1995.01.22 / Alan M /  Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Borrowing a scope from U Ga.
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 18:11:22 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <BGw5JpH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> You
> keep demanding that I spoon feed you information about Griggs. What the hell
> is the matter with you, anyway? If you want to know about his customers, call
> the man up and ask him. Maybe he will tell you and maybe he will not. I have
> no idea how he would respond to nosey, stupid questions from idiots like you.
> If you called me and started poking into my business, I would tell you to
> jump in a lake.

For as long as you continue to spout your anti-scientific crap here and on 
CompuServe, I shall continue to ask you to back up your claims with 
evidence. As often as I know your claims to be downright lies, as here, 
I will continue to let everyone else reading along know what the 
situation really is.

(Remember your claims on sci.skeptic that 'Too Close to the Sun' had caused 
an 'enormous stir' when it was broadcast by the BBC, and that it 'clearly 
demonstrated' that MIT had faked their results? Pity I'm such a fan of 
UK TV science programs, isn't it?)

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Harry Conover /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 22 Jan 1995 03:04:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
: whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.

Interesting.  I was under the impression that electrically fired boilers
converted ALL of the electrical energy to heat (with the possible 
exception of a small IR loss in the wiring).  

Based upon your figures, where does the wasted two-thirds of the 
electrical energy go?

                                   Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 22 Jan 1995 19:34:12 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

:
,<3fmt0u$6qb@borg.svpal.org> <3fnfap$f49@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: 
Distribution: 


>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes: 
> 
> (snip) 
> For the most part I'll discuss general features of neutrino production/ 
> observation at accelerators, but when necessary with an emphasis
> on how things were handled at Fermilab.  Why FNAL? Two reasons: 
> (1) the experiments were more recent and at higher energies (along 
> with a large range of energies) and (2) I'm more familiar with them  
> having been a large contributor to the analysis of E733's 1983 and 
> 1987-8 data sets, as well as knowledgeable about E594's analysis using 
> the same detector in a narrow band beam) . 

Robert, I am pleased that you have hands on experience, and have taken 
the time to share your knowledge of the subject.  

> Now the detector:  our detector was located in historic Lab C .........
> and composed of what one typically finds in electronic (as opposed 
> to Bubble Chamber) detectors. 
> (snip) 
> Explain to me (and everyone here) how one explains the 100000 events 
> I've got on tape that have the characteristics of; 
> * nothing visible coming in the front .....

Yes, I have seen (Experiment E594's) "flash chamber" pictures of the 
proposed "neutral current"  events, and in color!  The theory would have 
us believe that the neutrino can "bounce off" a nucleus, creating a 
shower of particles, and do that within the fiduciary volume of the 
detector!   Whoa!  how likely is this to happen *theoretically*?  What we 
are seeing, most probably, is the reading of the dead time of the first 
group of sandwiches for a particle traversing the chamber just prior to 
turn on.  That is the only possible explanation for getting 100000 
pictures of a *proposed, but unlikely,  neutral current event.

> "Transmute or *knock-on*"?? ........what .....are you talking about here?

Transmute (is the inverse beta decay theory) that has  never been 
irrevocably proved . 

Knock-on is the crazy idea that the (Zo) would transmit the *weak* force 
and cause the neutrino to *bounce* off electrons or quarks, simply 
knocking them into motion as in a game of billiards.  This is what 
Kamiokande II claimed to have seen as *proof* of neutrinos from SN87A.  
But, electrons decay from muons.... and I've got that nice bridge in 
Brooklyn (cheap).

Regards: Tom. 



--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Bernd Meyer /  Re: ideas & copyrights
     
Originally-From: root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 16:59:59 GMT
Organization: Private uucp site lost in the voids of the black
hole Germany is in the Internet

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  Wrong Mr. Kenward. You do not realize how strong the copyright laws
>are.

To be perfectly honest --- neither of you have any clue what the copyright
laws are anywhere outside the US. So please take this to email!

>When someone counterfeits the USA 100 dollar bill, he is duplicating
>the bill and not giving credit to the US govt.

So you say if I make a _real_ copy of a DM 100 bill (which has a 
"(C) Deutsche Bundesbank" on it), I will be fine? Can't wait to get that
colour copier going :-)

Bernie
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenroot cudfnBernd cudlnMeyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 /  ProFusion /  Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
Date: 22 Jan 1995 00:37:16 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

                Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT,
                          21 January 1995
                                 

   Dr. Eugene Mallove organized "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT as an
alumni-sponsored event. Since it's only a two-hour drive to
Cambridge, I drove down, as did Sherry and Wayne Green, the
publisher of *"Cold Fusion."*
   Dr. Mallove began with an address. Those of you that have read
his pieces in *"Cold Fusion"* will know what he said: that cold
fusion is a proven fact, that it presages a revolution in energy
applications, and that it is something worth investing in. Nothing
I quarrel with. I noted that the list of CF-related phenomena in
experimentation had grown somewhat to now include:
     the Pons-Fleischmann method,
     molten salt electrolysis,
     the Randy Mills method,
     glow discharge in D or H gas,
     ultrasonic activation,
     ceramic proton conductors,
     the Piantelli method, hot Ni in hydrogen,
     magnetic field and RF stimulation,
     turbulent activation.
He also said that he presently "tends to believe somewhat" in "Zero
Point Energy, or something like that" as a possible cause for these
phenomena. Please note that this was a very tentative statement.
   Also mentioned was that Piantelli would be publishing a paper
about the discovery of 50 MeV gamma rays.
   Although the announcement in this newsgroup said that the organizers
were "negotiating" for working demo models, I was still disappointed
that none were successfully negotiated.
   
   Dr. Peter Graneau spoke on "Anomalous Forces in Water
Explosions." High-voltage, low-capacitance discharges in water,
lasting 65 microseconds, produced explosive pressures of 20,000
atmospheres, yet no steam nor any significant heating of the water
was produced. One difficulty of the experimentation was that
apparatus tended to be destroyed.
   He showed a photograph of a metal plate used as a distance
marker for a measurement of water projected from a tube by a
discharge. A hole such as that made by a punch press was neatly
punched in it.
   Dr. Graneau went through electrodynamic math to show that
values that should have been .5 were instead around 6000.
   
   A graduate student in propulsion engineering, Buford Ray
Conley, showed an electrolysis cell of his construction that
produced excess heat. With a budget of $500 and a year and a half
of effort, after 15 failures he enjoyed 3 successes and feels he
can now reproduce them reliably. The cathode is of nickel and both
light and heavy water were used with success. He explained that
failures can be caused by impurities, grease (including human skin
oil), rust, and that he switched to teflon stoppers because rubber
seems to affect the reaction adversely.
   
   Prof. Peter Hagelstein titled his talk "Cold Fusion: What We
Know and What We Don't Know." He has expanded on his theory of
hopping virtual neutrons and the transmission of nuclear energies
to the metal lattice through mode change in lattice phonons. He
compared deuterided palladium to krypton fluoride in lasers and
suggested that palladium could lase phonons when sufficient
deuterium had been absorbed by the Pd that the deuterium tended to
outgas from the metal, this point being around 80:100
 of D to Pd. He pointed out that it's become known that excess heat
is not produced in experiments where the ratio is below 85%.
   Prof. Hagelstein enumerated the possible mechanisms which could
produce the energy to be transferred to the lattice: fusion,
fission, electron capture (through weak interaction), lattice-
induced beta decay, and neutron transfer.
   At the end, he made a list of what was known about cold fusion,
such as excess heat, tritium production, etc. When he made a list
of what was not know, essential everything on the first list was
there as well. It was a light-hearted ending.
   At an early point in his presentation, he said "and the problem
is how to effect a transfer of a large amount of money..." The
audience greatly appreciated that Freudian slip, and Peter was
gracious in his embarrassment, turning it to advantage by saying "I
can assure you that there has been no transfer of a large amount of
money, and that is one of the problems of CF research."
   
