Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion 27093

Directory

Gordon D. Pusch (pusch@mcs.anl.gov) wrote:
: Joseph Newman is at the very least a crackpot, and at the worst, a FRAUD.
: I've _read_ his book, and it's complete and utter GIBBERISH. His book
: is based on Newman's FALSE theory of E/M fields derived from his FALSE 
: notion that ``current'' and ``energy'' are the same thing --- a notion
: that can be EASILY disproved in ANY high-school physics lab. 
Martin Gardner wrote an essay about Newman and his Machine (as I recall,
it's in his collection _The New Age:  Notes of a Fringe-Watcher_).  
According to Gardner, the machine was tested by the NBS (I believe it
was still the NBS then and not NIST), and was, not surprisingly, 
discovered *not* to be an over-unity device.
-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
 "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

"Martin Kilgore"  writes:
> ...  Could the
> increased computer power in these new machines clarify the magnetic
> confinement models when they come on line? Perhaps it is better to delay an
> expensive outlay until then. It would be a shame to end up with a large
> hole in the ground as with the supercollider.
Computer power is (still) advancing rapidly, and will soon enter a
range where the 3-D turbulence of an entire tokamak can be modeled
with very realistic physics. For further information I defer to Bruce
Scott (who, I presume, is always listening), since that is exactly
what he does for a living.
As for delaying ITER, the codes are still models. Whether or not they
have all the essential physics included and whether they come up with
the right coefficient within 10% or a factor of 2 are things that can
only be verified with a (at least nearly) full scale
experiment. Furthermore, I would argue that we know what ballpark ITER
will land in from the empirical extrapolations, whether we understand
the detailed physics or not. (At least, I would have argued that last
week--I would like to assimilate the arguments of Dorland and
Kotschenreuther before I stick my neck out too far.) Finally, there is
much about plasma physics and technology that we will learn from ITER
that can be applied to the next generation machine, even if it is a
very different sort of tokamak (e.g., low aspect ratio or otherwise
"advanced") or even a stellarator.
I wouldn't argue against a delay at all costs, but it may be a long
time still before we will believe a simulation without a benchmark
experiment.
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~awc/home.html

funniest post I've read in a long time

Martin Sevior  wrote:
> the
>more copious 7Li serves to amplify the neutron flux with the reaction
>7Li(n,2n)6Li leaving the 6Li so created to be fissioned to alpha+T by
>other neutrons.
I believe the 7Li reaction is actually 7LI(n,tn)4He.  Endothermic,
of course.
> The 14 MeV neutrons have enough energy to push the
>238U over the
>fission barrier of about 2 MeV that  prevents 238U being useful in a
>regular fission bomb.
Is this really the way it works?  I'd have thought that the fusionable
fuel was dense enough to thermalize most of the neutrons, or at least
get them to deposit much of their energy.  Instead, I thought the
neutron flux was so high that one got two neutron captures on U238,
first producing U239, then fissioning the U239 (which, having an odd
number of neutrons, should have no fission threshold).  It is a
well-known fact that the H-bomb tests were the first sources of some
of the higher transuranic elements (einsteinium?), so multiple neutron
captures on some component did occur.
	Paul

Jim Carr  wrote in article
<589q6i$eei@news.fsu.edu>...
>  Then why complain about my response to your article? 
You don't get it, do you?  THERE'S NOTHING WRONG with the simple fact of
YOU RESPONDING.  I *do* have a slight problem with people like you ASSUMING
they know the motivations and expectations of OTHERS.  Make all the
comments you like about your OWN motivations and expectations -- just don't
think that when you make statements about OTHERS' that it is a rationally
arguable point.
>  The obvious answer: to avoid addressing the substantive part of 
>  my comments, hoping no one would notice that your remarks were 
>  scientifically indefensible.  And, no, I am not trying to read 
>  Karim's mind, I am reaching a conclusion based on his actions. 
If your comments had anything resembling a substantive part, it was below
ppb levels.
If you reach a CONCLUSION about someone's MOTIVATION for doing something,
it is not substantively different from MIND-READING.  You can strongly
suspect "He did X because of Y motivation" but you can't KNOW that.  You
can't reach a CONCLUSION about it.  You call yourself a SCIENTIST?
What remarks do YOU consider to be "scientifically indefensible?"  There's
been extremely little SCIENCE in this thread.  All I'm doing is pointing
out your LOGICAL errors.
Hey, if you're going to ASK your questions AND answer them, you might as
well give up Usenet newsgroups and start up a thread in a text editor.
> >2) I said YOUR criteria was arbitrary because YOU made it up.  I don't
> >think you have anything approaching the humility to use anyone else's.  
> 
>  Sorry, Karim, but if I saw you on the rolls of the APS or in the 
>  author index of prominent physics journals, or remembered your name 
>  from abstracts at past APS meetings, I might rethink whether I should 
>  trust your judgement of the standards applied to scientific papers 
>  in physics.  I do not use my own arbitrary standards, I use those 
>  commonly applied within physics.  And if, as I said earlier, you 
>  wish to discuss the philosophy and practices of science, that would 
>  be better done in sci.physics than here. 
To quote Reagan, "There you go again --" YOUR ARBITRARY STANDARD (at least
the one you've come up with today) is that if YOU see me on the rolls of
the APS, with some FREQUENCY determined by YOU, then YOU would rethink YOUR
standard.  You don't see anything the teensy-weensiest bit arbitrary about
that?
A few days ago you WERE saying that I had to had to make observations of
nuclear phenomena in order for you to change the way you think about me. 
TODAY, I've got to be in YOUR memory as having been published in Physical
Review (or whatever) before I can legitimately criticize you.
Are you so blind you can't even see your own hypocrisy?
-k.

Aadu Pilt  wrote in article
<58d5mt$4tt@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
> So are you saying, Karim (and of course you will say that you are not) 
> that just because we have never seen objects fall "up" is no reason to 
> try the experiment again?  
Well, you're already wrong, because that's what I AM saying.  The moment
you tell yourself you KNOW things like "objects never fall 'up'" is the
moment you stop being a good scientist, IMHO.  Of course you would be
stupid NOT to say "It's unlikely that things fall up" or "It has never been
observed before that things fall up."
Suppose you're in an airplane doing acrobatic maneuvers and you observe
something to fall "up."  YOU, of course, would say that things don't fall
"up" and therefore there's no need to investigate further.  A SCIENTIST,
IMHO, would try to repeat the observation, and make careful note of the
conditions.  As a result, we might modify what we think of as "up" or as
"gravity" or as "falling" or as "objects."  This would lead us to a Greater
Understanding of Things.  YOUR approach leads to close-mindedness and
orthodoxy.  "Scientific fundamentalism," if you will.
> Experimental science is founded on replication. A single observation, if 
> unconfirmed, especially if unconfirmed by repeated observations, is 
> usually relegated to the rubbish bin. 
I agree in general.  The problem is that people will have differences about
what constitutes a "single" observation, a "valid" observation, a
"confirmed" observation, and the word "usually."
I hope you will agree that the selling of the CETI kits is a good thing all
around as it will allow many independent parties to either confirm or deny
what CETI claims is going on inside their device.
> That's how science works. I DON'T CARE whether you like it or not, and 
> I'm NOT saying that you have no right to your opinion, but "them's the 
> breaks".
Glad to see you're so open-minded about this, too.    Like I said,
I agree with you in general, but I think we disagree about specifics where
c.f. is concerned.
> Science has, over 400+ years, worked like this. Mistakes may have been 
> made. But in the long run, we know what's right and what's wrong.
MAY have been made?  You and I know differently.  But "history teaches us
that man learns nothing from history," so... *sigh*
> At the moment, many of us think "CF" is wrong. We may be wrong, and CF 
> may in fact exist. So far, we're not convinced. For me to jump on to a 
> chimeral bandwagon would be to reject science.
> 
> "I wouldn't send a yeller dog to a dog pound on this here now evidence" 
> [Anatomy of a Murder]
You're ripping up a straw man.  I have never told anyone "CF" *definitely*
exists and they should believe it.  If anyone had bothered to ASK me (which
just goes to show how LITTLE INQUIRY and how MUCH ASSUMPTION goes on this
newsgroup) I might have said that I'm not "convinced" EITHER.  But I do
think there have been enough "interesting" observations made to justify
further inquiry.  This is apparently enough to generate OUTRAGE and AD
HOMINEMS from people who ARE convinced that "objects do not fall 'up.'"
If you are CONVINCED that ALL of the "CF" observations represent a
"chimeral bandwagon," then for you to "jump on it" WOULD be to reject
science.  No one should commit what THEY see as intellectual suicide.  I
just think that refusing to see what *IS* there is as much intellectual
suicide as seeing things that aren't.
> And I wouldn't bet a hat on CF on the evidence I've seen to date!
I suppose it is a good thing that the progress of science does not depend
on the either of us betting our clothes.
-k.

