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
 
Received: From UICVM(MAILER) by FNALA with Jnet id 8971
          for DROEGE@FNAL; Mon, 20 Jan 1992 17:10 CDT
Received: from UICVM by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4357; Mon, 20 Jan 92
 17:09:32 CST
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 17:09:31 CST
Originally-From: Network Mailer <MAILER@UICVM>
To: @UICVM.UIC.EDU:DROEGE@FNAL.BITNET
Subject: mail delivery error
 
Batch SMTP transaction log follows:
 
220 UICVM Columbia MAILER R2.07 BSMTP service ready.
050 HELO UICVM
250 UICVM Hello UICVM
050 MAIL FROM:<@UICVM.UIC.EDU:DROEGE@FNAL.BITNET>
250 <@UICVM.UIC.EDU:DROEGE@FNAL.BITNET>... sender OK.
050 RCPT TO:<fusion%zorch@ames.arc.nasa.bov>
550 Mailbox not found.
050 DATA
354 Start mail input.  End with <crlf>.<crlf>
050 QUIT
221 UICVM Columbia MAILER BSMTP service done.
 
Original message follows:
 
Received: from UICVM by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4356; Mon, 20 Jan 92
 17:09:31 CST
Received: from FNAL.BITNET by UICVM.UIC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
   with BSMTP id 3793; Mon, 20 Jan 92 17:09:17 CST
Received: by FNAL (Jnet BSMTP V0.07) id 1016; Mon, 20 Jan 1992 17:07 CST
Date:     Mon, 20 Jan 1992 17:07 CST
Originally-From:     <DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Subject:  Follow Up to "Pseudo Science Censored"
To:       fusion%zorch@ames.arc.nasa.bov
Original_To:  Orig_To! gov%"fusion%zorch@ames.arc.nasa.bov",
           DROEGE
 
This is in reply to those who have asked for the IEEE officials name
and copies of the calorimeter paper.
 
The official is named under the heading "Functional Committee Chairman"
inside the fron cove of NS-26 Number 4.  Many other places I am sure.
This gives you an idea of the "rank" and twelve names to choose from.
I will not say more.  Life is too short to spend it fussing with such
problems.  I would rather do work than argue with lawyers.  The reason
for posting was to get off my chest and to warn others.
 
As to a copy of the paper.  It was never written.  Where I have been,
Princeton PPA, Argonne, Fermilab, we submit titles and abstracts and
write the paper as close to the conference as possible.  That is what
a topical conference is all about.
 
 
A version is in the Como proceedings, if they ever appear.  But in a
form that emphasizes the calorimetry not the electronics.  Will send
a copy of the Como paper and a longer draft to anyone who sends a
address that the post office can handle.
 
One email request (-From) was an incomprehensible 83 characters long.
Honest, guys, I am a novice, not a 17 th level email priest!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.20 /  Govender /  RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za (Govender)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: 20 Jan 92 10:43:52 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand

My 50 cents (South African currency) worth on this thread:
 
Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
I cannot remember if red mercury was identified as the cause of death
but the Star did label it as an "extremely dangerous substance".Interest-
ingly enough, the dead man was a director/employee of Thor Chemicals, a
South African company which makes red mercury.Thor Chemicals is a
company which specializes in the treatment of chemical waste mostly
of United States origin.I do not know if red mercury is by-product
of such processing.
 
I will follow up with more specific details.
 
Morgan Govender
University of Witwatersrand
Johannesburg, South Africa
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengovender cudlnGovender cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.20 / John Logajan /  Re: A Search fo Mills et. al. "Shrinking Hydrogen"
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Search fo Mills et. al. "Shrinking Hydrogen"
Date: 20 Jan 92 23:09:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, fusion@zorch () says: (Tom Droege)
 
>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.
 
I think it would be symbolic to play a tape of the Hindenburg Disaster
in a continuous loop :-)
 
"gassy"RT's are not unheard of in cheap TV's.  Buyer beware.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: SRI Accident
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI Accident
Date: 21 Jan 92 06:44:46 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1992Jan20.000038.17586@coplex.com>, chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
> 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.
 
 
Interestingly enough, the latest NEW SCIENTIST mentions that the cell that
exploded was an atmospheric pressure cell, rather than the high pressure D2
one, and that the cell wasn't even air-tight at the time of the explosion!
But other reports mention a stuck valve, so it isn't clear whether or not
the cell was sealed.
 
> Lastly, does anyone know where I might obtain a copy of the proceeding of
> the Como conference? Thanks.
 
 
For information on ordering the Como conference proceedings, write to:
 
SIF
Via L. degli Ondalo 2
40124 Bologna
Italy.
 
 
---------------
Todd Green
Department of Chemistry
University of Western Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentiq cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 /  ter110@phys.an /  Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: ter110@phys.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: 21 Jan 92 18:22:36 GMT
Organization: Research School of Physical Sciences, ANU

In article <govender.695904232@shannon>, govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
(Govender) writes:
> My 50 cents (South African currency) worth on this thread:
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess the colour is real important over there, hehe??? (Sorry, just couldn't
resist the temptation :) :) )
 
> Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
> murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
> a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
 
Well, if this is true (wonder how the police could know it was "red mercury",
though), then it's definitely a nail in the coffin for any "red mercury is
mercury" theory. Have you ever tried to paint anything with mercury? It has
a surface tension of 485.5 mN/m at 25 deg. C, which is between 6 and 7
times as much as water. This means that it *very much* prefers to be in
the form of droplets (minimize surface area for a give volume). Also, rather
few substances are wetted by mercury.
 
My recipe for a red mercury paint: use an amalgamated metal (solid) (perhaps
amalgamated gold for that local touch if you're in South Africa), grind it
to a very fine powder, and disperse it in a large amount of red paint.
 
> I cannot remember if red mercury was identified as the cause of death
> but the Star did label it as an "extremely dangerous substance".Interest-
> ingly enough, the dead man was a director/employee of Thor Chemicals, a
> South African company which makes red mercury.Thor Chemicals is a
> company which specializes in the treatment of chemical waste mostly
> of United States origin.I do not know if red mercury is by-product
> of such processing.
>
> I will follow up with more specific details.
 
Please do. I hope they didn't kill the only man in the world who knew what
"red mercury" actually is, because then we could be stuck with this
discussion forever.
 
Tomas
(any contributions made in Australian cents)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! 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:
cuddy21 cudenter110 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 / FEC UKACRL /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: "F E Close 0235-445274" (FEC at UKACRL)
 <FEC@IBM-B.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 15:48:16 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

 
Chuck Sites suggests that the premature death of cold fusion is due to
a Close-Pool conspiracy; if so I am flattered and will include it on my C.V.
But he then appears to admit that FP fusion is dead. In Too Hot To Handle I
left open the possibility that there is some sporadic chemical (ie non-
nuclear) process occuring but made very clear that there is no evidence, nor
has there ever been, that nuclear fusion generates measurable heat in test
tubes at room temperature. So why the conflict Chuck?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudfnFEC cudlnUKACRL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 /  MMORRISON@gmuv /  RE: Fusion Digest 179
     
Originally-From: MMORRISON@gmuvax.gmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 179
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:17:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In relation to the Red Mercury question... I worked with a Hungarian
businessman who was trying to sell this stuff from Russian sources.  The
trouble was we didn't know who to contact and why it was so expencive.
Any one out their want some?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenMMORRISON cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 / Steve Simmons /  Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:43:14 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

ter110@phys.anu.edu.au writes:
 
>In article <govender.695904232@shannon>, govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
>(Govender) writes:
 
>> Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
>> murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
>> a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
 
>Have you ever tried to paint anything with mercury? It has
>a surface tension . . .
 
Yeesh, all you physicists.  My money says it was what we call
"mecurochrome" (sp?) here in the USAmerica (as opposed to the
USAfrica).  My grandma used to call it "red mercurochrome".
--
 "Usenet is not a right."  -- Chip Salzenberg
 "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:
cuddy21 cudenscs cudfnSteve cudlnSimmons cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 / William Johnson /  More on IEEE
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on IEEE
Date: 21 Jan 92 21:01:43 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

I've been sitting on my hands for most of this discussion, in large measure
because I was on the program committee for the 1991 IEEE NSS.  However, a
couple of things are arising that I can maybe illuminate.  In the following,
keep in mind that I most emphatically DO NOT speak for the IEEE, nor for Los
Alamos National Laboratory ...
 
First, don't get the idea that there was any "censorship" of cold-fusion
papers at the symposium.  At least one paper that specifically mentioned cold
fusion *was* accepted: D. A. Roberts et al., "Deuterated Liquid Scintillator
(NE230) as a Fast Neutron Detector for Cold Fusion," presented as a poster in
the session on "Scintillators and Scintillation Detectors."  Can't get much
more explicit than that!
 
Second, "calorimetry" means different things to different people.  To one
attending an NSS, "calorimetry" has a set of meanings revolving around big
detector systems for high-energy physics experiments, rather than the sense
of heat measurement normally seen in the chemists' part of the world.  I'm
out of my depth when discussing "calorimeters" in the high-energy sense --
maybe Dick Blue can help -- but a reading of the abstracts in the NSS
calorimetry session leaves me with the feeling that a cold-fusion-oriented
"calorimeter" would have been egregiously out of place there, not because of
the cold-fusion association but because it isn't "calorimetry" in the sense
the session was intended to address.
 
