1996.01.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 12 Jan 1996 05:42:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: Basically, what I am hypothesizing is that when the run began at Power
: Gen, fluid friction in the bead bed caused heat conduction into the walls
: of the cell and thence into the outlet thermocouple, causing it to read 16
: degrees higher than the actual temperature of the electrolyte.

By what magic can the thermocouple come to be 16C higher than the
surrounding electrolyte?  How can fluid friction heating of the bead
bed cause the beads to become 16C hotter than the very fluid that
is in dymanic friction causing contact with the beads?


--
 - 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / John Logajan /  Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit
Date: 12 Jan 1996 05:55:49 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:
: You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said.  In fact,
: there was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED 
: reports of a power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device.

: Go look before you bullshit me anymore.

There might well have been a thread villifying Jed for allegedly reporting
such a thing.  However your evidence is irrelevent -- it's "hearsay" as they
say in court.  We need the original posting by Jed to see what he really
said, not some interpretation by one of his detractors.

My recollection is that Robert Bass posted the numbers for the control
cell, not Jed. 

--
 - 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 /  Oz /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk (Oz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 07:13:59 GMT

>In article <4cvhbp$hdr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM) says:
>>
>>My son is a nine year old in 4th grade.  His new years resolution is to
>>invent fusion. For a 4th grader he knows alot. Any experts out there he
>>can talk with online about his theories. 

>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
>A serious answer. 
>
>This is an open forum, and if he can state a good question he will 
>get an answer from someone.  Then he will really start to learn.  The
>answer may be correct or it may be pure garbage.  He will have to learn
>to sort it out.  9 is not too early to learn this basic survival 
>technique.  Are you ready for his exposure to garbage?  Who cares 
>about dirty pictures, there are dirty ideas here.  Far more dangerous.

A 9 year old. Hmmm. Dangerous, I would say.

Many physics concepts are counterintuitive. Many to the
extent that grown-up posters here cannot get their brains
round them and propose what they think are 'intuitive' ways
to avoid having to grasp these problems. Unfortunately
'main-stream' physicists have already been there, considered
these 'intuitive' explanations themselves and rejected them
because they don't work and/or do not agree with experiment.
Usually many decades ago.

To properly manipulate, and in some cases even understand,
modern concepts some serious maths is required. It is a
rather labourious and lengthy procedure to become proficient
in the maths so proper explanation of the more advanced
concepts to the mathematically uninitiated is very difficult
or even essentially impossible. The level is above what is
remembered by an early 70's UK graduate and most of it was
never even taught then. So he's not likely to get there
until he is 18, even if he has a bit of genius in him.

It is absolutely critical to be able to sort out the experts
from the cranks. This is not even as straightforward as it
might seem as there are even a few who are experts in one
area and cranks in another.

The lure of apparently easier to understand crank ideas,
particularly when expressed in a convincing way (for the
ignorant) could lead your son up a path that will destroy
any chance of a physics career, or at best make it vastly
harder. Unlearning things is real tough.

Personally, I would avoid it.


 ------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenOz cudlnOz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 12 Jan 1996 08:49:26 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

The 1300 watt mode was only in operation for 15 minutes. Apparently the
nominal operating mode was less than 500 watts as reported for the second day's
running. I suggest you spend your time looking to see if 500 Watts can be 
dissapated by the system in a steady state fashion.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 12 Jan 1996 09:13:32 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

barry@moebius.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

[snip]

>
>But, again, I point out that it was an isolated demo, 
>not an experiment. Its probably not worth burning your
>brain out over it, because there is incomplete and unreliable
>information about exactly what took place. 
>
>Without further cooperation from the principle investigator, it
>is unlikely that you can resolve one way or the other what likely
>happened: suppose you find a scenario in which the power could
>dissipate as needed---well, you don't know thats what really happened,
>so thats far from conclusive. Similalrly, the absence of such a
>mechanism is also not conclusive, since you may not be considering the
>proper configuration.
>

AH.. but a number of people think it is impossible to dissapate the heat in
the system as described and photographed. Consequently they believe the demo
without merit at all. A proof in principle demonstration
that it is possible to do so would be a useful contribution to the debate.
Of course if Mitch can't do it then one could always argue that he didn't
have exactly the right configuration of Cravens etc. etc.

