1995.09.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 08:11:28 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <RfEh8hZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
>  
> >Surely you do not mean to say that the 27,458 skeptics have not
> >published any papers to make the case against cold fusion.  I
> >have noted that your bibliography tends to be one-sided, but I
> >always assumed that you knew there really is plenty of material
> >out there that refutes the cold fusion argument.
>  
> The phrase "cold fusion argument" is meaningless. Which argument? CF is based
> upon experimental evidence, not argument or theory

***{Jed, I understand your central point here, and I agree with you.
However, words are important, and so I am going to quibble with the way
you are expressing your point. The problem I have with your wording is
that the significance of a fact is always bound up in its implications.
The statement that CF exists is an inference from experimental evidence.
The chain of reasoning which supports this conclusion is called an
argument. When Dick Blue, or Bill Rowe, or whoever, draws a different
conclusion from the same evidence, his chain of inferences is also an
argument. Thus when you say that "CF is based on experimental evidence,
not argument or theory" your statement is a virtual contradiction in
terms. The disagreement here is not between a group which accepts the
evidence and a group that does not, but rather is between a group which
argues correctly and a group that argues incorrectly. --Mitchell
Jones}***  

, unless you count
> elementary thermodynamics as theory. No sane scientist will argue that
> calorimetry does not work, or that the second law of thermodynamics is
> invalid.

***{Of course we must count elementary thermodynamics as theory. And while
it may be rather nutty to argue explicitly that thermodynamics is invalid,
it is far from nutty to consider possibilities which, upon examination,
prove to contradict thermodynamic calculations. It has been amply
demonstrated in this newsgroup that there are many attempts to argue
against CF which do not explicitly question the principles of
thermodynamics. Zoltan, for example, argued at one point that the excess
heat (in the Griggs device) was feeding down the motor shaft. I, at one
point--and Zoltan later--argued that energy from water pressure might be
influencing the outcome. Neither of us, when we made these arguments,
doubted elementary thermodynamics. We considered such possibilities
because that is how you find the truth: you identify the various arguments
pro and con, relative to an issue, and you then begin a systematic search
for contradictions. One by one, you eliminate the impossible options, and,
at the end, you accept that which remains as the truth. The reasoning
process by which the invalid options are eliminated constitutes an
argument in favor of the one that remains. Bottom line: reasonable people
are persuaded by arguments, not by "facts." A mere "fact," stripped from
the theoretical context which imbues it with significance, is convincing
to no one. 

I would add,of course, that your entire statement, considered as a unit,
is true. You said: "CF is based upon experimental evidence, not argument
or theory, unless you count elementary thermodynamics as theory." The
problem is with the structure of your sentence, and the implications which
it calls to mind. Every scientific inference, X, is based upon some
theory, Y. Thus we can always say, "X is based upon experimental evidence,
not argument or theory, unless you count Y as theory." But this seems to
be a way of remaining technically correct, while avoiding an open
admission that "X is based upon arguments constructed by applying theory Y
to the facts." Since I would not expect you to do that, I find myself
wondering if there is some point that I am missing. Perhaps when you claim
that CF is based on experimental evidence rather than theory, you intend a
contrast to the theory of nuclear physics (or, perhaps, to QED), both of
which hold that CF is impossible. In that case, you should have said: "CF
is based upon arguments constructed by applying the theory of classical
thermodynamics to the experimental facts, while the denial of CF is based
upon arguments constructed by applying the theory of nuclear physics/QED
to the same experimental facts." In other words, what we have here is not
"facts versus theory," but rather a clash between opposing theoretical
interpretations of the same facts. Either classical thermodynamics is
wrong, or nuclear physics/QED is wrong. --Mitchell Jones}***         
>  
> There is very little scientific material that refutes cold fusion experimental
> evidence. It is written by people like Huizenga, Taubes and Morrison, and it
> has no scientific merit. It is full of stupid mistakes and gross violations
> of elementary physics. It is scientific schlock. The contrast between this
> schlock and real science can be seen in debates between Morrison and
> Fleischmann, and Jones and Fleischmann.

***{Agreed. --Mitchell Jones}***
>  
> There is a large body of theoretical literature about hot fusion. Some experts
> say this conflicts with CF, while others say it does not. If it turns out this
> literature *does* conflict with CF, then CF will "refute" the literature. It
> cannot work the other way around, because theory can never overturn a widely
> replicated, high-sigma experimental result.

***{Again, I agree with your idea. However, your choice of words puts you
on dangerous ground. Once we admit that facts shorn from their theoretical
context have no implications, we are forced to recognize that an
"experimental result" is always an argument created by applying a theory
to a set of facts. And, when we grant that, we must also grant that a
better theoretical interpretation of those same facts--a better
argument--can indeed overturn "a widely replicated, high-sigma
experimental result." (Very unlikely in the present case, of course.) In
other words, we never really have clashes between facts and theory, or
between experimental results and literature. Instead, the clashes are
always between arguments. 

Relative to CF, this means the central question is whether the existence
of "excess heat," is supported by sound classical thermodynamic arguments.
If it is--as we both believe--then we seem to have a bona fide collision
between the theory of nuclear physics (or, if you prefer, quantum
electrodynamics) and classical thermodynamics. In that case, the certain
victor is classical thermodynamics, since if we were to toss it out, we
would have to toss out nuclear physics and QED as well (they are based on
it). Bottom line: if the calorimetry is correct, which it almost certainly
is, then some of the precepts in these other areas are going to have to be
modified. This, of course, is what you were saying, but worded, in my
view, a bit more carefully. --Mitchell Jones}***  
>  
> - Jed

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / C Mueller /  Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
     
Originally-From: Christian Mueller <Cmueller@phoenix.fn.sub.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: alt.my.dick.is.bigger.than.your.dick
Date: 9 Sep 1995 14:09:59 GMT
Organization: sedat - networks for the bodensee region, germany

I think this discussion has nothing to do with fusion physics.
Please continue in any other forum, 
but not here. This is not playground for children who want to argue.
I begg you, let this 
discussion be terminated.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenCmueller cudfnChristian cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / I Weld /  Heat of occlusion of hydrogen in palladium
     
Originally-From: iweld4u@aol.com (I Weld 4U)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat of occlusion of hydrogen in palladium
Date: 9 Sep 1995 11:41:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, third edition (1958!), p.22,
under "Adsorption", is found "Occlusion is a type of adsorption, or
perhaps more properly absorption, exhibited by metals or other solids
toward gases, in which the gas is apparently incorporated in the crystal
structure of the metal. Palladium thus occludes extraordinary quantities
of hydrogen, with the liberation of MUCH HEAT." (captials mine), and
"Since increase of temperature reduces adsorption, the adsorption process
is accompanied by the evolution of heat.", and "The heat of adsorption of 
hydrogen is, on ... palladium, platinum,... 18,000 (,) 13,800 (,)
...calories respectively per gram mole (2 grams) of hydrogen;...." 
On p.1152, under "Occlusion", is found "Another type of occlusion is that
of hydrogen by palladium, which was studied by Graham."
Could someone look up Graham's work for me (I don't have access to a
university) and settle this cold fusion question as far as adsorption,
occlusion, and absorption relate to the behavior of the palladium/platinum
electrodes in the electrochemical cells now under study? It seems like the
cells manufacture hydrogen, "burn" it (exothermically adsorb it), get rid
of the oxygen, and then everybody says hey, look, heat! Does Fleischmann
(sp) own a copy of this Van Nostrand's or any of Graham's papers? Is that
where he got his idea? Remember this was before 1958!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudeniweld4u cudfnI cudlnWeld cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Heat of occlusion of hydrogen in palladium
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat of occlusion of hydrogen in palladium
Date: 9 Sep 1995 12:40:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Occlusion does not explain the heat because such heat would be related to
the increase of the loading and no heat would be released during the long
periods of constant high loading factors. Pons and F observed the heat in
cells that had operated for extended periods of time. 

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 9 Sep 1995 12:40:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I disagree.

France is playing a pioneering role in the development and use of nuclear
reactors. 

The development of nuclear weapons tends to advance toward small yield
explosions and such low yield devices may eventually point the way towards
new types of nuclear reactors, possibly clean fusion reactors or nuclear
propulsion systems. 

Our planet desperatly needs nuclear energy as well as nuclear rocket
propulsion systems for its continued environmentally friendly development.

Mankind's very survival depends on its ability to spread humanity to other
planets and later to other solar systems. Without nuclear energy space
travel is risky and expensive. The destruction of an atoll is a small
price to pay for nuclear developments. Such nuclear developments lead to
environmentally clean power plants that help protect our planet from the
biggest danger today, fossil fuel burning and pollution.

I apploud the French for their pioneering efforts.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 09:35:38 -0900
Organization: none

In article <DEKrMu.G1D@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> In article <USE2PCB136056839@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> ><singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) writes:
> > 
> >-> There is a coupling which occurs between the deuterons and the
> >-> soft x-rays which cannot occur between hard x-rays or gamma rays.
> >->
> >-> The exact mechanism which engenders fusion at this point is totally missed
> >-> by the designers themselves.  It is not the energy imparted to the
> >-> deuterons but a special relationship that develops between them (and is
> >-> not collisional) which allows them to undergo nuclear fusion.
> > 
> >That is interesting.  Is the intensity of the X-rays important?  That is, is
> >the fusion reaction rate linear with the incident intensity, or is there a
> >"threshold" involved?  If it is linear then it would appear that a
device could
> >be made with LiD which would produce fusions, and would be under total
control.
> >The X-rays could be produced via normal discharge methods.  Would this work,
> >or do you have to have a high intensity before any reaction takes place?
> > 
> >                                                                Marshall
> 
> The point is that the atomic cross sections for soft X-rays are much, 
> much bigger than the nuclear cross sections (by a factor of 10^8 - 
> 10^10).  So, if you want to induce fusion using X-rays you'll waste way 
> more energy on the photons that "don't make it" than you'll gain from 
> the few which do.  This is similar to what's happening when you fire 
> deutrons on a tritium target (or vice versa).  You get some fusion 
> events, but the total energy generated is many orders of magnitude 
> lower than what was spent on accelerating the deutrons in the first 
> place.
> 
> Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu        |  chances are he is doing just the same"

Wouldn't the relative effect on adjacent H nuclei be more important than
the xray absorbtion cross section of an H atom? It seems like x-ray
asorbtion does not directly relate to the fusion process itself. What I am
driving at is x-rays   of twice the typical D to D distance would cause a
high rate of D - D collision.  Since D to D distance is typically 1 to 4 
A, depending on the D compound, so x-rays of 2-8 A should have the maximal
effect. True?

If the above is true, intensity would be really important, and so would
collimation. Since the Pd lattice bond is about 2.8 A, it would be
interesting to check the effect of 5.6 A x-rays on loaded Pd, or to check
corresponding x-ray wavelengths on other deuterides.

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Bill Rowe /  Re: 27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 12:35:19 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-0909950811280001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <RfEh8hZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>

[skipeed]

>The statement that CF exists is an inference from experimental evidence.
>The chain of reasoning which supports this conclusion is called an
>argument. When Dick Blue, or Bill Rowe, or whoever, draws a different
>conclusion from the same evidence, his chain of inferences is also an
>argument

[skipped]

>Relative to CF, this means the central question is whether the existence
>of "excess heat," is supported by sound classical thermodynamic arguments.
>If it is--as we both believe--then we seem to have a bona fide collision
>between the theory of nuclear physics (or, if you prefer, quantum
>electrodynamics) and classical thermodynamics. In that case, the certain
>victor is classical thermodynamics, since if we were to toss it out, we
>would have to toss out nuclear physics and QED as well (they are based on
>it). Bottom line: if the calorimetry is correct, which it almost certainly
>is, then some of the precepts in these other areas are going to have to be
>modified.

I can't speak for Dick Blue or others, but I don't question the
calorimetry data that shows "excess heat". I do question the conclusion
based on this data which says fusion is taking place.

As a matter of fact, I would rather see the term "unexplained heat" used
in place of "excess heat". I think this more accurately describe CF
results. "Excess heat" has been used to mean more heat than can be
generated by chemistry. I think it is much more accurate to state the data
shows more heat than can be explained by known chemistry.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion information available
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion information available
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 22:19:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>So that is why you did not include him among the group of all past 
>and present experimenters who attended conferences etc and also post 
>on sci.physics.fusion.  Your results determine whether you are a 
 
People who attend conferences do not count. *I* attend conferences, and I
did not count myself! Let us go back to square one, and go over this One Last
Time, okay? Think back to 4th grade math:
 
There are two sets of people, A and B. A is the set of all people who have
published scientific papers about CF. B is the set of all people who post
messages here. The union of A and B includes only three people as far as
I can tell. It does not include Steve Jones because he retracted -- he
"unwrote" his paper, as it were. I suppose the union might include Britz,
because he has written a paper recently related to CF, although strictly
speaking he did not do a CF experiment per se. Now that Jones has published
a paper about CF calorimetry, I suppose it might include him by the same
token. These are papers on the periphery of CF; they are about related issues.
I suppose there must be many electrochemists who post here, and all of their
work is related to CF too. In any case, I used a simple and rigorous method
of determining who is in Set A, which I explained to you not once, not twice
but three times so far. Here it is again: If people make it into the "Fusion
Facts" bibliography (and they don't retract) that puts them in Set A. The
next time I get a new diskette from Hal I will probably find Britz listed.
Hal lists everyone, pro and con, especially papers that reference P&F or
have keywords "COLD FUSION." (That is how he finds them, I presume.) So if
Britz stands up to be counted by putting the right keywords or refs in, we
will find him in some kind of citation index.
 
Now I do hope that explains the situation sufficiently. Regardless, I will
not respond to any more of your ridiculous messages regarding this thread.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 08:21:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
 
>>It is important to define the experiment clearly so it is possible to 
>>isolate those features that make it work and that, if changed, make 
>>it fail.  That is the starting point for understanding and also the 
>>key to reproducibility. 
>
>Excellent point. I would simply add this hasn't been achieved for the most
>part with CF experiments.
 