Third, a word about submissions, for which we go to an earlier posting.  In
article <199201201823.AA04429@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet> writes:
>As to a copy of the paper.  It was never written.  Where I have been,
>Princeton PPA, Argonne, Fermilab, we submit titles and abstracts and
>write the paper as close to the conference as possible.  That is what
>a topical conference is all about.
 
Yes and no.  For this particular symposium, the title, abstract AND brief
summary (expanding on the abstract but still being less than full paper
length) were due in the hands of the program committee chairman (Guy
Armantrout of Livermore) several months ahead of the symposium; the exact
deadline was somewhat confused for various reasons, but a time frame of late
spring (the NSS was in November) gives the general idea.  Mr. Droege's posting
leaves me unclear on whether he meant that the whole package -- abstract,
summary, full paper -- should go in "as close to the conference as possible,"
or just that the paper itself should, while the abstract and summary went in
on schedule.  If the former, and if in turn he didn't submit the abstract and
summary until late, he shouldn't be surprised at all that it was bounced for
one reason or other; post-deadline papers are always a chancy business, and
their acceptance can depend on whether the program committee member who
evaluates them knows the submitter, is favorably inclined toward the work
being described, got a good night's sleep the night before looking at the
paper, etc.  (Obviously, this line of reasoning fails if the abstract and
summary were turned in on time; can you enlighten us?)
 
Anyway, all this leaves me feeling there is much more to what happened to
Mr. Droege's paper than "censorship" because of the cold-fusion connection,
and that that "much more" may include some perfectly legitimate grounds for
rejecting the paper.
 
Once again, disclaimers apply; I don't speak for IEEE or LANL here.  But I
do speak for myself, and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
 
--
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:
cuddy21 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.22 /   /   Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Positive MKF result.
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 04:36:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As implied in the "A search for Mills et. al. Shrinking Hydrogen"
posting, we are beginning to be convinced that we have a positive
MKF result.
 
We now have positive results from four different cells in four
successive experiments.  Some include completely closed systems
with a catalyst.  "Works first time, every time."  To an old
P&F experimenter it is like going to heaven.
 
After two years +  of looking at nothing byt zero and a little noise, we
think we know where zero is.  MKF does not give zero.  The current
cell which contains about 1 gm of Pt, 10 gm of Ni, 5 gm of K2CO3, and
80 gm of H2O has so far produced about 18 Killojoules.  No sign of
stopping.  If it gets to 30 Killojoules I will declare it beyond normal
chemistry.  This should take one more day at the present 160 mw.  The
cell is about the size of a "D" cell and 30 KJ is about what a D cell
will produce.  The best modern chemistry can economically do.
 
To those interested in the "TV" set experiment, we have temporarily
turned if off as it caused a small, 0.5% calorimeter offser.  So it is
reduced to a "gedanken" experiment.  I presently challenge each
physicist who wanders in to my office to do the back of the envelop
computation as to whether it will work.  Anyone out there want to try
their hand?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 / Stephen Jacobs /  Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: 21 Jan 92 18:12:10 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public access UNIX

In article <govender.695904232@shannon> govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
 (Govender) writes:
>My 50 cents (South African currency) worth on this thread:
>
>Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
>murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
>a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
>I cannot remember if red mercury was identified as the cause of death
>but the Star did label it as an "extremely dangerous substance".Interest-
>ingly enough, the dead man was a director/employee of Thor Chemicals, a
>South African company which makes red mercury.Thor Chemicals is a
>company which specializes in the treatment of chemical waste mostly
>of United States origin.I do not know if red mercury is by-product
>of such processing.
>
I'm not sure of the particular weirdness involved, but there have been
several murders in which the body was painted with cinnabar pigment
(I know someone whos daughter was one of the victims--this goes back
about 25 years).  Since cinnabar can be described as 'red mercury', and
is certainly hazardous, I suspect that the story is mixing the 2
meanings.  No proof.
                              Steve J.       saj@chinet.chi.il.us
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensaj cudfnStephen cudlnJacobs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 22 Jan 92 09:05:38 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

FEC@IBM-B.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (FEC at UKACRL) writes:
 
 
>Chuck Sites suggests that the premature death of cold fusion is due to
>a Close-Pool conspiracy; if so I am flattered and will include it on my C.V.
>But he then appears to admit that FP fusion is dead. In Too Hot To Handle I
 
Frank, I'm glad to see your finally in the group. Congrads. Join the fray.
 
Well conspiracies are one thing.  Bad editorial stances which interfere
with the flow and exchange of scientific ideas are another.  The interference
that IEEE showed in refusing an article because the word "COLD FUSION" is used
in reference to an a highly accurate calorimeter, seems reflective of a bias.
Where does this bias come from?  I think alot of it is do to your book.
And here is why.  When an uninitiated person is thrown into the ranglings of
nuclear chemistry in condensed matter, and a nice, juicy book comes out, hits
the best seller list, and makes the hole thing sound like an investigative
reporter's exposure of a farce; what would you be thinking of when someone
presents you with a work labeled COLD FUSION something.  If your an editor,
or your doing a peer review, all this public impression has to effect your
judgment because it might effect readership an the opions of you. If you've
already made an editorial position, it's even more damning.  Conspiracy, no;
that's just the way it works with human kind.
 
With regard to P&F's fusion explanation of the excess heat in PdD(x)
I must admit, I found the concept fascinating when I first heard it.
Although, I'm not fond of fusion explanations for their measured
excess heats now, I would not rule out some small fusion reactions rates.
After all, nature isn't *that* pretty.
 
