1996.01.31 / Jonathan Point /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: jonp@wormald.com.au (Jonathan Point)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 22:59:26 GMT
Organization: Wormald Technology, Sydney, Australia

Ted Holden (medved@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:

: >Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
: >: Summary:                   
: >: Keywords: 
: >:  
: >:      The latest flurry of excitement about the possibility of "cold
: >:   fusion" involves the Patterson Power Cell that uses microscopic
: >:   plastic beads coated with palladium sandwiched between two
: >:   layers of nickel, immersed in plain water.  With about 0.1 to 1.5
: >:   watts of power going into the device, the output is a net 450 to
: >:   1500 watts.  Whatever happens, it does involve the breakdown of
: >:   the water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen interacting
: >:   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
: >:      This process is being taken seriously since the apparatus can be
: >:   turned on and off and copies have been made available to various
: >:   research labs.
: >:      I imagine the hoard of scientists who have found a happy home 
: >:   in the multi-billion dollar government financed "hot fusion" pro-
: >:   ject are in a cold sweat about this since their sledge-hammer
: >:   approach (trying to created a stable 50-million degree environ-
: >:   ment necessary for hot fusion) cannot be an economic success.

: Oh but it is;  for them of course...  Anything which can only be done in 
: 100 years with vast infusions of federal dollars amounts to a welfare 
: program for the peopleinvolved.  You may expect all of the same sorts of 
: inbreeding, the same seige mentality and attitudes which arise from every 
: other sort of welfare program both for the rich and for the poor (the 
: real "class struggle" in the US features the rich and poor allied against 
: the middle class, but that's another story...).  

: You can believe that the people involved in standard fusion research are 
: sweating at this point;  they are facing a prospect of a fate worse than 
: death, i.e. having to find honest jobs.

: The heaviest hitters I keep up with in these areas are all telling me 
: that cold fusion is for real, and that there is no reason why we should 
: not shortly be driving cars which you fill with water every other year or 
: so.   Imagine the reaction from OPEC, MOBIL, EXXON.....

I can imagine the reaction, Ted!
As long as world governments clutch the legs of big 
busine$$, we won't get anything cheaply and even then, we'll only get it
because some fat MD or CEO can buy a new house in the Bahamas with the
money! Sigh!
Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to hearing more about cold fusion tech-
nology. At this stage, I'm hoping that OPEC/MOBIL/EXXON/Government don't
try to throw a blanket over it/buy rights and put underground etc. I
know they probably will - look at who owns the rights to nearly every
efficient/cost-saving/free energy source at the moment!!!
I remember as a kid (!), watching something on TV (it was B&W then!!)
about the Sarich engine. Funny thing, 25 years later, Ford reckons it's
the next big thing but they ain't gonna sell you one!! HMMMMMMMM!

'Till next time, sceptical and cynical,		JonP
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonp cudfnJonathan cudlnPoint cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.31 /  JEChampion /  Re: Bose Corp.: NO real excess heat; H2O and D2O both tried
     
Originally-From: jechampion@aol.com (JEChampion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: NO real excess heat; H2O and D2O both tried
Date: 31 Jan 1996 01:04:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Heat, or no heat, who cares?

The questions are -- Can a nuclear event occur under low energy
conditions?
		     If so, what benefit does it have other than academic?
		    Are the searchers, looking in the wrong test tubes?

Being a supporter of Merlin, I lack the answers to such questions. 
However, today and during the past weeks, I continue to supply the
precious metal industry with kilograms of platinum.  Yes, it has a
signature, for my Pt only has isotopes 194, 195 and 196.  The real
question is -- does one qualify a finding from observation, or his
checking account?

Joe E. Champion
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjechampion cudlnJEChampion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.31 /  JEChampion /  Re: Bose Corp.: NO real excess heat; H2O and D2O both tried
     
Originally-From: jechampion@aol.com (JEChampion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bose Corp.: NO real excess heat; H2O and D2O both tried
Date: 31 Jan 1996 01:04:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Heat, or no heat, who cares?