And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or
papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleishmann Effect" by Ed Storms, so
you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This *has* been
achieved for the most part with CF experiments, but you don't happen to
know bout it. Don't confuse your own ignorance with the state of the art.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 09:04:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Lewis <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> writes:
 
>>The papers from Pons and Fleischmann, on the other hand, were a model of
>>how to do groundbreaking science on a shoestring. Their papers are always
>>difficult, even for an expert, but they are superb, ...
>
>How the Hell would YOU know?
 
I would know because I have read the papers. I had great difficulty
understanding them. When I asked experts, like Oriani and Bockris to
help me understand them, they said they had trouble too. There are some
aspects of P&F's papers that I still do not understand, but after much
hard work I think I get the main points and many important details. That
is not the case with papers from other scientists about calorimetry.
Arata or McKubre's papers are easy to grasp. As for papers about advanced
nuclear phyisics or theory, I cannot begin to undestand them, and I do not
try.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 09:10:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce Scott TOK <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> writes:
 
>What if the effect is due to experimental error?
 
The effect cannot be due to experimental error. If it was, it would not have
been so widely reproduced, by so many people, at such high signal to noise
ratios. One or two scientists might mismeasure water tempertures by 4 degrees,
or even 20 or 50 deg C, but hundreds of scientists would never make such
extreme errors. If you do not think that replication + high S/N ratio =
scientific proof then you have no standards by which you can determine true
from false. If you don't believe experimental evidence than you are likely to
believe in any damn thing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 22:02:45 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <x-GjED+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>>It is important to define the experiment clearly so it is possible to 
>>>isolate those features that make it work and that, if changed, make 
>>>it fail.  That is the starting point for understanding and also the 
>>>key to reproducibility. 
>>
>>Excellent point. I would simply add this hasn't been achieved for the most
>>part with CF experiments.
> 
>And I would add that you have not read the literature, the patents, or
>papers like "How to Produce the Pons-Fleishmann Effect" by Ed Storms, so
>you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This *has* been
>achieved for the most part with CF experiments, but you don't happen to
>know bout it. Don't confuse your own ignorance with the state of the art.
> 
>- Jed

5-yard, delay-of-game penalty for the you-haven't-read-the-literature 
argument.

15 yard penalty, personal foul -- ad hominem attack.  Don't confuse ad hominem 
attacks with scientific argument.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 22:23:02 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <xnGCc7k.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> 
>>> Someplace for those who wish to practice negative elocution,
>>> so that the rest of us can read factual accounts and reports
>>> concerning what has happened/not happened on the scene...
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>>Before bifurcating the group, such reports as you desire would
>>have to appear hear in the first place. While in the past there
>>has occasionally been experimental reports posted here (though
> 
>We are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem. Scientists will not post
>extensive descriptions of their work here as long as the rude naysayers
>practice negative elocution. CF scientists give me preprints of their
>papers and informal descriptions of their work, but they ask that I
>refrain from discussing it here, or posting any description of it,
>because they do not want their reputations dragged through the mud, and
>they do not want to read vituperation and insults.
> 
>If the standard of discourse here was more or less the same as you find
>at an informal physics seminar, or at a bar on a late afternoon down the
>street from the physics department, then perhaps you might find more
>factual reports of CF expeiments. There are various private e-mail
>networks where such standards are maintained, both in the U.S. and in
>Japan. They allow fruitful, informative, and pleasent exchanges of
>information. This forum, alas, does not. I do not know what, if anything,
>can be done to fix the problem. I think perhaps it is better to stick to
>the traditional methods of exchanging scientific information -- the journals,
>preprints, meetings, and the Friday afternoon pub.
> 
>Another problem here is that there is no agreement on the fundamentals of
>physics, and many members of the forum have no knowledge of the literature.
>For example, we cannot even get "skeptics" like Dick Blue to admit that
>a small body that remains palpably hot for a week must be producing more
>energy than a chemical reaction would allow. This is so fundamental, and to
>me, so obvious, that I consider it the absolute minimum starting point for
>a discussion of CF. If you cannot agree with this proposition then we have
>no common ground for discussion, and there is no point to communicating.
> 
>- Jed

Jed -- 

Using your standards, I have two devices in my basement that have reliably 
produced "excess" heat for over 20 years.  If you measure the heat energy 
"gain" across the devices and and compare it to the electrical energy input 
you will find that the heat gain exceeds the electrical energy input. They 
must be evidence of cold fusion -- right? Wrong!

Many people across the country also have furnaces and air conditioners, but I 
don't know that anyone holds that furnaces and air conditioners are evidence 
of cold fusion though they do meet your standards. 

If you set your standards low enough, you will accept all kinds of "proof." As 
things now stand, the cold fusion claims have not even risen to the "beyond 
chemistry" level.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 22:44:52 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <hXEB16J.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> writes:
> 
>>What if the effect is due to experimental error?
> 
>The effect cannot be due to experimental error. If it was, it would not have
>been so widely reproduced, by so many people, at such high signal to noise
>ratios. One or two scientists might mismeasure water tempertures by 4 
degrees,
>or even 20 or 50 deg C, but hundreds of scientists would never make such
>extreme errors. If you do not think that replication + high S/N ratio =
>scientific proof then you have no standards by which you can determine true
>from false. If you don't believe experimental evidence than you are likely to
>believe in any damn thing.
> 
>- Jed

Non-rigorous, incomplete, inaccurate, and simply wrong analyses have not been 
eliminated as a source of error. Most of the claims will fall to close 
scrutiny. One or two may not, but until they are subjected to independent, 
rigorous examination they remain suspect. They will remain so no matter how 
long and how loudly you protest to the contrary. As things stand right now, 
your claims fall into the realm of magic and religion not physics and 
chemistry.

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 21:29:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Using your standards, I have two devices in my basement that have reliably 
>produced "excess" heat for over 20 years.  If you measure the heat energy 
>"gain" across the devices and and compare it to the electrical energy input 
>you will find that the heat gain exceeds the electrical energy input. They 
>must be evidence of cold fusion -- right? Wrong!
>
>Many people across the country also have furnaces and air conditioners, but I 
>don't know that anyone holds that furnaces and air conditioners are evidence 
>of cold fusion though they do meet your standards. 
 
This is fatuous nonsense. Every reader knows perfectly well that when I
refer to a small body that remains hot, I mean a body that does not consume
any chemical fuel. If you can demonstrate a furnace or airconditioner that
goes for years without consuming a drop of chemical fuel or without
pumping heat, obviously you must have a nuclear powered device.
 
This is *exactly* the kind of uncalled for, nonsensical comment that prevents
real scientific discussions on Internet. EVERYONE -- you, me, Dick Blue -- all
of us understand the fundamentals of physics well enough to know that a
match cannot burn for a week. Everyone knows pefectly well what I mean when
I refer to "a small body remaining hot." Yet you drag in this kind of stupid
argument simply in order to confuse people and prevent serious discussion
of the issues! What is the point? Do you think I do not know that furnaces
must be supplied with fuel? Do you think I am unaware of the difference in
fuel consumption performances between a furnace and a nuclear power reactor?
I ask you, what the hell is the point of saying that a gas furnace
demonstrates cold fusion by Jed's standards when you know damn well that is
not true? Is it possible that you seriously believe I am that stupid? Do
you honestly think I do not know that furnaces consume oil or gas?
 
Stop wasting bandwidth, and stop wasting time. Post serious, scientific
messages or shut up.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 21:40:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>Non-rigorous, incomplete, inaccurate, and simply wrong analyses have not been 
>eliminated as a source of error. Most of the claims will fall to close 
>scrutiny. One or two may not, but until they are subjected to independent, 
 
They have been eliminated. They were eliminated years ago, by workers like
McKubre and Fritz Will. You have not read the literature, you know nothing
about their work, so your statements are totally in error. Unless you can
show some source of error in the work at SRI, Los Alamos, KEK, IMRA and
elsewhere you are wrong and I am right.
 
You think that you can prove there is a mistake just by waving your arms and
repeating that statement over and over again. "A mistake, a mistake a mistake
a mistake." That does not mean a damn thing! This is science, not voodoo.
You think there is a mistake? Okay, show it to us. Put up or shut up.
Where is it? These people published in the peer reviewed literature years
ago. You have had 3 or 4 years to read their papers and find a mistake. So
where is it? Nowhere! You haven't even read the papers. You are all bluster
and bullshit, just like Dick Blue and Morrison. These people have *never*
taken on *a single published paper* and found even one mistake. Oh sure, they
talk about magical cigarette lighter effects that produce 150 effects, but
anyone familliar with the literature knows that these effect can actually
only produce 6 nanowatts. The problem is that Blue & Morrison don't
understand what it means to be 8 orders of magnitude wrong -- or they
pretend they don't know. Their "explanations" explain nothing. As for the
rest of you "skeptics" none of you has the guts to even read McKubre or Miles,
and I am sure none of you could ever find any mistakes in their papers.
You have had 5 years, but you have never attempted to disprove even *one*
paper, so it is a cinch you never will try, because you know as well as I do
that you can't.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 17:00:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes:
 
>***{Absolutely false. Stone age man did *not* understand how fire worked,
>except at the very crude level of how to produce it. He knew that, with
>appropriate tinder (e.g., dry grass), some flint to produce sparks, and
>good technique, a fire could be started and used to burn wood, thereby
>producing heat. He had not knowledge of chemistry and, hence, no theory of
>combustion. In short, he had the "know-how" to burn wood, but did not have
 
This is a good example. There are other primative technologies even more
impressive than this, particularly iron smelting, sword making and the
like.
 
Perhaps the Griggs machine will, in the future, turn out to be like the
development of the modern steam engine. The history of the modern steam
engine began in 1629 when Giovanni Branca concieved the idea of an impulse
steam turbine. This was better, in principle, than the ancient device known
as Hero's turbine. This was the beginning of the steam engine revolution. It
took place at a time when people knew little more about fire than the
cavemen who first discovered it. The next step was Savery's fire engine
in 1698. This was based on theories of heat and combustion that we now
consider nonsense and fantasy, including concepts like: "incensed and
inflamed air" "the intercourse of the two contraries" and "the frustrated
ascent of water." Perhaps this was pure nonsense, but I suspect it was
probably a half-formed model that served its purpose. Savery was no fool.
I do not see how he could have proceeded with some kind of model in his mind.
He did make the thing work, after all, and he sold quite a number of
machines. The machines were terribly innefficient. Gradual improvements
led to better and better steam engines made by Newcomen & Cally in 1716,
and Smeaton (mid 1700s). Incredible progress was made, even though
there was still not solid, modern theory. Finally, the development of
the steam engine went into high gear with the work of James Watt (1730-
1819) who put the whole business on a far more solid, scientific basis,
producing machines that were bigger and more efficient than anything
previously seen. After he died, continued research in this area finally
culminated in the formation of modern scientific thermodynamics. My point
is that the commercial exploitation of steam began 150 years before
Carnot, Joule and Kelvin finally explained how the machines worked.
 
Often throughout history, technology has led, science has followed. People
learn how to do things by trial and error and by intuition, based on partial
understanding. This is as true today as it was a hundred years ago.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  27,458 skeptics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 27,458 skeptics
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 22:34:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

In the 27,458 skeptics thread, Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net>
wrote:
 
     "Thus when you say that "CF is based on experimental evidence, not
     argument or theory" your statement is a virtual contradiction in terms.
     The disagreement here is not between a group which accepts the evidence
     and a group that does not, but rather is between a group which argues
     correctly and a group that argues incorrectly."
 
I disagree. What I meant was that CF is not predicted by theory, and that
those who are convinced it is real do not believe in any particular hypothesis
or theory. We think it may be nuclear fusion, but if we are forced to abandon
that hypothesis, we might then hypothesize that it is ZPE. Dieter Britz
recently urged us to give up our heretical faith in "a hypothesis." I
say he is wrong: there is no firm hypothesis for us to give up. We don't have
one. What he really means is for us to give up our belief in heretical
observations. He wants us to deny the data exists, because that data is so
unpopular with the mainstream, and because nobody can explain it.
 
Furthermore, I do not think that the "skeptics" group accepts the data. I do
not think they misinterpret it. They pretend the data must be a mistake or a
hoax. They cannot prove it is a mistake, and they have never attempted to do
so. They pretend they can though. That proves only that a fool can stand up
and claim he knows more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Mike
McKubre. They pretend the S/N ratio is low. They pretend there are no patents
or papers describing how to do the experiments. They pretend this, that, and
an onion. This is wishful thinking and hot air.
 
 
. . . in the same thread, Bill Rowe <browe@netcom.com> wrote:
 
     "As a matter of fact, I would rather see the term "unexplained heat"
     used in place of "excess heat". I think this more accurately describe CF
     results. "Excess heat" has been used to mean more heat than can be
     generated by chemistry. I think it is much more accurate to state the
     data shows more heat than can be explained by known chemistry.
 
This only works if you throw away the tritium and helium data, and you pretend
a match can burn for six months. Since the tritium data is particularly rock
solid, you will have to pretend that a large chunk of the CF literature does
not exist.
 
Perhaps you have in mind a radical redefinition of the term "chemistry" in
which a chemical reaction can change one isotope into another or transmute one
element into another, and a chemical reaction can produce 10,000 electron
volts per atom. This definition is so different in every respect from the
present day meaning of "chemistry" that I would say you are playing a game of
semantics, not science. Why not just say that henceforth "chemistry" will mean
whatever Bill Rowe says it means? The definition of "chemical reaction" will
include reactions that change the nucleus of the atom and release energy in
the process. That way, we can say that CF is chemical, and so is a
thermonuclear explosion, and so is the sun.
 
I think it would be less confusing to stick with the present definitions. A
chemical reactions affects only electron bonds, and in theory it cannot
produces more than 20 eV per atom. Most chemical reactions produce far less
than this. A 10,000 eV per atom chemical reaction would require a gigantic
revision of everything we have learned about chemistry going back the first
caveman's fire. A nuclear reaction is one that transmutes elements and
produces many orders of magnitude more energy per unit of mass than a chemical
reaction. The evidence proves that CF falls in the latter category -- or
perhaps in some new, heretofore undiscovered category.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / A Plutonium /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 11 Sep 1995 23:30:56 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <4316v9$tkd@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> My newsgroup alt.sci.physics.plutonium had approx 90 posts yesterday,
> today it is short of about 60. The below in part was my last post.

