Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion 26435

Directory

I've read that JET obtained the necessary conditions for plasma
ignition in individual experiments; they also said they were too small
for true ignition to occur.  Obviously there are larger tokamaks in
the world still running, so why don't they (like PPPL) run these JET
experiments together on a larger scale? What's the delay?
During the standard week, how much of the time is a plasma actually in
use? What's the efficiency of your standard tokamak, in terms of
plasma-in-use vs downtime between experiments?
And what makes JET too small? I mean, I didn't see how the principle
of fusion would require a certain size reactor. If nothing else, it
seems like it would be easier to control/heat/ignite a plasma on a
_smaller_ scale than what's being done today. Since magnets are only
so good, it seems like you could create a really high plasma density
if there wasn't as much of it to keep under control.
Thanks.
- Hicks

*** REMINDER- ADVANCED WATER SCIENCES SYMPOSIUM IN THREE WEEKS! ***
*** PLEASE FORWARD TO COLLEAGUES THAT MAY BE INTERESTED. ***
*** Second Annual Advanced Water Sciences Symposium, Oct 4-6, 1996 ***
You are invited to attend the Second Annual Advanced Water Sciences
Symposium, Oct 4-6, 1996 at the Bristol Suites-Dallas at LBJ&Coit.;
Program and Registration Information are included in this email and can
also be found at the following web sites:
Program Information         
http://www.vitalenergy.com/water/schedule.html
Registration Information     http://www.vitalenergy.com/water/
For more information contact:
Second Advanced Water Sciences Symposium
    P.O. Box 1295
    Dallas, Texas 75355-1295
    fax: (214) 827-6575
    email: seraph@metronet.com
phone (214) 682-9162 or see symposium web site at
http://vitalenergy.com/water
This conference/symposium is hosted by the Institute for Advanced Water
Sciences Research. IAWSR is a not for profit membership association
dedicated to the promotion of advanced water sciences and the free
exchange of ideas that contribute to the advancement of water science.
IAWSR and the symposium provide a forum for members and contributing
individuals to exchange ideas in the following water related subjects: 
Hard Science:
    hydrodynamics, water purification technology, electrolysis, 
    bond angle relationships and energy states,  
    environmental issues, photo chemistry, ionics, ORP, 
    chemistry, oxidative states in water.
Interdisciplinary:
    vortex mechanics, magnetic resonance in water, liquid crystal
    states, advanced ozonation, colloidal chemistry, structured water, 
    homeopathic effects in relationship to energized water,
    radio frequency effects on water, energization states in water,
    magnetic field effects on water dynamics and structure, 
    energy systems utilizing water dynamics or structure.
Exploratory:
    subtle energy effects in water, consciousness and water, 
    effects of harmonic geometries on water, scalar wave effects on
    water, energization and transformation in the water molecule, 
    memory in water states, biological effects of energized and 
    structured water.
Confirmed invited speakers:
    Joseph Bender: keynote speaker "The Stewardship of Water", and also
    Ron Carson, Dr. Lee Cowden, Prof. Carlton Hazlewood, 
    Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Dr. Anthony Scott-Morley, Prof. Elizabeth
    Rauscher, Dr. William Rea, Prof. James Roberts, Joseph Tyls.
Symposium Sponsored by a grant from:
    Avani Water Corporation
Organizing Sponsors are:
    Institute for Advanced Water Sciences Research
    Seraph Foundation
    MetaLabs Foundation Trust
    Advanced Environmental Partners 
*** Preliminary Program  ***
Second Annual Advanced Water Sciences Symposium, Oct 4-6, 1996 
Bristol Suites-Dallas at LBJ&Coit; 
The following papers have been invited or selected for oral presentation
as indicated below. Other invited and submitted papers will be published
in the symposium proceedings. Additional papers can still be submitted
for review upto Aug 31 for inclusion in the proceedings. The due date
for photo ready papers is Aug 31, 1996. See detailed author instructions
for submitting final papers at http://vitalenergy.com/water/author.html. 
====================================================================
======================  Friday pm, Oct 4, 1996 =====================
 6:00 -  9:00  Registration, Reception, and cash bar
====================================================================
=====================  Saturday am, Oct 5, 1996  ===================
Session 1:     KEYNOTE ADDRESS      
----------     General Chair: Doug Matzke
 8:30 -  9:45  The Stewardship of Water
               Joseph Bender (Rainfresh Water)
 9:45 - 10:00  --- BREAK ---
Session 2:     Hard Sciences Session
----------     Session Chair: Vernon Porter
10:00 - 10:40  Water: The Almost Universal Solvent
               Prof. James Roberts (University of North Texas)
10:40 - 11:20  Monitoring water in various chemical systems
               with a new microwave based analyzer
               Sam Shortes & Bently Scott (Phase Dynamics, Inc)
11:20 - 12:00  Model for Weak Magnetic Field Bioeffects:
               Modulation of Bound Water Dipole Orientation
               via Larmor Precession Affects Surface Kinetics
               AA Pilla, DJ Muehsam, MS Markov 
               (Bioelectrochemistry Lab, Mount Sinai School of Medicine)
12:00 -  1:15  --- BUFFET LUNCH INCLUDED ---
====================================================================
=========================  Saturday pm  ============================
Session 3:     Interdisciplinary Session 1 (Biowater)
----------     Session Chair: Joe Kleinkort 
 1:15 -  1:55  Cellular Water
               Prof. Carlton Hazlewood (Baylor College of Medicine)
 1:55 -  2:35  Clinical Research in Homeopathy and Specialized Water
               Dr. Lee Cowden (Life Research Institute, Inc)
 2:35 -  3:15  Wholy Water
               Joseph Tyls (L.P.N. USA)
 3:15 -  3:30  --- BREAK ---
Session 4:     Exploratory Session 1 (EMF, Chi, and Water) 
----------     Session Chair: Anthony Wood
 4:10 -  4:50  The Reality of Imprinting Chi and Water
               Y. Khronos, D. Chen, D. Matzke, A. Wood, V. Porter 
               (Seraph Foundation)
 4:50 -  5:30  Human energy, ELF and RF fields, delayed re-emissions,
               and the media & role of water in biological process
               Prof. Elizabeth Rauscher (TRL Laboratories)
 5:30 -  8:00  --- BREAK FOR DINNER ---
 8:00 - 10:00  Birds of a Feather discussion sessions (TBA)
====================================================================
=====================  Sunday am, Oct 6, 1996  =====================
Session 5:     Interdisciplinary Session 2 (Biowater)
----------     Session Chair: Karl Kortemeyer
 8:30 -  9:15  Water pollutants and effects on people
               Dr. William Rea (Environmental Health Center - Dallas)
 9:15 - 10:00  Cytoplasmic Water
