I would assume this interaction implies a momentum exchange. It seems to me this will sound result in a brownian motion of the "etherons" despite their repellent nature unless there is some restoritive force such as is the case for atoms in a crystal latice. Yes, a cavitation channel dramatically reduces resitance to motion as you suggest but it doesn't eliminate it. >In addition, I would note that it is not necessary for resistance to be >"eliminated" when the cavitation channel forms. If it is reduced >sufficiently to permit electrons to remain in their orbits for, say, a few >thousands or millions of years, then that's good enough. Why? Because we >live in a chaotic world. There are lots of things that knock electrons out >of their orbits (e.g., ionizing radiation), and atoms encounter such >things with fair frequency. I would doubt, in fact, that there is a single >electron on this planet that is orbiting the same nucleus today that it >was orbiting, say, a billion years ago. The point of eliminating the channel resistance is to explain why we don't see hydrogen spontaneously decay. If the interaction with the assumed "etheron" is so low as to make it extremely unlikely decay of the hydrogen atom could be observed, it seems to me the interaction is too low to be of any consequence. If this is the case why do we need "etherons"? Your point of ionization being relatively common doesn't address why spontaneous decay of hydrogen isn't observed. Clearly, it would be impossible for either of us to state whether a single electron is orbiting the same nucleus today as it did a billion years ago. I suggest this is an extraneous issue and has little to do with the existence of "etherons" or their interactions with electrons. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:24:14 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research In article <21cenlogic-1010951116190001@austin-2-1.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >In article <45b9di$8sn@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, Ben Commis > wrote: > >> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >> >You got me, boss! First, we need experimental verification that the theory >is true--by no means a sure thing. In fact, I'll go so far as to say its a virtual sure thing its not even remotely true. So maybe you would have better luck finding a capitalist to help you verify that---they like sure things :-) >To foot the bills, you need to find me >a venture capitalist who has a strong enough background in science so that >he can judge these sorts of issues for himself--i.e., without feeling the >need to turn the decision over to an "expert." (The "experts," naturally, >are always mainstream "physicists" who "know" that the facts don't mean >what they seem to mean!) Once these obstacles are behind us, we can get >down to the nitty gritty. > How about keeping things simple and explaining the discrete spectrum of Hydrogen. Your first attempt didn;t fly at all. Although we should probably establsih some ground rules---do you believe in classical E&M? Is there any part at all of established physics you do believe in? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / John Logajan / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: 11 Oct 1995 04:03:57 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : was a complete success. It produced steady excess heat from a Clean Energy : Technology Inc. (CETI) light water cold fusion cell. With only 60 milliwatts : input, output ranged from 4 to 5 watts, 80 times input. In a flow calorimeter, : the Delta T temperature rise was 4 to 5 degrees C, because the flow rate was : set at 14.28 ml/min (60 joules = 14.28 calories). Input was 3 volts at 0.02 : amps. Calibrations confirmed that this input alone will raise the Delta T : water temperature by less than 0.06 degrees because this is an open cell and : half of the input energy is carried off in free hydrogen and oxygen. : : The demonstration was performed by Prof. George Miley's group from the : University of Illinois. Good numbers. Just for completeness, any idea of the fluid's pressure drop across the calorimeter? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:02:46 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research In article <21cenlogic-0910951837500001@199.172.8.155> 21cenlogic@i-link net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >In article <44vfhl$bn1@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry >Merriman) wrote: > >> The proof is in the pudding. When MJ makes >> some new experimentally verified predictions using his physics, >> or provides a simple explanantion of some known phenomena >> (such as discrete spectral lines for Hydrogen, double slit, etc) > >***{Been there, done that. --MJ}*** > Well, refresh my memory. Give me an explanation of the discrete spectrum of Hydrogen within your world view, and I will pay a lot of attention to what you have to say about other physics. >> >> Maybe if we just ignore him, he'll end up in a closed debating >> loop with Archimedes Plutonium. > >***{Aha, the old Barry returns, with both feet in his mouth! He forgets >that he is the one who is in the habit of debating with Archimedes >Plutonium, not I! In fact, the only thing I have said to Arch was a couple >of posts attempting to dissuade him from suing Barry for slander! (Not >that there's anything wrong with talking to Arch, mind you.) --Mitchell >Jones}*** >> I appreciate your attempt to dissuade AP...though of course it would never do any good. As for debating AP, I have actually never had any more interaction with him (I have posted things _about_ him, but not too him) than telling him to quick cross-posting his garbage. Oh, I did offer to pay $200 for him to get a mental health exam, but he decided not to take me up on it. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:17:11 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research In article <21cenlogic-0910951927520001@199.172.8.155> 21cenlogic@i-link net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >> >Given the above visual model, sketched out in general terms, it is a >> >simple matter to explain the observed stability of electrons in the Bohr >> >orbits and, thus, how atoms can be stable in classical mechanical terms. >> >answer: on its first circuit around the orbit, it is going to knock away >> >(or repel, if you prefer) the various etherons that are in its path. >> >(Remember: electrons are enormously more massive than etherons.) But then, >> >when it has completed one circuit around the nucleus, an interesting >> >possibility arises: since one ten-quadrillionth of a second isn't very >> >long, it may be that the etherons which the electron knocked out of its >> >way on its first pass around the orbit have not had time to rebound back >> >into their original positions. In that case, on its second pass, the >> >electron will be passing through a cavitation channel--an orbit which has >> >been swept clear of obstructions--and it will encounter vastly lessened >> >resistance. Result: we have the possibility of an electron orbiting >> >without resistance and, hence, without losing energy. In that case, it >> >will not radiate. Oh, MJ---you slay me! :-) Surely you are aware that in classical electrodynamics a charge _radiates EM energy when it is accelerated_. In your picture, even if the orbiting electron has a ``clear channel'', you are a long way from explaining why it does not radiate, because it is still undergoing a huge acceleration due to its circular motion. This is a process that occurs in vacuum for charges, and has nothing to do with whatever other particles may be around. In order for your ``etheron'' model to explain this, it would have to absorb this radiation and then retransmit the energy back to the electron. OR, maybe you think classical electrodynamic's a la' Maxwell is crap as well as QM? On top of that, i.e. on top of the fact that you have not even explained why electrons don't radiate, you give no indication at all why only discrete orbital radia are _possible_. Just as a general remark, you are guaranteed to be skating on very thin ice with models in which classical particles interact to give observed quantum physics, relativity, etc. Those models were tried in the past and never worked (not to mention they seem to violate the no hidden variables thereom for QM). Why do you think relativity, QM, etc were invented in the first place? If your theory even remotely explains things, it would be a miracle that it was not discovered before. But, as wielded by you above, it is clear it does not even provide a qualitative explanation, much less a quanititative one. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:32:12 GMT Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research In article <45ffnd$sre@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes: >jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >: was a complete success. It produced steady excess heat from a Clean Energy >: Technology Inc. (CETI) light water cold fusion cell. With only 60 milliwatts >: input, output ranged from 4 to 5 watts, 80 times input. In a flow calorimeter, >: the Delta T temperature rise was 4 to 5 degrees C, because the flow rate was >: set at 14.28 ml/min (60 joules = 14.28 calories). Input was 3 volts at 0.02 >: amps. Calibrations confirmed that this input alone will raise the Delta T >: water temperature by less than 0.06 degrees because this is an open cell and >: half of the input energy is carried off in free hydrogen and oxygen. >: >: The demonstration was performed by Prof. George Miley's group from the >: University of Illinois. > Interesting, but apparently not as exciting as you thought. Of the four people from our group who were at the meeting, none mentioned the demo in their reports during our weekly meeting this week (including one who got his Phd from Miley's dept. at UofI many years back). I'll have to interrogate them thoroughly about this....:-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Bill Page / moderated list (was: SHM & snr) Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: moderated list (was: SHM & snr) Date: 11 Oct 1995 13:53:48 GMT Organization: Daneliuk & Page In article <199510102319.AA21945@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, rcs@cs.arizona edu (Richard Schroeppel) says: > >Scott Miller mentioned he was thinking of desubscribing from >fusion-digest, with some expected degradation of the remailing >service. > >I've also been thinking about desubscribing - there are a few >good tidbits, but they are hard to locate. > >I'd like to see a moderated group as a solution, but I don't >think the support is there, and I don't know anyone who is >willing to handle the flack. > >Does the Bill Page list still exist, and would it be an >appropriate substitute for a moderated list? > Yes it still exists, although none of the current participants have submitted any new articles for the last three or four months. The original topic was the ICCF5 conference, but there has also been discussion on wider "CF" issues. I was hoping the ICCF5 proceedings would be published soon and that that might stimulate further discussion. But, YES, anyone with a serious interest in discussing "CF" via an email distribution list rather than via the newsgroup, is welcome to send contributions by email to wspage@ncs.dnd.ca The archives of the ICCF5 discussion group are still available at http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/iccf5.html There are also some pre-print articles on Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics at: http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/Bohm including a paper I prepared for the recent Maple CoMaTh conference. >If not, what's the sentiment re an ordinary mailing list, >sent out as one digest on weekdays? I'd filter pretty >severely - I imagine only a couple of messages/day would >survive. Anyone willing to help? > You might also like to note that there is a currently rather active email distribution list devoted to "O/U" cavitation devices. For subscription contact Bill Beaty as described below: |Here is the current set of rules for Vortex-L. Comments? Suggestions |for additions/changes? | |.