Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_347.ZIP/V9_347

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sYDNOPy00UkZIH7E50>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 01:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <AYDNOBy00UkZIH5U4=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  8 Apr 89 01:20:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #347

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 347

Today's Topics:
        Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed
           Re: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST
             Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
               Re: Bored public
        Cold Fusion Power: Too Cheap to Meter?
    4th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling - Call for Papers
               Re: Bored public
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 20:00:46 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot![e-mail]  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Fusion Discovery Tentatively Confirmed

This morning's issue of the Wall Street Journal carries an article
which indicates that scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
has *tentatively* [ my emphasis ] confirmed the discovery of room temperature
fusion by Jones, Palmer, et.al. at Brigham Young.

"We're not absolutely certain" ... but they detected fusion generated
neutrons that are consistent with the Brigham Young result.
[ the Brigham Young group claims results that are significantly more
  modest than those claimed by Pons and Fleischmann... ]

This represents the first reported U.S. confirmation of the cold
fusion phenomenon;  Csikai and Sztaricskai at Debrecen (Hungary)
reported that they reproduced the phenomenon on 31 March 1989.
To date, no US laboratories have reported replication of the more
controversial Fleischmann-Ponds experiment.
A researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Labs says that if the finding is
confirmed "It would be the most significant discovery since fire."
(of course the local news media will report it in their "Money" segment
 and complain that it might put a few people out of work :-)

The Fleischmann-Ponds experiment remains controversial, and a good many
reputable scientists are skeptical;  one is quoted as saying:
    "Who knows, maybe Pons and Fleischmann have invented
     the worlds most interesting battery"

The Wall Street Journal article is *must* reading (on page B4).


--Emmett
    J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
    [e-mail];   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 06:45:50 GMT
From: jumbo![e-mail]  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST

Henry Spencer writes:
>
>   [Congress, of course, is also the bunch that is constantly
>   harping on how expensive the space station is getting.
>   Parochial pork-barrel projects like this are a significant
>   reason.]

Congress, of course, is also the bunch that was told that the Space
Station was going to cost $8 billion, approved it, and soon afterwards
was told that the real cost was more like $30 billion.

                Jorge Stolfi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Certain cannonades in the Civil War had cost one thousand dollars a
  shot.  President Barbicane's shot, unique in the annals of gunnery,
  might cost five thousand times as much.
      --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: yes.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 04:22:08 GMT
From: sgi!daisy![e-mail]  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mikael Lerner) writes:
< In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
< > <Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
< > <hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
< > <and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that
< > <he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
< > <his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.
< >
< > As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly
< > this topic.  The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough
< > to make the well viable at this time.  They said that the gas
< > had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
< > didn't explain how they had verified this.
<
<     Please, notice the word 'digging'! The drill hasn't stopped
<     yet! Almost a kilometer of drilling remains. The goal is
<     7500 m, where the large amounts of gas is thought to be found.

 When do they expect to finish the hole? Are they finding more/less
 gas/oil than expected? Sources?

 m wooding

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 19:35:12 GMT
From: psivax!quad1!ttidca![e-mail]  (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Armstrong SOFT) writes:
}... Just buy the wife a lead jacket when she does the laundry in the
}basement in case those nasty radioactive stuff happens to leak.

First, there's nothing radioactive to leak.  The working fluids are all
quite safe.  Only the shielding will become radioactive, if there's
significant neutron emission.

Second, why put one in the basement?  I'd expect mine to be buried a ways
down under my back yard.

}Why do you think it would be more efficient to produce your own electricity
}instead of buying it from utilities?? What would be the cost of such system,
}$5,000 sounds realistic. ...

That's about what I cost it out to.  I'd cheerfully pay $5000 to be energy
independent.

}... How about maintanence cost, $500 per year. ...

