HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:22 GMT

>Does anyone know the state of research of inertial fusion is at?

LLNL program has been quite competently and aggressively managed and
carried out (IMHO), and has spent massive Gigabucks over past couple
of decade or so.  It's still going on, with reasonable support, so far
as I know.

>How close to breakeven, compared to tokomaks? 

Still long ways away. And (again strictly IMH--and nonexpert--O) it's
not going to get there, and would be unlikely to be an economically
feasible power source if it did.

>Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
>world doing research on inertial fusion?

Japanese _had_ a fair-sized effort (at Osaka); present status not
known to me.  Modest effort, only being half-heartedly pursued, so far
as I can see, at Garching in Germany.  University of Rochester still
carrying on rather modest effort (I think).  Russian work?  There was
some, but I don't know the status.  Los Alamos: mostly turned off, I
think.  Others? -- May be, but I don't know of any.

   --AES
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell constants -- for children only
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:14:37 GMT

Here is my laymen's interpretation of what the debate is over
"cell constants" and *changing* cell constants.  This *IS*
directed at children, so no offense intended to others. :-)

Suppose you have a genetic defect that makes you like a cold
blooded lizard -- no automatic systems to regulate your body
temperature.  Scientists are fascinated, so they stick a
remote thermometer *in* your chest, and montior your temperature
by radio relay.

Now, when you exert yourself, your temperature rises, but
you also lose heat to the outside environment.  The greater
the difference between your temperature and the outside
temperature, the faster you lose heat.  At any level of
exertion, you will reach an equilibrium temperature where
you are losing heat just as fast as you are creating it. 

If the scientists believe they know your rate of heat
loss, your "cell constant", they can determine your rate
of heat generation by examining the time/temperature plots
from the remote thermometer.

Suppose, however, you put on an overcoat without telling
them.  Now you lose heat much slower for the same difference
in internal versus external temperature.  For any given
level of exertion, your internal temperature will climb
higher and quicker than the same exertion without the
overcoat.

If the remote scientist doesn't know about the coat, and
you exert yourself, he may well see record high temperature
levels, and erroneously assume you are putting out super-
human (well, you are a lizard, after all :-) levels of
exertion.  But you really aren't doing anything more than
you usually do.  Only your "cell constant" has changed.

I think Tom Droege was claiming the the "cell constant" of
the Takahasi changed because at high current, more bubbles
caused a better stirring of internal heat to the outside
walls of the container.  When in the low current mode,
bubble production dropped off and stirring was much less
vigoruos.

The stilled water became like an overcoat, and if you failed
to correct for the overcoat effect, your assumptions about the
rate of heat loss would make it look like the system was
producing unusual amounts of heat -- when in fact, the heat
creation level was the same, only the "cell constant" changed.

 -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Ying and alphas
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:39 GMT

Colin Henderson doesn't think Ying's alpha source does anything.  Niether
do I and I know but can't tell how he uses it.  Have a wounderful simple
experiment planned to prove my point.  It will have to wait until I can
get my sources.  Meanwhile, I will file a disclosure document so I can 
prove I thought of it first.  

My plan in all of this is to have fun.  I am trying to put everything into
the public domain.  I will claim in any future litegation that this media
is public.  I assume I will be dead before patent fights stop if this turnd
(turns) out to be real.

BTW, if a publication comes out of this, I am going to try to publish as 
the physics.sci.fusion collaboration.  Or possibly as T. Droege and the 
sci.physics.fusion collaboration - or whateve the proper name is - I 
don't even know.  

So the real experiment I am trying to do is e-mail science.  The "anomalous
heat" project is just an excuse.  I think this is the media of the future.  
I know I am doing most of the work, but the help received has been building
over time.  I look forward to equal (collaborations are never really equal)
collaborators as this progresses.  

To P&F, EPRI, and any others doing secret work.  I agree that you are allowed
to do that, and it is proper to go for financial reward.  But it is also 
proper for some of us to try to beat you at your game and to put discoveries
into the public domain.  So don't wait too long to disclose your "teaching" 
or I will publish first!

