1991.12.23 / Mark North /  Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
Date: 23 Dec 91 22:53:21 GMT

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
>alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
 
>>If I understand correctly Pd has an affinity for H, which means that a
>>piece of Pd will absord H2 under normal circumstances. This process is most
>>likely exothermic since the system will try to achieve the lowest energy.
 
>The process you describe is endothermic.
 
>Mark
 
Excuse me for following up my own reply but I should have said more.
It is not widely appreciated that some metals (particularly the Pt group)
are endothermic on H absorbtion and explains why some folks get excited
when the temperature in their cell rises upon current cut-off.
For a reference there was an article in Physics Today about 10 years ago
by a former teacher of mine, Cam Satterthwaite. I have the precise refs
if anyone is interested.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.23 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Electroplating of nickel
     
Originally-From: jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Electroplating of nickel
Date: 23 Dec 91 16:18:58 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica

In article <1991Dec19.055742.25645@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>I am doing some non-cold-fusion experiments and would like to know how to
>electroplate nickel onto another metal.  I can get nickel in pellet form,
>but I'd like it in maximum surface area.
 
Wow, this guy is actually trying to find out what happens by asking Nature
herself, instead of deducing the answers in an authoritative way from
misunderstood theoretical first principals.  Doesn't this kind of violate
the spirit of this group?
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.23 / Ron Hill /  A naive question on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: ron@vort.uucp (Ron Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A naive question on cold fusion
Date: 23 Dec 91 20:39:34 GMT
Organization: VORT Computing    Calgary, Alberta, Canada    ...calgary!vort

I just got access to this group, and was surprised to see that research on
this topic is still progressing.  I was under the impression that it was a
dead issue.  I guess I'm getting too much mass media.
 
I recall that Sakharov was working on muon-catalyzed cold fusion a few
years ago.  Has anyone examined the possibility that cosmic rays
interacting with the palladium deuteride sample may have induced a
catalytic reaction of some sort?  Has anyone tried artificially irradiating
samples?
 
Just curious,
-RJH
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenron cudfnRon cudlnHill cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.24 /  mahin@erich.tr /  Princeton
     
Originally-From: mahin@erich.triumf.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Princeton
Date: 24 Dec 91 09:31:00 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility

 
 
 
Hello everyone:
I would like to talk to anyone who is studying fusion at Princeton.
Please send me an email as soon as possilbe.
Thank you.
Mahin.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmahin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.25 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann lecture at MIT
Date: 25 Dec 91 14:09:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg) writes (about Fleischman's
MIT talk):
 
> The first is he is still confident they are observing fusion, the
> prime evidence of which is heat.
 
I am sure I am not the only one to notice a logical flaw here.  Assume
that they really are seeing excess heat.  Why should this be evidence
for fusion rather than, say, some currently unknown source of energy?
After all, they have to invoke a miracle of "new physics" to explain
how fusion can occur without observable side effects (like
glow-in-the-dark electrochemists).  Why not invoke the "new physics"
before the argument-by-exclusion is made that deduces the presence of
fusion?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.26 /  Bauer /       Bass's criticism of Close
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Bass's criticism of Close
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 05:53:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
The name of Robert Bass seemed to ring a bell for me: he figured in the
Velikovsky controversy, which has become a classic in the history of
doubtful or marginal or pseudo-science--see my book BEYOND VELIKOVSKY: THE
HISTORY OF A PUBLIC CONTROVERSY, University of Illinois Press, 1986. I got
in touch with Leroy Ellenberger, who is the most knowledgeable person
about the continuing Velikovskian saga and related matters; and he
supplied the following for posting:
"Followers of the polemical assault by Robert W. Bass on Frank Close's TOO
HOT TO HANDLE and the reaction to it may be interested to know that in the
1970s and early 1980s Bass applied his rhetorical skills to defend
Velikovsky's WORLDS IN COLLISION. Despite having studied celestial
mechanics under Aurel Wintner and Solomon Lefschetz, Bass unfortunately
failed to appreciate the fact that the circular restricted three-body
problem does not apply to the Sun-Jupiter-Venus and Sun-Earth-Mars
systems. Bass also fragrantly misrepresented sources: for example,
claiming incorrectly that the work of Hills and Ovenden supports a
Velikovskian time-scale of mere centuries for random planetary orbits to
settle into a Bode's-Law type of resonant configuration.
Bass spoke at Velikovskian conferences in Hamilton, Ontario (1974),
Glasgow, Scotland (1978), and San Jose CA (1980). The contents of these
addresses were published in four articles widely hailed by Velikovsky's
supporters: 1) "Did Worlds Collide?" and 2) "'Proofs' of the Stability of
the Solar System" in Pensee VIII (1974), 3) "Can Worlds Collide?" in
Kronos I:3 (1975), and 4) "The Celestial Dynamics of 'Worlds in
Collision'" in SIS Review VI:1-3 (1982). "Proofs" was reprinted in Kronos
II:2 (1976) and SIS Review III:1 (1978). For a copy of No.4, send a SASE
to the writer.
Bass drew upon the work of Siegel, Moser, Arnol'd, Giacaglia, Danby, and
Graff to argue that Newtonian dynamics does not exclude the orbital
changes implied by Velikovsky and that "wild motions" described by Danby
are a key along with M. A. Cook's "sophisticated Madelung-force, dynamic-
lattice, plasma-theoretical electromagnetic theory of gravity" (for
effects during collisions). A. E. Roy thought enough of Bass's ideas to
cite him in ORBITAL MOTION (1978). Bass also believes that all systems of
radiometric dating have been refuted by Cook in PREHISTORY AND EARTH
MODELS (1966).
Bass pays no attention to criticism, either. He continued to trade on
"wild motions" after T. C. Flandern told him in a letter dated 22 May 1975
that they do not apply to the planets in the solar system and ignored this
and other criticism by Ellenberger published in SIS Review VIIA (1982/3),
Kronos X:1 (1984) and Kronos XI:1.
The current home address for Bass is 519 W. Gainsboro Road, Thousand Oaks,
CA 91360.
[submitted by] Leroy Ellenberger, formerly Senior Editor, Kronos; 3929A
Utah Street, St. Louis, MO 63116; phone (314) 772-4286"
|===================================================================|
|     Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies      |
|                     VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212              |
|  Internet:  BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1)  |
|  Phone:     (703)231-8217(office)/4239(secretary)/951-2107(home)  |
|  FAX:       (703)231-3255                                         |
|===================================================================|
|  THE ONLY THING NECESSARY                                         |
|                   FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL                         |
|                                   IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING   |
|===================================================================|
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfn cudlnBauer cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.26 /  Britz /  How to get the archived bibliography files
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get the archived bibliography files
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 14:48:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I get asked regularly how to get the archived bibliography files. Here is how:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Use the userid
anonymous and your e-mail address as the password.  Once connected, enter
cd fusion
to access the fusion archives.  Then you may enter
dir fusion.bib*
to get a listing of the bibliography files.  To transfer each file use
GET (ie. mget fusion.bib*  or  get fusion.biblio1a  etc.).
Enter  quit to terminate ftp.
 
2. Via LISTSERV, which means you get it sent by email. To first find out what
is in the archive, send an email to listserv@ndsuvm1.bitnet, with a blank
SUBJECT line, and the "message" consisting of the command
index fusion
You get a largish list of all files available. To get any one of these files,
you then send to the same address the command, e.g.,
get fusion 91-00487
get fusion biblio1a
etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.28 / Jim Carr /  Re: A naive question on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A naive question on cold fusion
Date: 28 Dec 91 21:13:11 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1991Dec23.203934.14048@vort.uucp> ron@vort.uucp (Ron Hill) writes:
>
> ...
>
>I recall that Sakharov was working on muon-catalyzed cold fusion a few
>years ago.    ...
 
Also a few decades ago.  According to the review by Zel'dovich and Gershtein
in Usp. Fiz. Nauk 71, 581 (1960) [translated in Sov. Physics Uspekhi 3, 593
(1961)], Sakharov was among the first to predict the phenomenon, in an
internal report from 1948.  He published with Zel'dovich in 1957 in JETP,
but the Uspekhi article is a good review of the subject from the Soviet
(oops, Russian) perspective at a time when theory and experiment had come
together following the experiment by Alvarez et al.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu                        |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University                      |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.30 / John Logajan /  MKF results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MKF results
Date: 30 Dec 91 22:00:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Preliminary results from MKF type cell set up over the Christmas break
by a person/persons who will remain nameless, are that they are getting
55mw excess heat using 100 sq cm #24 Ni wire.  The intended design setup
was going to be a seperate chamber for recombination isolated from the
main chamber by a bubbler.  I assume that the actual device follows the
original plan, but I don't know for sure.  This report is subject to
retraction pending more information.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1991.12.31 / Chuck Sites /  Re: A naive question on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A naive question on cold fusion
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1991 09:04:47 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>>In article <1991Dec23.203934.14048@vort.uucp> ron@vort.uucp (Ron Hill) writes:
>>I recall that Sakharov was working on muon-catalyzed cold fusion a few
>>years ago.    ...
 
>Also a few decades ago.  According to the review by Zel'dovich and Gershtein
>in Usp. Fiz. Nauk 71, 581 (1960) [translated in Sov. Physics Uspekhi 3, 593
>(1961)], Sakharov was among the first to predict the phenomenon, in an
>internal report from 1948.  He published with Zel'dovich in 1957 in JETP,
>but the Uspekhi article is a good review of the subject from the Soviet
>(oops, Russian) perspective at a time when theory and experiment had come
>together following the experiment by Alvarez et al.
 
  Jim was kind enough to give the low down on muon catalysied fusion,
which is real "cold fusion" by anyones book. But if your curious
about the more controversial cold fusion in deuterated metals, all
that can be agreed on to this point is that a very very small fusion
reaction is occuring by metalic-electron screening of a highly
deuterated lattice. [For a good introduction to electron screening see
Clayton's "Principle of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis" Chp 4.8].
More extravigant claims of fusion in metals like those reported by the
Japanese team of Yamaguchi, and Nishioka are very indicative that this
process is a dynamic one.  The latest reports from that camp indicate
that they have reproducability with some significant and easily measurable
fusion by-products.  If your skeptical of fusion in deuterated metals,
you need to study these guys works.
 
  Tritium production, with D2O remains controversial even though
autoradiographs of electrolysis Ti cells indicate something interesting
is going on. Even if this indicates the seperation of T2O from a polluted
D2O water occures rapidily, it's a fasinating piece of electrochemistry.
I'm sure many will be interested your work.
 
  Excess heat is still an effect that is left to be explained. Perhaps it
will be answered by a conventional quantum-mechanical description.  From
the Mills/Farrell Nickel/H2O work, excess heat in hydrated metals is very
indicative that the effect is quantum phenomenon.  With D2O the effect is
suppose to be more profound, but is it relative to the difference of H/D?
Anyway,
 
Happy New Year,
Cold Fusioneer.
 
Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1991 
------------------------------
1992.01.03 / Scott Mueller /  CNF-related explosion at SRI
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF-related explosion at SRI
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 03:25:33 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

There was an explosion today at SRI International in Palo Alto.  Details
were unclear, as is common from television news, but one story indicated
that the work was a CNF experiment, and D2O was clearly involved.
 
As a sidenote, the SRI spokesman called heavy water H3O, an error that so
bemused me that I completely missed reading his name and title...
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
SF-Bay.ORG is a Bay Area Usenet Domain | Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Park; write for information on joining | for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests
SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78 login newuser password public
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.003 / Jeremy Grodberg /  Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
     
Originally-From: jgro@netcom.COM (Jeremy Grodberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 07:38:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Apparently a scientist was killed in an explosion at SRI resulting from
an experiment involving a palladium electrode in heavy water.  Pons and
Fleishman reported one of their palladium electrodes exploding in their
original cold-fusion paper, but I have never heard anyone explain how or
why such an explosion could occur.  Of course, the by-products of the
electrolysis of water are hydrogen and oxygen, which are explosive.
 
The investigation into the cause of the explosion begins in the morning.
 
 
 
--
Jeremy Grodberg             Commited to developing user-friendly products,
jgro@netcom.com             Because technology is supposed to make life easier
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenjgro cudfnJeremy cudlnGrodberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.03 / William Johnson /  Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 16:47:52 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Jan03.073842.11797jgro@netcom.COM> jgro@netcom.COM (Jeremy
 Grodberg) writes:
>Apparently a scientist was killed in an explosion at SRI resulting from
>an experiment involving a palladium electrode in heavy water.  Pons and
>Fleishman reported one of their palladium electrodes exploding in their
>original cold-fusion paper, but I have never heard anyone explain how or
>why such an explosion could occur.  Of course, the by-products of the
>electrolysis of water are hydrogen and oxygen, which are explosive.
 
You've put your finger on it.  Closed-cycle cells typically use palladium
recombiners (palladium was mentioned in the SRI article I saw) that are
successful in recovering practically all of the D2 and O2 as heavy water --
usually.  However, sometimes the recombination doesn't proceed as it should,
and volumes of D2 and O2 gas build up and vent.  If that happens they can
recombine (ahem) unpredictably.  Exactly why the recombiner stops working for
a while is unclear, even to the palladium chemist I talked to about them, but
it does happen, not only with heavy water but with light.
 
In the early days of cold fusion, I had a gamma-ray detector set up in the lab
of a certain notorious True Believer who'll go unnamed.  (BTW, no gamma rays
above background were ever seen, but that should go without saying.)  The
place looked like the set of a '50s mad-scientist movie -- cells everywhere.
My detector had to operate at liquid-nitrogen temperatures, so I had to make
frequent visits to the lab to refill the LN dewar.  On one of those visits I
had my head down pouring LN into the dewar, when suddenly there was a BANG!
from behind me.  I looked up in time to see pieces of the palladium recombiner
flying through the air, as the remainder of a trashed-out cell collapsed in
pieces on the lab bench.  Even though the explosion was no bigger than a small
firecracker, I was jolted into gibbering incoherence and went into the TB's
office, where he and a groupie were eating crackers and Brie.  He shrugged,
said, "Oh, did another one go off?  Happens all the time," and went back to
his Brie.
 
I have a hard time imagining a cell that produces enough unrecombined D2 and
O2 to result in a lethal explosion, but I would assume that is what happened at
SRI until proven otherwise.  It'll be interesting to see the results of the
investigation.  BTW, the news report I saw also said that heavy water is
"slightly radioactive."  To head off obvious net.comments, let me point out
that this statement *is* correct.  The D2O itself isn't radioactive, obviously,
but commercial stocks of heavy water are normally contaminated with a bit of
*tritiated* water -- a fact that does make it "slightly radioactive," and also
caused the faces of several early cold-fusion experimenters to be liberally
anointed with egg.
 
--
Bill Johnson			| "A man should never be ashamed to own he
Los Alamos National Laboratory	| has been in the wrong, which is but saying,
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| in other words, that he is wiser to-day
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)	| than he was yesterday."  (A. Pope)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.04 /   /   Reply to Mark North
     
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.uic.edu!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Reply to Mark North
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 02:04:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>The process you describe is endothermic ... and second message
 
This is a poor experimenter actually trying to do the experiment.  On
electrolysis of Pt (anode) and Pd (cathode) in a sensitive calorimeter
we measure the excess oxygen when hydrogen (duterium) is absorbed.  I compute
(would someone please verify this for me as I am working essentially alone)
that I should see 26.35 Joules for each excess cc of Oxygen - i.e. it is
not recombining so we have an endothermic reaction for the non-recombination.
 
What is measured is of order 21 Joules for each cc.  So the absorbtion of the
hydrogen is exothermic by this measurement.   About 2.5 Joules per cc of H2
absorbed.  What is interesting, is that first indications are that the
heat of absorption seems to increase at high D/Pd ratios - does anyone know
if this is true?
 
The calorimeter is closed with a catalyst.
 
Errors on volume and energy are of order 10% at present
 
Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.04 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 08:29:00 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1992Jan3.032533.6990@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
> There was an explosion today at SRI International in Palo Alto.  Details
> were unclear, as is common from television news, but one story indicated
> that the work was a CNF experiment, and D2O was clearly involved.
>
> As a sidenote, the SRI spokesman called heavy water H3O, an error that so
> bemused me that I completely missed reading his name and title...
>
> --
> Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or
 (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
> SF-Bay.ORG is a Bay Area Usenet Domain | Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> Park; write for information on joining | for emailed sci.physics.fusion
 digests
> SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78 login newuser password public
 
 
Is there any more news on this? I would guess that the group involved is
McKubre et al. as I don't recall anyone else at SRI that is doing cold fusion
experiments at the moment. McKubre et al. pressurise their calorimeters with
deuterium gas up to 10,000 psi, so I guess the explosion could be due to a
failure of the pressure vessel. Otherwise, it might be due to explosive
recombination of D2 and O2 in the cell headspace, although the high pressure
of D2 is supposed to prevent O2 generation at the anode. Still, I'm sure that
there is a mundane (ie. non nuclear) explanation for the explosion.
 
----
Todd Green
Department of Chemistry
University of Western Australia
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentiq cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.04 / A Boulanger /  Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF-related explosion at SRI
Date: 4 Jan 92 19:42:30 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
In addition to this APS What's New Digest blurb below, the NYT (Sat 4, Pg 26
Metro) had an AP story on it. The additional information in it said that
the explosion involved pressure relief valve that was not functioning
and the explosion occurred when one of the researchers tried to release
the pressure manually.
 
 
 
1. ACCIDENT IN A COLD FUSION LABORATORY KILLS ONE, INJURES THREE.
One of four cold fusion cells in an SRI International laboratory
in Menlo Park, CA exploded yesterday.  Andrew Riley, an electro-
chemist, died in the blast.  Three other electrochemists suffered
lacerations. The research, which has received funding of $2M from
the Electric Power Research Institute, was seeking conditions for
excess heat production in the electrolysis of heavy water using a
palladium cathode.  It was apparently a deuterium explosion.  An
SRI official said the laboratory did not think these experiments
were particularly dangerous.  There have been, however, several
chemical explosions in cold fusion electrolysis experiments; one
just across the bay from SRI destroyed a laboratory at Lawrence
Livermore.  A cold fusion lab at the University of Utah was also
demolished.  In neither case, however, were the labs occupied at
the time. According to the Los Angeles Times, the three remaining
SRI cold fusion cells were "buried on site until an investigation
determines whether they can be safely removed from the premises."
 
 
 
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.04 / John Wanklyn /  Explosion
     
Originally-From: jwanklyn@cix.compulink.co.uk (John Wanklyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Explosion
Date: 4 Jan 92 11:10:50 GMT
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

I knew Andy Riley when he worked in Oxford, and I am
in touch with his former colleagues. I would appreciate
receiving information on the accident at Stanford,
preferably by email to:
 
      jwanklyn@cix.compulink.co.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjwanklyn cudfnJohn cudlnWanklyn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.04 / Mark North /  Re: Reply to Mark North
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Mark North
Date: 4 Jan 92 18:43:22 GMT

scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
 
>north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>>The process you describe is endothermic ... and second message
 
>This is a poor experimenter actually trying to do the experiment.  On
>electrolysis of Pt (anode) and Pd (cathode) in a sensitive calorimeter
>we measure the excess oxygen when hydrogen (duterium) is absorbed.  I compute
>(would someone please verify this for me as I am working essentially alone)
>that I should see 26.35 Joules for each excess cc of Oxygen - i.e. it is
>not recombining so we have an endothermic reaction for the non-recombination.
 
Hoo boy, let's see. I think you may be confusing at least three processes (and
hence three potential sources or sinks of heat). For one thing I would expect
the electrolysis itself of H20 to be endothermic (since it is exothermic on
recombination) but that's really irrelevant. In any case that is *not* what
I was referring to. It is the process of H2 absorption in the Pt group
metals that is endothermic. This is not usually the case for most metal
hydrids. This also accounts for, I believe, some excitement I have witnessed
amoung some TBs who have their thermocouple in contact with the Pd electrode
and observe a temperature *rise* when the current is shut off. A reference for
this is in a Physics Today article of about 10 years ago by Cam Satterthwaite.
(I may be able to dig it up if necessary). The third process would be the
simple ohmic heating in the electrolyte.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.09 /   /   Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 15:29:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been pondering the data which had been reported by Menlove, Paciotti,
Claytor, Maltrud, Rivera, Tuggle, and Jones as evidence for fractofusion
with low levels of neutron production and now wish to suggest that their
data has a much more obvious explaination that does not involve cold fusion.
I think the neutrons detected quite possibly arise from the breakup of
deuterons in response to the background radiation field due to cosmic rays
and/or natural radioactivity.  All the measurements show is that there is
a net positive counting rate in the detector when molar quantities of
deuterons are present relative to a standard sample which contained no
deuterium.  Nothing about the measurements requires that the deuterium
had reacted with titanium in any way in order to produce neutron counts
in the detector..
 
Before I continue I will further identify the data in question.  It is
reported on page 287 of a conference proceedings published by the
American Institute of Physics, 1991.  The conference, I believe, was the
one held at BYU.  I wish to thank Chuck Sites for sending me a copy of
the paper.
 
Backgrounds, as reported in this paper, are all obtained in runs made with
the sample of deuterium and titanium in a gas bottle replaced by a
control sample "that consisted of the same size steel cylinder filled with
300 g of Ti chips in 1 atm of air."  (See p 292 last paragraph.)
 