>
>While there is ceratinly no harm in doing the experiments you are
>doing, they will ultimately be of little value for determining what 
>may or may not have occured during the demo.
>

True enough. It won't make anyone change their minds but at least another 
person in this newsgroup is actually doing something.

>
>This all boils down to the idea that what is needed are repeated 
>experiments open to criticism and iterative improvement, not isolated
>demos. While the information reproted here by Jed is intriguing, it
>is good to bear in mind that Jed is essentially an observer, not the
>principle experimenter...so what he provides has to be considered
>second hand observations about a public demonstration. As such, I 
>would not get too bent out of shape over it pro or con. Its not
>surprising that such reporting, regarding an anomalous device,
>propduces more questions than answers.
>

That thought has struck me too. This newsgroup would be an extremely powerful
filter on experimental work. Mistakes would be rapidly identified and weeded
out. However the closest this newgroup has got while I've been reading is
Scott Little's attempts to verify Potapov's claims. Actually for a professional
scientist publishing here would be useless. It wouldn't be counted as an 
official paper when promotions and grants are being decided.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: 12 Jan 1996 10:13:06 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>


[snip]





> 
>Years ago, people like McKubre, Storms, Miles and Kunimatsu published peer
>reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann effect in palladium. Their
>equipment was far, *far* more accurate and precise than this crude trade show
>demo calorimeter. The reported excess power is much smaller of course,
>typically a few watts, but because their calorimeters are as much as three
>orders of magnitude more sensitive, the signal to noise ratio is roughly
>equivalent. The publications describe excess energy orders of magnitude beyond
>the limits of chemistry. They include copious details and error bars. The
>papers are presented in a cleaner, more orderly, professional and coventional
>format than my brief reports on Power-Gen. They are published in readily
>accessable journals and conference proceedings. Extensive documentation is
>available describing the SRI work from EPRI, including dozens of pages on
>microfiche showing the patent applications. In my report I described only
>three runs. SRI and others have reported hundreds of runs, including dozens
>that showed excess heat.
> 
>My question is, why have you been ignoring all this other evidence all these
>years? What on earth is there about a trade show demo that would excite your
>interest? Why should you find this trade show demo more convincing or more
>compelling than the staid, by the numbers, multi-million dollar experiments by
>SRI? It seems to me that as a scientist, you should find the SRI work more
>convincing, even though the power levels are not a high and the success rate
>is lower. The CETI device has much greater near-term technological potential,
>but the work at SRI, Los Alamos, KEK, Amoco and all the others who replicated
>Pons and Fleischmann was just as convincing scientifically, and the
>implications for physics was just as astounding. So why didn't these
>replications excite you?
> 

Well for my part, McKubre piqued my interest but one always worries whether
a scientist really understands their error bars to the accuracy claimed. 
You worry about systematic errors in sophisticated equipment at the best of
times. You worry about data selection. You worry about why it is that even
the most expert of CF experimenters can only get a positive efect 50% of the
time. Why can't it be demonstrated at will? In the end what's most impressive
are big effects with simple equipment that be replicated by a scientist of
average ability. Which in this case means near-term practicality.



>
>Perhaps scientists are just like anyone else. What really impresses them is
>high heat and near-term practicality, not scientific implications.
>


 
In the case of CF the scientific implications are so enormous that normal
"balance of probability" arguments are not sufficient. It must be demonstrated
beyond any conceivable doubt.





Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / I Johnston /  Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI
Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:17:07 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >But they only looked at it, did they not, because a control cell cannot
: >produce heat? And the best argument they can come up with to convince us
: >that the flow through the test cell was not choked is that it looked ok.
:  
: The argument is not "that it looked ok" -- the argument is that *it measured
: ok*, repeatedly, in test after test, and furthermore that anyone can look
: at a transparent plastic tube with electrolysis bubbles moving through
: it and ascertain that the flow is continuing. You are arguing that a
: person cannot measure flow with a cylinder and a stopwatch, yet this
: method was used by Galileo and countless other scientists, and nobody
: knows any reason why it should not work. Neither do you.

I don't know why I bother trying, but here goes again...Jed, read this
slowly with pause between the words.

Why - did - the - CETI - instrumentation - show - excess - power - in -
the - control - cell?

They - decided - the control - cell - was - faulty - because - it -
showed - excess - heat. How - do - they - know - the - test - cell -
isn't - faulty - too?

You - can - measure - flow - with - a - cylinder - and - stopwatch, -
but you - are - likely - to - alter - the - flow - you - are -
measuring.

Ian

PS And finally:

Did - the - 1300W - run - last - for - many - hours - as - you - claimed
- to - have - observered - or - for - 15 - minutes - as - CETI - claim?

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / I Johnston /  Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conover asks: what is MITI?
Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:18:40 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
:  
: >Jed, how can this be.  MITI has not funded CF to the tune of $100,000,000,
: >as you posted that the Ministry of International Trade and Industry had
: >done.  The Japanese are known to take a 'flier' on long-shot speculative
: >topics once in a great while, however, they ain't crazy!
:  
: No, of course not. You are right. They are not. They have funded it for
: a lot more than that over the years.

How much more? Proof?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:57:35 GMT
Organization: Cinenet Communications,Internet Access,Los Angeles;310-301-4500

Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Anthony Potts <potts@cern.ch> wrote:
: 
: >
: >
: >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote:
: >
: >> I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
: >> with no mass and no charge exists.
: >> 
: >If you always wonder this, you must have a very boring life, how do you 
: >have time to converse with people or read books? I am (as I have pointed 
: >out previously) a physicist, and I can tell you that if you are going to 
: >stick to your intuitive ideas about how the universe should behave , then 
: >you will have a very hard time taking in modern physics. You would do 
: >much better to wonder what we can predict about a massless and chargeless 
: >particle, and how well this fits in with the actual behaviour of neutrinos.
: >
: 
: And its just SO much more fun. Stretch the mind a little and
: try to imagine it and how it behaves. Don't try to force the
: universe to follow your beliefs (you lose), force your mind
: to follow the evidence. Only slightly harder and MUCH more
: entertaining. NB A neutrino is better than that. It has no
: mass, but it does have spin,

Then *what* spins?


: which is closely related to
: angular momentum.

Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum  as it is
in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum.

: Thinking classically will really make this
: a hooey. 
: -------------------------------
: 'Oz     

The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded.

I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about
'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter
the never never land of modern physics'.

This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought 
ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical
procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom.

The fact is that when you arrive at a reductio ad absurdom, or any
other type nonviable conclusion, what you say is 'this is a dead end, I
must go back and redo it until I come up with something that makes sense.

Physics is *physical* and the physical can be visualized (at least 
approximately).

Unfortunately, this type of thinkig became fashionable with the advent
of SR.

SR is a mathematical solution to the problems Newtonian dynamics 
suffered at high velocities. 

It was the genius of Einstein that he saw a bigger picture and discussed
the invariance of physical laws between frames in relative motion.

However, the solution WAS mathematical and the *physical causality* was
completely negelected.

Thus was born the philosophy that you cannot look intuitively at the
universe. 

NOT SO.

Human nature being what it is those bying the nonphysical universe
opened a pandora's box. But they don't have the acumen to perceive
the folly of their ways.

Instead they pontificate to those still in control of their senses
about how they should enter the world of Alice in Wonderland and
smoke pot.

It puts me in mind of the lunatic asylum where the cackling paper
doll cutters inside think the people on the outside are crazy  -- and
tell them so.

Stick to your guns, Herve.