               Dr. Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona)
10:00 - 10:30  --- BREAK ---
Session 6:     Exploratory Session 2
----------     Session Chair: Doug Matzke
10:30 - 11:15  Formant Water and the Universal Algorithm
               Dr. Anthony Scott-Morley (Institute of Bioenergetic
Medicine)
11:15 - 12:00  Legacy of Marcel Vogel
               Ron Carson (Lifestream Associates)
12:00 - 12:15  Symposium Closing
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
                           PLEASE POST AND FORWARD
This file is located at http://vitalenergy.com/water/schedule.html. 
Registration information and cost can be found on the AWS Symposium home
page http://vitalenergy.com/water. 
*** Registration Information ***
Second Annual Advanced Water Sciences Symposium 
October 4 - 6, 1996, Dallas, Texas 
Sponsored by Institute for Advanced Water Sciences Research and the
Seraph Foundation
Below is the registration information for the Advanced Water Sciences
Symposium (AWS96) to be held in Dallas, TX, October 4-6, 1996. See the
list of confirmed invited speakers and see the preliminary schedule of
technical sessions. The conference registration form and payment should
be sent in by Friday, September 6, 1996 to qualify for the early
registration discount. Please make your own hotel reservations directly
with the hotel by Friday, September 13, 1996 to be included in reserved
block of rooms. 
Send registration form from below and payment to:
    Second Advanced Water Sciences Symposium
    P.O. Box 1295
    Dallas, Texas 75355-1295
    fax: (214) 827-6575
    email: seraph@metronet.com
For more information: 
phone (214) 682-9162 or see symposium web site at
http://vitalenergy.com/water.
*** ADVANCED WATER SCIENCES SYMPOSIUM TRANSPORTATION ***
IAWRS has arranged a 5% fare discount for the symposium with American
Airlines. Call the AA meetings services desk at 1-800-433-1790 and tell
them your desired AA flights. Give them the Star File number S2506AE,
and they will book your flight with a 5% discount. 
Rental Cars: All of the major car rental companies serve both Dallas
airports, although only Avis, National, Hertz, and Budget are on-site at
DFW. Ask for directions to The Bristol/Harvey Hotel at the rental desk.
Obtain Avis discount of 5% when using group discount number D004278.
Airport/Hotel Shuttles: Super Shuttle provides van shuttles to/from the
symposium hotels. The taxis or vans are available outside the terminals
on the lower level at DFW, and in front of the main terminal at Love
Field. Estimated distance to the hotel from DFW is about 15 miles, and
from Love field is about 12 miles.
Phone number for van service directly to hotel is: 
  Super Shuttle: (800) 258-3826 [BLUE-VAN]; to/from DFW $12.00 per
person;  
  to/from Love Field $15.00 per person. Visa/MC/AMEX/Diners Club
accepted.
*** HOTEL REGISTRATION/ACCOMMODATIONS ***
All AWS symposium events will be held at the Bristol Suites, 7800 Alpha
Road, Dallas, TX, (one block NW from corner of Highway 635 & Coit Road).
We have reserved a block of rooms at both Bristol Suites and at the
adjacent Harvey Hotel. Reservations and room guarantee should be made
directly with the hotel of your choice at the following numbers: 
 date: Friday September 13 (***Deadline when block of rooms released***)
       (Ask for Advanced Water Sciences Symposium Group Rate)
 mail: Bristol Suites                or mail: Dallas Harvey Hotel
       7800 Alpha Road                        7815 LBJ Freeway (Highway
635)
       Dallas, Texas 75240                    Dallas, Texas 75251
 rate: US$89 (single or double)        rate:  US$59 (single or double)
       US$99 (triple or quadruple)            US$69 (triple or
quadruple)
       Includes full breakfast                room only
 phone: (214) 233-7600                  phone:  (214) 960-7000
 fax:  (214) 701-8618                  fax:   (214) 788-4227
*** ADVANCED WATER SCIENCES SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION ***
The early registration fee is $175 before September 6 and the on site
registration fee of $250 applies after that date. A student discount
registration fee will be $100. Registration fee includes Friday evening
reception, access to all technical sessions (all day Saturday and half
day Sunday), Saturday lunch, and one copy of proceedings. IAWSR will
accept both checks and all major credit cards for registration. We can
accept payment by CHECK drawn from US banks or US money order payable to
Advanced Water Sciences Symposium. To aid in our planning, PLEASE
REGISTER AND PAY IN ADVANCE because we have a maximum number of people
we can accommodate at the conference. 
A registration table will be set up at the Friday evening reception, and
before the Saturday morning keynote session. Please stop by to register
and pick up your registration packet, including a copy of proceedings.
Additional proceedings can be preordered. Information about the location
of the reception and symposium talks will be available at the hotel
check-in desk. 
----------------------------------- cut here
----------------------------------
                     REGISTRATION FORM for Advanced Water Sciences
Symposium, 
                                    Dallas, Texas, Oct. 4-6, 1996 
                            Send to P.O. Box 1295, Dallas, Texas
75355-1295 
                          or FAX: (214) 827-6575 or email:
seraph@metronet.com
NAME/TITLE:_________________________________
AFFILIATION:______________________
MAILADDRESS:_______________________________
MAILCITY/STATE/ZIP:________________
TELEPHONE:____________________________________FAX:_____________________________
EMAIL
ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________
TOPICS OF
INTEREST:____________________________________________________________
I PLAN TO ATTEND AWS:  YES___ NO___  THE RECEPTION FRIDAY EVENING:
YES___ NO___
I PLAN TO STAY IN DALLAS AT: Bristol Suites ____ Harvey Hotel ____ Other
_____ 
ANY SPECIAL DIETARY
REQUIREMENTS:______________________________________________
*****************************Payment
Information*******************************
Registration fee ($175 before Sept. 6)or($250 on site)or($100
student)_________
add Number of ADDITIONAL AWS Proceedings at $25.00 each              
_________
add IAWSR membership special conference rate of $25 per year         
_________
                                                       TOTAL FEE DUE:
_________
   CHECK ENCLOSED FOR (made payable to Advanced Water Sciences Symp):
_________
I AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF ABOVE TOTAL FEE USING CREDIT CARD INFO BELOW:
CREDIT CARD NUMBER:___________________________________________________
CREDIT CARD TYPE: _________________  EXPIRATION DATE:_________________
  (receipts will be included in conference packets)
  (all registrations will be confirmed within 2-3 days)
----------------------------------- cut here
----------------------------------
The Institute for Advanced Water Sciences Research will be setting it's
own Web site in the future. The web site is hosted by Seraph Foundation. 