Net counts which I estimate from the graphs of the results are as follows:
   Run DD-6 with 49 STD liters of D2 yields 0.5 net counts per hour
   Run DD-7 with 51 STD liters of D2 yields 0.5 net counts per hour
   Run DD-9 with 110 STD liters of D2 yields 0.8 net counts per hour
 
Next thing that caught my eye was the statement that adding a reserve
tank containing 30 STD liters of D2 increased the "background" by
0.3 net counts per hour.  Within the experimental accuracy the net counts
seen in the experiment appear to be roughly proportional to the ammount
of deuterium present within the counter volume.  No data proves that
the deuterium has to have reacted with the titanium.  It's just a
question of what standard is used to determine the background rate.
Use a standard that contains deuterium, and my conjecture is that the
effect shrinks to zero.  Any comments?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.10 /  Britz /  Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 15:49:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
 
>alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
 
>>If I understand correctly Pd has an affinity for H, which means that a
>>piece of Pd will absord H2 under normal circumstances. This process is most
>>likely exothermic since the system will try to achieve the lowest energy.
 
>The process you describe is endothermic.
 
>Mark
 
Sorry for not reacting faster; you are wrong, Mark, it's exothermic.
F.A. Lewis, "The Palladium Hydrogen System", Academic Press, 1967, gives
several numbers for the enthalphy of absorption of deuterium by palladium and
they are around +8400 cal/mol D2 or +35 kJ/mol D2. Lewis gives these
as positive numbers, calling them "heats of absorption", which is a bit
confusing. In Alefeld and Voelkl "Hydrogen in Metals", Springer, 1978, the
numbers (for hydrogen, but they are similar) are given expressly as enthalpies
of formation of the hydride, and are negative. I suppose that "heat of
absorption" means the heat given off upon absorption, while enthalpy of
formation is a state measure. In any case, this means that heat is given
off. All this refers to the beta phase, with x (in PdHx) about 0.5. It is
likely that at higher loadings, the thermodynamics changes. Indeed, Pauling
appears to imply an exothermic decomposition of the deuteride in his 1989
explanation of the excess heat.
 So at least during the early stages of electrolytic loading of the electrode,
heat will be given off and the electrode will tend to get warm. This heat is
however smallish, compared with the power absorbed by the water electrolysis,
so except perhaps for a few bursts near the electrode, it might not affect a
calorimetry measurement. In any case, just about everybody waits for complete
charging (steady state) before counting calories. Then, only water
electrolysis - and maybe "hitherto unknown nuclear processes" - are taking
place.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.09 / Steve Simmons /  Re: Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
Date: 9 Jan 92 21:18:23 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

<BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
 
>I think the neutrons detected quite possibly arise from the breakup of
>deuterons in response to the background radiation field due to cosmic rays
>and/or natural radioactivity.
 
Easy enough to test, see if an unpowered cell generates the same
neutrons as a powered cell.
--
 "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab, and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
 The postman hits!  You have new mail."   -- Ed Vielmetti
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.10 / Russ George /  SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI Accident
Date: 10 Jan 92 05:34:40 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958

I'd like to hear a sampling of what people around the world have heard
about the recent cold fusion explosion which killed Andrew Riley.
It appears that there are two possible explanations for the explosion.
One it was a hydrogen oxygen recombination explosion and two it was an
anomolous heat excursion which resulted in a violent steam explosion.
Given the high degree of expertise that the SRI researchers have in
electrochemistry the likelyhood of a cell design that would have this in
inherent susceptibility to such a violent explosion is unlikely. This leaves
a cold fusion event as the most likely cause.  I understand from talking to
the Cal OSHA (Safety) investigators that data was being taken from the
cell as close as 3 minutes before the explosion and possibly right up
to the time of the explosion. If this is the case then perhaps the answer
to what caused this tragedy is close to hand.  SRI has now sent letters
warning scientists known by them to be conducting similar experiment to
be aware that this tragedy could be repeated.
What if this is a case of a massive heat excursion?
 
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.10 / Mark North /  Re: Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
Date: 10 Jan 92 18:03:48 GMT

BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
 
>I have been pondering the data which had been reported by Menlove, Paciotti,
>Claytor, Maltrud, Rivera, Tuggle, and Jones as evidence for fractofusion
>with low levels of neutron production and now wish to suggest that their
>data has a much more obvious explaination that does not involve cold fusion.
>I think the neutrons detected quite possibly arise from the breakup of
>deuterons in response to the background radiation field due to cosmic rays
>and/or natural radioactivity.  All the measurements show is that there is
>a net positive counting rate in the detector when molar quantities of
>deuterons are present relative to a standard sample which contained no
>deuterium.  Nothing about the measurements requires that the deuterium
>had reacted with titanium in any way in order to produce neutron counts
>in the detector..
 
>Next thing that caught my eye was the statement that adding a reserve
>tank containing 30 STD liters of D2 increased the "background" by
>0.3 net counts per hour.  Within the experimental accuracy the net counts
>seen in the experiment appear to be roughly proportional to the ammount
>of deuterium present within the counter volume.  No data proves that
>the deuterium has to have reacted with the titanium.  It's just a
>question of what standard is used to determine the background rate.
>Use a standard that contains deuterium, and my conjecture is that the
>effect shrinks to zero.  Any comments?
 
Two comments. Fractofusion is not 'cold' fusion it is hot fusion and is a real
phenomenon. Whether they are seeing it here is another matter. As to the
background increase upon adding the reserve tank to the set-up: The increase
could simply be due to the added metal whether there was D2 in it or not.
If you put a neutron counter next to a pile of lead bricks the background
count goes up by about 1e-4 counts/sec/gm(pb) (in our lab). This a well known
effect caused by cosmic interaction in the lead.
 
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 10 Jan 92 21:09:30 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <H1JBeB1w164w@tsoft.sf-bay.org> bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ
George) writes:
 
> This leaves
> a cold fusion event as the most likely cause.
 
Oh really? Would you be willing to take bets on that (say at 1:1
odds, $100 limit---since you've deduced it to be the most likely cause, I'm
being generous).
 
I was duped by the press into thinking that the unfortunate scientist
tried to manually release the pressure in a pressurized vessel with
a stuck valve. Probably all part of the conspiracy. Time to petition
congress again, I'd say :-)
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.11 / Chuck Sites /  cancel <1992Jan11.080101.5061@coplex.com>
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Jan11.080101.5061@coplex.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 08:31:21 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

cancel <1992Jan11.080101.5061@coplex.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.11 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 08:58:27 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
 
><BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
 
>>I think the neutrons detected quite possibly arise from the breakup of
>>deuterons in response to the background radiation field due to cosmic rays
>>and/or natural radioactivity.
 
>Easy enough to test, see if an unpowered cell generates the same
>neutrons as a powered cell.
 
It's hard to have a powered vs. un-powered pressurized gas cell like
the one used here.  It's an interesting statistic the Dick points
out though. That is a correlation of neutron events with volume of gas.
Presumably, the higher counts are due to a higher pressure and
more interaction of D with in titanium.  But how about tritium
contamination in the D gas. This is an beta emitter of course,
and the concentrations are probably very low, but considering that
energies of the decay products, and the interaction of the decay products
with moderator and the metals of the vessel and counters, I wonder if
this could interfere with the counting.  Anybody have any ideas on this?
I don't think it would effect it, but then again the counts aren't that
high.
 
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over. It ain't over. Whats the score?|it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.12 / Chuck Sites /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 12 Jan 92 19:52:05 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>In article <H1JBeB1w164w@tsoft.sf-bay.org> bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ
>George) writes:
 
>> This leaves
>> a cold fusion event as the most likely cause.
 
>Oh really? Would you be willing to take bets on that (say at 1:1
>odds, $100 limit---since you've deduced it to be the most likely cause, I'm
>being generous).
 
>I was duped by the press into thinking that the unfortunate scientist
>tried to manually release the pressure in a pressurized vessel with
>a stuck valve. Probably all part of the conspiracy. Time to petition
>congress again, I'd say :-)
 
  That's pretty harsh sarchasim considering that someone died during
this mishap or am I misreading that smiley.  From news reports on the
TV and radio, what I've heard here is that the explosion occured while
a steel pressurized cylinder was being removed from a water bath.  From
details mentioned on the net, a safety valve had failed and while the gas was
being manually released, the calorimeter exploded.  What I gather is that
the experiment envolved electrolysis of D2O within a "bomb" type
calorimeter pressurized with D2 gas to reduce the O formation at the
anode.  Considering all things involved, it sounds like a hydrogen
explosion of a pressurized vessel plain and simple.  I havn't heard
what temp the calorimeter was running at, but if it was in the range
that most of these CF cells run at (40 to 80C is typical), that
could have aided the development of the explosion.
   Perhaps someone from SRI or someone that has heard from SRI
can provide more details, but it sounds like an experiment to
avoid without serious precautions.
 
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 02:52:36 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Jan12.195205.28574@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
writes:
> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
> >In article <H1JBeB1w164w@tsoft.sf-bay.org> bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org
(Russ
> >George) writes:
>
> >> This leaves
> >> a cold fusion event as the most likely cause.
>
> >Oh really? Would you be willing to take bets on that (say at 1:1
> >odds, $100 limit---since you've deduced it to be the most likely cause, I'm
> >being generous).
>
> >I was duped by the press into thinking that the unfortunate scientist
> >tried to manually release the pressure in a pressurized vessel with
> >a stuck valve. Probably all part of the conspiracy. Time to petition
> >congress again, I'd say :-)
>
>   That's pretty harsh sarchasim considering that someone died during
> this mishap or am I misreading that smiley.
 
The sarcasm is directed towards those who take this as a clear sign
that P&F style cold fusion works---a pretty unjunstified conclusion,
as your details point out. That a scientist died is of course tragic.
All the more tragic since it seems they died in vain.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.12 / Chuck Sites /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI accident
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 05:54:31 GMT
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 19:52:05 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

I recieved a bounced news message on this one.  Apparently our little
side machine from which I posted is not on the registered domain lists
or something to that effect.  Anyway If you've seen this before
I'm sorry for wasting the net-band width and your time.  But, if your
involved and missed this reply to Barry's post, here's my view.
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: plex!coplex!chuck
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1992 19:52:05 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jan12.195205.28574@coplex.com>
References: <H1JBeB1w164w@tsoft.sf-bay.org>
 <1992Jan10.210930.15092@math.ucla.edu>
 
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>In article <H1JBeB1w164w@tsoft.sf-bay.org> bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ
>George) writes:
 
>> This leaves
>> a cold fusion event as the most likely cause.
 
>Oh really? Would you be willing to take bets on that (say at 1:1
>odds, $100 limit---since you've deduced it to be the most likely cause, I'm
>being generous).
 
>I was duped by the press into thinking that the unfortunate scientist
>tried to manually release the pressure in a pressurized vessel with
>a stuck valve. Probably all part of the conspiracy. Time to petition
>congress again, I'd say :-)
 
  That's pretty harsh sarchasim considering that someone died during
this mishap or am I misreading that smiley.  From news reports on the
TV and radio, what I've heard here is that the explosion occured while
a steel pressurized cylinder was being removed from a water bath.  From
details mentioned on the net, a safety valve had failed and while the gas was
being manually released, the calorimeter exploded.  What I gather is that
the experiment envolved electrolysis of D2O within a "bomb" type
calorimeter pressurized with D2 gas to reduce the O formation at the
anode.  Considering all things involved, it sounds like a hydrogen
explosion of a pressurized vessel plain and simple.  I havn't heard
what temp the calorimeter was running at, but if it was in the range
that most of these CF cells run at (40 to 80C is typical), that
could have aided the development of the explosion.
   Perhaps someone from SRI or someone that has heard from SRI
can provide more details, but it sounds like an experiment to
avoid without serious precautions.
 
