1995.10.12 / Malcolm McMahon /  Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:46:33 GMT

rogersda@direct.ca (david rogers) wrote:


>I do not know the energy costs to generate the streams but knowing that
>e=mc^2 it would seem to me the direct conversion of the mass of the 
>streams to energy would be significantly greater.  And even if the present
>mechanisms to generate the streams or to guarantee the conversion of the
>streams to energy are not presently efficient enough, I believe applied 
>research could improve them to the point of practibility.

No, won't work. Actually it's like the recurent idea of electrolysing
water to produce hydrogen which is then burnt.

When you produce anti-particles you always do it by converting energy
into a particle-antiparticle pair (hadron and lepton conservation
demands it). So, of course, you put at least as much energy in as you
get out when the pair anihilates.


 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmalcolm cudfnMalcolm cudlnMcMahon cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 /  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: Thu, 12 Oct 95 08:57:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
>(1) Agitation, heating and possible catalytic action on fluid 
>by pump allows chemical changes in fluid, storing energy.
 
Oh, right. Sure! You think it takes 5 watts to pump water at 14 ml per
minute up against a microscopic gradient. Sure. Two tablespoons of water
and you manage to churn the water so much you add 300 joules a minute.
 
What NONSENSE this. What incredible, unbeliable NONSENSE. Is this the
level of science you hot fusion people do? Is this the standard? It is
like the "used moderator water" hypothesis from Hoffman or the cigarette
lighter hypothesis: only 7 or 8 orders of magnitude wrong. No wonder your
machines never work!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 12 Oct 1995 16:09:09 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> 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?

 Because the pump gives kinetic energy to water, which is dissipated because
of viscosity. If you have a pressure drop across the calorimeter, then the
heat deposited is proportional to the product of the water flow by the 
pressure drop.

> 
>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.
> 

 But you have not answered the question about the pressure drop. Could you 
give both the water flow and the pressure drop across the calorimeter ?

Thanks in advance


Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 /  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: Thu, 12 Oct 95 13:17:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
     "But you have not answered the question about the pressure drop. Could
     you give both the water flow and the pressure drop across the
     calorimeter?"
 
For crying out loud we DO NOT have a significant pressure drop. It cannot even
be detected with these instruments. It is in the noise; it is many orders of
magnitude too small to cause this effect. We have been over this topic again
and again. Have none of you people ever seen a flow calorimeter? Or at least
a schematic of a flow calorimeter? Have you got any idea what we are talking
about? This is an itty-bitty pump pushing water through a filter and some
plastic pipes. The researchers understand the characteristics of their
instruments. As I said, they performed extensive pretesting, calibrations, and
null runs. This type of calorimeter was described in great detail both here
and in "Infinite Energy." Others here, including John Logajan, went over these
points very carefully, step by step, when we discussed the Cravens
calorimeter. Cravens himself addressed that issue explicitly in his lecture.
 
Stop beating a dead horse! Your hypothesis is many orders of magnitude wrong.
It is a stupid waste of time to repeat old arguments that have already been
decisively disproved.
 
I will say no more about this. If you wish to have the last word, go ahead and
repeat these inane ideas, but just remember: we disproved them all months ago.
Even Dick Blue's magically changing specific heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / 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: 12 Oct 1995 14:17:46 -0400
Organization: CyberGate

Kennel (mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov) wrote:
: 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

The logic of your argument on neutron generator yield seems to be equivalent
to saying that a gasoline engine won't work because the electric ignition
system does not have a net energy yield!  The hydrogen bomb uses lithium
deuteride as the fuel and the outer cylinder in the color photo looks like
lithium deuteride, so I'm guessing it is lithium deuteride.  I'll give you 10
to 1 odds that if you take a commercially available neutron generator and
stick it into a bucket of commercially available lithium deuteride, and fire
the generator, you'll get a net output of energy.

Bryan



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Alan M /  Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:12:09 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <813501917.20216@pigsty.demon.co.uk>  
malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
> No, won't work. Actually it's like the recurent idea of electrolysing
> water to produce hydrogen which is then burnt.
>
Which is a very valid approach if you use solar-powered photoelectricity 
to do the electrolysing, and can get the economics correct.
 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 13 Oct 1995 04:30:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:39:47 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <45fk0n$11bn@saba.info.ucla.edu>, barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) wrote:

> 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_.

***{Barry, you need to wake up! You quoted from an explanation that was
intended to answer the very question you are now asking! This leads me to
conclude that you simply skipped down to the part that you quoted without
bothering to read the argument carefully, and so the only germane response
is to simply repeat the material you skipped over. The operative portion
of that response is quoted below, which begins with Martin Gelfand asking
*exactly* the question that you just asked:

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Fine, Mitchell, would you please explain why atoms are stable,
> by strictly classical arguments?  Within classical electromagnetic
> theory an accelerated charge emits radiation.  Do you deny that
> as well?

***{Martin, I do not consider every statement made about physics when
classical mechanics was dominant to be automatically an integral part of
classical mechanics. If I did, then classical mechanics would, of
necessity, be filled with false and even loony statements, and it would be
absurd for anyone to attempt to defend it. And the same, obviously,
applies to "modern" physics: if you considered every statement made by a
physicist in the "modern" era to be an integral part of "modern" physics,
then you would not attempt to defend it, either! The point here is that we
each must define the essentials of our approach to physics, and when we
refer to our preferred system ("classical" physics in my case, "modern"
physics in yours), we should have in mind the best system of physics that
can be erected on that foundation. We should *not* consider ourselves
bound to defend every overly broad generalization and every loony
pronouncement made by anyone who has taken the same approach that we have
taken.

In such a context, I classify the statement that "an accelerated charge
emits radiation" as an overly broad generalization. In my view, an
accelerated charge only radiates when it is plowing through a resistive
medium. Since an electron orbiting in one of Bohr's "preferred" orbits is
not doing that, it does not radiate.

Such a statement, of course, requires a lengthy explanation. 

As I have already indicated in an earlier part of this discussion, I
reject the notion that space is "empty." This, of course, does not yet
distinguish my position from that of "modern" physics, because nobody
nowadays endorses the "empty space" concept. The question is not whether
"space" has properties that render it an active participant in
electromagnetic (and other) phenomena, but rather what those properties
are. 

In my view, "space" is filled with a series of particulate media or
"substrates." The substrates are distinguished by their particle sizes,
with the largest particles being part of the substrate which I call E1,
the next largest being part of E2, the third largest being part of E3,
etc. The particles of E1 fill the gaps between atoms of ordinary matter,
while the particles of E2 fill the gaps between particles of E1, the
particles of E3 fill the gaps between particles of E2, and so on. The
collectivity of all of the substrates, taken together, I call the ether.  

Now let me fill in some details. 

Just as, between the material objects that we see here on earth, there
exists an invisible ocean of particles (i.e., air) which influences many
physical phenomena (e.g., weather, air resistance, etc.) so between the
particles of air and extending out to fill all of space (with a few very
important exceptions which I will discuss later), I believe there exists
an invisible ocean of even smaller particles. I call this vast ocean of
particles E1, and I call the particles "etherons." I believe that they are
roughly the same order of size (but somewhat smaller) than electrons, that
they are mutually repellent (again like electrons) and repellent of the
particles of ordinary matter. I believe that they have spin, and that the
spin is purely classical (not quantized)--which means: each etheron has a
spin axis that is capable of pointing in any direction whatsoever. I
believe that these particles are uncharged, that they are enormously less
massive than electrons, that they are influenced by gravitation, and that,
as a consequence, each astronomical body carries with it in its motions
through space an immense, invisible atmosphere of these particles, filling
up the region of space in which its gravitational field is dominant over
the fields of other bodies. (In 19th century parlance, this would be
termed an "entrained ether theory.") And, between the particles of E1, I
believe that there exists yet another vast ocean of even smaller
particles, which I call E2, and which I cannot characterize in nearly as
much detail as in the case of E1. While the hints of the existence of E2
are subtle, it does seem to behave like a fluid: it supports internal
eddies and flows and, when such flows impinge on particles of E1 or of
ordinary matter, they exert important effects. 

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.
The first thing to note is the enormous rpm's of orbiting electrons: a
typical hydrogen electron, for example, circles its nucleus at roughly 10
quadrillion revolutions per second! If it is plowing through a resistive
medium such as E1, as sketched out above, what is going to happen? The
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. 

The question is, what are the conditions that are necessary to support
that possibility? Well, it may be that as the electron circles the nucleus
it sweeps out a cavitation channel of variable cross section in which the
undulations of cross section have a cyclicality. There are several ways
this result could be achieved: 

(1) The electron may pulsate--i.e., expand and contract its diameter
according to a consistent cycle. In this case, the length of the orbit
would have to be an integral number of pulsation cycles, in order for the
electron to fit smoothly into the same channel on second and subsequent
orbits. If the orbit length were *not* an integral number of pulsation
cycles, then the channel walls would never stabilize, and the electron
would be constantly reconfiguring the channel on every orbit--which means:
it would be constantly giving off energy, and would spiral down to a
slightly lower orbit, where the orbit length *was* an integral number of
pulsation cycles. 

(2) The electron may consist of two particles orbiting about a common
center of mass, like a binary star. In that case, each subparticle would
trace out its own separate undulating cavitation channel, and the two
subparticles would have to complete an integral number of half-revolutions
about their common center, in order to use the same channels on second and
subsequent orbits as those which they carved out on their first orbit.
Here, once again, we have the same result: "preferred orbits" of the Bohr
type would exist, in which stability depended on the orbit length being an
integral multiple of an underlying cycle length. 

(3) The electron may consist of an assymetrical particle given to tumbling
as it moves, in accordance with a regular cycle. Here, again, the result
is a cavitation channel of variable cross section and, as a consequence,
stable orbits when the orbit length is an integral multiple of the
underlying cycle of variation, and unstable ones when it is not.

(4) The electron may consist of a symmetrical particle which,
nevertheless, exhibits a variable cross section perpendicular to its line
of motion, due to its rotation about its axis. (For example, a moving cube
rotating about its center of mass will sweep out a channel of variable
cross section as it rotates.) 

In all such cases, stable orbits will result when the electron completes a
circuit around the atom with precisely the same cross section
perpendicular to its line of motion that it had when it began. In such
cases, it will precisely fit into the undulations of the cavitation
channel which it carved on its first orbit, when it goes around for a
second, third, fourth, etc., time. The basic principle, in short, is that
the length of the orbit must be an integral multiple of the cycle of
undulations in the cavitation channel. From this insight, the curve fitted
mathematical constructs of Bohr, which he postulated but did not explain,
follow with precise exactitude. Electrons in the "preferred" Bohr orbits
do not radiate because they fit perfectly into their cavitation channels
and, thus, encounter no resistance as they sweep around the nucleus.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[End of quoted material.]

Bottom line: the sentence that prompted your question was part of a
detailed answer to precisely the same question that you asked! You need to
get in the habit of reading carefully, rather than skipping through
material, fixating on out-of-context statements, and repeating questions
that have already been asked and answered! --Mitchell Jones}***     
    
> 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. 

***{Wrong again. A satellite in high earth orbit is also undergoing
acceleration due to its circular motion. However, because it is
encountering negligible resistance, it does not lose energy, and it
stubbornly stays in its orbit. The same considerations apply to an
orbiting electron: if it is encountering negligible resistance, it does
not lose energy, and it stubbornly stays in its orbit. What this means,
Barry, is that by explaining why the electron does not lose energy, I have
also explained why it does not radiate. (How can it radiate--i.e., give
off energy--if it isn't losing energy? Think, for Christ's sake!) 
--Mitchell Jones}***

This is a process that occurs in 
> vacuum for charges, and has nothing to do with whatever 
> other particles may be around.

***{Wrong again. The "vacuum" ain't empty, Barry! That false notion, in
fact, is why Bohr couldn't explain the "quantization" of electron orbits!
Amazingly, I explained this in the post to which you are responding but
which you apparently did not read! Here is the relevant passage:

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since "quantum mechanics" began with Bohr's discovery of the "preferred"
orbits and with the alleged failure of classical mechanics to explain
them, and since I have just explained them classically, it follows that
the foundations of quantum mechanics have just been ripped away! (How
sad!) 

I would add that Bohr's "quantum leap" interpretation was formulated
during the period from 1913 to 1930, during the heyday of the "empty
space" concept. That idea, in turn, was demolished in the 1930's by Dirac,
and has never recovered. (Today, of course, the talk is about "zero point
fluctuations," "vacuum fluctuations," and so on, rather than about
"Dirac's ocean" or about "the ether," but the upshot remains: nobody,
today, thinks "space" is empty.) The rise of "quantum mechanics" occurred,
in short, in a historic "window of opportunity." It was made possible by
the success of "relativity" theory and the associated euphoric, and
foredoomed, embrace of the "empty space" concept. 

In summary, the major reason Bohr decided that motion in the microcosm was
discontinuous is because he imagined, in keeping with the times, that the
space around the hydrogen nucleus was empty. Since he believed that there
was nothing in the space between the "preferred" orbits that could
possibly interfere with the motion of the electron, Bohr concluded that
some deeply seated "law of nature" precluded those orbits. To him, this
meant that motion in the microcosm was "quantized:" when an electron
passed from one preferred orbit to another, it did *not* do so by passing
through the intervening orbits. Instead, it performed a "quantum leap" by
vanishing from its position in one orbit and reappearing at a position in
the next one. Thus arose the absurd "quantum mechanical" interpretation
with which we are still afflicted today.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[End of quoted material.]

So, Barry, did you read it that time? If not, go back and try again!
--Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 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.

***{No, Barry! To repeat: the electron encounters negligible resistance to
its motion when it is orbiting in a cavitation channel that is an integral
multiple of the length of the underlying cycle of undulation because, in
that case, it isn't orbiting in E1, and the resistance to its motion is
negligible. Since, in this case, it isn't losing energy, there is nothing
to radiate. The reason for the stability is strictly analogous to why
satellites can orbit at 400 miles but not at 20 miles. At 20 miles, they
encounter air resistance, and slow down; at 400 miles they merely
encounter ether resistance plus an occasional air molecule, and hence stay
in orbit for a much longer time. Likewise, an electron outside of the
Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits is constantly doing work reconfiguring its
cavitation channel (by pushing E1 particles aside) and, thus, loses
energy. On the other hand, an electron in one of the Bohr-Sommerfeld
orbits is not required to shove E1 particles aside, and thus can stay in
orbit for a much longer time (but not forever). --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> OR, maybe you think classical electrodynamic's a la' Maxwell
> is crap as well as QM?

***{Nope. Once again, I addressed this specific point in the post to which
you are responding. In brief, I said that I consider the ironclad rule
that "an accelerating charge must radiate" to be an instance of
overgeneralization. The proper rule is that an accelerating charge
radiates only when it is doing work (which, for practical purposes, it is
not doing when in a stable orbit). 

As for the Maxwell equations per se, well, suffice it to say that Maxwell
died in 1879. Since the electron was discovered by Thompson in 1897, and
the atomic model was proven by Rutherford in 1911, it is a massive
extrapolation from Maxwell's data points to demand that his equations
apply to the interior of an atomic system! His equations were a good fit
to the data points known in his time, but it is absurd to expect them to
support an extrapolation of this magnitude! 

A related point, which I have also addressed repeatedly and which, again,
you apparently did not read, is this: classical mechanics, like "quantum
mechanics," is a metaphysical base, not a mathematical system. It involves
conceiving of the world in accordance with the principle of continuity.
Period. Any physicist who does that is a practitioner of classical
mechanical thinking, regardless of the mathematical constructs that he
employs for calculational purposes. This means that I am not--repeat,
*not*--arguing that we ought to give up the mathematicsl tools that have
been developed in the last 100 years. What I am arguing for is a return to
the classical worldview--to wit: that all attributes are carried by
entities, and all entities move in strict accordance with the principle of
continuity. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 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_.

***{Wrong again: you simply did not read, or do not remember, the
explanation. (See above.) To repeat: the only orbits that are stable are
those for which the orbit length is an integral of the cycle of undulation
of the cavitation channel. If n is a positive integer and u is the length
of the undulation cycle, then nu = 2¼r. This means that only discrete
values of r are permissible--to wit: those for which r = nu/2¼. Do you
understand? (In fact, we can go further: assuming the validity of u = h/mV
(the deBroglie equation), we immediately arrive at nh/2¼ = mVr, which is
Bohr's postulate, on which "quantum mechanics" is based! Ha! Moreover, the
deBroglie equation can be derived from classical mechanical assumptions.
Double ha!) --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> 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.

***{Actually, Barry, you are the one who is skating on thin ice. You do it
every time you post responses to articles which you did not read.
--Mitchell Jones}***

> Those models were tried in the past and never worked

***{Baloney. The specific model I have posted was not tried in the past,
because no one thought of it. If you deny this, I challenge you to cite a
reference. --Mitchell Jones}***

(not
> to mention they seem to violate the no hidden variables
> thereom for QM). 

***{Actually, the theorem refers to *local* hidden variables, Barry!
Superluminal processes are not precluded. Here you harken back to other
people's theories which, like mine, you apparently have not read! Besides,
the theorem applies only to the explanation of certain types of
experimental results such as that claimed by Aspect et al. It has nothing
to do with the subject matter under discussion here. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Why do you think relativity, QM, etc were
> invented in the first place? 

***{I have already responded to this in detail. --Mitchell Jones}***

If your theory even remotely explains things,
> it would be a miracle that it was not discovered before.

***{Yup. Nobody ever discovers anything. Mankind lives the same way today
as they lived in the stone age. Everybody knows that! --Mitchell Jones}***

> But, as wielded by you above, it is clear it does
> not even provide a qualitative explanation, much less a quanititative
> one.

***{Wrong again. It explains the presently accepted mathematical
constructs, which are merely tweaked variants of the original
Bohr-Sommerfeld theory. Those constructs, in turn, yield quantitative
predictions about such things as, for example, line spectra, that match
the experimentally determined data points. Your problem here, to repeat,
is that you either have not read, or do not remember, the lengthy articles
that I have posted on this topic. I appreciate your feedback, but for the
moment we are just cycling back through the same old stuff again.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Mark North /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 16:27:08 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>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.

I called and talked to both the UofIll Public Affairs Office and the
Dept of Nuc Engineering (where Miley is employed). The people I talked
to there said the 'cold fusion' device, a Patterson cell, was being
demonstrated by CETI not by anyone associated with the University.
I was also told by the Public Affairs office that they had no
knowledge of anyone at the UofIll doing 'cold fusion' work.

Well, that's what they told me, sorry.

Mark





















cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:27:38 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1010952112230001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0910951927520001@199.172.8.155>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <browe-0610952043030001@10.0.2.15>, 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.

***{That's why I said "in effect," Bill. It isn't *actually* in several
places at once, obviously. (Only proponents of "quantum mechanics" believe
that things can be in two places at once!) Nevertheless, I think there is
a point you are missing here. That point is simply that when a cyclical
motion is *fast enough* the space in which the motion takes place assumes
the characteristics of a solid. To see why, imagine that you are standing
in front of an prop-driven airplane. Just as the pilot hits the start
button, you stick your right arm through the prop path. Result: it chops
your arm off, right? OK, now suppose an absurd situation: that the prop is
turning at 100,000 rpm. At that speed, it is purely cavitating. This means
that it is rotating in a vacuum, and there is virtually no air being
sucked in at the front or thrown out the back. Now you attempt the same
motion with your arm. Result: the tip of your fingers are burned and your
hand is forced away from the cavitation channel. If you try to force your
arm in at this speed, you might be able to do it, but it would be a slow,
painful process. Your arm would be chopped away in a series of slices a
tenth of an inch thick, rather than in one fell swoop. OK, now suppose an
even more impossible situation: that the prop is rotating at 100 million
rpm! At that speed, you could swing your fist at the cavitation channel
and you would be lucky to burn your knuckles! You could lean against it
and your shirt probably wouldn't catch on fire! In effect, as the prop
speeds up, the cavitation channel is turning into a solid object! Now
suppose, like an electron, that the prop is spinning at 10 quadrillion
revolutions per second! At that speed, Bill, the cavitation channel, in
effect, would be a solid! If the prop were pointing upward, you could use
it for a table and set places for half a dozen people. The plates and
silverware wouldn't heat up or even move! You could sit on it with your
bare bottom, and it would be cold to the touch, like a metal surface.
Bottom line: the cavitation channel of an electron, in effect, is a solid
object. That's why the etherons can crowd right up against it without
penetrating into it, and it is also why the electron does no work keeping
them out. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> 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.

***{For practical purposes, it does. Even if the etherons were a kinetic
gas, there would be no problem, for the same reason that air pressure on
one side of an object cancels the pressure exerted on the other side of
the object. The cavitation channel, in effect, is a solid. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> >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"?

***{Because, as I have already noted, if the space within the atomic
system is empty, then there is no reason why the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits
are to be preferred over the classical orbits. Without the etherons, there
is nothing for the orbiting electron to push aside. No cavitation channel
can be formed, and it doesn't matter what the cycle of undulation of the
electron may be as it passes through its orbit. Bottom line: Bohr couldn't
explain why some orbits were "preferred" over others, because he thought
the ether didn't exist! Ha! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> Your point of ionization being relatively common doesn't address why
> spontaneous decay of hydrogen isn't observed. 

***{It isn't observed because the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits are very, very
stable. They aren't stable enough to last *forever,* but they are stable
enough so that spontaneous decays are too rare to be observed with
present-day instruments. In the future, however, things may be different.
--Mitchell Jones}***

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.

***{It is only "extraneous" because our present instruments are too crude
to answer such questions. --Mitchell Jones}***
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / 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: 12 Oct 1995 20:07:00 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mario Pain (pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr) wrote:
:  Because the pump gives kinetic energy to water, which is dissipated because
: of viscosity. If you have a pressure drop across the calorimeter, then the
: heat deposited is proportional to the product of the water flow by the 
: pressure drop.

Yes, joules = pascals * cubic meters.

To develop 5 watts at a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min would require a pressure
drop of approx 3000 PSI.

Hint:

Look elswhere.

--
 - 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:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:48:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <45fj5m$n08@saba.info.ucla.edu>, barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) wrote:

> 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.