   Prof. Keith Johnson, sometimes portrayed as an opposing
theorist to Hagelstein, helped my understanding of what the hell a
face-centered cubic lattice is, anyway, by means of computer
animation on a large video screen. His presentation was somewhat
complex and I'm not sure how much I missed. But I do remember the
difference between protons/deuterons in octahedral positions and
those in tetrahedral. Apparently tetrahedral nuclei form a long-
range molecular bond cyclically. Heat may be released as these
nuclei fall into the tetrahedral arrangements preferred by water (a
pattern just recently experimentally learned).
   Then Keith went into a talk about his cold fusion screenplay.
Apparently, the producers of "IQ" had had copies of his script and
lifted elements of it into the film. "And I'm initiating
appropriate litigation." Keith was jovial as he said this, and I'm
not sure if he was serious or not. However, I very much enjoyed the
clip of the beginning of his movie, which had originally been named
"Broken Symmetries" but was changed to "Excess Heat" -- "for market
reasons." With a spiral galaxy as backdrop, words scrolled as in
the beginning of "Star Wars": "A young woman astrophysicist
discover a plot to suppress positive evidence in cold fusion
experiments..." Wish I could have written it all down as it went
by. The bedroom scene that followed foiled my efforts at
memorization. Are astrophysicists really that seductive?
   
   I had to leave at that point, though James Griggs had yet to
speak about his Hydrosonic Pump. Sorry to disappoint those of you
who have been going back and forth on that in this newsgroup.
Perhaps someone else can report on that.
   
   This is a quick and dirty report. No sustained attempt at
literary quality has been made and only a casual attempt at
accuracy. We should have a better report in our next issue.
   
      ---Victor Lapuszynski
        "Cold Fusion"
         70 Route 202N
         Peterborough, NH 03458-1107
   
         (603) 924-0058
    fax: (603) 924-3205
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 /  ProFusion /  A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?
Date: 22 Jan 1995 00:38:06 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

                   A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?

from V. A. Filimonov

   Russian researchers observed a great enhancing of neutron
emission from a ferroelectric single crystal under phase
transition, when a laboratory neutron background was induced
artificially using a Cf-252 neutron source. As was reported earlier
by the same team, cold fusion occurs in these single crystals at
the noted phase transition giving a neutron emission yield four
times as high as the natural neutron background. The emissions
increased by a factor of 100 over background when a neutron source
was situated close to the sample and neutron counters. Under such
conditions the effect became 25 times higher than the noted
artificial background, i.e., 2500 times more than the natural
background! No enhancing was observed beyond the Curie point (i.e.,
the noted phase transition area). No doubt, this phenomenon is
connected closely with cold fusion, but it is unexpected and
shocking one even for cold-fusioneers.
   
   No doubt this phenomenon, though not explained, throws some
light on the problem of poor reproducibility of CF experiments.
Perhaps a natural neutron irradiation plays the role of catalyst in
CF events in structured matter. Such a supposition is consistent
with the theory of Captured Neutron Catalyzed Fusion by Dr. Hideo
Kozima (Dept. of Physics, Faculty of Science, Shizuoka University,
Japan) reported at the Minsk '94 Cold Fusion Symposium. However, a
theory explicating high section of the neutron capture and CF
reactions in solids is still needed, as before.

Posted by

   ---Victor Lapuszynski
     "Cold Fusion"
      70 Route 202N
      Peterborough, NH 03458-1107

      (603) 924-0058
 fax: (603) 924-3205
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / E Givotovsky /  Re: MRA update 14, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: evg1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Eugenia V Givotovsky)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MRA update 14, free energy device !
Date: 22 Jan 1995 22:43:46 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

MRA consumes not ExIx0.707 but ExI. It consumes more then you think!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenevg1 cudfnEugenia cudlnGivotovsky cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Eugene Mallove /  Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 13:50:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

*Brief* Memo on IAP Cold Fusion Day at MIT
   by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., meeting organizer

The Cold Fusion Day IAP meeting at MIT on Saturday, January 21, which I 
organized, was in my view, a spectacular success. About 150 attendees in rapt 
attention for about 10 hours in the main Physics Lecture Hall (Room 6-120). 
Several high points came at the end of the day:

(A) Jim Griggs of Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Rome, Georgia) gave a magnificent 
presentation with new data on *massive melting* that has occurred on the 
periphery of his Hydrosonic Pump aluminum rotors on several occasions. He also
described re-welding of melted material to the rotor surface -- an even 
higher-temperature effect, he said.  He had one such rotor unit there and you 
could see and feel it.  Fantastically high temerpatures would be required to 
do that and this is NOT ordinary cavitation. Among other observations, if it 
were simple cavitation, why would that not occur as a regular feature of 
Hydrosonic Pump operation? -- it does not. Cavitation experts at Georgia Inst.
of Technology have now become involved. They say it is NOT cavitaiton. Griggs 
presented some stunning photomicrographs. Meanwhile, the over-unity effect 
continues to be seen, even as Griggs continues to sell in recent months 
several hundred thousand dollars worth of Hydrosonic Pumps for standard 
applications up to 250 HP.

(B) Bert Werjefelt from PolyTech(USA) in Hawaii spoke about his work on 
magnetic motors and the theory behind them. He reported that experiments have 
seen output powers of 450 watts electric, with only 150 watts electric going 
in. Attempts at  self-sustaining have been successfull for periods of minutes.
The company now thinks it knows how to make a self-sustainer continue 
indefinitely and is building one right now, expected to be ready in the next 
month or two. He showed gorgeous CAD diagrams of the 100-200 watt 
self-sustainer now under construction in Hawaii. He explained how it worked 
(the precise balancing of repulsion and attraction systems to substantially 
reduce torque). It was obvious that many if not most in the audience accepted 
his apparently very solid experimental conclusions -- even *some* I would have
though would have left in disgust. Werjefelt put forth his theoretical ideas, 
which are based, in part, on suggestions made by several (now) Nobel laureate 
physicists in the 1950s regarding nuclear magnetic spin systems (Pound, 
Purcell, and Ramsey). Others in the audience were extremely excited by this 
report, and put forth their theoretical ideas. Werjefelt is a solid mechanical
engineer, whose company manufactures pioneering FAA-certified safetly 
equipment. He is deeply involved in aviation safety issues and would have much
credibility to lose if he were not on absolutely solid ground with this 
magnetic energy technology. He has been working quietly in this field for 
about ten years. On the advice of his patent attorneys, he published his 
general ideas in an article titled, "Magnetic Battery," in that 
countner-scientific culture journal, "Extraordinary Science" (Telsa Society), 
May/June/July 1993, which is availbale in places like Barnes& Nobel book 
stores. Don't let your prejudices about the Tesla Society fool you, this is a 
very carefully crafted scientific article with some excellent possible avenues
to explain concrete experimental results. 

The 8-minute video tape of the Japanese developments in this area of "Dream 
Energy" (Magnetic Energy)  was shown. This had aired on FUJI TV in Japan on 
October 20, 1993. There are four major coporations involved under MITI aegis: 
Sumitomo, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, and Matsushita. Werjefelt's company appears to 
have a very strong patent position in his area, however. The chief engineer of
the Aerospace Division of Sumitomo has visited Werjefelt and told him that 
this discovery is "the greatest discovery of the 20th century." 