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over until the entropy reaches max!  |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sorry for the double post nonsense.
chuck
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 /  Britz /  Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What about palladium affinity for H.
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:40:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.uic.edu!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet>
 
>north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>>The process you describe is endothermic ... and second message
>
>This is a poor experimenter actually trying to do the experiment.  On
>electrolysis of Pt (anode) and Pd (cathode) in a sensitive calorimeter
>we measure the excess oxygen when hydrogen (duterium) is absorbed.  I compute
>(would someone please verify this for me as I am working essentially alone)
>that I should see 26.35 Joules for each excess cc of Oxygen - i.e. it is
>not recombining so we have an endothermic reaction for the non-recombination.
>
>What is measured is of order 21 Joules for each cc.  So the absorbtion of the
>hydrogen is exothermic by this measurement.   About 2.5 Joules per cc of H2
>absorbed.  What is interesting, is that first indications are that the
>heat of absorption seems to increase at high D/Pd ratios - does anyone know
>if this is true?
>
>The calorimeter is closed with a catalyst.
>
>Errors on volume and energy are of order 10% at present
>
>Tom
 
Within your pretty believable error limits (in contrast to some pretty
unbelievable claims), your numbers do make sense. As I have posted a few
days ago, hydrogen (or deuterium) absorption in Pd is exothermic, at least
at lowish loadings up to, say, 0.6, and the heat given off should be 36kJ
per mol H2 (D2). That makes it double this for every O2 given off since
the electrolysis reaction is (overall) 2H2O --> 2H2 + O2, or 3 J/cc D2.
Not bad.
 
However, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes
 
>Hoo boy, let's see. I think you may be confusing at least three processes (and
>hence three potential sources or sinks of heat). For one thing I would expect
>the electrolysis itself of H20 to be endothermic (since it is exothermic on
>recombination) but that's really irrelevant. In any case that is *not* what
>I was referring to. It is the process of H2 absorption in the Pt group
>metals that is endothermic. This is not usually the case for most metal
>hydrids. This also accounts for, I believe, some excitement I have witnessed
>amoung some TBs who have their thermocouple in contact with the Pd electrode
>and observe a temperature *rise* when the current is shut off. A reference for
>this is in a Physics Today article of about 10 years ago by Cam Satterthwaite.
>(I may be able to dig it up if necessary). The third process would be the
>simple ohmic heating in the electrolyte.
 
>Mark
 
Mark, I don't think it's Tom who is confused here. If he is getting about 10%
calorimetry errors, he knows roughly what he's doing. The absorption is exo,
not endo. As I wrote before, though, at very high loadings, the thermodynamics
are not known - at least, not to me. It is possible that to squeeze more D2
into the Pd than "wants" to be there, you might have to supply heat. There is
another possible explanation for the heat bursts upon current cutoff: Li has
been deposited, and dissolves again when let go, giving off heat. You could be
right, though. Pauling thought that deuteride decomposition gives off heat.
 
The small discrepancy due to deuterium absorption ought to disappear in any
case, when maximum loading has been achieved, i.e. steady state.
 
A note on explosions: Everybody knows that H2 (or D2) and O2 make an explosive
mixture. The original FPH cell allowed both gases to escape through the same
hole, going past the Pd bar. These people are experienced electrochemists, so
I don't understand why they did this, instead of using a divided cell - except
maybe for simplicity in their kitchen sink. Divided cells are the usual type
in electrochemistry, especially when large currents are involved. You use an
H-cell, with perhaps a coarse glass frit between the anode and cathode
compartments. The potential explosion you are then avoiding may not, as Bill
Johnson describes, be more than a fire cracker's worth but, what with glass
cells, it's much safer to avoid them. Please be careful, all you basement
cold fusioneers.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 /  Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 717 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 717 papers on cnf)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 14:41:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
 
the first little batch of this year, with four patents. I won't comment on
these, except to wonder at the strange logic of the Yamaguchi, where the
inventor seems to think that if you apply pressured D2 to a slice of Pd naked
on one side and covered on the other, that you'd somehow accumulate D at the
covered end. Also, the CA Japanese translator really ought to learn the
difference between "absorb" and "adsorb" - he/she uses the incorrect "adsorb"
consistently.
 The Balabanov is an oldish paper which took its time getting to me; it falls
into the fracto-group. The Granite and Jorne (Jorne has written several
previous cnf papers) describes an interesting approach, solid state
electrochemistry. I guess the idea is still that you might get extra high
loading by the application of an overvoltage. In this case, you might. At the
cathodic alumina/Pd interface, where the deuterons are reduced to D atoms, I
suppose the reaction D+D-->D2 might be suppressed, so you would get the
equivalent of high D2 pressures there, and consequently high loadings. But the
Pd is a porous film, so then again, you might not. They did find some neutron
bursts and are pretty modest about them - others would run off screaming
EUREKA, and call a press conference. This kind of cell has a small heat
capacity, which might be a good thing for calorimetry but then again, it's run
at 250 degC, and I suspect your accuracy would go down because of that.
 
As to the archives, this is a last call for interest in the old BIBLIO- files.
If noone objects in the next few days, they will be erased, leaving only the
new cnf- ones.
Another change I am considering is to separate the patents from the papers, in
a file to be called cnf-pat. I did once get a question from someone asking
whether it's true that patents are included in the papers list. There was a
hint of disbelief, that I would do such a thing. Some patents do describe
experiments with results and all, which is why I have done this. But I do see
why it might be a good thing to separate them. I'll have to write a proggie
to make this easier, so you have a couple of days to tell me, if you disagree
with this change. Not that this little proggie will take me that long but I
have other things to do. I will, however, continue to count patents in my
total papers count - maybe some time later, I might separate the counts.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 13-Jan. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 717
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balabanov NP;
Nauchni Tr., Plovdivski Univ. 26(4,Fiz) (1988, publ 1989) 247 (in Bulgarian).
"Hypothesis to explain electrochemically induced nuclear fusion" (my transl.)
** This paper, submitted on 5-May-89, lays out the problem of cnf, i.e. the
imbalance between the large amount of heat and the small neutron flux. The
author invokes mechanical friction effects to explain this, i.e
triboelectronic and triboluminous emission. Any process that may lead to
electron emission at sufficient energy might also cause fusion, by the
formation of high voltage fields, up to 1E09 V/m. Such effects might be taking
place at microregions in the palladium deuteride, due to the electrochemical
loading with deuterium and subsequent mechanical effects. Some old references
are given from the areas of mechanoemission (Kramer, late 1940's) and of
tribochemistry (Thiessen et al, 1960's).                            5-May-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite E, Jorne J;                      J. Electroanal. Chem. 317 (1991) 285.
"A novel method for studying electrochemically induced cold fusion using a
deuteron-conducting solid electrolyte".
** Most previous cnf experiments have used either a wet cell with electrolysis
or metals under pressurised dry deuterium, to load deuterium into a metal.
These workers combine the two. They have a beta"-alumina sandwich on Pd film,
in a dry D2 atmosphere, and apply a voltage between the Pd films. The alumina
is an ionic conductor and D+ ions, generated at the anode, can reach the
cathode, there to be reduced to D, which loads into the Pd film. Neutrons were
measured by means of two NE 213 counters, with gamma discrimination. Over two
days of electrolysis, no deviations from the background were seen, except for
some bursts. The authors cannot with certainty attribute these to the cell but
do say that a run with hydrogen produced no such bursts. The cell also has a
small heat capacity and is thus more sensitive than aqueous systems to heat
effects. Calorimetry showed no heat effects, however. Mass spectroscopy did
not detect any helium, and tritium was not produced.             Nov-90/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ogino S;                      Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,194,493, 22-Dec-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:289488 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
** "The app. comprises an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte bath contg.
heavy H2O, where the cathode is formed of V, Sr, Y, Nb, Hf or Ta, and adsorbs
D produced by the electrolysis of heavy H2O". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ogino S;                      Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,194,494, 22-Dec-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:289489 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
** "The app. comprises an anode, a cathode, an electrolyte bath, and a means
to expose cathode metal, where the electrolytic bath contains heavy H2O, the
cathode is formed of a D-adsorbing metal, and the means keeps active the
surface of the cathode metal". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taniguchi N, Gamo K, Niikura J, Adachi K;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,107,791, 21-Sep-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:289486 (1991).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion".
** "The app. includes a cathode to adsorb (in crystal lattices or on the
surface) a H isotope(s), an anode from a metal, its oxide, or its hydroxide,
and an electrolyte contg. at least a H isotope. The electrodes are
film-shaped. Nuclear fusion is caused based on the electrolysis of the
electrolyte." (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;       Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,183,987 14-Dec-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:289487 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion process".
** "In the process, pressure gradient is applied across a Pd or Ti plate which
is covered, on one side, with a thin film (e.g. Au) having a small D-atom
diffusion coeff., so that D pressure on films becomes greater than the other,
accumulating D atoms at the interface of the plate and the film." (Direct
quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 / Vadim Shapiro /  info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: shapiro@CS.Cornell.EDU (Vadim Shapiro)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 13 Jan 92 16:02:55 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

I am looking for general information on RED mercury.  I was told
that it costs about $200-300 per GRAM and is available only from
the Soviet Union.  I know little about this stuff, but I was under
impression that mercury costs about $300/pound.  So this must be
something very special (?)
 
Any info on the above and APPLICATIONS will be greatly appreciated.
Please email to
     shapiro@cs.cornell.edu
as I normally do not read this group.
Thanks in advance.
 
-Vadim Shapiro
shapiro@cs.cornell.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenshapiro cudfnVadim cudlnShapiro cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 / John Logajan /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 13 Jan 92 16:10:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>All the more tragic since it seems they died in vain.
 
All deaths are in vain.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 / A Boulanger /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 13 Jan 92 14:28:34
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Jan13.025236.29239@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
 
   The sarcasm is directed towards those who take this as a clear sign
   that P&F style cold fusion works---a pretty unjunstified conclusion,
   as your details point out. That a scientist died is of course tragic.
   All the more tragic since it seems they died in vain.
 
 
 
Curious. Who do you think has taken the explosion as a clear sign?
 