***{I strongly suspect that you did not read the original posts on this
subject, Barry. If so, then you have no memory of them for me to refresh.
In any case, I responded to this in detail in another post. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> >> 
> >> 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.

***{I don't think that Arch is as unreasonable as you try to make him
appear. In fact, I'll bet that my timely intervention is what saved your
hide! Therefore, you owe me big time! Here is how you can repay me: in the
future, read my posts carefully and think about them, before you post
responses. Otherwise, I am going to unleash Arch on you! :-) --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:52:56 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199510111440.KAA18498@pilot04.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> 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.

***{Dick, I am beginning to get the idea that you do not understand what I
am saying because you do not *want* to understand. If so, there is no way
I am ever going to get through to you, because I frankly have no power to
force anyone to believe anything. However, on the off chance that you are
being obtuse for some other reason, I am going to try again. The point
about math, Dick, is that it arises from a philosophically neutral process
of mathematical curve fitting. No more physical understanding is required
to mathematically fit a curve to a set of experimentally determined data
points than is required to draw a smooth curve connecting the dots if the
data points are graphed on a sheet of paper. Mathematical curve fitting
requires mathematical skills, not understanding of physics. This means
that the incessant claims, by proponents of "quantum mechanics" and
"relativity," that they somehow *own the rights* to the mathematical
constructs of modern physics, is little more than a fraud. The
mathematical constructs are merely a method of encoding the experimental
data points in a compact form that permits some interpolations and some
nearby extrapolations, nothing more. Any member of any school of physics
can use them without apology to do calculations and, as I noted, has just
as much claim to the results of those calculations as anyone else. Bottom
line: if you want to make progress in this discussion, rather than
continue to spin your wheels, you need to directly attack the position I
am taking. Therefore, to assist you, let me ask you a direct question: do
you claim that if the calculations are done by someone who denies the
"quantum postulate," he will get the wrong answers? If so, why? Prove to
me that Bohr's corrupt philosophy has something to do with the math, and I
will publicly proclaim that you are right and I am wrong! --Mitchell
Jones}*** 
> 
> 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"?  

***{Because the math didn't arise out of the philosophy. The two things
have nothing to do with one another. As I have said repeatedly, Bohr might
just as well have claimed that his mathematical constructs justified his
tastes in food or recreational activities, as that they provided evidence
of the validity of his corrupt, anti-rational philosophy. --Mitchell
Jones}***

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?

***{I suppose you can, Dick. Just don't label the math as "quantum
mechanics," and you will get no argument from me. However, if you do
continue to call it "quantum mechanics," then I will continue to insist
that Bohr's evil, bankrupt, and anti-rational philosophy has nothing
whatsoever to do with the math. Simply put: when you label the
mathematical tools in this way, you are repeating a blatant falsehood, and
encouraging a fraud. I can't stop you from doing it, but I am not going to
pretend that I agree with it. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 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.

***{Not true. Again, despite my explaining this point a dozen different
ways, you still do not understand. I am not attacking the Bohr model of
the atom. I am attacking the claim that the model arose due to Bohr's
philosophy, rather than out of a philosophically neutral process of
mathematical curve fitting. The way I have attacked that claim is by
explaining the Bohr model without the use of Bohr's philosophical
assumptions. That is, I have explained it using strictly classical
assumptions. This is the only way to prove the point, and so it is the
route that I have used. 

To repeat: I have *not* attacked the mathematical constructs which Bohr
curve fitted to the experimental data points of his time (circa 1914);
what I have done is demonstrate that those constructs can be explained
using strictly classical assumptions, and, thus, that they in no way
provide evidence in support of Bohr's "quantum mechanical" philosophy.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 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."

***{Wrong again. To repeat: I have not "attacked" Bohr's mathematical
formulations. I have explained them by classical assumptions. You need to
wake up, have a cup of coffee, re-read the relevant posts--carefully, this
time--and think before you post on this topic again. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Dick Blue

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 /  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: Thu, 12 Oct 95 16:29:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mark H. North <north@nosc.mil> writes:
 
>I was also told by the Public Affairs office that they had no
>knowledge of anyone at the UofIll doing 'cold fusion' work.
>
>Well, that's what they told me, sorry.
 
Good grief! You would make a hell of journalist. Did you try talking to
the scientists themselves? What do you suppose the Public Affairs office
would know? Is the public affairs office aware that Miley is the editor
of Fusion Technology and that he has published *his own cold fusion
experimental work* in that journal? Apparently not. I guess you did not
know that either.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:48:50 -0900
Organization: none

In article <45hl8m$gai@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> 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?


I would suggest that a fusion rocket would primarily be useful on an
interstellar trip. In that case, the weight of the reactor would be
incidental to the fuel weight. Since 200MeV/235 < 17MeV/2, i.e. .85 < 8.5,
you would get 10 times the energy per mass of fuel in a fusion rocket. 

Since the subject of energy for space travel is raised, I have often been
curious about the possibility of using vacuum fluctuations as a means of
accelerating a space ship.  This would be done by establishing an enormous
electrostatic field that would separate charged particle/antipartile pairs
created by vacuum fluctuations. These particles would be separated in the
gap between two "dee's", hollow conductors, with a transverse magnetic
field similar to a cyclotron. The magnetic field would be used to separate
particles by mass/charge and change their direction toward the back of the
ship. The particles, still inside the dee's would be accelerated by
synchrotron accelerators (giving an impulse to the ship), they would then
exit the dee's (prior to leaving the ship) where their mutual
electrostatic attraction would bring them together to annihilation,
emitting photons etc. by which some of the energy of separation could be
retrieved.

Since no reactive mass need be carried, only energy, it seems this scheme
would eventually violate conservation of energy because the kinetic energy
of the ship  is 1/2 m v^2 but v is proportional to the energy loaded at
the start of the voyage. By doubling the fuel (a small part of the mass of
the ship) you could get double the velocity, or four times the ship
kinetic energy. Something does not add up. What is it?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 /  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: Thu, 12 Oct 95 17:38:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>To develop 5 watts at a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min would require a pressure
>drop of approx 3000 PSI.
>
>Hint:
>
>Look elswhere.
 
Thank you VERY MUCH John! Ah, you are there when I need you with things
like the Thermodynamic Scorecard. You are so good at simple quantitative
analysis, and I am so bad at it. At least I recognize how important it is
to Put A Number On It.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Robert Eachus /  Slower than light photons, and faster...
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Slower than light photons, and faster...
Date: 12 Oct 1995 21:35:55 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <295715314wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk> "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
<Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:

  > You will probably have noticed that Mitchell is at his most abusive when 
  > asked the most reasonable question, such as "Has anybody ever observed 
  > any physical phenomenon which could plausibly be interpreted as evidence 
  > that photons might in some circumstances travel in vacuum at a speed of 
  > less than c?"...

     I was just reading an article, I'll bring in the references
tomorrow, on microwave beam crossing forbidden regions in a specially
designed waveguide.  The time of transit is constant, but the signal
loss grows exponentially with distance.  (The maximum distances in the
article were about a foot, and at that distance the speed of transit
was significantly greater than c, but I guess you could build a system
where the gaps were small enough to create an average velocity less
than c.)

    Of course this is all completely consistant with QM, and in fact
the photons cannot be detected in the forbidden gap, so speaking about
the speed of those photons is a stretch.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:50:32 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <hlCjXdi.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
> 
>     "But you have not answered the question about the pressure drop. Could
>     you give both the water flow and the pressure drop across the
>     calorimeter?"
> 
>For crying out loud we DO NOT have a significant pressure drop. It cannot even
>be detected with these instruments. It is in the noise; it is many orders of
>magnitude too small to cause this effect. We have been over this topic again
>and again.

I don't normally jump into these things, but I've become interested.
Can I get some elucidation?

We need a pump to push the water around the system, right?

The pump consumes power.

That power has to finish up somewheres.

Somewhere1 is just wasted heat into the air.
Somewhere2 is goes first into kinetic energy of the water, as a poster has
said.
Somewhere3 -- can't think of one, acoustic noise maybe but that's really
#1.

The kinetic energy gain/sec of the water is surely a significant fraction
of the power to the pump (otherwise we have a pathetically inefficient
setup).

The kinetic energy of the water has to dissipate as heat in the final
resting place of the water, right?

Therefore we have a contribution to the heat/sec gained by the water equal
to pump power x some fraction (representing pump efficiency). This
fraction could be anywhere between .1 and .9 as far as I can guess.

So what is the nominal power of the pump? Is it comparable to the
measured heat/sec gain of the water flow? If its way less, we should
forget it.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Malcolm McMahon /  Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:39:01 GMT

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article: <813501917.20216@pigsty.demon.co.uk>  
>malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>> No, won't work. Actually it's like the recurent idea of electrolysing
>> water to produce hydrogen which is then burnt.
>>
>Which is a very valid approach if you use solar-powered photoelectricity 
>to do the electrolysing, and can get the economics correct.
> 

No, actually it's a very silly approach. It's far more efficient to
convert the electricity into whatever final form you want the energy
in. The only exception would be if the energy was being produced by
some photochemical process where is was a lot easier to produce
hydrogen than electricity because of the chemistry of the cell.


 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmalcolm cudfnMalcolm cudlnMcMahon cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 09:09:01 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
> 
>     "But you have not answered the question about the pressure drop. Could
>     you give both the water flow and the pressure drop across the
>     calorimeter?"
> 
>For crying out loud we DO NOT have a significant pressure drop. It cannot even
>be detected with these instruments. I is in the noise; it is many orders of
>magnitude too small to cause this effect.

 I have asked a simple question. You refuse to answer. So I will ask another one:
Have you measured the pressure drop across de calorimeter YES or NO ? And if
the answer is NO, then how do you know it is insignificant ?

>We have been over this topic again
>and again. Have none of you people ever seen a flow calorimeter?

 The answer is yes !

>Or at least a schematic of a flow calorimeter?

 The answer is again yes. As you see, I answer you questions without resorting
to considerations like "it cannot be detected.

>Have you got any idea what we are talking about? This is an itty-bitty pump
>pushing water through a filter and some plastic pipes. The researchers understand
>the characteristics of their instruments.

 I have enough experience in scientific work to know that this is not always true.
In many case experiments had a flaw which has been discovered thanks to outside
scrutiny.
 Your itty-bitty pump is an electrical device which converts electrical power into
water kinetic energy. This energy finishes up as heat, and some of it goes to the
calorimeter. If the electrical pump has a 100W electrical power consumption (which
seems a reasonable assumption for an itty-bitty pump...) and only one half of it
ends up in the calorimeter, then you have already found 50W!

>As I said, they performed extensive pretesting, calibrations, and
>null runs. This type of calorimeter was described in great detail both here
>and in "Infinite Energy." Others here, including John Logajan, went over these
>points very carefully, step by step, when we discussed the Cravens
>calorimeter. Cravens himself addressed that issue explicitly in his lecture.

 My question was extremely simple: WHAT IS THE PRESSURE DROP AND THE FLOW
ACROSS THE CALORIMETER. If none of all the people you quote have EVER measured
this parameters, then say it !
 
>Stop beating a dead horse! Your hypothesis is many orders of magnitude wrong.
>It is a stupid waste of time to repeat old arguments that have already been
>decisively disproved.

 GIVE TWO FIGURES AND THE ARGUMENT WILL BE DISPROVEN. Until then, the argument
stands. I find surprising that you go into the bibliography argument just to 
avoid giving TWO FIGURES!

> 
>I will say no more about this. If you wish to have the last word, go ahead and
>repeat these inane ideas, but just remember: we disproved them all months ago.

 Two figures, that is all I ask. You seem to be able to argue for hours about
more or less complicates hypothesis. But you are not ready to allow any scrutiny
on the ACTUAL conditions on the experiment.
 You sound more like a Priest rather than a phycisist: There are some "truths"
which have been "decisively proven" and into which you will not be drawn. Well,
if it is a matter of faith, have your own way.

Regards


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  ZoltanCCC /  No future?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No future?
Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:49:20 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Your article enraged me Dieter because you mention The Farce of Physics
among the threads that you would eliminate. If you don't like this group
why don't you just go read something else? In any case The Farce of
Physics is what I learnt the most from in this newsgroup.

Based on my personal experience we could also talk about the Farce of NASA
or other government funded research organizations, but that is not the
subject of this post.

I set my life on the development of a few key technologies. These are:
robotic intelligence, vertical takeoff airplanes and nuclear reactors for
energy production and rocket propulsion. I have learnt a lot from this
newsgroup and to think that somebody would eliminate a thread like The
Farce of Physics infuriates me.

There are technologies that have existed for a long time but not been used
partly because the information has not been  easily available to
everybody. I think the widespread use of computers and the net will
stimulate a new industrial revolution which will change our lifes
profoundly.

We should all work trying to convince many competent people to join
newsgroups like this so that we can have more brains to brainstorm with.

Zoltan Szakaly

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 /  Labrys /  Re: No future?
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3116-25.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No future?
Date: 12 Oct 1995 23:25:40 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

|>On the other hand, I think a lot of
|>potential serious posters have given up because they feel that they would be
|>swamped by the noise anyway, so why bother; these people might start posting
|>again, to a group that stuck to the point.

|>Just think: no Farce of Physics, no Plutonium, no French tests, no spams,
|>just fusion.

|> Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.d

I would like to see the group restricted to fusion (conventional and
"cold" ) I'd be willing to simply sort out CF postings if that's all
there was (I'd even keep my CF opinions to myself-promise). I can 
tolerate CF a lot more than perpetual motion, etc. (& I do know how 
to use a killfile)

Peace
Teresa
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                |=|
                                |=| 
                                |=|
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 09:16:51 GMT
Organization: cea

jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) wrote:

>>For crying out loud we DO NOT have a significant pressure drop. It cannot even
>>be detected with these instruments. It is in the noise; it is many orders of
>>magnitude too small to cause this effect. We have been over this topic again
>>and again.
>
>I don't normally jump into these things, but I've become interested.
>Can I get some elucidation?

 Of course !

>We need a pump to push the water around the system, right?
>
>The pump consumes power.
>
>That power has to finish up somewheres.
>
>Somewhere1 is just wasted heat into the air.
>Somewhere2 is goes first into kinetic energy of the water, as a poster has
>said.
>Somewhere3 -- can't think of one, acoustic noise maybe but that's really
>#1.
>
>The kinetic energy gain/sec of the water is surely a significant fraction
>of the power to the pump (otherwise we have a pathetically inefficient
>setup).
>
>The kinetic energy of the water has to dissipate as heat in the final
>resting place of the water, right?

 There is no "final resting place of the water" in a closed circuit. But your
reasoning is correct. The water is pushed through the pipes, but because it
is a viscous fluid both the "scraping" (for want of a better english word)
of the fluid against the pipes and because of turbulence in the fluid, this 
kinetic energy ends up in heat. If not, you could switch off your pump and
the fluid would keep going.

>
>Therefore we have a contribution to the heat/sec gained by the water equal
>to pump power x some fraction (representing pump efficiency). This
>fraction could be anywhere between .1 and .9 as far as I can guess.

 Exactly. But this heating happens as the water flows. That means that the
further you go in your circuit from the pump, the hotter the water is. Thus,
if you make a differential calorimeter (that is, you measure the temperature
difference between the input and output of your calorimeter), you detect a
temperature difference even if there is no other energy source in the 
calorimeter.

>So what is the nominal power of the pump? Is it comparable to the
>measured heat/sec gain of the water flow? If its way less, we should
>forget it.

 I wait (with very little confidence, I must say) for Jed to give his figures.

Regards


Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 09:27:50 GMT
Organization: cea

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
>Mario Pain (pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr) wrote:
>:  Because the pump gives kinetic energy to water, which is dissipated because
>: of viscosity. If you have a pressure drop across the calorimeter, then the
>: heat deposited is proportional to the product of the water flow by the 
>: pressure drop.
>
>Yes, joules = pascals * cubic meters.
>
>To develop 5 watts at a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min would require a pressure
>drop of approx 3000 PSI.
>
 The flow in the SOFE experiment was 14.28 ml/min ? I have not managed to
have the precise figure.

 If it is so small, then you are probably right. If not, then...


Regards


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Richard Blue /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:20:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have begun to suspect that the CETI demos represent classic examples
of the time-honored practice of misdirection.  We are given information
that would appear to be sufficient to lead us to the desired conclusion,
but certain facts are withheld.  I think we ought to concentrate on the
kinds of data that are not given.  In particular the CETI demo can never
"prove" that cold fusion is occurring until all other possibilities have
been considered.

The observation of a temperature differential in the fluid stream passing
through the cell would seem to prove that heat is being generated within
the cell.  It is not clear, however, that all chemical processes have
been ruled out as possible contributors to that heating.  Bear in mind
that the Patterson cell is unique among all other forms of cold fusion
calorimeters in that the electrolyte (of unknown composition) is being
circulated.  I would also suggest that the electrolyte circuit offers
another possibility that is not usually considered.  Just suppose that
there is an electric current flowing in the electrolyte.  Does the
demo rule out that possibility?

Exactly what is occurring in the external fluid circuit?  In addition
to the obvious, I have gathered that the products of the electrolysis,
i.e. hydrogen and oxygen, travel in the fluid to an external separation
point.  Are these in the form of dissolved gasses or are they bubbles?
If the gas stream is filled with bubbles at the cell exit but the
fluid is degassed before it returns does that have no effect on the
measurements?  What are the possibilities for recombination occuring in
ways that can screw up the measurements?  What other chemical processes
can be concealed from the reported measurements?

We may jump to the conclusion that the flowing electrolyte serves only
to transport heat simply because that is the only possibility we are
asked to consider.  I wonder what would happen if the electrolysis were
pulsed or if the flow rate were pulsed.  I would be curious to know
the temperatures at other points in the system.

Jed Rothwell claims that, "Researchers understand the characteristics of
their instruments."  If that is so for the CETI demo why have you not
passed on their explanation for the operation of this device?  As for
disproving anything I said concerning the ICCF5 demo, I don't recall
that any issue I raised was even addressed other than that of the
mechanical work done by the pump.  Since the pump clearly does no
work I would just suggest that it be left out of the circuit. (%-0

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / 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: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:45:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell, I have read and reread all your posts regarding your
theory and your stated displeasure with "quantum mechanics".
However, your objections to quantum mechanics have not been
stated in terms that I can understand.  You seem to be fixed
on Bohr as the creator of quantum mechanics as if his contributions
were the entire story.  I would suggest that you must look
beyond Bohr, something your remarks lead me to believe you have
never done.

Although you do not acknowledge it, quantum mechanics has some
underlying basic features that I would contrast to your approach.
I think you should consider the simple question of how one
goes about counting the number of degrees of freedom that a system
has.  Quantum mechanics brings that question to the fore in a
very fundamental way that can not be ignored.  If you fill space
with an ensemble of "etherons" you have added to each and every
physical system to be studies many more entities than we normally
want to consider.  By your on arguments each of these entities
has an important effect on a system such as the hydrogen atom.
If each of these entities occupies space, is capable of independent
motion, can have momentum and energy, and can be involved in
momentum and energy transport you have introduced a tremendous
complexity.  You have introduced far too many degrees of freedom
into the problem.  Simple observations make it clear that you
are taking the wrong approach.  Atoms do not have all those
degrees of freedom!

Since you a fond of pictures, I ask you to consider the game of
billiard with just three balls on the table.  Now if you were
to fill all the available space on that table with ping-pong
balls, for example, it would have an observable effect on the
motion of the balls.  The path taken by the cue ball would
be somewhat more difficult to predict, would it not?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  VCockeram /  Re:Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 06:38:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>Jed doesn't need his own vitriol, he's got you for backup :-)

Exactly the attitude I have seen from the skeptics since the beginning.
Still attacking
the proponents of this new exciting science.
But it now looks like a cold hard rain's gonna fall on *all* the
naysayers. 
Jed, it looks like all the skeptics are going to have to crawl back under
a rock. Kudo's!
                                                               Vince   
Las Vegas, Nevada
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Alan M /  Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:43:56 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <813569867.15841@pigsty.demon.co.uk>  
malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
> No, actually it's a very silly approach. It's far more efficient to
> convert the electricity into whatever final form you want the energy
> in. The only exception would be if the energy was being produced by
> some photochemical process where is was a lot easier to produce
> hydrogen than electricity because of the chemistry of the cell.
> 
Stick to topics you happen to know something about. The hydrogen would 
be useful (overwhelming so) in two situations: (a) where it is needed as 
a transportation fuel (a hydrogen-powered automobile is a much more 
efficient on-road machine than a battery-powered equivalent, even 
without the charging of batteries which this requires); and (b) where 
long-distance transportation of energy (say from North Africa to NW 
Europe, or from SE China to its industrial northwest) is required, which 
cannot adequately or efficently enough be done by long-distance power 
grids.

Making facile yet completely misconceived statements about one aspect of 
what needs to be an integrated look at energy delivery systems is the 
easiest way to make yourself look totally foolish here.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Two Questions
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two Questions
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:17:30 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In this post I would like to respond to a number of comments that I have
received via e-mail, which I believe to be of general interest here. They
are as follows:

(1) I received one message which attempted to postulate a type of
discontinuity which would be compatible with the principle of induction,
and, thus with science. I responded to it by quoting from remarks I made
some time ago in a similar discussion. Those remarks were as follows:

 ---------------------------------
 First, let me note that we can conceive of two possible types of breaches
of continuity: a type which is truly random (i.e., for which no
information exists that could be used to predict the breach) and which I
call a hard discontinuity, and a type which is not truly random (i.e., for
which predictive information exists) and which I call a soft
discontinuity. To illustrate a soft discontinuity, let us suppose that
pomegranates (or electrons, or photons, or whatever) come equipped with
hidden timers, ticking down to zero, and that when the time remaining
reaches zero, they vanish. In such a case, if we can manage somehow to
access the timing information, we can use inductive reasoning to predict,
because we can distinguish between apparently similar closed systems which
yield different results, on the basis of the timing information. Here,
apparently, we have a case where a type of discontinuity is possible, and
yet induction seems to work. But does it, really? Let's think about the
matter very carefully. Note, first, that the timing information must be
different from the material that is being timed. If a pomegranate, say, is
about to disappear, then let us suppose that the information is somewhere
within the pomegranate. If so, then when the hand of the invisible timer
strikes zero, a signal must be sent out to the rest of the pomegranate,
telling those various parts to vanish into nothing. Let us call this
signal the annihilation wave. Now we are beginning to get into trouble,
because questions leap to mind: how, for example, does the annihilation
wave know where to stop? How does it recognize the boundaries of the
pomegranate? What if someone punched a hole in the pomegranate and placed
a seed from a pomegranate that had ten days left before expiration? How
does the annihilation wave know to pass that seed by? One possibility is
that there must be information within each part of the pomegranate,
indicating that the part in question is due to expire. Thus we do not have
one timer for the pomegranate as a whole: we have one timer for each of
the pomegranate's parts. But, so long as the parts are composed of lesser
parts, the same argument applies. Each part must have its own timer, which
will then act as an origin for that part's annihilation wave. Result: we
get sucked into the question of whether matter is infinitely
subdivisible--i.e., of whether or not the parts have parts, forever and
ever. If it is (and I have proven the infinite subdivisibility of matter
in a lengthy argument published years ago, that is too involved to repeat
here), then our hypothetical annihilation timer becomes an undefined
will-o-the-wisp, forever seeking but never finding an elementary particle
to time. There are other lines of reasoning that can be considered here,
to be sure, but they all come to the same result: the concept of a soft
discontinuity, when chased to ground, stands revealed as a contentless
string of words for which no referent is possible. Which means: the only
type of discontinuity which may be meaningfully conceived and argued about
is the hard discontinuity, not the soft discontinuity. Conclusion: when we
say that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing, we are referring to appearances and disappearances for which no
associated predictive information exists--i.e., appearances and
disappearances which are truly random in nature.
 ---------------------------------
[End of quoted material.]