VERTNER VERGON -

Who indisputably re-established the existence of radiant mass.
Who indisputably corrected two errors in the special theory of relativity.
Who produced the final solution to the twins paradox.
And who produced a viable model for QED.

He also developed a *physical* explanation for SR.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Arthur TOK /  Re: a low temperature?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a low temperature?
Date: 12 Jan 1996 07:47:43 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <mawong.1171783639A@tilde.csc.ti.com> mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com
(Mark Wong) writes:
> Corrected placement of the parenthetical (around 20 kev) and order 
> magnitude, sorry.
> 
> Why are almost all of the fusion experiments (around 20 kev) one or two 
> orders of magnitude below the temperature necessary for sustained fusion?
> I used a little sophmore physics to get a mean energy around 3.5 Mev for
> deuteron fusion.  Using quantum tunneling, I was able to get the number
> around 200,000 ev.

Oh, that's a different question. Your first number presumably comes
from the electrical potential near the edge of a singly charged
nucleus:
   V = e/(4pi epsilon r) = (1.9e-19)/(4pi 8.85e-12 1e-15) = 1.7 MeV
Maybe your calculation is more accurate. It is no coincidence that
this number is a few MeV, the order of magnitude of energy released
(or absorbed) in nuclear reactions.

I don't know off hand how to account for tunneling. Is it also a
one-liner? I suspect that this calculation is also essentially correct
and expresses the fact that the peak of the t(d,n)alpha cross section
occurs at a projectile energy of 100keV. If you also account for the
thermal distribution (most fusion reactions occur between nuclei in
the high energy tails), the maximum of <sigma*v> occurs at a
temperature of something like 70 keV. (Anyone is welcome to correct
my numbers, but I'm sure they're not far off.)

What you may have overlooked is that we want to maximize the number of
fusion reactions in a given volume, not the fusion cross section
itself. Since we are generally limited in the pressure we can sustain,
if we back off on the temperature, we can go to a higher density, and
the fusion power density goes with the square of density. It turns out
that the maximum of <sigma*v>/T^2 for the DT reaction occurs at
13.6keV. The actual temperature chosen depends on the optimization of
a large number of other factors.
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~awc/home.html
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Hauke Reddmann /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: 12 Jan 1996 12:42:16 GMT
Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany

Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<rest fell into black hole>
: The lure of apparently easier to understand crank ideas,
: particularly when expressed in a convincing way (for the
: ignorant) could lead your son up a path that will destroy
: any chance of a physics career, or at best make it vastly
: harder. Unlearning things is real tough.

: Personally, I would avoid it.

You mean, Compuserve should block sci.physics ? ;-)
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              DOWN
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     WORKING
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfc3a501 cudfnHauke cudlnReddmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 /  Oz /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk (Oz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:55:18 GMT

fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) wrote:

>Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
><rest fell into black hole>
>: The lure of apparently easier to understand crank ideas,
>: particularly when expressed in a convincing way (for the
>: ignorant) could lead your son up a path that will destroy
>: any chance of a physics career, or at best make it vastly
>: harder. Unlearning things is real tough.
>
>: Personally, I would avoid it.
>
>You mean, Compuserve should block sci.physics ? ;-)

ROFL, I nearly died!

Hmmm, I seem to have misremembered the starting thread. I
had got into my mind that someone intended to recommend that
his son discussed his theories in sci.p., unsupervised that
is.

There have been comments here from teachers and lecturers
that inappropriate discussion of (for example) the (dare I
say it) Twins Paradox has set students back substantially in
their learning. What would believing AP or VV do to them??


 ------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenOz cudlnOz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Mark Wong /  Re: a low temperature?
     
Originally-From: mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a low temperature?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 13:59:24 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

Thanks for the reply.  The deuteron fusion is an example in the first
edition of Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.  To get the quantum
tunneling, I must confess that I used results from my old homework out
of Quantum Mechanics by Mertzbacher and Quantum Mechanics Vol1 by 
Cohen and Tanouchi (sp?).