Have fun,
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.22 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 647 papers, 81 patents).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 647 papers, 81 patents).
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 14:58:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
the new and improved update title, with paper and patent count separated. I
continue to get older Russians, which make it look as if the field is still
active - which it is not. The submissions per month have declined greatly
since the maximum at about 2-3 months post-FPH/Jones. This in itself says
nothing about the reality or otherwise of cold fusion, I hasten to add. Also,
there is of course considerable conference activity, which I ignore, and no
doubt secret commercially oriented work; may they all get rich.
 Dick Blue will be pleased to note the humidity point made by Aoyama+; whether
it is true that you can "completely eliminate" noise by a high discrimination
setting, I can't tell, but it sounds like an exaggeration to me. The Bittner+
paper is a follow-up of their earlier stuff. They propose a plasma model, i.e.
deuterons form a plasma within the PdD lattice. Their theory says that
observed fusion rates are within conventional theoretical rates, given this
model. They also repeat the point that maximum fusion rates occur at a time
when the metal is not fully charged yet - there is a push & shove between the
actual number of dd pairs (increasing), and the flux of d's required for
fusion (decreasing). Maximum fusion occurs at about one charging time
constant. If you read their paper, watch out for their strange fusion rate
units. I calculate about 2E-25 fusions/d-d pair/s, and they give a figure of
around 1E-44 /s; this is scaled to unit deuterium density in the lattice.
 Several groups have now suggested phase transitions for the fusion mechanism,
following the original Petrillo+89 work (who propose alpha-beta as the cause).
Gorodetskii+ have some evidence for this, while Varaksin+ have done some
molecular modelling and find that beta-alpha works best. The CA abstract for
the Gorodetskii+ paper, by the way, translates the title as ".. and gamma
quartz...", heh heh, I love to catch CA making mistakes. Ahem.
 Uhm et al reckon plasma ion beam implantation is good for you, especially if
you use a one-way coating to prevent deuterium escaping again. For those who
believe that super-high loading is the secret.
 Wakao et al have detected gammas and make some interesting points about where
it's happening, maybe.
 Finally, a peripheral, electrochemical one, modelling and measuring discharge
rates with anodic extraction. This is used to estimate the total loading,
afterwards, by some, so this paper could be of interest. It shows that reality
is not like theory, probably because some deuterium accumulates in voids, as
gas, and artificially pushes up the measured loading. If you wait a year or
so, you can read this one in its English translation in Sov. Electrochem.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 22-Jan. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 647
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aoyama T, Mori C, Uritani A, Matsui T, Naito K;   Radioisotopes 40 (1991) 188.
"Highly reliable low-level neutron detection using (3)He proportional
counters".
** For the very low-level neutron fluxes in cold fusion experiments, special
precautions must be taken. This paper describes some techniques for this.
Perfect noise rejection is required as well as the application of Poisson
statistics. The paper gives details of the construction of three identical
(3)He counters with 42% efficiency. These were placed around a cold fusion
electrolysis cell, and there had an overall efficiency of 2.5%. Noise comes
from high voltage leakage and external noise. Humidity control can eliminate
the first, and are in any case rejected by not being coincident on all three.
External noise is common to all detectors, on the other hand, and is
eliminated completely by using a high detector voltage (1300V) and setting the
pulse height discriminator high.                                      Dec-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bittner M, Meister A, Ohms D, Paffrath E, Rahner D, Schwierz R, Seeliger D,
Wiesener K, Wuestner P;                          Isotopenpraxis 27 (1991) 274.
"Emission of DD-fusion neutrons from a massive palladium cyclinder during
electrolytic infusion of deuterons into the metal".
** A 92 g cyclinder of Pd, 22.6 mm dia and 20.2 mm length, was electrolysed
for over 700 h at a current of 4A in 3M LiOD in D2O, while periodically
monitoring the neutron flux, alternating with the background, as previously
described. Post-mortem weighing indicated a D/Pd loading of 0.812. Some
positive results were obtained; as before, there was a maximum neutron
emission at about one charging time constant, i.e. below maximum saturation.
The maximum neutron emission rate is 160 n/h, which I translate into about
1E-26 fus/pair/s; the authors make that 1E-44/s/cm**3. The introduction says
that there will be a comparison with an H2O electrolysis but this is not found
in the paper.                                                         Jan-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gorodetskii VG, Polosukhin BG, Sulimov EM, Novikov PI, Bychin VP;
Fiz. Metal. Metalloved. 1991(7) 176 (in Russian).
"Emission of neutrons and gamma quanta from palladium upon its saturation with
deuterium in the gas phase".
** Pd foil, 0.2 mm thickness, 28 g in all, rolled into a cyclinder (15 mm dia,
80 mm long) and wire of 2mm dia, 6 g, were placed into steel and quartz
holders, respectively, and D2 admitted into the evacuated holders at 1-4 atm.
Two groups of neutron detectors, each consisting of 15 type SI 19N counters,
were placed "around" the holders; they had an optimal sensitivity at about 2
MeV. Blocks of scintillation NaI gamma detectors were also placed, max sens.
at 662 keV. At room temp., the background neutron count was 0.17/s. The
samples were now heated from room temp to 570 K while monitoring neutrons and
gammas. The foil showed a maximum of 0.29 n/s and the wire a maximum of 0.4
n/s; these took place in the range 420-570 K, where both alpha- and
beta-phases of the deuteride exist. The authors speculate that fluctuating
phase transitions, as suggested by Petrillo+ [89], cause fusion.      Jun-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhm HS, Lee WM;                                   Phys. Fluids B3 (1991) 3188.
"High concentration of deuterium in palladium from plasma ion implantation".
** The authors propose plasma ion implantation, in order to obtain high
loadings of D/Pd for cold fusion and other experiments where this is of
interest. A plasma of up to 1E12/cm**3 and an electron temperature of up to 10
eV is generated by either rf, glow discharge or thermionic filaments. The Pd
sample may be presoaked with deuterium, to about 0.6 loading. A negative
charge applied to the Pd sample will then lead to the plasma deuterons making
their way into the sample. If the surface is coated with a material in which
deuterons are not highly mobile, their escape will be largely prevented; a
good candidate here is 60% Fe+40% Ni. The barrier does not prevent ingress of
the ions during charging. Calculations predict that the loading could be three
times the normal 0.6 - but only if the lattice is not deformed. In any case,
high loadings can be expected from this method.                  Mar-91/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Varaksin AN, Zhivoderov AA, Bondarenko NB, Shipitsin VF;
Fiz. Metal. Metalloved. 1991(9), 30 (in Russian).
"Computer modelling of phase transitions in deuterised palladium (possible
mechanism of low-temperature nuclear fusion)".
** A cubic microcrystallite of 500 Pd and 250 D atoms was simulated by
molecular modelling on a computer; open boundaries were assumed, and 450K.
Results show that up to 10eV can be achieved for D atoms arising from the
beta-alpha transition, and D-D distances down to 0.07 nm. In vacuum, this is
not enough to cause fusion but in a metal lattice, maybe, what with potential
barrier heights of about 10-20 eV. In reality, there might be even more
energetic and close DD pairs, and fusion rates up to 1E-21 fus/pair/s. This
does not apply to the alpha-beta transition. The suggested mechanism is: (1)
formation of high-energy (>10eV) D atoms and pairs; (2) formation from such
pairs of metastable D-D which, with collective interaction with electrons from
the palladium might fuse by tunnelling.                               Dec-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wakao  S, Ozeki K, Sawa H;
J. Adv. Sci. 2(3) (1990) 149 (in Japanese with English abstract).
"Gamma-ray emission from hydrogen-absorbing metal cathodes in D2O".
** Several metals and alloys (Pd, Ti, TiNi0.5, TiNi, ZrV1.8Ni0.2 and
ZrV1.5Ni0.5) were electrolysed in D2O containing LiOD or D2SO4, as well as the
corresponding normal hydrogen mixtures. During electrolysis, gamma emissions
were monitored by a survey gamma meter. All metals emitted some gammas, and
those that have a higher hydrogen absorbing capacity emitted more. The
emission flux did not much depend on the loading, therefore the fusion rate
decreased (as fus/pair/s) with increasing loading. This allows the conclusion
that fusion happens in a deuterium diffusion layer, at phase change boundaries
or in micro-cracks.                                                   Nov-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sobornitskii VI, Krapivnyi NG;   Elektrokhimiya 27(6) (1991) 732 (in Russian).
"Electrochemical extraction of absorbed hydrogen from metals at controlled
potential".
** The extraction current for a thin metal sheet upon anodic polarisation with
controlled potential is calculated theoretically, using diffusion theory and
the appropriate boundary conditions.  Solutions for constant applied potential
are shown. Then, experimental results with steel sheets, charged
electrolytically for different times, and using linearly changing potential
for the extraction, are shown. The extraction currents are rather larger than
theory predicts, and this seems to be due to hydrogen gas trapped in voids in
the metal. This is further confirmed by the fact that different charging times
lead to different diffusion coefficients, of the order of 1E-10 m**2/s, which
is some orders of magnitude larger than in the metal crystal lattice.
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.22 /   /   Reply to William Johnson, and others
     
Originally-From: <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Reply to William Johnson, and others
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 19:44:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been on the IEEE NIM committee, and IEEE work since the early 60's.
I mostly know the rules.  But I have not been active lately.  Mostly
because of a change in the tone of the IEEE.
 
The cover letter was dated 28 March, 1991 well before the April 19
deadline.  From the cover letter:
 
"The enclosed summary and abstract are submitted for the 1991 NSS.  The title
is not intended to be inflammatory.  The "Cold Fusion" is there to attract
those who are working in the field and are looking for better apparatus.
 
This is not a "Cold Fusion" paper.  Barring some breakthrough that gives "Cold
Fusion" greater credibility than it presently holds, I intend to show only
calibration data.  My actual status at the moment is that I claim to have th
best calorimetry null result in the field."
 
The exact abstract:
 
A BRIDGE CALORIMETER FOR THE INVESTIGATION
       OF "COLD FUSION" PHENOMENA
 
       Thomas F. Droege, Fermilab
 
Thermo Electric Devices are versatile
components that can be used anywhere that
it is desired to control or measure heat
flow.  This paper illustrates use of these
relatively unknown and inexpensive
electronic device in a sensitive
calorimeter.  The design has achieved 0.1%
accuracy with future improvement likely.
 
>From the summary:
 
"While Thermal calorimetry is not usually applied to Nuclear Science, the
techniques are interesting and are presented to stimulate thought.  For
example, after learning about them in this work, they are presently being
considered as a thchnique for maintaining phototubes at constant below
ambiant temperature to reduce their drift."
 
My exact written notes from the conversation with Mr X.
 
"1:PM CST  6-25-91 XXXXXX called about Bridge calorimeter paper.  Offered
to put paper in "Major poster session" if I would remove "Cold Fusion"
from the title"
 
Now they did not have to call me to reject the paper.  Once thay did, and
said that they had a spot for it in a poster session the acceptability of
the paper was established.
 
What followed was the result of chicken hearted conventionalism.  It is sad,
but exciting creative people start organizations like the IEEE.  Later they
always get taken over by the "bean counters" that keep things in order.
Creative work is not orderly.
 
I may add, that when this work was seen by a neighbor who works for a billion
dollar corporation, he was very interested in applying it to the power field.
I now get a nice retainer to advise them, and have already 3 patents in
process.
 
A further note: I think that the paper was actually being considered for the
Nuclear Power paralles session to the NSS.  I would have been happy to
present the information to either group.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.22 / Michael Davis /  Is Dr. T. Usher out there??
     
Originally-From: mpd@unccvax.uncc.edu (Michael Parker Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Dr. T. Usher out there??
Date: 22 Jan 92 16:28:51 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

If Tim Usher reads this please respond to Mike at
 
mpd@unccvax.uncc.edu
 
ps
Good to know you're on internet
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmpd cudfnMichael cudlnDavis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 22 Jan 92 21:33:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet> writes: (Tom Droege)
>We now have positive results from four different [MKF] cells in four
>successive experiments.  Some include completely closed systems
>with a catalyst.
 
I'd just like to highlight the above claim that Tom is getting
positive results even *with* a closed system.  Farrell himself was
unable to claim that!
 
>If it gets to 30 Killojoules I will declare it beyond normal
>chemistry.  This should take one more day at the present 160 mw.  The
>cell is about the size of a "D" cell and 30 KJ is about what a D cell
>will produce.  The best modern chemistry can economically do.
 
Also a reminder that Farrell claimed to see such excess energy without
any apparent degredation of the electrodes or electrolyte.  I presume
the same holds true in the Droege system  -- very much unlike "normal"
chemistry or "normal" batteries.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.23 / Mark Slagle /  Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 01:45:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.