Bottom line: soft discontinuities, where enough information is stored so
that induction can work, are impossible. We are left with the induction
destroying hard discontinuity which, obviously, pulls down the entire
structure of human knowledge. 

(2) I have received several comments from people who have read statements
that the palladium lattice is cubic, face centered, rather than cubic,
body centered, as I have assumed in my various posts. The answer to this
is that palladium exists in two forms. One is known as "spongy palladium,"
in which the specific gravity is 11.5, and the lattice is cubic, body
centered. This is the form normally used for CF cathodes, because it has a
very high capacity to absorb hydrogen. It is sometimes prepared by the
ignition of palladium cyanide, which decomposes to leave pure spongy
palladium. The other form, sometimes referred to as "hard palladium," has
a specific gravity of 12.02, and is much more resistant to hydrogen
absorption because it has only one third as many octahedral unit cells as
the spongy form. 

(3) I have received a couple of requests to explain the observed
transmutation of elements by "cold fusion" cells, in terms of the
protoneutron theory. My answer is that such events are a trivial byproduct
of the process, and arise as a direct consequence of the protoneutron
chain reaction. As I have noted repeatedly, the protoneutron (pn) is
characterized by *energy rapacity.* To reestablish the context, let me
review the main points: 

(a) The protoneutron is wildly unstable, and is desperately hungry for the
energy of transformation into a more stable state. If radiant energy of
more than .78 Mev passes in its vicinity, it subtracts .78 Mev and
transforms into a neutron. The neutron in question is a cold neutron: it
remains in the node of the lattice wave, with virtually zero kinetic
energy, like the protoneutron that produced it. 

(b) If radiant energy of less than .78 Mev is available, that energy is
taken in the form of kinetic energy. The result is a protoneutron shooting
through the lattice with that amount of kinetic energy and, in the normal
case, it delivers its energy to the lattice in a series of collisions. In
most cases, such a speeding protoneutron quickly passes into an unocupied
unit cell and "pops" into a neutral hydrogen atom, which then is lodged in
whatever empty unit cell it finds itself in when its kinetic energy is
spent. Other, less probable, scenarios involve the separation of the
proton from the electron in grazing collisions with nuclei, and result in
high speed protons and beta particles bouncing around in the lattice. And,
enormously important for present purposes: sometimes the speeding
protoneutrons make centered hits on target nuclei, resulting in
transmutations of elements. 

In the transmutation reactions, what happens is that the target nucleus
absorbs the proton, while the electron continues on its way as a beta
particle. These reactions occur with a vastly elevated proton capture
cross section because the proton comes into the nucleus as a component of
a neutral protoneutron, rather than as a naked proton. Result: it is not
diverted away from the nucleus by coulomb repulsion, and the capture cross
section is enormously increased. To understand the process of protoneutron
transmutation of elements, the best starting point is to open your
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics to the early section entitled "Table of
the Isotopes." [In my 63rd edition, this begins on pg. B-255.]

Looking at the section that describes the isotopes of palladium, you will
note that the following stable isotopes are present in concentrations of
1% or more here on Earth:

46Pd106, 27.3%
46Pd108, 26.7%
46Pd105, 22.2%
46Pd110, 11.8%
46Pd104, 11.0%
46Pd102, 1.0%

These isotopes, mixed in the indicated proportions, comprise the palladium
that is mined on Earth and used in "cold fusion" electrodes. With addition
of a protoneutron, the following transmutation reactions are supported.
Halflives indicated are for the isotopes on the right side of the
equations:

46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta-  (Halflife: 8.4 d)
46Pd108 + pn --> 47Ag108 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.42 min)
46Pd105 + pn --> 47Ag105 + beta-  (Halflife: 40 d)
46Pd110 + pn --> 47Ag110 + beta-  (Halflife: 253 d)
46Pd104 + pn --> 47Ag104 + beta-  (Halflife: 48 min)
46Pd102 + pn --> 47Ag102 + beta-  (Halflife:15 min)

Information about the halflives of the transmuted nuclei were taken from
the silver decay reactions listed under silver isotopes. Needless to say,
the likelihood of one of these transmuted isotopes being found depends
upon the percentage of the parent nucleus in the original palladium
electrode,the halflife of the transmuted nucleus, the duration of the
experimental run, and the time lag between completion of the experimental
run and testing of the cathode for transmuted nuclei. Best conditions for
detection involve long experimental runs followed by immediate testing of
the cathode. Even then, however, the likelihood of finding detectible
amounts of transmuted nuclei such as 47Ag108, 47Ag104, or 47Ag102 are very
slim, due to the short halflives. Nevertheless, the occurrence of these
transmutation events in detectible numbers is virtual proof of the
validity of the protoneutron theory, for the simple reason that no other
theory explains how the proton capture cross sections get high enough to
support these reactions at all. Since a protoneutron is a neutral
particle, the occurence of transmutation reactions in detectible amounts
is a virtual "smoking gun" signature of protoneutron transmutation.  

Various other transmutation events arise due to contamination. For
example, an occasional contaminant of palladium is ruthenium. This occurs
because ruthenium co-ocurs with platinum and palladium in many ore bodies,
and, because of its closeness to palladium in atomic weight, it is
sometimes not separated out. Also, it is deliberately added to palladium
as an electrode hardener in many industrial applications and is thus
frequently present in recycled palladium from industrial sources. In
nature, its isotopes are present in the following proportions:

44Ru102, 31.6%
44Ru104, 18.6%
44Ru101, 17.1%
44Ru99, 12.7%
44Ru100, 12.6%
44Ru96, 5.5%
44Ru98, 1.9%

When ruthenium is present in a cathode, the following protoneutron
transmutation reactions, in addition to the palladium reactions given
above, are supported:

44Ru102 + pn --> 45Rh102 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.9 y)
44Ru104 + pn --> 45Rh104 + beta-  (Halflife: 5 min)
44Ru101 + pn --> 45Rh101 + beta-  (Halflife: 3.1 y)
44Ru99 + pn --> 45Rh99 + beta-  (Halflife: 16 d)
44Ru100 + pn --> 45Rh100 + beta-  (Halflife:20 h)
44Ru96 + pn --> 45Rh96 + beta-  (Halflife: 0 s) [Note: 45Rh96 has never
been detected.]
44Ru98 + pn --> 45Rh98 + beta-  (Halflife: 8.7 min)

Once again, the halflives given are taken the rhodium decay reactions
given in the rhodium section of the isotope table. The likelihood of
detection of particular transmutation daughter nuclei of ruthenium is
determined by the same considerations as described above, for palladium
transmutations.

I would note, in passing, that the preceding considerations explain very
nicely the results of the experiment conducted by Dr. Kevin Wolf at Texas
A & M, as reported in Infinite Energy #2, pg. 30-32.

As noted above, platinum, palladium, and ruthenium are found together in
many orebodies. Thus platinum is an occasional contaminant of palladium,
and the same basic analysis given above applies again. The natiurally
occuring isotopes of platinum are:

78Pt195, 33.8%
78Pt194, 32.9%
78Pt196, 25.3%
78Pt198, 7.2%

When platinum is present as a contaminant in a palladium cathode,
therefore, the following protoneutron transmutation reactions are to be
expected:

78Pt195 + pn --> 79Au195 + beta-  (Halflife: 183 d)
78Pt194 + pn --> 79Au194 + beta-  (Halflife: 39.5 h)
78Pt196 + pn --> 79Au196 + beta-  (Halflife: 6.18 d)
78Pt198 + pn --> 79Au198 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.7 d)

The above considerations explain the detection of gold in some experiments.
 
Another contaminant sometimes found with palladium is silver. When silver
is present, the same sort of analysis predicts the production of cadmium
by protoneutron transmutation. I'll skip the details, since the analysis
should be clear enough based on the above examples. Here are the steps:
look up the contaminant isotopes in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
and list the isotopes that occur in nature in amounts in excess of 1%.
Then match up against the element of the next higher number (cadmium, in
the present case), and select out the isotopes with the matching atomic
weights. Then record the halflives listed for the transmutation daughter
nuclei. It's simple!

When other cathode materials (e.g., titanium, nickel, etc.) are used, the
same approach applies: determine the transmutation byproducts of the
material used, and of its various contaminants. In a few cases,
contamination of the electrode occurs via the plating out of metals
present in the electrolyte. Often the source of such metals lies in the
use of hard water rather than distilled water. Potassium, for example, may
plate out on the cathode and be transmuted into calcium. An analysis
conducted along these lines will explain virtually all the observed
results.

Conclusion: the observed transmutation events are a byproduct of the
protoneutron chain reaction. They occur in measurable quantities for one
reason only: because a protoneutron, in effect, is a neutral proton, and
as a result it isn't deflected by coulomb forces as it approaches a
nucleus. Result: the capture cross section of a proton, when embedded in a
protoneutron, is enormously enhanced. Since no other theory of "cold
fusion" explains this massive enhancement of the proton capture cross
section, I consider the transmutation reactions to be virtual proof of the
validity of the protoneutron theory. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mario Pain /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 09:29:36 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
> 
>>To develop 5 watts at a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min would require a pressure
>>drop of approx 3000 PSI.
>>
>>Hint:
>>
>>Look elswhere.
> 
>Thank you VERY MUCH John! Ah, you are there when I need you with things
>like the Thermodynamic Scorecard. You are so good at simple quantitative
>analysis, and I am so bad at it. At least I recognize how important it is
>to Put A Number On It.
> 
 Yes. At least there are some people who, whe asked, give figures and not
insults. Unfortunately, Jed, you are not one of them as your posts show!

 The Cheek!!!!!!!!!!!

















cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Protoneutron Transmutations
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Protoneutron Transmutations
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:51:00 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <21cenlogic-1310950814330001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]
> Looking at the section that describes the isotopes of palladium, you will
> note that the following stable isotopes are present in concentrations of
> 1% or more here on Earth:
> 
> 46Pd106, 27.3%
> 46Pd108, 26.7%
> 46Pd105, 22.2%
> 46Pd110, 11.8%
> 46Pd104, 11.0%
> 46Pd102, 1.0%
> 
> These isotopes, mixed in the indicated proportions, comprise the palladium
> that is mined on Earth and used in "cold fusion" electrodes. With addition
> of a protoneutron, the following transmutation reactions are supported.
> Halflives indicated are for the isotopes on the right side of the
> equations:
> 
> 46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta-  (Halflife: 8.4 d)
> 46Pd108 + pn --> 47Ag108 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.42 min)
> 46Pd105 + pn --> 47Ag105 + beta-  (Halflife: 40 d)
> 46Pd110 + pn --> 47Ag110 + beta-  (Halflife: 253 d)
> 46Pd104 + pn --> 47Ag104 + beta-  (Halflife: 48 min)
> 46Pd102 + pn --> 47Ag102 + beta-  (Halflife:15 min)
> 

***{I hate to attack my own posts, but as soon as I hit the send button on
this one I noticed that I should have included a neutron emission on the
right sides of these equations. For example: "46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 +
beta-  (Halflife: 8.4 d)" should read "46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta- +
n (Halflife: 8.4 d)." Otherwise, nothing about the post changes. Sorry
about that! (That will teach me to lecture others about reaching for the
send button too quickly!) --Mitchell Jones}***

[Remainder snipped]

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 08:32:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> writes:
 
>So what is the nominal power of the pump? Is it comparable to the
>measured heat/sec gain of the water flow? If its way less, we should
>forget it.
 
I don't know what the nominal power of the pump is, but I sure do know
that we should forget it. Let me explain:
 
Most of the waste heat from any pump goes into the air, not into the fluid
the pump is pushing. That is to say; most of the electrical energy consumed
by the pump is lost to mechanical innefficiency at the pump motor. This is
particularly true of small pumps.
 
In this particular case, I do not know how much energy the pump adds to the
water, but I do know that it is too small to measure with these instruments.
Please read this carefully, because I have said it many times and I do not
think you got the message: They *calibrated carefully*. They made null runs.
They saw no heat from the pump. Nobody ever does see the heat from the pump
with this kind of flow calorimeter.
 
That brings us to my most important point. People do understand the
charactoristics of flow calorimeters. They have been in use for a long, long
time. Issues like the heat added to the water by the pump are well
understood. This is not terra incognito.
 
Now then, if you have any doubt about what I say -- any doubt at all! -- I
urge you to stop posting messages about this, stop speculating, stop
worrying and . . . DO AN EXPERIMENT!!! Get a small pump. Run water through
some tubes and a micron filter. Try it yourself, it is not such a big deal.
I have lots of experience with small pumps both in CF and in dealing with
fishtanks, because my house has tanks and an ornamental pond. You can buy
good little pumps at any aquarium supply place, you don't need a high tech
one to test this hypothesis of yours. If you work in a medical facility, you
can use a IV pump. Remember: we are talking about a flow of only 14 ml/min;
two tablespoons.
 
Finally, just to add a little common sense here (something sorely lacking in
this discussion), consider what would happen if the pump or if an in-line
heater was to add, say, 20 watts to the water as it passed through the pipe.
What would happen? Nothing much. It would cool off. If it was not completely
cool by the time it reached the cell, traveling at that slow 14 ml/min, then
it would show up as negative enthalpy -- a cooling off process, rather than
excess heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 08:40:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
> I have asked a simple question. You refuse to answer. So I will ask another one:
>Have you measured the pressure drop across de calorimeter YES or NO ? And if
>the answer is NO, then how do you know it is insignificant ?
 
I answered that question DOZENS of times, when we debated this issue.
Furthermore, anyone with any common sense can answer it with a little thought.
Here:
 
I have not personally even seen this particular calorimeter, so natually
I have not measured anything. I talked to the people who built it; I know
generally what it looks like, and I have worked with other, similar
calorimeters.
 
No, I have not measured the pressure drop. Neither has anyone else. YOU CANNOT
MEASURE IT, IT IS FAR TOO SMALL!!! Got it? Too small. It does not show up
on the instruments. It would take hundreds of psi for the pressure drop to
show up (in the form of heat, of course), and this arrangement can only have
a fraction of one psi. You could easily force water through this loop by
holding the pipe up and letting gravity feed it through. AS I SAID DOZENS OF
TIMES, Cravens, Hagelstein and others computed the pressure drop based on the
manufacturers specs for the filter and a few other numbers, and they figured
that the total energy consumed pushing the water along was at the milliwatt
level. Or maybe it was microwatts; I do not recall. In any case, it was far
too small to measure with this particular setup, and most of the heat from
it (like 90%) would be added at the filter where it would make no difference
to the calorimetery no matter what.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 08:46:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
> Yes. At least there are some people who, whe asked, give figures and not
>insults. Unfortunately, Jed, you are not one of them as your posts show!
 
I gave the exact figures! You did not read them. I said in the first
message in this thread that the flow rates is 14 ml/min, and I repeated that
statement three times after that. Then you came along (just now) and said
to John Logajan that you somehow missed seeing that.
 
It is obvious that you are not reading the message here. You are not paying
attention. And then you blame me because you are too lazy to read the
messages.
 
Not only did I give you all the numbers you need, but I published an in-depth
discussion of a very similar flow calorimeter, plus the paper by Cravens,
in "Infinite Energy" and I toldl you right here where you can find that.
You are demanding that I spoon feed you all the data, all the facts, and
all the computations. You don't want to do any thinking for yourself, you
want me to do it all for you. And when I finally do it, you pay no attention
and you complain to John Logajan that I did not tell you the flow rate!!!
You are acting like a spoiled child.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 09:07:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Here is exactly what I said, from the first message in this thread, which you
probably never bothered to read:
 
     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.
 
How could you possibly have read that and failed to notice that the flow rate
is 14 ml/min? I gave the number twice here, I explained why they picked that
flow rate, and I repeated that fact again three times in subsequent messages.
I said it is two tablespoons a minute. I explain and explained. You paid no
attention and now you blame *me* because *you* missed the essentials. How lazy
you are! How disgraceful!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Chuck Gaston /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: Chuck Gaston <CAG9@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:36:05 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <45hl8m$gai@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) says:
>
>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)

You might want to look up the Orion Project -- a serious study, done in the
1960s (or late 50s), that showed the practical advantages of powering a space-
ship with nuclear bombs!

By coincidence, the latest issue of Analog Science Fiction/Fact contains a
story about the resurrection of that idea.  I don't remember the title.
That issue probably is dated November or even December.  I'm not sure of the
date, but I am sure that it includes the third part of a four-part serial
titled "Cetaganda".
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenCAG9 cudfnChuck cudlnGaston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Malcolm McMahon /  Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:10:00 GMT

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article: <813569867.15841@pigsty.demon.co.uk>  
>malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>> No, actually it's a very silly approach. It's far more efficient to
>> convert the electricity into whatever final form you want the energy
>> in. The only exception would be if the energy was being produced by
>> some photochemical process where is was a lot easier to produce
>> hydrogen than electricity because of the chemistry of the cell.
>> 
>Stick to topics you happen to know something about. The hydrogen would 
>be useful (overwhelming so) in two situations: (a) where it is needed as 
>a transportation fuel (a hydrogen-powered automobile is a much more 
>efficient on-road machine than a battery-powered equivalent, even 
>without the charging of batteries which this requires); and (b) where 
>long-distance transportation of energy (say from North Africa to NW 
>Europe, or from SE China to its industrial northwest) is required, which 
>cannot adequately or efficently enough be done by long-distance power 
>grids.

Yes, sorry. Hydrogen is a potentially useful energy store. What I was
orgininally commenting on was those people who thing that electroysis
and burning the hydrogen is a kind of perpetual motion machine which
is, I think, the equivalent of the first posting's precept (that you
could get net energy by making anti-matter). So I read the followup
post in the same light.


 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmalcolm cudfnMalcolm cudlnMcMahon cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  bearpaw /  Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:59:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>
>"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article: <813501917.20216@pigsty.demon.co.uk>  
>>malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>>> No, won't work. Actually it's like the recurent idea of electrolysing
>>> water to produce hydrogen which is then burnt.
>>>
>>Which is a very valid approach if you use solar-powered photoelectricity 
>>to do the electrolysing, and can get the economics correct.
>
>No, actually it's a very silly approach. It's far more efficient to
>convert the electricity into whatever final form you want the energy
>in. The only exception would be if the energy was being produced by
>some photochemical process where is was a lot easier to produce
>hydrogen than electricity because of the chemistry of the cell.

Or if the hydrogen (or anti-matter) made sense as a way to store and 
later retrieve the energy.  

Bearpaw

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|          Bearpaw MacDonald  (bearpaw@world.std.com)           |
|               http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/                  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Protoneutron Transmutations
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Protoneutron Transmutations
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:14:33 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

I have received a couple of e-mail requests to explain the observed
transmutation of elements by "cold fusion" cells, in terms of the
protoneutron theory. My answer is that such events arise as a direct
consequence of the protoneutron chain reaction. As I have noted
repeatedly, the protoneutron (pn) is characterized by *energy rapacity.*
To reestablish the context, let me review the main points: 

(a) The protoneutron is wildly unstable, and is desperately hungry for the
energy of transformation into a more stable state. If radiant energy of
more than .78 Mev passes in its vicinity, it subtracts .78 Mev and
transforms into a neutron. The neutron in question is a cold neutron: it
remains in the node of the lattice wave, with virtually zero kinetic
energy, like the protoneutron that produced it. 

(b) If radiant energy of less than .78 Mev is available, that energy is
taken in the form of kinetic energy. The result is a protoneutron shooting
through the lattice with that amount of kinetic energy and, in the normal
case, it delivers its energy to the lattice in a series of collisions. In
most cases, such a speeding protoneutron quickly passes into an unocupied
unit cell and "pops" into a neutral hydrogen atom, which then becomes
lodged in whatever empty unit cell it finds itself in when its kinetic
energy has been transformed into heat. Other, less probable, scenarios
involve the separation of the proton from the electron in grazing
collisions with nuclei, and result in high speed protons and beta
particles bouncing around in the lattice until they, too, have given up
their kinetic energy as heat. Another scenario, enormously important for
present purposes, is the following: *sometimes the speeding protoneutrons
make centered hits on target nuclei, resulting in transmutations of
elements.* 

In the transmutation reactions, what happens is that the target nucleus
absorbs the proton, while the loosely bound electron is shaken free by the
collision and continues on its way as a beta particle. These reactions
occur with a vastly elevated proton capture cross section because the
proton comes into the nucleus as a component of a neutral protoneutron,
rather than as a naked proton. Result: it is not diverted away from the
nucleus by coulomb repulsion, and the capture cross section is enormously
increased. To understand the process of protoneutron transmutation of
elements, the best starting point is to open your Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics to the early section entitled "Table of the Isotopes." [In my
63rd edition, this begins on pg. B-255.]