Tom Droege
From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactive cathodes
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:15:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

If the Ying experiment turns out to be the key to getting 
reproducible results, the energy output may depend on the 
amount of radiation reaching the cathode.  A way to increase 
the intensity would be to form an alloy of the palladium 
along with the alpha source (Po 210), and also possibly the 
gamma source (Co 60).  I tried to look up some information on 
these alloys, but came up with nothing.  Can anyone comment 
on whether this would be feasible?  This technique would 
obviously be more useful for use in production devices rather 
than for experiments. 

Recent reports of the current P&F experiments indicate that 
they are now using some alloy rather than pure palladium. 
Could it be that they have intentionally or inadvertently 
included a low-level radioactive source in the alloy? 


-- Bob Horst
From: achou@plasma.icsl.ucla.edu (Albert Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of California at Los Angeles, EE Dept.

In article <25033@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>I don't know whether Sandia is still running their proton diode,
>Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II

PBFA II was still in business as of March of this year.  I was on a tour of
it during the High Temperature Plasma Diagnostics Conference in Santa Fe
that month.

Al
From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying Experiment
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 13:50:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> .. God has a gamma source...

(should have been Goddess last time, BTW)

When are you making the trip to the lead mine?

    ++PLS
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Trinary
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:04:22 GMT

In article <9207291801.AA08539@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:

   But suppose there is a "critical" level of incident radiation.
   "Mid" might be either over or under the critical level, and 
   therefore might look "In" or "Out."  Would this be useful
   information in a statistics experiment or would it cause
   further confusion?

   At this time, I'd say further confusion...

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
Xref: sparky sci.physics.fusion:1773 sci.energy:3545
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Deuterium Absorption
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:56:46 GMT

John Logajan writes:
"If I manually closed then opened the circuit, ... bubbles ... from the Pt
(anode) ... almost no bubbles ... from the (cathode)"

During many runs, we have observed that fresh Pd absorbes almost *all* the
evolved Deuterium (Hydrogen).  At least 90%, possibly higher for a fresh
cathode.  This is likely true for the Ni and Ti cathodes, I have not tried
Ti.  

I am in e-mail overload.  Too much stuff to ever answer has piled up.  If 
you feel that I owe you an answer pleas bug me.  To Alex Orenshteyn, I did
not mean to put you down.  You did notice.  

Thanks to Dieter Britz and David Cyganski for helping to think about power
computation.  I keep thinking I am doing it right, but always humble as
it is so easy to get bit.  

Jed Rothwell sent a long rebuttal to my post on Takahashi calibration.  To 
me, the high current temperature rise time better matches the actual input
power than the input power + claimed anomalous heat.  My real point is that
the calorimetry is too crude for me to believe.  Jed points out that there 
is a change between sweep 1 and sweep 34.  To me, this is either because 
there is a change in calorimeter constant, or there is anomalous heat.  

Dieter, you are indeed fortunate not to recognize Murphy Brown.  I see that
news did get to Allan Duncan who is in Australia, where if I remember 
correctly you also are.  I thus admire your taste in media.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Subject: inertial fusion
Reply-To: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:12 GMT

Does anyone know the state of research of inertial fusion is at?
How close to breakeven, compared to tokomaks? Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
world doing research on inertial fusion?
Thanks
Aaron Wininger

_______________________________________________________________________________
Aaron Wininger                               Columbia Plasma Physics Laboratory
arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu                                  New York, NY 10027
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: D2O2
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:08:09 GMT

James R. White has posted a nice note on D2O2 formation.  Have you followed
my postings on gas absorption in my cell.  I keep pumping in D2.  If not
I will forward some stuff then you can answer all the questions about
when D2O2 is formed and how it is again disassiciated.  

If you have been following, then how about a write up on what might be
happening?  Briefly, as I run a saw tooth current, D2 tends to evolve
when the current is high and to be absorbed when the current is low.  Cell
temperature is higher when the current is higher.  But note there is a 
catalyst in the cell so if D2O2 breaks down into O2 and D2O, the cell
volume will go down as the O2 converts D2 on the catalyst.  So it will
look like D2 is absorbed when it is really D2O2 breaking down.

I have been looking for some time for an expert in this area to step
forward!  Are you it?