In article <govender.695904232@shannon> govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
 (Govender) writes:
   Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
   murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
   a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
   I cannot remember if red mercury was identified as the cause of death
   but the Star did label it as an "extremely dangerous substance".Interest-
   ingly enough, the dead man was a director/employee of Thor Chemicals, a
   South African company which makes red mercury.Thor Chemicals is a
   company which specializes in the treatment of chemical waste mostly
   of United States origin.I do not know if red mercury is by-product
   of such processing.
 
----
Heating Mercury in the presence of Sulpher results in a bright, red
powder known as red mercuric sulfide (HgS).  It is commonly used
in the arts as a pigment and is variously referred to as cinnabar,
vermillion, and red mercury.  It is, of course, somewhat hazardous.
It would not surprise me if large quantities applied to the skin
were fatal.
 
--
----
Mark                                           PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenslagle cudfnMark cudlnSlagle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.23 / William Johnson /  Re: Reply to William Johnson, and others
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to William Johnson, and others
Date: 23 Jan 92 16:27:23 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

 
I seem unable to communicate with Tom Droege by e-mail, so ...
 
In article <199201221906.AA01062@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet> writes:
 
(ref. my posting about why the IEEE NSS may have had good but non-obvious
reasons for bouncing his paper)
 
>A further note: I think that the paper was actually being considered for the
>Nuclear Power paralles session to the NSS.  I would have been happy to
>present the information to either group.
 
Well, thanks for clarifying some of the points I raised.  Obviously the matter
of a possible post-deadline submission isn't relevant.  I was not involved at
all in the sessions with a nuclear-power orientation, but looking at the NSS
program in the nuclear-power sessions, I see titles like "Replacement and
Substitution of Fuses in Nuclear Generating Stations" and "Advanced Alarm
Management: The Aware System."  Really, are you sure you *wanted* to have a
cold-fusion paper in a session with stuff like that? :-)  Seriously, there
remains a problem with where your paper would have fit.  The only poster
session with a nuclear-power orientation was nominally on "The Modernization
of Nuclear Power Stations," so I doubt if the session where your paper would
have been considered was one of the parallel nuclear-power ones.  And the
problems with the calorimetry sessions remain as in my earlier posting.
 
I'll do some sub-rosa checking about your paper; I agree that the request to
pull the cold-fusion reference seems odd.  But I will reiterate my belief,
supported by things that *did* appear in the NSS, that no cold-fusion
"censorship" _per se_ was going on.
 
--
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:
cuddy23 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.23 / V Nikhil /  would appreciate some information.
     
Originally-From: nikhil@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Venkatesh Nikhil)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: would appreciate some information.
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:49:37 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe

Hi. I am Nikhil Venkatesh. I know i am in the wrong news group.  i needed
some information on fission reactors. I tried , but was unable to  locate
any news groups. would appreciate some information from you regarding existing
 newsgroups related to nuclear besides this one.
I would also be interested in receiving information regarding FTP sites.
Thanking you in advance.
						yours truly,
						Nikhil Venkatesh.
 
Please reply to:
Nikhil@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
tel:(602) 929-0927
add: 1137, E.orange street, #19
     Tempe, Arizona 85281
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennikhil cudfnVenkatesh cudlnNikhil cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.23 / Per Olausson /  Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: dxper@dtek.chalmers.se (Per Anders Olausson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: 23 Jan 92 17:47:04 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes:
 
>In article <govender.695904232@shannon> govender@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
 (Govender) writes:
>>Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
>>murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
>>a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
>>I cannot remember if red mercury was identified as the cause of death
>>but the Star did label it as an "extremely dangerous substance".Interest-
>>ingly enough, the dead man was a director/employee of Thor Chemicals, a
>>South African company which makes red mercury.Thor Chemicals is a
>>company which specializes in the treatment of chemical waste mostly
>>of United States origin.I do not know if red mercury is by-product
>>of such processing.
>>
>I'm not sure of the particular weirdness involved, but there have been
>several murders in which the body was painted with cinnabar pigment
>(I know someone whos daughter was one of the victims--this goes back
>about 25 years).  Since cinnabar can be described as 'red mercury', and
>is certainly hazardous, I suspect that the story is mixing the 2
>meanings.  No proof.
 
  According to newspapers in Sweden, Swedish Military Intelligence sources
say that it is either fraud or that what is supposed to be red mercury is
some sort of waste, either from nuclear or chemical experiments.
 
  Origin is supposed to be the XUSSR. It is sold as some sort of rocket fuel.
 
  One sample is supposed to be tested by some Italian authority which
confiscated it (from someone)...
 
  So we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? Patience ...
 
pao
 
 
--
 ------------------------------Andrew Olausson--------------------------------
 -----------------------------Systems Architect-------------------------------
 ---------------------------dxper@dtek.chalmers.se----------------------------
 -------------------------------pao@proxxi.se---------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendxper cudfnPer cudlnOlausson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.23 / Raul Zambrano /  Re: Ferrocene
     
Originally-From: rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Raul H Zambrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Ferrocene
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 19:46:22 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

 
 
Does anyone know of any modern day applications of Ferrocene besides its
use as a anti-knock reagent in gasoline. Any help on this matter would be
appreciated as I have gone through a lot of the literature and I cannot
find any references for some modern uses of the orgo-metallic compound.
ANy information would be useful. Thanks in advance.
 
Raul
rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrhz2 cudfnRaul cudlnZambrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.23 / Row Jimmy /  help in locating obscure (?) reference?
     
Originally-From: jimbo@ee.ualberta.ca (Row Jimmy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: help in locating obscure (?) reference?
Date: 23 Jan 92 19:17:23 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering

greetings,
 
i'm not sure if this is an acceptable thing to do (please let me know if
i am in the wrong) but, i am trying to track down a reference i found and
am having little success so far. i am looking for:
 
"Research V:MgF2 Crystals for Laser Fusion Applications", Lincoln Laboratory,
LLL-SAN-L contract 806-013.
 
that's all i have... the interlibrary loans people didn't sound too
confident of being able to trace this one. can anyone out there point me
in the right direction? are there ftp sites where biblios are stored?
 
thanx in advance for your help
 
	jim
--
Jim Bauer                               jimbo@ee.ualberta.ca
Medical Laser Lab                       alberta!bode!jimbo
University of Alberta 136 Civil Elect   Voice (403)492-1489
Edmonton, Alberta Canada  T6G 2G7       Fax   (403)492-1811
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjimbo cudfnRow cudlnJimmy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.24 / Dave Spain /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: spain@alliant.com (Dave Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 05:33:41 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.

In article <199201220000.AA25496@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet> writes:
>As implied in the "A search for Mills et. al. Shrinking Hydrogen"
>posting, we are beginning to be convinced that we have a positive
>MKF result.
> [...]
>stopping.  If it gets to 30 Killojoules I will declare it beyond normal
>chemistry.  This should take one more day at the present 160 mw.  The
>cell is about the size of a "D" cell and 30 KJ is about what a D cell
>will produce.  The best modern chemistry can economically do.
> [...]
>Tom Droege
 
I was a little puzzled by the last statement quoted above.  I'm not an
electrochemist and would like some clarification, EMAIL me if you think
it of little to no interest to the group.  Also this is purely for my
own edification, so don't waste time on me if it takes too long for a reply.
 
Questions:
 
   1) When you say "D" cell, I think of a "D" battery.
      But I suppose you could also mean a Dueterium based cell?
      If I had a CRC chemistry handbook handy (which I don't) I suppose
      I could look it up to see if 30KJ makes sense for a "D" battery.
      Maybe "D" is in reference to the type of cell being used, its size,
      or its internal arrangement?  Can anyone help me on this?
 
   2) If 30KJ is equivalent to the best modern chemistry can economically
      do why are you willing to declare it beyond normal chemistry?
 
------------
Dave Spain
Alliant Computer Systems, One Monarch Drive, Littleton MA USA 01460
USEnet: spain@Alliant.COM
--
------------
Dave Spain
Alliant Computer Systems, One Monarch Drive, Littleton MA USA 01460
Telephone: (508)486-1239  USEnet: spain@Alliant.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenspain cudfnDave cudlnSpain cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.24 / G Steinbach /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 24 Jan 92 16:19:38 GMT
Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.ogi.edu writes:
 
> We now have positive results from four different cells in four
> successive experiments.  Some include completely closed systems
> with a catalyst.  "Works first time, every time."  To an old
> P&F experimenter it is like going to heaven.
 
I sure hope you are right, although I have trouble believing in it.
 
>   ...      If it gets to 30 Killojoules I will declare it beyond normal
> chemistry.  This should take one more day at the present 160 mw.  The
> cell is about the size of a "D" cell and 30 KJ is about what a D cell
> will produce.  The best modern chemistry can economically do.
		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't quite understand how you mean this.  I seem to remember from
high school that you can do much, much better in energy per volume than a
battery by burning fossil fuel of an equivalent volume.  Otherwise we'd
all be driving electric cars.  Of course the fuel is gone after that...
 