Looking at the section that describes the isotopes of palladium, you will
note that the following stable isotopes are present in concentrations of
1% or more here on Earth:

46Pd106, 27.3%
46Pd108, 26.7%
46Pd105, 22.2%
46Pd110, 11.8%
46Pd104, 11.0%
46Pd102, 1.0%

These isotopes, mixed in the indicated proportions, comprise the palladium
that is mined on Earth and used in "cold fusion" electrodes. With addition
of a protoneutron, the following transmutation reactions are supported.
Halflives indicated are for the isotopes on the right side of the
equations:

46Pd106 + pn --> 47Ag106 + beta-  (Halflife: 8.4 d)
46Pd108 + pn --> 47Ag108 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.42 min)
46Pd105 + pn --> 47Ag105 + beta-  (Halflife: 40 d)
46Pd110 + pn --> 47Ag110 + beta-  (Halflife: 253 d)
46Pd104 + pn --> 47Ag104 + beta-  (Halflife: 48 min)
46Pd102 + pn --> 47Ag102 + beta-  (Halflife:15 min)

Information about the halflives of the transmuted nuclei were taken from
the silver decay reactions listed under silver isotopes. Needless to say,
the likelihood of one of these transmuted isotopes being found depends
upon the percentage of the parent nucleus in the original palladium
electrode,the halflife of the transmuted nucleus, the duration of the
experimental run, and the time lag between completion of the experimental
run and testing of the cathode for transmuted nuclei. Best conditions for
detection involve long experimental runs followed by immediate testing of
the cathode. Even then, however, the likelihood of finding detectible
amounts of transmuted nuclei such as 47Ag108, 47Ag104, or 47Ag102 are very
slim, due to the short halflives. Nevertheless, the occurrence of these
transmutation events in detectible numbers is virtual proof of the
validity of the protoneutron theory, for the simple reason that no other
theory explains how the proton capture cross sections get high enough to
support these reactions at all. Since a protoneutron is a neutral
particle, the occurence of transmutation reactions in detectible amounts
is a virtual "smoking gun" signature of protoneutron transmutation.  

Various other transmutation events arise due to contamination. For
example, an occasional contaminant of palladium is ruthenium. This occurs
because ruthenium co-ocurs with platinum and palladium in many ore bodies,
and, because of its closeness to palladium in atomic weight, it is
sometimes not separated out. Also, it is deliberately added to palladium
as an electrode hardener in many industrial applications and is thus
frequently present in recycled palladium from industrial sources. In
nature, its isotopes are present in the following proportions:

44Ru102, 31.6%
44Ru104, 18.6%
44Ru101, 17.1%
44Ru99, 12.7%
44Ru100, 12.6%
44Ru96, 5.5%
44Ru98, 1.9%

When ruthenium is present in a cathode, the following protoneutron
transmutation reactions, in addition to the palladium reactions given
above, are supported:

44Ru102 + pn --> 45Rh102 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.9 y)
44Ru104 + pn --> 45Rh104 + beta-  (Halflife: 5 min)
44Ru101 + pn --> 45Rh101 + beta-  (Halflife: 3.1 y)
44Ru99 + pn --> 45Rh99 + beta-  (Halflife: 16 d)
44Ru100 + pn --> 45Rh100 + beta-  (Halflife:20 h)
44Ru96 + pn --> 45Rh96 + beta-  (Halflife: 0 s) [Note: 45Rh96 has never
been detected.]
44Ru98 + pn --> 45Rh98 + beta-  (Halflife: 8.7 min)

Once again, the halflives given are taken the rhodium decay reactions
given in the rhodium section of the isotope table. The likelihood of
detection of particular transmutation daughter nuclei of ruthenium is
determined by the same considerations as described above, for palladium
transmutations.

I would note, in passing, that the preceding considerations explain very
nicely the results of the experiment conducted by Dr. Kevin Wolf at Texas
A & M, as reported in Infinite Energy #2, pg. 30-32.

As noted above, platinum, palladium, and ruthenium are found together in
many orebodies. Thus platinum is an occasional contaminant of palladium,
and the same basic analysis given above applies again. The natiurally
occuring isotopes of platinum are:

78Pt195, 33.8%
78Pt194, 32.9%
78Pt196, 25.3%
78Pt198, 7.2%

When platinum is present as a contaminant in a palladium cathode,
therefore, the following protoneutron transmutation reactions are to be
expected:

78Pt195 + pn --> 79Au195 + beta-  (Halflife: 183 d)
78Pt194 + pn --> 79Au194 + beta-  (Halflife: 39.5 h)
78Pt196 + pn --> 79Au196 + beta-  (Halflife: 6.18 d)
78Pt198 + pn --> 79Au198 + beta-  (Halflife: 2.7 d)

The above considerations explain the detection of gold in some experiments.
 
Another contaminant sometimes found with palladium is silver. When silver
is present, the same sort of analysis predicts the production of cadmium
by protoneutron transmutation. I'll skip the details, since the analysis
should be clear enough based on the above examples. Here are the steps:
look up the contaminant isotopes in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
and list the isotopes that occur in nature in amounts in excess of 1%.
Then match up against the element of the next higher number (cadmium, in
the present case), and select out the isotopes with the matching atomic
weights. Then write down the reactions and record the halflives listed for
the transmutation daughter nuclei. It's simple!

When other cathode materials (e.g., titanium, nickel, etc.) are used, the
same approach applies: determine the transmutation byproducts of the
material used, and the transmutation byproducts of its various
contaminants. In a few cases, contamination of the electrode occurs via
the plating out of metals present in the electrolyte. Often the source of
such metals lies in the use of hard water rather than distilled water.
Potassium, for example, may plate out on the cathode and be transmuted
into calcium. An analysis conducted along these lines will explain
virtually all the observed results.

Conclusion: the observed transmutation events are a byproduct of the
protoneutron chain reaction. They occur in measurable quantities for one
reason only: because a protoneutron, in effect, is a neutral proton, and
as a result it isn't deflected by coulomb forces as it approaches a
nucleus. Result: the capture cross section of a proton, when embedded in a
protoneutron, is enormously enhanced. Since no other theory of "cold
fusion" explains this massive enhancement of the proton capture cross
section, I consider the transmutation reactions to be virtual proof of the
validity of the protoneutron theory. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Two Questions
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two Questions
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:00:44 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

To Whom it May Concern:

I'm sorry for the repetition of the protoneutron transmutation material in
this post. I originally intended to post it as "Three Questions" rather
than two, but decided at the last moment that it deserved a thread of its
own. Somehow, unfortunately, my attempt to delete it from the bottom of
the "Two Questions" post did not succeed. Please, therefore, post any
replies to it in the thread by that name. (This is definitely not my day.
I have had to post corrections to everything I have put out, so far!) 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:43:51 -0900
Organization: none

In article <hheffner-1210951248500001@204.57.193.64>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <45hl8m$gai@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
> Merriman) wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> 
> I would suggest that a fusion rocket would primarily be useful on an
> interstellar trip. In that case, the weight of the reactor would be
> incidental to the fuel weight. Since 200MeV/235 < 17MeV/2, i.e. .85 < 8.5,
> you would get 10 times the energy per mass of fuel in a fusion rocket. 
> 
> Since the subject of energy for space travel is raised, I have often been
> curious about the possibility of using vacuum fluctuations as a means of
> accelerating a space ship.  This would be done by establishing an enormous
> electrostatic field that would separate charged particle/antipartile pairs
> created by vacuum fluctuations. These particles would be separated in the
> gap between two "dee's", hollow conductors, with a transverse magnetic
> field similar to a cyclotron. The magnetic field would be used to separate
> particles by mass/charge and change their direction toward the back of the
> ship. The particles, still inside the dee's would be accelerated by
> synchrotron accelerators (giving an impulse to the ship), they would then
> exit the dee's (prior to leaving the ship) where their mutual
> electrostatic attraction would bring them together to annihilation,
> emitting photons etc. by which some of the energy of separation could be
> retrieved.
> 
> Since no reactive mass need be carried, only energy, it seems this scheme
> would eventually violate conservation of energy because the kinetic energy
> of the ship  is 1/2 m v^2 but v is proportional to the energy loaded at
> the start of the voyage. By doubling the fuel (a small part of the mass of
> the ship) you could get double the velocity, or four times the ship
> kinetic energy. Something does not add up. What is it?
> 

Sorry, about the above oversite, using deterium as fuel you would only get
about 22MeV/4amu = 5.5 MeV/amu verses .85 for U235.  However, ejecting
small reactive masses provides much more impulse than large masses ejected
at the same energy, i.e. in inverse proportion to the square root of mass.
Assuming an average mass of 235/2 = 117 for U235 fission byproducts,
helium creates  29 times more impulse per expended energy, making
deuterium a better rocket fuel by a factor of 187. I know this is a rough
estimate, but it gives the idea.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Two Questions
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two Questions
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:13:05 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-1310952333520001@204.57.193.65>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-1310950817300001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > (2) I have received several comments from people who have read statements
> > that the palladium lattice is cubic, face centered, rather than cubic,
> > body centered, as I have assumed in my various posts. The answer to this
> > is that palladium exists in two forms. One is known as "spongy palladium,"
> > in which the specific gravity is 11.5, and the lattice is cubic, body
> > centered. This is the form normally used for CF cathodes, because it has a
> > very high capacity to absorb hydrogen. It is sometimes prepared by the
> > ignition of palladium cyanide, which decomposes to leave pure spongy
> > palladium. The other form, sometimes referred to as "hard palladium," has
> > a specific gravity of 12.02, and is much more resistant to hydrogen
> > absorption because it has only one third as many octahedral unit cells as
> > the spongy form. 
> > 
> [snip]
> > 
> > --Mitchell Jones
> > 
> > ===========================================================
> 
> This is very interresting.  I wonder if mixtures of the two crystal types
> exist in some electrodes, and if loading might cause changes from one type
> to another.  It is interresting that the CETI beads, one of the most
> reliable electrodes to date, being plated, would presuably be cubic, face
> centered. 

***{Actually, I would think just the opposite. Pressure during the time of
formation, presumably, is what produces the denser lattice. Since
electrolytic deposition allows the layers to build up gradually, one on
top of another *without* pressure, I would expect the formation of spongy
palladium. Of course, this is just an opinion and it would be interesting
to know the actual answer. --Mitchell Jones}***

 It sounds like x-ray crystallography on electrodes that "turn
> on", especially "heat after death" electrodes, might be very useful.
> 
> Also, perhaps this characteristic is at least one contributor to the all or
> nothing effect Dick Blue has brought up in another thread?

***{I have no doubt that one of these lattice types is better suited to
"cold fusion" purposes than the other, probably because their lattice
waves have different characteristics. One probably has a larger proportion
of the lattice in the nodes of the wave, for example. However, without
performing a rather complicated wave mechanical analysis, probably
requiring a supercomputer, I would hesitate to say which. Fortunately,
experimental trial and error is a perfectly adequate basis for such
choices. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>                                   PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
> Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Dipole Gravity 2
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dipole Gravity 2
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:24:36 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <45nern$21v@giga.bga.com>, ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong) wrote:

> As an another example, the two opposite jet streams coming out of the 
> black hole accretion disk can also be explained by this mechanism by 
> considering the spinning black hole as a system of two dipoles attached 
> face to face on the flat side of the hemispheres producing the opposite 
> outward repulsive forces from the horizon near the rotation axis strong 
> enough to overcome the black hole's attractive gravitational force. The 
> repulsive dipole force can become stronger than the attractive force of 
> the black hole at the horizon near the rotational symmetry axis above 
> certain critical angular frequency (the drc in this case is about 1/8th 
> of the radius of the black hole) due to the distance between the two 
> center of mass of the hemispheres and the inverse r3 behavior of the 
> repulsive force, which makes it possible for particles at both poles to 
> experience the net outward normal force. The observed jets are considered 
> to be the manifestation of the particleÕs trajectories experiencing this 
> force. The two opposite jets also conform to the fact that the polarity 
> of the dipole moment is independent of the direction of the rotation of 
> each hemispheres as predicted. Other explanations12-14 lack credibility 
> since the black hole's enormous attractive gravitational force would not 
> allow any materials (even photons) to come off from its horizon near the 
> symmetry axis where the centrifugal force is at the minimum. 
> 
> This is an another part of the text from the manuscript "Center of Mass 
> Shift"
> 
> For unlimited energy production resulting from this theory see the URL
> 
> http://www.realtime.net/~jeong/
> 
> Some cowardly person tries to erase this message from the dark. Show 
> yourself to confront me with your scientific reasoning. This is the most 
> cowardly act I have ever seen in my entire life. Watch people who is 
> erasing this message.

***{This sounds to me like the work of Mark North. Speak up, Mark! Did
you, in your exalted majesty, deem this fellow's post to be "off topic?"
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Euejin

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 18:41:52 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <21cenlogic-1510951648190001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[Snipped]

> > Your friend should should learn some basic Physics as well as how to solve
> > 2nd order coupled differential equations!
> 
> ***{Martin, you are making this sound a *lot* more complicated than it
> really is. The simple way to think about problems of this sort is to
> simply recognize that pressure is a form of energy storage. Thus if, for
> example, we place a gallon of water in a plastic bag and place it on the
> surface of a lake, the gallon of water has potential energy due to its
> position at the top of the body of water. If we then swim down to the
> bottom of the lake and place it there, it has exactly the same amount of
> energy, stored in the form of pressure. If we then swim over to the bottom
> of a nearby dam and release the bag of water so that it goes out through a
> spillway and returns to ambient pressure, the pressure energy is converted
> into kinetic energy. And if it then slows down and settles into a quiet
> puddle, the kinetic energy is converted into heat. 
> 
> For present purposes, we are concerned with the possibility that the pump
> boosts the pressure of the water and, further down the line, the pressure
> drops back to the average level in the flow, converting all of the
> pressure to heat. Since we have a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min or 5.24E-4
> lbs/sec 

***{To elaborate: 14.28/60 gives .238 ml/sec. Since each ml weighs about 1
gram, that gives .238 grams/sec. Each gram weighs 2.2/1000 lbs, so we have
a flow of 5.24E-4 lbs/sec --MJ}***

and we are producing 5 watts or 44.19 in-lbs/sec

***{The calculation is easy: 5 watts equals 5 joules/sec, which equals 5
newton-meters/sec. A Newton is a force of about .2245 lbs, and so 5
Newton-meters/sec equals 5 times .2245 times 39.37, which equals 44.19
inch-lbs/sec. --MJ}***

, the essential
> question is simply how high must we raise a chunk of water that weighs
> 5.24E-4 lbs in order to give it 44.19 in-lbs of potential energy. Once we
> know that, we simply calculate the pressure at the bottom of that column
> of water, and we have our answer. 
> 
> Here is the way it works. If we let H represent the height, in inches, at
> which 5.24E-4 lbs of water has 44.19 in-lbs of potential energy, then we
> have: 
> 
> 5.24E-4 times H = 44.19, which means that H = 8.439E+7 inches.

***{Double oops! That should be 8.439E+4 inches! Wow! --MJ}*** 
> 
> The pressure in psi at the bottom of a column of water 8.439E+7 inches
> high is simply the weight of a 1 square inch column of that height. We
> just divide by 231 to convert cubic inches to gallons, and multiply by 8.3
> (the weight of a gallon of water), and we get 3.03E+6 psi, which divided
> by 14.7 psi gives 206,123 atmospheres.

***{Which, due to the arithmetic error above (which occurred when copying
figures scribbled from a scratchpad), the true answer is 3.03E+3 psi,
which gives about 206 atmospheres. Why did this obvious error not get
noticed? Because it produced a figure which matched Martin Sevior's
conclusion and, thus, seemed to have been confirmed!  Unfortunately,
Martin's result was also in error! Dag nab it! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> It's simple, and differential equations are *not* required. --Mitchell
> Jones}***   
> > 
> [The rest snipped]
> 
> ===========================================================

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:37:36 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1310952103020001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> I understand your logic and why resistance decreases in a cavitation
> channel. I am not convinced of your extrapolation. In essence, you are
> saying at higher rotation speeds the cavitation channel behaves like a
> solid preventing diffusion of material into it. I need to see some numbers
> before I would be convinced. Frankly, I don't find this explaination any
> more satisfying than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

***{It's just simple algebra, Bill. Assume a particle is intruding into
the cavitation channel with velocity V. If there is only one electron in
the orbit and the period of the orbit is T, then on the average the
particle will have a time interval T/2 to travel into the channel before
the electron comes around and knocks it out again. Thus the distance
traveled into the channel will be VT/2. Now, clearly, as the orbital
frequency increases, VT/2 decreases. What could be simpler, or more
unarguable, than that? --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Slower than light photons, and faster...
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Slower than light photons, and faster...
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 20:35:41 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <EACHUS.95Oct12173555@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:

> In article <295715314wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk> "Alan M. Dunsmuir"
<Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
>   > You will probably have noticed that Mitchell is at his most abusive when 
>   > asked the most reasonable question, such as "Has anybody ever observed 
>   > any physical phenomenon which could plausibly be interpreted as evidence 
>   > that photons might in some circumstances travel in vacuum at a speed of 
>   > less than c?"...
> 
>      I was just reading an article, I'll bring in the references
> tomorrow

***{Promises, promises! Tomorrow has come and gone, Bob! --Mitchell Jones}***

, on microwave beam crossing forbidden regions in a specially
> designed waveguide.  The time of transit is constant, but the signal
> loss grows exponentially with distance.  (The maximum distances in the
> article were about a foot, and at that distance the speed of transit
> was significantly greater than c, but I guess you could build a system
> where the gaps were small enough to create an average velocity less
> than c.)
> 
>     Of course this is all completely consistant with QM

***{Everything is consistent with QM, of course! When a new data point
doesn't fit, they just tweak the math, and thereafter claim that they
"predicted" it all along! --Mitchell Jones}***

, and in fact
> the photons cannot be detected in the forbidden gap, so speaking about
> the speed of those photons is a stretch.

***{Yup. One day I timed a train entering a one mile tunnel. When I saw it
emerge from the other side of the mountain a minute later, I was tempted
to conclude that it had been going 60 miles per hour, until it occurred to
me that speaking of the speed of a train I cannot see is a stretch! Why,
truth be told, the train may have ceased to exist the very instant that it
entered the tunnel, and may have returned to existence when I saw it again
on the other side! Since it may not have existed in the tunnel, I would
have been very foolish indeed to assume that it was going 60 mph!
--Mitchell Jones}***
> --
> 
>                                         Robert I. Eachus
> 
> with Standard_Disclaimer;
> use  Standard_Disclaimer;
> function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 15:27:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dick Blue writes:
 
    "Jed Rothwell claims that, "Researchers understand the characteristics of
    their instruments."  If that is so for the CETI demo why have you not
    passed on their explanation for the operation of this device?"
 
I have passed it on countless times. It is very simple: the cell inside
the loop is generating excess heat. It produces 80 times more energy out than
you put in. That is why the instrument performs the way it does. As to why
the cell produces heat -- nobody knows.
 
 
    "Since the pump clearly does no work I would just suggest that it be
    left out of the circuit."
 
Naturally, CETI has run that configuration too. They have used both static
and flow calorimeters. So have hundreds of other CF workers. Obviously, the
CETI cell shows copious excess heat in a static calorimeter too. No doubt Dick
Blue will tell us that static calorimetry does not work. He believes that
when a small body maintains a temperature elevated far above the surroundings
week after week without consuming any fuel that does not prove anything.
That's what he says he believes, anyway. Actually, Dick will believe any idea
that pops into his head, no matter how preposterous it is, no matter how many
fundamental scientific laws it violates. He is a master at inventing crackpot
science on the fly. He can prove anything he wants. He can convince himself
that flow calorimeters do not work. Nothing that I can say and no amount of
proof could ever change his mind. It is like trying to convince a member of
the Flat Earth society that the earth is round.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Torin Walker /  H dissolved Pd bead in molten Li fusion reactor?
     
Originally-From: Torin Walker <torin@numetrix.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H dissolved Pd bead in molten Li fusion reactor?
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:58:03 -0400
Organization: InfoRamp Inc., Toronto, Ontario (416) 363-9100

This may (or may not) be of particular interest to those involved in the
conventional fusion area, specifically those who are working on the molten
Lithium fusion reactors.

My brother and I were discussing, among other things, hot (and cold) fusion,
fuel cells, general chemistry, etc. when he came up with a very interesting
idea. Here it is:

Instead of using little glass spheres containing Deuterium gas, use Palladium
beads of the same size. Pressurize Deuterium gas in a containment system and
insert a palladium bead (same size as the ones made with glass). The palladium
will dissolve many volumes of the gas compared to what could be contained within
the same sized glass bead.

Put the Pd bead into the reactor target zone and fire upon it as if it were a
regular target.


We thought this might provide two useful features:

1) More Deuterium per unit volume for higher energy output (more fuel, more
ooompf!) thus resulting in a greater potential for a sustained reaction. 

2) The Palladium lattice would provide much of the same functionality as the
glass; It will contain at least the same amount of fuel, but has a lower
vaporization energy than glass resulting in better utilization of the laser
energy (although the difference is probably insignificant), and the Pd crystal
structure surrounds the Deuterium molecules allowing for the compression of
the Deuterium gas, just like the bead.

Alternatively, one could use Ti (titanium) which also dissolves H2 / D2 gas.
 

Torin...
-- 
Torin Walker - Made from 100% pure nerd.                  Voice: (416) 979-6797
Network Administrator, Technical Support                               Ext. 101
Numetrix, Ltd., Toronto, Canada.                            Fax: (416) 979-7559
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentorin cudfnTorin cudlnWalker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:40:27 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <45fkdu$btj@saba.info.ucla.edu>, barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) wrote:

> 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
> ><commisb@fs4.eng.man.ac.uk> 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 :-)

***{Ho, ho, ho. --MJ}***
> 
> >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.

***{How would you know, Barry? You obviously didn't read it the first
time! I repeated the explanation for the "preferred" orbits in another
post. Have you read it yet? If you have, then you must realize that the
Lyman, Balmer, and Paschen series of spectral lines are explained by
electron jumps from outer orbits to the first, second, and third
"preferred" orbits, respectively. Do you disagree with this explanation?
If so, why? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Although we should probably establish some ground rules---do
> you believe in classical E&M? 

***{Classical electromagnetics comes in several forms. The earlier form
was based on Coulomb's law, the Biot-Savart law, and Faraday's law of
magnetic induction. This form I believe in to the extent that the
formulations are confined to interpolations and nearby extrapolations of
the data points known when these laws were dominant. The later form of
classical electromagnetics arose when James Maxwell added a fourth law to
the above three--Maxwell's law of magnetoelectric induction--and expressed
the resultant system in terms of four differential equations. Here, again,
I accept these formulations to the extent that they are employed to
calculate interpolations and nearby extrapolations from the experimental
data points to which they were originally curve fitted. I do not, as I
have noted in another post (to you, I think), expect these constructs to
work within an atomic system, because such an extrapolation is far too
extreme to have any chance of success. Bottom line: I treat the
mathematical constructs of physics *in context* rather than out of
context. I do not delude myself into believing that they were arrived at
on the basis of deep physical understanding. They are, as I have said over
and over and over again, merely curve fitted mathematical constructs. If
you want deep understanding of physics, you have to do the laborious
mental work that is required to construct a visual model. This is the
proper work of theoretical physics, not of mathematical physics.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Is there any part at all of
> established physics you do believe in?

***{I accept the present-day mathematical constructs on the same basis as
the 19th century constructs. The acceptance is contextual. I impute no
deep physical understanding to any of these formulas, and I do not expect
any of them to support extreme extrapolations from the data points to
which they were originally fitted. Understanding is the same thing today
that it was in the past: you don't have it until you have a visual model
of what in the hell the equations *mean.* --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Doug Shade /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 20:06:51 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Well ever since discussion of Tom's report on the Griggs thingy died
down, I haven't been reading the group much.  But now, about the SOFE
demonstration...  let me just assume that it really does work as
advertised (demonstrated)...

What are the known problems with scaling the design up?  Do the
spherical electrodes have a limited life?  Are they hugely expensive to
make?  (Or is it too expensive to build 3000 PSI plumbing? ha ha )

Thanks

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:24 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> COLD FUSION DEMO AT SOFE '95 WORKED WELL
->
-> Last week I reported that a cold fusion cell would be demonstrated during a
-> big hot fusion conference: the 16th biannual Symposium on Fusion Engineering
-> (SOFE '95) Oct. 1 - 5, which is sponsored by the IEEE, the American Nuclear
-> Society, and the University of Illinois. I did not attend, but I have spoken
-> with some of the participants and I am happy to report that the demonstratio
-> 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 calorimete
-> 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.
 
I am curious why this system always runs at such a low temperature rise.  That
may prove that cold fusion or some other process is operating, but from the
standpoint of being useful energy, it falls a bit short.  It is not sufficient
for a hot water heater, much less an energy source.  Is there a problem where
the process drops off at higher temperatures?  Has there been any data
collected as to output vs. temperature?  This is all very exciting news, but if
it only works at lower temperatures then it will be limited to such tasks as
swimming pool heaters and ice melters in the Antartic.  If any high temperature
tests have been performed I would love to hear about them.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 17:25:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Doug Shade <rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com> writes:
 
>What are the known problems with scaling the design up?  Do the
>spherical electrodes have a limited life?  Are they hugely expensive to
>make?  (Or is it too expensive to build 3000 PSI plumbing? ha ha )
 
I do not know of any problems scaling the design up. They have already
made much larger cells. The latest electrode beads have very long life,
although earlier designs had problems. They are dirt cheap to make.
 
3000 PSI plumbing will not be needed . . . as you might have guessed. On
the other hand in order to operate over 100 deg C they do need pressurized
cells. They have made them in the past and I expect they will soon make
new ones.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 17:27:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>I am curious why this system always runs at such a low temperature rise.  That
 
It does not always run at low temperatures. They have run it at much
higher temperatures in pressurized cells. They keep the temperature down
in the traveling demonstration calorimeters just to keep everything safe
and simple. The calorimetry is more accurate with a small Delta T, also.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Matt Austern /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: 13 Oct 1995 22:42:59 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <hheffner-1210951248500001@204.57.193.64> hheffner@matsu.ak.n
t (Horace Heffner) writes:

> I would suggest that a fusion rocket would primarily be useful on an
> interstellar trip. In that case, the weight of the reactor would be
> incidental to the fuel weight. Since 200MeV/235 < 17MeV/2, i.e. .85 < 8.5,
> you would get 10 times the energy per mass of fuel in a fusion rocket. 

Interstellar travel is not easy, whether you're using fission or
fusion.  Reasonably fast interstellar travel may never be possible.

Easy but depressing calculation: assume you're using some sort of
drive where 100% of your fuel's rest energy gets turned into kinetic
energy.  (A photon drive powered by matter-antimatter annihilation
might do the trick.)  Assume some constant acceleration, with
turnaround halfway to your destination.  Calculate (1) Time required
to get to your destination (both Earth time and ship time); and (2)
Your mass-to-payload ratio.

The basic answer is that if you want to get to your destination within
a single generation, you'll need several orders of magnitude more fuel
than payload.  Using more realistic technologies (like fusion, where
only a small fraction of your fuel's rest energy goes into kinetic
energy), the answer is even worse.

Semi-practical methods of interstellar travel are left as an exercise
for the reader.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: 13 Oct 1995 21:16:47 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Bryan G. Wallace (wallaceb@news.gate.net) wrote:

> The logic of your argument on neutron generator yield seems to be equivalent
> to saying that a gasoline engine won't work because the electric ignition
> system does not have a net energy yield!  The hydrogen bomb uses lithium
> deuteride as the fuel and the outer cylinder in the color photo looks like
> lithium deuteride, so I'm guessing it is lithium deuteride.  I'll give you 10
> to 1 odds that if you take a commercially available neutron generator and
> stick it into a bucket of commercially available lithium deuteride, and fire
> the generator, you'll get a net output of energy.

But chemical fuel *ignites* (the condition where output from burning gives 
enough heat to continue the reaction) in the conditions achievable in
an inertial combustion system.

As far as the neutron generators go, this should be readily experimentally
quantifiable--how much energy do they need to make a neutron at their
energies?

What is the x-section for fusion when you shove it into Li-D?

> Bryan



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / A Plutonium /  Eleventh experiments proving HYASYS: a neutron has surface 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eleventh experiments proving HYASYS: a neutron has surface 
Date: 13 Oct 1995 23:27:11 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

 I may have lost track of these experiments and I may repeat some. That
is because I am in a fury of getting this material out and it matters
not whether I repeat. The important thing about new physics is to get
it out there. And of course some will be found wrong. Such as the one
about antimatter may be wrong but I do think there will be surprizes in
the antihydrogen annihilation with ordinary hydrogen. I think the
annihilation will not be 100% as per the Standard Gossipals but be in
accord with what HYASYS predicts.
  Now I am told that the anti-proton was manufactured a long time ago
with Segre and he won a Nobel for it. But I am told that measurements
of antimatter-matter annihilations have not really been measured with
accuracy. Perhaps the future will enlighten us on this topic.

  The surface charge of neutrons is very slight. But it exists and is
measurable. Once the math is put to this surface charge, it will be
seen that it accords with HYASYS that the slight surface charge is the
"kicking around inside" of the neutron of the proton and nuclear
electron inside of the neutron.
  Math can be applied to this surface charge and it supports HYASYS
that if and only if a neutron is composed of a hydrogen atom inside of
it can you generate a tiny minor electrical surface charge.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: 13 Oct 1995 23:59:52 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> Kennel <mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov> 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.

I'm asking whether there are runs with very large temperature *increases*
which one could presume arose from the 'whatever'-reaction.  Along
with a high heat-out/power-in ratio if the result continued to be strong
it would be highly suggestive that the experiment could indeed generate
net thermodynamic work.

>  
> - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / John Lewis /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 23:40:02 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF


In article <xhJDHxD.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> COLD FUSION DEMO AT SOFE '95 WORKED WELL
|>  
|> Last week I reported that a cold fusion cell would be demonstrated during a
|> big hot fusion conference: the 16th biannual Symposium on Fusion Engineering
|> (SOFE '95) Oct. 1 - 5, which is sponsored by the IEEE, the American Nuclear
|> Society, and the University of Illinois. I did not attend, but I have spoken
|> with some of the participants and I am happy to report that the demonstration
|> 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. 

Let us be clear as to the implications of what is being claimed.  Fusion
in light water is much more astonishing than cold suion in deuterated water.
It would require a complete reworking of weak interaction physics, and
could probably be considered as the most important discovery in physics
since the mid-30's.  A complete reworking of two generations of work
in stellar astrophysics would probably aslo be required.
IF it's true ...

..

|> I will be reporting this and other news in the next issue of "Infinite Energy"
|> magazine.
|>  
|> - Jed
|> 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / John Lewis /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 13 Oct 1995 23:46:13 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF


In article <BPPDvFq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> 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.

But you weren't at the meeiting ...

|> 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
|> 
Possibly you might ask them to post directly here?  In view of the radical
nature of their achievements, and the most unfortunate fact that the media
so entirely overlooked the physics story of the decade?  But no ... no
doubt they are too busy, or would be put off by the harsh reception they might
receive here, or whatever ...
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: 13 Oct 1995 20:30:52 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <45hl8m$gai@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

  > 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).

    The issue is specific impulse (Isp).  I'll skip the technical
explanation, and go to the intuitive images.  Specific Impulse is how
long a rocket ship could hover at the surface of the earth--while
being constantly refueled--before used it's weight in fuel/reaction
mass.  Another way of expressing it is how much push do you get from a
pound--or kilo--of fuel.  The units are seconds.  Early rocket engines
had an Isp around 270 seconds and the SSMEs--space shuttle main
engines--get around 403 seconds, which is close to theoretical maximum
for chemical fuels.  (Single-H, monatomic hydrogen, can get you an Isp
over 5000, but it is a monopropellant that doesn't store very
well. Otherwise the best combinations are hydrogen/oxygen,
hydrogen/ozone, and hydrogen/fluorine.)

     You would think that the "best" mixture of hydrogen and oxygen
would be two to one, but it is not.  The velocity of a molecule or ion
at a given temperature is inversely proportional to the square of it's
mass.  Adding extra hydrogen generates more specific impulse at a
lower temperature, because the effective mass per particle drops.

     Current design fission rockets use hydrogen as the
propellant--the mass of the nuclear fuel is small compared to the
propellant, and that gets the highest Isp that can be achieved at the
temperature of the reactor.  This gives an Isp of 800--twice what the
shuttle gets, but not that great.  Using "gaseous core" technology,
where the reactor fuel is high-pressure metal vapor encased in
high-temperature ceramics, it would be possible to get Isp over 2000.
Great for outer space, but I wouldn't want one of those beasts near
earth. 

    Of course a more modest way of improving Isp is to either add an
"afterburner" where oxygen is added, which might get you to 1000, or
to use the reactor to generate power and use that power for either an
ion drive or a plasma gun.  With an ion drive or a plasma torch you
can get the Isp up to 30,000 or more, but the thrust is small and the
power requirements are tremendous.  Useful only for interstellar
travel in the case of fission power.

    But with magnetic confinement fusion, and with techniques which
are not out of reach today, you just design your bottle so that any
leaks point toward the back.  Even if the reactor only produces enough
power for breakeven, the plasma leaking out the back is at ten times
the temperature of the plasma from ordinary plasma guns.  Paul Koloc
is aiming a lot higher than that.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  Labrys /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: tuttt@vccnorth29.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: 13 Oct 1995 19:16:19 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

>You might want to look up the Orion Project -- a serious study, done in the
>1960s (or late 50s), that showed the practical advantages of powering a space-
>ship with nuclear bombs!

Even more interesting was the PACER project. A fusion power scheme which
relied on subterranian explosions of thermonuclear bombs. Interestingly
enough, it was shown to be very promising in terms of energy production
and economic feasibility. Politically, of course, it was a nightmare. 
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                |=|
                                |=| 
                                |=|
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / A Plutonium /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: 14 Oct 1995 01:18:40 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <45jfo4$68a@news.acns.nwu.edu>
"Todd K. Pedlar" <todd> writes:

> The electron has no radius;  within experimental error, it is pointlike.
> The proton has a radius of something in the neighborhood of 1 fm.  This, too,
> is an experimental number.  The "classical electron of the radius" is not a
> measure of the radius of the particle we call electron; rather, I believe it
> is a number which is only a calculational convenience.  It isn't much more 
> than a convenient combination of numbers which comes up in cross section
> calculations, and has the units of length. 
> 
> >Many books,
> >perhaps even Feynman wrote it that it is peculiar that the s electron
> >is in the nucleus. I can safely say that the electron of the hydrogen s
> >orbit has highest probability of smack dead center in the proton. I can
> >say that because you and Todd's reasoning with Uncertainty Principle
> >would make the electron of 0 radius but if you take the electron as the
> >same size as the proton, and the proton surely has a definite radius,
> >then the Uncertainty Principle supports HYASYS.  Review Feynman on
> >classical electron radius.
> 
> The classical electron radius also has nothing to do with the extent of
> an electron cloud about a nucleus.  The Bohr radius is approximately 
> 0.5 Angstroms, whereas the c.e.r. is about 3 fm.   As far as the probability
> of the electron in the s shell of hydrogen, just look at the math.   The
> wavefunctionof the electron is (where a = bohr radius)
> 
> psi(r) = [1/(pi*a^3)]^(1/2)[exp (-r/a)]
> 
> The probability density is, since the s-shell wavefunction in spherically
> symmetric, ~ r^2 exp(-2r/a), maximum at r = a.  It is zero at r = 0.
> 
> Let's continue beyond what the previous poster said, and look at the
> probability the electron will be found within, say, 10 times the proton
> radius, or 10 fm:
>                    10 fm
>                   /
> P(r < 10fm) = int| (4*pi/(pi*a^3))*r^2*exp(-2r/a) dr
>                  /
>                 0
> 
> =  (4/a^3)*[a^3/4 - (exp(-2*10fm/a))(a^3/4 + 10fm*(a^2/2) + ((10fm)^2)*(a/2))
> 
> =  (4/a^3)*[a^3/4 - (0.9996)*(a^3/4 + (4x10^-4)*a^3/4 + (16*10^-8)*a^3/4)
> 
> ~ 0.0004
> 
> So there is a .04% chance you'd find an electron within 10 fm of the center
> of the proton, in a hydrogen atom.  Correct me if the math is wrong, please.
> 
> 
> >
> >  And the attack on HYASYS over spin of a neutron having spin 1/2 but a
> >hydrogen atom having spin 1/2 + 1/2  fails to realize that it is a
> >Hydrogen Atom System that I am on about and those systems may have
> >extra energy such as the antineutrino which is also inside the neutron.
> >Thus you must add the spin of the antineutrino making three terms of
> >spin, 1/2 + 1/2 + -1/2  which equals 1/2.
> 
> you still must confine the neutrino to the radius of the proton.  How
> do you propose to do that without mammoth uncertainty in the neutrino
> momentum?
> 
> >
> >  Now to all these attackers of HYASYS who accept the Standard
> >Gossipals of QCD, Standard Model, Quark theory and pion theory, none of
> >which have yet given me any reply. 
> 
> I beg to differ with that.  
> 
> >
> >How is it in these accepted theories that a normal electron comes out
> >of a neutron? Unless they explain how an electron comes out of a
> >neutron they are fake and sham theories.
> >
> >If a neutron is made up of quarks, and the proton is made up of quarks
> >but a electron is not made up of quarks. Well, gentleman, the fact that
> >a electron comes out of a neutron implies one of two things does it
> >not?
> >It implies that either (1) electrons are made-up of quarks and when a
> >neutron decays some of the quarks go into making up an electron, or
> >that  (2) electrons are not made-up of quarks and hence the quark
> >theory is a sham.
> 
> Electrons need not be made of quarks.  When a neutron decays, it is
> the action of one single quark within the neutron.  This 'down' quark
> decays into an 'up' plus the electron and neutrino, by means of an
> intermediate vector boson (you know, those particles which were discovered
> quite some time ago).  The feynman diagram looks something like this:
> 
> 
>                 up-----------------------------------------up
> neutron        down---------------------------------------down    proton
>                 down---------------------------------------up  
>                                     \
>                                      \ W-
>                                       \
>                                        \  _________________electron
>                                         \/
>                                          \_________________antineutrino
> 
> That's all.  It's a decay process;  there is no need for pre-existing
> electrons, antineutrinos, etc.  
> 
> >  By math logic gentlemen, your quark theory implies either one of
> >those two above and those are the only two implications. So, which is
> >it? And why has noone answered that question for as long as quark
> >theory has been around? How long for 40 years now? Exactly how long has
> >quark theory been around and why has noone dared ask the question about
> >why an electron comes out of a neutron if a neutron is composed of
> >quarks? I mean, have particle physicists been sleeping a rip van winkle?
> 
> Many, many have asked the question;  it has just been answered, that's
> all.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Todd K. Pedlar                 !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
> Grad Student, Dept o' Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
> Northwestern University                !  Email:  todd@numep0.phys.nwu.edu
> Fermilab Experiment E835        !          toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
>                                 !  WWW:  http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html

  Todd, I went to look up what Feynman wrote on the Bohr radius and
discovered there is tremendous leeway here. Especially by making the
nuclear electron heavier such as making a normal electron into a muon
or a tau particle. I think the tau is 7 or 8 times the mass of a muon
and a tau decays eventually into a muon + neutrinos then into a normal
electron + neutrinos. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. A
muon is of the order of 105.7 MEV and the tau is of the order of 800
MEV ? Is that correct? And what is the lifetime of a tau?

Feynman Lectures on Physics vol 1, 1963
page 38-6
--- start of quote of Feynman ---
   Suppose we have a hydrogen atom, and measure the position of the
electron; we must not be able to predict exactly where the electron
will be, or the momentum spread will then turn out to be infinite.
Every time we look at the electron, it is somewhere, but it has an
amplitude to be in different places so there is a probability of it
being found in different places. These places cannot all be at the
nucleus; we shall suppose there is a spread in position of order A.
That is, the distance of the electron from the nucleus is usually about
A. We shall determine A by minimizing the total energy of the atom.
   The spread in momentum is roughly h/A because of the uncertainty
relation, so that if we try to measure the momentum of the electron in
some manner, such as by scattering x-rays off it and looking for the
Doppler effect from a moving scatterer, we would expect not to get zero
every time-- the electron is not standing still-- but the momenta must
be of the order p =~ h/A. Then the kinetic energy is roughly 1/2mv^2 =
p^2/2m = h^2/2mA^2.  (In a sense, this is a kind of dimensional
analysis to find out in what way the kinetic energy depends upon
Planck's constant, upon m, and upon the size  of the atom. We  need not
trust our answer to within factors like 2, pi, etc. We have not even
defined 'a' very precisely.) Now the potential energy is minus e^2 over
the distance from the center, say -e^2/A, where, we remember, e^2 is
the charge of an  electron squared, divide by 4pi x(permittivity of
vacuum). Now the point is that the potential energy is reduced if A
gets smaller, but the smaller A is, the higher the momentum required,
because of the uncertainty principle, and therefore the higher the
kinetic energy. The total energy is 
     E = h^2/2mA^2 - e^2/A.     (38.10)

We do not know what A is, but we know that the atom is going to arrange
itself to make  some kind of compromise so that the energy is as little
as possible. In order to minimize E,  we differentiate with respect to
A, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for A. The derivative of
E is 
    dE/dA = -h^2/mA^3 + e^2/A^2,  (38.11)

and setting dE/dA = 0 gives for A the value

   A_0 = h^2/me^2 = 0.528 angstrom
                            = 0.528 x 10^-10 meter. (38.12)

This particular distance is called the Bohr radius, and we have thus
learned that atomic dimensions are of the order of angstroms, which is
right: This is pretty good-- in fact, it is amazing, since until now we
have had no basis for understanding the size of atoms! Atoms are
completely impossible from the classical point of view, since the
electrons would spiral into the nucleus.
   Now if we put the value (38.12)  for A_0 into (38.10) to find the
energy, it comes out
          E_0 = -e^2/2A_0 = -me^4/2h^2 = -13.6ev.   (38.13)

What does a negative energy mean? It means that the electron has less
energy when it is in the atom than when it is free. It means it is
bound. It means it takes energy to kick the electron out; it takes
energy of the order of 13.6 ev to ionize a hydrogen atom. We have no
reason to think that it is not two or three times this-- or half of
this-- or (1/pi) times this, because we have used such a sloppy
argument. However, we have cheated, we have used all the constants in
such a way that it happens to come out the right number! this number,
13.6 electron volts,  is called the Rydberg of energy; it is the
ionization energy of hydrogen.
--- end of quoting of Feynman Lectures, vol 1, page 38-6 ---

  So, momentum P, where P = mc

 then Uncertainty Principle (UP) we have h/P = h/mc = Compton
wavelength

  Thus, to get around UP, or better yet, put UP to work. We can
calculate what the mass of a nuclear electron is, in order for it to
hold together say the 4 protons of helium 4@2 by the 2 nuclear
electrons. Would the mass of the 2 nuclear electrons be muon masses or
would they be tau masses?

  This is all pretty for the UP predicts what the masses of nuclear
electrons must be in order to be inside the nucleus, or inside the
individual protons moving very rapidly from one proton to another in
order to strong force hold them together. Understand that the Coulombic
nuclear strong force of nuclear electrons is 83 times stronger than
normal Coulomb force.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / A Plutonium /  12th experiments proving HYASYS: reconciling what decays 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 12th experiments proving HYASYS: reconciling what decays 
Date: 14 Oct 1995 01:42:13 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

I just discovered that the Strong Nuclear Force is the pooling of these
three theories as one, the QCD, the Standard Model, and quarks. Quarks
removed the pion theory. But we should ask a important question here.
Why three entities? If anyone were true or leading to the path of truth
then they should link-up or tie together. Good for me and HYASYS none
of the three seem to be linking-up anytime soon, or give mass
predictions or give quantitative predictions or ever explain a single
fact about the periodic table of chemical isotopes.

Let us examine the decay modes.

  There is alpha decay of a helium nucleus

  There is neutron decay

  There is beta decay of an electron, and someone said that when he saw
beta decay it is actually observable as light streaks, is this true?