  Perhaps 30 posts were censored and deleted yesterday. It was not I.
And I asked a person in charge here at Dartmouth, reply being "not
Dartmouth."  Hence, someone outside has forged my name and cancelled 30
of my posts. Is it really that easy?

  Anyway, what is to prevent other people from having their posts
deleted by some nefarious individual with a vendetta? I could point to
some names here of suspects, but that is not the right thing for me to
do.

  I ask of the higher authorities of Internet to please check into this
matter and please make it so that my posts are not cancelled. I had a
good thread going talking about dinosaur flight in 7.8 m/secxsec and
now that is gone. I had another good thread with iridium toxicity and
that is gone. I recently started a thread on radioactivity is "speed"
in order to get a dimensionless number from a ratio with the speed of
light and that has disappeared. This type of foul play is hard on those
people who are collecting my posts for now they are out of 30 posts
which some of the world saw but others did not. And I just do not have
the time to repost.

   Perhaps some people get kicks out of seeing other peoples posts melt
in front of them like ice on a hot summer day.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / A Plutonium /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 11 Sep 1995 23:37:14 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <432grg$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  This type of foul play is hard on those
> people who are collecting my posts for now they are out of 30 posts
> which some of the world saw but others did not. And I just do not have
> the time to repost.
> 
>    Perhaps some people get kicks out of seeing other peoples posts melt
> in front of them like ice on a hot summer day.

 Has anyone seen any of my 30 cancelled posts. Is the perpetrator
committing criminal action?  Was anon Finland involved? It is my
opinion that anon Finland is biased towards me and where they normally
do not permit cancelling, anon Finland does not mind throwing a jab at
me.
  Someone said that there is a program like Internet which shows the
data of those 30 cancelled posts. I cannot access it from here.

   Anyone have thoughts or experiences with having their posts
cancelled against their will?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / A Plutonium /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 11 Sep 1995 23:44:07 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <432h7a$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  Has anyone seen any of my 30 cancelled posts.

  I found out it was anonymously forged cancels of my posts.

What or who is :    bga.com.

  And, if no action is taken and my posts are further compromised in
the future. Please tell, how I can do the same thing on other people,
lest I miss out on some fun.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Richard Schultz /  Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Put up or shut up?  I doubt it.
Date: 11 Sep 1995 13:59:08 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

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

>I disagree. What I meant was that CF is not predicted by theory, and that
>those who are convinced it is real do not believe in any particular hypothesis
>or theory. We think it may be nuclear fusion, but if we are forced to abandon
>that hypothesis, we might then hypothesize that it is ZPE. 

Two questions:

(1) Have you read any of the standard scientific literature (including, if
you wish, standard undergraduate textbooks) on quantum mechanics in general
and nuclear physics in particular?

(2) (a) If the answer to (1) is "yes" then why do you continue to behave as
if the objections raised to your hypotheses from standard physics are not
objections of high weight, and as if you haven't a clue what ZPE is?

    (b) If the answer to (1) is "no" then please explain why it is okay
for you to have not read the literature, but not okay for anyone else to
have done so?

And please note, there is no necessity for you to engage in any obscenity,
personal attacks, or emotional language in your response.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you are completely off."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 21 Jul 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 02:26:59 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <BBDjVEa.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>Using your standards, I have two devices in my basement that have reliably 
>>produced "excess" heat for over 20 years.  If you measure the heat energy 
>>"gain" across the devices and and compare it to the electrical energy input 
>>you will find that the heat gain exceeds the electrical energy input. They 
>>must be evidence of cold fusion -- right? Wrong!
>>
>>Many people across the country also have furnaces and air conditioners, but 
I 
>>don't know that anyone holds that furnaces and air conditioners are evidence 
>>of cold fusion though they do meet your standards. 
> 
>This is fatuous nonsense. Every reader knows perfectly well that when I
>refer to a small body that remains hot, I mean a body that does not consume
>any chemical fuel. If you can demonstrate a furnace or airconditioner that
>goes for years without consuming a drop of chemical fuel or without
>pumping heat, obviously you must have a nuclear powered device.
>
>This is *exactly* the kind of uncalled for, nonsensical comment that prevents
>real scientific discussions on Internet. EVERYONE -- you, me, Dick Blue -- 
all
>of us understand the fundamentals of physics well enough to know that a
>match cannot burn for a week. Everyone knows pefectly well what I mean when
>I refer to "a small body remaining hot." Yet you drag in this kind of stupid
>argument simply in order to confuse people and prevent serious discussion
>of the issues! What is the point? Do you think I do not know that furnaces
>must be supplied with fuel? Do you think I am unaware of the difference in
>fuel consumption performances between a furnace and a nuclear power reactor?
>I ask you, what the hell is the point of saying that a gas furnace
>demonstrates cold fusion by Jed's standards when you know damn well that is
>not true? Is it possible that you seriously believe I am that stupid? Do
>you honestly think I do not know that furnaces consume oil or gas?
> 
>Stop wasting bandwidth, and stop wasting time. Post serious, scientific
>messages or shut up.


It's not fatuous nonsense, Jed. It only is only mirrors your own uncritical 
analysis of excess heat claims. Obviously, claims of excess heat fail for 
furnaces and air conditioners. Now you are close to the point where you can 
admit that thermometers and electric energy measurements are inadequate to 
demonstrate cold fusion. If anything is impeding discussion it's your failure 
to come to grips with simple, but serious, questions.

You are only making my point for me, Jed.  You are going to keep talking about 
temperature measurements, error bars, and sigmas without coming to grips with 
very simple tests. You need to stop wasting bandwidth castigating people for 
asking threshhold questions. You need to recognize that these are not stupid 
questions. 

A match is a closed system as far as fuel input is concerned. I think we can 
both agree on that. Matches burn for a short period of time before consuming 
all their fuel. I think that we can both agree on that. 

But, the match argument is not relevant here. The relevant question is whether 
the cold fusion devices are closed systems except for the "measured" inputs. 
Are there other inputs that are not being measured?  That goes for chemical, 
mechanical, and nuclear inputs.

Clearly, the answer to the "other inputs" question is yes. That's why these 
"stupid" questions keep coming up. Are these other inputs significant? 
Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any event, the questions can't be assumed away. 
Neither can you make them go away with a flood of abusive posts. No amount of 
posturing on your part will make them go away.

We know that muon-catalyzed fusion exists. We can hope that some form of cold 
fusion exists, but we need to recognize that rigorous proof of its existence 
is lacking, and it will continue be lacking as long as these "stupid" 
questions remain open. 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi 17 MeV protons
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 02:24:54 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <1995Sep1.140303.2389@plasma.byu.edu>,
jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote :

>In article <199508301742.MAA26875@shark>, 
>Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com> writes:
>> In article <199508301356.JAA46619@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> 
>> blue@pilot.msu.edu wrote:
>> 
>>  > Kasagi et al. bombarded a titanium deuteride target with 150 keV deuterons
>>  > and observed the charged particle spectrum emitted.  The claim is that
>>  > there are "anomolous protons" at 17 MeV included in that spectrum.
>>  >
>>  > Before we read too much into this result I think a simple discussion of
>>  > the likely experimental problems is in order.  First we need to ask the
>>  > basic question, "How clean is the experiment?"  In other words what is
>>  > there in the target other than titanium and deuterium, and what is in the
>>  > beam other than 150 keV deuterons?
>> 
>> 
>> The other question to ask is: is(are) the detector(s) they used
>> susceptible to pileup?  If so, one can get roughly 17 MeV by, for
>> example, combining the proton from d+d fusion with the neutron from t
>> + d fusion (other pileups are also possible.)  If the tritium
>> recoiling from one d+d fusion itself reacts before stopping in the
>> target, the two particles would be produced nearly simultaneously, and
>> this artifact could occur even at low beam current.
>> 
>> 	Paul
>
>The probability of getting a neutron from t+d fusion following d+d --> t + p
>is down by about a factor of a million from the d+d fusion.  Then the 

Isn't this factor of a million, based on the assumption that the
energy required for the collision is that posessed by the T?
Or have you also taken into account the possibility that the T could
be involved in a collision with one of the high energy D's from the
beam? I suspect that this would improve the chances considerably,
Especially when you consider that the spot where the T is produced, is
precisely where the beam is incident upon the target.
I also have a vague recollection of the D - T cross section being at
its maximum at about 150 KeV, though I could well be mistaken in this.

>probability of detecting this 14 MeV neutron in a thin surface barrier detector
>is also very small, I'd guess less than 10^-4.  So the pile-up suggested
>evidently cannot yield the 17 MeV proton signal at a rate of 10^-6 that of
>3 MeV protons (from the d+d primary reaction).  The numbers do not work out.
>
>Still, some kind of reaction with contaminants may be occuring as Dick
>suggests, or some kind of pileup or even electronic artifact.  However,
>Kasagi et al. do see a change as they change angle -- the kinematic studies
>are highly suggestive of a three-body reaction, as hard as this is to
>believe.  The broad bump at 17 MeV is seen for Ti (first tried), but also
>for Zr, Pd, Pt, and Au targets now.  
>
>The question is:  why not check out
>the claim?  This is rather straightforward given a 150 keV d+ beam and
>TiDx targets, and surface barrier detectors.  A delta-E & E telescope would
>be ideal; or one could simply use foil degraders to knock out the
>3 MeV p signal from d+d to prevent interference from this reaction.
>
>Dick and Paul:  please send your updated FAX numbers so I can transmit the
>Kasagi paper to you for further comment...
>(others welcomed, too).  I'd like to try this experiment unless a real
>problem is identified.
>
>--Steven Jones/BYU
>

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 02:25:05 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <42pp0o$db2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CoolWar wrote :

>We have been working on a number of approaches to loading fullerene
>molecules with deuterium atoms at a high density.  Our lab is not set up
>for the type of experiment proposed here so in the name of efficiency I am
>requesting a review and comments on the scheme before undertaking a
>physical demonstration.  I believe that this procedure has significant
>potential for producing the high density endohedral (inside the cage)
>loading we want to achieve.  Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
>Begin by constructing a compressed plug of C60 fullerene in the shape of a
>rod.  The compressed rod may require some type of inert binder (suggested
>material?) so that it can be configured around a wire electrode.  This
>configuration comprises a cathode.  The anode can be fashioned from any
>suitable and typical metal.
>Prepare a solution of heavy water D2O and deuterium nitrate as an
>electrolyte with an acid base.  This should result in ionizing the
>deuterium atoms and stripping their electrons leaving them almost
>dimensionless D+ atoms.  Set the cathode and the anode in the electrolyte

This probably doesn't happen in practice. What really happens is that
the D+ attaches itself to a water molecule, sharing its electrons, and
forming overall a DH2O+ molecule. Though the D+ would separate out
possibly at the surface of the cathode, but perhaps not. Perhaps even
then all that happens is that the DH2O+ molecule gets reduced, and
either a D or an H atom becomes detached. (In pure D2O, substitute D
for all Hs)

>solution and run a direct current through the circuit. The amount of
>current can be varied to the extent necessary to overcome the energy
>barrier at the shell of the C60 cage and the electrolyte could be
>circulated through a heat exchange loop to keep the temperature below
>boiling.  Bubbles should appear around the cathode indicating the D+ ions
>have been drawn into the cathode assembly.  As the D+ ions slip through
>the C60 cage  they are captured inside and pick up another electron from

Why should they go through the cage, in preference to going around it
to get to the cathode?

>the carbon atoms thus stabilizing.  It seems that the process would first
>fix D+ions to the outside of the cage but eventual their would be no more
>places for them to attach and they would default to the interior.  Once
>inside they might also combined to form D2.
>That comprises the general outline of the experiment.  I am looking for
>any comments regarding the procedure.  Will it work? Why or Why not? Can
>you suggest refinements?  Are there other procedures that might be equally
>effective?
You might have more luck, substituting carbon "tubes" filled with
metal for your cathode. Especially where multiple tubes are grown, one
inside the other. But then you have to figure out how to ensure that
only the inner tube is filled with metal atoms. (These tubes are a
more recent outgrowth of the "bucky-ball" phenomenon).
>All help will be gratefully accepted and appreciated.  Looking forward to
>your comments.
>Sincerely,
>Warren L. Cooley
>P.O. Box 191394
>Sacramento, CA 95819-1394
>1-800-713-9345
>Thank you. 

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 09:41:27 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-0809952118440001@10.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0609951426130001@austin-1-11.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In article <browe-0409951356500001@192.0.2.1>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
> >Rowe) wrote:
> >
> >> Even assuming all of the data for the Griggs device represents a new
> >> source of energy resulting in a COP of 1.6, it is a major jump to believe
> >> this can be improved significantly. 
> >
> >***{Why is that, Bill? I challenge you to name any fuel for which the
> >first use was as efficient as the technology that developed later. Wood,
> >for example, was at first burned in the open, and most of the energy was
> >wasted heating the air and the ground. Modern wood burning stoves are
> >vastly more efficient than this, in terms of delivering the energy to the
> >desired target (e.g., to a stewpot). The same can be said of every other
> >fuel: coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, propane,
> >U235--you name it. (Do you think they still use the original Fermi
> >graphite pile design in modern nuclear power plants? Do you believe that
> >modern gasoline engines are not more efficient than those of 100 years
> >ago?) Bottom line: the initial technology which demonstrates the use of a
> >fuel as an energy source is always grossly inefficient compared to the
> >technology that develops later.Your doubt that this would be the case with
> >"cold fusion" runs contrary to the uniform pattern of human experience
> >dating back to the stone age, and is one more piece of evidence, in a pile
> >that is already mountainously high, that your criticisms of this new
> >technology are based on emotion rather than reason. I don't know what your
> >hidden agenda is, but it is becoming crystal clear that you have one.
> >--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> I notice in all of the examples you cited above there was a pretty solid
> understanding of what created the heat/power and why the development
> improved the situation. 