The questions are -- Can a nuclear event occur under low energy
conditions?
		     If so, what benefit does it have other than academic?
		    Are the searchers, looking in the wrong test tubes?

Being a supporter of Merlin, I lack the answers to such questions. 
However, today and during the past weeks, I continue to supply the
precious metal industry with kilograms of platinum.  Yes, it has a
signature, for my Pt only has isotopes 194, 195 and 196.  The real
question is -- does one qualify a finding from observation, or his
checking account?

Joe E. Champion
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjechampion cudlnJEChampion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.31 / Todd K /  Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
     
Originally-From: "Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
Date: 31 Jan 1996 15:02:27 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>In article <4ele0a$och@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>"Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
>
>> How is it that "the photon is known to decay into an electron"?  While it
>> is true that a photon of sufficient energy passing near a nucleus can 
>> produce an electron-positron pair, a single photon alone can hardly decay
>> into a single electron - by positing such a decay you break all manner of
>> conservation laws.  As such, you cannot simply replace the electron in 
>> neutron decay with a photon.

>> There is certainly no experiment that I know of which supports your 
>> 2 neutrinos = 1 photon idea.
>
>  I missed much of the history of the neutrino rest mass, Todd.
>Everything before the Canadians thought they had a 17 eV neutrino rest
>mass. Obviously that would make my 2neutrinos=1photon possess rest mass
>of 34 eV and the ionization energy of hydrogen is 13 eV. And I believe

A rest mass of 34 eV for the photon is absolutely categorically impossible.
A simple test of Ampere's law reported in 1992 (PRL 68, 3383) puts an 
upper limit on the rest mass of the photon at 4.73 x 10^(-12) eV.  Since 
you've said before (I think) that you don't believe the extragalactic
tests which have put limits on the mass down to 3 x 10^(-27) eV, maybe
you'll believe this more down-to-earth test.

>this 17 eV prediction comes out of the Curie plot for beta decay.
>Straight line intersects the axis indicates the neutrino rest mass. I
>don't know about any of you guys but that to me would discount the 17
>eV right then and there, because we would have a funny world if the
>ionization energy of hydrogen is 13 eV and the rest mass of the
>neutrino was 17 eV.

I believe the 17 eV neutrino mass has been killed off, though I'm not
sure of what the arguments are.  If the neutrino mass WAS 17 eV, I wouldn't
say there was anything weird going on in relation to the ionization energy
of hydrogen.

<rest of article snipped>

__________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                	    !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
Grad Student, High Energy Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
Northwestern University	            !  Email:  todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu
Fermilab Experiment E835            !          toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
		 WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------		 
If you're an archaeologist, I bet it's real embarrassing to put together a
skull from a bunch of ancient bone fragments, but then it turns out it's 
not a skull but just an old dried-out potato.
   
 				- from Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
__________________________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.31 /  Dan /  Patterson Power Cell
     
Originally-From: Dan O'Hara <danohara@postoffice.ptd.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patterson Power Cell
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:40:59 -0500
Organization: ProLog - PenTeleData, Inc.

I'm an electro-chemist by training.  I have been following the COLD 
FUSION discussion for years.  I understood the construction of the 
original cells by Pons and Fleischman although, I did not know whether 
they worked.

Is there a description of how the power is added to the PPC?
Is there a description of what the relative volumes of liquid, solid, 
metal, glass and internal composition of the "particles" is?

Literature references, etc. would be appreciated
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendanohara cudlnDan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.31 / Larry Wharton /  Let's do some CETI CF experiments
     
Originally-From: Larry Wharton <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let's do some CETI CF experiments
Date: 31 Jan 1996 14:03:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

Here is a chanch to do your own CETI like CF experiment.  Scott Little 
has found a supplier of beads:

"If you didn't either talk to me on the phone today...or receive an 
email confirmation of your bead order AND you want to buy some of the 
ersatz beads I'm getting, please contact me immdiately.