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. |William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 |EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ |Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page | | | | |************************************************************************** | WELCOME TO VORTEX-L |************************************************************************** | |The Vortex-L list was created for discussions of research into fluid |vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ex: the |inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Any |interested parties are welcome to subscribe. For more info and an archive |of past messages, please refer to the Cold Fusion section of Bill Beaty's |ANOMALOUS PHYSICS web page at: | | http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird.html | |Also, for even more info and photos of the devices, I highly recommend |John Logajan's CF page at: | | http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan | | |Rules: | |1. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and | namecalling between believers and skeptics are frowned upon. Let's just | say that vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully | having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and let the skeptics | leave in disgust. The tone should be one of legitimate disagreement | and respectful debate. | |2. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now. Some | members are on limited service, or have to pay for received email. | Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John Logajan and posted | on our webpages for viewing. | |3. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated. While not illegal | yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the | Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams vortex-L with junkmail | will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) | Occasional on-topic advertizing by regular vortex-L users is acceptable. | | - Bill B. Cheers, Bill Page. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 14:13:58 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: > I have been a lurker in s.p.f for three years. I've never posted to s.p.f. as I am only a Mechanical Engineer with a lowly >BSME, but I feel that I must post a congratulation to you for the best response to the snide, self serving, psuedo sceptical, >sarcastic, thoughtless drivel that Mr. Conover continues to post. A proper response, not returning vitriol for vitriol. Thank you. I agree with your opinion of Mr. Conover and his posts, and I agree that his tone was snide, but in this particular isolated case I must say that his question was reasonable. I do not know who will publish the SOFE proceedings and I would like to find out. I will ask Miley et al. Mind you, I do not think that Conover intended to ask a reasonable question; he was merely baiting me and trying to gloat over the fact that CF has not been published in the mainstream English scientific journals much. I do not think that means CF is bad science, I think it means the mainstream journal editors have missed the boat. They are human, after all. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 14:14:28 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Craig Stangland writes: "This is exciting news. What do you foresee in the short and long term for commercially available products?" I agree. I think it is the most exciting development in CF since Pons and Fleischmann's announcement in 1989. I hope that this *finally* allows a clear path to near-term commercial development. I have been disappointed by delays and last minute glitches before, so I hesitate to predict when it will happen, but this cathode technology does have many critical advantages. It is robust; it works well at high temperatures and high pressures; it has been scaled up; it has a very high input to output ratio; it is patented, and it has been independently replicated from the patents. From the business point of view, a patent is essential. I do not see how commercial development could begin without a patent. This is a gigantic subject. I do not have time to do it justice here. I am frightfully busy and I do not have time to write anything else! - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 14:14:54 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: "Good numbers. Just for completeness, any idea of the fluid's pressure drop across the calorimeter?" I do not have much information yet. Everyone involved in the project rushed off to other meetings and conferences on Monday, just after I talked to them. Dennis Cravens said the calorimeter was similar to the one that he built and brought to ICCF5. That one had only a negligible pressure drop. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 14:15:38 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Barry Merriman writes: "Interesting, but apparently not as exciting as you thought. Of the four people from our group who were at the meeting, none mentioned the demo in their reports during our weekly meeting this week." What you find interesting or exciting depends upon your background, expectations and knowledge. If I had attended the SOFE '95 conference, I am sure I would not have reported anything about the hot fusion breakthroughs announced there. Since Barry's colleagues are in the hot fusion field, they are likely to miss significant breakthroughs in my field. I have seen many similar reactions. Back in 1980, when the first microcomputers came on the market, I got one. I talked about nothing else for weeks. I could not get enough of it; I was turning somersaults in the halls and telling my coworkers that this machine would revolutionize our jobs, our industry, our whole lifestyle. My colleagues, who were experienced, top notch computer hardware and software experts, disagreed. They said my microcomputer was a silly little toy. They pointed out that it did not even have a hard disk, and it had only 4 K of RAM, which made it utterly impractical for the kinds of heavy duty computation we were engaged in. I pointed out that it would only be a matter of time before hard disks and larger RAM chips arrived, but that argument did not cut any ice with them. If you read history, you will find countless similar examples of people who did not recognize the significance of an experiment or an emerging technology. People dismissed everything from the telephone to the electric light, the airplane, the computer, and the satellite. The only technological breakthrough that was not widely dismissed was the atomic bomb. It turned out, ironically enough, that the atom bomb was a dead-end military technology. It turned out to be a weapon that nobody can use, and that few countries even want nowadays. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Kennel / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: 11 Oct 1995 22:11:29 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > Craig Stangland writes: > > "This is exciting news. What do you foresee in the short and long term > for commercially available products?" > > I agree. I think it is the most exciting development in CF since Pons and > Fleischmann's announcement in 1989. I hope that this *finally* allows a clear > path to near-term commercial development. I have been disappointed by delays > and last minute glitches before, so I hesitate to predict when it will happen, > but this cathode technology does have many critical advantages. It is robust; > it works well at high temperatures and high pressures; it has been scaled up; > it has a very high input to output ratio; it is patented, and it has been > independently replicated from the patents. From the business point of view, a > patent is essential. I do not see how commercial development could begin > without a patent. > > This is a gigantic subject. I do not have time to do it justice here. I am > frightfully busy and I do not have time to write anything else! Sorry to bother you but do you have any knowledge how hot it can make things? The demonstration produced a 4-5 C degree raise in temperature; do you know of any reports of larger scale runs where it heated things say 100 to 200 degrees above ambient, with the same O(10-50) heat_out/power_in ration? cheers > > - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: 11 Oct 1995 22:23:18 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <45e44h$k41@asbe05.phx1.aro.allied.com> b12811@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com writes: > Jed, > >... I must post a congratulation to you for the best response to the snide, self serving, psuedo sceptical, > sarcastic, thoughtless drivel that Mr. Conover continues to post. A proper response, not returning vitriol for vitriol. > Jed doesn't need his own vitriol, he's got you for backup :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / N / Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!! Originally-From: "N. Terry" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: I have a fusion reactor in my garage!!!!!!! Date: 11 Oct 1995 22:30:54 GMT Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA Nice!!!! cudkeys: cuddy11 cudennbt cudlnN cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Kennel / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories, ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese rch,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 11 Oct 1995 22:25:06 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN Bryan G. Wallace (wallaceb@news.gate.net) wrote: > I have a copy of one of the articles in my files. The D + T device yields > 6 X 10^9 neutrons per pulse with a pulse length of 10 microseconds and peak > voltage of 180 kev. Each D + T reaction generates 17.59 Mev with 14 Mev > going to the neutron, a nice multiplication factor. The threshold for the > reaction is about 20 kev. The normal safety procedure is to stay at least > 3 feet away from the generator when it fires. As I point out in my post, > the device is used to trigger the hydrogen bomb and the fuel for the bomb > is lithium deuteride. The new information that came from Rhode's book is > that lithium7 acts as a neutron multiplier which leads to a chain reaction > and lithium6. If they had used the natural isotope ratio of 92.48 % for > lithium7 the Bravo explosion would have been even larger. The second > important point is that you don't need a thermonuclear temperature to burn > lithium deuteride, all you need is a neutron to fission lithium6 and it > yields 4.78 Mev and T. This is more then enough energy to ignite the D + T > reaction that gives a 14 Mev neutron to continue the process. The melting > point for lithium deuteride is 680 degrees C and helium could be used as > the heat exchange medium. The flux from the neutron generator and design > parameters and perhaps a secondary safety system could be used to keep the > fusion reactor under control. The problem is that the energy cost of the neutrons made by the generator is larger than the fusion yield. > In my 03 