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Subject: Re: Does it need to be hot?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:12:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.011116.250111@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>	Now that many are discussing different ways to get hot (read
>alpha/gamma radio-active) substances closer to the electrode including
>suggestions to create Pd/Po-210 alloys; I want to ask what makes everyone

   Does it matter which electrode it gets close to?  Why not use a soluble
Po-210 salt in the solution along with the LiOD?  My guess is that there
are appropriate choices for both anions and cations which undergo alpha
(or whatever you want) decay in solution.
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:46:34 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Sorry that this is off topic, but this amazed me and could not pass...

In article <1992Jul20.223444.2011@trl.oz.au> aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan) writes:
>From article <1992Jul20.094956.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz):
>... 
>> I don't know what a Murphy Brown is but I'll be the first to bite:
>
>Is this supposed to be satirical, or has the iron dust got to you :-)
>Maybe you are one of those fortunate souls w/o a telly, and don't read
>the trivia in the press regarding the terrible morals of TV characters. 

The fact that Dieter did not understand the Murphy Brown allusion, which 
was stretched quite a bit to begin with, did not surprise me.  After all, 
the poor fellow is down in OZ, far removed from US politics. 

It *astounds* me that someone else in Oz knows the story (and is eagerly 
awaiting the fall season premiere of the "Murphy's Revenge" episode?) of 
Murphy and the illustrious Mr. J. Danforth 'my name ends in e' Quayle. 

Replys by E-mail only, please, but you really had coverage of this?

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Palladium
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:51:50 GMT

I was amazed to find that while no one seems to want to jump in to a
discussion of computer simulation of CNF cells, many know about futures
contracts.  The bill just came.  Commission $15.00, $1.35 clearing fee,
$0.12 NFA fee.  Total, $16.47.  The price is down 0.30 so I have already
lost $30.  Guess 1.5 standard deviations is not enough to impress the
market.  

Tom Droege
From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:08:03 GMT

The responses to the "why doesn't adding photons shift the equilbrium
back towards D+D" miss the point.

Le Chatelier's principle applies to systems that are close to
thermodynamic equilibrium.  From a nuclear point of view, a system
containing any deuterium at room temperature is way out of equilibrium.

Were you to add photons to an extremely hot gas containing deuterons,
helium nuclei, and what not, you discover that, yes indeed, the equilbrium
is shifted away from 4He (but to free nucleons, not deuterons).
This happens at enormous temperatures, like in the big bang or inside
imploding stars.  The chance that your cold fusion apparatus is at a
temperature approaching 24 MeV is remote.

Chemical systems that are far from equilibrium can also exhibit behavior
seemingly at odds with this principle (for example, adding DNA to
a solution of polymerase and whatnot makes more DNA).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:22 GMT

ted@nmsu.edu writes:
.  .  .
>with regard to miti being terribly careful people, take the 5th
>generation project as the canonical counter-example.  there were lots
>of claims made by people regarded as trustworthy by miti, and now
>a few years and yen later, the program is essentially a bust.  none of
>the real goals of the project were met.

I believe that it would be more accurate to say that none of the
*stated* goals were met, but that the real goal (to substantially
increase research funding for the MITI establishment) was met
admirably.  In fact, this project also had the effect of substantially
increasing government-sponsored computer research in the U.S., which
was stimulated by a well-known book describing the threat of
Japanese domination of the field (the "yellow peril" stikes again!).

I wouldn't want to claim that the 5th generation project and the
hysterical response in the U.S. were products of a conspiracy between
research groups in the two countries, but that model certainly fits
the data.
--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:59:58 GMT

Dick Blue writes:
> Can anyone explain how these puny [1.5 MeV] photons are going to do what
> 23 MeV photons probably don't do either?

Maybe nothing directly.  Maybe something through some atomic sized Rube
Goldberg chain reaction -- the photon illuminates the cheese which starts
the mouse running, which pulls the string tied to his foot ...

This whole body of anecdotal indications of self-sustaining chain reactions
points to some sort of "store and delayed release" mechanism.  There might
be more than one way to get into the initial first state.  Have all isomers
been identified and characterized?  How are they born, how long do they live,
how do they die?