Repeating the specs:

bare beads:                        1 - 1.5 mm dia soda lime glass
activation:                        monolayer of Sn/Pd 
electroless deposition layer 1:    1 +/- .5 micron Ni
electroless deposition layer 2:    1 +/- .5 micron Pd
electroless deposition layer 3:    1 +/- .5 micron Ni

The price is $50 per cubic centimeter of beads.
Delivery has been quoted at 4-6 weeks after receipt of order (which will 
be placed tomorrow or Wednesday).

Mark Hugo:  Look at it this way.  I'm not varying the recipe...just the 
kind of pot used to cook it in.  Which would you choose to cook your 
stew in, a plastic pot or a glass pot?  Reading Patterson's patents from 
as far back as 1970 I see that he's been using the same plastic beads 
for everything he's done....plastic beads are a paradigm for him.  
Hopefully they're not necessary.

Anybody else want to buy one or more cc's of these beads?


Scott Little
EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300  4030 Braker Lane West  Austin TX 78759  
USA 512-346-3848 (voice)  512-346-3017 (FAX)  little@eden.com (email)"

My own experiment with nickel coated BB's gave a null result but that 
may be explained by the fact that the beads were made of steel.  Several 
great CETI theoreticians believe that the beads must be made of an 
electric insulator and these glass beads should work just fine.  So 
let's see some other experiments being done.   That should answer the 
burning question - are the CETI results bogus/fraud/flimflam/whatever or 
not.
     

Lawrence E. Wharton   wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 913, Greenbelt MD 20771
work (301) 286-3486,    home (301) 595-5038


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenWharton cudfnLarry cudlnWharton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Joel Calland /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mole@psyber.com (Joel Calland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 02:49:01 GMT
Organization: Psyberware Internet Access

medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:

>You can believe that the people involved in standard fusion research are 
>sweating at this point;  they are facing a prospect of a fate worse than 
>death, i.e. having to find honest jobs.

>The heaviest hitters I keep up with in these areas are all telling me 
>that cold fusion is for real, and that there is no reason why we should 
>not shortly be driving cars which you fill with water every other year or 
>so.   Imagine the reaction from OPEC, MOBIL, EXXON.....

>Ted Holden
>medved@digex.com

Ten bucks that says they have stock in it already. :)

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmole cudfnJoel cudlnCalland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 /  JCMCOM /  ZCAPN 9 yr old Correspondence
     
Originally-From: jcmcom@aol.com (JCMCOM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZCAPN 9 yr old Correspondence
Date: 1 Feb 1996 00:43:56 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Patrick, I lost your email address, ryan. please send it again.  anyone
who knows zcapn (patrick) at Queens College, University of London please
help.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjcmcom cudlnJCMCOM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.31 / Mary Hilts /  R&D$
     
Originally-From: Mary Hilts <maryh@foresnt.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: R&D$
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:15:08 -0800
Organization: Foresight Science & Technology

Science & Technology Newsgroups,

We (Foresight Science & Technology) are under contract with the DoD to 
assist them in finding candidates for their SBIR "Fast Track" program. 
Through this program funds are available for research and technology 
areas that fall within the DoD’s mission. This task is awkward in this 
particular forum (newsgroups) in that it is not research exchange, yet it 
is not advertisement either. What I believe it could be categorized as is 
information exchange; "The DoD has R&D money available, your readers may 
be eligible, we are informing them of the availability of this funding". 
If you have any questions, please e-mail me, I appreciate your 
communication.  Otherwise, please continue reading the following.

Mary Hilts
Foresight Science & Technology
***********************************************************************
Defense Department offering up to 4X match on private sector investments 
in small technology companies.
***********************************************************************
DoD’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program will fund $450 
million in 
early-stage R&D projects at small technology companies in 1996, in 
technology areas 
that fall within the broad DoD mission.  Effective immediately, DoD will 
give its 
highest priority in making SBIR awards to small companies that are able 
to attract 
independent third-party investors -- such as venture capital firms, large 
companies, 
or "angel" investors.  If selected for award, these small companies will 
receive 
uninterrupted DoD funding of up to $850,000 over a two-and-a-half year 
period. 
In practice, this means that an investor that offers to help fund an 
early-stage 
technology project at a small company can obtain a match of between $1 
and $4 in 
DoD SBIR funds for every $1 the investor puts in. 