Puzzled,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.12 / Ralf Stephan /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: hagbard@ark.abg.sub.org (Ralf Stephan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 12 Jan 92 11:02:25 GMT
Organization: Private UUCP and Transputer Site, Augsburg/Bavaria/Germany

bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George) writes:
 
> I'd like to hear a sampling of what people around the world have heard
> about the recent cold fusion explosion which killed Andrew Riley.
> It appears that there are two possible explanations for the explosion.
> One it was a hydrogen oxygen recombination explosion and two it was an
> anomolous heat excursion which resulted in a violent steam explosion.
> Given the high degree of expertise that the SRI researchers have in
> electrochemistry the likelyhood of a cell design that would have this in
> inherent susceptibility to such a violent explosion is unlikely. This leaves
> a cold fusion event as the most likely cause.  I understand from talking to
> the Cal OSHA (Safety) investigators that data was being taken from the
> cell as close as 3 minutes before the explosion and possibly right up
> to the time of the explosion. If this is the case then perhaps the answer
> to what caused this tragedy is close to hand.  SRI has now sent letters
> warning scientists known by them to be conducting similar experiment to
> be aware that this tragedy could be repeated.
> What if this is a case of a massive heat excursion?
 
Nature writes:
 
"[...] Menlo Park, California, fire department authorities said
 that a pressure valve in one canister had stuck and that the
 researcher were attempting to manually release pressure when
 the container burst.[...]"
 
-- R Stephan
 
--hagbard@ark.abg.sub.org      "__/\._abc"  (|:-|  sig under construction
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhagbard cudfnRalf cudlnStephan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.14 / Bradley Sherman /  SRI, why?
     
Originally-From: bks@lima.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI, why?
Date: 14 Jan 1992 02:24:55 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics

 
I don't know anyone who took the SRI accident as "proof" of cold fusion.
However, it was a great surprise to many that SRI was (still) involved
in cold fusion research. Vestigial grant money?
---------------
	--Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.13 / Steve Robiner /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 13 Jan 1992 18:54:32 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <1992Jan13.160255.8800@cs.cornell.edu> shapiro@CS.Cornell.EDU (Vadim
 Shapiro) writes:
>I am looking for general information on RED mercury.  I was told
>that it costs about $200-300 per GRAM and is available only from
>the Soviet Union.  I know little about this stuff, but I was under
>impression that mercury costs about $300/pound.  So this must be
>something very special (?)
 
In the Soviet Union, mercury comes ONLY in Red.
 
:)
 
=steve=
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.14 /  Britz /  Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 723 papers on cnf)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion bibliography additions (total now = 723 papers on cnf)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 14:51:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
here are a few foreigners, except the Davies + Cohen, written in a hard-to-get
journal, hence the delay. Useful, though. The Japanese papers more or less
explain themselves - as far as I can get anything out of them, i.e. A pity we
don't know whether Nishizawa found any neutrons. Dick Blue will like what he
says about false signals at high humidity. With the Yang, you'll have to be as
frustrated as I am, not knowing what the two hypotheses are or what the theory
is.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 14-Jan. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 723
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davies JD, Cohen JS;
Ettore Majorana Int. Sci. Ser.: Phys. Sci. 1990, 52(Electromag. Cascade Chem.
Exot. At), 269.
"More on the cold fusion family".
** A theoretical physicists' view of cold fusion, in 1989. All possibilities
are critically examined, such as barrier penetration, branching ratios, muon
catalysis via cosmic influx, and the micro-hot fractofusion. Some penetrating
comments are made. At the low energies of alleged cold fusion, p-d fusion is
favoured. Cosmic muon catalysis is unrealistic because of the short life time
of the muons and their sticking to the products, reducing the catalysis cycle.
Fractofusion remains, although this, too, seems unlikely because of the metal
hydrides' conductivity; charges that may build up will be quickly conducted
away. Nuclear reactions with Li are also shown to be unlikely. Experiments
with tritiated water would be most fruitful if fractofusion is the answer but
the authors warn of the dangers of T2 and especially T2O.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nishizawa K;          Hoshasen 17(1) (1991) 4 (in Japanese, English abstract).
"Neutron measurements in cold fusion".
** "This paper describes an experience of neutron monitoring in cold fusion
experiments in gas phase. A BF3 neutron dose rate meter was mainly used. The
meter in our experiment on D2 gas discharge was free from noise to be counted.
A slightly over-discharge of the batteries affects the pulse height of the
counter although the rate meter of the counter responds regularly. False
pulses were counted in high humidity". (Direct quote from the English abstr.).
Fig. 1 shows what look like 5 neutron counters around the cell, and an MCA
between the amplifier and the computer. Two Pd rods are used, in a 300 ml
glass flask filled with D2 gas, at close to atm. pressure (rubber stoppers are
shown). This, together with the referenc to Wada + Nishizawa, looks as if the
author might have applied a spark between the two loaded Pd rods. As is seen,
the abstract does not say whether neutrons were found but it does say some
false readings were obtained.                                    Sep-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saito N, Sakuta K, Sawata S, Tanimoto M, Takata N;
Hoshasen 17(1) (1991) 31 (in Japanese, English abstract).
"Measurement of neutrons from cold fusion".
** "Some comments on neutron measurement technique in cold fusion experiment
are given. In order to detect the neutrons emitted as a result of the cold
fusion reaction, BF3- and (3)He-detectors were used and careful analysis of
output pulses was carried out to distinguish neutron signals from noise. Also,
great efforts were made to shield the detectors from background neutrons and
noise. No convincing evidence for occurrence of cold fusion was observed in
various froms [sic] of palladium metal loaded with deuterium". (Direct quote
from the abstr.).
Fig. 1 shows a Cd foil shield around the cell, which seems to have just one
detector (the He type in the Fig.). The rest is in Japanese, inscrutable to
this bibliographer.                                              Sep-90/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;      Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,183,988, 14-Dec-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:265199 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion process".
** "The process includes: (1) placing in a container a D-adsorbed Pd or Ti
plate, which is covered on 1 side, with a 1st film (e.g. Si oxide) having a
small D-atom diffusion coeff., and on the other side, with a 2nd film (e.g.
Au), having a large D-atom diffusion coeff., and (2) decreasing the pressure
inside the container to increase D concn. at the interface of the plate and
the 1st film". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yang J;   Hunan Shifan Daxue Ziran Kexue Xuebao 14(2) (1991) 126 (in Chinese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115:288601 (1991).
"A new fusion mechanism".
** "The nuclear fusion of d-d can not be accomplished at room-temp., so the
phenomena of the cold fusion in expt. may be from a new fusion-mechanism.
Based on 2 basic hypotheses, the author expounds to explain some exptl.
phenomena that is incomprehensible in normal d-d fusion. Furthermore, the
author suggests a series of expts. to check the fusion mechanism". (Direct
quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
==============================================================================
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Telephone: +45-86124633 (8:30-16:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.14 /  Bauer /       Pseudo-science or just anomalous?
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Pseudo-science or just anomalous?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 16:56:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
My recent posting about Bass and the Velikovsky Affair brought some direct
mail about pseudo-science. On a number of occasions on this forum, people
have asserted that cold fusion is an example of pathological science or
pseudo-science. It is quite difficult to define "pseudo" or "pathological"
science, and there is quite a large literature on the matter which those
who seek to use those terms ought to be familiar with. Many of the
important references are discussed in Chapter 8 ("Pseudo-scientists,
cranks, crackpots") of my book BEYOND VELIKOVSKY: THE HISTORY OF A PUBLIC
CONTROVERSY, University of Illinois Press, 1984. In a later book I deal
with the issue of whether "pseudo-science" is necessarily untrue, and the
degree to which science must be recognized as a social as well as
intellectual activity: see THE ENIGMA OF LOCH NESS: MAKING SENSE OF A
MYSTERY, University of Illinois Press, 1986 (in paperback since 1988).
Why does one want to label something "pseudo" or "pathological"? Only to
discredit it. But to make the labeling valid, one first has to show that
the particular matter satisfies the criteria of belonging to the class of
"pseudo" matters; and if one has indeed been able  to show that, then
nothing intellectually substantive is added by applying the label.
In practice, things are called "pseudo" without it having been adequately
proven that they indeed are pseudo: name-calling substitutes for critical
examination. In the case of cold fusion, what can one legitimately say
ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE SCIENCE beyond that the initial claims still remain
to be satisfactorily reproduced? Criticism of hasty announcement, fudging
of data, and so on can never be CONCLUSIVE in assigning something to the
"pseudo" category because--as historians of science well know--so much of
that sort of thing can be found in the doings of mainstream scientists.
For people interested in examining critically the SUBSTANTIVE claims on
such matters as parapsychology, UFOs, cryptozoology, etc. there exists the
Society for Scientific Exploration, which "has as its goals the
advancement of our understanding of anomalous phenomena and the sharing of
any such advances with the wider concerned community. The term 'anomalous'
is here used to characterize those phenomena which appear to contradict
existing scientific knowledge and which, for these or other reasons, are
generally regarded by the scientific community as being outside their
established fields of inquiry. The Society provides a forum for scientists
who believe that these topics should not be prohibited from scientific
inquiry. Members of the Society carry out investigations and enter into
debate with their colleagues, according to normal procedures of mainstream
science".
The Society was founded in 1981 by a group whose membership criteria
initially were that one have some standing in the scientific community
similar to a tenured university position. Associate membership is
available to interested people who don't meet that criterion. The JOURNAL
OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION has been published (for the Society by Pergamon
Press) since 1987; annual meetings have been held since 1981. At the most
recent, there was a symposium on cold fusion where both proponents and
disbelievers spoke. For further information, please contact Professor
Laurence W. Fredrick, Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia,
P.O.Box 3818, Charlottesville VA  22903 (LWF@VIRGINIA.EDU).
|===================================================================|
|     Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies      |
|                     VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212              |
|  Internet:  BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1)  |
|  Phone:     (703)231-8217(office)/4239(secretary)/951-2107(home)  |
|  FAX:       (703)231-3255                                         |
|===================================================================|
|  THE ONLY THING NECESSARY                                         |
|                   FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL                         |
|                                   IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING   |
|===================================================================|
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfn cudlnBauer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.14 / Chuck Sites /  Re: SRI, why?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI, why?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 17:33:18 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

bks@lima.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
 
 
>I don't know anyone who took the SRI accident as "proof" of cold fusion.
>However, it was a great surprise to many that SRI was (still) involved
>in cold fusion research. Vestigial grant money?
 
  It shouldn't be a suprise. There is still some serious science being done
in CF. The anomilous excess heat events remain an inigma. Really top
notch calorimetry work to understand the power source are difficult to
come by.  It sounds like SRI was on it's way with some good work, if not
for the tragedy of the explosion.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \It ain't over. It ain't over. Whats the score?|it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.14 /  RUBIO /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu (RUBIO)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 14 Jan 92 13:08:38 GMT
Organization: University of Florida  (ufl.edu)

>>I am looking for general information on RED mercury.  I was told
>>that it costs about $200-300 per GRAM and is available only from
>>the Soviet Union.  I know little about this stuff, but I was under
>>impression that mercury costs about $300/pound.  So this must be
>>something very special (?)
 
>In the Soviet Union, mercury comes ONLY in Red.
 
>:)
 
>=steve=
 
 
	I think that somebody is putting you on.  If you saw it in a
thermometer and it was red, it wasn't mercury, it was alcohol.  It is used
if it's gonna get too cold so it won't freeze.
 