  -- John Logajan
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Deuteron beams and yodeling
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:27:13 GMT

I note that nobody has bothered to answer the bloke from Brisbane. I find
that his message has disappeared suddenly from my NEWS window - shows that
the way I work in Denmark is better, using LISTSERV. Anyway, whoever you
are, mate, you propose using massive beams of deuterons aimed at Pd plus
nifty ways of optimising the catch. This has been looked at extensively in
the 1950's and is called self targeting. The deuterons at first get absorbed
in the Pd, and when that gets saturated, beam deuterons increasingly hit
deuterons sitting at the surface. If the beam has an energy of some keV, you
do indeed get fusion. Quite a few Russian papers about "cold fusion" are in
fact in this category, they don't seem to know about the effect. The problem,
I presume, is that you put in a lot more energy to make that beam, than you get
from the fusion. I am sure that people were thinking of this as an energy
source back in the 50's.

Having said this, I wouldn't say that this proves it is totally impossible to
make it go. Some ideas come up before their time. E.g. others before Watt had
the idea of a steam engine, but he was the first to be able to build one with
the tolerances required. Likewise, the Difference Engine of last century was
a good idea in principle, but unrealisable because of its mechanical nature;
the first vacuum tube computers were just about in the same category. I
remember a poor engineer replacing valves (tubes to you lot) just about all
the time on the first computer at Sydney University. Not the way to start the
computer age. So, maybe one day a way will be found to use self targeting as
a source of cheap, unlimited etc etc bla bla. So keep thinking.

While we're in Australia, I do really not know who Murphy Brown is, though I
have heard about Dan Quayle - there was a good joke about him. You're right,
Tom, I don't watch TV, here (no time anyway) OR in Denmark, and I am glad to
be uninformed about the US elections. Not all the world is following that
circus: I am not. But they do have TV here, I believe, it's not all guitars
and yodeling in the bush. Anymore.

Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
-------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:10:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.131601.20968@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>  
rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
> In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu  
(Paul Karol) writes:
> 
> >Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
> >selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.
> 
> d is spin 1
> He is spin 0
> gammas are spin 1

I believe that both d and He4 can have different total spins than those  
listed; however, this requires some energy.  In the case of d, alligned  
spins have a lower energy than opposite spins, and so spin zero is  
possible if the deuteron is excited by a photon.  The same is true of He4,  
although the energy is very much greater since all of the nuclear shells  
are filled for both neutrons and protons, and so one must go to a whole  
new shell and leave the other with a vacancy crying to be filled.  Thus,  
we can rule out spin 1 He4, but spin zero d is certainly a possibility.

If a spin zero d fuses with a spin 1 d to give a spin zero He4 and a spin  
1 gamma, then we have reaction that does not violate spin or momentum.  
Is it possible to stimulate deuterium with low energy gammas to produce  
spin zero d?  Are there any other mechanisms to forbid this kind of  
reaction, such as the nuclear forces which interchange protons and  
neutrons in the d nucleus.  Does the strong force require alligned spins  
in d?
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: Jones papers
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:25:47 GMT


jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>Jones was asked many questions by those
>present concerning all the things they would worry about as a possible
>source of odd events, and he had already considered them and had good
>answers.  What puzzles me is why I have not seen this work published
>yet, but maybe I missed it.  Dieter?

I only have my bibliography file with me here and none of the actual papers;
I find about 6-7 papers with Jones as coauthor, the most recent being from
1990. I don't think any of them mentions the above. This, as Jed has pointed
out, is one of the drawbacks of the bibliography; it lags behind developments.
I have also been told that the Jones group had an experiment in the Kamiokande
neutrino detector site, where the neutron background is about 2 per year - and
got nothing at all. This, too, has not been published yet, but I expect Jones
to publish it,, of course.
But I believe Dr. Jones reads this group; how about a word direct from the
horse's mouth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
From: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu (Gregg Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Information Desired
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:59:14 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange


   1) I am not a spy. :-)
   2) I'm very interested in seeing what research and discoveries have
happened with fusion over the last 5-7 years. With this in mind, what is
the best source of this information? Are there ftp sites that specialize
in this information (needs to be anonymous, of course).
   I guess my fascination with fusion started in high school when I did
a research paper on how to use a fusion plant to generate starship thrust.
The theories seemed so simple (don't they always?), but the details were
way out of my league. 
   Any leads would be appreciated. Thanks. (Please Email all responses).


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Giles (Dynamix, Inc.)                 BIX: ggiles 
All opinions expressed are my own.          Internet: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion