Re: [Vo]:Crossties on Mars
On Dec 26, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Yes, it looks like the bottom of a 5 gal gas can. I wonder what is just over the hill? :-) Terry Railroad tracks I assume. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Crossties on Mars
Yes, it looks like the bottom of a 5 gal gas can. I wonder what is just over the hill? :-) Terry On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> Well they *look* like crossties: >> >> http://thecrit.com/2008/08/05/nasa-mars-photo-leaked-wood-found-on-mars/ >> >> Terry > > Take a look at an original photo at: > > http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/119/1N138745027EFF2809P1987R0M1.HTML > > http://tinyurl.com/2wdbqr > > Which is enlarged at: > > http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/119/1N138745027EFF2809P1987R0M1.JPG > > http://tinyurl.com/9z9wm6 > > Note the shiny object up on the hillside. A clip of it enclosed. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Magnetized Target Fusion
Yes, Horace, I read that; but, in baseball, a batting average of 300 is considered good. Terry On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> General Fusion offers a twist on LANL's research by using spherical >> force focusing reminiscent of Fat Man's explosives: >> >> http://www.popsci.com/node/3051 > > If you continue reading the article to here you find a most provocative > statement: > > http://www.popsci.com/node/30516?page=2 > > "Two things have conspired to hamper evolutionary leaps in peacetime fusion > research. The first is bad press. To the great frustration of people like > Laberge and Richardson, fusion's good name has been besmirched by a handful > of highly publicized failures, most prominently the cold-fusion experiments > of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann and the "bubble fusion" experiments > Rusi Taleyarkhan conducted at Purdue University. Pons and Fleischmann > announced in 1986 that they had achieved fusion at room temperature, but > later review showed that faulty equipment had failed to accurately measure > the results. The U.S. Department of Energy all but called them frauds. In > 2002, Taleyarkhan published a paper stating that he had used ultrasonic > vibrations to make bubbles in a liquid solvent and that, when the bubbles > collapsed, they had created fusion. His results, too, would later be > discredited, and last year he was stripped of his university chair." > > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Crossties on Mars
On Dec 26, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Well they *look* like crossties: http://thecrit.com/2008/08/05/nasa-mars-photo-leaked-wood-found-on- mars/ Terry Take a look at an original photo at: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/ 119/1N138745027EFF2809P1987R0M1.HTML http://tinyurl.com/2wdbqr Which is enlarged at: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/ 119/1N138745027EFF2809P1987R0M1.JPG http://tinyurl.com/9z9wm6 Note the shiny object up on the hillside. A clip of it enclosed. <> Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Where is the Mills discussion group? And CMNS?
There were posts on SCQM as recently as a week ago & the moderator said he was going to be away for the holidays so I believe it is still a working forum. Ron --On Friday, December 26, 2008 2:30 PM -0500 Terry Blanton wrote: Randell's yahoo group, SCQM, no longer exists. I am not aware of a condensed matter group on either yahoo or google. Terry On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Where is the sign-up information for the Mills discussion group? Someone asked me this. I do not know, and I am not interested in joining, but I would like to have this information on file. I do not even know the name of it . . . Also, how & where do you sign up for the CMNS group? The messages say they are from "c...@googlegroups.com" but I do not find anything about it at Google. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Magnetized Target Fusion
On Dec 26, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: General Fusion offers a twist on LANL's research by using spherical force focusing reminiscent of Fat Man's explosives: http://www.popsci.com/node/3051 If you continue reading the article to here you find a most provocative statement: http://www.popsci.com/node/30516?page=2 "Two things have conspired to hamper evolutionary leaps in peacetime fusion research. The first is bad press. To the great frustration of people like Laberge and Richardson, fusion's good name has been besmirched by a handful of highly publicized failures, most prominently the cold-fusion experiments of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann and the "bubble fusion" experiments Rusi Taleyarkhan conducted at Purdue University. Pons and Fleischmann announced in 1986 that they had achieved fusion at room temperature, but later review showed that faulty equipment had failed to accurately measure the results. The U.S. Department of Energy all but called them frauds. In 2002, Taleyarkhan published a paper stating that he had used ultrasonic vibrations to make bubbles in a liquid solvent and that, when the bubbles collapsed, they had created fusion. His results, too, would later be discredited, and last year he was stripped of his university chair." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Where is the Mills discussion group? And CMNS?
Thanks, Terry! No comment on the content, but I must say the forum.hydrino.org discussion group layout is pretty good. It is spare and clean, with a Google search function at the top. The CMNS group is around somewhere, I think. Unlike the hydrino.org group, they keep themselves secret. That's a shame. As I said to Steve Krivit here, that is their right, but I think it is a dumb thing to do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Where is the Mills discussion group? And CMNS?