Jim Carr  wrote in article
<589oou$dg4@news.fsu.edu>...
>  When Karim chooses to address the science issues in my articles, 
>  or those of others, we can continue this discussion.  The level 
>  of paranoia in Karim's articles -- shouting just because I have 
>  made simple observations that someone who was actively following 
>  this discussion for 7 years would not make the elementary mistakes 
>  we have seen -- suggests it is better to let him talk to himself 
Seen in your posts?
Gee, I didn't realize you were also a psychologist.  Since when is shouting
tantamount to a diagnosis of paranoia?  Last time I checked, not having a
handle on REALITY was a better indication of pathology -- which would make
you infinitely more likely for that diagnosis.  I think that YOU should
seriously consider whether ALL CAPS is the same as SHOUTING.    I
would post in a larger point size font, in order to hammer a point into
your skull, but most newsreaders don't support HTML yet.
>  a'la Rothwell.  This group is concerns the physics of fusion, so, 
>  Karim, if you have something scientific to contribute to the 
>  discussion of what is and is not in Miley's data, please do so. 
Like I said, TAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ADVICE: "talk science or go away."  When
YOU have something scientific to contribute, instead of asking people how
long they've been "actively involved," whether they contributed to the
Droege cause, and whether or not they've been published in Physical Review
as much as you, THEN please do so.
Unfortunately this group has VERY little to do with the physics of fusion
thanks to assholes like you who drove all of the open-minded people to
start their own mailing list.
What goes around comes around, Jim.
-k.

Arthur Carlson TOK (carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
[...]
Art is doing his level best to drag me, kicking and screaming if need
be, into this thread.  I'm writing up my comments to K and D's Montreal
IAEA paper in a careful and systematic way (no, I am not in any way an
official referee of it), and do not wish to be premature.
I'm pretty surprised at the matter appearing in Science already since it
is presumably still in peer review, but I've learned privately that this
did _not_ take place at K and D's initiative.  It is a weird issue,
because if I were in their shoes I wouldn't have known what to do.
More later...
--
Mach's gut!                                    Bombed in her own car, 
Bruce Scott                            then accused by the FBI of doing it, 
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik        will Judi receive justice?
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de            --> http://connix.com/~harry/judi-com.htm

[porat's pompous geometric handwaving about ``decoding the exact
Nuclear structure of all the Nucleii in the Periodic table'' deleted]
Your ``theory'' reminds me of Kepler's attempts to determine the radii
of the planetary orbits from the archimedean solids, or ``decode'' their 
motions to yield the ``music of the spheres'' in the following sense:
Kepler was barking up the wrong tree, then, too...
Most of us have probably ignored your tinkertoy-molecule-like ``theory'' 
of ``nucleii'' [sic] because we recognize that it's basically NONSENSE.
BTW, Mendeleev's periodic table has NOTHING to do with the table of
the nuclides; the former involves the order in which ELECTRONS fill
up the orbital-shells of atoms --- the latter has to do with the
number of protons and neutrons in stable atomic NUCLEI.
If you are so ignorant that you do not understand the difference
between an ELECTRON and a NUCLEON, I =VERY= much doubt that you have
=ANY= ``information'' worth ``passing on'' to us --- or anyone ELSE,
for that matter... :-(
--  Gordon D. Pusch   
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...