Mark Wong
Texas Instruments
mawong@m2.dseg.ti.com

 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmawong cudfnMark cudlnWong cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Distance between Rothwell and CETI
Date: 12 Jan 1996 15:26:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

James Stolin (FKNF40A@prodigy.com) wrote:
: jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: >Where are these numbers? Has John Logajan discovered that the specific
: >heat of water is not 4.2? It is only 1.2?!? 

:    Before further calculations get screwed up, the specific heat of water 
: is 1.0 not 1.2.  Was 1.2 the specific heat of the electrolyte solution?

The heat capacity of water in degrees/joules/milliliters is 4.164.
That means it takes 4.2 joules to heat one milliliter of water one
degree C.  If you were to heat it one degree in one second, it would
take 4.2 watts.

According to my dictionary, specific heat is either the ratio of the heat
capacity of a substance with a standard substance (i.e. water at 1.0)
or for water itself, calories/degreeC/grams or BTU/degreeF/pounds.

So the term "specific heat" in common usage does not always only mean 1.0
for water.

--
 - 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Phil Gibbs /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: phil@eurocontrol.fr (Phil Gibbs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 12:32:16 GMT
Organization: Eurocontrol

In article <30f5fdb5.1225431@news.demon.co.uk>, Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk (Oz) writes:
> 
In article <30f5fdb5.1225431@news.demon.co.uk>, Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk (Oz) writes:
> >In article <4cvhbp$hdr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM) says:
> >>
> >>My son is a nine year old in 4th grade.  His new years resolution is to
> >>invent fusion. For a 4th grader he knows alot. Any experts out there he
> >>can talk with online about his theories. 
> 
> >Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) wrote:
> >A serious answer. 
> >
> >This is an open forum, and if he can state a good question he will 
> >get an answer from someone.  Then he will really start to learn.  The
> >answer may be correct or it may be pure garbage.  He will have to learn
> >to sort it out.  9 is not too early to learn this basic survival 
> >technique.  Are you ready for his exposure to garbage?  Who cares 
> >about dirty pictures, there are dirty ideas here.  Far more dangerous.
> 
> A 9 year old. Hmmm. Dangerous, I would say.
> 
> Many physics concepts are counterintuitive. Many to the
> extent that grown-up posters here cannot get their brains
> round them and propose what they think are 'intuitive' ways
> to avoid having to grasp these problems. Unfortunately
> 'main-stream' physicists have already been there, considered
> these 'intuitive' explanations themselves and rejected them
> because they don't work and/or do not agree with experiment.
> Usually many decades ago.
> 

On the other hand, if you were to tell this kid that his ideas
are worthless and that he should study other peoples ideas
for 15 years before he stands any chance of producing a 
useful original thought, then I doubt he will produce
anything. 

It is better to encourage him to think for himself and then
compare his ideas with those of others.

Give any child the attention of a good teacher and you can
succeed in making him/her a top expert in any field. But
creativity and originality can not be tought so surely. 
The best we can do is encourage it when we see it.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenphil cudfnPhil cudlnGibbs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Jeff Candy /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 16:29:27 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

FYI, a hardcopy of the original post now hangs in
building K1 of JET -- largest (magnetic confinement)
fusion research facility in the world.

In exactly what grade do kids learn about drift-wave
turbulence these days?  I think at that age I was
more concerned with getting home in time to watch
the Brady Bunch.



Jeff Candy                    ... man -- every man -- is an end
Analytic Theory Group         in himself, not the means to the
JET Joint Undertaking         ends of others ...
                                                   --- Ayn Rand


===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenCandy cudfnJeff cudlnCandy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:06:01 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Date: 12 Jan 1996 17:11:56 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <DKzJuK.Fvv@cix.compulink.co.uk> sgriffiths@cix.compulink.co.
k ("Stephen Griffiths") writes:
>        Hi there,
>                I'm a TV Director / Producer, and am researching for a 
>possible documentary on cold fusion. I am aware that a documentary was 
.......   I understand from my American friends 
>that there is unlikely to be any media coverage of cold fusion in the 
>states, due to it upsetting the authorities who have a vested financial 
>and political interest in the current energy resources.
....
...
..