Good Particle Models Self Assemble.
Good models should give answers that were not put into them, 
and these vector models gave unique energy structures for the 
electrons and neutrinos *before* it was deduced that the model's 
structures mimicked the basic electrons and neutrinos. This 
serendipitous result is the only way a coherent model could have
developed.
The vector model indicates that nature creates the basic 
particles automatically, precisely, and at only one unique energy, the 
energy where the electric and magnetic forces and their rates of 
change are balanced and equal.
The model uses rules, similar to Kirchhoff's electrical 
network laws, that is, the E, B vectors shared by the Poynting S 
vectors form into continuous flows at each node. Only three pair of 
basic particle models can result. These basic models later were 
shown to mimic the familiar electron/positron pair, electron type 
neutrino pair and the muon type neutrino pair. These basic particles 
are self assembled simply by exhausting all possible 
arrangements for the vectors of the energy model to connect into viable 
structures.
As justification of the concepts, the models do maintain the 
proper ratios between all related fundamental physical constants.
The geometry works so well that it is possible to start with 
the dimensionless fine structure constant and obtain *both* the 
protons and neutrons dimensionless mass ratios.
The vector models give the mass and difference in mass between 
the proton and neutron, and predict the neutron's known decay 
electron and neutrino directly from the model's structure rules.
If you want more details:
See the URL; http://www.best.com/lockyer ......and follow the 
links (after the send button on that page) for a free sample 
outline of the model's approach. To order the publication, type your 
name and address on the CGI (common gateway interface) script, 
then click on the send button. Included with your order will be a 
Journal article showing a possible test method, for determining a 
theoretical proton nutation angle, as given by the model.
Regards: Tom.

In message <323CC44F.797E@pyramid.net> - LULU Sun, 15
Sep 1996 20:06:55 -0700 writes:
>
>Dear Friends:Professor Yull Brown is willing to be at our Declaration Energy
>Independence on the 23rd of September in Philadelphia, and has
>magnanimously offered to demonstrate his ability to neutralize
>radioactive waste at our show! He will also bring a car engine that has
>already been modified to run on Brown's Gas, and will demonstrate how to
>pump water without any mechanical device (pump) at all. 
And having pumped the water without a pump will he then walk on it? 
David

	TCT Status Report
As of this posting over 90 people have downloaded the introduction and first 
nine chapters of Part 1 of  the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and Nuclei". Part 
2 is now being released, on a chapter by chapter basis, at the web site given 
below. Chapters 10 and 11 are now available. 
Since readers have not yet taken up the challenge of developing the 4-d Unity 
Conversion Factor, I'm going to change my focus for awhile and concentrate on 
making the existing files available to more people by producing them in 
alternate formats.
The Startpak is now available as a simple .zip file as well as a self 
extracting .exe file. I plan to convert it to LaTex and perhaps Postscript, as 
soon as I learn how. I would appreciate readers who could help me on this to 
e-mail me with advice. Pending file sizes, in relation to available server 
disk space , I plan to continue the process with subsequent files.
Cheers - John
I have been posting the following article to this newsgroup since early in 
December of 1995, and will continue to do so for some time. If you are a new 
subscriber, or have missed it, and find it of interest, perhaps a visit to the 
URL will see you joining the above group of "readers"?
	THE COVARIANT THEORY
In the last few chapters of "A Brief  History of Time"(Bantam 1988), Stephen 
Hawking writes about an earlier idea of his concerning a new frame of 
reference in which to consider physical reality. In essence it is:
	- a four dimensional, non-linear frame, finite but unbounded,
	  (like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions),
	- using imaginary time as a mathematical device, making the frame
	  Euclidean,
	- the above producing no singularities and causing the distinction
	  between time and space to disappear.
The above proposal appears to describe very closely a theory I have been 
interested in for the past 30 years. It is called "The Covariant Theory" and 
is not my own, but the work of another man. It is unpublished, the original 
author losing interest in it many years ago. Since I did show interest, he 
gave me his original writings, about 1500 pages, which I first organized into 
some 60 folders back in 1969.
In 1993 I retired from being a physics teacher (after 34 years!), and have 
just recently acquired a new computer. For fun, I've started to put the work 
into an electronic form, and am willing to share it with anybody who is 
interested. There is no copyright on the material and you can work with it, 
communicate, publish etc. as you see fit.
First let me assure you that it does indeed propose a change in the frame of 
reference in which to view reality. It is a unique non-linear four dimensional 
frame in which space and time are related in a covariant manner, and thus the 
name of the theory. It is because the theory is based on a frame change, that 
even though the draft was produced over 30 years ago, developments since that 
time , such as quark theory and the standard model for example, can be 
accommodated, in my opinion, within the theory. The central ideas then, seem 
to me to still be viable.
The frame appears to have the capability of unifying the forces of nature in a 
new way, since some of the initial predictions relate to meson masses and 
properties, nuclear binding energy and structure, and relationships between 
ionization potentials across the periodic table. In addition, as a result of 
field geometry, various physical constants, such as "e", "h" and "c", are 
intimately co-related, thus predicting the existence and value of the fine 
structure constant.
The range of topics dealt with requires the potential reader to be comfortable 
with the quantum, electromagnetic, and relativity theories and their 
mathematical formalism. Generalized mechanics and knowledge of various nuclear 
models is also required. In general then it is the theoretical physicist, with 
a special interest in nuclear theory, to which this posting is directed, since 
rigorous scholarly review and assessment is required.
Now there are a number of problems associated with the preparation and 
transfer of the material as well as the central problem of communicating a 
frame change. You have to start some place however, and I have decided to 
prepare a pre-publication draft of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and 
Nuclei", which comes from about 30 of the 60 folders.
If you are interested in looking into the Covariant Theory, please proceed via 
the WWW
to	 
where you will find a web site providing documentation that should be read 
before you access the theory. I have set it up this way to help you make a 
decision, since I do not want you to feel you are wasting your time.
Please do not e-mail me until after you have visited my home page.
Thanks - John

Jeramie.Hicks@mail.utexas.edu (Jeramie Hicks) asked:
|> I've read that JET obtained the necessary conditions for plasma
|> ignition in individual experiments; they also said they were too small
|> for true ignition to occur.  Obviously there are larger tokamaks in
|> the world still running, so why don't they (like PPPL) run these JET
|> experiments together on a larger scale? What's the delay?
Actually, JET is the largest tokamak, JT-60U (Japan) the second, and 
TFTR the third.  Plasma volumes are roughly in the ratios 3:2:1.
TFTR will be shut down in 1997.  
|> During the standard week, how much of the time is a plasma actually in
|> use? What's the efficiency of your standard tokamak, in terms of
|> plasma-in-use vs downtime between experiments?
Discharges, or "shots" last for roughly a minute, and can be repeated 
after less than one hour.  To this extent, during experimental campaigns, 
a tokamaks such as JET operates during banking hours.    
|> And what makes JET too small? I mean, I didn't see how the principle
|> of fusion would require a certain size reactor. If nothing else, it
|> seems like it would be easier to control/heat/ignite a plasma on a
|> _smaller_ scale than what's being done today. Since magnets are only
|> so good, it seems like you could create a really high plasma density
|> if there wasn't as much of it to keep under control.
In the case of tokamaks, good things come in large packages.  Empirical 
scaling laws indicate that energy confinement time (the time it takes 
a fraction of energy to leave the plasma in the absence of sources) 
scales as R^1.79 (ITERH93-P scaling), where R is the major radius.
Thus, larger machines are expected to "store" energy more effectively.
The trouble is, this is an empirical fit.  Applying this rule to values 
of R which are much larger than in the devices which comprise the 
database is dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Mitchel Swartz's answer to the simple question is too
simple.  I think he owes a more complete explanation for each
of the claimed successes to which he makes reference.
When Mitchel says, "Cold fusion has been confirmed by Los Alamos."
what precisely does he have in mind?  The most frequently cited
recent claim from Los Alamos is the results by Claytor, et al.
In this case I dispute whether it is proper to refer to this
as being "cold fusion".  It does, after all, involve a hot plasma.
We all know what great emphasis Mitchel has placed on what may
be observed in plasmas and what goes on in solids.  In this
case I suspect he is omitting significant details about the nature
of the experiments he says indicate that fusion does occur.
By his reference to the U.S. Navy I would guess Mitchel means the
research by Miles and Bush at China Lake.  In this case it is
probably fair to call this cold fusion, but I believe it should
be mentioned that the results have never been confirmed elsewhere.
In fact other searches for helium production under similar conditions
have turned up nothing.
As for the NASA excess enthalpy in nickel, I can only guess what this
obscure reference means.  What Mitchel has rather artfully done by
using institutional names is to give the appearance that claims for
cold fusion success have been blessed by the highest levels of
administration in these organizations.  The fact is the claims are
made by individuals.  It would be more informative if those
individuals were named.
Dick Blue

The best I can offer Richard Adams as further information on the
claims for helium-4 production by E. Yamaguchi is that he check
the bibliography on cold fusion maintained by Dieter Britz.
Web page:  http://www.kemi.aau.dk
One common feature of many of the cold fusion success claims is
that there is no formal publication of the results in a peer-reviewed
journal, no followup reports of further research, and no further
conference presentations.  The stuff just dies!  May it rest in peace.
Dick Blue

candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
>
>The history of the H-bomb, and its "father" Edward 
>Teller, is quite an interesting story.
Absolutley, quite interesting, especially now that the Soviet archives 
are open.  But one detail: Stan Ulam was the father of the bomb; Teller 
was the mother. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Greg Baker (bakerg@atcon.com) wrote:
: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
: >Has fusion ever occured here on earth.  In the most general sense
: >of the word fusion, the answer is yes.  It is a relatively easy thing
: >to do with a beam from a particle accelerator -- even a very small
: >and simple accelerator.
: >It just happens that cold fusion advocates have rather systematically
: >denied that there are any earlier experiments that have a bearing the
: >cold fusion quesiton.  The truth, however, is quite different.  All the
: >reactions that have been suggested to account for cold fusion claims
: >have been studied in great detail under a variety of conditions.
: Are you saying that cold fusion *has* happened? I always thought that
: was a definite no. I was thinking about fusion withen a super-magnetic
: torus using deuterium and tritium such as the JET project.
No, of course not.  Dick means that all hypothetical explanations of
why all experimental tests have failed to detect cold fusion neglected
the fact that they were in full contradiction with well known reactions.
(the most important being the total absence of neutron flux 
that would immediately kill any nearby observer, but lots of others...)
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Jim Carr wrote:
|> Absolutley, quite interesting, especially now that the Soviet archives 
|> are open.  But one detail: Stan Ulam was the father of the bomb; Teller 
|> was the mother. 
You mean because Ulam had the know-how and Teller had the big 
mouth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I bring to your attention an interesting paper by Chuck Scott et al of Oak 
Ridge National Lab:
                       Fusion Technology
                       Vol 17 August 1990
                       Pages 103-114
First sentence of the abstract reads: "Excess heat and apparent increases 
in the neutron and gamma-ray count rates have been observed in a series of 
tests performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to study the electrolysis 
of heavy water in the presence of Palladium cathodes."
I called the Scott group in 1992 to ask if there were other 
papers/experiments pending;I was told that Dr. Scott had retired and that 
due to the controversial nature of cold fusion, funds were not available 
for further work.
This work, while not unassailable, should stand as a clear exception to 
the statement so often used by (typically non-experimenting) critics of 
cold fusion that no reputable laboratory of national quality has reported 
excess heat production with increases in neutron/gamma-ray activity.
Dennis Letts
Austin, TX

Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
: In article <51ga51$8fc@stratus.skypoint.net>,
:    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
: ->markj@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
: ->: Since a few years have passed since then, I am naturally curious
: ->: to know what developments have occurred since. Could anyone either
: ->: give me a brief update, or point me to appropriate reading material.
: ->
: ->The camps remain firmly convinced that:
: ->
: ->1.) Cold fusion has been disproven
: ->
: ->2.) Cold fusion has been proven
: ->
: Item 1.) should read:
: 1.) Cold fusion has never been proven.
: Let's keep the burden of proof in the right place.
There have been plenty of people claiming that CF has been disproven.
But I agree a third camp should be noted (especially since I'm a member)
which insists that CF has not been proven or disproven.
--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

In article <51ga51$8fc@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->markj@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
->: Since a few years have passed since then, I am naturally curious
->: to know what developments have occurred since. Could anyone either
->: give me a brief update, or point me to appropriate reading material.
->
->The camps remain firmly convinced that:
->
->1.) Cold fusion has been disproven
->
->2.) Cold fusion has been proven
->
Item 1.) should read:
1.) Cold fusion has never been proven.
Let's keep the burden of proof in the right place.

  In Message-ID: <199609161629.MAA58512@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: very simple question
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote a series of comments
about my previous post which gave pointers to references on the
subject of cold fusion.  Dick Blue's post shall now be examined in detail.
  Of all the critics to cold fusion, Dick Blue usually demonstrates
his scientific knowledge, but has regressed  to attack the messenger
by innuendo  and  misstatement.  
REFERENCES APPARENTLY NOT FOLLOWED BY DICK BLUE
 =db "I believe Mitchel Swartz's answer to the simple question is too
 =db simple.  I think he owes a more complete explanation for each
 =db of the claimed successes to which he makes reference.
As usual, my e-acquaintance Dick Blue, IMHO perhaps previously one of
 the more serious scientific 
critics of this field, lowers himself from previous standards of excellence
and attacks the messenger.  
Dick Blue answers my post with his own artful obfuscation,
which when examined in detail appear to be substantially short of the baseline
considered as truth.
  First, in the above paragraph Dick Blue demands, as always, references.  
In my life I have never seen anyone demand more, and check less.
Would it matter that these references were given? 
 Not to Dick apparently, and therefore unfortunately.
The explicit URL to the website was given in my previous post.
Did Dick Blue actually investigate anything therein before his
usual gossip?   As we shall see below, the answer which is consistent
with his reply suggests a simple, "no".
       --------------------------------
DICK BLUE MISSTATES THE NATURE OF AN EXPERIMENT
 =db When Mitchel says, "Cold fusion has been confirmed by Los Alamos."
 =db what precisely does he have in mind?  The most frequently cited
 =db recent claim from Los Alamos is the results by Claytor, et al.
 =db In this case I dispute whether it is proper to refer to this
 =db as being "cold fusion".  It does, after all, involve a hot plasma.
 =db We all know what great emphasis Mitchel has placed on what may
 =db be observed in plasmas and what goes on in solids.  In this
 =db case I suspect he is omitting significant details about the nature
 =db of the experiments he says indicate that fusion does occur.
  In contrast to Dick Blue's borderline-erroneous comments -- and one only
hopes that Dick is more accurate about his own field of "hot fusion" --
Tom Claytor and his associates meticulous work has involved metal
electrodes of palladium and not the TOKAMAK.
Dr. Claytor's experimental setup involves the metal, boundaries therein, 
and not simply a "hot plasma".   It was a plasma impingement study
and determined that the palladium "must" be hydrided, and in fact,
the results are predicated on the metallurgical condition of the metal.  
  Dick  --- Exactly how much solid palladium survives in the center of the
hot fusion systems you work on, or study, or consult for?   ;-)X
  Nowhere does Dick mention in his response that the issue is that
success does specifically appear to require the loaded metal.
   No.  not in his above paragraph at all.  He infers the opposite.
 Dick Blue thereby obfuscates the post which I made to direct people
to information by his suggesting a false dichotomy between Dr. Claytor's
work and cold fusion, and in doing so he indicates that Dr. Claytor's
work was "hot fusion" or "plasma fusion".
  And he does so both incorrectly and deceptively.
To attempt to give Dick some credit however, 
please note that he reproducibly misstates these
issues and therefore is precise,  if not exactly accurate.
DICK BLUE'S COMMENTS LEAD AWAY FROM EVIDENCE OF COLD FUSION
  Incidentally, this entire complicated matter which 
Dick Blue would like to ignore
and dismiss with a wave of his hand, which ought by accessing the library,
involves tritium production.   It is not unrelated that 
another URL cited at the COLD FUSION TIMES' home page
is the Dieter Britz compendium
of papers.
  [IMHO it is a lower limit to the papers available, since perhaps not
all the conferences papers have been included, but is quite useful and
was also cited in the COLD FUSION TIMES' homepage.]
At Dieter's compendium of papers there are 18 papers on tritium production.
Of those 4 are theoretical, and of the remainder 79% are experimental
positives. Because a few are by the same author, IMHO this should be
lowered to about ~70%, but these are enough to show once again
that the difference between the literature and Dick Blue's goals/knowledge
remains quite wide and deep.
  May any serious reader to this point consider this:
such de novo production is a hallmark of nucleosynthesis.  It may be
difficult to accept, but the experimental data on this -- like the
excess enthalpy with cold fusion --  stands and IMHO will be
shown to be consistent with present nuclear and material physics.
       --------------------------------
DICK BLUE IS WRONG ABOUT THE LITERATURE IN GENERAL
AND THE U.S. NAVY IN PARTICULAR
 =db By his reference to the U.S. Navy I would guess Mitchel means the
 =db research by Miles and Bush at China Lake.  In this case it is
 =db probably fair to call this cold fusion, but I believe it should
 =db be mentioned that the results have never been confirmed elsewhere.
 =db In fact other searches for helium production under similar conditions
 =db have turned up nothing.
  Dick says, "the results have never been confirmed elsewhere."
Dick is wrong again.   For just one (1) example, Russ George's
homepage (referred to in the COLD FUSION TIMES' home page,
and in the post in question) also confirms the generation of helium-4.
Not only can serious investigators examine
helium production in the literature, but Dick's words will now demonstrate
that Dick Blue is wrong even with regard to the US Navy because
there has been confirmation in the Navy by separate groups of experimenters.
    In addition to very interesting metallurgical papers and other
results on the East Coast,  and in addition to Dr. Miles' results
involving both excess enthalpy AND autoradiography
AND helium production,
Dr. Szpak of the US Navy has also demonstrated both excess
enthalpy AND autoradiography tied in to the reaction.
   One of Dr. Szpak's paper is also linked to the COLD FUSION TIMES' home
page at URL = http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
 Given that at least three (3) groups in the US Navy have confirmed 
various aspects of cold fusion, Dick Blue is crawling again on quite shaky
ground which is has just given away below his knees.
  Did Dick Blue actually read the paper?  
  If not, why not?
  If so, why not knock this one too, Dick?
  Given the availability of the paper,
and it is available in COLD FUSION TIMES' URL,
it either seems that Dick did not actually read it, or
in the alternative knew it existed and for some reason
elected to omit reference.
       --------------------------------
DICK MISSTATES AGAIN
 =db As for the NASA excess enthalpy in nickel, I can only guess what this
 =db obscure reference means.  What Mitchel has rather artfully done by
 =db using institutional names is to give the appearance that claims for
 =db cold fusion success have been blessed by the highest levels of
 =db administration in these organizations.  The fact is the claims are
 =db made by individuals.  It would be more informative if those
 =db individuals were named.
 =db Dick Blue
   Dick appears to be projecting again,
crafting his masterfully artful comments which 
have herein been shown to be not only wrong, but in fact inconsistent 
with the literature which was available to him, and to which he was directed.  
Thus, Dick Blue's comments are 80 watts short of a room light bulb.
  Furthermore, the NASA article (a NASA Technical
memorandum) has been discussed here recently, is reviewed and
discussed in the web page cited (http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.
As such, given that Dick is unable, unwilling, or uninterested in 
pursuing a knowledge which is not spoonfed to him on this subject,
will not be drawn in to Dick Blue's unlikely feign of ignorance any further.
HEAVYWATERGATE
  Astonishingly, Dick Blue and his synchophants
would thus have us believe that all these scores of
labs and hundreds of experimenters working over seven years are 
"frauds" and  "incompetent".
  Really? 
 Is the ONLY interpretation that all several hundred 
experimentalists are not even
close to the meticulous standards of laboratory and
research excellence that characterizes  Dick Blue and the
other handful of oft-ranting cold fusion critics?       ;-)X
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION  
1) Cold fusion has been confirmed in multiple locations by scores
of skilled experimentalists.  
2)  When the information is posted on s.p.f.
 once again vocal critics in the hot fusion field focus on the messenger
rather than papers, which were actually not only available, but references
listed.   (Hence most serious posters have fled s.p.f. to other
moderated e-mail and private systems)
3)  The listed references in the post to which Dick Blue does refer
were ignored by Dick, with Dick Blue actually asking for
references and further spoon-feeding (presumably incongruous with his
esteemed position in nuclear physics including nucleon spin states).
4) Said references demonstrate Dick Blue has made several erroneous and
misleading comments clearly at odds with his ability for deep scientific
probing and accurate analysis.
5)  Dick has done this before showing remarkable reproducibility and thus
fine precision.
Nonetheless, accuracy is more important.
  Hope that helps.  Say goodnight, Dick.
   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

In article <51l4kn$qo0@stratus.skypoint.net>,
   jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->Bob Sullivan (bsulliva@sky.net) wrote:
->: In article <51ga51$8fc@stratus.skypoint.net>,
->:    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
->: ->markj@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
->: ->: Since a few years have passed since then, I am naturally curious
->: ->: to know what developments have occurred since. Could anyone either
->: ->: give me a brief update, or point me to appropriate reading material.
->: ->
->: ->The camps remain firmly convinced that:
->: ->
->: ->1.) Cold fusion has been disproven
->: ->
->: ->2.) Cold fusion has been proven
->: ->
->
->: Item 1.) should read:
->
->: 1.) Cold fusion has never been proven.
->
->: Let's keep the burden of proof in the right place.
->
->There have been plenty of people claiming that CF has been disproven.
->
->But I agree a third camp should be noted (especially since I'm a member)
->which insists that CF has not been proven or disproven.
->
Oops, I forgot about Steven Jones' muon-catalyzed cold fusion which has been 
proved to exist.  Now you need to add a category for those people (who shall go 
unnamed) who refuse to recognize the existence of Steven Jones.

In article <51btji$9t5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu
(Jeff Candy) wrote:
>Joseph Davidson writes:
>
>|> When you say "ITER" your should prefix it with "Money".
> 
>Tee Hee.
>
>Now, ask yourself "Why are Japan and Korea pumping up their 
>fusion programmes like mad?"  Energy, which is taken somewhat 
>as a given in North America, is an issue of "national security" 
>in these small, densely populated countries.  Next, consider 
>the magnitude of the annual increase in energy demands from 
>both India and China.  Finally, note that of late the US fusion 
>budget has only been about 250 million per year.  That's less 
>than 1$ per US citizen per year: only 1/10000th of what the IRS 
>robs from an average income earner annually.  Quite a pathetic 
>fraction. 
What's your point Candy?  That the fusion scientists should somehow get
more of what you already have correctly identified as being robbed from
the income earner?  One who receives that which is stolen (or robbed by
your word) shares the same status as he who helped in the robbing, i.e.,
he's a thief also.
You assume that throwing money at a problem somehow assures that it will
be conquered by using that money for research.  This is bad logic. 
Controlled fusion will be accomplished by a guy working out of his garage.
Best Regards,
-- 
C. Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR  97304
Ph: 503/362-7781
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.  If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
                - Howard Aiken

  In Message-ID: <199609091504.LAA63928@pilot04.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Msrs. P & F?
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) states:
 =db "If Thomas Bond is seeking a source of complete information on progress
 =db in Cold Fusion I would suggest that he can do no better than to check
 =db out the Britz bibliography on the subject that has been maintained from
 =db the beginning and can now be accessed via a Web Page.  Any search engine
 =db should turn it up, 
 =db but I must confess I have not kept track of the address.
   1) In constrast to this frank serious admission by Dick Blue,
any serious researcher in the field has Dieter's address on line
and uses it frequently.  I do.  
  2) Dieter's excellent site does however, underestimate the total of 
cold fusion papers by a factor of ~2-3.  
 Some of these other publications, and info on pointers to them,
are available at and thru  the COLD FUSION TIMES' home page 
at URL = http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
and at other URLs accessed there.
 Hope that helps.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

  In Message-ID: <199609131443.KAA35648@pilot18.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: helium 4, etc.
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) points his finger to the rising sun
 =db Richard Adams makes reference to the old, discredited work of
 =db Eiichi Yamaguchi which his employer, Nippon Tel and Tel, made
 =db a big stir over.  Unfortunately for them Yamaguchi made detailed
 =db reports of his experiments which reveal that his evidence of
 =db helium production is totally bogus - a simple artifact generated
 =db by driving his mass spectrometer into overload conditions.  Now
 =db that is a pretty dumb thing to do, but it is typical of much
 =db of cold fusion research.  Have you heard anything further from
 =db NTT or Yamaguchi on this one?  I suspect not.
 =db Dick Blue
  Is this another vaporcriticism?
 Could Dick please elaborate on his speculation?
 Particularly how he can absolutely prove the overload condition?
 Thanks in advance.

  In Message-ID: <199609161610.MAA12579@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: cold fusion: helium 4, etc.
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) claims
 =db  "One common feature of many of the cold fusion success claims is
 =db  that there is no formal publication of the results in a peer-reviewed
 =db  journal, no followup reports of further research, and no further
 =db  conference presentations.  The stuff just dies!  May it rest in peace.
 =db  
 =db  Dick Blue
 Dick's self-serving verbiage is again illuminating his psyche.
"May it rest in peace", indeed.
  Dick's post demonstrates his typical precision errors, void of accuracy.
 There have been many publications in peer-reviewed literature
  Info available at the COLD FUSION TIMES' home
   page at URL = http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
 and other URLs access there.
    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

Charles Cagle wrote:
|> What's your point Candy?  That the fusion scientists should somehow get
|> more of what you already have correctly identified as being robbed from
|> the income earner?  
Proportionately, it appears so.  This does not imply that I am 
philosophically "for" the principle of gov't funded science.
|> One who receives that which is stolen (or robbed by your word) shares 
|> the same status as he who helped in the robbing, i.e., he's a thief 
|> also.
A strict definition would proceed from the principle of the "initiation 
of force".  The initiator in this case would be the "government" itself, 
with the IRS as an instrument.  The recipient of these benefits does not 
violate the principle, and thus falls into a different class than the 
initiator.
|> You assume that throwing money at a problem somehow assures that it will
|> be conquered by using that money for research.  
Oh do I?
|> This is bad logic. 
This is silly.
|> Controlled fusion will be accomplished by a guy working out of his garage.
This is even sillier.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <51eh9h$b7f@thor.atcon.com>, bakerg@atcon.com (Greg Baker)
writes:
>>>|> I thought that was fission.
>
>>>Fission ->  heavy nuclei -> A-bomb -> 1940's
>>>Fusion  ->  light nuclei -> H-bomb -> 1950's
>>>The history of the H-bomb, and its "father" Edward 
>>>Teller, is quite an interesting story.
>>>Jeff
>
>>See, I learn something new everyday.
>
>There still wasn't an explosion during research was there Jeff?
>
>
>
Never mind, I didn't learn anything.  I see that whenever one of us laymen
poses a question you guys start flaming each other to push your opinions. 
We're not impressed.  If you can't say anything nice, just go away.
-Jason
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
"Those who are smart enough not to engage in politics are destined to be
governed by those who aren't."          ----Plato
"Plato was a bore."           ----Nietzsche
"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."       ----Tolstoy
"I am a jelly donut."    ----J.F.K.

candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote:
>Actually, JET is the largest tokamak, JT-60U (Japan) the second, and 
>TFTR the third.  Plasma volumes are roughly in the ratios 3:2:1.
After all my reading of JET, I'm suprised I never noticed this fact.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
>|> And what makes JET too small? I mean, I didn't see how the principle
>|> of fusion would require a certain size reactor.
>In the case of tokamaks, good things come in large packages.  Empirical 
>scaling laws indicate that energy confinement time (the time it takes 
>a fraction of energy to leave the plasma in the absence of sources) 
>scales as R^1.79 (ITERH93-P scaling), where R is the major radius.
What's the cause of this loss of energy? Is it an unavoidable
principle of physics, or is it simply the lack of better technology?
Thanks Mr. Candy for all the information you've posted. I'm trying to
get an unpaid volunteer position at the FRC, but Mr. Wooten keeps
ignoring my emails and telling me to "come back next semester" when I
talk in person. :-(  I'd REALLY like to help in these projects any way
I can.
- Hicks

borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 01:26:30 GMT, borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar)
>wrote:
>>  Sure but the lab blew up.  It was called a Hydrogen bomb.
>Very clever Boris, too bad you have nothing else to do but insult
>people that you have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
>Flaming Cyber-shit liking totally discredits you; it's really sad that
>members of the human race have to stay up at night and insult people
>because they have nothing else to do. Of course, on the other hand, it
>takes a real talent to be so stupid.
That's funny, it seemed more like an attempt at humor than "Flaming
Cyber-shit"  If that is his best attempt at insulting he needs to get
around.
Smile, you only live once (if you are lucky)

>>>>|> I thought that was fission.
>>
>>>>Fission ->  heavy nuclei -> A-bomb -> 1940's
>>>>Fusion  ->  light nuclei -> H-bomb -> 1950's
>>>>The history of the H-bomb, and its "father" Edward 
>>>>Teller, is quite an interesting story.
>>>See, I learn something new everyday.
>>There still wasn't an explosion during research was there Jeff?
>Never mind, I didn't learn anything.  I see that whenever one of us laymen
>poses a question you guys start flaming each other to push your opinions. 
>We're not impressed.  If you can't say anything nice, just go away.
You weren't refering to me were you? I appoligize if I ofended you,
I'm a laymen too! I was just woundering if there was an actual
explosion with the H-bomb. :)
Greg
___________________________________
Greg Baker, Fall River, NS, Canada
eMail: bakerg@atcon.com
URL: http://www.atcon.com/~bakerg
---When cows laugh, does milk
come out of THEIR noses?