Robin van Spaandonk is now trying to maintain two totally
contradictory positions simultaneously with respect to the
possible mechanisms for massive transmutation reactions.
At least we agree that the energy required to disassemble
nuclei to form some sort of "nuclear soup" simply is not
available.  I believe we just have to understand that anything
of that sort is totally out of the question.  If we can
bury just one such silly notion permanently I would count that
as real progress.
Now that we are, once again, focusing on what I would call
nuclear rearrangements in which all the ingredients for the
formation of a given final nuclear reaction product must be
in one place at one time, we can look at the most obvious
limitations that requirement places on the possible outcomes.
We are back to counting marbles!
So Robin, are you actually serious about making lead out of
nickel and 96 deuterons?  If so how do you propose to
eliminate the product of nickel and 95 deuterons or nickel
and 94 deuterons or nickel and 93 deuterons?  Of course we
have already noted that your proposed combination does not
lead to lead.  It results in something very unstable,
As I have suggested, you appear to have some difficulty counting
marbles.
Dick Blue

Harry Johnston suggests that I (and others) are argueing from
ignorance because we suggest that certain unobserved things
are impossible.
Perhaps, Harry, I have simply underestimated your level of
ignorance so that a perfectly logical assertion on my part
just passes you by.
Let us bring one of the wilder assertions that has been
tossed out here into perspective to see if we can set you
straight.  Robin van Spaandonk suggested that there could
be a spontaneous nuclear reaction involving a nickel nucleus
and 96 deuterons in the initial state.  When I say, "No that
is not possible", you suggest that I am totally ignorant with
regard to such possibilities.
Harry, I claim some minimum understanding of the way in
which probabilites combine.  On that basis alone I assert
that the probability for a nickel nucleus to interact similtaneously
with two deuterons is less than the probability for interaction
with a single deuteron.  This line of reasoning can be extended
clear up to 96 deuterons, and at no point can one reasonably
expect that increasing the complexity of the interaction will
result in a higher probability.
Now what part of that argument would you say reflects my
ignorance?
Dick Blue

"Karim Alim"  writes:
>
>If you reach a CONCLUSION about someone's MOTIVATION for doing something,
>it is not substantively different from MIND-READING.  
>Are you so blind you can't even see your own hypocrisy?
 Read what you wrote, and think about what basis you have for judging 
 my motivation for considering the possibility of errors in Miley's 
 data that were not addressed by Miley, and your refusal to discuss 
 those errors and/or blind acceptance of those data as printed. 
 Now, please discuss the physics or go back and lurk for seven more years.
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