	 Guenter Steinbach			steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensteinbac cudfnGuenter cudlnSteinbach cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Pseudo Science Censored
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pseudo Science Censored
Date: 25 Jan 92 16:15:40 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <199201162110.AA14963@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNAL.bitnet> writes:
>
>The following title was submitted for the 1991 Nuclear Science
>Symposium:
>
>"A BRIDGE CALORIMETER FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF "COLD FUSION"
>PHENOMENA"
 
Gee, why not substitute something clever like "A Bridge Calorimeter for use
in a Poor Signal-to-Noise Environment" and get on with it?  Could be that the
session they wanted you in had a theme along those lines.  Once you are in,
you could use COLD FUSION in bold red letters on your poster as much as you
wished and no one could stop you.  A bit extreme on the organizers part, tho.
 
--
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:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Pseudo Science Censored
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pseudo Science Censored
Date: 25 Jan 92 16:22:15 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

It is too bad the IEEE does not have rules like the APS (American Physical
Society) has: that any member may present a 10 minute paper or display a
poster at any of its meetings on any subject that member wishes.  This can
be both amusing (I always look forward to the ones about some canyon in Utah)
and valuable (I know someone who used this to publish an idea that the Phys.
Rev. journals would not accept).  Sounds a bit more like some computer
conferences where the entire paper is sent in as much as a year before the
meeting for review -- a practice that must impede communication of new work.
 
--
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:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.25 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 25 Jan 92 23:04:39 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach) writes:
 
>In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.ogi.edu writes:
>>   ...      If it gets to 30 Killojoules I will declare it beyond normal
>> chemistry.  This should take one more day at the present 160 mw.  The
>> cell is about the size of a "D" cell and 30 KJ is about what a D cell
>> will produce.  The best modern chemistry can economically do.
>		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't quite understand how you mean this.  I seem to remember from
>high school that you can do much, much better in energy per volume than a
>battery by burning fossil fuel of an equivalent volume.  Otherwise we'd
>all be driving electric cars.  Of course the fuel is gone after that...
 
Ahh, true but what is the source of this energy?  Where are the reaction
products?
 
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.27 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 649 papers, 84 patents).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 649 papers, 84 patents).
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 15:33:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
a mixed bag here. Just two papers, both a bit tangential to cold fusion but
close enough to make it it into the main section. Gentsch at least realises
that target bashing is known to produce fusion, but makes the point that more
fusing took place than expected; OK. The Karabut et al is one of several works
where people do not seem to know about self targeting. I could be wrong but
they don't say so.
 The patents are the usual ho hum, but the Belgian one at least comes up with
a novel arrangement - and correctly writes "absorb", instead of "adsorb", as
all Japanese patents I have seen, do.
 The Science news item on Fleischmann is interesting. Maybe Fleischmann didn't
have the time to cite the "several hundred" cold fusion comfirmations that are
often quoted, but it does read as if he is getting more careful in what he
cites in this way.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 27-Jan. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 649
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentsch H;             Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 95 (1991) 1283 (in German).
"DD-fusion reactions at a PdAg(D) target in a minireactor".
** An electrolysis cell, in which the cathode was a hollow cyclinder of the
PdAg alloy, is described. The electrolyte is 0.1M LiOD in D2O, and a small
current of 0.1 A charges the thin-walled (0.3 mm) cyclinder. Within it is a
near-vacuum, and a small D2 pressure after a time indicates that the alloy is
deuterated. Down the middle of the cyclinder is an ion source, bombarding the
alloy deuteride with ions up to 30 keV. Neutrons were measured by a Bonner
sphere and a (6)LiI scintillator, gammas with NaI. The emissions were found
to be larger than expected by theory, and more tritium accumulated in the
electrolyte than expected. This means either that the ions penetrated more
deeply into the alloy surface than thought possible, or that some unexpected
fusion reactions were taking place in the alloy deuteride. The apparatus
should lend itself to mass spectrometric detection of fusion products such as
helium or tritium, and is quite simple.                          Jul-91/Oct-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karabut AB, Kucherov YaR, Savvatimova IB;
Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 16(6) (1990) 463.
Russian orig.: Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 16(6) (1990) 53.
"Nuclear reactions at the cathode in a gas discharge".
** A cathode, consisting of a 0.1 mm foil of Pd, and an anode were placed in
a chamber which was evacuated and then filled with D2 gas at 2-10 Torr. An
electrical discharge was then passed between the electrodes by means of 50-500
V, at currents of 10-500 mA. Temperature sensors measured the cathode
temperature, and two types of neutron detectors were placed near the setup, as
well as some photographic film for penetrating secondary radiation. It was
found that when the cathode temperature rose above 500K, the reaction stopped.
Below this, however, some neutron emissions correlated with step increases of
cathode temperature.                                             Aug-89/Jun-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosono N;                     Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,215,785, 19-Jan-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:12355 (1992).
"Thermal-energy generators based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "A thermal-energy generator based on cold nuclear fusion, contains: (1) a
container of D gas; (2) a pair of electrodes, at least 1 of which is formed of
a H-storing metal; (3) a means to apply voltage on the electrodes to cause
elec. discharge in the presence of D gas between them; (4) a thermal conductor
to transfer heat generated at the electrodes to a coolant; and (5) a
converter, to heat, of the kinetic energy of n generated by cold nuclear
fusion on the H-storing metal". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosono N;                     Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,215,786, 19-Jan-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:12356 (1992).
"Apparatus for on cold nuclear fusion using solar energy".
** "The app. contains: (1) a solar-energy-based elec. generator; (2) a means
to generate D by electrolysis of heavy H2O using electricity from the
generator; (3) a means to adsorb D using a metal; (4) a means to contain D
generated by (2); (5) a cold-nuclear-fusion device in (4), which comprises a
pair of discharge electrodes, at least 1 of which is made of the H-adsorbing
metal; and (b) [sic] a device to apply voltage to the electrodes to cause
elec. discharge". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van den Bogaert J;                               Belg. BE 1,002,781, 5-Jun-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:12357 (1992).
"Energy production by nuclear fusion".
** "In this process, in which a fusible material is absorbed in the crystal
lattice of a H-absorbing material that has a neg. elec. polarity, the fusible
material is, or is being, absorbed by a H-absorbing material in the form of
individual particles having a neg. electrostatic charge, after which the
polarity of the particles is changed from neg. to pos. This process is esp.
aimed at the controlled fusion of D, optionally mixed with T, in the crystal
lattice of the H-absorbing material, at high efficiency. The H-absorbing
material is a metal or alloy consisting of, or contg., >=1 element selected
from, Pd, Ti, Zr, V, Th, Nb, Ta, Ni and Fe. A turbulent aerosol or suspension
of colloidal or cryst. particles (av. particle size 0.1-0.001 mu) in D is
supplied in an upflow through a vertical quartz tube internally coated with an
elec. conductive coating or metal foil, e.g., Al or Cu, connected to the neg.
electrode of a d.c. source. A cooled pos. charged plate (anode) is located
above the tube, the polarity of the particles contg. the absorbed D is changed
upon contact with the anode, and the pos. ions, e.g. triton, formed by nuclear
fusion are then expelled from the Pd particles. The ions then flow downwards,
are neutralised at the cathode in the conical bottom of the reactor, and the
Pd particles are then sepd. from the aerosol in, e.g., a hydrocyclone. The Pd
particles may be elec. charged in an insulating oil, e.g. a silicone oil. The
heat generated by the fusion is removed by the heat transfer medium with which
the anode is cooled". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taubes G;                                            Science 254 (1991), 1582.
"A cold fusion deja vu at Caltech".
** It seems that Fleischmann was passing through and was roped in for a talk
on cold fusion. Some interesting comments were made. Few of the previously
active cnf critics (like Nathan Lewis, Steven Koonin or Charles Barnes) were
present, and MF got a mild reception. Fleischmann listed only one group (SRI)
as having positive excess heat results, and the Babha Institute in India for
reliable tritium findings. For neutrons, he cited Steven Jones' work in the
Kamiokande neutrino facility, and the China Lake helium results. Fleischmann
still believes in cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 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:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.27 /  lyytinen@csc.f /  Re:  Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: lyytinen@csc.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Positive MKF result.
Date: 27 Jan 92 16:01:47 GMT
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET

 
> <ames!UICVM.UIC.EDU!DROEGE%FNALD.bitnet
 
>
> We now have positive results from four different cells in four
> successive experiments.  Some include completely closed systems
> with a catalyst.  "Works first time, every time."  To an old
> P&F experimenter it is like going to heaven.
>
I would suggest recording the weight of a closed system as precisely
as possible for an extended period of time. This could possible show
if there is a considerable amount of shrinken hydrogen that diffuses
out of the system.
 
                         Esko Lyytinen
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlyytinen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.29 / Jim Bowery /  Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Positive MKF result.
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 15:02:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
>We now have positive results from four different cells in four
>successive experiments.  Some include completely closed systems
>with a catalyst.  "Works first time, every time."  To an old
>P&F experimenter it is like going to heaven.
 