***{Absolutely false. Stone age man did *not* understand how fire worked,
except at the very crude level of how to produce it. He knew that, with
appropriate tinder (e.g., dry grass), some flint to produce sparks, and
good technique, a fire could be started and used to burn wood, thereby
producing heat. He had not knowledge of chemistry and, hence, no theory of
combustion. In short, he had the "know-how" to burn wood, but did not have
understanding. Similarly, today, Griggs has "know-how" which enables him
to "burn" water, producing "excess heat," but he does not have
understanding. Bottom line: the same situation exists, today, vis-a-vis
the Griggs device (and, possibly, other cavitation void generators such as
that of Potapov) as existed in the stone age relative to fire. --Mitchell
Jones}***

The point I was making is this level of
> understanding has not been achieved for the Griggs device. Consequently, I
> see it as a major leap of faith to assume it can be made into a practical
> energy source at this time. I will agree if the effect is real and it is
> understood then it may be possible to improve on it.
> 
> >The only real evidence of the Griggs
> >> device having a COP greater than unity is the calorimetry. Certainly, the
> >> energy isn't created from nothing. Something must be acting as the fuel
> >> while something else acts to "burn" that fuel. How can anyone hope to
> >> scale the COP to say a factor of 3 when neither the fuel nor the mechanism
> >> for "burning" that fuel have been identified?
> >
> >***{It is clear that the fuel is present in water, Bill, and it is also
> >clear that the Griggs device is a mechanism for "burning" it. That level
> >of understanding, plus a program of experimentation with similar devices
> >(i.e., cavitation void generators), should suffice to elevate the
> >efficiency of the technology. Do you believe that stone age man had an
> >accurate theory of combustion when he discovered the clay ovens which he
> >used to melt copper, tin, lead, and zinc, thereby inaugurating the bronze
> >age? Do you think the ancient Chinese had an accurate theory of combustion
> >before they discovered the air-injection furnace and began to produce iron
> >and steel? You position is absurd, Bill. You would have us wait until we
> >know everything about a prototype device before we begin the experimental
> >process that is necessary to improve it. But why? What is the biasing
> >factor that is preventing you from seeing the obvious, relative to this
> >technology? Do you think you are demonstrating gameness by hurling
> >yourself off the cliff and onto the rocks, over and over and over again?
> 
> I agree the obvious assumption is the "fuel" is water. I don't agree this
> has been shown. Saying the mechanism for "burning" the fuel is the Griggs
> device is useless. It does nothing to explain what is going on.

***{The same thing applied to the fires constructed by primitive man. The
techniques used then for creating fire did nothing to explain what was
going on. Nevertheless, this fact did not prevent the improvement of the
efficiency of the process. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> About the only obvious way to increase output from the Griggs device is to
> build it bigger. 

***{As I noted in my post, the correct approach is to experiment with
cavitation void generators. This means trying other mechanical designs
that, like the Griggs device, produce violent currents in water and
associated cavitation voids. Potapov's device, for example, does not
rotate a cylinder full of holes in a stream of running water. It uses a
"vortex tube" to rotate the water itself, thereby producing caviatation. I
don't know whether it produces excess heat or not, though Potapov claims
it does. In any case, there are doubtlessly billions of ways to produce
cavitation voids in water and other liquids, and if the Griggs device
really works--as it almost certainly does--then it would be quite
miraculous if none of the other approaches worked better. What is the
chance that, out of the countless billions of ways to produce cavitation,
the first one discovered to produce "excess heat" was also the very best
of the lot? The very idea is ridiculous, when you stop to think about it!
--Mitchell Jones}***

Will this have an effect on efficiency? Perhaps, but I
> don't think anyone will know until it is built bigger.

***{Raising the water temperature raises the efficiency. The "steam runs,"
for example, give an apparent COP of about 1.6. Thus the use of very high
pressures and temperatures would probably increase the COP still further.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> I don't have a hidden agenda here. I simply think expections the Griggs
> device can be improved to a COP of say 3 are equivalent to early
> expectations for the tokamak. 

***{Not at all. The idea of controlling a thermonuclear explosion is
inherently nutty. But there is nothing nutty about the Griggs device,
because the anomalous heat is simply a fact, not an idea. If Griggs'
activities can be said to be driven by an idea, it would be the idea that
experimentation can lead to improvement even in the absence of a detailed
understanding of a phenomenon, and there is nothing nutty about that: it
has happened over and over again in human history. --Mitchell Jones}***

Without more knowledge of how it works you
> may well find it is very difficult to achieve better efficiency.

***{Improving the efficiency of "devices" such as wood-burning fires has
taken place in the past without knowledge of how they worked. It was from
such attempts, in fact, that the glimmerings of a theory of thermodynamics
was developed. Sure the process is difficult, but it always yielded
improvement in the past, and there is no reason to not expect it do to so
in the future. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 9 Sep 1995 19:28:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <21cenlogic-0909950707080001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[deletia]
> 
> ***{Barry, I am *not* religious. Nevertheless, issues of truth and belief
> are what science is all about. The difference between a real scientist and
> a fake scientist lies precisely in the allegiance to truth which the real
> scientist has, and which the fake scientist does not. The real scientist,
> when confronted with evidence that demonstrably clashes with a belief,
> will abandon that belief; the fake scientist will try to forget, or evade,
> the evidence. This is why real scientists are easy to identify: when they
> lose an argument, they alter their beliefs. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 

"Scientific truth" is an oxymoron.  There are only models.  Some are
better than others, and some are discarded when they fail to describe
observation.  Some are even used after such failure, keeping in mind the
limitations of that model.

The only "belief" or "assumption" inherent in that method we call
"science" is "The world is describable."
 
(In my frightfully humble opinion, of course...)
[deletia]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Mitchell Jones /  The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:52:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <hheffner-0609951722310001@204.57.193.72>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0509951113520001@austin-2-12.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > ***{The point here is to accurately visualize what is going on in the
> > palladium cathode. To do that, we must accept the fact that the hydrogen
> > ions (protons and/or deuterons) retain their positive charges until
> > *after* they enter the cathode. Think about it: if, when a hydrogen ion
> > appeared at the surface of the cathode, it were to be handed an electron,
> > it would immediately become electrically neutral, and would cease to be
> > attracted to the cathode. In that case, it would bubble away as a gas and
> > loading would be impossible. Here, instead, is what must happen: (1) When
> > an H+ reaches the surface of the cathode, it retains its charge, and
> > enters the lattice structure. (2) The presence of H+ ions within the outer
> > layers of the lattice gives those layers a positive charge, while the
> > inner layers retain their negative charges. (3) When enough H+ ions have
> > packed into the outer layers of the cathode to neutralize the charge of
> > the cathode, the voltage gradient between the anode and the surface of the
> > cathode disappears, and the H+ ions in solution are no longer attracted to
> > the surface of the cathode. Thus the + charge in the outer layer of the
> > cathode does not build up to "millions of volts," but only to the level
> > necessary to eliminate the voltage gradient from anode to the surface of
> > the cathode. In effect, the anode charge migrates into the outer surface
> > of the palladium electrode, and the cathode charge retreats into the inner
> > portion of the palladium electrode. (4)) Once the anode's charge has
> > migrated to the surface of the cathode via this mechanism, loading of the
> > palladium electrode does *not* cease, because H+ ions on the inner surface
> > of the positive region are constantly having electrons passed to them from
> > the negatively charged central region. Each time this happens, the
> > affected H+ ion becomes a neutral H atom. However, it can't bubble out of
> > the solution, because it is trapped inside the palladium electrode. (5)
> > Each time a new, neutralized hydrogen atom is added to the pool of those
> > trapped inside, the positive charge of the surface region drops slightly,
> > and a new H+ ion enters the surface region from the outside, again
> > eliminating the voltage gradient between the anode and the surface of the
> > cathode. (6) Then, another H+ ion inside the palladium electrode is handed
> > yet another electron and neutralized. (7) Then, another H+ ion enters the
> > surface. And on and on it goes, until saturation loading is approached,
> > and, hopefully, "cold fusion" kicks in. Bottom line: it isn't necessary
> > that the cathode achieve a charge of "millions of volts;" but it *is*
> > necessary that it build up a positively charged region on its outer
> > surface, in order for the loading process to take place at all. --Mitchell
> > Jones}***  
> > > 
> 
> > In article <hheffner-0209950613530001@204.57.193.68>,
> > hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:
> > 
> 
> Requoted here with minor typo's corrected to aid in voltage calculation to
> follow:
> 
> > > I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some mistaken thoughts I
> > > previously posted here. First, some data from the Handbook of Chemistry
> > > and Physics (HCP) and a Sargent-Welch periodic table. All sizes in A
> > > (1e-10 m).
> > > 
> > > Radius of Pd atom: (Pd) 1.79, (Pd covalent) 1.28, (Pd+2) .80, (Pd+4) .65
> > > Radius of H atom: (H) .79, (H-1) 1.54, H (covalent) .32

***{Note: the radius of the innermost Bohr orbit is .53 Å, and that of the
H+ ion (a proton) is .0000137 Å. --Mitchell Jones}***

> > > Bond lengths: (H-H) .746, (Pd-Pd) 2.751
> > > Density of Pd: 12.0 g/cm^3
> > > At. Wt. of Pd: 106.4
> > > 
> > > Now, the Pd lattice is cubic, face centered.
 
***{It is misleading to refer to this lattice as cubic. The smallest unit
cell consists of two four-sided pyramids (e.g., like the Egyptian
pyramids) joined base-to-base. The faces of each pyramid are equilateral
triangles with a side length of about 2.67 Å. The cubic unit cell to which
you refer is three times as large, and is not a satisfactory conceptual
unit for present purposes. The reason: when loading takes place, it is the
double-pyramid unit cells that are loaded--i.e., that have H atoms placed
in their centers. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

You could imagine building
> > > this lattice by taking 1 atom thick sheets of spheres arranged in square
> > > patterns and laying them one on top of each other, but the top layer atoms
> > > resting naturally in the spaces between the bottom layer atoms.  The bonds
> > > formed are between atoms in seperate layers only.  If we call the distance
> > > between alternate sheets S, then the bond length D will be 1/2 the length
> > > of the diagonal of the cube S^3, or .866 S. I seem to recall the jist of
> > > this being posted before.
> > > 
> > > For simplicity sake let's assume all atoms are spheres.  Now, applying
> > > common sense, suppose we considered an imaginary Pd made up of only
> > > alternate sheets. It would have half the density, or 6.0 g/cm^3.  Also,
> > > each atom would occupy a cube (S^3) of volume V. Applying Avogadro's
> > > number we get 6.79E22 atoms/cm^3 for Pd. Our half density sheets would
> > > therefore have 3.40E22 atoms/cm^3, so V = 2.94E-23 cm^3, and S = 3.09E-8
> > > cm = 3.09 A.  This gives D = 2.67 A, which corresponds within about 3
> > > percent with the published bond length of 2.751. So this is good, common
> > > sense and published values agree.
> > > 
> > > Now this means we have a radius R for Pd in the lattice because R
=(0.5)D =
> > > 1.38 A.  This radius corresponds best with a covalent radius. 
> > > 
> > > Now, the largest sphere that can be placed between the Pd spheres is
> > > diameter d = S - R - R = S - D = .134 S.  Since S = 3.09 A, d = (.134 *
> > > 3.09) A = .414 A. This means the H atom will have a radius r = .5 d = .207
> > > A. 
 
***{Using the calculated bond length of 2.67 Å rather than the published
one, the size of the entry hole in one of the triangular pyramid faces is
large enough to permit the passage of a sphere with a radius of .206 Å.
This means entry is permitted only to H+ (protons) or D+ (deuterons). A
neutral hydrogen atom is too large to pass through the face and into the
unit cell. Once inside the cell, of course, there is room in the center
for a sphere of radius .55 Å, which will accomodate one neutral H atom
with its electron orbiting at the innermost Bohr radius of .53 Å. To get
there, however, its parts must enter as separate charged particles--i.e.,
as a proton and an electron---and combine after they are inside. At this
point, it is appropriate to ask ourselves what sort of loading ratios
result from such a process. For example, if there is one H atom inside
each unit cell of the lattice, what is the loading ratio? Well, for an
infinite lattice the count of unit cells is simply three times the count
of the number of Pd atoms in the lattice. (Since each Pd atom in a layer
is the top of a vertical unit cell in the two layers below it, the number
of vertical unit cells equals the number of Pd atoms in the lattice. The
same is true of unit cells oriented right to left and front to back. Hence
there are 3 times as many unit cells as Pd atoms in the lattice.) If we
stuff a single, neutral H atom into each unit cell, therefore, we would
have a ratio of 3 H to every Pd! It therefore follows that, for the
loading ratios that are actually seen (not much above .8), more than two
thirds of the unit cells are unoccupied.  --Mitchell Jones}***

This appears to be too small to be covalent (i.e. .32), so we are led
> > > to think the bond must be ionic. This agrees with other chemistry if I
> > > recall correctly, and is the basis for Marshall Dudley's Hypothesis.
> > > Loading above 1-1 leaves no room for H orbitals.
> > > 
> > > Anyone, please comment on flaws in this line of reasoning.
> > > 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Now, to check your model of the electrode surface, let's assume a single
> H+ ion blocks each entry hole to the lattice (i.e. the ion layer is only
> one atom thick.) 

***{I never said they would block entry. They are, in fact, too small to
block entry. They do, however, carry their positive charges with them into
the lattice until such time as they meet up with outgoing electrons. Since
protons are more than 1837 times as massive as electrons, their drift
velocities in the lattice are vastly reduced, and they tend to not
penetrate very deeply before being neutralized. Thus the positive charge
that migrates to the cathode will be concentrated in the outer regions of
the lattice. --Mitchell Jones}***

 From the above calculations we have surface atoms in a
> square array, with the sides of each square rougly S = 3.09E-8 cm. 
> Therefore each Pd atom presents an area of roughly S^2 = 9.55E-16 cm^2. 
> So we have roughly 1/(S^2) = 1.05E15 ions in a 1 cm^2 area. For
> simplicity, let's assume we area talking about a 1 cm^2 surface area
> cathode. This cathode would then have a charge Q=(1.06E-19C/ion)*(1.05E15
> ions) =1.11E-4 Coulombs.
> 
> Now, what we are talking about is essentially a  capacitor with area = 1
> cm^2 and a plate separation of S. This let's us use the capacitance
> formula:
> 
> C = e_k * A / S =  (8.85E-12 F/m) (.01 m)^2 / (3.09E-10 m)
> C = (8.85E-12 * 1E-4 / 3.09E-10 ) F
> C = 2.86E-6 F (about 3 uF)
> 
> Now volts = Q/C = (1.11E-4)/(2.86E-6) = 38 volts. 
> 
> This is still a pretty big barrier.  This implies that to just balance an
> electrode voltage of 2 volts, thus terminating electrolysis, that only
> about one site in 19 could be occupied by a + ion.