Gene Mallove, who has been working with others who are getting similar,  
related results with smaller units,  will co-author a paper with Bert 
Werjefelt that will be presented at the Fifth International Conference on Cold
Fusion (ICCF5) in Monte Carlo, Monaco (April 9-13, 1995). This paper will 
present both experimental evidence and a suggested theoretical framework. It 
is expected that several working self-sustaining units will be brought to 
ICCF5. There is a possible (likely!) connection with cold fusion thermal 
effects that have been seen.

The MIT IAP proceedings of 1/21/95 were professionally videotaped. A sligthly 
edited full-version of the day-long program ( 8-10 hours) will be distributed 
by Cold Fusion Technology. Also, a shorter version summary (less than two 
hours) will be be prepared by Mallove, working with a video production 
corporation in Manchester, NH. Due to schedule overload, it may be another 4 
weeks before the tapes are available. Every effort will be made to accelerate 
the process. A transcribed version of some of the talks is also being planned 
by Cold Fusion Technology.

This is only the "tip of the iceberg" of the incredible events at MIT Cold 
Fusion Day. In retrospect, this was an extremely historic meeting. It was the 
first time that present and imminent commercial-level power production from 
cold fusion/free energy was discussed in a completely scientific manner at a 
major university. The message was apparently very well received. Mallove 
received numerous compliments on the decorum and solidity of the sessions. 

The former editors of "Cold Fusion" Magazine have joined forces and put out an
interim "Cold Fusion/New Energy Technology" (CFNET) Update, a 36 page 
compendium -- mostly on cold fusion. This was distributed free of charge to 
attendees at the MIT IAP meeting. Others wanting this document should send a 
nominal $5.00 to Cold Fusion Technology to obtain a copy for themselves:

Cold Fusion Technology
Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
USA

Fax: 603-224-5975
Phone: 603-228-4516

This CFNET Update is a precursor to the continuation of a **reliable** Cold 
Fusion/New Energy Technology magazine (title yet to be finalized). 

****[A recent posting by Victor Lapuszynski of "Cold Fusion" at WGI contained 
an egregious error: Piantelli has NOT seen "50 *MeV* gammas"! He has observed 
50 KeV gammas, and will be publishing a paper soon. And so there is absolutely
NO CONFUSION here: There is no longer any connection whatsoever between Wayne 
Green's "Cold Fusion" newsletter and Cold Fusion Technology in Concord, New 
Hampshire. An indication of the "quality" of the present editorial direction 
at "Cold Fusion" at WGI: Mr. Lapuszynski left the sessions after repeated 
announcements that two extremely important presentations on experiments were 
to be made.]****

National Public Radio aired a one-hour cold fusion program (1/20/95) the day 
before the MIT IAP program, as part of the Ira Flatow "Science Friday" show. 
Featued for the "pro" side were Dr. Edmund Storms, formerly of Los Alamos 
National Laboratory and Dr. Eugene Mallove of Cold Fusion Technology, who gave
a brief overview of what the next day's MIT Cold Fusion program would be 
about. Also on air were two members of the "Flat Earth Society" -- Gary 
Taubes, author of "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion"
and Professor David Goodstein of Caltech, neither of whom obviously knew what 
they were talking about in the matter of cold fusion. Neither have been seen 
at any cold fusion conferences in recent years, but that did not stop them 
from calling cold fusion research "lousy science." Both managed to record 
themselves for posterity as the pontificating, ignorant naysayers that they 
are -- at this, the 11th hour and 59th minute of the Fossil Fuel Era, at the 
dawn of the New Energy Age. A copy of this tape can be obtained from National 
Public Radio in Washington

Sincerely,

Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.

Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
Fax: 603-224-5975
Phone: 603-228-4516

 

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  drom@vxcern.ce /  Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator. Nova. Helium-3.
     
Originally-From: drom@vxcern.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator. Nova. Helium-3.
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:24:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


PRODUCING A NEUTRINO BEAM IN A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. NOVA. HELIUM-3

   Recently there have been a series of postings about neutrinos. Think it
began with a question from Mr. Plutonium asking if a neutrino beam had
been fired at a superconductor? The answer is yes. Neutrino beams created at
CERN and at Fermilab have been directed at large bubble chambers, some 4 metres
in diameter, which have a magnetic field of some 30 000 gauss created by 
cryogenic magnets. No abnormal effects were observed and there were no
differences whether a neutrino or a hadronic beam was used.
     The second question was whether the evidence that neutrino events had been
observed, was convincing. This is stimulating as thought that very reasonable
answers had been given which would convince anyone prepared to do some
calculations. However statements that there are an enormous amount of
experimental detail all in accordance with the assumption that neutrinos exist
and have expected properties, does not appear to convince someone who does
follow the subject very closely. So what might be the most convincing simple
evidence? Having been working with neutrino beams in large bubble chambers in 
CERN and Fermilab since 1977, and feel that the visual technique of actually 
seeing many events, one by one, may be the most convincing. 
    When a neutrino in a beam hits a hydrogen atom in a hydrogen bubble
chamber, there are sometimes produced events where all the particles are
charged; measuring the momentum and angles, one finds a distinct class of event
which give three constraint fits (energy and momentum conservation give four
equations but the energy of the neutrino is an unknown for which one solves).
These events which are a clear and distinct class, have no other interpretation.
Some papers that you may wish to look at concerning events which give only a 
proton(identified by its bubble density), a pion and a muon(identified by the
downstream counters placed in and after large amounts of absorber that remove
hadrons);
         Allan et al., Nucl. Phys. 176(1980)269
         Allan et al., Nucl. Phys. 264(1986)221
         Jones et al., Z. Phys. C 43(1989)527.
     The question was raised - how do you know that they are not cosmic rays?
There are two arguments. Firstly the three-constraint neutrino events can be 
correlated only with the neutrino beam direction whereas the cosmic rays come
from all directions. Secondly there is the bubble nature of the tracks. The
pressure on the hydrogen liquid is reduced smoothly and then increased again
during some 70 seconds. The beam is introduced just before the bottom of the
pressure cycle and a the flash is fired about one second later, just after the
minimum. The conditions are chosen so that the bubble density is low and
individual bubbles can be identified. Cosmic rays enter at all angles and all
times. Those cosmics that enter before the beam, give bubbles which have had
longer to grow so that the bubbles will be bigger and hence they can be easily
identified. Also since the chamber is not fully expanded, the number of sites
which give bubble nucleation is much fewer so the bubble density is much less.
Thus most cosmic ray tracks can be easily recognised visually  and this
background can be evaluated easily. We have checked this and this background 
has been found to be negligible for three constraint events which may be the 
most dramatic proof of the existence of neutrinos created by a neutrino beam 
from an accelerator. There are many other proofs, but do hope this will satisfy.
    There was a question about the origin of helium three. There are two main
sources, primordial and later.  In the Big Bang picture, after the quarks and
gluons combined to give protons and neutrons, these could then interact to form
the light elements, protons, deuterons, 3He, 4He and 7Li. This is called the
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN, and the agreement found with observation of
primordial matter, is one of the strong pieces of evidence in favour of the Big
Bang Hypothesis. Detailed calculations were made by Walker et al. (e.g. see 
Ap.J376(1991)51 for a recent review, gave the ratio of these elements and 
also an estimate of the upper limit to the number of neutrino families of 
about four - CERN now finds 2.988 +/- 0.023 from studying millions of decays 
of Z0  produced in LEP. 
   So this primordial 3He was everywhere in the early times, but since 
then there have been many local processes which change the amount. For example 
in our Sun, 3He is both produced and burnt so that there is a maximum 
percentage at a radius of about 0.3 of the Sun's radius.It is not safe to 
assume a constant isotopic ratio of 3He to 4He since the amount of 4He 
varies according the amount of local radioactive decay giving 4He nuclei -
alpha particles.
    There was also a question of fusion reactions in Nova? By novae (not
supernovae), one generally means stars which have burnt out to give white
dwarfs and which have a companion star or stars. The companiontransfers matter
to the compact object and this can create a local concentration of matter
which is so dense that a thermonuclear reaction takes place giving the
characteristic bright flash of a nova. The reactions depend on which
elements are available locally, but tend to be the normal fusion reactions.
     In general neutrino experiments are difficult so great credit should be
given to the pioneers, but it has been found as a consequence, that an 
abnormal number of the pioneering experiments gave results that did not stand 
the test of repetition by others. Thus quite a few claims have been made that 
are not generally believed. In particular several claims have made that the 
neutrino has a mass or that oscillations have been observed from one form of 
neutrino into another, but so far no compelling evidence has been found for 
any of them. It is quite possible that neutrinos do have mass and it would not 
violate any basic law though there are certain masses that are excluded 
from astrophysics - which is why the persitent claim of a 17 keV neutrino 
caused such excitement (see Nature 366(1993)29). If neutrinos have mass, 
then it is a reasonable possibility that they can oscillate from one form to 
another (as it has been amply demonstrated for the two types of neutral 
K-mesons). The possibilites of neutrinos having mass and possibly oscillating, 
is so exciting that many experiments continue the search exploring new regions 
of phase space.
     Sorry for taking so long to answer, but am rather busy these days.
                                                         Douglas Morrison.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendrom cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3204
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3204
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:24:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>The present models of the GG are better than electricity but not as good as
>oil. However, upcoming models (some from other sources than Griggs) will
>be cheaper than oil or gas. A test model has sustained 300% excess for
>weeks at a time. Three hundred percent, more or less, is what you need for
>the GG to become competative with oil. Four hundred percent would make it
>cheaper than oil -- or anything else.
>
>- Jed
___________________________________________________________
Jed,