I see that googlegroups can be totally private: Choose an Access level Public - Anyone can read the archives. Anyone can join, but only members can post messages, view the members list, create pages and upload files. Announcement-only - Anyone can read the archives. Anyone can join, but only managers can post messages, view the members list, create pages and upload files. Restricted - People must be invited to join the group. Only members can post messages, read the archives, view the members list, create pages and upload files. Your group and its archives do not appear in public Google search results or the directory. You do see several references to the c...@googlegroups.com private group on a general web search. And I think SK recenly discussed this on this list. Terry On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > The hydrino yahoo group has just recently moved to: > > http://forum.hydrino.org/ > > and at last check, they had not moved the archives but there are a few > new posts. Randell's yahoo group, SCQM, no longer exists. > > I am not aware of a condensed matter group on either yahoo or google. > > Terry > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> Where is the sign-up information for the Mills discussion group? Someone >> asked me this. I do not know, and I am not interested in joining, but I >> would like to have this information on file. I do not even know the name of >> it . . . >> >> Also, how & where do you sign up for the CMNS group? The messages say they >> are from "c...@googlegroups.com" but I do not find anything about it at >> Google. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Where is the Mills discussion group? And CMNS?
The hydrino yahoo group has just recently moved to: http://forum.hydrino.org/ and at last check, they had not moved the archives but there are a few new posts. Randell's yahoo group, SCQM, no longer exists. I am not aware of a condensed matter group on either yahoo or google. Terry On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Where is the sign-up information for the Mills discussion group? Someone > asked me this. I do not know, and I am not interested in joining, but I > would like to have this information on file. I do not even know the name of > it . . . > > Also, how & where do you sign up for the CMNS group? The messages say they > are from "c...@googlegroups.com" but I do not find anything about it at > Google. > > - Jed > >
[Vo]:Where is the Mills discussion group? And CMNS?
Where is the sign-up information for the Mills discussion group? Someone asked me this. I do not know, and I am not interested in joining, but I would like to have this information on file. I do not even know the name of it . . . Also, how & where do you sign up for the CMNS group? The messages say they are from "c...@googlegroups.com" but I do not find anything about it at Google. - Jed
[Vo]:Crossties on Mars
Well they *look* like crossties: http://thecrit.com/2008/08/05/nasa-mars-photo-leaked-wood-found-on-mars/ Terry
[Vo]:Magnetized Target Fusion
General Fusion offers a twist on LANL's research by using spherical force focusing reminiscent of Fat Man's explosives: http://www.popsci.com/node/30516 "The source of endless energy for all humankind resides just off Government Street in Burnaby, British Columbia, up the little spit of blacktop on Bonneville Place and across the parking lot from Shade-O-Matic blind manufacturers and wholesalers. The future is there, in that mostly empty office with the vomit-green walls -- and inside the brain of Michel Laberge, 47, bearded and French-Canadian. According to a diagram, printed on a single sheet of white paper and affixed with tape to a dusty slab of office drywall, his vision looks like a medieval torture device: a metal ball surrounded on all sides by metal rods and bisected by two long cylinders. It's big but not immense -- maybe 10 times as tall as the little robot man in the lower right corner of the page who's there to indicate scale. What Laberge has set out to build in this office park, using $2 million in private funding and a skeletal workforce, is a nuclear-fusion power plant. The idea seems nuts but is actually, he says, not at all far-fetched. Yes, he'll admit, fusion is generally considered the kind of nearly impossible challenge undertaken only by huge universities or governments. Yes, fusion has a stigma to overcome; the image that it is fundamentally bogus, always and forever 20 years away, certainly doesn't help. Laberge would probably even admit that the idea of some Canadians working in a glorified garage conquering one of the most ambitious problems in physics sounds absurd. But he will also tell you that his twist on a method known as magnetized target fusion, or MTF -- to wildly oversimplify, a process in which plasma (ionized gas) trapped by a magnetic field is rapidly compressed to create fusion -- will, in fact, work because it is relatively cheap and scalable. Give his team six to 10 years and a few hundred million dollars, he says, and his company, General Fusion, will give you a nuclear-fusion power plant." And from their web site: http://www.generalfusion.com/t4_mtf.php "Magnetized Target Fusion MTF is a fusion approach that is in between magnetized fusion (MF) and inertial confinement (ICF). In MF the plasma density is very low (1014 particles/cm2) so the fusion rate is slow and the plasma must be contained for many seconds in order to make more energy than initially invested in heating the plasma. This is hard because the very hot plasma tends to twist and escape the magnetic field. In ICF the plasma density is 1000 times the density of a solid (1025 particules/cm2). The reaction rate is enormous and the fusion energy is released in ~1 nanosecond. That is faster than the time for the plasma to cool down even if there is no attempt at preventing the heat from escaping. The problem here is that a lot of energy must be crammed in a very small spot, and in a very short time to achieve these conditions. The energy driver to do that (laser, particle beam) is difficult. In MTF a relatively cold plasma with an embedded electrical current is generated inside a conductive cavity. The electric current produces a magnetic field that helps confining the plasma in a similar way to MF. The cavity is then rapidly collapsed like in ICF. Because the magnetic field cannot penetrate the conductive wall, the plasma is compressed and heated to thermonuclear conditions. Because of the magnetic field the heat does not escape as fast as ICF so the compression can be slower and the peak density can be less (~1020 particles/cm2). Yet this density is one million times more than MF so the magnetic configuration must keep the heat for only 1 microsecond; a much easier task than MF. The slower rate of compression and larger plasma considerably relax the peak power and focus of the energy driver allowing a simpler, cheaper system to be used. Los Alamos National Lab in the US is working on MTF. In their approach, the cavity is a metal tube and it is collapsed by passing a large electrical current in it. The current reacts with the induced magnetic field to produce a force that crushes the tube." LANL's MTF web site: http://wsx.lanl.gov/mtf.html