***{The fact that a minority of the sites are occupied by H+ ions at a
given instant is not a problem. The absolutely crucial point here is not
that the surface of the cathode acquires the full positive charge of the
anode, but rather that H+ ions *must* penetrate into the lattice before
being neutralized in order for loading to take place. The reason:
electrons that are given over to H+ ions before they enter the unit cells
of the lattice result in gas production, not loading. Once a particular
unit cell is occupied by an H+ ion, the next step is to hand it an
electron, converting it into a neutral H atom which, because the radius of
the innermost Bohr orbit is .53 Å, is now trapped inside the unit cell.
This is the way the lattice is loaded, *because it has to be.* To repeat:
electrons that are given over to H+ ions before they enter the unit cells
of the lattice result in gas production, not loading. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> I have a different mental model I would like to share. I don't know if it
> is correct, but I'll spell it out, as if it's a fact, so it can be
> dissected.

***{I am not sure why you are presenting an alternative model here. None
of the statements that you made above revealed any reason for rejecting
the model that I have proposed. If your difficulty lies solely in the
implication, admittedly conveyed by my early description, that the full
anode charge migrates to the surface of the cathode, then let me emphasize
again that this is not necessary. What is necessary--absolutely
necessary--is that H+ ions enter the lattice cells before they receive
electrons. This fact implies that there is going to be some degree of
migration of the anode charge into the outer portion of the cathode, but
does not necessitate that the full anode charge do so. --Mitchell
Jones}***  
> 
> Water molecules are bipolar, electrostatically speaking. So, if a + ion is
> in solution, the adjacent water molecules align their - sides toward the +
> ion. Now we have a sphere with all + sides of the water molecules on the
> surface. The water molecules adjacent to the sphere align their - sides
> toward that layer around the sphere, and so on. There is in effect a hugh
> ionically bonded +1 charge molecule (clump) that migrates through the
> electrolyte.  When the clump reaches the cathode, the elctrostatic force
> of the cathode, if sufficient voltage, can separate the + ion from the
> clump.
> 
> It seems like, if this is true, H atoms preceeding a clump to the cathode,
> and at the surface of the cathode, would have a very high probability of
> being forced into a site by a clump. Also, some would H atoms would
> escape, combining with other H atoms to form H2 and bubble out.
> 
> What do you think?

***{To repeat: I do not see a need for an alternative model. A voltage
gradient is all that is required to attract an H+ ion into the unit cells
of the cathode. It doesn't have to be "forced" in: the openings in the
triangular faces of the unit cells are large enough for it to move in
*very* easily--as easily as a fly into an amphitheater, in fact. Remember:
an H+ is simply a proton--i.e., the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The
standard formula, curve-fitted to the experimental data, for computing the
radius of a nucleus is simply r = (1.37E-13)A^(1/3), where r is the radius
in cm and A is the mass number. For H+ the mass number (number of protons
plus number of neutrons) is 1, so r = 1.37E-13 cm = .0000137 A.  Once
inside the cathode, such an H+ ion will drift toward the electron source
until it acquires an orbital electron. At that point, it will become an
electrically neutral H atom, with an effective radius as per the innermost
Bohr orbit (.53 Å or slightly larger). This means, roughly speaking, that
its radius will increase by four orders of magnitude when it captures an
electron, and it will become trapped in the unit cell which it is
occupying at that time. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> > 
> > Horace, your posts are tightly focused, high on content and relevant
> > logic, and are excellent food for thought. I, for one, appreciate them
> > very much. Thank you! 
> > 
> > --Mitchell Jones
> > 
> > ===========================================================
> 
> Thanks for the support much needed by this newbie.
> 
> Horace
> 
> -- 
> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

***{At this point, I would like to toss out what I call the protoneutron
theory of "cold fusion." If this theory is correct, then "cold fusion"
ain't fusion! 

Note that the drift of the H+ ions into the cathode does not require a
free path through unoccupied unit cells. In an occupied unit cell, the
occupant is a neutral H atom. Thus there is no voltage gradient barring an
H+ ion from drifting into an occupied unit cell, and there is no voltage
gradient preventing an outward drifting electron from passing into an
occupied unit cell, either. This means it is purely a matter of
statistical probability, regarding the question of whether a drifting H+
meets an electron in an occupied unit cell. If it does, it will attempt to
"pop" into a neutral hydrogen atom. Unfortunately, because the unit cell
is already occupied, when the second H atom attempts to form it will not
have sufficient room for its electron at even its innermost Bohr orbit.
Result: the electron will spiral down toward the nucleus, where it will
linger at grazing altitude in a particle form which we may term a
*protoneutron.* Why doesn't it become an actual neutron? The answer: in
the reaction p + e --> n, the mass of the proton is 1.67239E-24 grams
while that of the electron is .00091E-24 grams. Thus the sum of p + e on
the left side of the equation is 1.6733E-24 grams. On the right side of
the equation, the mass of the neutron is 1.6747E-24 grams. Since the
neutron outweighs the proton plus the electron by .0014E-24 grams, which
equates to .7875 Mev, this amount of energy must be available from
somewhere in order for the protoneutron to convert into a real neutron.
[Note: to convert .0014E-24 grams to ergs, we multiply by the square of
the velocity of light in cm per sec, giving: (.0014E-24)(9E+20) = 
.0126E-4 ergs. Since 1 electron-volt equals 1.6E-12 ergs, it follows that
this reaction absorbs  .0126E-4/1.6E-12 = .7875E+6 electron-volts, which
is .7875 Mev per neutron created.] Since this amount of energy is unlikely
to be available, the bizarre and unstable protoneutron will only endure
for a tiny fraction of a second, until it bounces into an unoccupied unit
cell. At that point, it will expand its radius like an exploding piece of
popcorn, and become a hydrogen atom trapped in that unit cell. 

Note, however, that such events have a cumulative effect: if electrons
tend to meet protons in a particular region of the lattice, all of the
adjacent unit cells in that region are quickly going to become occupied,
and the size of that continuously occupied region is going to grow
inexorably. Result: protoneutrons that are formed in that region will
endure for longer and longer, before finally bouncing into an unoccupied
unit cell adjacent to the region and "popping" into hydrogen atoms.
Eventually the size of the "loaded" region will become so immense,
relative to the slow moving, uncharged protoneutrons, that they will begin
to accumulate in the region. Why do they persist in this bizarre
netherworld state, as "protoneutrons?" For two reasons: (1) Enough thermal
energy is available for them to "pop" into hydrogen atoms, but that low
energy state requires a lot of space--more space than is available in the
loaded region of the lattice which they occupy. (2) Enough space is
available for them to collapse into neutrons, but that state requires more
energy than is available. Result: thermal protoneutrons inside large,
continuously loaded regions of the lattice will simply endure, desperately
hungering for the energy or the space they need to enter a more stable
state. 

This means that protoneutron loading will take place in subregions of the
lattice that are fully packed with hydrogen atoms. First there will be
one, then two, then ten, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of
protoneutrons trapped in the region, *and all will be desperately awaiting
some event capable of supplying a .7875 Mev jolt in the right place.* They
have no prospects of being transformed into hydrogen atoms, because that
is a low energy-high space transformation, and the space is not available.
Thus their only allowed transformation is the low space-high energy
transformation into neutrons. When such a transformation finally happens,
the loaded palladium electrode will "turn on," and begin to produce
"excess heat."

To understand the production of "excess heat," assume that in a subregion
of the lattice in which there are millions of trapped protoneutrons, one
of them finds the energy it needs to become a neutron. Result: a thermal
neutron will be created, and will quickly drift into a nearby nucleus. If,
for example, it drifts into an H nucleus, the result is D plus a 2.22 Mev
gamma. The gamma, however, will not exit the lattice, because it is
emitted in a region packed with protoneutrons, *and it is my conjecture
that protoneutrons are so rapacious in terms of their demand for energy of
transformation that they will absorb all of the gamma's energy before it
can exit from the lattice.* This means that the 2.22 Mev gamma will
transform 2 protoneutrons into neutrons, and, in addition, will give a
third protoneutron about .645 Mev of kinetic energy. Naturally, the
resulting fast protoneutron will fly through the lattice until it
encounters an empty unit cell, where it will virtually instantly "pop"
into a hydrogen atom. But remember: the hydrogen atom is too large to move
freely in the lattice. It will thus slam into the opposite side of the
unit cell in which it forms,  and deliver its .645 Mev to the lattice as
heat. As for the two thermal neutrons that were created, they will quickly
drift into nearby nuclei, producing isotope shifts and more
electromagnetic emissions. When those emissions are insufficient to
transform a protoneutron into a neutron, they give it kinetic energy, and
cause it to fly through the lattice until it comes to an unoccupied unit
cell, where it pops into a hydrogen atom, slams to a stop, and delivers
its energy to the lattice in the form of heat. When the emissions are
energetic enough to transform protoneutrons into neutrons, on the other
hand, they will trigger additional neutron creation, which in turn will
produce still more isotope shifts, and so on. In short, a kind of chain
reaction will begin within the subregion of the electrode that is packed
with protoneutrons. That reaction will have three odd characteristics: (1)
It will be self-controlling: if the lattice begins to overheat, it will
deload hydrogen, which will reduce the population of protoneutrons, which
in turn will slow the reaction back down. (2) The reaction will be self
sustaining: once large numbers of thermal neutrons are afoot in the
lattice, a constant sprinkling of gamma emissions will be assured, thereby
continuing the process. (3) There will be no radiation hazard: radiation,
for practical purposes, cannot escape from a lattice that contains a
substantial population of protoneutrons.        

Anyway, that's enough for now. I am not going to go into the various
isotope shifts which can result from this process, nor into the energies
of the associated gammas, betas, etc., that can result. Instead, I am
going to offer a simple prediction which can be verified or falsified: in
order for the protoneutron theory to be correct, a palladium lattice
loaded with protoneutrons must have an abnormal hunger for energy, and an
abnormal ability to suppress internally emitted gammas. Otherwise, the
experimenters who have touched off "cold fusion" would all be dead. This
can be explained in only two ways: either the presence of nearby
protoneutrons absorbs the energy before the gammas can form--i.e., before
the photons can attain the speed of light--or else they absorb it after
the gammas have formed but before they exit the lattice. To test this,
here is what I propose: 

(1)To determine whether the energy is absorbed *after* gammas form, load a
palladium cathode to the point where "cold fusion" begins, and then
bombard it with gamma radiation. In that case: (a) a bizarre and extreme
increase in gamma absorption will be noted, by comparison to measurements
taken with the same cathode prior to loading; (b) it will be possible to
"turn on" loaded cathodes using gammas that have enough energy to turn
protoneutrons into neutrons. (Note: lots of other predictions could be
made here--e.g., that it should be possible to turn on loaded cathodes by
supplying them with thermal neutrons--but I am deliberately trying to
restrain myself.)

(2) To determine if the energy is absorbed *before* gammas form, supply
the cathode with thermal neutrons before loading, measure the gammas
produced, and then repeat the procedure with a loaded cathode that is
producing anomalous heat. Far more gammas should be emitted from the
cathode in the first case than in the second.   

Now, to a different point: earlier I said that if the protoneutron theory
is correct, then "cold fusion" isn't fusion. The reason is simple: fusion
refers to the combination of the nuclei of different atoms to form atoms
of yet another kind. Since an electron isn't the nucleus of an atom, the
combination of an electron and a proton to form a neutron isn't fusion.
And, since a neutron isn't a nucleus, when a neutron combines with a
preexisting atomic nucleus to form a different isotope, that, too, is not
fusion. Bottom line: if the protoneutron theory is correct, then "cold
fusion" ain't fusion!

I would add that I am perfectly aware of the conflict between the
protoneutron theory and "quantum mechanics." This is a classical
mechanical theory, and classical mechanics is based on the principle of
continuity--i.e., the principle that no entity may come into existence out
of nothing or vanish into nothing. The principle of continuity indicates
that an entity can arrive at, or leave, a location in one way only: by
successively occupying each position in a continuous spatial pathway to,
or away from, that location. The implication is that motion is continuous,
not a series of quantized "jumps." This means, for example, that an
electron moving from one stable orbit to another does not "jump" in the
quantum mechanical sense: it follows a continuous spatial pathway from the
former orbit to the latter, and it exists just as surely during those
instants when it is between the "preferred" orbits, as when it is in one
of them. In the case presently under discussion, the principle of
continuity means that an electron exists and follows a continuous spatial
pathway when it is transiting from the lower Bohr orbit to a position in
the nucleus. It does not merely exist "in" the nucleus and "in" the
innermost Bohr orbit, but also in between. The protoneutron, in short, is
a classical mechanical phenomenon. It violates the most fundamental
precept of "quantum mechanics" and, if it exists, it constitutes one more
piece of evidence, in a pile that is already mountainous, indicating that
motion in the microcosm is not "quantized" and, hence, that "quantum
mechanics" is wrong.    

Needless to say, I present the protoneutron theory as a hypothesis subject
to verification or falsification. If it proves to be indefensible, then I
will abandon it. On that, you have my absolute guarantee. --Mitchell
Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Matt Austern /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: 10 Sep 1995 05:31:48 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <hXEB16J.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> The effect cannot be due to experimental error. If it was, it would not have
> been so widely reproduced, by so many people, at such high signal to noise
> ratios.

Which effect?  I've heard a lot of talk about all sorts of different
effects, but I have yet to hear of a single case where two groups did
the same "cold fusion" experiment, using the same configuration, and
got the same result.  

As I've said before, I think a lot of folks on this group just
don't understand what the words "reproduction" and "replication"
mean.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Alan M /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 06:40:40 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <xnGCc7k.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com 
writes:
> We are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem. Scientists will not post
> extensive descriptions of their work here as long as the rude 
naysayers
> practice negative elocution. CF scientists give me preprints of their
> papers and informal descriptions of their work, but they ask that I
> refrain from discussing it here, or posting any description of it,
> because they do not want their reputations dragged through the mud, 
and
> they do not want to read vituperation and insults.
>
["they are terrified of professional peer review" - translator's note.]
 