 
				-jose'-
 
 
Disclaimer: I've been known to be wrong before.....but not right.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrubio cudlnRUBIO cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.15 /   /   Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Reinterpretation of Menlove Data
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 16:17:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark North responds as follows:
<  Two Comments.  Fractofusion is not 'cold fusion'. It is hot fusion and
<  is a real phenomenon.  Whether they are seeing it here is another
<  matter.  As to the background increase upon adding the reserve tank to
<  the set-up:  The increase could simply be due to the added metal
<  whether there was D2 in it or not.  If you put a neutron counter next
<  to a pile of lead bricks the background count goes up by about 1E-4
<  counts/sec/gm(Pb) (in our lab).  This is a well known effect caused
<  by cosmic ray interactions in the lead.
 
I might question whether fractofusion is 'real' largely because so much
of the evidence for it is as shakey as the Menlove data under discussion,
but I agree with everything else Mark says here.  The important point
is that cosmic rays, upon interaction with matter, are capable of producing
neutrons through a process Menlove refers to as neutron spalation.  It
is one background source that anyone attempting to do low-level neutron
counting should be prepared to deal with, and this is certainly something
that Menlove and coworkers were aware of.  It then becomes a very critical
issue to decide precisely how background rates are to be determined.  Mark
points out that the tank containing the reserve deuterium could account
for the 0.3 counts/hr change in background while I was hinting that it
could be the deuterium.  Of course Menlove could have answered the question
through a more elaborate and time consuming set of background measurements,
but he appears not to have done so.  I think it is reasonable to assert
that breakup of the deuterium may be the source of the surplus neutrons,
because the binding energy ( 2.23 MeV) is unusually low in comparison to
your typical nucleus.  The cross section for photodisintegration is also
large enough, about 1 mbarn.  It should also be noted that Menlove was
detecting only events with multiplicity of 2 or more which makes the
experiment much less sensitive to the general background, but thusly
more sensitive to subtle changes in the background.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.15 / Robert Cain /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: rcain@netcom.COM (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 15 Jan 92 05:15:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Isn't an oxide of mercury quite red?  I think that qualifies pretty well
as red mercury.
--
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
 
"Systems should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
                                                    A. Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrcain cudfnRobert cudlnCain cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.15 /  ter110@phys.an /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: ter110@phys.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 15 Jan 92 17:18:27 GMT
Organization: Research School of Physical Sciences, ANU

In article <1992Jan15.051510.17438rcain@netcom.COM>, rcain@netcom.COM
(Robert Cain) writes:
> Isn't an oxide of mercury quite red?  I think that qualifies pretty well
> as red mercury
 
PLEEEEEEASE, NOT AGAIN!
 
Last month there was another inquiry about "red mercury" (at least on
sci.chem), and people started listing all known (and most unknown)
mercuric compunds with a red colour.
 
Almost all non-soluble mercury compounds exist in some kind of red phase,
so please, don't list them all again! They are definitley *NOT* the "red
mercury" that these persons ask about.
 
I contributed a little to the speculation last time, but the person I then
thought could provide me with more substantial information (a friend doing
(public) research on explosives in a military research organisation) only
knew that it is extremely expensive, is difficult to buy/sell (lots of
regulations etc. in USA at least), has some kind of application in the
nuclear weapons industry, and that its chemical identity/composition not
is available from any public source.
 
IMHO, it could very well be that "red mercury" doesn't contain mercury at
all. This would be entirely consistent with quite a few misleading names
that have been coined in the military industry before; e.g. "copper" =
plutonium and "honest-to-god-copper" = copper (Cu).
 
Tomas
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! Tomas Eriksson          Exp. Surface Physics Group, Dept. of Applied Maths, !
!                         Research School of Physical Sciences & Engineering, !
! ter110@phys.anu.edu.au  Australian National University, Canberra            !
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenter110 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.14 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 05:06:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jan13.161048.10109@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>All the more tragic since it seems they died in vain.
>
>All deaths are in vain.
>
 
Not really.
 
R. Baragiola,
U. Virginia
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.15 / M Robinson /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 15 Jan 1992 23:46:31 GMT
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley

In article <1992Jan15.171827.1@phys.anu.edu.au> ter110@phys.anu.edu.au writes:
>[...]
>is difficult to buy/sell (lots of regulations etc. in USA at least), has
>some kind of application in the nuclear weapons industry, and that its
>chemical identity/composition is not available from any public source.
 
Shades of Joseph Heller.  You can't buy the substance unless you follow the
appropriate regulations, but you don't know which regulations to follow
because the regulations don't identify the substance they regulate...
 
If there are regulations on the books, wouldn't the composition of the
regulated substance normally be identified?
 
 
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                             USENET:  ucbvax!cogsci!robinson
                                             ARPA: robinson@cogsci.berkeley.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrobinson cudfnMichael cudlnRobinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Steve Gombosi /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 16 Jan 92 01:23:33 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Jan14.050643.497@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola) writes:
>In article <1992Jan13.161048.10109@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>>barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>>All the more tragic since it seems they died in vain.
 
>>All deaths are in vain.
 
>Not really.
 
Perhaps the following is in order:
 
"If a man has nothing he is willing to die for, he does not
 deserve to live" - Martin Luther King
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensog cudfnSteve cudlnGombosi cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.15 / Stephen Jacobs /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 15 Jan 92 20:08:37 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public access UNIX

Any possible connection to the "hydrargyrum nostrum" of the alchemists?
A magical material, the identity of which was left as an exercise...
 
                                     Steve J.     saj@chinet.chi.il.us
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensaj cudfnStephen cudlnJacobs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Russ George /  SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI Accident
Date: 16 Jan 92 04:01:38 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958

EPRI senior management has had something to say relating to the support
they have been giving SRI in pursuit of the cold fusion phenomenon.
Dick Claeys of EPRI was quoted in local papers as saying
"Further funding is assured as long as we continue to see these kinds of
results."  This in reference to whether EPRI would continue to fund the
SRI research after the accident.
Kind of makes you wonder what results they might be referring to.
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Robert Cain /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: rcain@netcom.COM (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 16 Jan 92 07:38:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

YESSSSSSS, AGAIN.
 
Mercury is an element is an element is an element.  Mercury is
indistinguishable from mercury.  There may be isotopes (of this
i am not sure) but they would NOT have a different color.  We
are left then with compounds if anyone is trying to describe
something in their experience.  I don't care how much it costs
or what regulations there are, mercury is mercury is mercury.
Have I made my point?
--
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
 
"Systems should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
                                                    A. Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrcain cudfnRobert cudlnCain cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Richard Mathews /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 05:02:20 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu (RUBIO) writes:
>>>I am looking for general information on RED mercury.
>	I think that somebody is putting you on.  If you saw it in a
>thermometer and it was red, it wasn't mercury, it was alcohol.  It is used
>if it's gonna get too cold so it won't freeze.
 
Maybe it is a put on, but if it is, it's a big one.  The L.A. Times ran
a long (40 column-inch) story on "red mercury" on page A4 on Monday.
 
The article begins:
	Sofia, Bulgaria -- One touch can be deadly dangerous.  It
	is highly explosive and thought to be of Soviet military
	origin.  According to police, it is radioactive [but the
	article later quotes an "expert" who says it definitely
	isn't radioactive], and scientists fear it could be
	remnants from a nuclear missile.
 
	The mysterious substance known as "red mercury" has
	surfaced on black markets in at least two Eastern
	European countries, perplexing experts who have never
	heard of mercury that is radioactive or red.
 
It is clear from the article that there are lots of rumors about this
stuff but very little hard data.  I certainly would be curious to see
some more information on this.  The only hint of an explanation of what
the stuff is is a quote from the head of the Bulgarian AEC saying that
Sofia University chemists and physicists "think it is an amalgam of
mercury and tellurium."
 
Richard M. Mathews			G orby
richard@locus.com			 D eclares
lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu		  B altic Independence
..!{uunet|ucla-se}!lcc!richard		   G reat News!
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMathews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 16 Jan 92 15:47:59 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1992Jan16.073835.10778rcain@netcom.COM> rcain@netcom.COM (Robert
 Cain) writes:
>YESSSSSSS, AGAIN.
 
>Mercury is an element is an element is an element.  Mercury is
>indistinguishable from mercury.  There may be isotopes (of this
>i am not sure) but they would NOT have a different color.   We
>are left then with compounds if anyone is trying to describe
>something in their experience.  I don't care how much it costs
>or what regulations there are, mercury is mercury is mercury.
>Have I made my point?
 
Whoa!!!  How about allotropic forms?  Phosphorous for example, an
element which comes in white, red and black (or violet).  Of course
I don't know of any different allotropes of mercury but your
statement above is *way* too general.
 
That said, I do not believe that this "red mercury" is pure mercury.
It may well be a compound of mercury, that element is a component of
a *lot* of highly unstable compounds, often used to set of other
explosives.  And of course mercury is also dangerous as a poison.
Just check out the CRC handbook for examples of its use in
explosives and a description of its toxicity.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 /   /   Pseudo Science Censored
     
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Pseudo Science Censored
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 22:29:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is a reply to Henry Bauer's note on pseudo-science.
 
The following title was submitted for the 1991 Nuclear Science
Symposium:
 
"A BRIDGE CALORIMETER FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF "COLD FUSION"
PHENOMENA"
 
Note that the title included quotes around cold fusion to indicate
that it was a topic and not an accepted truth.  The abstract indicated
that the paper was to be a presentation of electronic technique which
might find use elswhere in Nuclear Science.
 
This produced a call from a high (will be nameless) official of the
IEEE.  He said "that there was a place for my paper in a major poster
session", and asked that I delete "Cold Fusion" from the title.  I
said that I could not do that as the device had been developed for this
work.
 
Some time later I received a rejection notice.
 
It seems to me that the acceptability of the paper was established
whin I receivet the call with the offer of a poster session if I would
remove "Cold Fusion" from the title.  After that is seems a clear case
of censorship.
 
I am interested in comments from this group as to whether or not
the conduct of the IEEE was appropriate.
 
If IEEE memebers want to read about my nifty tricks that produce 0.01%
calorimetry they will have to rguess them form the Como Proceedings.
There was not space for a proper presentation of the electronics.
 
Tom Droege - Office (708) 840-3286  MS 331 Fermilab, P.O.Box 500 Batavia,
IL 60510
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Matt Crawford /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 16 Jan 92 19:53:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Entropy

rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
) Mercury is an element is an element is an element.  Mercury is
) indistinguishable from mercury.  There may be isotopes (of this
) i am not sure) but they would NOT have a different color.
 
Does the same argument apply to carbon?  Then I guess these people in
South Africa who are trying to export the rare "clear carbon" are really
talking about some other substance ...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnCrawford cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Donald Arseneau /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: asnd@msr.triumf.ca (Donald Arseneau)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 22:00:00 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility

In article <1992Jan16.073835.10778rcain@netcom.COM>,
  rcain@netcom.COM (Robert Cain) writes...
>Mercury is an element is an element is an element.  Mercury is
>indistinguishable from mercury.  There may be isotopes (of this
>i am not sure) but they would NOT have a different color.
 