A quart of heavy water has enough energy to power my house for the rest of
my life and beyond.  The only moving parts are in the generator (probably
a stirling cycle engine.  Steam turbines aren't efficient enough at that
scale).  Under current law, the utilities are required to buy any excess
power I can generate and put on the grid.  I'll bet I can break even on
maintenance just doing that.

}... What about
}the radioactive waste, I guess we could water the lawn with it.  This is
}reality.

What radioactive waste?  The inside of some of the shielding may get a
little hot, assuming neutron emission is a problem, but it's several feet
of solid lead and reinforced concrete, buried under ground.  The working
fluids pose no hazard.  If (worst case) an earthquake breaks the whole
thing open I'll have a nasty, expensive clean up job (for which I'll carry
insurance), but the general environment won't be damaged.

--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, [e-mail])  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   [phone], x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 05:55:33 GMT
From: pyramid!nsc![e-mail]  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott Hess) writes:
> The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology,
> and towards use of it. [...]
> I see it all the time (tendency away from technology). Anything
> having to do with physics, computers, or math is viewed with distaste
> by many, many people. The fear of math is going to kill us. [..]

This started in the sixties, where emphasis on introspection and subjectivity
was paramount. I think the tendency is not directly Luddite, but more a
desire to balance. As numerous examples illustrate, the leverage of the
modern technology toolkit allows a few people to cause (wreak) enormous
effect on the surroundings - latest example being one man in Alaska.

This "out-of-controlness" is emphasised by the accelerating growth of new
technology and understanding thereof, and the increasing hopelessness of
closing the chasm between 1st and 3rd world nations under this scenario.

All this doesn't deeply worry me (mainly because I'm a 1st-worlder maybe!)
since, as this half-century is unprecedented technologically, it's to be
expected that vast upheavals and irrational, unsettled responses will
exist. The state of change is unlikely to change, but rather augment;
so we'd better get used to confusion - including Crystal Strokers.
Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the
'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people.....
=====
Andrew Palfreyman         USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788         there's many a slip
                            'twixt cup and lip

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
ReSent-Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 08:45:36 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
ReSent-To: Space <[e-mail]>
Date:    Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:58:19 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cold Fusion Power: Too Cheap to Meter?
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"[e-mail]"

    We won't know for sure about this "cold" fusion stuff till the paper
is published in May, but the possibilities seem so exciting, I decided to
do some research and some back of the envelope calculations to try to get
a realistic handle on the meaning of this thing, to whit:

      1 electron volt (ev) = 4.5e-26 kilowatt-hour
      1 D-D reaction = about 4 Mev = about 1.8e-19 kw-h
      My household average monthly energy consumption = about 1000 kw-h
      1e3/1.8e-19 = about 6e21, or .01 gram-mole of D-D reactions

    We need two D nuclei per reaction, so 40 milligrams of D will serve
me for a month.  There are about 1000 months in 83 years, so in a
lifetime I would probably use 40 grams of D, or about 200 grams of D2O,
an amount which can be found in about 1000Kg of water, which is 1 cubic
meter, or about 250 gallons in non-SI units.
    Convenient that it works out to such nice round numbers, isn't it? Of
course, I've put a little slop in my calc's, and I'm assuming 100%
efficiency, but my figures are in the ballpark (I think).  Also,
according to Tim Reynolds' article in SPACE_DIGEST V9 #334, there are
other reactions going on that generate more heat than the D-D reactions.

    So what'll this do to your monthly electricity bill?  About ten years
ago, the closed-market price of D2O was about $230/Kg, which brings my
per month cost to about 5 cents.  The D2O market is closed because the
U.S. doesn't want D2O to be readily available since heavy water fission
reactors can be used to make plutonium.  I don't know how much Pd would
be used.

    As for bombs, this thing could probably help a medium-sized nation
transmute U238 to Pu, and the tritium could be used to make fusion
enhanced weapons, where tritium and other things are used to produce
enough neutrons to considerably reduce the amount of Pu required for
criticality.  A U238 reflector around such a device would be transumted
to Pu and add to the explosive power as well.  All this might be a little
sophisticated for Libya, but maybe Argentina?