The test model that you mention above, is that made by Jim, or one of 
the other sources that you mention? If other, then would you be 
prepared to say who?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 / Richard Blue /  RE: Nova
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Nova
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 01:15:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to the query regarding fusion reactions in a stellar nova,  the
lack of other responses may indicate that the answer is too complex for
a brief reply.  However, it goes something like this.  After a star has
converted all its hydrogen to helium it starts a gravitational collapse
that results in rising temperatures and a whole chain of fusions that
take whatever is there and make something heavier.  Helium goes to carbon,
oxygen, neon, magnesium, etc., but at some point the process may become
unstable and the whole mess blows up.  That is your basic nova.  During
this explosive phase there is an opportunity to initiate great chains
of reaction processes that result in the production of everything in
the chart of nucleides out to extreme limits of instability where things
decay faster than they can be formed even in nova conditions.  For
details see a text on Nuclear Astrophysics.  The classic in the
field is by Fowler.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.24 /  R.Boscarelli@a /  In article dated 5th Jan, Archimedes Plutonium writes
     
Originally-From: R.Boscarelli@agora.stm.it
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In article dated 5th Jan, Archimedes Plutonium writes
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 05:44:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

about Reifenschweiler:

".... a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium. He also
discovered that as the mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined
sharply. No process known to physics could account for such a baffling
phenomenon: radioactivity should be unaffected by heat.
Nevertheless, as the temperature increased from 115 degrees C to 
160 degrees C, the emission of beta particles fell by 28 per cent."


In chemistry, the idea of a catalyst as a substance which favours 
a reaction and can be found intact after the reaction is completed,
is absolutely normal. For ex: palladium favours de-hydrogenation of 
hydro-aromatics. 
A catalyst, as it is well known, lowers the energy of activation 
of the reaction (surface absorption is usually involved). 
I was thinking of the idea of a nuclear catalyst, which could work 
the same way, by lowering the energy of activation of nuclear reactions.
Some form of nuclear interaction is needed, and since nuclei are
shielded by electrons, how could that be?  But at the surface of 
a solid...? 

Greetings to everybody
r.boscarelli@agora.stm.it
[Ah Faustus, now hast thou than one bare hour to live!]

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBoscarelli cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 22 Jan 1995 08:04:41 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

<3fmt9e$6qb@borg.svpal.org> <3fntgc$2e9@nic-nac.CSU.net>
 Distribution: 

harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu wrote:
: In article <3fmt9e$6qb@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas 
Lockyer) writes:
 : >>Craig Harmon (harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu) Writes:
: >> Well the crosssection would be markedly higher if there was a 
: >>sizable magnetic moment. 
: >
: >Yes, and if the neutrino mass is small, the magnetic moment would be 
: >enormous from Ub = ( e hbar/2 x mass in kg) since mass is in the denominator.

: According to my Particle Data Table, U_b (Bohr magneton) is:

: 	U_b = ehbar/2m_e

: which is dependent upon the electron mass, and is given as a constant
: with the value of:

: 5.788382 E-11 Mev/T.  

: What formula were you using?

: Craig

The value you quoted was for the electron, so the electron mass was 
used.  But, in general, the magnetic moment of (non composite) particles 
is very nearly equal to their magneton, which is inversely related to 
twice the the particle mass, as shown.  The proton's nuclear magneton uses 
twice  total proton mass, in the denominator. Big surprise was the proton 
measures 2.79 nuclear magnetons so it acts like not all of proton mass   
is invloved in the proton's magnetic moment.  The muon, on the other 
hand, is a composite particle, but its magnetic moment seems to involve 
all of its mass, so it acts like a collapsed (miniature) electron!  That 
seems to explain why the muon is the champion penetrating particle, the 
collapsed electron (muon) has a small physical cross section. 

So, i assumed that if the neutrino has a small mass and is not a 
composite particle, then it should have a magnetic moment close to its 
calculated magneton inversely related to twice its small unique mass.
If that mass is small, the magnetic moment should be enormous.

Regards: Tom.

--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Bernd Meyer /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 16:47:21 GMT
Organization: Private uucp site lost in the voids of the black
hole Germany is in the Internet

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

>In article <ZW06xx6.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>>No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
>>whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.

>Right.  Now I see what you meant.  Kind of reminds me of the time that I
>moved from an apartment with electric baseboard heaters to one with a
>gas furnace and watched my heating bills brop precipitously for the 
>obvious reason.  Thanks.

Now can somebody tell me what happens to the two thirds of "wasted" energy
in electric heaters? Usually, wasted energy turns into --- heat. But here?

Bernie
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenroot cudfnBernd cudlnMeyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Craig DeForest /      
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.envi
onment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle

Subject: Re: MRA independantly verified at 140 % !
Date: 23 Jan 95 03:41:51
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <> harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
   I just received the news, that 2 other groups besides the inventors
   at Keelynet have verified the MRA to be over-unity.

   One group at Lockheed reports 140 % efficiency one other group in Germany
   tells 125 %.

Stefan,

Is anyone running an MRA with *no* input at all?  

--
--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 56 days and holding for netnews delay"

cudkeys:
cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudszS 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  DanHicks /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 23 Jan 1995 00:24:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>No, I meant that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel,
>whereas gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%.

Can we try to be a bit more precise here?  First off, what a business
person is concerned with is not efficiency but rather cost effectiveness
-- how many usable BTUs can one get per fuel dollar.  Next, an electric
resistance boiler is nearly 100% efficient, whereas gas or oil boilers
will be somewhere between 70% and 95% efficient, where "efficiency" here
is determined by dividing usable energy output by energy input.  Of
course, the electric generation process (using gas, oil, or coal) is only
somewhere around 30% to 60% efficient (can't remember the exact numbers,
but the theoretical efficiency is limited by the Carnot cycle and the
"source" and "sink" temperatures, plus there are "inefficiencies" in the
conversion process and then losses in transmission).

So, yes, even a mediocre boiler with 70% efficiency is more efficient than
a boiler fired by thermoelectricity, if you consider the entire fuel
cycle.

Now what is being claimed (by some) for Griggs is that, unlike resistance
heating, it has >100% efficiency.  But even if the efficiency is, say,
125%, the overall system efficiency (considering the input energy from
fossil fuel) is not likely to be more than 80 or 90%, probably less.

(While we're at it, could someone post the efficiency of a typical fossil
fuel power plant.  Someone posted "much more than 33%", but I'm
remembering a number in the neighborhood of 40%, which I wouldn't consider
"much more".)
 
Dan Hicks
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 12:50:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In the DoE "Hydrogen Program Plan" see also Appendix C, "Central Baseload
Fossil Plant" "Current (1990)" and "Advanced (2020)." The power plant loss
data came from:
 
     "Electricity Supply: Supporting Analysis for the National Energy
     Strategy," SR/NES/90-03, DOE /EIA, 1991, EPRI Technical Assessment
     Guide (TAG), Vol 1, 1986
 
The transmission loss data is from:
 
    Pacific Gas and Electric Co., "Hydrogen and Electricity as Carriers of
    Solar and Wind Energy for the 1990s and beyond," G. W. Braun, A. Suchard,
    J. Martin, 1990
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Alan M /  Re: s.p.f. is for CF
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f. is for CF
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 06:06:06 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <9501182210.aa08475@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>  m.kenward@bbcnc.or
.uk (Michael Kenward) 
writes:
> The message does, though, explain why I haven't found much reality
> hereabouts. Does anyone know the address of a list on hot fusion? (I nearly
> said 'real fusion'.)

Just post here, Michael. The only problem is having to sluice out
after one of Jed's postings or 
the (happily less frequent) Mallove diatribes.
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  RobertBass /  Rebuttal to 'Doubting Thomas' Kunich re F&P as 'politicians'
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rebuttal to 'Doubting Thomas' Kunich re F&P as 'politicians'
Subject: Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
Date: 23 Jan 1995 01:30:15 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 12:20:10 -0800
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

On: 95-01-22 15:22:14 EST

     Thomas H. Kunich sent e-mail to me as follows:

>From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
>To: RobertBass@aol.com  (Robert W. Bass)
>Subject: Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb

>Well, I'm of the opinion that the world is a lot more flexible
>and recumperative than you seem to think judging from your
>message.

>The Wright  brothers  of  recent  discussion  ad  nauseum  were 
>successful not because they  managed  to  convince  a  doubting 
>scientific  community,  but  because  they  built  and  flew  a 
>heavier-than-air craft.

>Einstein wasn't famous for declaring  that  energy  and  matter 
>were interchangable but because he explained it in hideous  and 
>boring detail. :-)

>This is a world where the talkers achieve political  power  but 
>the doers shape the real aspects of the sphere.

>There is no Pons and Fleischman effect unless they can  _prove_ 
>that there is one. And they had not succeeded in so doing. They 
>are politicians and not scientists.


    Au contraire, Doubting Thomas, F&P have in fact demonstrated 
their effect because there is no one in the entire world who has 
made a serious attempt to replicate their epochal experiment and 
_failed_ to see the effect.  If you read Mike Melich's paper  at 
ICCF-4 you know that the researchers at AMOCO had to  try  it  3 
successive times before they got the knack.
     Also, at ICCF-4, Fleischmann, in lauding  Dennis  Cravens's 
garage experiments as the "best experimental paper" pointed  out 
that anyone at the "premiere labs" who says  that  the  original 
disclosures  of  F&P  were  inadequate   should   go   to   this 
community-college instructor and take lessons on  how  to  avoid 
the pitfalls awaiting the  complacent,  the  overconfident,  the 
arrogant, and the unwary.
     With all due respect, Dr. Thomas Kunich, I  wonder  whether 
or not you have made more than a perfunctory effort to learn the 
facts.
    I must respectfully advise you to put your money where  your 
mouth is and send $6.50 (my estimate of his actual out of pocket 
expenses to mail you his great new preprint) to:
       Dr. Edmund Storms  [LANL retired]
       270 Hyde Park Estates
       Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
and request:
     "A Critical Review of the 'CF' Effect",
his 64-page landmark non-theoretical review of  the  latest  177 
experimental papers in peer-reviewed  archival-quality  journals 
which present overwhelming evidence of the reality  of  the  F&P 
Effect with those with eyes to  see  that  the  effect  can  "no 
longer  be  dismissed  by  invoking  obvious  error  or  prosaic 
explanations."
   In particular, if the CF  experiments  which  alter  isotopic 
abundance ratios (in the daughter products) from that  found  in 
nature are not found conclusive, don't you have to  postulate  a 
secret Manhattan project to prepare skewed abundance  ratios  to 
perfectly match the  natural  abundance  ratios  of  the  parent 
nuclides?  Have you never shaved with Occam's razor?
     Where are you coming from, Dr. Kunich?  May I  respectfully 
request to know your educational & experiential background,  and 
current  professional  affiliation,  which  qualifies   you   to 
pontificate negatively with such dogmatic certainty?

     Sincerely, Bob Bass

[former Prof. of Physics, BYU, 1971-81]
Dr. Robert W. Bass, P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359
robertbass@aol.com
 ---------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From tomk@netcom.com Sun Jan 22 15:18:49 1995
Received: from netcom11.netcom.com by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
        (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA232275929; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 15:18:49 -0500
Return-Path: <tomk@netcom.com>
Received: by netcom11.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
        id MAA27455; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 12:20:10 -0800
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 12:20:10 -0800
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Message-Id: <199501222020.MAA27455@netcom11.netcom.com>
To: RobertBass@aol.com
Subject: Re: In Defense of Simon Newcomb
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------

 Dr. Robert W. Bass (M.A. Oxon & Ph.D. in Math; Reg'd Patent Agent 29,130)
   [former Prof. of Physics; of Aerospace Eng'g Sciences; of Systems
Eng'g]
 P.O.Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337
   Voice-Mail: (818) 377-4471   e-mail: robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  parsec@worf.in /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.infonet.net ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: 23 Jan 1995 15:16:38 GMT
Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA

In article <p+7aqEO.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

<text deleted>

>A test model has sustained 300% excess for
>weeks at a time. 

An extravagant claim.  Care to favor us with some details?

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenparsec cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Report on "Cold Fusion Day" at MIT
Date: 23 Jan 95 09:32:53 CST

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In the ham radio world, there is a ... magazine editor ... Wayne Green.

Wayne Green started Byte magazine as well as several other magazines,
including "Cold Fusion" Magazine and several ham radio magazines.  As for 
the other allegations in your cite, I wouldn't know and question the
logical relevence to anything (i.e. seems kinda ad hominem-ish.)

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Water heater sales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water heater sales
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 10:31:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> writes:
 
>(While we're at it, could someone post the efficiency of a typical fossil
>fuel power plant.  Someone posted "much more than 33%", but I'm
>remembering a number in the neighborhood of 40%, which I wouldn't consider
>"much more".)
 
