From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Ag vs nichrome
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:23 GMT


Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>

Jed,
You are, as usual, let us politely say, *obscure*, when you say

>Technical type people know damn well that the only way 6 cm of one wire can
>dissipate as much heat as 4 cm of another wire is if both have approximately
>the same resistance. They also know that it would take an impossibly thin
>silver wire to be as resistant as a 0.5 nichrome wire: at the power levels
>seen in Nagoya, it would melt! Beuler and Jones claimed that by moving around
>the alligator clips, they measured a high resistance in the silver wire.
...
>If they are not claiming that the silver wire had the same resistance as the
>nichrome, then what on earth did they mean? Why else does a wire get hot and
>dissipate heat?

Etc, etc, etc. The fact is, despite all your verbal output, Jones's grad
student did measure a certain voltage and a certain current, which by accepted
physics means a certain power, being dissipated into the air. No matter what
pretty words you concatenate, you can't escape this. This is accepted science.
It doesn't matter what you think about nichrome wire vs silver wire; the above
facts hold. You have also made noise about how "impossibly thin" a Ag wire
would have to be etc etc - well, you may recall I calculated that, it came to
about 50 microns, not impossibly thin and, in fact, a commercial size, and
quite visible, if thin.

Ditto for

>same thing Notoya, Srinivasan, Bush, Noninski, and Mills did. You are an
>electrochemist aren't you? Are you afraid to try a simple experiment with a
>piece of nickel?

Yes, indeed I am an electrochemist, but what about it? Do I have to accept any
statement from a TB of CNF? Why should I try any nonsense? It is up to you to
convince me with sufficient evidence to make it interesting, not me to prove
you wrong. Otherwise I am not interested. Oh yeah, another bloke making a
claim, ho hum. By the way, does the Clustron theory in fact encompass light
water, nickel and potassium carbonate, originally, or is this a convenient
ad-hoc add-on? Wasn't Brightsen's theory about deuterium?

You are trying to drown the issue in a flood of meaningless words. Let us
stick to technical issues to do with fusion (remember the subject of this
list?), and not set up artificial flame wars. If you must have these, there
are other groups for just that. If you have something other than shrill
responses, e.g. some real information, let us by all means have it. Tell us,
for example, about the prototype that is supposed to be out end of this year.
I presume this will clearly demonstrate a net energy profit; now that would
be interesting. I believe you are involved in the consortium that has promised
it. And how about Clustron Inc.? How's it going? Is a prototype forthcoming?
It's so easy, you keep telling us, so OK, build one. Good advertising for
you, too, and all free on this net. And your shareholders will know they have
made a wise investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------