"Karim Alim"  quotes without context:
>
>>  What electrochemistry argues against this? 
>
>Probably the same one that allows a block of silver to pass through a block
>of nickel and not leave a trace in the nickel.
 Could you show me in the Miley data where it indicates that all of 
 silver is below all of the nickel?  The table in his paper shows 
 them always intermixed. 
>>  For that matter, how can transmutation explain that there are more 
>>  atoms of *everything* afterwards than before? 
>
>I don't know what you mean by "everything" 
 Everything except Nickel, which does not appear in the SIMS table. 
 However, since Table 4a shows more Ni after than before (and a 
 positive value for mass/MS for every element), it would appear 
 that there is more of every element afterwards than before the 
 experiment started.  In his emphasis on production rates, Miley 
 seems to have not commented on what was consumed. 
> I don't think anyone is
>proposing that matter is being created from nothing.  
 I am just looking at the data. 
> Looking for fusion is
>trying to define a process we don't understand in terms of a process we do
>understand.  
 I am glad you agree that we do understand fusion.  That places 
 severe constraints on whether nuclear reactions are taking place 
 in the Miley apparatus.  
> Depending on who you talk to, what experiment they performed,
>what batch of Pd they used,
 Miley is not using Pd in these experiments. 
>>  You should feel the urge to ask, "Why just Ag-107 and Ag-109?  If the 
>>  small excess of Ag-107 is real, why don't you see Ag-108?" 
>
>I do!  I agree with you on that point.  I have no idea what the answer is,
>though.
 That means you should think harder about it, and about the fact 
 that Miley did not even consider it important to a possible fusion 
 or transmutation hypothesis.  I did not find it mentioned at all. 
>I heard that Miley estimated the amount of Ag as 10x what could have been
>accounted for by contamination.  
 There is Ag in the original MS, and 10x as much in the reacted ones. 
 However, the analysis was applied to a selected sample, not every 
 sphere, so there is no way to know if migration was involved.  In 
 addition, the amount of Cd is similar to the amount of Ag, so if the 
 fraction of a microgram of Cd came from outside, so could the Ag. 
 These large quantities are particularly challenging to explain because 
 neither are energetically favored.  Yet the isotopic composition is 
 not similarly out of line with natural abundances to indicate an 
 unnatural origin of the Ag or Cd, where production mechanisms proposed 
 would not be expected to favor the beta-stable isotopes. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>
> I used the published atomic
>masses of the before and after products in order to obtain my net
>zero "release" energy.  
 When I read your original comments along this line, I had not had a 
 chance to look at Miley's paper.  According to your calculations, 
 John, which elements should have been consumed to produce the products? 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

msimon@rworld.com (M Simon) writes:
} 
}      If there was as much to cold fusion as there is to ceramic
}  superconductors we should have seen convincing scientific and
}  engineering results by now.
jgraber@daldd.sc.ti.com writes:
>
>I'm trying to find some interpretation of "was as much to" that
>still leaves the door open for "there might be something here."
>but it is a struggle.  
 It definitely leaves the door ajar, but it also defines the expectations 
 one has for a description of the phenomena.  With high-TC superconductors 
 there was a unique signal (the Meissner effect) and a reproducible 
 recipe even though there is still no theory more than eight years later. 
>How about 'If it was as easy to duplicate CF as ceramic superconductors..."
 I would say the challenge is to define the phenomena, since only then 
 can it be duplicated. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Jim Carr  wrote: 
| 
|  >Does the phrase "statistically significant" mean anything to you? 
|  >"Sample size," maybe?
|  
|   Yes.  Do you think it might be relevant to whether the other isotopes 
|   of Si would be found in the SIMS data? 
"Karim Alim"  writes:
>
>Let me get this straight -- we were talking about whether ONE data point
>could be used to generalize an entire field of research, and you ask
>whether "sample size" is relevant to the isotopes of Si... ???  
 We were talking about the uncertainties in the Miley data.  That 
 applies to any of the individual cases we might choose to look at, 
 either the Si isotopes from the SIMS analysis, or the Ag isotopes 
 from the NAA analysis, or any others.  
 The generalization from one data point is what we see in the Miley 
 tables, since that is what he presents even though he writes that 
 he made other runs that gave values differing by as much as 10% 
 from those tabluated.  A normal procedure would be to report an 
 average and an error bar from those multiple measurements. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, the only other evidence I can come up with
>that multiple nuclei in a lattice sometimes behave as though they were a
>single nucleus is the Moessbauer effect.
 This makes a good point of departure for nuclear/lattice interactions. 
 Notice that the reaction is an ordinary one involving only two bodies, 
 and that the recoil momentum is shared ... and that the energy involved 
 is very small. 
>Yes, I am aware of some people looking for x-rays. However if you could
>point me to a report where these were sought but not found,
 Miley looked for them.  Not with the most sensitive detectors, but 
 he did look. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Jim Carr  wrote:
| 
|   Sorry to burst your little bubble, but it was not "someone" who "talked"
|   about kilowatt output.  It was CETI who held a public demonstration 
|   of that heat output and claimed, equally publicly, to have independent 
|   experimental support for a huge ratio of output over input. 
"Karim Alim"  writes:
>
>You are now hallucinating little bubbles that don't exist.  I never said
>that CETI never claimed kilowatt output.  
 Karim said "someone talked about" that level of heat.  Attributing 
 the claim to a vague someone when we were talking about the claims 
 made by CETI is the same as denying CETI made it. 
>In fact, CETI's claim of kilowatt output is still on their web page:
 Yep. 
>So, I ask, as I asked many posts ago, how long do they have to come up with
>a device?  
 They claimed, and apparently still claim, that they have one that puts 
 out a kilowatt, 1000 times more power than they put in. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
>
>The radial dependence of the nuclear potential has been determined
>experimentally, based upon high energy particle interactions.
 This is a significant overgeneralization of what has been done.  
 The energy dependence of the nuclear potential has been studied 
 very carefully down to thermal energies with excellent empirical 
 descriptions of same for decades.  
>In "nuclear soup" (low energy interactions) this dependence changes
>drastically. 
 No, the potential does not have a radical energy dependence at low 
 energies (say from 50 MeV down to bound states).  There is a smooth 
 variation from bound to low E scattering energies. 
>The Breit-Wigner formula for cross-section resonance of low
>energy neutrons is a strong indicator or this. Here the De Broglie
>wavelength plays a critical role. In other words, the range of the nuclear
>force is determined by the De Broglie wavelength. 
 No.  The wavelength associated with the nucleon wavefunction is 
 what determines how the particle overlaps with the potential -- and 
 you must use the local energy self-consistently when doing so. 
 That is, the wavelength is not constant over all space so it only 
 makes sense to talk about asymptotic variables and one must look 
 at the entire wavefunction rather than a single wavelength.  
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