Not necessarily.
 
Carbon is an element is graphite is diamond is buckminsterfullerine
 
Tin is an element is white tin is grey tin
 
Phosphorus is an element is white phosphorus is black phosphorus is red
phosphorus and more
 
Sulfur is an element is ... well too many things to list.
 
Different chemical forms of an element are called allotropes.
 
It is quite possible that someone has discovered a new allotrope of mercury
that is a red solid (though probably not at room temperature 1 atm).
 
This said, I expect the notorious "red mercury", if it exists at all,
contains no mercury.
 
Donald
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenasnd cudfnDonald cudlnArseneau cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.16 / Blair Houghton /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 16 Jan 92 22:44:43 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ

In article <1992Jan16.073835.10778rcain@netcom.COM> rcain@netcom.COM (Robert
 Cain) writes:
>mercury is mercury is mercury.
 
Mercury is the winged messenger of mythology.  Mercury is a
planet near a small, yellow sun in roughly that direction.
Mercury is an arrangement of protons, neutrons, and
electrons.  Mercury is a dufunct radio theater.  Mercury is
an expensive Ford...
 
>Have I made my point?
 
				--Blair
				  "CFV: net.quoits"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbhoughto cudfnBlair cudlnHoughton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 /  Britz /  Archives
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Archives
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 15:36:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have made good my promises (threats?) to erase the old, out of date biblio-
files (not bibliophiles) and replaced them with the cnf-papx files, x = 1..5.
You just ftp these and hang them end on end. Furthermore, I have pulled out
all patents and put them into a separate file called cnf-pat. There are 81 at
the moment, and that left 641 proper papers in the five pap files. I may from
now on give both numbers in my updates. I have programs to help me update and
break up the large pap file and put it into the archive, so there is nothing
much to prevent me from updating these archives pretty regularly.
 
To the seekers after red mercury: please get off this list, this has bugger
all to do with fusion. Thank you.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 /   /   Journal Censorship
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Journal Censorship
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 15:38:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Tom Droege who complains:
<  It seems to me that the acceptability of the paper was established
<  when I received the call with the offer of a poster session if I
<  would remove 'Cold Fusion' from the title.  After that it seems a
<  clear case of censorship.
 
The editors of scientific journals must practice censorship as a part
of their responsibilities for keeping their publications from becoming
a mish-mash of misleading, faulty, or inappropriate papers.  As Tom
Droege has learned, the title is an essential part of a paper, not
an unrelated editorial comment where the author is free to state his
views regardless of how it bears on the content of the paper.  If Tom
thought, as he seems to say, that the paper represented a significant
advance in calorimetry why was he unwilling to have it published without
making some connection to cold fusion?  If the topic under discussion
is the supposed censorship of papers simply because they relate to cold
fusion, I don't think the fact that such censorship is occuring is very
shocking.  Until there is some new evidence, of a sort basically more
convincing than replays of previous experiments, there is no good reason
to publish papers on cold fusion in IEEE Nuclear Science.  An experimental
technique which may have the capability of making a measurement relating
to cold fusion should not have been titled in a way that could have
indicated that a significant result had been obtained.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 /  A /   Red mercury
     
Originally-From: "Ralph A. Alpher" <ALPHERR%UNION.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Red mercury
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 17:43:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In re red mercury, mercury fulminate is a well-known explosive, but
is white.  One can easily check if the red mercury is colored fulminate, but
please be careful.  And of course, the mother ore of mercury, cinnebar, is
red, as are other mercury compounds.
 
Ralph Alpher
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBITNET cudfn cudlnA cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 / John Price /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 17 Jan 92 02:24:16 GMT
Organization: UCLA Particle Physics Research Group

In article <1992Jan16.073835.10778rcain@netcom.COM>, rcain@netcom.COM (Robert
 Cain) writes:
>Mercury is an element is an element is an element.  Mercury is
>indistinguishable from mercury.  There may be isotopes (of this
>i am not sure) but they would NOT have a different color.
 
Why not?  Seems to me that there are at least two different isotopes of
carbon with different colors:  graphite (black) and diamond (clear, I
guess; certainly *not* black).
 
Both of these are definitely carbon and nothing but carbon.
 
           John Price * * * * price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
           Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenprice cudfnJohn cudlnPrice cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 / Markus Buchhorn /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: markus@mso.anu.edu (Markus Buchhorn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 17 Jan 92 05:55:29 GMT
Organization: Mt. Stromlo Observatory

In article <5624@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jan16.073835.10778rcain@netcom.COM>, rcain@netcom.COM (Robert
 Cain) writes:
>>Mercury is an element is an element is an element.  Mercury is
>>indistinguishable from mercury.  There may be isotopes (of this
>>i am not sure) but they would NOT have a different color.
>
>Why not?  Seems to me that there are at least two different isotopes of
>carbon with different colors:  graphite (black) and diamond (clear, I
>guess; certainly *not* black).
>
>           John Price * * * * price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
>           Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
 
Yo ! Seems to me many people are forgetting the difference between
isotopes and chemical structures - Unless I'm missing a smiley somewhere...
Graphite and diamond are carbon - it's just the way they're arranged
that transmits/reflects/refracts light and gives you a colour.
There is no colour test that will distinguish a diamond made from
12C or 13C. Isotopes have the same proton numbers and varying numbers
of neutrons (ie a nuclear property), and has nothing to do with chemical
structures (an electron-ical property). Mercury
at room temperature and pressure is a silver liquid. What it does
in non--standard environments.... ?
 
 
Right - back to fusion (in this group). ! :-)
 
Markus
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmarkus cudfnMarkus cudlnBuchhorn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 /   /   A Search fo Mills et. al. "Shrinking Hydrogen"
     
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  A Search fo Mills et. al. "Shrinking Hydrogen"
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 23:08:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mills has proposed that the source of the heat released in "cold
fusion" is the shrinking of the orbital electron to a lower energy
state.
 
Since we now have a Mills type experiment displaying excess heat it
seems appropriate to search for the shrinking hydrogen.  My brother
(metallurgist) points out that H1 diffuses very well through steel.
Charlie Nelson reminds me that in the good old days of HEP we used
Helium bags to reduce scattering on beam lines and the Helium diffused
into phototubes making them ill.  We speculate that the shrunken hydrogen
will stay H1.  It should diffuse through almost anything.
 
We propose the following experiment:  Take a large vacuum enclosure
and place it near the active Mills device.  Put an electron gun in the
enclosure and sweep the beam around the volume.  If run at a few
killovolts it should be plenty to ionize the little H's.  When the
little H's diffuse into the bottle they are hit by the beam and
recover as normal H2.  Now they can not get out.  The old peanut in a
bottle monkey trap.  To detect the accumulated gas, put a phosphor
screen at one end of the bottle and watch the beam focus change as
gas is accumulated.
 
An added challenge is to do the whole experiment for $69.95.  I felt
pretty silly putting a TV set under my experiment.  But it is there.
Nothing obvious has happened yet.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.18 /  ter110@phys.an /  RED MERCURY - the Final Truth
     
Originally-From: ter110@phys.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.psychoactives
Subject: RED MERCURY - the Final Truth
Date: 18 Jan 92 06:36:19 GMT
Organization: Research School of Physical Sciences, ANU

I think I know what "red mercury" really is. It's not a lethal poison.
It's not a powerful explosive. It's not a fissionable material for
nuclear weapons. It's a psychoactive compound. This compound has a unique
property. It can actually be transported electronically to wherever Usenet
can be received. It is usually carried by postings that contain some kind
of inquiry about what "red mercury" is. The effects of the compound is to
make seemingly intelligent and normal people with a solid scientific
background to behave in a pathological way. It usually causes either
(1) wild and groundless speculation, without any scientific support,
    usually about the nature of "red mercury", or
(2) if the victim has a Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, the Merck Index
    or a similar tome handy, he or she will desperately start searching it
    for red compounds.
 
Actually, "red mercury" is only one compound in a whole family of related
compounds, such as blue mercury, yellow mercury, green mercury and purple
mercury with orange dots and white flowers. The difference between red
mercury and these other compounds is mainly that while "red mercury" causes
its victim to speculate aimlessly about red mercury, the other mercuries
causes completely different kinds of wild and incoherent speculation,
not at all related to their own identity or properties. You can easily
see the effects of these compounds by following almost any discussion
in any newsgroup on Usenet.
 
Actually, I think that some of those mercuries have found their way to
my own node... isn't that a Merck index over there?
 
Tomas
 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! Tomas Eriksson          Exp. Surface Physics Group, Dept. of Applied Maths, !
!                         Research School of Physical Sciences & Engineering, !
! ter110@phys.anu.edu.au  Australian National University, Canberra            !
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenter110 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.18 / who? /  Re: Pseudo Science Censored
     
Originally-From:
 ames!elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!usc!elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!ncar.UCAR.EDU!asuvax!anasaz!anas
 az!john
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pseudo Science Censored
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1992 06:11:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think the IEEE screwed up royally.
 
I would be interested in a copy of your paper, if you are distributing it. Also,
are you using the calorimeter for CNF? Any interesting results?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.18 / H Henson /  Re: Pseudo Science Censored
     
Originally-From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pseudo Science Censored
Date: 18 Jan 92 04:21:44 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Hmm, re this posting, I am a senior member of IEEE of long standing, and
if your reporting of this event is accurate, they screwed up.  If you
don't want to post the name of the person who made this silly title
change request, send it to me by email.  H. Keith Henson
PS, I would also be interested in the article itself.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhkhenson cudfnH cudlnHenson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.18 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Pseudo Science Censored
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pseudo Science Censored
Date: 18 Jan 92 06:58:33 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

<ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet> writes:
 
>This is a reply to Henry Bauer's note on pseudo-science.
 
>The following title was submitted for the 1991 Nuclear Science
>Symposium:
 
>"A BRIDGE CALORIMETER FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF "COLD FUSION"
>PHENOMENA"
 
>Note that the title included quotes around cold fusion to indicate
>that it was a topic and not an accepted truth.  The abstract indicated
>that the paper was to be a presentation of electronic technique which
>might find use elswhere in Nuclear Science.
 
Sounds resaonable. And surely useful in other science practices as well.
 
>This produced a call from a high (will be nameless) official of the
>IEEE.  He said "that there was a place for my paper in a major poster
>session", and asked that I delete "Cold Fusion" from the title.  I
>said that I could not do that as the device had been developed for this
>work.
 
How about naming that nameless high official?  I'm sure a few of us
might recognize it.  There is a lot of psuedo-history surounding cold
fusion since the release of "Too Hot to Handle" which focused on
the P&F work. Many read this as meaning "CF is dead".  By proclamation
UK's "Nature" has declared it dead. In the US, "Science" has done a
similar science bashing job.  In both cases the only author is Robert
Pool. Anyway with that type of built-in real and damanging bias, good
 theoretical and experimental work is being harmed by simple mis-information.
   CF is most definatly not dead.  P&F's fusion theory as the explanation
of excess heat in PdD(X) maybe ;-). Let's make that distinction folks.
It clearly sounds like a case of Close-Pool induced bias and censorship.
 