   There is positron decay, a positive electron

 There is Electron Capture

  There is I.T. which I do not know

  The 12th experiments is just a classroom type sitting down and asking
the question that if the Strong Nuclear Force was nuclear electrons
emitted by neutrons which hold together all the protons. A 83 times
stronger Coulombic force as evidenced by bismuth being the last stable
isotope.

  Now, obviously a electron decay, a Beta- decay makes perfect sense
with HYASYS as too many nuclear electrons get into each others way. The
protons do a balancing act with an optimum number of nuclear electrons.

  Hyasys and the Strong Nuclear Force as Coulombic X83 also makes sense
with the other modes of radioactivity. And most importantly, a hydrogen
atom decay does not exist. A hydrogen atom decay mode is prohibited by
HYASYS, but the quark, Standard Model, and QCD do not forbid a hydrogen
atom decay mode. Plus, these theories can not reconcile the Beta decay
modes for to them a nucleus should not have electrons. Nor, can they
reconcile why is it that a neutron decays into a proton and electron
plus energy.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / A Plutonium /  13th experiments proving HYASYS: fact that 83-84 is important
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 13th experiments proving HYASYS: fact that 83-84 is important
Date: 14 Oct 1995 01:51:20 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

 According to HYASYS since the Strong Nuclear Force is the nuclear
electrons holding together the protons means that where the last stable
element exists is the coupling strength of the shared nuclear electrons
Coulombic force. That element is element 83 of bismuth. Thus Strong
Nuclear force = 83 X Coulombic force.

  If Hyasys is true, then a number between 83 to 84 should appear often
in nuclear physics.

  Anyone know (what Dirac called dimensionless numbers) if a number
around 83-84 appears in nuclear physics or physics in general?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  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: Fri, 13 Oct 95 23:55:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Kennel <mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov> writes:
 
>I'm asking whether there are runs with very large temperature *increases*
>which one could presume arose from the 'whatever'-reaction.  Along
 
Sorry, I do not quite follow your terminology here. Do you mean with large
temperature Delta T's between the cell and ambient? What does a temperature
increase mean?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / 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: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 21:02:24 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

I understand your logic and why resistance decreases in a cavitation
channel. I am not convinced of your extrapolation. In essence, you are
saying at higher rotation speeds the cavitation channel behaves like a
solid preventing diffusion of material into it. I need to see some numbers
before I would be convinced. Frankly, I don't find this explaination any
more satisfying than the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 14 Oct 1995 01:20:43 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I originally posted this:

> Jed asks how one could get a positive delta-T across the cell
> using a pump.  There is a mechanism, and it is not new to this
> group.  It relies on the chemical complexity of the working
> fluid.  To wit:
> 
> (1) Agitation, heating and possible catalytic action on fluid 
> by pump allows chemical changes in fluid, storing energy.
> 
> (2) Fluid enters cell.
> 
> (3) Induced chemical reactions in cell release stored energy.
> 
> (4) Release of stored energy is observed as positive delta-T;
> false inference of "excess energy" production.
> 
> (5) Warm water cools as it returns to pump.
> 
> Repeat cycle for as long as you wish...
> 
> An easy way to disprove this hypothesis is to measure 
> the total energy - both thermal and chemical - given to the
> working fluid by the pump.  One conclusive test would
> be to produce sustained apparent excess energy significantly 
> greater than the time-integrated input energy running the 
> pump.  What was the power input to the pump used in the latest 
> tests?  I suspect it was greater than the observed apparent 
> excess power, which after all was just a couple of watts.
> 
> The results may or may not be real, but the evidence
> provided thus far isn't conclusive.  The cell is not the
> only place where chemical reactions may be occurring.
> 
> I'd be interested in learning more about it, though.
> It certainly sounds like a fun experiment.

The response I got from Jed, was this:

In article <R3MgXtu.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
> 
>Oh, right. Sure! You think it takes 5 watts to pump water at 14 ml per
>minute up against a microscopic gradient. Sure. Two tablespoons of water
>and you manage to churn the water so much you add 300 joules a minute.

You missed the point.  The *mechanical* input energy from the pump
into the fluid can be *far lower* than the *chemical* energy input.
This fluid isn't pure water, is it?  Unless the pump's power draw 
is less than 5 watts this can't be ruled out on thermodynamic
grounds alone.  The pressure drop and flow rate are not the
only variables -what's the efficiency of the pump?

Since no details of the pumping hardware were posted, I didn't
know how much power their pump needs.  Since the flow rate is
so low, they could be using extremely small tubing, against which
the pump may not be very efficient.

>What NONSENSE this. What incredible, unbeliable NONSENSE. Is this the
>level of science you hot fusion people do? Is this the standard? It is
>like the "used moderator water" hypothesis from Hoffman or the cigarette
>lighter hypothesis: only 7 or 8 orders of magnitude wrong. No wonder your
>machines never work!

I'm just trying to rule out all possible alternatives before
jumping to the conclusion that there's some magical new energy
source in the test cell.  No one seems to be considering chemical
changes outside the cell, so it seemed like a reasonable question
to ask.  Physics is not the only science!  You haven't convinced me
yet that my idea is nonsense; yelling at me won't prove your case.
Is that the level of scientific discussion you aspire to?

Besides, what's wrong with a few more crazy ideas?  
Even an insane idea can catalyze someone else's brain to come
up with a better one.  It's not like there's a shortage of
crazy ideas on this group!

Ah well...  I always enjoy the contrast between this group and
sci.physics.plasma (a moderated forum for real scientific discussion)...

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Digest 4458
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 4458
Date: 14 Oct 1995 02:23:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <45hlp0$52f@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter,
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu writes:
>In article <v01530500aca11ea58bb0@[204.118.149.100]> 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 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.

There hasn't been any hostility to the idea, but support hasn't
exactly overflowed my emailbox either.  On the other hand,
as others have pointed out, there's a chicken-an-egg, 
if-you-build-it-they-will-come situation here - there
aren't enough people here to support a new moderated group,
and without a moderated group there won't be enough people
to support it.  But a moderated mailing list could attract
more people.  

Let me make a more concrete proposal which might work:

(1) Set up a lightly-moderated mailing list for actual fusion
discussion.  Or, like Dieter proposed, a moderated 
alt.sci.physics.fusion group.  The mailing list has some
advantages though.  For instance, one could:

(2) Set up a one-way gateway whereby mailing list articles
are also posted to sci.physics.fusion, so the newsgroup
doesn't lose all serious physics content, but the mailing
list isn't inundated with s.p.f traffic.  This is already done
with the TFTR News updates, for instance.

(3) Set up two-way gateways at one or more fusion research
laboratories so the mailing list content *only* is more easily
accessible to the researchers, and less intrusive than
a barrage of email.

I believe PPPL has the capability to do both types of
mailing list-to-newsgroup gateways; other labs could
probably do it too.  If there's a respectable show of support,
I would be willing to approach the net gurus here and 
propose this.  The recent budget cuts make it tricky to 
start new projects, but they also have made people
painfully aware of the value of distributing knowledge
more widely, so there's a good chance this arrangement 
could be set up here almost immediately.  There are 
certainly other options for arranging the digital
setup, too.

The more serious problem is moderation:  Who should 
be the moderator, and what should the moderation standards be?
(Dieter, could you remind me what the proposal was for
moderation on the group you proposed?  I thought it was
a good compromise.  The vote for that group failed not
because of negative votes, but because there weren't enough
ayes, as I remember.  Growing a discussion group on a mailing
list could motivate more people to participate and later vote
for a serious moderated fusion newsgroup.)


 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Euejin Jeong /  Dipole Gravity 2
     
Originally-From: ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dipole Gravity 2
Date: 14 Oct 1995 04:38:15 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates

As an another example, the two opposite jet streams coming out of the 
black hole accretion disk can also be explained by this mechanism by 
considering the spinning black hole as a system of two dipoles attached 
face to face on the flat side of the hemispheres producing the opposite 
outward repulsive forces from the horizon near the rotation axis strong 
enough to overcome the black hole's attractive gravitational force. The 
repulsive dipole force can become stronger than the attractive force of 
the black hole at the horizon near the rotational symmetry axis above 
certain critical angular frequency (the drc in this case is about 1/8th 
of the radius of the black hole) due to the distance between the two 
center of mass of the hemispheres and the inverse r3 behavior of the 
repulsive force, which makes it possible for particles at both poles to 
experience the net outward normal force. The observed jets are considered 
to be the manifestation of the particleÕs trajectories experiencing this 
force. The two opposite jets also conform to the fact that the polarity 
of the dipole moment is independent of the direction of the rotation of 
each hemispheres as predicted. Other explanations12-14 lack credibility 
since the black hole's enormous attractive gravitational force would not 
allow any materials (even photons) to come off from its horizon near the 
symmetry axis where the centrifugal force is at the minimum. 

This is an another part of the text from the manuscript "Center of Mass 
Shift"

For unlimited energy production resulting from this theory see the URL

http://www.realtime.net/~jeong/

Some cowardly person tries to erase this message from the dark. Show 
yourself to confront me with your scientific reasoning. This is the most 
cowardly act I have ever seen in my entire life. Watch people who is 
erasing this message.

Euejin

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenejeong cudfnEuejin cudlnJeong cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Michael Snell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: msnell@iu.net (Michael P. Snell)
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: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:40:35 -0400
Organization: PSI Corporation

In article <45mkvv$h5@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:

> Bryan G. Wallace (wallaceb@news.gate.net) wrote:
> 
> > The logic of your argument on neutron generator yield seems to be equivalent
> > to saying that a gasoline engine won't work because the electric ignition
> > system does not have a net energy yield!  The hydrogen bomb uses lithium
> > deuteride as the fuel and the outer cylinder in the color photo looks like
> > lithium deuteride, so I'm guessing it is lithium deuteride.  I'll give
you 10
> > to 1 odds that if you take a commercially available neutron generator and
> > stick it into a bucket of commercially available lithium deuteride, and fire
> > the generator, you'll get a net output of energy.
> 
> But chemical fuel *ignites* (the condition where output from burning gives 
> enough heat to continue the reaction) in the conditions achievable in
> an inertial combustion system.
> 
> As far as the neutron generators go, this should be readily experimentally
> quantifiable--how much energy do they need to make a neutron at their
> energies?
> 
> What is the x-section for fusion when you shove it into Li-D?
> 
> > Bryan

This simply doesn't work. The neutron generator fluxes of 10^9 are just
too small, by a dozen or so orders of magnitude.

Regards,

-- 
Michael P. Snell, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Physical Science Information Corporation
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmsnell cudfnMichael cudlnSnell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:13:50 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199510131744.NAA90667@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> Mitchell, I have read and reread all your posts regarding your
> theory and your stated displeasure with "quantum mechanics".
> However, your objections to quantum mechanics have not been
> stated in terms that I can understand. You seem to be fixed
> on Bohr as the creator of quantum mechanics as if his contributions
> were the entire story. I would suggest that you must look
> beyond Bohr, something your remarks lead me to believe you have
> never done.

***{Bohr was the creator of quantum mechanics. That is simply a fact.
Moreover, Bohr founded a vast movement within the physical sciences, and
he has many disciples even today. By and large they endorse his
philosophical views, and they also employ his fraudulent technique for
propagating those views. Specifically, they encourage an ignorant, captive
audience of students to believe that Bohr's twisted, ridiculous,
metaphysical viewpoint is somehow responsible for creating a major portion
of the curve fitted mathematical constructs that are in use by physicists
today. Result: students conclude that they can't do "modern" physics
unless they adopt Bohr's worldview, and so they *do* adopt it. I object to
this ongoing fraud in the strongest possible terms, and I will continue to
do so. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> Although you do not acknowledge it, quantum mechanics has some
> underlying basic features that I would contrast to your approach.
> I think you should consider the simple question of how one
> goes about counting the number of degrees of freedom that a system
> has. Quantum mechanics brings that question to the fore in a
> very fundamental way that can not be ignored.  If you fill space
> with an ensemble of "etherons" you have added to each and every
> physical system to be studied many more entities than we normally
> want to consider. 

***{The question, Dick, is not what we *want* to consider. The question
is: what is the nature of the world? --Mitchell Jones}***

By your own arguments each of these entities
> has an important effect on a system such as the hydrogen atom.
> If each of these entities occupies space, is capable of independent
> motion, can have momentum and energy, and can be involved in
> momentum and energy transport you have introduced a tremendous
> complexity. 

***{I am sorry that my view of the world is more complex than you like,
but I must repeat what I said above: the goal here is not to create a
picture that we like; the goal is to create a picture that *corresponds to
reality.* --Mitchell Jones}***

 You have introduced far too many degrees of freedom
> into the problem. Simple observations make it clear that you
> are taking the wrong approach. Atoms do not have all those
> degrees of freedom!

***{An empty assertion. To back it up, you would have to explain to me how
the Bohr orbits manage to be "preferred" if the space between the orbits
is empty. Can you do it? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Since you a fond of pictures, I ask you to consider the game of
> billiard with just three balls on the table.  Now if you were
> to fill all the available space on that table with ping-pong
> balls, for example, it would have an observable effect on the
> motion of the balls. The path taken by the cue ball would
> be somewhat more difficult to predict, would it not?

***{A bad example for you, though perfect for me! You see, all of the
available space on the table *is* filled with "ping pong balls." They are
called air molecules! And, despite your claims, air resistance does not
have visible effects on the behavior of the billiard balls. No capable
billiards player wastes a second calculating air resistance, because its
effects are negligible by comparison to the other forces that are
involved. And precisely the same thing is true of the effects of the ether
on the ordinary motions of atoms and molecules within it. By and large,
under normal circumstances, such influences can be left out of account. It
is only under special conditions (e.g., very rapid, cavitating,
oscillatory motion, "relativistic" linear velocities, etc.) that ether
resistance becomes worthy of consideration. Because it is a fact that air
resistance must be taken into account in some circumstances, physicists
have developed complex theories to explicate those circumstances, and, in
the future, they will do the same for the special circumstances in which
the properties of the ether must be taken into account. It isn't a
question of whether we like to formulate such theories or whether we would
prefer a simpler world. If we are going to do physics, we have no choice
but to focus on the actual world that exists. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> Dick Blue

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 23:21:33 -0900
Organization: none

In article <MATT.95Oct13154259@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

[snip]
> 
> The basic answer is that if you want to get to your destination within
> a single generation, you'll need several orders of magnitude more fuel
> than payload.  Using more realistic technologies (like fusion, where
> only a small fraction of your fuel's rest energy goes into kinetic
> energy), the answer is even worse.

I think we all realize presnet technology, at any expense, could not get
us to another solar system in one generation if for some reason we had to
abandon this one.  In a debate over fission verses fusion, though, fusion
wins by two orders of magnitude.


> 
> Semi-practical methods of interstellar travel are left as an exercise
> for the reader.
> -- 
>   Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
>   matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
>   http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."

Is your "semi-practical" commment directed at the question quoted below? 
If so, you have much faith to elevate the idea to that level!  I consider
the below to be a thought experiment regarding the feasibility of
separating particles created by vacuum fluctuations (or questioning their
existance) vs. the first law of thermodynamics. It seems that these two
things, vacuum fluctuations, and conservation of energy, might be
inconsistent. Further, if the below were possible, acceleration past light
speed might be possible because vacuum fluctuations occur in the frame of
reference of the observer.  As the space ship approached the speed of
light and it's mass increased, so would the mass of the vacuum fluctuation
generated particles, so a constant acceleration could be maintained.


In article <hheffner-1210951248500001@204.57.193.64>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> 
> Since the subject of energy for space travel is raised, I have often been
> curious about the possibility of using vacuum fluctuations as a means of
> accelerating a space ship.  This would be done by establishing an enormous
> electrostatic field that would separate charged particle/antipartile pairs
> created by vacuum fluctuations. These particles would be separated in the
> gap between two "dee's", hollow conductors, with a transverse magnetic
> field similar to a cyclotron. The magnetic field would be used to separate
> particles by mass/charge and change their direction toward the back of the
> ship. The particles, still inside the dee's would be accelerated by
> synchrotron accelerators (giving an impulse to the ship), they would then
> exit the dee's (prior to leaving the ship) where their mutual
> electrostatic attraction would bring them together to annihilation,
> emitting photons etc. by which some of the energy of separation could be
> retrieved.
> 
> Since no reactive mass need be carried, only energy, it seems this scheme
> would eventually violate conservation of energy because the kinetic energy
> of the ship  is 1/2 m v^2 but v is proportional to the energy loaded at
> the start of the voyage. By doubling the fuel (a small part of the mass of
> the ship) you could get double the velocity, or four times the ship
> kinetic energy. Something does not add up. What is it?
> 
[snip]

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Two Questions
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two Questions
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 23:33:52 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-1310950817300001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]
> 
> (2) I have received several comments from people who have read statements
> that the palladium lattice is cubic, face centered, rather than cubic,
> body centered, as I have assumed in my various posts. The answer to this
> is that palladium exists in two forms. One is known as "spongy palladium,"
> in which the specific gravity is 11.5, and the lattice is cubic, body
> centered. This is the form normally used for CF cathodes, because it has a
> very high capacity to absorb hydrogen. It is sometimes prepared by the
> ignition of palladium cyanide, which decomposes to leave pure spongy
> palladium. The other form, sometimes referred to as "hard palladium," has
> a specific gravity of 12.02, and is much more resistant to hydrogen
> absorption because it has only one third as many octahedral unit cells as
> the spongy form. 
> 
[snip]
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 
> ===========================================================

This is very interresting.  I wonder if mixtures of the two crystal types
exist in some electrodes, and if loading might cause changes from one type
to another.  It is interresting that the CETI beads, one of the most
reliable electrodes to date, being plated, would presuably be cubic, face
centered.  It sounds like xray crystallography on electrodes that "turn
on", especially "heat after death" electrodes, might be very useful.

Also, perhaps this chracteristic is at least one contributor to the all or
nothing effect Dick Blue has brought up in another thread?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / 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: 14 Oct 1995 07:45:23 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: The *mechanical* input energy from the pump
: into the fluid can be *far lower* than the *chemical* energy input.

Presumably the pump can only input mechanical energy via stirring, so I
think you must have meant that such mechanical energy could affect a
chemical energy storage as compared to thermal and pressure energy
storage.

I would be surprised at such a mechanical conversion that produced
orders of magnitude more chemical energy than pressure or thermal
energy.  Could you describe a system already known to operate on
such a basis?

I should say that this is sufficiently speculative that it requires
its own proof and cannot be offered as a default presumption.
Does it fit with other known evidence?  Has anything already been
presented to falsify it?

I can think of a quick test -- raise the reservoir so that the system
is gravity feed.  If the effect remains, *all* pump theories go out the
window.

--
 - 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:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 /  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: Sat, 14 Oct 95 09:05:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>I can think of a quick test -- raise the reservoir so that the system
>is gravity feed.  If the effect remains, *all* pump theories go out the
>window.
 
Yes, or run the cell in a static calorimeter, which they have done, or run
the flow calorimeter with the cell turned off, which they have done, or
calibrate with gold beads, which they have done.
 
These pump theories are so outlandish that I think the people who believe them
should stop talking and go perform some experiments. Let us see some data
before we take this seriously. As for CETI, they have already performed many
tests and calibrations that prove the pump has nothing to do with the heat
coming from this cell.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 07:09:41 -0900
Organization: none

In article <45muho$6fb@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:

> jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> > Kennel <mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov> 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.
> 
> I'm asking whether there are runs with very large temperature *increases*
> which one could presume arose from the 'whatever'-reaction.  Along
> with a high heat-out/power-in ratio if the result continued to be strong
> it would be highly suggestive that the experiment could indeed generate
> net thermodynamic work.
> 

Given the cells have a COP of 80 and they can run at high temperatures,
the fact that they only produce a 4 deg F. differential temp. is not
important because in a practical application, e.g. generating steam, they
can be used in series to generate the needed temperature differential.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 /  Michael.P..Sne /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Michael.P..Snell@Michael.P..Snell@*user@*site.*domain.o
g.org (Michael P. Snell)
Originally-From: msnell@iu.net (Michael P. Snell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Oct 95 01:40:00 
Organization: Fidonet: PandA's Den BBS Usenet: SATINS/Net330 uucp
gateway * PandA's Den BBS * 
Organization: PSI Corporation


Originally-From: msnell@iu.net (Michael P. Snell)
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Organization: PSI Corporation

In article <45mkvv$h5@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:

> Bryan G. Wallace (wallaceb@news.gate.net) wrote:
> 
> > The logic of your argument on neutron generator yield seems to be
equivalent
> > to saying that a gasoline engine won't work because the electric ignition
> > system does not have a net energy yield!  The hydrogen bomb uses lithium
> > deuteride as the fuel and the outer cylinder in the color photo looks like
> > lithium deuteride, so I'm guessing it is lithium deuteride.  I'll give
you 10
> > to 1 odds that if you take a commercially available neutron generator and
> > stick it into a bucket of commercially available lithium deuteride, and
fire
> > the generator, you'll get a net output of energy.
> 
> But chemical fuel *ignites* (the condition where output from burning gives 
> enough heat to continue the reaction) in the conditions achievable in
> an inertial combustion system.
> 
> As far as the neutron generators go, this should be readily experimentally
> quantifiable--how much energy do they need to make a neutron at their
> energies?
> 
> What is the x-section for fusion when you shove it into Li-D?
> 
> > Bryan

This simply doesn't work. The neutron generator fluxes of 10^9 are just
too small, by a dozen or so orders of magnitude.