----
"Pave Paradise,                |         Dale M. Greer
     put up a parking lot."        |   Center for Space Sciences
        -- Joni Mitchell    | University of Texas at Dallas
                    | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 16:24:55 GMT
From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: 4th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling - Call for Papers


I have been asked to post this (do not respond to me):
From: "Kurt E. Brassel" <[e-mail]>


                        Call for Papers

       4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling
       ----------------------------------------------------

                       July 23-27, 1990
                      Zurich, Switzerland


The 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling will be held at
the University of Zurich, Switzerland. As its predecessors this
interdisciplinary meeting is sponsored by the Commission on Geographic
Information Systems of the International Geographical Union and will
emphasize research issues rather than applications. The conference will
focus on the following topics:

   - Algorithms and data models for applications in
            computational geometry
            spatial knowledge representation
            spatial decision analysis
            automatic recognition of spatial structures
            digital surface modelling
            handling and representation of space-time data
            cartographic visualization and generalization
   - Spatial languages and user interfaces
   - System design and architectures for data integration
   - Amplified intelligence concepts for spatial data handling
   - Spatial data handling approaches for alternative system
     architectures (neural nets, parallel processing).


The official language of the meeting will be English. The conference
will consist of sessions with presentations of approx. 20 minutes; a few
selected papers of special merit will be given 30 minutes of time and
will be the subject of prepared discussion. Researchers are invited to
submit abstracts of 500-700 words length to the organizing committee no
later than October 1, 1989. Abstracts must carry the full name and
mailing address of the author(s), and possibly an electronic mail
address. The abstracts will be evaluated by an international program
committee. Persons submitting abstracts will be notified of the decision
of the committee no later than December 15, 1989 and final papers will
be required in camera-ready form no later than April 1, 1990. The number
of participants to the conference will be restricted; active
participants will be given priority.


Abstracts and inquiries should be directed to:

Professor Kurt Brassel
Geographisches Institut        Telephone: [phone]
Universitaet Zuerich           Telefax:   0041-1-257 4004
Winterthurerstrasse 190        e-mail:    [e-mail]
CH-8057 Zuerich, Switzerland


P.S. Due to technical reasons we had to resubmit this shipping.
     Sorry, if we have bothered you twice. We appreciate any further
     distribution of this announcement.
Acknowledge-To: <K505820@CZHRZU1A>

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 14:03:20 GMT
From: mfci![e-mail]  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Bored public

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Hess) writes:
>and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
>Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
>unworthy of talking about.

An explosion no, but the chances of a meltdown were quite good. Most average
folks are pretty well informed that an explosion isn't the real danger
after seeing the "china syndrome", which broke at around the same time.

If you've ever read the transcript of what took place at TMI
it boggles the mind. The fact that the core was "rubblized" and nothing
worse happened is pretty much blind fate. Lots of stupidity in evidence.

For example, once the core was exposed (water level too low due to
human error) the control rods are exposed to oxygen and started to burn.
Anyone in the control room could have deduced this was happening as the
temperature of the steam in the vessel was superheated. Looking
at the pressure and temp of the steam, and referring to any set of
steam tables would have told them so. Why didn't they pick up on this?
Why, there wasn't anyone in the building, at the time, with more than a
high school education. Also, I don't think there were any
steam tables to be had. (Nor a computer to do it for you.)

Millions of valves, gauges and dials, and not enough neurons to
deal with all that information.

----------------

The point of this reply is actually to underscore my agreement with some
of what you say. But, 3 Mile Island *was* a dangerous fiasco, in my opinion,
because of the moronic engineering for human factors, and the cavalier
attitude toward licensing reactor control room personell. Both however
may have roots in more basic problems.



    Paul K. Rodman
    [e-mail]
    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #347
*******************