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
     
     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
     
   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      () 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:
 
 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:
    
  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

I wrote:
> > The 14 MeV neutrons have enough energy to push the
> >238U over the
> >fission barrier of about 2 MeV that  prevents 238U being useful in a
> >regular fission bomb.
> 
> Paul Deitz wrote:
>
> Is this really the way it works?  I'd have thought that the fusionable
> fuel was dense enough to thermalize most of the neutrons, or at least
> get them to deposit much of their energy.
The neutrons are certainly not thermalized. That takes of the order
of a millisecond and about a hundred or so collsions. A bomb 
"disassembles" in a few microseconds. There's not time for
thermalization.
>  Instead, I thought the
> neutron flux was so high that one got two neutron captures on U238,
> first producing U239, then fissioning the U239 (which, having an odd
> number of neutrons, should have no fission threshold).  It is a
> well-known fact that the H-bomb tests were the first sources of some
> of the higher transuranic elements (einsteinium?), so multiple neutron
> captures on some component did occur.
> 
I'm not a nuclear weapons designer, (I'm sure they wouldn't be
allowed to contribute to this discussion!) I only go on what I've read
and know about nuclear physics. I belive that cross sections for the
reactions are such that the majority of the energy release comes from
fast neutron induced fission on the 238U casing. However given the
enormous neutron flux, I wouldn't at all surprised if there were
mulitple neutron captures on the 238U leading to trans-Uranics.
Martin Sevior

Karim Alim (karim.alim@mci.com) wrote:
: I think that YOU should
: seriously consider whether ALL CAPS is the same as SHOUTING.    
Well, it's been that way for at least 15 years.  But it's not so much
the ALL CAPS being seen as SHOUTING as that when you intersperse all
caps at random intervals in your posts, a lot of people are going to
sit there and think "un-ALTERED reproduction of this IMPORTANT information
is ENCOURAGED."
-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."