The DoE says the present generation of power plants in the aggregate are
roughly 33% efficient. See:
 
 
Exhibit A.4, "Utility Current Technologies" in:
 
     Hydrogen Program Plan FY 1993 - FY 1997
     U.S. Dept. of Energy, NREL
     1617 Cole Boulevard
     Golden, CO 80401-3393
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Pete McNamara /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch (Pete McNamara)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:05:39 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin


In article <3fm5i8$kjj@nic-nac.CSU.net>, harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu writes:

>In article <1995Jan19.134256.10420@dxcern.cern.ch>, mcnamara@vxaluw.cer
.ch (Pete McNamara) writes:
>>
>>At this point, you have definitely entered the land of the crackpot.
>>Do you have any reason to suggest that there is no Z boson?  What
>>about the very good measurements of these particles which have been
>>done at LEP and SLAC?  Your claim that these physicists are somehow
>>cheating and making these particles up is not very believable.
>
>I don't know.  It seems to me if high energy types are going to
>continue to request public funding for their projects, they are going to
>have to spend more time making the explanations for their experiments
>and the interpretation of those results more accessible to their funding
>source, i.e. the taxpayer.  And basically his premise about the difficulty
>in subtracting the background, being based upon inferences, is right.

There may be a certain amount of intuition involved, but his statement
implies that particle physics is somehow unable to understand things on
even the most basic level of 'what is going on in my experiment'  which
is certainly not true.

In a LEP experiment, for example, running at the so-called 'Z resonance'
there is absolutely NO DOUBT that they get millions of events which come
from the decays of a Z boson.  They have measured the shape of this
peak, and understand it's shape well enough to make solid predictions
about things like the number of neutrinos and the mass of the top.

This ability to understand comes from a combination of good knowledge
of the theory, combined with careful study of the various efficiencies
and backgrounds of the detector.  As an example, (a flashy one) in an
attempt to nail down the errors in the measurement of the error on
the beam energy at LEP (these are errors on lower than the part per
mille level, but I'm not sure how much lower) they discovered that
the energy of the beam shifted with the tides, because the strain
on the earth's surface slightly distorts the shape of the ring.  They
were able, in fact, to correct for this 'problem' and increase the
energy resolution of the Z measurements through very very careful
understanding.  The claim that "those guys dont really know what they're
doing"  is simply ludicrous.

Pete

>
>Craig
>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmcnamara cudfnPete cudlnMcNamara cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: 23 Jan 1995 18:11:39 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Jan21.142636@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au says:
>
>Hi folks, have a nice day :^) ...........
>Tom, will you consider raising questions and ideas from the net at the
>Griggs visit on 8th of March?  Maybe you have already compiled a list,
>if so ; and if you deem it wise to release it before the visit ; I for 
>one would be interested to see it.
>
>Regards to all,
>Daryl Owen.
> 
> 

Seems like a good idea to me.  Send your cards and letters folks.  Use
the subject "Griggs Questions" so I can sort for them and make a list.
Best to send them to the group so everyone can see them.  Paid sponsers
will be given preference.  Please do not ask me to make particular 
measurements.  I do not intend to make measurements.  But I will be 
happy to ask questions about how Griggs has made his measurements, or
any other proper question. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Dieter Britz /  Filimonov collection archived
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Filimonov collection archived
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:57:27 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Dr. V.A. Filimonov has kindly sent me his collection of papers on CNF from
what I'll call the former Soviet region. It contains normal papers, and
much information of conferences on CNF in that region; and references to
preprints.

I have not had time to make a detailed check but I hope that
the papers in journals at least will largely overlap with my own, although
I expect to find stuff that I have missed. There are 162 references in the
first part, and a further 55 in a second part, subtitled  "Russian 
Information Sources", which I take to mean that Dr. Filimonov has not 
seen all of these; some appear to be commentary.

I have just put this valuable document into the archives, at vm1.nodak.edu
as the new file fusion/fusion.cnf-fili

If you access this file and check through it, note that that the authors are
in alphabetical order mostly but with some confusion with the order of the
Russian alphabet; e.g. the D's come after the G's. It is all written in
English {:].


-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 14:58:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
    "Semantics, Jed.  What kind of fuel does a coal-fired boiler use?"
 
What kind of fuel does a coal fired boiler use? Ummm. . . Coal?
 
Who is buried in Grant's tomb?
 
 
   "Now, Jed, tell us all loudly and clearly: What kind of fuel does an
   electrically fired boiler use, and how do we compute efficiency?"
 
Here in Georgia our electrically fired boilers use a combination of coal
and fissioning uranium. I don't know how *you* compute efficiency, but
I use the same method as the DoE, EPRI and PG&E. If you want to learn more
about our method, I suggest you have a look at the document from NREL that
I referenced at the beginning of this thread, or read any encylopedia article
on energy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Harry Conover /      
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new
theories,cl.energie.alternativen,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.envi
onment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle

Subject: Re: MRA independantly verified at 140 % !
Date: 23 Jan 1995 14:03:10 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
: Hi,

: I just received the news, that 2 other groups besides the inventors
: at Keelynet have verified the MRA to be over-unity.

: One group at Lockheed reports 140 % efficiency one other group in Germany
: tells 125 %.


Perhaps you could coordinate your efforts with Jed Rothwell's.  You 
two appear have much in common.        :-)


                                  Harry C.
cudkeys:
cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudszM 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit .....
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 20:34:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
     "Please do not ask me to make particular measurements.  I do not intend
     to make measurements. . . ."
 
What?!? What is the point of going all the way to Rome, Georgia if you
are not going to take measurments?!? That's ridiculous. Bring a meter,
a bucket, and a thermometer and you can take all the measurements you
like; it is a cinch to take measurements.
 
Honestly, this makes zero sense to me. I cannot for the life of me
imagine why anyone would plan to go all that way on an airplane and not
take any measurments. Heck, I started measuring, photographing and calibrating
the thing five minutes after I came in the door. That's the whole purpose
of a site visit! If all you want to do is ask Griggs a bunch of questions,
just write 'em up, fax 'em and ask over the phone. (I do that all the time.)
 
This is nuts. Stop in at Leasametric or GE, get yourself a power meter, and
you can verify the machine in one hour flat. Just asking questions is only
going to add to the confusion. We have had enough damn talk here already. We
need people who Go and Do and Report Back the instrument readings. The only
thing I ever want to hear from anyone ever is hard data.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.22 / Howard Olson /  Cold Fusion mechanism?
     
Originally-From: howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion mechanism?
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 18:33:14 GMT
Organization: Awaiter BBS 510-939-9992

    Can anyone explain the cold fusion mechanism? Obviously it has
something to do with proximity on the noble-metal lattice. I would
appreciate hearing any theories.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenolson cudfnHoward cudlnOlson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Howard Olson /  Tritium in iso out
     
Originally-From: howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium in iso out
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 19:02:13 GMT
Organization: Awaiter BBS 510-939-9992

->
-> Has anyone tried CF in an electrolytic cell, using equal portions of
-> T and D? i.e. Heavy water wherein half of the Deuterium is replaced b
-> Tritium.
-> Also, could someone tell me how well Tritium is absorbed by Pd,
-> compared to Deuterium?
->
-> TIA,
->
-> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
-> 
    I haven't done any experiments but I am a chemist by undergraduate
training. My understanding is the rather obvious one that diffusion
of tritium should be slower than deuterium in a given matrix. Relative
to Protium (hydrogen-1) D should diffuse at a rate of 1/(2)^0.5 whereas
T should be diffused at a rate relative to Protium of 1/(3)^0.5. This
means T should diffuse about 80% slower than D if my assumptions are
correct.
                    