September reply to the 01 September post of Arthur Carlson of the Max > Planck Institute of Plasma Physics I wrote: > With regard to your arguments "that you need a meter or so of fuel to stop > the neutron" and "Your second problem is that your T will usually slow to a > stop before reacting" there is a color picture of a disassembled atomic > bomb capable of destroying a city on page 12 of the November 3, 1985 issue > of the newspaper supplement PARADE MAGAZINE. The title of the article by > Andrew Cockburn is "CAN WE STOP A BOMB SMUGGLER?" and it mentions that our > special forces are trained in the use of the 58.5 pound nuclear backpack > that is almost completely undetectable by even the most sophisticated > monitoring equipment. The picture shows a thin walled metal cylinder about > a foot long and a foot in diameter. Inside this cylinder is a gray > cylinder of lithium deuteride with about a 2 to 3 inch wall thickness, and > to the right of this is a cylindrical assembly with an outer wall of black > metallic material that may be a U238 neutron multiplier. Inside this > assembly is a tube that is obviously the neutron generator. To the right > of the assembly is a bunch of electronic components that look like that go > inside the assembly and work with the generator. If you read the part of > my post that you cut you out will see that I mentioned the use of lithium7 > in the deuteride as a neutron multiplier. This probably is a neutron tube used to precisely initiate the fission reaction. It sounds like you've switched the fusion secondary with the fission primary. The gray cylinder is likely aluminum cladding used as an outer layer of the fission primary. The black metallic material on the cylinderical assembly is probably the x-ray ablator that surrounds the fusion fuel, the tube inside is either the fusion fuel itself or the secondary fission sparkplug. > It seems to me from the above that I could build a nuclear reactor using a > pile of Lithium Deuteride, not quite big enough to go berserk (i.e. > supercritical) but just big enough to generate a little heat. I would > surround this pile with a neutron absorbing medium and a heat exchanger. > In the center of the pile I would have the electric neutron generator > described above. When I turn my generator on the emitted neutrons would > cause the reactions resulting in neutron amplification. The fast neutrons > would be absorbed by the absorbent medium and the heat exchanger would take > the heat away where it eventually drives a turbine. > Why is this scheme not feasible? Why is it not done? I know it works > because the little "shrimp" produced 15 megatons of energy. ... Which was compressed to thermonuclear burn conditions that's why. > Marshall Dudley in a 04 September post wrote: > ... On the surface however, it appears that one could create a reactor with > moderators and control rods just like a normal fission reactor. > Interesting I have never seen anything on this prior to now. > Starting on page 316 we find > that when the prominent fusion physicists were confronted with Robert Hirsch's > D + T electric fusion device that was already producing up to 10^10 neutrons > per second using a small amount of input power, they refused to consider > research in this direction, even after he rose to lead the entire fusion > program. There's probably a good reason: electromagnetic acceleration is going to make fast charged particles which will for the must part scatter away their energy, and only cause a few fusions. The energy input is larger, by a huge amount, than the fusion output. It's great as a source of neutrons if you don't care about their cost, but it's not obviously a road to a fusion reactor as an energy source. Cyclotrons have never hit "break-even". You have to think of some very clever ways to get around it. The reason people pursue tokamaks is that there is the theoretical possibility that they will be able to ignite when magnetically confined. As for H-bombs and laser fusion, the fuel is compressed to such density and pressure that the output from the fusion reaction can deposit enough heat immediately into other fuel so as to incrase the temperature so that there is a high probability for fusion due to random thermal motion. > Bryan G. Wallace > 7210 12th Ave. No. > St. Petersburg, FL 33710 > USA > Phone/Fax 813-347-9309 > Email wallaceb@gate.net cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:34:13 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE I talked to one of our group who was there. He was not overly impressed with the demo. More like: OK, but who knows if its really producing excess heat. For one trivial example, he was concerned about possible power input from the circulation pump. Basically, sure: the cell runs happily along. That really doesn't prove much, other than that its manufactures are confident in their product. Testing at an independent lab (ideally NIST, or some other national lab or respected calorimetry lab...minimally, give it to Scott Little to test!) is what would really bring attention. Also, the person I spoke with was under the impression that Miley had nothing to do with the construction or testing of the cell---that he merely allowed CETI to set up the demo at his meeting. Can you clarify what involvement Miley had with this demo? To reiterate, I think if CETI wants to make an impact, they need to bootstrap up their credibility. First, they need to recruit someone independent, versed in calorimetry, to test their device. Jed seems to be saying they have done this already. Based on that, they can lobby to get a test done at NIST or some other major test organization. Of course, they don't need to go this scientific route, but it would make their life much easier if they did, rather than trying to attract capital based on lesser verification. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Barry Merriman / Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?) Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?) Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:50:46 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE I recall that fusion powered rockets have been projected as being much more effective (higher specific impulse) than fission powered rockets (and of course both are much better than chemical rockets). I was curious as to the exact basis for the fusion >> fission result. Reason: if it were DT fusion, most of the energy comes out as neutrons, and so you seem no better off than fission in that regard (neutrons cannot be directed to creat thrust...they will need to have their energy converted to heat, and go through some standard thermal thrust production process). Further, the power density of a DT Tokamak fusion reactor is abotu 5 x _less_ than that of a fission reactor (power per unit mass of reactor), due to the large magnet system and large vacant space in the fusion system. Based on that, it would seem a DT tokamak is much less suited to powering a rocket than a standard fission plant? So: what type of fusion device was being invisioned to produce superior specific impulse? Was it some sort of linear mirror machine with aneutronic fuel that would directly release its exhaust to provide the thrust? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / Robert Heeter / Hot Fusion Mailing List? (was Re: Fusion Digest 4458) Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hot Fusion Mailing List? (was Re: Fusion Digest 4458) Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:59:28 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article john-paul may, jpm@tweb.com writes: >>I'd like to see a moderated group as a solution, but I don't >>think the support is there, and I don't know anyone who is >>willing to handle the flack. >> >>Does the Bill Page list still exist, and would it be an >>appropriate substitute for a moderated list? > >Does anyone know, is there simply a hot-fusion mailing list to compliment >this mailing list, which is good but mainly about cold fusion and other >novel ideas? Thankx. I don't think there is, but perhaps there should be. Would anyone out there subscribe? How should we organize it? I think this idea is worth exploring. ----------------------------------------------------- Bob Heeter Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 21:55:04 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Kennel writes: >Sorry to bother you but do you have any knowledge how hot it can make >things? The demonstration produced a 4-5 C degree raise in temperature; do >you know of any reports of larger scale runs where it heated things say 100 >to 200 degrees above ambient, with the same O(10-50) heat_out/power_in >ration? Patterson has run pressurized cells at much higher temperatures, up to a few hundred degrees I believe. One of them melted the plastic components and cracked the cell, so he had to find a source of heat resistant glasswear glue, and plastic. The cells run better at high temperatures. The high temperature runs that he described to me were a few years ago when the input to output ratio was still fairly low, down around 1:2 or 1:3. This demo run, and the run at ICCF5 were done with unpressurized cells, so they could not go over 100 deg C. Furthermore, they kept the Delta T low because that improves the accuracy of the calorimetry. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.11 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 22:04:58 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Barry Merriman writes: >excess heat. For one trivial example, he was concerned about >possible power input from the circulation pump. That is preposterous. First of all, it is physically impossible because they are measuring the Delta T temperature at the entrance and exit points of the cell itself. How would the energy hop from the pump, past the tube into the cell pray tell? If the pump was adding heat to the water than the water would be cooling off when it hit the cell, and you would see a negative Delta T. Your friend is pretty darn unobservant not to notice that the position of the thermocouples makes this hypothesis impossible. Second, as I clearly stated, they did extensive calibrations, blank runs, and so on with this calorimeter. >Also, the person I spoke with was under the impression that >Miley had nothing to do with the construction or testing of >the cell---that he merely allowed CETI to set up the demo >at his meeting. Can you clarify what involvement Miley >had with this demo? As I VERY CLEARLY STATED in my message, the Miley group built the calorimeter and they also independently fabricated beads according to the patents, tested them, and saw excess heat. As I said, for the purpose of this demonstration they used beads on loan from CETI. Are you having trouble reading plain English? I made it very clear the Miley's group *replicated the experiment independently*. Naturally they got assistance and cooperation from CETI, but Miley is an expert in thin film, as anyone who is familiar with his previous CF work knows. I do not understand why you are asking questions and raising doubts about simple matters of fact that I made clear in my first message. I wish that you would take the time to read my messages more carefully, so as not to introduce confusion into the message stream. I got my information directly from the people who performed the experiments (where else?), and I got the same story from two different sources. Furthermore, I have been following this development for weeks, and talking to people as the work evolved. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct 12 04:37:03 EDT 1995 ------------------------------