What controls have you run so far?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.28 /  James_J_Kowalc /  Re: Ferrocene
     
Originally-From: James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Ferrocene
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 21:38:35 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Raul H Zambrano) writes:
 
>Does anyone know of any modern day applications of Ferrocene besides its
>use as a anti-knock reagent in gasoline. Any help on this matter would be
>appreciated as I have gone through a lot of the literature and I cannot
>find any references for some modern uses of the orgo-metallic compound.
>ANy information would be useful. Thanks in advance.
>
>Raul
>rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
 
 
Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene, sometimes called DPPF,
is often used as a bidentate, phosphine ligand (e.g., in place
of 2 triphenylphosphines) in transition metal catalyzed
reactions (particularly with palladium).
 
The ferrocene unit really is only serving as a tether to hold
the two phosphines together, however.
 
Jim Kowalczyk                     James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
Senior Research Chemist
Eisai Research Institute
Andover, MA  01810
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenJames_J_Kowalczyk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.21 /  yuqian@bvc.edu /  Fusion without Fission
     
Originally-From: yuqian@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion without Fission
Date: 21 Jan 92 03:20:15 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College -- Storm Lake, IA

 
A friend of mine said something about fusion reaction without a fission trigger
 was posted here, could somebody send me a copy of that, as detailed as
possible, and please include some numbers (as much as you can)
 
P.S.  about the bomb not the cold fusion reactor.
 
Thanx in advance
Duke
BVC
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenyuqian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.30 / Jim Carr /  Tokamak reactor article
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak reactor article
Date: 30 Jan 92 15:47:40 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I want to bring to everyone's attention that the January 1992 issue of
"Physics Today" has a special article on "Progress toward a Tokomak
fusion reactor" on page 22.  It is written by persons from JET, PPPL,
and the PFC at MIT.
 
--
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:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.30 / Martin Aylett /  Re: Ferrocene
     
Originally-From: maylett@everest.srd.bt.co.uk (Martin Aylett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Ferrocene
Date: 30 Jan 92 10:34:03 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

From article <53601@cup.portal.com>, by James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com:
> rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Raul H Zambrano) writes:
>
>>Does anyone know of any modern day applications of Ferrocene besides its
 
Ferrocene is used as a source of iron for doping compound semiconductor
 materials such as indium phosphide, gallium indium arsenide phosphide etc.
 These materials are used for optoelectronic device fabrication (eg
 semiconductor lasers for optical fibre telecomms). The Fe-doped material is
 deposited on a single crystal (InP for instance) substrate by thermally
 decomposing a mixture of organometallic precursors in a process called MOVPE
 (Metallo-Organic Vapour Phase Epitaxy). Fro Fe-doped InP deposition for
 
 
 
 
 
 
instance, we would use ferrocene, trimethyl indium and phosphine vapours in a
 hydrogen carrier.
 
Because the dopant is only required in concentrations in the deposited material
 in the parts per million range, and we are only depositing layers with
 thicknesses of the order of a micron (10^-6 m), a little ferrocene goes a long
 way!
 
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
               Martin Aylett  <maylett@srd.bt.co.uk>
    BT Laboratories, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, Suffolk IP5 7RE, UK
 -------- >>This is a self-referential .sig virus attack<< ------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmaylett cudfnMartin cudlnAylett cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.30 / M Whitbeck /  Re: Ferrocene
     
Originally-From: whitbeck@equinox.unr.edu (Michael Whitbeck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Ferrocene
Date: 30 Jan 92 16:30:26 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno

In article <53601@cup.portal.com> James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com writes:
'rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Raul H Zambrano) writes:
'
'>Does anyone know of any modern day applications of Ferrocene besides its
'>use as a anti-knock reagent in gasoline. Any help on this matter would be
...
'>ANy information would be useful. Thanks in advance.
'>
'>Raul
'>rhz2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
'
'
'Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene, sometimes called DPPF,
'is often used as a bidentate, phosphine ligand (e.g., in place
'of 2 triphenylphosphines) in transition metal catalyzed
'reactions (particularly with palladium).
...
'Jim Kowalczyk                     James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com
'Senior Research Chemist
'Eisai Research Institute
'Andover, MA  01810
 
ferrocene is used as an additive to fuel oils to improve
combustion efficiency and eliminate smoke; antiknock agent;
catalyst; coating for missiles and satelites; high temperature
lubricant; uv absorber; intermediate for high temperature
polymers..... all from Condensed Chemical Dictionary (HAWLEY).
 
Eight ferrocene derivatives are also listed. Ferrocenylborane
polymer is listed as used in specialty plastics, coatings,
fibers and *ablative* material for *space* vehicles...
I suppose this accounts for the 'missiles and satellites' entry
for ferrocene.
 
___________________________________________________________
|Mike Whitbeck             | whitbeck@equinox.unr.edu     |
|Desert Research Inst.     | whitbeck@wrc.unr.edu         |
|POB 60220                 |                              |
|RENO, NV 89506            | 702-673-7348                 |
|__________________________|______________________________|
 
All academics have the potential for being insatiable...
but the chemists are the most expensive and insatiable among the
expensive and insatiable. - J. Martin in "To Rise Above Principle"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenwhitbeck cudfnMichael cudlnWhitbeck cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.30 / R Stringham /  Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: rrs@batman.cs.byu.edu (Russell Stringham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RED MERCURY does exist!!!!!!
Date: 30 Jan 92 19:58:25 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University -- Mathematics Department

In article <govender.695904232@shannon>  writes:
> Recently the local newspaper (The Star) carried report on a man found
> murdered in the boot of his car.His body had been painted all over with
> a substance identified by the South African Police as "red mercury".
 
In the 1800's, the Indians of New Almaden Valley (near San Jose California)
discovered that they could make a bright red war paint from rocks found in some
caves.  A short time latter, many of them died.
 
The cause of death was discovered to be mercury poisoning.  Mercury minning  in
the area started almost immediately.
 
- Russell Stringham
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrrs cudfnRussell cudlnStringham cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.31 /  /  Current MKF results
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current MKF results
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 20:52:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Come on guys, loosten up.  It is after all a D cell, the 9 volt transistor
radio power source is a "battery"
 
It was only meant as a peg to think on.  So consider the contents of the
MKF cell.  5 gm K2CO3, 6 gm NI, 1 gm Pt, 80 gm H20 and try to imagine
a chemical way for that to generate as much energy as a D cell does, or
28,000 joules. (roughly).
 
We continue to have a continuous string of successes.  I thought for a while
that the fifth cell did not show anomalous heat, but a recheck of the
calibration data put it 3 sigma over the calibration, so I will have to count
it as a success too.  Further since it looked like a dud, we did not go
through the "optimize the cell" routine.
 
We are now up to cathode #9.  This one is electroplated.  Looks promising.
Presently at 250 mw excess.  I remind all that the calorimeter error is 9
mw.  So we must look somewhere else for the source of the heat.  We continue
to be less successful running the closed system, but excess heats with
the closed system are still 5 sigma or so over the calorimeter error.  We
will work until we can get the same power closed as  open - or know why.
 
I had great fun giving the Fermilab talk.  Drasko Jovaniovic sat in the front
row and asked a continuous string of nasty questions.  Kept me up and going.
He wanted me to say I had disproved P&F.  But I do not say that.  I just say
that I have not yet been able to keep a closed cell running their average
70 days (from their patent) to power observation.  The closed cell just
runs out of electrolyte.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.01 /  /  What Controls Have You Run (Jim Bowery)
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Controls Have You Run (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1992 00:16:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>What Controls Have you run? (Positive MKF Results)
 
Controls are a real problem.  We count most on the empty calorimeter
where the cell is replaced with a resistor.  Being an electronic type,
I do not trust a dummy cell with chemicals in it not to give off or absorb
heat.  To verify that we have the same calorimeter after it is opened up
and a new cell put in it, we have done a long series of tests where we
open the calorimeter, let it cool, close it, bring it up to temperature
and check the nul balance heater reading.  This done over many days gives
a sigma of 9 milli-watts.  It is 100 micro-watts if we run long enough
without opening and take measurements as 10 day averages.  The 9 mw
can be achieved with with about a three hour settling time after a
change.
 
We have also run the recommended by Farrell Na2CO3.  So far all such runs
have been jinxed by one problem or another.  They look null, but we can not
quote better than a +/- 50 mw error for these runs.  We have also made runs
where we reverse the cell.  Farrell recommends against this and it brought
fast phone calls from Mills when I proposed this as the proper control.
Farrell is worried about endothermic chemistry if I understand him correctly
when this is done.  Stil, my machine is very accurate - you get the 100
microwatt accuracy - or close to it - if the cell is reversed.  Results from
a run where this was done are: forward 75 mw, +/- 9 mw, reversed -3 +/- 9 mw
forward 85 +/- 9 mw, reversed 0, +/- 9 mw, forward 82 mw, +/- 9mw.  Note that
while the 9 mw error is still appropriate to apply to these measurements,
the difference is much more accurate, probably of order 1 mw for the settling
time allowed.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.01.31 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Tokamak reactor article
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak reactor article
Date: 31 Jan 92 06:29:00 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <6864@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>I want to bring to everyone's attention that the January 1992 issue of
>"Physics Today" has a special article on "Progress toward a Tokomak
>fusion reactor" on page 22.  It is written by persons from JET, PPPL,
>and the PFC at MIT.
 
>--
>J. A. Carr         jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
 
Actually, I was impressed, with much of the description myself.  The
authors laid out problem areas, and even showed machines relative to
the triple product: [{ n (density)  *  T (temperature)  = plasma
pressure} * tau (confinement time)] .. well 'er sort of .. .   I know
Goldston is quite frank, but Ron P. has tended in the past to be not
so forthcoming ???  I'm puzzled; is it the security of having no
competing concepts?? -- or is glasnost spreading to the futures industry
for the design and production of colosal science museum pieces??
 
Since these machines are very plasma pressure limited, the temperature
density cluster tends to have an upper bound.
 
A few addtional years of more and more candid "executive" level articles
like this, some institute in the system may hear itself yawning loudly
enough to decide buck the flow by giving our PLASMAK(tm) concept a try.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.02 / Ted Dunning /  Re: Current MKF results
     
Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Current MKF results
Date: 2 Feb 92 04:40:01 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab

 
In article <920131135911.20a04ebf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   ... I just say that I have not yet been able to keep a closed cell
   running their average 70 days (from their patent) to power
   observation.  The closed cell just runs out of electrolyte.
 
what????
 
 
a closed cell just runs out of electrolyte?
 
where does it go?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.02 / George Phillies /  RFD: sci.physics.research (moderated)
     
Originally-From: phillies@wpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: RFD: sci.physics.research (moderated)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 04:11:27 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Request  For Discussion: sci.physics.research(moderated)
 
Remark: for some people, this may be a second distribution.  A failure of our
newsfeed at a chokepoint apparently prevented widespread distribution of
this request.
 
A proposed charter for sci.physics.research(moderated):
 
******
 
The purpose of sci.physics.research (moderated) is to provide a
location for discussion of orthodox physics research, including
announcements of novel findings, electronic publication of results,
requests for data, and physics news.  The intent is to provide a
congenial location in which professional physicists, physical
chemists, fellow scientists and engineers in other disciplines, and
serious amateurs may discuss science in a high signal-to-noise
environment.  The current sci.physics (unmoderated) will not be
affected by the creation of this group, so persons wishing an
unmoderated newsgroup are not being deprived of anything.
 
The proposed group shall be moderated.  The moderator is expected to
identify a contribution by approximate area, and to sort out seriously
crackpot material and material that (s)he can identify as coming from
h(er/is) undergraduate/core-graduate background.  The moderator is not
a referee/editor, and need not decide whether or not a contribution is
right.  Moderation is not editing.
 
As a general rule the moderator shall refer "paradoxers" --- critics
who claim to find non-mathematical contradictions in special
relativity, quantum mechanics, and other standard theories --- to
sci.physics (unmoderated).  The borderline between radical innovation
and crackpottery is sometimes vague; the duty of the moderator is to
raise the signal-to-noise ratio by pruning doubtful contributions.
 
sci.physics.research will accept physics news articles, when the
presented material is informational rather than editorial in content.
The moderator should edit news items to delete excessive editorial
comments.  Very short summaries of ill-reported news events, such as
the January N. Y. Times report that the Japanese will definitely not
contribute to the SSC, are appropriate; long excerpts are usually not
appropriate.
 
Retractions of published papers are appropriate.
 
Discussions of undergraduate physics and questions taught in standard
undergraduate or core graduate-level courses are not suitable for
sci.physics.moderated.  Professional discussions of physics issues
associated with the teaching of physics at any level --- pre-school to
post-grad --- are suitable for sci.physics.research.  Discussions of
textbook errors are suitable for sci.physics.research.  Some classes
of pedagogical issues are more suited for sci.edu; crossposting of
pedagogy articles to sci.edu is acceptable.
 
Format: To establish a tone for the group, the opening characters of
the Subject Header Line and the opening lines of the article  will be
standardized.  While in principle the same effect could be obtained by
establishing a heirarchy of subgroups, it is not clear what the
heirarchy should contain.  It is certainly easier to modify Subject
Header Line instructions than it is to vote on restructuring a
heirarchy.
 
Subject Header Line:  To allow searches/killfiles, the initial
characters of the Subject Header line shall be standardized.  The
standardization consists of an area/field code, which is used to begin
each Subject Line.  The list of area/field codes shall be maintained
by the moderator, and modified after experience has clarified their
value.  An initial proposed list of area/field codes follows the
charter.
 
Article Format Requirements:
 
    Opening Lines:
 
    Line 1+ "Title, Not All Caps, in Quotes."
 
    Blank Line
 
    Line 2+  Authors, including EMail and PaperMail addresses, and
        Granting Agency Acknowledgements as Appropriate.
 
    Text
 
    Standard Trailers and disclaimers as needed.
 
Physics is large; the senior moderator's time is limited.  If the
demands of the position become excessive, the senior moderator is
authorized (after open discussion of names in sci.physics.research) to
appoint up to three additional moderators (who may not themselves
appoint additional moderators) to reduce the workload on a single
person.  If this level of moderation proves inadequate, the moderators
shall propose a rational subheirarchy following current customs.
 
**********End of Charter***********
 
Of course, we need a volunteer to act as moderator.  { 8^).  If no one
else is willing, I am prepared to do this for a year.
 
Proposed list of header line openings.
 
astroe  : observational astronomy and astrophysics
astrot  : theoretical astronomy and astrophysics
accel   : particle beam physics, electron optics,...
acous   : acoustics
bioph   : biophysics
class   : classical mechanics and dynamics
cmlse   : condensed matter, liquid state experiment
cmlst   : condensed matter, liquid state theory
cmsse   : condensed matter, solid state experiment
cmsst   : condensed matter, solid state theory
cosm    : cosmology
EandM   : electromagnetics
fluid   : fluid dynamics
fusne   : plasma and fusion physics, experimental
fusnt   : plasma and fusion physics, theoretical
geoe    : experimental geophysics
geot    : theoretical geophysics
grav    : gravitation and general relativity
highe   : high energy experiment
hight   : high energy theory
math    : mathematical and numerical methods
news    : physics news
nucle   : nuclear physics, experimental
nuclt   : nuclear physics, theoretical
optics  : geometric, physical, and quantum optics
ped     : physics pedagogy
polym   : polymer physics
quante  : quantum mechanics/spectral properties, lasers: experimental
quantt  : quantum mechanics/spectral properties, lasers: theoretical
ref     : discussion of modalities for creating a refereed
   Electronic Journal of Physics (e.g. sci.phys.research.refereed)
sim     : methods in computer simulation (simulation results are
 referred to the theory section of the field).
space   : space physics
stat    : statistical mechanics
thermo  : thermodynamics
 
When the call for votes is made (assuming discussion at this stage
doesn't zorch the whole idea) I will serve as teller.  The requested
format is Header line: "Vote on sci.physics.research"
 
Text:  Your Name   <Your address>    Your vote (Yes or No)
       ^           ^                 ^
       Column 5    Column 30         Column 60
 
Improvements on the above are welcome.
 
George D. J. Phillies     phillies@wpi.wpi.edu
Professor of Physics      508-831-5334
Physics/WPI
Worcester MA 01605
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenphillies cudfnGeorge cudlnPhillies cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.02 / Matt Austern /  Re: RFD: sci.physics.research (moderated)
     
Originally-From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research (moderated)
Date: 2 Feb 92 02:25:11
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1992Feb2.041127.29792@wpi.WPI.EDU> phillies@wpi.WPI.EDU (George D.
 Phillies) writes:
 
> Request  For Discussion: sci.physics.research(moderated)
> A proposed charter for sci.physics.research(moderated):
>
> The purpose of sci.physics.research (moderated) is to provide a
> location for discussion of orthodox physics research, including
> announcements of novel findings, electronic publication of results,
> requests for data, and physics news.
 
> [Many lines deleted]
 
I like the idea of a moderated physics group: sometimes I find myself
wondering what sci.physics has to do with physics.
 
And for people who missed it: the most important part of the RFD that
I am replying to is that Dr. Phillies has volunteered to moderate this
group.  This is crucial: without a moderator, this discussion would
have been pointless.
 
However, why make things so cumbersome?  The article I'm replying to
had a very detailed charter, a very specific, rigid format for
submissions to the group, and a classification system for articles.  I
believe that this kind of complexity is both unnecessary and harmful.
 
Unnecessary, because moderated groups tend not to be high-volume.
Consider how few articles in sci.physics would qualify for a moderated
sci.physics.research even under the most liberal standards for
acceptance; we just don't need procedures for coping with an enormous
flood of articles.  This is especially true because moderated
newsgroups tend not to be very high-volume: just the knowledge that a
moderator exists is enough to make people who post exercise
some self-restraint.
 
Harmful, because these proposed rules are sufficiently complicated
that figuring out how to use this newsgroup would be a nontrivial
effort.  Remember: if we make this too cumbersome, then nobody will
use the newsgroup, and our effort to create it will have been wasted.
 
My opinion: we should create this group, but we shouldn't spend
terribly much effort spelling out the precise details of what may or
may not be posted.  The one sentence that I quoted from Dr. Phillies's
posting is enough: the vast majority of the time, the decision on
whether to accept an article will be completely clear.  And, after
all, the whole point of a moderator is that he or she can exercise
judgement in doubtful cases.
 