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenolson cudfnHoward cudlnOlson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.21 / Howard Olson /  Sponge metal
     
Originally-From: howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sponge metal
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 19:06:35 GMT
Organization: Awaiter BBS 510-939-9992

    Are Pd alloys prepared by analogy to Raney Nickel?
If so, the amount of Al in a Pd-Al alloy could be standardized for
a pore size distribution after dissolving the Al by lye.
                           Howard
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenolson cudfnHoward cudlnOlson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / David Spain /  MIT Cold Fusion Conference Notes?
     
Originally-From: spain@flipper.maelstrom.timeplex.com (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Cold Fusion Conference Notes?
Date: 23 Jan 1995 15:13:15 GMT
Organization: Ascom Timeplex, Acton, MA USA

Hello.

Been a long time since I posted here. I was unable to attend the
Cold Fusion conference at MIT last Saturday.  I am interested in
hearing people's impressions of it from attendees.

Those of you who attended the Griggs lecture, what were you're impressions?
--
David Spain
ascom Enterprise Networks
289 Great Road, Acton MA. USA 01720-4739
Phone: USA (508)266-4551  FAX: (508)264-4999
Internet: spain@acton.timeplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenspain cudfnDavid cudlnSpain cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Dunsmuir needs a nap
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dunsmuir needs a nap
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 10:38:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This refers to a message in the Fusion Digest that has not shown up in Delphi.
Maybe it never will? Anyway... When I refused to spoon feed him information,
do his homework for him, and wipe his ass after he went to the toilet,
Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") cried out:
 
     "For as long as you continue to spout your anti-scientific crap here and
     on CompuServe, I shall continue to ask you to back up your claims with
     evidence. As often as I know your claims to be downright lies, as here,
     I will continue to let everyone else reading along know what the
     situation really is."
 
Let me get this straight, Alan-chan. You think I am lying. Right? And you
think you are going to persuade other readers of that fact by acting like a
two-year-old. I give you the phone number, the fax number, and the address of
the place where you can verify the facts, but instead of calling Griggs, you
plan to sprawl on the kitchen floor crying, screaming, ranting and raving that
I am not helping you get the data you want. And you are convinced that other
readers will agree I am a cold hearted fiend for not doing exactly what you
ask the moment you demand it.
 
I know how to deal with you. I know EXACTLY what you need. You need to go
beddy-bye now, because you are tired. I know how to deal with you because I
have two kids myself. They are -- thank goodness! -- past your stage of
development.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  DoE stats on power plant efficiency
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DoE stats on power plant efficiency
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 10:39:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that electrically fired boilers waste two-thirds of the fuel, whereas
gas or oil fired boilers waste only 3 to 5%. conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) writes:
 
     "Interesting.  I was under the impression that electrically fired
     boilers converted ALL of the electrical energy to heat (with the
     possible exception of a small IR loss in the wiring)."
 
That is correct. Most of the losses occur at the electric power generation
plant.
 
 
     "Based upon your figures, where does the wasted two-thirds of the
     electrical energy go?"
 
Those are not my figures; they come from the DoE. 64% of the energy is lost at
the power plant; of the remaining energy, another 8% is lost in transmission
between the power plant and your house. For more information, please see
Exhibit A.4, "Utility Current Technologies" in:
 
     Hydrogen Program Plan FY 1993 - FY 1997
     U.S. Dept. of Energy, NREL
     1617 Cole Boulevard
     Golden, CO 80401-3393
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 23 Jan 1995 18:09:28 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3fubvk$1rm@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>:
>,<3fmt0u$6qb@borg.svpal.org> <3fnfap$f49@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: 
>Distribution: 
>
>
>>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes: 
>> 
>> (snip) 
>> For the most part I'll discuss general features of neutrino production/ 
>> observation at accelerators, but when necessary with an emphasis
>> on how things were handled at Fermilab.  Why FNAL? Two reasons: 
>> (1) the experiments were more recent and at higher energies (along 
>> with a large range of energies) and (2) I'm more familiar with them  
>> having been a large contributor to the analysis of E733's 1983 and 
>> 1987-8 data sets, as well as knowledgeable about E594's analysis using 
>> the same detector in a narrow band beam) . 
>
>Robert, I am pleased that you have hands on experience, and have taken 
>the time to share your knowledge of the subject.  
>
>> Now the detector:  our detector was located in historic Lab C .........
>> and composed of what one typically finds in electronic (as opposed 
>> to Bubble Chamber) detectors. 
>> (snip) 
>> Explain to me (and everyone here) how one explains the 100000 events 
>> I've got on tape that have the characteristics of; 
>> * nothing visible coming in the front .....
>
>Yes, I have seen (Experiment E594's) "flash chamber" pictures of the 
>proposed "neutral current"  events, and in color!  The theory would have 

"proposed"...?  Ah, hate to break this to you, but it's not like E594
was the first experiment to "propose" neutral currents.  For those who
know of this history of neutral currents this is where the "historic"
part comes in to Lab C...it was our predessors (HPWF) who were, ah,
instrumental in that "debate".  The early part of "Nobel Dreams" has some
mention of that incident, I believe.  A not so well known book called
(not at hand currently, so I hope I got this right) "How Experiments End"
has a much detailed story on the subject.

Again, I notice that you simply dismiss the question of the energy/angle
distributions of the events as "unimportant" (in fact so unimportant) that
you delete all references to it.  Those correlations ARE explained by the
current theory, and MUST be explained by anything you propose to replace
said theory.  It isn't just the *existence* of the events that you must
explain (you attempt to handwave them away), but the fact that their
measured properties -match- the theory.

>us believe that the neutrino can "bounce off" a nucleus, creating a 
>shower of particles, and do that within the fiduciary volume of the 

Yes, I do expect people to believe that...since it is the most likely
explaination.  The one that most clearly fits the evidence. 

>detector!   Whoa!  how likely is this to happen *theoretically*?  What we 

It doesn't happen "theoretically" ... it happens "actually".  I fail to see
your "concerns" with this experiment.  You're going round in circles; every
time I answer one of your `problems' you invent a new (handwaving in this
case) `problem'.

>are seeing, most probably, is the reading of the dead time of the first 
>group of sandwiches for a particle traversing the chamber just prior to 

Ah, just exactly what "dead time" could that be?  <snicker>.  The chambers
are sensitive to depositions of energy that (relatively) _slowly_ decay
away.  Trust me, we'd see any incoming tracks in this detector....just as
in the first picture in that postscript file I've referred you to twice
already, one can make out the remants of an old cosmic ray muon entering
from the detector top.  It's mostly faded, but still visible.  Besides
other experiments have a near 0% dead time system ... and they too see
no incoming tracks.  The delay between incoming track (if there was one)
and outgoing tracks is very small compared to the triggering time...or
even the variation in the triggering time.  So your "explaination" just can
NOT work.  Care to try one more time?

>turn on.  That is the only possible explanation for getting 100000 
                      ******????
>pictures of a *proposed, but unlikely,  neutral current event.

Okay, that does it... You're either a complete crackpot who'll *never*
accept any evidence that disproves his own nutcase "theory"...or you're
simply a total asshole who gets his "jollies" baiting real scientist by
pretending to be a crackpot. 

>> "Transmute or *knock-on*"?? ........what .....are you talking about here?
>
>Transmute (is the inverse beta decay theory) that has  never been 
>irrevocably proved . 
>
>Knock-on is the crazy idea that the (Zo) would transmit the *weak* force 
>and cause the neutrino to *bounce* off electrons or quarks, simply 

Ah, which it does....