-- 
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:
cuddy10 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 22:58:44 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

At the risk of invoking the ire of other sci.physics.fusion readers
I'll just post one followup to this "off-topic" thread:

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:

>I disagree.

>France is playing a pioneering role in the development and use of nuclear
>reactors. 

>The development of nuclear weapons tends to advance toward small yield
>explosions and such low yield devices may eventually point the way towards
>new types of nuclear reactors, possibly clean fusion reactors or nuclear
>propulsion systems. 

That's a *very* long extrapolation of the current situation!

If that *is* France's goal then why do it under the guise of weapons
testing?

>Our planet desperatly needs nuclear energy as well as nuclear rocket
>propulsion systems for its continued environmentally friendly development.

We don't *need* nuclear rocket propulsion systems at all, where are we
going to go?  I think this planet is a *long* way from feeling happy
about tossing megatonnes worth of fissionable or fusionable material
into the sky over our heads for purely "explorational" reasons.

>Mankind's very survival depends on its ability to spread humanity to other
>planets and later to other solar systems. 

What a load of crap!  Mankind is at a much greater risk of
self-anihalation through the proliferation of nuclear weapons or
nuclear accidents than he is through lack of interplanetary or
intergalactic travel.

>Without nuclear energy space travel is risky and expensive. 

Even with nuclear energy space travel is risky and expensive.

>The destruction of an atoll is a small price to pay for nuclear developments. 

That's very easy to say when you live half a world away.  Why don't
you come down here and make your home amongst the potential dangers.
I guess you'd be more than happy to have a family of genetically
damaged children and die prematurely from rare cancers in order to
further the human race's aspirations for intergalactic travel?

>Such nuclear developments lead to environmentally clean power 
>plants that help protect our planet from the biggest danger today, 
>fossil fuel burning and pollution.

It is indeed very easy to make such bold assertions when you don't
bother to present substantiating evidence.  Where are your facts, your
research and references? 

>I apploud the French for their pioneering efforts.

"apploud" - you're not of French descent by any chance are you?

I, and most of the civilised world, decry the French for their
arrogance and conceit.  The very allies whose soldiers died to protect
the French during two world wars are having their objections dismissed
out of hand.  The European Court has ruled that France must stop their
testing but they ignore it.  It is anticipated that this week the
World Court will make a similar ruling which the French have said is
meaningless since they choose not to accept the juristiction of this
global forum.

How can we tollerate a supposedly friendly nation which puts it self
beyond the law (to the extent of undertaking terrorist actions against
pan-national organisation by destroying a Greenpeace vessel and
murdering one of their members in the friendly waters of a New Zealand
harbour).

Let's face it, the French have no altruristic motives in performing
these tests.

They are a delinquent power that needs to be told in no uncertain
terms that its behaviour is not acceptable in this post-cold-war
climate.

My rave ends.


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Kasagi et al, D beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Kasagi et al, D beam into Ti
Date: 10 Sep 1995 04:46:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <p9IgED1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>There are two sets of people, A and B. A is the set of all people who have
>published scientific papers about CF. B is the set of all people who post
>messages here. The union of A and B includes only three people as far as
>I can tell. It does not include Steve Jones because he retracted -- he
>"unwrote" his paper, as it were.

This is just bogus.  Steve Jones was a member of one of the
two primary groups reporting cold fusion results.  He initially
reported positive results for neutron emission from his cold
fusion cell; this was one of the key initial "results" in cold
fusion.  By reanalyzing his data and retracting this result,
he turned a crucial positive report of fusion products into
a crucial negative report on fusion products.  He has also 
published work on possible sources of pseudo-excess-heat 
in cold fusion cells arising from unaccounted-for recombination 
of the electrolysis gases.  There is absolutely no credible
way you can exclude him from any "set of people who have
published scientific papers about CF".  Jones certainly did
not "unwrite" his result when he retracted the neutron claim.
Far from it - he punched a big experimental hole in the set
of evidence suggesting that "cold fusion" is nuclear rather
than chemical in origin.  In fact, the absence of neutron
emissions is perhaps the *only* result in CF which is
experimentally well-determined, and that result is largely
due to Jones' work.

Just because you disagree with him and dislike him doesn't
mean you can arbitrarily exclude him from your listing.
Face it Jed, there's no way you can claim Jones isn't a CF
researcher, at least not with a straight face.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.10 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: 10 Sep 1995 04:56:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <hXEB16J.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>>What if the effect is due to experimental error?
> 
>The effect cannot be due to experimental error. If it was, it would not have
>been so widely reproduced, by so many people, at such high signal to noise
>ratios. One or two scientists might mismeasure water tempertures by 4 degrees,
>or even 20 or 50 deg C, but hundreds of scientists would never make such
>extreme errors. 

On the other hand, if thousands of scientists do some sort of
experiment, a hundred of them are likely to get a result which is
beyond the 90% probability percentile, and 50 of those will be
on the positive side.  If the other 950 people don't publish, but
those 50 do, it will - falsely - appear that CF has been reproduced
experimentally, when really all that has happened is that the
publication process has selected for the 5% of extreme false-positive
results.  Those scientists, buoyed by the prestige of publication,
will continue to look for - and occasionally reproduce - these 
"positive" results.  They may even formulate a "recipe" for producing
"positive" results, which is basically a recipe for fooling their
calorimeters.  But it is very unlikely that they will get a recipe
which allows them to generate three times as much power as they
use, which is the (approximate) recipe for creating a viable thermal
energy generator using an electric energy input.

The number of mistakes that it is possible to make is still vastly
larger than the number of researchers, and the lack of significant
numbers of precise replications is still much smaller than the
total number of experiments.  It's not yet clear whether the
results that have been reported are really correct, or whether
the process at work is really experimental error run amok in
the way I described in the above paragraph.

The bottom line is that the number of times the cold fusion 
water heater has been promised (many) is still far in excess 
of the number of water heaters which have been proven to run 
on cold fusion (zero).

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Michael Varney /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Michael Varney <mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 05:28:44 GMT
Organization: C.S.U Department of Physics



Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) 
wrote:
>In article <432h7a$k52@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
>>  Has anyone seen any of my 30 cancelled posts.
>
>  I found out it was anonymously forged cancels of my posts.
>
>What or who is :    bga.com.
>
>  And, if no action is taken and my posts are further compromised in
>the future. Please tell, how I can do the same thing on other people,
>lest I miss out on some fun.


:-)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmcvarney cudfnMichael cudlnVarney cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Jim Bowery /  PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.tech,mis
.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 22:37:43 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

A new claim is now open for trading on the Idea Futures Exchange 
(http://if.arc.ab.ca/IF.shtml) under the trading symbol "ball":

Before midnight, December 31, 2005, there will exist an operational 
commmercial energy system using boron-11 plus hydrogen-1 as its primary 
fuel, delivering less than 1% of its energy in the form of neutron 
radiation. This system will be based on Paul M. Koloc's 
magnetohydrodynamic model of artificial ball lightning, which he calls 
the PLASMAK(tm).

(See http://webster.skypoint.net/members/jlogajan/)


PS: If this notice is posted twice in your newsgroup, I apologize.  The 
first time I posted this notice, it failed to appear anywhere after 
several hours.  I removed sci.physics.plasma from the distribution, as 
that group is moderated, and tried again, suspecting that to be the problem.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
                 Change the tools and you change the rules.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:09:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

This is the first time I have heard about the protoneutron theory of cold
fusion. I would be interested in finding out if there have been previous
references to it anywhere.

In any case this theory very much resembles what I posted recently under
the heading "The electron capture theory of cold fusion". There is one
crucial difference though. I never assumed a classical model (I think it
is foolish to do so) but instead assumed a series of events and quantum
states which are compatible with existing quantum theory. Quantum
mechanics is much more than a mathematical formulation that gives the
correct results. The wave nature of particles is a physical reality. The
quantum waves are the physical objects whose propagation and evolution is
computed by the universe if regarded as a computer. It would make sense to
use a quantum mechanical model to describe macroscopic phenomena but not
the other way around. 

In a loaded lattice freely moving electrons, bound electrons, metal ions
and protons or deuterons exist creating the possibility of electron
capture. The electron will not linger around the proton to form a
"protoneutron", it does not have to. With a sea of electrons roaming all
over the place there is always likely to be one near a proton wich has no
electron shell, in fact quantum mechanics allows a higher wave function
density near a positive charge then elsewhere. This creates the
possibility of electron capture as long as it is followed by fusion,
because the fusion needs to supply the energy. After fusion (D + D fusion)
we need to explain why the HE4* does not de-excite by neutron or proton
emission. This could be explained by the energy removed in the form of a
neutrino and possibly beta decay which emits an energetic electron and
another neutrino. I fail to see how the "protoneutron theory" contributes
new information to what I said earlier in the "Electron capture theory"

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Anderson Mpower /  query: CF current/voltage
     
Originally-From: mpowers9@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Anderson @ Mpower)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: query: CF current/voltage
Date: 12 Sep 1995 08:22:10 +0800
Organization: Teleview, Singapore Telecom

In the CF experiments using electrolysis:

1)  What are the electrical parameters being used ?
    Are they predominately low-voltage/high-current DC ?
    Could someone post what electrical parameters are being tested ?

2)  What electrolytic solutions are being used ?
    Are they primarily D20, or is there more than a few solutions
    which seem to produce positive results ?

3)  In experiments involving sonoluminescence:
    What frequencies are being investigated ?

I realize that there is an infinite range of combinations
of these factors being considered, but I am interested
in a general summation of encouraging results and the parameters
used therein.

Thank you...

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Discover the businesses of MENSA members at the MpowerBase: 
http://cyber-active.com/mpower		Mpower Consultants, Ltd.(M^)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmpowers9 cudfnAnderson cudlnMpower cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / James Thomas /  Kill File - how to create???
     
Originally-From: jthomas@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (James Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kill File - how to create???
Date: 11 Sep 1995 19:10:55 -0400
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

I -used- to have a kill file on trn for this group to take out "LP". 
Unfortunately some time ago it got wiped out and I've forgotten how to 
recreate it. Now, more than ever I would like it back, otherwise I'll be 
forced to drop this group.

Thanks;

-- 
Jim Thomas				
McMaster Nuclear Reactor			phone 905-5259040 ext 23283
1280 Main St. W.				FAX 905-5284339
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada			home 905-6280126
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjthomas cudfnJames cudlnThomas cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 15:22:30 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <1995Sep1.141555.2390@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

> Mitchell Jones questions the possibility that recombination of D2 and O2
> (or H2 and O2) in an electrolytic cell could result in apparent excess heat,
> as we claimed in our paper

***{Not quite. What I questioned was your apparent denial that the heat of
recombination ought to be counted as part of the output energy, for the
purpose of finding excess heat. --Mitchell Jones}***

 , "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during
> electolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion'
> cells," J. Phys. Chem., 99 (1995) 6973.
> 
> Mitchell would be well advised to read our paper before making such comments

***{Why? I was responding to your post, not to your paper. --Mitchell Jones}***

> (he obviously has not done so yet). 

***{You are right about that. --Mitchell Jones}***

 Briefly, the problem arises when
> experimenters use open cells then *assume* that all the input energy which
> goes to decompose the water is simply lost as the gases all bubble out of the
> cell.  P&F (early experiments at least), Mills, Srinivasan and others made
> these assumptions, for example.
> 
> But what we (and others) have shown is that recombination *in* the cell can be
> in fact significant.  This chemical process leads to generation of substantial
> heat, which appears to be excess heat when 100% Faradaic eff. (no
> recombination) is erroneously assumed.

***{I appreciate your clarification of your original post. I take it that
you are saying that some experimenters simply calculated the heat of
recombination from the electric current consumption and added it to the
output total. Since some of the gasses remained in the electrolyte and
recombined there, they raised the temperature and, in essence, were
counted twice. This, of course, would elevate the output heat by some
small and erroneous amount, and, in an experiment that produced very
little "excess heat," could account for the result. But it does not, for
example, explain experiments (e.g., that of Cravens) which produced excess
heat on the order of 300-1000%! 

Frankly, now that I see what you were saying, I must say that I don't know
why you said it. The tone of your post strongly implied that you were
raining down some sort of thunderbolt which ought to devastate the CF
results. Given that strong implication, I made the only interpretation of
your words that made sense: that you were denying that the heat of
recombination belonged in the output heat total. But now, when challenged,
you abandon your original grandiose implication and retreat to the tiny
claim that some obscure group of CF experiments showed such insignificant
amounts of excess heat that they could be explained by a trivial error.
Even if that is true, why are you wasting time talking about it? Do you,
perhaps, prefer to dwell on the weak experimental confirmations of CF
because doing so enables you to avoid thinking about the strong results?
--Mitchell Jones}***       
> 
> Read the paper, Mitchell.

***{Why should I? I have better things to do than waste my time on results
that are easy to explain. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --Steven Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Wolfgang Wuster /  Re: Censorship of my posts?
     
Originally-From: Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@bangor.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 10:11:25 +0100 (BST)
Organization: University of Wales, Bangor.

On 11 Sep 1995, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>    Anyone have thoughts or experiences with having their posts
> cancelled against their will?

Probably not. And that should serve as a hint to you.

--
Wolfgang Wuster

Thought for the day: If you see a light at the end of the tunnel,
it is probably a train coming your way.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbss166 cudfnWolfgang cudlnWuster cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 16:16:15 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4302sl$8o0_001@ip112.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
wrote:

> In article <BDMD1mf.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> >Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> > 
> >>Non-rigorous, incomplete, inaccurate, and simply wrong analyses have not 
> >>been eliminated as a source of error. Most of the claims will fall to close 
> >>scrutiny. One or two may not, but until they are subjected to independent, 
> > 
> >They have been eliminated. They were eliminated years ago, by workers like
> >McKubre and Fritz Will. You have not read the literature, you know nothing
> >about their work, so your statements are totally in error. Unless you can
> >show some source of error in the work at SRI, Los Alamos, KEK, IMRA and
> >elsewhere you are wrong and I am right.
> > 
> >You think that you can prove there is a mistake just by waving your arms and
> >repeating that statement over and over again. "A mistake, a mistake a mistake
> >a mistake." That does not mean a damn thing! This is science, not voodoo.
> >You think there is a mistake? Okay, show it to us. Put up or shut up.
> 
> Gee, Jed, do you really want to face up to the "stupid" facts?
> 
> What about the E-Quest results. The head gas samples sat for a couple of 
> months before the guys could scrape up the bucks to have the sample analyzed. 
> I'm sure they didn't plan it that way, and if they had the resources they 
> would have had the analysis done immediately. Nevertheless, my stupid
analysis 
> says the delay throws the results into doubt. Perhaps an unavoidable error, 
> but still a procedural error. 
> 
> What about the Cravens demo. The excess heat is not only non-proportion to 
> input, my stupid spreadsheet analysis points to output unrelated to input. It 
> looks like you get x amount of excess with large imputs, x amount with medium 
> inputs, and x amount with teeny tiny inputs. I guess this was what you were 
> talking about earlier when you told about output with no input. This may look 
> like irrefutable proof of cold fusion to you, but it looks like pure and 
> simple systematic error to me. 