You have a wierd view of the world!  Cold fusion has the current aura of
astrology.  No one has scientifically demonstrated anything that works.
Public demonstrations seem always to have equipment breakdowns that interfere
with independent verification.  Experiments seem to be designed to hide the
data that is needed to figure out whether anything is happening.  And you
seem to be about to launch a conspiracy theory against the establishment, and
the oil companies, and G-d knows what else.

Is your real name Oliver (as in Stone)?

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 -------------------------------------------------------
Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer.
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Patrick Bangert /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: Patrick David Bangert <zcapn39@ucl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:53:17 GMT
Organization: University College London

phil@eurocontrol.fr (Phil Gibbs) wrote:
> On the other hand, if you were to tell this kid that his ideas
> are worthless and that he should study other peoples ideas
> for 15 years before he stands any chance of producing a 
> useful original thought, then I doubt he will produce
> anything. 

I think that it is far more important for him to learn to think 
scientifically and sort out difficult conceptual problems rather
than actually getting it right. The mathematics that is used in
fusion is hard enough, so he can learn that in a few years time. 
What he can work at now is shaping his brain-circuitry.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenzcapn39 cudfnPatrick cudlnBangert cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:58:06 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

*****************
Magnum 350 Run #2

In this run, I added a 1500 watt "Gran Pappy" deep fryer to the apparatus.
(They sell it at Wal-Mart.) I ran 10 feet of 5/8ths poly tubing from the
outlet fitting at the top of the Magnum 350 reservoir into the Gran Pappy,
and another 10 feet to carry the return flow back to the inlet fitting of
the reservoir. To prevent heat loss from the walls of the Gran Pappy, I
placed it inside a styrofoam ice chest and closed the lid tightly. Holes
were cut through the styrofoam lid to permit the insertion of the tubing,
and the fittings were *very tight*. No space was allowed for convective
heat loss. In this run, there was no cooling fan, and so heat dissipation
from the apparatus came entirely from natural sources, through the walls
of the 18 feet of tubing that were exposed outside the ice chest, plus the
plastic walls of the Magnum 350 reservoir. The results were as follows:
 
Starting air and water temp: 56 degrees F
Ending air temp: 56
Ending water temp: 96 degrees F
Elapsed time: 7 minutes
Flow rate: roughly 10 liters/min
Water volume: 4 liters

Comments:

The 16 degree C temperature rise reported at Power Gen is about 29 degrees
F, and was much less than the 40 degree rise which occurred here in a mere
7 minutes. Moreover, the 96 degree final reading most emphatically was
*not* an equilibrium temperature. The rate of rise, in fact, seemed fairly
steady despite the increasing temperature gradient between the fluid and
the air. This is plausible to me because, if memory serves, the
temperature coefficient of plastic is *negative*--which means: its thermal
conductivity decreases as the temperature increases. I turned the
apparatus off at that point because I wanted to add a cooling fan to the
system, and see if the temperature rise could be stopped that way. (As I
noted in an earlier post, my calculations suggested that a fan would *not*
impede the temperature rise. I wanted to verify that.)

*****************
Magnum 350 Run #3

In this run, I used the same setup as described above, but added a 115
volt, 1 amp Toastmaster box fan. This is an oldie but a goodie. I have had
it for 20 years, and it works like new and blows up a gale. If we assume a
power factor of 50%, it would be rated at almost 60 watts, which is far,
far more cooling capacity than the 3.5 watt muffin fan used in the Power
Gen demo. I positioned it so it blew directly on the plastic tubing and on
the Magnum 350 reservoir, turned it to its highest setting, and fired up
the apparatus again. Here are the results:

Starting air temp: 56 degrees F
Starting water temp: 92 degrees F
Ending water temp: 120 degrees F
Elapsed time: 5 minutes
Flow rate: roughly 10 liters/min
Water volume: 4 liters

Comments:

Here, again, I turned off the apparatus while the temperature was
continuing to rise rapidly. This time, however, there was a specific
reason for turning it off. My thermometer was inside the pump reservoir,
and I was monitoring its rise through the transparent plastic walls. When
it reached 120, the reading was going off the top of the scale, and I knew
that if it went much further, the thermometer would explode. Also, there
was the possibility that heat sensitive glue had been used in the impeller
somewhere, and I didn't want to ruin my pump.