Regards,

-- 
Michael P. Snell, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Physical Science Information Corporation
--
|Fidonet:  Michael P. Snell 1:330/204.1
|Internet: Michael.P..Snell@Michael.P..Snell@*user@*site.*domain.org.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenSnell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.13 /  Archimedes.Plu /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@Archimedes.Plutonium@*user@*site.*
omain.org.org (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: 13 Oct 95 22:18:00 
Organization: Fidonet: PandA's Den BBS Usenet: SATINS/Net330 uucp
gateway * PandA's Den BBS * 
Organization: Plutonium College


Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <45jfo4$68a@news.acns.nwu.edu>
"Todd K. Pedlar" <todd> writes:

> The electron has no radius;  within experimental error, it is pointlike.
> The proton has a radius of something in the neighborhood of 1 fm.  This, too,
> is an experimental number.  The "classical electron of the radius" is not a
> measure of the radius of the particle we call electron; rather, I believe it
> is a number which is only a calculational convenience.  It isn't much more 
> than a convenient combination of numbers which comes up in cross section
> calculations, and has the units of length. 
> 
> >Many books,
> >perhaps even Feynman wrote it that it is peculiar that the s electron
> >is in the nucleus. I can safely say that the electron of the hydrogen s
> >orbit has highest probability of smack dead center in the proton. I can
> >say that because you and Todd's reasoning with Uncertainty Principle
> >would make the electron of 0 radius but if you take the electron as the
> >same size as the proton, and the proton surely has a definite radius,
> >then the Uncertainty Principle supports HYASYS.  Review Feynman on
> >classical electron radius.
> 
> The classical electron radius also has nothing to do with the extent of
> an electron cloud about a nucleus.  The Bohr radius is approximately 
> 0.5 Angstroms, whereas the c.e.r. is about 3 fm.   As far as the probability
> of the electron in the s shell of hydrogen, just look at the math.   The
> wavefunctionof the electron is (where a = bohr radius)
> 
> psi(r) = [1/(pi*a^3)]^(1/2)[exp (-r/a)]
> 
> The probability density is, since the s-shell wavefunction in spherically
> symmetric, ~ r^2 exp(-2r/a), maximum at r = a.  It is zero at r = 0.
> 
> Let's continue beyond what the previous poster said, and look at the
> probability the electron will be found within, say, 10 times the proton
> radius, or 10 fm:
>                    10 fm
>                   /
> P(r < 10fm) = int| (4*pi/(pi*a^3))*r^2*exp(-2r/a) dr
>                  /
>                 0
> 
> =  (4/a^3)*[a^3/4 - (exp(-2*10fm/a))(a^3/4 + 10fm*(a^2/2) + ((10fm)^2)*(a/2))
> 
> =  (4/a^3)*[a^3/4 - (0.9996)*(a^3/4 + (4x10^-4)*a^3/4 + (16*10^-8)*a^3/4)
> 
> ~ 0.0004
> 
> So there is a .04% chance you'd find an electron within 10 fm of the center
> of the proton, in a hydrogen atom.  Correct me if the math is wrong, please.
> 
> 
> >
> >  And the attack on HYASYS over spin of a neutron having spin 1/2 but a
> >hydrogen atom having spin 1/2 + 1/2  fails to realize that it is a
> >Hydrogen Atom System that I am on about and those systems may have
> >extra energy such as the antineutrino which is also inside the neutron.
> >Thus you must add the spin of the antineutrino making three terms of
> >spin, 1/2 + 1/2 + -1/2  which equals 1/2.
> 
> you still must confine the neutrino to the radius of the proton.  How
> do you propose to do that without mammoth uncertainty in the neutrino
> momentum?
> 
> >
> >  Now to all these attackers of HYASYS who accept the Standard
> >Gossipals of QCD, Standard Model, Quark theory and pion theory, none of
> >which have yet given me any reply. 
> 
> I beg to differ with that.  
> 
> >
> >How is it in these accepted theories that a normal electron comes out
> >of a neutron? Unless they explain how an electron comes out of a
> >neutron they are fake and sham theories.
> >
> >If a neutron is made up of quarks, and the proton is made up of quarks
> >but a electron is not made up of quarks. Well, gentleman, the fact that
> >a electron comes out of a neutron implies one of two things does it
> >not?
> >It implies that either (1) electrons are made-up of quarks and when a
> >neutron decays some of the quarks go into making up an electron, or
> >that  (2) electrons are not made-up of quarks and hence the quark
> >theory is a sham.
> 
> Electrons need not be made of quarks.  When a neutron decays, it is
> the action of one single quark within the neutron.  This 'down' quark
> decays into an 'up' plus the electron and neutrino, by means of an
> intermediate vector boson (you know, those particles which were discovered
> quite some time ago).  The feynman diagram looks something like this:
> 
> 
>                 up-----------------------------------------up
> neutron        down---------------------------------------down    proton
>                 down---------------------------------------up  
>                                     \
>                                      \ W-
>                                       \
>                                        \  _________________electron
>                                         \/
>                                          \_________________antineutrino
> 
> That's all.  It's a decay process;  there is no need for pre-existing
> electrons, antineutrinos, etc.  
> 
> >  By math logic gentlemen, your quark theory implies either one of
> >those two above and those are the only two implications. So, which is
> >it? And why has noone answered that question for as long as quark
> >theory has been around? How long for 40 years now? Exactly how long has
> >quark theory been around and why has noone dared ask the question about
> >why an electron comes out of a neutron if a neutron is composed of
> >quarks? I mean, have particle physicists been sleeping a rip van winkle?
> 
> Many, many have asked the question;  it has just been answered, that's
> all.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Todd K. Pedlar                 !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
> Grad Student, Dept o' Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
> Northwestern University                !  Email:  todd@numep0.phys.nwu.edu
> Fermilab Experiment E835        !          toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
>                                 !  WWW:  http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html

  Todd, I went to look up what Feynman wrote on the Bohr radius and
discovered there is tremendous leeway here. Especially by making the
nuclear electron heavier such as making a normal electron into a muon
or a tau particle. I think the tau is 7 or 8 times the mass of a muon
and a tau decays eventually into a muon + neutrinos then into a normal
electron + neutrinos. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. A
muon is of the order of 105.7 MEV and the tau is of the order of 800
MEV ? Is that correct? And what is the lifetime of a tau?

Feynman Lectures on Physics vol 1, 1963
page 38-6
--- start of quote of Feynman ---
   Suppose we have a hydrogen atom, and measure the position of the
electron; we must not be able to predict exactly where the electron
will be, or the momentum spread will then turn out to be infinite.
Every time we look at the electron, it is somewhere, but it has an
amplitude to be in different places so there is a probability of it
being found in different places. These places cannot all be at the
nucleus; we shall suppose there is a spread in position of order A.
That is, the distance of the electron from the nucleus is usually about
A. We shall determine A by minimizing the total energy of the atom.
   The spread in momentum is roughly h/A because of the uncertainty
relation, so that if we try to measure the momentum of the electron in
some manner, such as by scattering x-rays off it and looking for the
Doppler effect from a moving scatterer, we would expect not to get zero
every time-- the electron is not standing still-- but the momenta must
be of the order p =~ h/A. Then the kinetic energy is roughly 1/2mv^2 =
p^2/2m = h^2/2mA^2.  (In a sense, this is a kind of dimensional
analysis to find out in what way the kinetic energy depends upon
Planck's constant, upon m, and upon the size  of the atom. We  need not
trust our answer to within factors like 2, pi, etc. We have not even
defined 'a' very precisely.) Now the potential energy is minus e^2 over
the distance from the center, say -e^2/A, where, we remember, e^2 is
the charge of an  electron squared, divide by 4pi x(permittivity of
vacuum). Now the point is that the potential energy is reduced if A
gets smaller, but the smaller A is, the higher the momentum required,
because of the uncertainty principle, and therefore the higher the
kinetic energy. The total energy is 
     E = h^2/2mA^2 - e^2/A.     (38.10)

We do not know what A is, but we know that the atom is going to arrange
itself to make  some kind of compromise so that the energy is as little
as possible. In order to minimize E,  we differentiate with respect to
A, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for A. The derivative of
E is 
    dE/dA = -h^2/mA^3 + e^2/A^2,  (38.11)

and setting dE/dA = 0 gives for A the value

   A_0 = h^2/me^2 = 0.528 angstrom
                            = 0.528 x 10^-10 meter. (38.12)

This particular distance is called the Bohr radius, and we have thus
learned that atomic dimensions are of the order of angstroms, which is
right: This is pretty good-- in fact, it is amazing, since until now we
have had no basis for understanding the size of atoms! Atoms are
completely impossible from the classical point of view, since the
electrons would spiral into the nucleus.
   Now if we put the value (38.12)  for A_0 into (38.10) to find the
energy, it comes out
          E_0 = -e^2/2A_0 = -me^4/2h^2 = -13.6ev.   (38.13)

What does a negative energy mean? It means that the electron has less
energy when it is in the atom than when it is free. It means it is
bound. It means it takes energy to kick the electron out; it takes
energy of the order of 13.6 ev to ionize a hydrogen atom. We have no
reason to think that it is not two or three times this-- or half of
this-- or (1/pi) times this, because we have used such a sloppy
argument. However, we have cheated, we have used all the constants in
such a way that it happens to come out the right number! this number,
13.6 electron volts,  is called the Rydberg of energy; it is the
ionization energy of hydrogen.
--- end of quoting of Feynman Lectures, vol 1, page 38-6 ---

  So, momentum P, where P = mc

 then Uncertainty Principle (UP) we have h/P = h/mc = Compton
wavelength

  Thus, to get around UP, or better yet, put UP to work. We can
calculate what the mass of a nuclear electron is, in order for it to
hold together say the 4 protons of helium 4@2 by the 2 nuclear
electrons. Would the mass of the 2 nuclear electrons be muon masses or
would they be tau masses?

  This is all pretty for the UP predicts what the masses of nuclear
electrons must be in order to be inside the nucleus, or inside the
individual protons moving very rapidly from one proton to another in
order to strong force hold them together. Understand that the Coulombic
nuclear strong force of nuclear electrons is 83 times stronger than
normal Coulomb force.
--
|Fidonet:  Archimedes Plutonium 1:330/204.1
|Internet: Archimedes.Plutonium@Archimedes.Plutonium@*user@*site.*domain.org.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Torin Walker /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Torin Walker <torin@torinet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:56:56 -0400
Organization: InfoRamp Inc., Toronto, Ontario (416) 363-9100

Jed,

I've found a source for patents

> Doug Shade <rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com> writes:
> 
> >What are the known problems with scaling the design up?  Do the
> >spherical electrodes have a limited life?  Are they hugely expensive to
> >make?  (Or is it too expensive to build 3000 PSI plumbing? ha ha )
> 
> I do not know of any problems scaling the design up. They have already
> made much larger cells. The latest electrode beads have very long life,
> although earlier designs had problems. They are dirt cheap to make.
> 
> 3000 PSI plumbing will not be needed . . . as you might have guessed. On
> the other hand in order to operate over 100 deg C they do need pressurized
> cells. They have made them in the past and I expect they will soon make
> new ones.
> 
> - Jed

Do you happen to know the patent number for the abovementioned
electrode beads? I've decided to just go ahead and build one of these
devices and find out for myself.

I will be posting results to this newsgroup every step of the way, starting with
price, construction, setup, testing and results. It'll be under the subject:

"Neutral Party Searches For Cold Fusion Truth"

[You're all welcome to cheer me on.]


Torin...
--
Torin Walker - Made from 100% pure nerd.               Voice: (416) 979-6797 x101
Director of Scientific Research and Development          Fax: (416) 979-7559
Torinet Laboratories. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.        Email: torin@torinet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentorin cudfnTorin cudlnWalker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 / Matt Austern /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: 14 Oct 1995 20:49:45 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <hheffner-1310952321330001@204.57.193.65> hheffner@matsu.ak.n
t (Horace Heffner) writes:

> > Semi-practical methods of interstellar travel are left as an exercise
> > for the reader.
> > -- 
> >   Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
> >   matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
> >   http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
> 
> Is your "semi-practical" commment directed at the question quoted below? 
> If so, you have much faith to elevate the idea to that level!  

No, I was thinking of ways of getting around the fuel requirement that
are known to be possible under current physics, or at least that
aren't known to be impossible.  Things like light sails (possibly
using lasers based in your home solar system), or Bussard ramjets
(probably impossible, but there's still a tiny bit of hope), or
multi-generation ships, or suspended animation.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.14 /  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: Sat, 14 Oct 95 19:55:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Torin Walker <torin@torinet.com> writes:
 
>Do you happen to know the patent number for the abovementioned
>electrode beads? I've decided to just go ahead and build one of these
>devices and find out for myself.
 
I doubt very much that you are capable of building one of these devices.
It takes a person who "skilled in the art" - in patent terminology. Have
you worked extensively with thin film electrolytic deposition? In any case,
the patents are:
 
4,943,355 7/1990 Patterson
5,036,031 7/1991 Patterson
5,318,675 6/1994 Patterson
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Torin Walker /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Torin Walker <torin@torinet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 02:35:23 -0400
Organization: InfoRamp Inc., Toronto, Ontario (416) 363-9100

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 
> I doubt very much that you are capable of building one of these devices.
> It takes a person who "skilled in the art" - in patent terminology. Have
> you worked extensively with thin film electrolytic deposition? In any case,
> the patents are:
> 
> 4,943,355 7/1990 Patterson
> 5,036,031 7/1991 Patterson
> 5,318,675 6/1994 Patterson
> 
> - Jed

Thanks for the info. 

As a matter of fact, smartass, I HAVE worked with it, and am quite
capable of building quite a number of things. I have myriad Phd
friends who have access to almost anything I need. That which I can't
get done for free (or cost), I pay for. No big deal.

Why would you doubt I am capable of such a task? You know *NOTHING*
about me. You should be careful; one of these days, your presumptuous
attitude may get you into trouble.

Why can't you just answer questions without all the snyde remarks? Do
you honestly believe the ENTIRE world is against you? (Never mind...
that was a rhetorical question.)


Torin...
-- 
Torin Walker - Made from 100% pure nerd.             Voice: (416)
979-6797 x101
Director of Scientific Research and Development        Fax: (416)
979-7559
Torinet Laboratories. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.      Email:
torin@torinet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentorin cudfnTorin cudlnWalker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 12 Oct 1995 01:15:34 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Thanks very much for the news Jed. The Patterson Cell seems to be going from
strength to strength. By my count there are now 5 independent verifications
of excess heat production and each new incarnation of the cell produces
superior
results.

Really the Patterson Cell is not following the traditional trajectory of
Pathalogical Science. As time goes on the effect becomes larger and more
widely reproduced.

I have a couple of questions. I don't know if you're in a position to answer:

1. Are there experiments where the flow rate in the calorimeters are varied?
It is just theoretically possible that the Craven's demo could be a heat pump
effect. I don't know about the SOFIE demo because I don't know what the
pressure
drop across the pump was. Anyway, if the Patterson Cell is really a very
sophisticated heat pump, one would expect the apperent excess heat generated
Cell to fall as the flow rate is reduced. On the other hand if the cell is
genuinely producing heat this should be independent of flow rate and
so the temperature rise should increase as 1/(flow rate).

2. The size of the cell (1-2 cc), the coefficient of performance (a factor of
80) and power output (5 watts) suggests that it would be possible to scale the 
thing up (just gang a few cells together!) to a device that
produces in excess of 100 watts and run a small steam engine which in turn
would provide sufficient energy to run the cell. Do you if such plans are on
the
horizon?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 12 Oct 1995 02:50:23 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>
>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.
>
>

Power = Pressure * Flow rate

Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-10 meters cubed per sec.
Power = 5 watts 

=> Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10-10 = 2*10**10 newtons/meter**2
                                           = 200000 times atmospheric pressure

Your friend should should learn some basic Physics as well as how to solve
2nd order coupled differential equations!

>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

Are we so far gone in a world of tricksters and wonderful gadgets that we
can't evaluate experiments on their own merit? Why must one always appeal
to a higher authority? Why not get in there, ask questions, make measurements
and see for yourself?

Is your friend really saying: "I couldn't see anything wrong with it but it's
not my field so I might have missed something."?

Still you're right. A positive result given by NIST would have a huge impact.
From what Jed has posted here before I guess that would cost 20K or more.
It may be money well invested.

[The rest snipped]

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / A Plutonium /  Tenth experiments proving HYASYS==strong nuclear force; muons
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tenth experiments proving HYASYS==strong nuclear force; muons
Date: 12 Oct 1995 01:44:57 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <45duob$2fg@zippy.cais.net>
alchemst@pacificnet.net (John Milligan) writes:

> 
> Ok, let's see how good your theory actually is.  You claim that your theory is 
> a true explanation of the way things are.  So, here is something that is not 
> exactly explain by the standard model, why do the particles have the masses 
> that they do.  Why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV?  Can you explain 
> this with the proper mathematics?  Do NOT just say "Of course my theory 
> explains this.  Don't you see it?"  That is not giving proof, it is 
> proselytizing, not to mention bad argumentation.

  John, can you stop capitalizing words, looks like your either
shouting or baby talk.
  Okay, you want some masses. I give you some masses. Remember, all of
the modern day theories, quark, pion, Standard Model, QCD, QED, and Qe2
(queen eliz. ship)  are deaf dumb mute and silent when it comes to
giving mass.

   Mass  of muon explained for it is the muon which comes closest to
being what nuclear electrons are. You know what normal electrons are
John from chemistry, right? Nuclear electrons are more like muons. Now
let us predict the muon mass.

  Use the fine-structure variable, it varies asymptotically to distance
to other nuclear electrons and to nuclear protons.
  Muon mass is 211 times that normal electron mass.

   Inverse alpha in the nucleus is roughly 128

   Nuclear protonic coulombic repulsion is stable up to the last stable
element of bismuth at the number of 83. At 84, it no longer matters how
many neutrons you pack into a nucleus for the nuclear electrons out of
neutrons can no longer keep the nucleus stable.

  Now we add 83 to 128 and we arrive at a rest mass energy of 211. But
211 was the rest mass energy difference between a normal electron and a
muon which a muon is a nuclear electron.

  It is not by coincidence, John or any reader that the muon catalyzes
fusion. The reason it does so is because it is a nuclear electron and
nuclei just love to get a 'free' nuclear electron without a proton from
a neutron. A muon is a free nuclear electron. And a muon can come out
of a neutron.

  Somehow when a neutron is in the nucleus, it decomposes into a
nuclear electron which can be a muon and a proton. Perhaps the neutrino
energy went into the forming of a muon out of a normal electron.

  Set up experiments showing that a neutron when it decays can go into
a muon, proton, etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Dieter Britz /  No future?
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No future?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:40:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There have been a few stirrings - at last - about the future of this list/
newsgroup. I for one will soon drop it altogether, since the fusion content -
hot or cold - has dropped practically to zero. I am for free speech and all
that, but I am also for rules of behaviour, and you don't post off-topic
stuff to newsgroups set up for certain topics. Unfortunately, there are lots
of people out there ready to yell "Censorship!!" when you mention this, and
it seems to have become accepted that if some posting is remotely connected
with science, it belongs in this group. I disagree. A news group is like a
meeting to discuss something. You allow a bit of chatter, but someone usually
says "let's get back to the subject". If nothing happens within a few months,
I will stop reading the group, and stop sending my biblio updates to it. I'd
just send them to the archives and people could look at the fusion.cnf-new
file for recent updates. If anyone out there cares at all, that is. My
publication statistics continue to show roughly exponential decay in the
number of papers coming out per month, so maybe everybody except the diehards
has indeed walked away. These days, "overunity" devices are all the rage
(there is a nice sober mailing list about them, even), but they don't spawn
papers in journals, and the connection with CNF is not clear, anyway.

Scott suggests a moderated mailing list or maybe another go at a moderated
group. I went through the latter exercise, and it came to nothing. This could
of course mean that there are not enough people wanting to read a serious
fusion group, in which case we might as well forget the whole thing. I am
certainly not going to repeat my exercise, but maybe someone else would like
to have a go - it could be that, what with all the nonsense we now get here,
there are enough people who want a moderated group and that a vote would
pass it this time.

Bill Page's mailing list has been inactive for some time; in any case it was
set up specifically to discuss ICCF5 and did so.

When I was trying to get that moderated group, one of the ideas was to set
up a moderated alt.* group; anyone can set one of these up, and I was told
that it is possible to have it moderated. I don't know how this is done but
that can be found out. Is there anyone interested in doing the job? I suspect
that the traffic would be very low, judging by the small number of actual
fusion postings now going through here. On the other hand, I think a lot of
potential serious posters have given up because they feel that they would be
swamped by the noise anyway, so why bother; these people might start posting
again, to a group that stuck to the point.

Just think: no Farce of Physics, no Plutonium, no French tests, no spams,
just fusion.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.11 /  Labrys /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3116-01.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:35:52 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

|>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?

This is an idea that's intrigued me for some time. A rocket based on an 
asymmetric mirror of some sort. `Course the trick is to provide a usable
exhaust velocity while maintaining a reasonable plasma density and/or 
confinement.
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                |=|
                                |=| 
                                |=|
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.11 /  Labrys /  Re: Hot Fusion Mailing List?  (was Re: Fusion Digest 4458)
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3116-01.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Mailing List?  (was Re: Fusion Digest 4458)
Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:39:39 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <v01530500aca11ea58bb0@[204.118.149.100]> john-paul may,
jpm@tweb.com writes:
>Does anyone know, is there simply a hot-fusion (echh! I hate that name)
>mailing list to compliment
>this mailing list, which is good but mainly about cold fusion and other
>novel ideas?  Thankx.

Bob sez:
|>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.

I say:
Count me in, I'll subscribe. 
_______________________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               /\       /\
tuttt@rpi.edu              // \  n  / \\
EPHY '96                  ((   #>X<#   ))     "Life need not be easy
                           \\ /  H  \ //      provided it is not empty"
                            \/   H   \/              -Lise Meitner
                                 H
                                |=|
                                |=| 
                                |=|
		        	 U
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt
_______________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / david rogers /  Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
     
Originally-From: rogersda@direct.ca (david rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Antimatter to Direct Energy e=mc^2
Date: 12 Oct 1995 09:24:31 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.

Julian Brown writes in sci.energy:

I am a computer scientist not an engineer or physicist.

I read in Popular Science that if you bombard copper with a stream of
electrons you can generate a stream of positrons and electrons.  And
if I am not mistaken if a positron (a positron is an anti-electron) and
an electron contact each other they eliminate each other and the mass
is converted directly to energy.

I do not know the energy costs to generate the streams but knowing that
e=mc^2 it would seem to me the direct conversion of the mass of the 
streams to energy would be significantly greater.  And even if the present
mechanisms to generate the streams or to guarantee the conversion of the
streams to energy are not presently efficient enough, I believe applied 
research could improve them to the point of practibility.

Does anyone know the energy costs of generating the streams and/or whether
this could be turned into a viable energy generation mechanism ?

Thanx

julian@prosim.com

PLEASE USE THIS EMAIL ADDRESS AND NOT THE ONE IN THE HEADER OF THE ARTICLE.

-- 
Julian Brown                __     ___             ___                      
Pro\Sim Corp.          __  / /_ __/ (_)__ ____    / _ )_______ _    _____  
Houston, Tx. U.S.A.   / /_/ / // / / / _ `/ _ \  / _  / __/ _ \ |/|/ / _ \  
julian@prosim.com     \____/\_,_/_/_/\_,_/_//_/ /____/_/  \___/__,__/_//_/   


As positrons and electrons have mass and are not only pure waveform 
energies then surely energy will be given off upon thier mutual collision?

What form will the energy be in? 

Can this mechanism be applied to the commercial generation of energy?

Really interested to hear what you 'expert' physicists have to say.

My apologies to Julian for jumping the gun and posting this article in 
this news group.

Sincerely,


David.


>                                    +
>                                   
>                                  W h o 
>         
>                           +    D a r e s   +
>     
>                                 W i n s        
>
>                                    +
>

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrogersda cudfndavid cudlnrogers cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 12 Oct 1995 03:48:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <BPPDvFq.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> 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.

Jed asks how one could get a positive delta-T across the cell
using a pump.  There is a mechanism, and it is not new to this
group.  It relies on the chemical complexity of the working
fluid.  To wit:

(1) Agitation, heating and possible catalytic action on fluid 
by pump allows chemical changes in fluid, storing energy.

(2) Fluid enters cell.

(3) Induced chemical reactions in cell release stored energy.

(4) Release of stored energy is observed as positive delta-T;
false inference of "excess energy" production.

(5) Warm water cools as it returns to pump.

Repeat cycle for as long as you wish...

An easy way to disprove this hypothesis is to measure 
the total energy - both thermal and chemical - given to the
working fluid by the pump.  One conclusive test would
be to produce sustained apparent excess energy significantly 
greater than the time-integrated input energy running the 
pump.  What was the power input to the pump used in the latest 
tests?  I suspect it was greater than the observed apparent 
excess power, which after all was just a couple of watts.

The results may or may not be real, but the evidence
provided thus far isn't conclusive.  The cell is not the
only place where chemical reactions may be occurring.

I'd be interested in learning more about it, though.
It certainly sounds like a fun experiment.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:16:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <hheffner-1310951043520001@204.57.193.69> hheffner@matsu.ak.n
t (Horace Heffner) writes:
>In article <hheffner-1210951248500001@204.57.193.64>,
>hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

>> In article <45hl8m$gai@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
>> Merriman) wrote:
 
>> > 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).

Probably the most efficient use of fission would a sort of fission 
(Bussard) banger which detonates small devices in rapid succession 
within a massive shaped parabolic reflector.  I suppose if the liner of
such a reflector could convert the neutrons to fissionable fuel or 
fusionable fuel, then a shut down period for scape off and fuel
supply regenerations could be conducted for those extra long trips.  
Hopefully the shield wouldn't wear too thin, or perhaps the 
instantaneous "peak load" could throttled back accordingly and
be sufficient to slow for a landing, since air braking may not
quite cut it.  

Otherwise "space fission" sucks, since it is a thermal cycle monster
that requires cooling and has a very low Carnot efficiency.  The
SP100 program, if memory serves might run at 17% tops.   The
cooling array is terrible.  So most of the energy produced can't
be used for useful electric power or propulsion.   It's a clunker.  

Another drawback to mutli-tens of gigawatt engines is the fact 
that neutrons (at least those from DT reactions) can not be "let 
out" willy nilly, since they can penetrate the atmosphere of earth 
from space and due harm at significant bio hazardous levels at
it's surface.    

>> >  .. .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).

Yep, an ugly prospect.  

>> > 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.

If true, that's really bad.  Not so hard to believe, however.  Imagine 
the ITER complex as a space ship drive with radiant cooling.   

>> I would suggest that a fusion rocket would primarily be useful on an
>> interstellar trip. 

Actually, there are other fuels than DT, and other burners than
a tokamak.  Further there are other engines than what is suggested
hereabove.  We are working on ideas related to such applications, 
and uses are far wider than what you suggest.  

>> In that case, the weight of the reactor would be
>> incidental to the fuel weight. Since 200MeV/235 < 17MeV/2, i.e. .85 < 8.5,
>> you would get 10 times the energy per mass of fuel in a fusion rocket. 

Want of efficiency is the killer, and unless the fusion process could 
be applied directly to produce thrust (high Carnot efficiency), it too 
will be of very marginal use.  Powerful engines are required and that 
implies powerful cooling which is simply not available for systems 
with Carnot efficiencies below 85%.  

>> Since the subject of energy for space travel is raised, I have often been
>> curious about the possibility of using vacuum fluctuations as a means of
>> accelerating a space ship.  This would be done by establishing an enormous
>> electrostatic field that would separate charged particle/antipartile pairs
>> created by vacuum fluctuations. These particles would be separated in the
>> gap between two "dee's", hollow conductors, with a transverse magnetic
>> field similar to a cyclotron. The magnetic field would be used to separate
>> particles by mass/charge and change their direction toward the back of the
>> ship. The particles, still inside the dee's would be accelerated by
>> synchrotron accelerators (giving an impulse to the ship), they would then
>> exit the dee's (prior to leaving the ship) where their mutual
>> electrostatic attraction would bring them together to annihilation,
>> emitting photons etc. by which some of the energy of separation could be
>> retrieved.

Such devices have very limited "throughput".  

I think such a device would be  enormously massive, and lossy.  It 
definitely wouldn't be a surface earth to surface Mars capable 
device.  For inter stellar voyages, maybe.   A lighter and faster 
star ship, is always worth the investment, since they can easily 
pass the first to launch using heavier technology.  

>> the ship) you could get double the velocity, or four times the ship
>> kinetic energy. Something does not add up. What is it?

Int [Power * time] -> energy.  The energy that must be added per 
delta increase in velocity increases with velocity.  So one must 
either accelerate (increase engine power) or accept that the rate 
of speed up using limited power engines will fall off with 
velocity increase.  In automobiles, the horsepower generally 
increases to a maximum near legal hiway speed, so this constant 
time rate of velocity increase is closely approximated in normal 
operation.  Consequently, with such experiences, it's a mistake 
that can sneak past your common sense.   

>small reactive masses provides much more impulse than large masses 
>at the same energy, 

I'm not certain what you mean by "the same energy".  In our concept
p-B is burned hot, and the propulsion engine/s has two modes of 
operation.  In one mode, the engine burns pB driven by a dense 
atmospheric gas blanket compression, which then drives the boost 
phase engine by expansion and mixing with atmospheric gases.  A 
30-400 cycle operation would be capable of heavy lifts from 
atmospheric planets.   That's high thrust, needed to break out 
of the gravity field.  

For a compromise high specific thrust allowing one to get to
the out planets and get there in a "short time", we have a
powerful engine that uses only it's helium ash for reaction mass
or the helium ash plus another chunk of 3 or 4 * He ash mass
(garbage-refuge slinging??).  

In "PLASMAK(tm) hyper drive" mode, the engine is operated "closed 
cycle with the inductive MHD and total cogeneration power which 
drives plasmoid accelerators to expel reaction mass He ash plus?.  
This added mass has effect of adding to the total thrust from 
this otherwise quite high specific thrust engine, thus giving us 
shorter trip times.  Mars would be order of a month, with faster 
trips cut to 7 or 10 days.  Peak burn densities in the plasma fuel 
is order 10 megawatts per cubic centimeter.  That's a 6 or 7 higher 
than is expected for tokamak.  . .. "orders"  that is.   
                                :-)
The bottom line, is reusable ships that go like hell, huge payloads, 
and shielding for cosmic ray protection.  This all falls out of 
having a super high power density / unit mass burners and an super 
cheap aneutronic fuel.  

But ... we don't do everything right the second time, as we just
found out.  Fortunately, we did the first time, so we are moving
a bit more cautiously.  


>Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
              
This is one ship, you won't land at DC, "hot".  Not if you want the East 
coast to still be there.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, BX 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037|
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:49:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <45hl8m$gai@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>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).

The only problem I see from this is that most schemes tend
to use really low density fusion devices and bleed burning plasma
or charged particles out of the burning core.  The difficulty is
the "throughput", just how much thrust vs how much weight.  
Most of these devices seem to require huge magnets which are
massive, even if one uses the vacuum of space to avoid other
engineering apparatus.  

>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.

Oops, I should have read ahead!  Sorry about that.    

>Based on that, it would seem a DT tokamak is much less suited
>to powering a rocket than a standard fission plant?

True, true.  But the tokamak, really is a dead seacow being 
jammed into the role of an gnat. Fission is a stink bomb clunker,
and made for really mad desperate types, or at least chaps
that aren't well informed.  The fission programs, have for
the most part died under their own grunge.  I suppose sooner
or latter that will also be the fate of the dead sea cow.      

>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?

I can only speak for our concept, which has a high Carnot 
efficiency and utilizes the conversion of aneutronic energy
to inductive MHD (plus cogeneration), to develp electric power
with the least loss.  Then the fuel ash is accelerated (plasmoids)
as reaction mass.  The Specfic thrust can be modified by adding
small multiples of that mass for shorter trip times.  Key, though,
is the monster power density that can produce whopping engines
to whiz to the out planets on the order of months, under continuous
acceleration/deceleration.   One design might be feasible
to make a boost phase engine for those deep gravity wells that
can "tranform" to the PLASMAK(tm) "hyperdrive" engine for 
interplanetary stuff once in LPO.  

By the way, R. Bussard has a high specific impulse pB burner,
for the more gentle applications.  
He's up to some interesting work, and recently was playing 
plasma  "whiffle-ball".  

The problem with our space propulsion concept is that it will 
not be all that delicate for those "orbital space station 
manuevers". Between the two concepts through, we have everything 
covered except, maybe a "cold fusion" battery to charge an 
impulser for those really important kick starts when your sailing 
off through the Oort because your turn around deceleration 
manuever failed to keep the engines blazing.   

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, BX 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037|
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Patrick Esch /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: vanesch@dice2.desy.de (Patrick P. E. Esch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 15 Oct 1995 11:09:07 GMT
Organization: DESY

I have been following these threads a while in lurking mode
as I:
- am not into fusion physics
- am rather sceptical towards CF (to say the least)
- but try to keep an open mind.
- I am moderately interested but won't spend too much time on it.

Most of the time there was simply a back and forth 
shouting between the proponents of CF and the sceptics, 
without any physics going on.
But this demo is interesting.  The proponents of it
should realise however that we're not ready to give
up all knowledge gained in the latter part of this 
century based on a hearsay claim of a demo somewhere.
That doesn't mean we're not interested, but people making
such claims should be ready to get an extremely critical
attitude from other scientists.  If there really is something
to it, there is no reason to get insultive, on the other
hand. Every sceptical question is an opportunity for the
proponent to give extra strength to his argument.  However
it might be that some questions have indeed not been answered.
Instead of starting to shout, it is then up to the beholder of
the claim to do new experiments and show that indeed the
question can be answered.

Concerning the calorimetric set-up, a detailled description
would indeed do much good.
For example, my most serious objection is the very slow flow.
How can one control temperature rise due to calorimetric leaks
at such a low flow ?
A way to find out is to modulate the electrolysis current and
to try to observe a correlated modulation of the delta-T.
For example: if you switch off the cell, do we still get a delta-T ?

cheers,
Patrick.

--
Patrick Van Esch
http://www.iihe.ac.be/hep/pp/vanesch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenvanesch cudfnPatrick cudlnEsch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Dieter Britz /  No elimination
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No elimination
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 12:10:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes, in FD 4471:


>Your article enraged me Dieter because you mention The Farce of Physics
>among the threads that you would eliminate. If you don't like this group
>why don't you just go read something else? In any case The Farce of
>Physics is what I learnt the most from in this newsgroup.
[... etc etc]

Zoltan, please note:

1. Even if I were trying to change this news group to fusion-only: there
   would be good argument for it. We, who are primarily interested in fusion,
   set up this group in 1989 (well, I didn't contribute to setting it up but
   I started posting to it then). Stuff like Farce, Pu, etc came in much
   later, much to our annoyance. I.e. we were here first.

2. However, you didn't read my post. Yes, I did say I want to be without
   Farce, Pu, etc; but I did not say I will try to eliminate them from this
   group; I want another group set up that excludes them. You Farce etc
   enthusiasts could then have this group to your happy selves, without us
   fusion narks grumbling about off-topic postings. Maybe you should then
   rename the group, as well - it would be up to you.

Calm down, Zoltan.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 12:25:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Patent info for Torin Walker:

Patterson patents that pertain to your ground-up replication effort:

US Patents:

5,318,675  June 7, 1994
4,943,355    7/1990
5,036,031    7/1991
3,577,324    5/1971

Good luck!

Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Editor-in-Chief
INFINITE ENERGY: Cold Fusion
     and New Energy Technnology
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Fax:   603-224-5975
Phone: 603-228-4516


  

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 /  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: Sun, 15 Oct 95 10:32:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Torin Walker <torin@torinet.com> writes:
 
>Why would you doubt I am capable of such a task? You know *NOTHING*
>about me. You should be careful; one of these days, your presumptuous
>attitude may get you into trouble.
 
So far, all I know about you is that I sent you numerous messages describing
where to find information, and you kept telling you could not find it. Plus
I told you the name of the person holding the CETI patent: Patterson, James,
and you were somehow not able to find the patent in a search. I have found
lots of them from the name alone. You do not strike me a resourceful person.
But who knows? Who can tell? Maybe you will do a good job. More power to you
if you pull it off. That would be fine. If you don't pull it off that will
prove you are not skilled in the art. It will not disprove CETI because others
have already replicated them.
 
I just hope you know what you are doing. There are some self-styled "experts"
in this field who do not. Some are so inept, they end up with dead insects
in the electrolyte and they call that a replication experiment.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 /  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: Sun, 15 Oct 95 10:38:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
 
>1. Are there experiments where the flow rate in the calorimeters are varied?
 
Yes, and there are runs with static calorimeters with no flow at all. (A
static calorimeter would not be appropriate for a conference demonstration
because it depends on pre-established calibration points.) At ICCF5, Cravens
showed a graph data point from multiple runs at different flow rates. The
flow rate was changed methodically to address the point you raise her.
 
Also, informally, I fooled around with the flow rate myself.
 
>2. The size of the cell (1-2 cc), the coefficient of performance (a factor of
>80) and power output (5 watts) suggests that it would be possible to scale the 
>thing up (just gang a few cells together!) to a device that
>produces in excess of 100 watts and run a small steam engine which in turn
>would provide sufficient energy to run the cell. Do you if such plans are on
>the
>horizon?
 
I think you are right about that. They have built larger cells already, years
ago. I think it would be easy for them to build a small steam engine or
thermoelectric engine. As for plans on the horizon . . . I cannot talk about
them.
Sorry!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / 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: 15 Oct 1995 16:20:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: Power = Pressure * Flow rate
: Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-10 meters cubed per sec.
: Power = 5 watts 
: => Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10-10 = 2*10**10 newtons/meter**2
:                                            = 200000 times atmospheric pressure

Oops.  There are only 1 million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter
(1 cc = 1 ml.)  So 14 ml/min = 14/60 = 0.233 ml/sec.
0.233 ml = 0.233/1000000 = 2.33E-7 (not E-10 as you had above.)

So because:

watts = pascals * cubic meters per second

5 = pascals * 2.33E-7

Solving for pascals:  pascals = 5/2.33E-7 = 2.15E+7

So we have 21,500,000 pascals needed at 14 ml/min to deliver 5 watts.

one pascal = 9.87E-6 atmosphers
           = 1.45E-4 pounds per square inch (PSI)

Thus the requisite values would be:

 211 atmospheres
3100 PSI


--
 - 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:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / 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: 15 Oct 1995 16:17:20 -0400
Organization: CyberGate

   The following is in reply to Kennel's 13 Oct 1995 post and Snell's 14 Oct
post.  Lithium7 deuteride ignites in a similar way to chemical fuel since the
neutrons and energy produced act to continue the reaction.  The details on the
neutron generators and the x-section for fusion is classified information, but
the color photo of the 58.5 pound nuclear backpack and the information in the
book by Rhodes, tends to indicate that it should be possible to make a simple
economical electric power generator.  As I mentioned in my 11 Oct post, the
current Lawrence Livermore Laboratory RTNS-II neutron generator provides two
independent 10-mm wide 14-Mev neutron sources, each producing a maximum flux
of 10^13 neutrons/sec cm^2.  The total output of the generator must be much
larger, since it produces a symmetrical output of neutrons.  As I mentioned,
this output is intense enough to be used for neutron damage studies. In any
case the neutron doubling of lithium7 mentioned by Rhodes would tend to create
a chain reaction effect so the ignition flux magnitude is not that important.

   In the January 1992 issue of PHYSICS TODAY starting on page 22, there is a
very elaborate article titled PROGRESS TOWARD A TOKAMAK FUSION REACTOR.  The
authors of the article are Geoffrey Cordey who is leader of data processing
and analysis at the Joint European Torus in Abingdon Oxfordshire UK, Robert
Goldston who is head of the research council of the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, and Ronald Parker who is director of the Plasma Fusion Center at
MIT.  The authors write the following paragraph on page 23 of the article:

     While deuterium is stable, and one deuterium atom occurs naturally for
  every 6700 atoms of hydrogen, tritium is a Beta emitter with a halflife of
  12.3 years and so is not found in significant quantities in nature. 
  Consequently tritium must be generated in a thick blanket surrounding the
                                                      6      4
  plasma. (see figure 1), using reactions such as n +  Li ->  He + T.  The
  heat deposited by the slowing down of the 14-MeV neutrons in the blanket
  and by the exothermic reactions that breed the tritium is transferred to a
  coolant such as high-temperature helium.  The hot helium is subsequently
  used to drive turbines to generate electricity.  Thus deuterium and
  lithium, which would be extracted from abundant sources such as saline
  lakes, the ocean and geological deposits, are the raw fuels required for an
  electricity-generating D-T fusion reactor.

In the LETTERS section of the September 1992 issue of PHYSICS TODAY on page
101, Guenther Eichhorn of the Space Telescope Institute at Baltimore Maryland,
published a letter titled "Can a Tokamak Breed Enough Tritium?"  The reply of
the authors of the above article contained the following statement:

  ... In fact the reactor blanket will include neutron-multiplying materials
  such as beryllium or lead so that the net "breeding ratio" can be greater
  than 1; typically one will be aiming at an adjustable ratio of up to 1.1.

Apparently because of military secrecy the authors did not know of the natural
neutron doubling nature of Lithium7.  Starting on page 14 of the November 1979
issue of THE PROGRESSIVE, Howard Morland published an article titled THE H-
BOMB SECRET.  In a box on page 21 with a title of "The price of secrecy"
Morland writes the following:

  Ten years ago the Pentagon appointed a nine-member "Task Force on Secrecy"
  to investigate the effectiveness of the nation's security system.  This was
  one of its findings:
     "With respect to technical information, it is understandable that our
  society would turn to secrecy in an attempt to optimize the advantage to
  national security that may be gained from new discoveries or innovations
  associated with science and engineering.
     "However, it must be recognized, first, that certain kinds of technical
  information are easily discovered independently, or regenerated, once a
  reasonably sophisticated group decides it is worthwhile to do so.
     "In spite of elaborate and very costly measures taken independently by
  the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to preserve technical secrecy, neither the United
  Kingdom nor China was long delayed in developing hydrogen weapons.
     "Also, classification of technical information impedes its flow within
  our own system, and may easily do far more harm than good by stifling
  critical discussion and review or by engendering frustration.  There are
  many cases in which the declassification of technical information within
  our system probably had a beneficial effect and its classification has had
  a deleterious one."
     One of the task force members was Dr. Edward Teller, father of the U.S.
  hydrogen bomb.

Bryan

wallaceb@gate.net

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.15 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:48:19 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <45hvpf$nb3@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Martin Sevior
<msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> 
> Power = Pressure * Flow rate
> 
> Flow rate = 14 ml/min = 2.33 * 10**-10 meters cubed per sec.
> Power = 5 watts 
> 
> => Pressure across the cell = 5/2.33*10-10 = 2*10**10 newtons/meter**2
>                                            = 200000 times atmospheric pressure
> 
> Your friend should should learn some basic Physics as well as how to solve
> 2nd order coupled differential equations!

***{Martin, you are making this sound a *lot* more complicated than it
really is. The simple way to think about problems of this sort is to
simply recognize that pressure is a form of energy storage. Thus if, for
example, we place a gallon of water in a plastic bag and place it on the
surface of a lake, the gallon of water has potential energy due to its
position at the top of the body of water. If we then swim down to the
bottom of the lake and place it there, it has exactly the same amount of
energy, stored in the form of pressure. If we then swim over to the bottom
of a nearby dam and release the bag of water so that it goes out through a
spillway and returns to ambient pressure, the pressure energy is converted
into kinetic energy. And if it then slows down and settles into a quiet
puddle, the kinetic energy is converted into heat. 

For present purposes, we are concerned with the possibility that the pump
boosts the pressure of the water and, further down the line, the pressure
drops back to the average level in the flow, converting all of the
pressure to heat. Since we have a flow rate of 14.28 ml/min or 5.24E-4
lbs/sec and we are producing 5 watts or 44.19 in-lbs/sec, the essential
question is simply how high must we raise a chunk of water that weighs
5.24E-4 lbs in order to give it 44.19 in-lbs of potential energy. Once we
know that, we simply calculate the pressure at the bottom of that column
of water, and we have our answer. 

Here is the way it works. If we let H represent the height, in inches, at
which 5.24E-4 lbs of water has 44.19 in-lbs of potential energy, then we
have: 

5.24E-4 times H = 44.19, which means that H = 8.439E+7 inches. 

The pressure in psi at the bottom of a column of water 8.439E+7 inches
high is simply the weight of a 1 square inch column of that height. We
just divide by 231 to convert cubic inches to gallons, and multiply by 8.3
(the weight of a gallon of water), and we get 3.03E+6 psi, which divided
by 14.7 psi gives 206,123 atmospheres.

It's simple, and differential equations are *not* required. --Mitchell
Jones}***   
> 
[The rest snipped]

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct 16 04:37:31 EDT 1995
------------------------------