***{If the reaction has the capacity to be self-sustaining, then, once it
"turns on," output can be literally unrelated to the input. In that sense,
a "CF" cell would be like a nuclear reactor: you would need a conventional
power source to fire the beast up, but once it got going, it could run on
its own. Under such circumstances, output would correlate poorly with
input, or not at all. 

There are a number of descriptions in the literature that indicate "cold
fusion" to be capable of self-sustaining operation. In these "heat after
death" episodes, the cathode continues to produce heat long after the
input power is turned off. Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno at Hokkaido National
University, for example, has reported a "heat after death" episode in
which an unconnected cathode continued to operate for 55 hours and yielded
up 792,000 joules of heat. Needless to say, this output was uncorrelated
with the input! [See Jed's article in vol. 1, no. 1 of *Infinite Energy,*
entitled "Very Hot Cold Fusion" for details.] 

Bottom line: the fact that output of the Craven's demo does not correlate
with the input does not undercut the "excess heat" result at all. All it
does is place limits on the nature of an acceptable theory of "cold
fusion." --Mitchell Jones}***

[Remainder of post deleted]

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.08 / Horace Heffner /  Re: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELP: ELECTROCHEM LOADING C60
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 22:52:00 -0900
Organization: none

In article <42pp0o$db2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar) wrote:

> We have been working on a number of approaches to loading fullerene
> molecules with deuterium atoms at a high density.  Our lab is not set up
> for the type of experiment proposed here so in the name of efficiency I am
> requesting a review and comments on the scheme before undertaking a
> physical demonstration.  I believe that this procedure has significant
> potential for producing the high density endohedral (inside the cage)
> loading we want to achieve.  Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Begin by constructing a compressed plug of C60 fullerene in the shape of a
> rod.  The compressed rod may require some type of inert binder (suggested
> material?) so that it can be configured around a wire electrode.  This
> configuration comprises a cathode.  The anode can be fashioned from any
> suitable and typical metal.
> Prepare a solution of heavy water D2O and deuterium nitrate as an
> electrolyte with an acid base.  This should result in ionizing the
> deuterium atoms and stripping their electrons leaving them almost
> dimensionless D+ atoms.  Set the cathode and the anode in the electrolyte
> solution and run a direct current through the circuit. The amount of
> current can be varied to the extent necessary to overcome the energy
> barrier at the shell of the C60 cage and the electrolyte could be
> circulated through a heat exchange loop to keep the temperature below
> boiling.  Bubbles should appear around the cathode indicating the D+ ions
> have been drawn into the cathode assembly.  As the D+ ions slip through
> the C60 cage  they are captured inside and pick up another electron from
> the carbon atoms thus stabilizing.  It seems that the process would first
> fix D+ions to the outside of the cage but eventual their would be no more
> places for them to attach and they would default to the interior.  Once
> inside they might also combined to form D2.
> That comprises the general outline of the experiment.  I am looking for
> any comments regarding the procedure.  Will it work? Why or Why not? Can
> you suggest refinements?  Are there other procedures that might be equally
> effective?
> All help will be gratefully accepted and appreciated.  Looking forward to
> your comments.

This is the protocol I suggested in an earlier post. However, I have some
alternatives that may be more appropriate for free fullerenes, without
using a binding agent. I'll use C60 to refer to fullerenes, which come in
many other sizes.

One possibility is placing free C60 fullerenes in D2 solution between two
high voltage HF insulated plates in close proximity to each other. I would
suggest making the solution acidic by bubbling CO2 through it first.  The
idea is to drive the D+ ions back and forth past the more sluggish C60. 
If a D+ ion got inside the fullerine, the D+ ion would be shielded by the
C60 surface, which can conduct unless enough D attaches externally. If a
D+ ion go inside, and the C60 were in a conducting state,I would expect
the D+ ion to pick up an electron pretty quickly, or bond inside the C60.
I would think a powerful magnetic field purpendicular to the plates would
enhance the motion of the D+ ions relative to the C60's.  Another
variation might be to have one plate insulated, and one plate exposed to
the electrolyte. Stirring the slurry would be important to avoid clumping
and possibly point discharges from clumps of C60, or otherwise distorted
electric fields.

Since the inside of C60 (and here I specifically mean C60) is about 3.6
angstroms in diameter, it is possible to fit lots of D2 in there before
things get crowded.  This provides a nifty high mass package for
accellerating to a target in a vacuum.  However, it is not clear how long
the D will stay in there, or how much success you might have in packing
them in faster than they might come out. If you can get the D+ ions past
the van der Vall barrier though, everything is in favor of equilibrium at
a dense packing. If the D+ bonds or loses it's charge it is no longer
subject to the forces of the electrostatic field. If the HV HF field could
be had at a nominal energy cost, and if high loading can be achieved, it
would be interresting just to make a calorimitry run to see if there is
any CF effect inside.

I should note that the above experiments could be carried out in a D2 gass
environment, using the HV HF field to create D+ ions, or using other
ionizing sources, like  HV fine point electrodes, UV or x-rays.  However,
ion implantation schemes have historically produced extremely low loading
percentages. Also, temperature control is difficult. I think the key
ingredient in either a liqiud or gas regime is lots of oscillations of D+
ions with sufficient energy to penetrate the van der Valls barriers, but
not destroy them.

I would suggest working out the wrinkles with ordinary H first. Finding
out how much H got obsorbed might be tricky unless you got a really good
loading factor.


Regards,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Scott Little /  Re: Sonoluminescence Water
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence Water
Date: 9 Sep 1995 07:08:36 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <42ndo4$fkg@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, jfurnes@ibm.net says:

>We have a 5kw total power 20khz system that works best WITH gas added.
>Reducing the desolved gasses also seems to reduce (visible) light
>given off. Published stuff seems to agree with what we see in the application.
>

Interesting.  At least one published stuff says that you need degassed 
water, namely the Sci Am article by Putterman and B______?

Are you doing SBSL? or multiple bubble?  

I would greatly appreciate a description of your apparatus.

Thanks  
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Does it really matter?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it really matter?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 12:57:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>What about the Cravens demo. The excess heat is not only non-proportion to
>input, my stupid spreadsheet analysis points to output unrelated to input. It
 
That is correct. Excess heat is governed by loading and other controlling
parameters. Input electricity plays a role in establishing loading, but
once the metal is loaded and the reaction starts, input power no longer
matters as much. In some cases, you can turn off power altogether and the
reaction continues. This is called "heat after death."
 
If the excess heat was proportional to input, I would suspect an experimental
error somewhere. I have never seen a result where input tracked output
closely.
 
 
>What about the Griggs Gadget? The stored heat hypothesis seems to be a better
>explanation that cold fusion.  Cooked numbers is an even more likely candidate
 
Oh, well, if you are going to include this kind of stuff in the category of
"scientific critique" then why not throw in the Morrison versus Fleischmann
debate? Or Jones versus Fleischmann? It isn't science, but it's a laff riot.
If you want to include crackpot science then let's throw in crystal healing
energy and the Proceedings of the Flat Earth Society. Why not? Anything goes
on Internet.
 
Hey, if you are going to drag out this nonsense about stored-heat-as-
explanation-for-Griggs, maybe I should republish the debate in which Morrison,
Droege et al demonstrated that they do not know the difference between 150
watts and 6 nanowatts. We can all have a good laugh.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: 12 Sep 1995 03:05:11 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-1109950941270001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> 
> ***{As I noted in my post, the correct approach 
> [to improving efficiency] is to experiment with
> cavitation void generators.

That would be the correct approach, assuming that Griggs
device is tapping into some new energy source. However, 
that presumption is still far from warranted. 

All things considered, time would be better spent at this
point establishing that the Griggs device actually 
generates excess energy, rather than trying to improve
its performance.

Perhaps Jed can direct us to a detailed report on a steam run 
that has lasted longer than a half hour.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 23:16:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
    "Now of those posting on the subject of CF here, no one regularly writes
    as much personal invective and schoolyard namecalling as you do . . ."
 
I disagree. I think that the majority of "skeptical" posts are childish and
disruptive in the extreme -- far worse in practice than anything I write.
"Skeptics" repeatedly assert things that we all know are wrong, including
assertions like these:
 
An elevated temperature in a small body over an extended period of time does
not prove the body is producing energy.
 
Calorimetry can never prove that thermal reaction has gone beyond the bounds
of chemistry.
 
Excess heat in a closed cell with a recombiner in it might be caused by
recombination. Recombination might cause sustained excess heat greater than
I*V.
 
CF might be a heat pump effect, even though most calorimeter designs preclude
this possibility.
 
The specific heat of water can double or triple; that you can store a calorie
of energy in a gram of water at room temperature without even raising the
water temperature by a tenth deg C.
 
Tritium generation does not prove that a nuclear reaction has occurred.
 
 
Statements like this fly in the face of common knowledge and elementary
physics. Yet the "skeptics" repeat them over and over again. Not because they
sincerely believe them, but only in order to confuse the issue and disrupt
the debate. This tactic is more impolite and more childish than anything
I have ever done in my life. People who do this take a serious scientific
question and reduce it to the level of a word game or the kind of petulant
denial of the obvious that a tired three-year-old specializes in. We must have
some minimum standard of science! There are certain minimum standards that
must be met. If a person wants to assert something that plainly violates, say,
the Second Law, that in itself is okay, but he should state plainly "I realize
this is a violation of the 2nd law but . . ." That would not bother me. What
bothers me are these continually repeated violations that keep the "debate"
(such as it is) stuck at square one. Six years after the discovery of CF and
150 years after J. P. Joule's groundbreaking experiments we have here hoards
of scientists who claim that calorimetry does not work, and that you cannot
tell how much energy a body is producing by measuring its temperature in a
call calibrated with a joule heater (the technique invented by Joule).
 
It is also outrageous and disgraceful that so many people feel they can
pontificate about papers they have never read. Talk about schoolyard behavior!
In any elementary school classroom when a kid starts blabbing on about an
assignment he has not read, the teacher hushes him up and gives him a failing
grade for the day. People here routinely make ludicrous, absurd mistakes about
simple matters of fact, because they are too lazy to read the scientific
papers before commenting on them. That is the height of rudeness in my opinion.
It shows that the speaker has no respect for the process or science and no
respect for the authors of the papers. It is contemptible. Far worse than
using a little strong language from time to time. This behavior is
intellectually dishonest and unacceptable in any academic environment, no
matter how informal. Imagine a group of technical people -- scientists or
programmers -- sitting around in a bar listening to some fellow pontificate
about a bombshell paper in Nature or some aspect of the Pascal programming
language. Now imagine their reaction if they found out 20 minutes into his
spiel that he had not read the paper or he never programmed a single line of
Pascal. People would be shocked! They would think the fellow was a nut, or at
best that he was a rude, antisocial weirdo. Nobody I know would do that
in real life, yet on Internet people do it all the time. In real life you
might make a few nasty comments about Pascal, but you would not talk on and on
pretending you know about the subject.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Horace Heffner /  sci.energy thread of possible interest
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.energy thread of possible interest
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 10:26:52 -0900
Organization: none

In sci.energy there is a thread called: "Electric Car Batteries
Breakthrough", which may be of interest to CF experimenters.

I'll quote part of an article here so you can see what I mean.

In article <B.Hamilton.574.3050A2C3@irl.cri.nz>, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz
(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:

> In article <42p918$l3i@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
>  will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) writes:
> 
> 
  [snip]
> 
> For the curious, the Ovonics battery owes its performance to an
> carefully-engineered negative electrode. The electrode is a metal hydride,
> an alloy that easily absorbs hydrogen. The positive electrode is nickel
> hydroxide, and the current-carrying electrolyte is potassium hydroxide.
> Water in the aqueous electrolyte splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions 
> when the battery charges. The hydrogen is absorbed into the negative
> electrode - which then converts from metal to metal hydride. At the same
> time, hydroxyl ions react at the positive electrode and are converted from
> nickel hydroxide to nickel oxyhydroxide. During discharge, hydrogen 
> leaves the electrode to form water and release an electron... The unique
> aspect of the Ovonics battery is the mixed-metal-matrix negative electrode
> ( V,Ni,Cr,Zr,Co,Mn,Al and Fe ) which does not dissolve, fracture, or 
> recrystallise during charging and discharging.


How about that mixed-metal-matrix electrode for some experimenting
possibilities?


> 
> So why hasn't this wonder battery created a breakthough in EVs, well
> if WIll had read another of the references he might not have rushed to
> create a thread with this title.
> 
> Type Manufact. Model Weight Capacity Specific Energy  Peak   Life   Van 
>                                       Energy  Density Power Cycles Range
>                        kg     Ah      Wh/kg    W/L    W/kg          km
> Na/S   ABB     B-11   253    238        81     83     152    592   246
> Na/S  CSPL    BP-Mk3   29.2  292        79    123      90    795   240
> Ni/Cd SAFT   STM5-200 24.5   214        55    104     175   1018   163
> Ni/MH Ovonics H-Cell   0.628  28        55    152     175    505   155
> Zn/Br  SEA   ZBB5/48   81    126        79     56      40    334   149
> Ni/Fe  EP    NIF200    25    203        51    118      99    918   139
> Pb/H+ Sonn.   6V160    31.5  184        36     92      91    370    82
> Pb/H+ CEVS   3ET205    32.8  185        33     78      68    149    75
> 
> Various footnotes and qualified omitted, the weights looke strange, 
> but I haven't time to clarify from the text.
> They used the Federal simplifies urban driving schedule and a IDSEP
> ( improved dual-shaft electric propulsion) van - details in the 
> reference "Advanced batteries for electric vehicles" G.L.Henriksen,
> W.H.DeLuca, D.R.Vissers. ChemTech. November 1994 p.32-38.
> 

I wonder what some samples might cost?