My conclusion, based on the above, is straightforward: the Power Gen demo
is, as I said yesterday, an abortion. Something is seriously wrong
somewhere. Either they used plastic tubing with paper thin walls (bloody
unlikely), or else the inlet thermocouple reading which Jed did not verify
was, as I suspected, giving a false reading. The possibility of
significant evaporative cooling seems nil, given Jed's statement to me via
e-mail that Cravens had merely "drilled a hole" in the top of the plastic
reservoir lid to let H2 and O2 gases escape. However, to test that
possibility, I will next do a run with the top off of the ice chest, and
the box fan blowing directly on the Gran Pappy deep fryer to see if I can
stop the runaway temperature increase that way. My prediction, however, is
that it won't work. But we will see.

More later. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion Times
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Times
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 20:30:08 GMT
Organization: COLD FUSION TIMES 

  In Message-ID: <4d64os$fuo@tekadm1.cse.tek.com>
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times
Arnie Frisch [arnief@wu.cse.tek.com], apparently high in Tektronix, Inc.,
Beaverton,  OR. writes:

   In article <DKzJuK.Fvv@cix.compulink.co.uk> sgriffiths@cix.compulink.co.uk
        ("Stephen Griffiths") writes:
   >        Hi there,
   >                I'm a TV Director / Producer, and am researching for a 
   >possible documentary on cold fusion. I am aware that a documentary was 
   .......   I understand from my American friends 
   >that there is unlikely to be any media coverage of cold fusion in the 
   >states, due to it upsetting the authorities who have a vested financial 
   >and political interest in the current energy resources.


=af "You have a wierd (sic) view of the world!  Cold fusion
=af  has the current aura of astrology. "

 Wrong.    Cold fusion is now a scientific field,
reported in the literature.

  Furthermore,   Mr. Griffiths is, of course,  "right on". 
  However, in this case, in addition to vested interests,
 there are also delusional
scientific-illiterates like  Arnold Frisch, who usually is busy demonstrating
why and how Tektronix Laboratories are not what they used to be.

In this case, Mr. Frisch clearly demonstrates where HE gets HIS daily
 fix of pseudo-scientific info ----> i.e. horoscopes.
Too bad Tektronix Laboratories has too reach so far down in the
scientific barrel.           ;-)X
    

=af  " No one has scientifically demonstrated anything that works."

 Arnold Frisch, again saliently reflects
with his ten-watt diligence why Tektronix Laboratories
have been usurped by HP and other major electronic suppliers,
as he again shows he either has been unable to
read, or simply wishes to direct others away, or both.
Scientific reports have been in several journals listed here in the
past, in Dieter Britz's compendium, in other conference reports,
and locations referred to periodically at this usenet site.

  More than two thousand papers have been published in this
field.   More references at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
with pointers to hundreds more.   There is plently of science.


  =======================================================

                  "The truth is out there"

  


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.12 /  Oz /  Re: nine year old with fusion theories
     
Originally-From: Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk (Oz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nine year old with fusion theories
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 21:04:44 GMT

Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy) wrote:

>FYI, a hardcopy of the original post now hangs in
>building K1 of JET -- largest (magnetic confinement)
>fusion research facility in the world.

And long may this facility continue to boost the economy and
education of this nice part of Oxfordshire UK. I bet you had
dreams of inventing fusion at *some* early age, now you get
to do it a bit.


 ------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenOz cudlnOz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan 14 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