Chuck
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \ It ain't over until the entropy reaches max! |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.18 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Journal Censorship
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Journal Censorship
Date: 18 Jan 92 08:33:56 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
 
>In reply to Tom Droege who complains:
><  It seems to me that the acceptability of the paper was established
><  when I received the call with the offer of a poster session if I
><  would remove 'Cold Fusion' from the title.  After that it seems a
><  clear case of censorship.
 
-- Censorship invoked ----
>The editors of scientific journals must practice censorship as a part
>of their responsibilities for keeping their publications from becoming
>a mish-mash of misleading, faulty, or inappropriate paper
 
True, but they should not steer thier audiance to a premature concusion.
If we look back at the P&F press announcement, the result has been a
feasco for the fusion community, however, in many respects it has had
benificial effects in that it has involved "what to be" scientists.
I;m sure that an the process of peer-review would weed out a few of
novice papers, but what about the works produced by the pro's that
are rejected simply by an editorial stance.  (Ignoring Nat.Sec. of
course).
 
>As Tom
>Droege has learned, the title is an essential part of a paper, not
>an unrelated editorial comment where the author is free to state his
>views regardless of how it bears on the content of the paper.  If Tom
>thought, as he seems to say, that the paper represented a significant
>advance in calorimetry why was he unwilling to have it published without
>making some connection to cold fusion?
 
Well, as we all learned in writing classes, the title should be designed
to attract the interest of the audiance your seeking. Science is very
specialized, so naturally a reference to "COLD FUSION", even sarchasticaly,
is going to attract people interested in the subject. Although this may
have not been the audiance you whanted to attract.  Considering how
hot the subject can get between TB's and SK's. Tom's probably lucky that
he didn't have to hear the rehash of the debate.  But, if his purpose
was to precent a piece of work exclusivly aimed at investigators of
anoymlous heat effects in hydrated metals (ie. dare I say it, naaa. CF),
it should have not been rejected.
 
-- Uncensored material begins here ----
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \Chuck Sites uunet!coplex!chuck Copper Electronics |Cold Fusion  / . . .
o o o o \chuck@coplex.com Ph: 502-454-7218 Wrk: 968-8495 |as real as / o o o o
O O O O O \ It ain't over until the entropy reaches max! |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.18 / Chuck Sites /  cancel <1992Jan18.085827.19481@coplex.com>
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Jan18.085827.19481@coplex.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1992 09:06:10 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

cancel <1992Jan18.085827.19481@coplex.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.19 / Russ George /  Anyone Attending the Cold Fusion Conf. in Japan this month
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anyone Attending the Cold Fusion Conf. in Japan this month
Date: 19 Jan 92 01:52:00 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958

If any participants of this conf. are attending or know of anyone
attending the cold fusion conf in Japan which begin next week or
 the week after I'd like to see some postings of what happens. I
understand that Dr. Ikegami's group will have some interesting results
to report.  I believe the conf. is in Japanese only so a translation
to english would be needed.
 
I also pose a question hoping to get varying views.  Assume the SRI
accident was the result of a "cold fusion" event which caused instant
flash vaporization of the 300 cc of D2O in the cell and the resultant
explosion. Assume also that data was being recorded from the cell right
up to the moment of the explosion.  Would this evidence be sufficient to
convince the doubters of cold fusion.  If not what would.
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.17 / Ole Swang /  Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
     
Originally-From: oles@kelvin.uio.no (Ole Swang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: info on RED MERCURY wanted
Date: 17 Jan 92 15:59:48 GMT
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

According to the book
"The Allotropy of the Elements",
W. E. Addison,
Oldbourne press, London 1964
 
mercury has two different allotropes in the solid state. The "normal",
alpha-Hg is stable at all temperatures below -39C. The beta modification
is stable under elevated pressures at temperatures below -206C. The book
doesn't say anything about the colour of beta-Hg.
 
 
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ole Swang     assistant lecturer, Dept. of Chemistry, U. of Oslo
oles@ulrik.uio.no
------------------  ._.. ._ ..___ ._ __..   ---------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenoles cudfnOle cudlnSwang cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.19 / Raul Baragiola /  Re: Journal Censorship
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Journal Censorship
Date: 19 Jan 92 05:09:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <199201171448.AA16952@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>In reply to Tom Droege who complains:
><  It seems to me that the acceptability of the paper was established
><  when I received the call with the offer of a poster session if I
><  would remove 'Cold Fusion' from the title.  After that it seems a
><  clear case of censorship.
>
>The editors of scientific journals must practice censorship as a part
>of their responsibilities for keeping their publications from becoming
>a mish-mash of misleading, faulty, or inappropriate papers.  As Tom
>Droege has learned, the title is an essential part of a paper, not
>an unrelated editorial comment where the author is free to state his
>views regardless of how it bears on the content of the paper.  If Tom
>thought, as he seems to say, that the paper represented a significant
>advance in calorimetry why was he unwilling to have it published without
>making some connection to cold fusion?  If the topic under discussion
>is the supposed censorship of papers simply because they relate to cold
>fusion, I don't think the fact that such censorship is occuring is very
>shocking.  Until there is some new evidence, of a sort basically more
>convincing than replays of previous experiments, there is no good reason
>to publish papers on cold fusion in IEEE Nuclear Science.  An experimental
>technique which may have the capability of making a measurement relating
>to cold fusion should not have been titled in a way that could have
>indicated that a significant result had been obtained.
>
>Dick Blue
>NSCL
 
What you mention is not, fortunately, standard practice in science. The
editors should not practice censorship unless based on sound arguments.
One can be skeptic, like myself, but must give the benefit of the doubt.
A paper on cold fusion is naturally a topic in Nuclear Science. The only
reason to reject a paper should be a flaw in the logic or the scientific
method, not the fact that the majority of people believes that _previous_
evidence is wrong.
 
Raul Baragiola
University of Virginia
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.19 / Robert Cain /  Re: Anyone Attending the Cold Fusion Conf. in Japan this month
     
Originally-From: rcain@netcom.COM (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anyone Attending the Cold Fusion Conf. in Japan this month
Date: 19 Jan 92 06:55:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

That is a fair bit of assuming.  Do you know something we don't?
--
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
 
"Systems should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
                                                    A. Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrcain cudfnRobert cudlnCain cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.19 / John Moore /  Re: A Search fo Mills et. al. "Shrinking Hydrogen"
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Search fo Mills et. al. "Shrinking Hydrogen"
Date: 19 Jan 92 00:03:15 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <199201171818.AA25257@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet> writes:
]Since we now have a Mills type experiment displaying excess heat it
]seems appropriate to search for the shrinking hydrogen.  My brother
 
Would you care to elaborate on your experiment and results?
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john john@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Annoy a tree-hugger - hunt red squirrels on Mt. Graham - they're tasty - -
 - - Disclaimer: This is not a solicitation to commit a criminal act! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.20 /  Britz /  RE:  Journal Censorship
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Journal Censorship
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 14:49:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
>In reply to Tom Droege who complains:
><  It seems to me that the acceptability of the paper was established
><  when I received the call with the offer of a poster session if I
><  would remove 'Cold Fusion' from the title.  After that it seems a
><  clear case of censorship.
 
>The editors of scientific journals must practice censorship as a part
>of their responsibilities for keeping their publications from becoming
>a mish-mash of misleading, faulty, or inappropriate papers.  As Tom
>Droege has learned, the title is an essential part of a paper, not
>an unrelated editorial comment where the author is free to state his
>...
>Dick Blue
 
An editor has the duty to look out for lack of clarity or precision, but style
or taste is not his/her business. Whenever I run into this, I tend to dig my
heels in. If I chose to have "cold fusion" in a title and the editor wanted to
take it out, I too would get upset. This might not be sensible but it's human.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.20 / Chuck Sites /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 20 Jan 92 00:00:38 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

The January 10 issue of "SCIENCE" Vol. 255 had a small story about the SRI
accident; "A lethal 'Cold Fusion' Blast" by D. Hamilton in the News & Comment
section. It's interesting because  it hints that the explosion was not
a simple hydrogen explosion as earlier reported here, and may have
been due to the vaporization of D20 in a pressure cooker like explosion.
The scientist injured where M. McKubre SRI Lab director, S. Smedly
SRI researcher, S. Crouch-Baker EPRI scientist. The scientist killed
was A. Riley an EPRI researcher.  S. Crouch-Baker was co-author of the
Huggins paper, and M. McKubre had presented details of thier work at
the Second International Cold Fusion Conference.
   Here is an excert from the Science column.  The portion describing of
the jammed valve on the steel container used in the calorimetery experment
have been already mentioned here, so I'll skip that part. What has not been
discussed in this group is the background history of the experiment, so let
me quote from Science:
 
----- Begin Quote ---
  At the Second International Cold Fusion Conference in Como, Italy, last
June, McKubre reported measuring reproducible "excess" heat in a deuterium-
palladium electrolysis cell.  Although neither McKubre nor members of his
laboratory returned calls from Science, EPRI program manager, Joseph
Santucci says McKube had achieve reproducible excess heat production
by discovering how to "load" the palladium eletrodes with deuterium
molecules at an atomic ratio approaching unity.  The explosion occured
during an attempt to "scale up" McKubre's earlier experiments, Santucci
said.
   Hydrogen explosions in electrolysis experiements involving palladium
are not unknown, since the metal can catalyze the explosive recomination
of hydrogen and oxygen. Santucci admits that such a conventional explanation
might account for the explosion, but he claims it is "unlikely," since
preliminary information suggested that the energies released were
"substantial."  More information will come to light in the next 2 or 3
weeks as EPRI investigatos pore over the cell's remains, analyze the
palladium electrode, and take readings from some 17 instruments that were
recording data when the cell exploded.
--- End Quote ---
 
Santucci, shares an international patent for a method of stimulating
fusion in solids. See Dieter Britz's CNF Bibliography May 30, 1991 additions
to section 2. If Santucci is right, there maybe more to this story than
the conjecture that's bounced around on the net.  Say tuned.
 
Lastly, does anyone know where I might obtain a copy of the proceeding of
the Como conference? Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.20 /   /   Follow Up to "Pseudo Science Censored"
     
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet>
Originally-From:   FNAL::Jnet%"MAILER@UICVM"      "Network Mailer" 20-JAN-1992
 17:10:42.87
Originally-From: Network Mailer <MAILER@UICVM>
Originally-From:     <DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Try to correct address
Subject: mail delivery error
Subject:  Follow Up to "Pseudo Science Censored"
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:46:55 GMT
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 17:09:31 CST
Date:     Mon, 20 Jan 1992 17:07 CST
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:   FNAL::Jnet%"MAILER@UICVM"      "Network Mailer" 20-JAN-1992
 17:10:42.87
To:     @UICVM.UIC.EDU:DROEGE@FNAL.BITNET
CC:
Subj:   mail delivery error
 
Re