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CFV: sci.physics.fusion.naysayers
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 13:04:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>> Someplace for those who wish to practice negative elocution,
>> so that the rest of us can read factual accounts and reports
>> concerning what has happened/not happened on the scene...
>> 
>> Thanks
>>
>
>Before bifurcating the group, such reports as you desire would
>have to appear hear in the first place. While in the past there
>has occasionally been experimental reports posted here (though
 
We are faced with a chicken-and-egg problem. Scientists will not post
extensive descriptions of their work here as long as the rude naysayers
practice negative elocution. CF scientists give me preprints of their
papers and informal descriptions of their work, but they ask that I
refrain from discussing it here, or posting any description of it,
because they do not want their reputations dragged through the mud, and
they do not want to read vituperation and insults.
 
If the standard of discourse here was more or less the same as you find
at an informal physics seminar, or at a bar on a late afternoon down the
street from the physics department, then perhaps you might find more
factual reports of CF expeiments. There are various private e-mail
networks where such standards are maintained, both in the U.S. and in
Japan. They allow fruitful, informative, and pleasent exchanges of
information. This forum, alas, does not. I do not know what, if anything,
can be done to fix the problem. I think perhaps it is better to stick to
the traditional methods of exchanging scientific information -- the journals,
preprints, meetings, and the Friday afternoon pub.
 
Another problem here is that there is no agreement on the fundamentals of
physics, and many members of the forum have no knowledge of the literature.
For example, we cannot even get "skeptics" like Dick Blue to admit that
a small body that remains palpably hot for a week must be producing more
energy than a chemical reaction would allow. This is so fundamental, and to
me, so obvious, that I consider it the absolute minimum starting point for
a discussion of CF. If you cannot agree with this proposition then we have
no common ground for discussion, and there is no point to communicating.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 13:35:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
 
     "But what we (and others) have shown is that recombination *in* the cell
     can be in fact significant."
 
Methods of preventing (or creating) recombination were well known to
electrochemists long before CF began. The most common causes of recombination
are poor cell geometry, adding oxygen to the electrolyte, and employing very
low power levels, in a domain where recombination dominates. As I recall,
Jones used the latter two methods, running at power level 100 to 1000 times
lower than any CF experiment that I have ever heard of. Jones proved that if
you set out to create recombination deliberately, you can do it. This is not a
revelation to anyone familiar with electrochemistry. The milliwatt power
domain is not recommended for other reasons as well. It complicates the
calorimetry, for a number of reasons explained in this paper, which I highly
recommend:
 
M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell
(CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power
during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952
 
In any case, many CF experiments produced massive excess energy that could not
possibly have been caused by recombination, for the one or more of the
following reasons:
 
1. Many produced more power than total recombination could create; more than
I*V.
 
2. Experiments at SRI, AMOCO, Los Alamos IMRA and elsewhere were performed in
closed cells with recombiners in the cell.
 
3. In many experiments, the effluent gasses were measured with precision gas
flowmeters, which showed that the expected amounts of gas left the cell.
 
4. Many other methods besides electrolysis have been used to saturate metals
with hydrogen, including gas loading, gas electrolysis, ion beam loading, and
ultrasound cavitation loading. These methods also produce excess heat,
neutrons or other signs of a CF reaction. Recombination cannot be a factor
with these methods.
 
Jones will never admit that the majority of CF experiments fall in one or more
of these four categories. He wants to prove that all CF results are caused by
recombination, but the data proves his hypothesis is absurd, so he pretends
that 99% of the data does not exist. He also refuses to admit that CF creates
easily detected levels of tritium and helium, which cannot be caused by
recombination.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 17:32:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>This is a common misconception about physics.  We do not have to
>know the mechanism, only the circumstances.
 
I agree with this, and I think Ed Storms makes the same point in his paper
"How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect" -- which I highly recommend.
 
>energy physics.  The history of the first few weeks after the
>discovery of high-Tc supercondcutivity is that of following a
>recipe (and modifying same) without any clue about why it works.
>That mechanism remains in dispute, but the phenomenon is reproducible.
 
The history of the first ten years after the discovery of the transistor
shows a similar pattern. I think that time frame is more typical. The HTSC
story went extraordinarly fast. The HTSC made as much progress towards
reproducibility in a few months as the transistor, the automobile engine,
the lightbulb or the airplane made in 5 or 10 years. Even when the mechanism
is discovered, you may still have problems reproducing. The first working
transistor was made in 1948, and the mechanism was worked out in 1952, but
the device did not become easily reproducible until the late 50s, and even
today the failure rate is high for some types of devices. Cold fusion
cathode failure rates are roughly 50% for experienced workers (or 95% for
people who are careful and use off-the-shelf Pd; or 100% for people who
forget to wash their hands.) This is much better than transitors were
at this stage in their development. I do not know what the failure rate
for HTSCs are, but a few years ago a fellow in that field told me they
still struggling to make batches of them work consistantly.
 
I gathered from this informal conversation that HTSC work about as well as
CF cathodes. You can make most of them work, maybe half or two-thirds, but
you never know how well they will work or how strong the effect will be,
or exactly where the cut-off temperature is. Perhaps they have improved by
now.
 
Most products can only be reproduced by experts after years of hard work.
I mean things like fax machines, copy machines, advanced light bulbs,
Pentium processors, automobiles, and good French cooking. Perhaps that is
because these products are complex. CF cathodes are too. They look simple,
but they require careful manufacturing and pretesting, especially the thin
film types. Of course, CF is nowhere near as difficult to reproduce as HF!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Galileo was NOT easily reproduced!
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 17:12:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that there was a lot of sloppy, scandalous CF work from professional
scientists in the early days of CF, particularly at Cal Tech and MIT. In a
burst of irrationality, rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
responded:
 
     "You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try.  *Either* the
     experiments at Cal Tech and MIT were done correctly (although
     misinterpreted) and yielded positive results *or* they were "sloppy"
     "schlock" science and do not prove anything one way or the other."
 
The experiment at Cal Tech was done correctly, it yielded positive results,
and it was grossly misinterpreted. This mistaken interpretation makes it
schlock science. There is no contradiction; I am not "having it both ways."
The published interpretation was sloppy and scandalous. It should have been
formally retracted years ago. The experiment at MIT was flawed, the data was
changed for no reason before it was published, and the interpretation was
grossly incorrect. The experimental technique was marginal, but good enough to
prove there was excess heat. It was much better some of the other mad-rush
1989 replications.
 
In any case, this is ancient history. What happened in 1989 hardly matters. By
late 1990 there were superb replications from many labs, that proved beyond
any doubt that CF is real, and beyond chemistry. There are now dozens of
superb papers from world class labs that demonstrate the effect at
astronomically high Sigma levels.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF emissions
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF emissions
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 17:37:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au> writes:
 
>photons in the visible spectrum, either directly or indirectly. This
>means that any such experiment that was actually producing excess
>energy, ought to glow in the dark. Does this happen?
 
Not that I am aware of, but it could be that nobody has checked. In many
cold fusion experimnts, the cathode is sealed inside a steel cell, where
it could not be seen. In other experiments it is inside a glass container,
usually submerged in a bath. I do not know if anyone has tried turning
off the lights to look for a glow. How strong do you suppose this light
might be? Would it require a photomultiplier?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Richard Rydge /  French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: rrydge@zeta.org.au (Richard Rydge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: French nuclear test agenda
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 09:09:15 GMT
Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney, +61-2-837-1183 V.32bis



The nuclear nightmare returns
	
Behind France's resumption of nuclear testing lies a secret agenda.  

France is rushing to perfect simulation techniques so that it can
create the next generation of nuclear weapons outside of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.   

Other nations would then have to follow suit, and the nuclear arms
race would resume with a vengeance.    


Racing towards the Big Bang
	
If advanced nations develop a new generation of deadly nuclear
weapons, the impetus will then be to push on, to create an even more
potent next generation.  

Where will the madness end?


Pacific at risk

France has declared it will detonate eight nuclear bombs by May 1996.


The fragile Mururoa atoll is already imperilled.  Further tests could
break through the surrounding basalt rock and allow nuclear waste to
leak into the ocean.  

Or worse, fissures caused by earlier nuclear explosions could fracture
the cap on the underlying volcano and lead to calamity in the Pacific.


Huge plumes of volcanic ash would then rise high into the sky and be
carried across the planet.


It's time to act
	
France's latest round of nuclear tests are more than just colonial
disregard for its Tahitian citizens, more than just a worry to nations
in the region.  

It's kick-starting an arms race that could engulf us all.  

Now is the time to act.  All of us should consider how we can help
stop these tests.  

Each of us can influence events around us, through personal choice,
through persuasion and through action.  The longer we wait the harder
it gets.  

Resolve to do something -- and make a difference.
	


Secret agenda in weapons test: physicist
Text of article from The Weekend Australian, 9 September 1995.

	France was almost certainly using its current series of atomic tests
on Mururoa to enable it to design fourth generation nuclear weapons,
including neutron bombs, an Australian expert said yesterday.

	The French Government was deliberately deceptive in its claims that
the trials were purely to develop simulation techniques, Monash
University physicist Dr Don Hutton told The Weekend Australian.

	"What they're not telling the public is the kinds of new weapons they
are planning to use those simulation techniques to build.  Why do they
want simulation programs?  So they can go beyond the thresholds which
will be defined by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," he said.

	Dr Hutton said the new generation of weapons included battlefield
neutron bombs designed to destroy life but not property by a vast
pulse of radiation, electromagnetic weapons and "tailored nukes" with
very specific uses such as bunker-busting.

	The risk with all such devices was that they made the use of nuclear
weapons more acceptable because they more closely resembled
conventional weapons in purpose and effect, he warned.

	Dr Hutton said it was most likely the French were refining the early
stages of a nuclear explosion, the chemical pre-ignition and plutonium
fission which gave the bomb its destructive force.  This was why the
blasts appeared small.

	France was also likely to try to appease world opinion by appearing to
reduce the number of blasts while in fact conducting the same number
of tests by detonating several bombs simultaneously in "strings of
pearls".

	Dr Hutton was sceptical of French claims there had been no radioactive
leakage from its underground test sites, based on Russian admissions
about half their subterranean test sites leaked.

	Meanwhile, British scientists have joined the international furore
over potential damage to Mururoa atoll, challenging the French
Government's claim that the radioactive material will be trapped in
melted rocks for at least 100 years.

	British researchers say that, after about 20 years and 124 underground
tests at the site, the volcano underneath the coral lagoon is becoming
a web of vitrified cavities or "bubbles", from which an unknown number
of cracks are spreading like spiders' webs.

	They fear that the present round of underground explosions will
accelerate the fracturing and cause the fissures to join up.  That
could trigger the collapse of the atoll and lead to huge cracks
opening to the sea, creating a pathway for the waste and threatening
fish and other marine life.

	Dr Roger Clark, a seismologist at Leeds University and a spokesman for
the Verification Technology Information Centre in London, an
independent body of physicists, geologists and earthquake experts,
said this week there was a risk that the level of tests had reached a
critical point and that one more could trigger the atoll's fracturing.

	He said there was a tacit acceptance, even in the French military,
that Mururoa was reaching the end of its life.



Comments? E-mail Richard Rydge --  rrydge@zeta.org.au



cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenrrydge cudfnRichard cudlnRydge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 07:07:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <42itlm$5vl@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0409950034330001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > In article <4265ut$bhg@sake.wwa.com>, Tom Droege <droege@wwa.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > The reward I seek is not a
> > favorable vote from a jury, or kudos from an audience I have impressed,
> > but rather the feeling of self-satisfaction that results from a case well
> > made. 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should consider alt.philosophy---you seem to have a
> philosopher's approach to science.

***{Actually, "modern" philosophy is as absurd, and as hysterically funny,
as "modern" physics! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> > 
> > As for seeking the truth, I would note the following: (a) the strongest
> > argument a person knows relative to an issue is the best approximation to
> > the truth that he has; and (b) the person who believes whatever seems to
> > be supported by the strongest arguments is virtually immune to bias:
> > unlike those who believe what they want to believe, losing an argument
> > actually affects his opinion! 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fatal error seems the need to ``believe'' anything, and the notion
> of ``truth'' itself. I don't have any ``beliefs'' related to the Griggs 
> device, cold fusion, etc. I have some opinions and intuitions,  but I would 
> not elevate  them to the status of beliefs. 

***{The attempt to distinguish between "belief" and "opinion" strikes me
as a useless hair-splitting exercise of the sort practiced in
alt.philosophy. Perhaps it is you, rather than I, who belongs there! :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***
 
> I don't have any particular emotional investment in these things---I just 
>want to know how things do/don't work and 
> what we can/can't do with them. The issues of truth, belief, and other such
> quasi-religious or emotionally laden concepts don't really enter into it
> for me. 

***{Barry, I am *not* religious. Nevertheless, issues of truth and belief
are what science is all about. The difference between a real scientist and
a fake scientist lies precisely in the allegiance to truth which the real
scientist has, and which the fake scientist does not. The real scientist,
when confronted with evidence that demonstrably clashes with a belief,
will abandon that belief; the fake scientist will try to forget, or evade,
the evidence. This is why real scientists are easy to identify: when they
lose an argument, they alter their beliefs. --Mitchell Jones}***

I am a scientist; I'm really just interested in whether
> this stuff ``works'', and wether it can be used for energy generation.
> You can cast this into talk of beliefs and truth if you want, but I 
> don't view it that way. The most relavent emotion is curiosity. 
> 
> Nor will the type of ``arguments'' you seem to favor on sci.fusion lead
> to any useful conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. These
> are primarily experimental questions, and they will only be resolved by
> repeated, careful experiments.

***{Here you agree with Jed, and you are both wrong. Experiments, by
themselves, resolve nothing. It is arguments about experiments that move
us toward the truth. The process of criticism and debate about whether an
experiment is flawed is fully as essential to scientific progress as is
experimentation itself. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Sep 13 04:37:17 EDT 1995
------------------------------