This new policy -- the SBIR "Fast Track" -- was approved for 
implementation by 
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology) Dr. Paul Kaminski 
in June, 1995.  
Its purpose is to significantly increase DoD’s success in converting SBIR 
research into 
affordable, high-performance products which serve military and commercial 
customers.  

For more information:
* see the page entitled "DoD SBIR Fast Track" on the World Wide Web at 
  http://www.seeport.com/SBIR/fasttrk.htm
* contact our DoD Fast Track listserver by e-mailing list@seeport.com 
with the message 
  "join DoD" on the first line of your e-mail.
* call David Speser at (407) 791-0720 or e-mail david@foresnt.com
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmaryh cudfnMary cudlnHilts cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: 1 Feb 1996 07:09:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

As was discussed sometime ago, you are mistaken in thinking
that the atomic nuclei in a bose condensate ``overlap''. They 
do not, as this would be a far higher energy state
and they are supposedly all dropped into the ground state. 
-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion Times -- Vol. 4 number 1
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Cold Fusion Times -- Vol. 4 number 1
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:51:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  Volume 4 Number 1 of the COLD FUSION TIMES is at the printer.

The URL of the COLD FUSION TIMES' web page site is           

                http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

and the home page has now been updated to reflect the new issue.


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

        The truth is out there.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / John Skingley /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 15:10:11 +0000 (GMT)

In article <310fd433.100605440@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, Kevin Quitt
<mailto:kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> So how long do these beads last, and how much energy went into making them?  I
> have a box that puts out power with ZERO power in, and it hasn't given up yet.
> When I patent it, I'm going to call it "BATTERY".
> 

Now how can someone working for NASA be such a twit!

All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / John Skingley /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 15:05:18 +0000 (GMT)

In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
Eric Carruthers <mailto:carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:
> 
> On 30 Jan 1996, Publius (copied his own post)wrote:
> > Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
> <snip>
> > :  
> > :   1500 watts.  Whatever happens, it does involve the breakdown of
> > :   the water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen interacting
> > :   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
> <snip>
> 
> This sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction.  What makes you think 
> there is any fusion going on?  Seen any high energy neutrons flying around?

Because there are no known exothermic chemical reactions which could account
for it.

> Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening?
> Some sort of (p,n) reaction?

Who knows? When someone finds out, I expect they will let you know.

> Where should I send all of the money I wish to invest?

ME!   ME!   ME!   ME!   ME!   ME!   ME!   ME!   ME!   

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / John Skingley /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 15:00:20 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4emmu1$k2i@news-f.iadfw.net>, Bill Snyder
<mailto:bsnyder@iadfw.net> wrote:
> 
> In message <medved.822991021@access5>, medved@access5.digex.net (Ted
> Holden) wrote:
> 
> 
> >The heaviest hitters I keep up with in these areas are all telling me 
> >that cold fusion is for real, and that there is no reason why we should 
> >not shortly be driving cars which you fill with water every other year or 
> >so.   Imagine the reaction from OPEC, MOBIL, EXXON.....
> 
> Those "heavy hitters" being the same bunch of professional liars and
> lunatics who sold you on Velikovsky?  Ahhh, I though so...
> 
>   -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

Now what the *"%$!&*"! has Velikovsky to do with CF!

And just because someone beleives something that you don't, doesn't make 
them liers!  You could consider them misguided, if you like.

The whole tone of your response is childish, and illogical. After all, I
could make the same remarks about you, because you DON'T beleive in CF.
"Those who convinced you that CF doesn't work, are the same bunch of liers..."