>knocking them into motion as in a game of billiards.  This is what 

Well, not exactly as a game of billiards...quantum billiards, maybe...

>Kamiokande II claimed to have seen as *proof* of neutrinos from SN87A.  
>But, electrons decay from muons.... and I've got that nice bridge in 
>Brooklyn (cheap).

Ah, so now you've upped the ante ... you don't believe in mu --> e anu_e nu_mu?
Or are you claiming that KII failed to notice some incoming muons that
happened to just mimic the signal from netrinos....I'm not quite sure
_what_ you were trying to say there.  In either of the two possible
parsings you are simply pushing the bounds of reasonability.  I'm no expert
on KII but I'd bet that they are quite proficient at distinquishing between
mu->e in the detector and nu->e.  

Comming to the end of this article I also notice that you never addressed
how 10+ *independent* experiments, with literally over 100 experimentors
in total, using very different detection methods...all managed to measure
a linear dependence of cross section with neutrino energy.  Something that
you say is impossible; something that if reported would have earned
somebody a Nobel Prize.
From the Phys Rev D V45 N11 (1-june-1992) pg III.82 reference I gave you
earlier, I'll list some of the quoted experiments:
  CCFRR, CDHSW, GGM-SPS, BEBC-WBB, GGM-PS(anu) IHEP-ITEP, SKAT, GGM-PS(nu),
  ANL, CHARM, FNAL(nu-d), FNAL(Ne).
That doesn't include those experiments that didn't do a absolute cross
section measurement, but would have "noticed" a discrepancy if one had
existed.  I know you don't appreciate my pointing out this fact because it
drives a spike through the heart of your closely held personal "theory" --
but you'll have to get over it and move on to more productive persuits.
Unless you can come up with an overarching explaination that explains this
all, and the energy/angle distributions, rather than nitpicking at random
at various parts of individual experiments...well, you haven't got a
chance.

Now I'm more convinced that you're simply an asshole "troller" (a lowlife class
of pond-scum that we have no use for here in sci.physics).  Shit!  It's bad
enough with the real nutcases polluting this group, but do we really need
"fake" ones as well?

>Regards: Tom. 

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Joe Guokas /  Re: A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon?
Date: 23 Jan 1995 02:16:45 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>From posting of: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
>Date: 22 Jan 1995 00:38:06 -0500
>Message-ID: <3fsqvu$gsa@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>from V. A. Filimonov and posted by Victor Lapuszynski:
>
> Russian researchers observed a great enhancing of neutron
>emission from a ferroelectric single crystal under phase
>transition, when a laboratory neutron background was induced
>artificially using a Cf-252 neutron source. 
>  [deletion]
>No doubt, this phenomenon is
>connected closely with cold fusion, but it is unexpected and
>shocking one even for cold-fusioneers.
>  [deletion]   
>Perhaps a natural neutron irradiation plays the role of catalyst in
>CF events in structured matter. Such a supposition is consistent
>with the theory of Captured Neutron Catalyzed Fusion by Dr. Hideo
>Kozima (Dept. of Physics, Faculty of Science, Shizuoka University,
>Japan) reported at the Minsk '94 Cold Fusion Symposium. However, a
>theory explicating high section of the neutron capture and CF
>reactions in solids is still needed, as before.

I agree this is "shocking".  But, as to it being "unexpected":

Dr. Hideo Kozima presented one explanation at the Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion. (1)  If I understand it correctly, he suggested
that neighboring regions with differing refractive indices for the
neutrons'
waves can form a neutron trap.  

The cold fusion experiments of Dr. Gian Franco Cerofolini also show
trapping of neutrons. (2)   During his CF reaction, thermal neutrons were
absorbed with cross sections much higher than ever before observed in any
material.  After a few hundred seconds the reaction was complete and the
neutron count went up, just as though the trapped neutrons were being
released.  Dr. Cerofolini suggested  the reaction formed metastable
molecular states of unusually small internuclear separation.  He thought
this
could trap thermal neutrons by Anderson localization

In Gad Shani's experiment, neutrons from an Am-Be source were beamed
at a CF cell, resulting in neutrons around 2.5 MeV.  In runs using only
deuterium gas the observations fit normal models, but in Pd-D runs the
neutron count was three orders of magnitude above expectations.  (3)

The experiments of a team from Frascati and La Sapienza showed similar
results in deuterated high temperature superconductors irradiated by Am-
Be neutron source.  (4) (5)  Later work with Pd-D similarly irradiated
resulted in several neutrons emitted for each entering the cell. Varied
moderation of the neutron source demonstrated that thermal neutrons
caused most of the effect.  (6)

In these new Russian experiments, it would be interesting to know the
energies of the detected neutrons and to know how thermalized the
incoming neutrons were.  

Good luck with your research,
Joe Guokas



(1)  Hideo Kozima, "Trapped Neutron Catalyzed Fusion of Deuterons and
Protons in Inhomogeneous Solids," Proceedings:  Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, Lahaina, Hawaii (Dec. 6-9, 1993), Volume 1,
page 5-1, eds. T.O. Passell and M.C.H. McKubre, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. (1994).  [This is also in pages 508-515 of
the
Transactions of Fusion Technology, Vol. 26, No. 4T, December 1994.]

(2)  G.F. Cerofolini, G. Bora, S. Agosteo, and A.F. Para, "Giant Neutron
Trapping by a Molecular Species Produced During the Reaction of D+
with H+ in a Condensed Phase," Fusion Technology, Vol. 23, July, page
465 (1993).

(3)  G. Shani, C. Cohen, A. Grayevsky, and A. Brokman, "Evidence for a
Background Neutron Enhanced Fusion in Deuterium Absorbed Palladium,"
Solid State Communications, Vol. 72, No. 1, pages 53-57 (1989).

(4)  F. Celani, A. Spallone, L.Liberatori, B. Stella, F.Ferrarotto, M.
Corradi, P. Marini, S. Fortunati, and M. Tului, "Measurements in the Gran
SassoLaboratory:  Evidence for Nuclear Effects in Electrolysis with Pd/Ti
and in Different Tests with deuterated High Temperature
Superconductors," Proceedings of the International Conference on
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990, page 62 (1991).

(5)  F. Celani, A. Spallone, L. Liberatori, F. Croce, L. Storelli, S.
Fortunati, M. Tului, and N. Sparvieri, "Search for Enhancement of Neutron
Emission from Neutron-Irradiated, deuterided, High-Temperature
Superconductors in a Very Low Background Environment," Fusion
Technology, Vol 22, August, page 181 (1992).  

(6)  B. Stella, M. Corradi, F. Ferrarotto, V. Milone, F. Celani, A.
Spallone,
"Evidence for Stimulated Emission of Neutrons in Deuterated Palladium,"
Frontiers of Cold Fusion, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami,pages 437-440, Universal
Academy Press, Tokyo (1993).
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / mathew yeates /  Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc.
     
Originally-From: scisoso@netcom.com (mathew yeates)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc.
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:15:11 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


Don't show up if you're a skeptic. We don't need any bad vibes messing
up the experiments!
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenscisoso cudfnmathew cudlnyeates cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Why is is called the GG here?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why is is called the GG here?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:12:41 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 20 Jan 1995, Tom Droege wrote:

> Since I am supposed to be an expert in this area ;^)  .  What is
> the origin of using GG for the Grigs device?
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

... probably to emphasise that it's spelled "Griggs" {:]

Sorry, Tom, couldn't help myself. 

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 24 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