Lets all grow up, and stop insulting each other, PLEASE!!!
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / John Skingley /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
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.
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 15:27:46 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4emcqm$muk@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium
<mailto:Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> 
> In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu>
> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> 
> >      Just because everything is made up of atoms does not mean or even 
> > imply in the slightest that the whole of everything must be ==> One <== 
> > gigantic universal atom. As you said in your post the argument you used 
> > was indeed very simple, as for the "logic" used, you are as far away from 
> > logical as the number one is to infinity. Now consider this, following 
> > simple logical reasoning, if the whole world is made up of people and 
> > dirt and little forrest critters then the whole world must be one giant 
> > zookeeper who hasn't taken a shower in a while.
> 
>   Do they teach Logic there at Case Western? You must have stumbled
> into the Analogy course instead of Logic, eh?
> 
>   You know, I can keep your above and remind you in the future what you
> had said, as sort of a warmup joke to an audience at a convention. But
> before you run off to play, I need you to make a Curie Plot of beta
> decay where it predicts the neutrino restmass of 17 eV. Post that to
> this newsgroup and title it Curie Plot. Show us that you have some
> worthwhile brains,eh?

I agree with John Chunko. You are not using any kind of logic I've ever met.
Perhaps you didn't understand that the quoted 'simple logic' about 
zookeepers was using YOUR logic, to show how silly it is.

And resorting to rudeness is the last resort of someone who has lot the 
argument.
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 15:19:49 +0000 (GMT)

In article <browe-3001962025010001@10.0.2.15>, Bill Rowe
<mailto:browe@netcom.com> wrote:
> 
[snip]

> None of this detracts from the basic point. Things that can't be reduced
> to a fairly straight forward receipe and require great skill by
> individuals are almost invariably not produced on a commercial scale. If
> this is indeed the requirement to reproduce CF effects, I very much doubt
> I will see much benefit from CF or that it will be produced on a
> commercial scale.

I would submit that making large scale integrated circuits does not have
a 'fairly straight forward receipe' and does indeed 'require great skill'.
The people who make them are highly trained, the exactitude of the task
is almost mind-blowing. But they ARE 'produced on a commercial scale'.

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 /  Publius /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 1 Feb 1996 16:04:28 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

Kevin Quitt (kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: So how long do these beads last, and how much energy went into making them?  I
: have a box that puts out power with ZERO power in, and it hasn't given up yet.
: When I patent it, I'm going to call it "BATTERY".

  What do you call the "hot fusion" project - other than
  a boondoggle.  PUBLIUS
: 
: -- 
: #include <standard.disclaimer>                   http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
:  _
: Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 /  Publius /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 1 Feb 1996 16:09:11 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.

Eric Carruthers (carruthe@candu.aecl.ca) wrote:
: On 30 Jan 1996, Publius (copied his own post)wrote:
: > Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
: <snip>
: > :  
: > :   1500 watts.  Whatever happens, it does involve the breakdown of
: > :   the water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen interacting
: > :   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
: <snip>
: 
: This sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction.  What makes you think 
: there is any fusion going on?  Seen any high energy neutrons flying around?
: 
: Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening?
: Some sort of (p,n) reaction?

  The effect is "akin to cold fusion" but since there is no radiation
  the fusion is in some other form. PUBLIUS  - Assuming it is authentic.
: 
: Where should I send all of the money I wish to invest?
: 
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: Eric Carruthers' views.  carruthe@candu.aecl.ca  
: AECL-Candu, Sheridan Park, Ontario, Canada, Earth.
: What is man without the beasts?...All things are connected.Chief Seattle.
: 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / M Loughlin /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Michael.Loughlin@jet.uk (Michael Loughlin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 16:58:36 GMT
Organization: JET

At 15:00:20
John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Lets all grow up, and stop insulting each other, PLEASE!!!

At 15:10:11
John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Now how can someone working for NASA be such a twit!

Why request that people stop insulting others when you can't
avoid it for more than 10 minutes?

>All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
>where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!

If you say the energy of cold fusion energy then you are claiming to
know where it comes from, namely fusion. Please provide references
to the papers describing the simultaneous detection of excess heat
and the emission of nuclear radiation from Peterson Power cells
that might indicate that fusion was taking place.

Mike L
Abingdon, Oxfordshire. (E-mail: mjl@jet.uk)

===============================================================================
    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:
cuddy01 cudenLoughlin cudfnMichael cudlnLoughlin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Julian Brown /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: prosim@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Julian Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 1 Feb 1996 12:36:26 -0600
Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800

In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
Eric Carruthers  <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1996, Publius (copied his own post)wrote:
>> Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
><snip>
>> :  
>> :   1500 watts.  Whatever happens, it does involve the breakdown of
>> :   the water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen interacting
>> :   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
><snip>
>
>This sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction.  What makes you think 
>there is any fusion going on?  Seen any high energy neutrons flying around?
>
>Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening?
>Some sort of (p,n) reaction?
>
>Where should I send all of the money I wish to invest?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Carruthers' views.  carruthe@candu.aecl.ca  
>AECL-Candu, Sheridan Park, Ontario, Canada, Earth.
>What is man without the beasts?...All things are connected.Chief Seattle.
>

I think the name "Cold Fusion" is really the problem with this process.
It has never been proven by the supporters of CF that is really is Fusion.
There may be a truly nuclear reaction going on here, some have suggested
"quantum tunneling" but until some one can prove the presence of excess
helium (and/or it's isotopes) and/or can explain the process in quantum
or nuclear terms exactly what is happening.  I think the jury is still
out, the only thing that has been proven is that excess energy is present,
but not what the process is..

Thanx

Julian@prosim.com


-- 
Julian Brown                __     ___             ___                      
Pro\Sim Corp.          __  / /_ __/ (_)__ ____    / _ )_______ _    _____  
Houston, Tx. U.S.A.   / /_/ / // / / / _ `/ _ \  / _  / __/ _ \ |/|/ / _ \  
julian@prosim.com     \____/\_,_/_/_/\_,_/_//_/ /____/_/  \___/__,__/_//_/   
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenprosim cudfnJulian cudlnBrown cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 14:20:12 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

 ******************
 Magnum 350 Run #11

Today (Jan. 31) I received my 50 foot roll of Tygon tubing. I would have
bought considerably less, but that was the smallest length which my
supplier would bother with. The bill, including shipping, came to about
$111. Looking at the stuff, I immediately noted that it had a smoother
feel to it than the tubing I had been using, and that it was more supple.
"Perhaps this will do the trick," I thought. I immediately went out to my
workshop, cut off a 20 foot length, coiled it around my cylinder of 1/2
inch mesh screen wire, installed it in the throat of my wind tunnel,
connected one end to my Gran Pappy deep fryer and the other end to the
inlet fitting of my pump. Then I filled the system with distilled water,
and did a run. The results were as follows:

Starting air, reservoir, and cell outlet temperature: 50 degrees F
Starting flow rate: 1.2 liters/min
Ending air temperature: 50 degrees F
Ending reservoir temperature: 124 degrees F
Ending cell outlet temperature: 155 degrees F
Ending flow rate: .24 liters/min
Average flow rate: .72 liters/min
Elapsed time: 45 min
Fluid volume: 3.78 liters

Clearly, the Tygon tubing had little or no effect on the outcome, since
the drop in the equilibrium reservoir temperature from roughly 142 degrees
F to 124 degrees F is explainable by the reduction in the average flow
rate to .72 liters/min. The reasoning is straightforward: as the flow rate
in the system declines, the fluid spends more time in the cooling coils
and, thus, experiences a greater drop in temperature while there. On the
other hand, it also spends more time in the heating cell (the Gran Pappy
deep fryer) and, thus, experiences a greater rise while there. However,
the rise is blunted by evaporation, while the decline is not, and so the
reservoir temperature tends to fall when the flow rate is reduced. I
therefore attribute the 20 degree F drop on this run to the slower flow
rate, not to the fact that I used Tygon tubing. Just to check, however, I
did a run at the same flow rate that previously produced equilibrium
temperatures in the reservoir of roughly 142 degrees
and--surprise!--that's exactly what I got with the Tygon tubing. Since
these runs were with distilled water, the possibility that an accumulation
of calcium carbonate on the inner walls of the tubing was having an
insulating effect is also refuted. Conclusion: the Tygon tubing and the
hard water explanations do not hold up.

In addition, I did various other runs with flow rates as low as .1
liter/min and in no case did I succeed in producing an equilibrium
reservoir temperature less than 120 degrees F, which was 70 degrees F
above ambient. All these runs were done at a power setting of 458 watts,
which is roughly the same as the 469 watt run at Power Gen, where the
equilibrium reservoir temperature was a mere 29 degrees F (or 16 degrees
C) above ambient. Note further that I was able to get the reservoir
temperature down that far only by slowing the flow rate to .1 liter/min,
thereby producing a heat cell delta-T of 60 degrees F! By comparision the
cell delta-T claimed at Power Gen for the 469 watt run was less that 7
degrees C or 13 degrees F. Any way you slice it, it is apparent that I
still haven't succeeded in replicating the Power Gen result, or anywhere
close. 

The question is: should I now call an end to this, and declare the Power
Gen demo a washout, or not? The answer depends on whether I can think of
any other reasonable things to try. In other words, of the various
differences that admittedly still remain between my experimental setup and
that at Power Gen, are there any that are likely to be significant? Well,
I could get rid of my 60 watt box fan, and replace it with a 3.5 watt
muffin fan like that used by Cravens at Power Gen. However, that seems
silly, because what I am looking for here is a change that will
simultaneously make my system more like Craven's *and* increase the heat
dissipation capacity of my system. Going to a smaller fan, obviously, will
*decrease* the heat dissipation capacity of my system. Similarly, it makes
no sense for me to reduce the amount of surface area of electrolyte that I
have exposed to evaporation, or to reduce the length of tubing in my
cooling coils. While both of those changes would make my system more like
Craven's, they would also reduce my heat dissipation capability, and thus
are not the kind of changes I am looking for. So I am at my wit's end,
right?

The answer: not yet. Craven's used 1 molar lithium sulfate solution, not
distilled water, as his electrolyte. And plastic is a chain polymer that,
at the molecular level, is structured like randomly twisted strands of
spaghetti. Even large organic molecules (e.g., methane, propane) diffuse
slowly through plastic, and so it seems entirely plausible to me that
lithium sulfate would do likewise. If so, then it is likely that it would
accumulate in the walls of the Tygon tubing, and that it would have some
effect on the thermal conductivity. Perhaps that is what happened: perhaps
the buildup of lithium sulfate (or some reaction product therefrom) acted
as a conductivity modifier, thereby leading to the Power Gen result.
However far-fetched this possibility my seem to those who are eager to
dismiss the Power Gen result, I find it plausible enough to investigate.
This is far too important a matter to cavalierly toss aside. Therefore, I
am going to obtain some lithium sulfate, mix up a 1 molar solution, and
make at least one more run. Since we seem to be presently (Feb. 1) in
blizzard weather conditions, with the roads impassible, this may take
several days. 

More later. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 19:03:05 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <4eqoac$27ji@news.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
...
>  What do you call the "hot fusion" project - other than
>  a boondoggle.  PUBLIUS
...

That it may be, but the H-bomb was demonstrated to be a
replicable phenomenon.  A lot of credence was placed
in the opinions of those who invented/discovered
that device.  Perhaps too much credence, but the
original demonstration was incontrovertible.

Should CF'ers manage to blow up Anaheim, the opinions
of the surviving proponents will be given equal credence.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Michael A /  Plasma
     
Originally-From: "Michael A. Schulman" <mschulma@gwhs.denver.k12.co.us>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:28:37 -0800
Organization: Internet Express (800-592-1240 customer service)

Hi, I am trying to find out what plasma is, I am a student at George 
Washingto High School and none of the teachers know and It is not even 
mentioned in the science books.  Is there any way some one can mail to me 
a breif descripton of plasma and mabey a picture of some?
					Thanks
-- 
***************************************
*           Michael Schulman          *
*                                     *
*    George Washington High School    *
*                                     *
*    mschulma@gwhs.denver.k12.co.us   *
*                                     *
* http://usa.net/~mschul/michael.html *
***************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmschulma cudfnMichael cudlnA cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Craig Haynie /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 21:23:07 -0600
Organization: Netcom

Mitchell Jones wrote:
> 
> This is far too important a matter to cavalierly toss aside. Therefore, I
> am going to obtain some lithium sulfate, mix up a 1 molar solution, and
> make at least one more run. Since we seem to be presently (Feb. 1) in
> blizzard weather conditions, with the roads impassible, this may take
> several days.
> 
> More later.
> 
> --Mitchell Jones

After that, why don't you try to find the required power to duplicate 
the reported CETI results? It would be interesting to know the power 
that would cause the reported temperature measurements.

Craig Haynie
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 19:23:26 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4elcln$bib@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vcockeram@aol.com
(VCockeram) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-2801961754590001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> >. To avoid
> >that outcome, I would appreciate any ideas that any of you may have,
> >regarding how the apparently high heat dissipation capacity of Craven's
> >system at Power Gen can be reconciled with the low capacity of my
> >facsimilie system. What, if anything, am I missing?  
> >
> >--Mitchell Jones
> 
> Mitch, how about trying to duplicate as closely as possible the PowerGen
> setup? 
>                                                         (cell)
>  |-->RES--->PUMP--->THROTTLE--->HEATER----,
>  ^<------------------------RADIATOR<------------------------|
>

***{Vince, the above is *exactly* the loop configuration I used on run
#11. Most of the previous runs had the same layout, except that there was
no control valve (throttle) in the loop. Those ran at about 4.5
liters/min, which appears to be the natural rate for my pump when running
with about 20 feet of undersized (3/8th inch ID rather than 5/8ths inch)
tubing. Previous runs which did have control valves placed them just
before the pump/reservoir. By the way, to repeat what I have posted
previously: the reservoir *is* the pump. The Magnum pumps have a reservoir
that sets on top of the stator windings, and the impeller blades and
housing are *inside the reservoir*. The layout is just like an old
fashioned Waring blender. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> See what happens at various heater input powers.
> Measure at what point thermal runaway starts.
> And....
> Good job you are doing here to try to figure out just
> what is going on. Thanks.
> 
> Regards, Vince
> 
> PS  Oops just thought of something. There was a micron
> filter in the flow loop of the demo. Possible additional source
> of radiator area, yes?

***{A brilliant suggestion! The micron filter is part of the pump also. It
sets inside the pump reservoir, atop the impeller housing intake. If there
is a lot of capillary action, pulling electrolyte up above the fluid
surface, this could enormously increase the surface area available for
evaporation! In the Cravens setup, with a hole drilled in the top of the
pump reservoir, such an effect could have been huge! And since, in my
setup, no such hole has been drilled in the reservoir lid, this effect
would be absent. Now, obviously, I don't want to drill a hole in the lid
of my pump (though I will if I have to), but I think I can check this out
without doing so. I will pull my micron filter out of my pump reservoir,
install it so that it is half-immersed in my deep fryer, and see what what
happens. This is something I can do tonight! If there is strong capillary
action, the equilibrium temperature of my system will plunge, and we will
be in business! --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> Vin
> 
> 
> Vince, Lost Wages, Nevada

***{Vince, I appreciate the feedback. For those who are more shy, I would
like to encourage any and all suggestions. I realize that most readers of
this group are hesitant to comment, because you don't have a clear picture
of the pump, the materials, etc. However, with each comment you make, the
picture will become clearer, and at some point one of us will solve this,
if it can be solved, so speak up. This is potentially very important. It
would be a tragedy if the most important discovery in the history of
mankind were scrapped or delayed because the guy who had the answer to
this riddle was afraid of embarassing himself. To reduce this fear of
embarassment, I would also encourage you all to visit your local aquarium
stores and look at these pumps. (The model used at Power Gen was the
Magnum 220. The one I am using is the Magnum 350.) When you are in the
store, be pushy: open the box, lay the parts out on the floor or on a
counter top, and examine the thing carefully to get a good picture of the
layout and the way it works. Ask the clerk if they have a model in
operation in one of their tanks. If they do, ask to take a look at it.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / 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: 2 Feb 1996 01:23:49 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:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb  2 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