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.02 / Corey Sweeney /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 2 Feb 92 17:40:14 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Jan25.230439.18942@coplex.com>, chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
writes:
>steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach) writes:
>
>>In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.ogi.edu writes:
>>>   ...      If it gets to 30 Killojoules I will declare it beyond normal
>>> chemistry.  This should take one more day at the present 160 mw.  The
>>> cell is about the size of a "D" cell and 30 KJ is about what a D cell
>>> will produce.  The best modern chemistry can economically do.
>>		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I don't quite understand how you mean this.  I seem to remember from
>>high school that you can do much, much better in energy per volume than a
>>battery by burning fossil fuel of an equivalent volume.  Otherwise we'd
>>all be driving electric cars.  Of course the fuel is gone after that...
>
>Ahh, true but what is the source of this energy?  Where are the reaction
>products?
>
>Chuck
 
 
Some company currently has a battery with about the performance of a car
battery thats about the size of a pack of cigerettes.  It's soposto be
released soon.  (expected to go in electric cars)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmad cudfnCorey cudlnSweeney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 /  /  Reply to Ted Dunning
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Ted Dunning
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 20:01:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>a closed cell just runs out of electrolyte?
>where does it go?
 
Sorry about the careless wording.  Whith the closed P&F cell the atmosphere
in the cell is enriched in Oxygen.  Depending on the original size if the
air space in the cell it can get to 50-60%.  This is because the Palladium
absorbes some H2 (D2) and the oxygen is left.  My observation is that this
oxygen disappears over long electrolysis times.  One observes "white gunk"
in the cell, and the pH goes down.  Sorry that I can not say what really
happens but I do not have a chemistry lab in my basement.  Hopefully one
of you out there will duplicate this.  So eventually the voltage goes up
so high that the run has to be terminated.
 
The solution to this is to change electrolyte periodically.  I could do
this, but have not since I don't trust that this will not introduce
chemistry.
 
So while the electrolyte level stays the same, the pH goes down and the
cell becomes inoperable.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Current MKF results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Current MKF results
Date: 3 Feb 92 06:11:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>6 gm NI, 1 gm Pt
 
I don't recall seeing in Farrell's online posting (and I looked for it)
how much Pt to use in the anode.  That junk is expensive, you know!
Where'd the 6/1 ratio come from?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 / John Logajan /  Electrochemical densities
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrochemical densities
Date: 3 Feb 92 05:52:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Since the output is heat rather than electricity, this table is not the
final word, but here are the energy densities of commmon battery types:
 
Cell Type                  Watt Hour/pound
 ------------------------  ----------------
Carbon Zinc                 20
Zinc Chloride               40
Alkaline Manganese Dioxide  45
Nickel-Cadmium              16
Mercury Oxide               50
Silver Oxide                50
Lithium Manganese           30
Zinc Air                   150 (weight of the air not counted.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 3 Feb 92 16:05:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <mad.1b2t@amiganet.chi.il.us> mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
 writes:
......................
>Some company currently has a battery with about the performance of a car
>battery thats about the size of a pack of cigerettes.  It's soposto be
>released soon.  (expected to go in electric cars)
 
 
RIGHT!  And it works by cold fusion boosted by aneutronic fission -
yeah, yeah, that sounds goooooood!
 
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Electrochemical densities
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical densities
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 92 17:48:59 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <1992Feb3.055234.682@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>Since the output is heat rather than electricity, this table is not the
>final word, but here are the energy densities of commmon battery types:
>
>Cell Type                  Watt Hour/pound
>-------------------------  ----------------
>Carbon Zinc                 20
>Zinc Chloride               40
 
..which means on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 MJ/pound, right?  And for
comparison, the caloric or chemical content of a reasonably juicy and
sugary jelly donut, which weighs maybe 6 oz (?), is about 1.0 MJ, or
close to 3.0 MJ/pound.
 
   (Jelly donut analogy stolen from earlier discussions of laser pulse
energies.)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: What Controls Have You Run (Jim Bowery)
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Controls Have You Run (Jim Bowery)
Date: 3 Feb 92 18:55:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <920131141914.20a04ebf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
>Controls are a real problem.  We count most on the empty calorimeter
>where the cell is replaced with a resistor.  Being an electronic type,
>I do not trust a dummy cell with chemicals in it not to give off or absorb
>heat.
 
And if the chemicals in the dummy cell were giving off heat isn't
that *exactly* what you want in a control?  I thought you were
looking for effects beyond what could be explained on the basis of
chemical reactions.  How do you know that the heat you see in your
active cells is not the chemical effects you don't want?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.04 /  yuqian@bvc.edu /  fusion without fission
     
Originally-From: yuqian@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion without fission
Date: 4 Feb 92 03:09:05 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College -- Storm Lake, IA

 
A friend of mine said something about fusion reaction without a fission trigger
 was posted here, could somebody send me a copy of that, as detail as
possible, and please include some numbers (as much as you can)
 
Thanx in advance
Duke
BVC
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenyuqian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.03 /  yuqian@bvc.edu /  Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: yuqian@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mercury 20.20
Date: 3 Feb 92 21:11:56 CST
Organization: Buena Vista College -- Storm Lake, IA

Could any one tell me what Mercury 20.20 is.  Please be as specific as
possible.
 
thanx
SF
BVC
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenyuqian cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.04 /  /  Electrochemical Density of our experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 21:20:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to John Logajan for typing in the nice cell energy table.
 
According to my estimate, the best cell run so far produced 50 watt hours
per pound if the water in the cell is included in the chemistry.  It is
2500 watt hours per pound without the water.  So any way you cut it either
my measurements are nonsense or we are pushing chemistry.  That was my point
in stopping where I did.  No need to run longer, better stop and look for the
error.  It there is one.  So that is what I am now doing.  Trying various
ways to kill the reaction, or to explain it.
 
In answer to John Logajan's question about anode area, my note from Farrell
recommends no more thatn 50/1.  Less is better and ( I think ) results in
lower cell voltage.  This is not far from the usual electroplater's operating
point.  We wound what we could on the anode so that we can run with various
sized cathodes.
 
By the way, we have been running for several days at **0** current and 75 mw.
Once it gets started it keeps going????  Note that this is a big power gain.
 
Time to start selling stock???
 
Actually it does seem to be running down.  We are trying to measure the time
constant.  It does seem like it can be charged back up again by a brief "on"
period.
 
Come on, guys, more of you should be doing this stuff and talking about it!!
I know more of you are working than are talking.  I too want to get rich from
this work, but I am betting that it is better to talk and exchange information
than to keep quiet!!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.04 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 4 Feb 92 15:11:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Feb3.211156.552@bvc.edu> yuqian@bvc.edu writes:
>Could any one tell me what Mercury 20.20 is.  Please be as specific as
>possible.
>
>thanx
>SF
>BVC
I have a feeling this guy is trying to collect info to build a thermo-nuclear
device.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.05 /  Britz /  M&F "confirmation by McBreen, and Noninski"
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: M&F "confirmation by McBreen, and Noninski"
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 16:42:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
It has been said on this list and elsewhere that the Mills & Farrell
(actually, Mills & Kneyzis) experiment has been confirmed by others, e.g.,
McBreen and Noninski. During the little fracas we had a few months ago, I
wrote that I had it from someone that McBreen does not make such a claim
himself, but I did not feel free to say who told me this. Since then, I have
had email contact with McBreen himself (he works at Brookhaven Nat. Lab.) and
now have his permission to quote him. This is what he wrote:
 
> Vesco Noninski spent about 10 days in my lab to repeat the Mills experiment.
> He used two identical Dewar heat loss calorimeters. What he demonstrated was
> as follows. For a dissipated power of 0.1 W through a resistor a rise of
> 3 degrees Celsius was measured. When electrolysis was done in the Dewar
> with a power dissipation of 0.05 W a three degree rise was observed. Thus the
> temperature rise was twice what was expected. However it was a vented cell.
> The power dissipation was calculated by subtracting 1.48V from the cell
> voltage and multiplying by the current. This is problematic. The evolved
> gases were not measured. Recombination could always occur. I noticed that the
> gas bubbles in the cell were very fine, and the electrolyte had a milky
> appearance. This could enhance recombination. [...] Noninski was adamant in
> refusing to do experiments in sealed cells. So in summary the effect observed
> in my lab was small and could be easily explained by the effects of
> recombination.
 
I will allow myself a remark. There has been some rather jubilant citation of
these confirmations - the impression has been given that both Noninski and
McBreen have confirmed the result. We see now that it came from the one lab.
Furthermore, McBreen clearly has his doubts about it. What is more, it seems
to be a single experiment, and not a very impressive one, at that. I have to
say that the charges of pathological science, sometimes levelled at cold
fusion, are understandable at least.  Scientists worth their salt do not jump
up and down after a single "positive" finding, and tell the world that they
have succeeded at something. TB's ought to read my abstracts of the work of
Paneth and Peters, who in 1926 thought they had found cold fusion. They felt
forced towards this conclusion; even after they published it, however, they
kept looking for sources of errors, and eventually found one that was
sufficient to explain their results. They then immediately retracted. This is
how a real scientist should behave, not like a lot of TB's, who seem to be
saying - rather belligerently - "you can't prove me wrong, so I'm right", and
who grab at straws (i.e. results of very doubtful significance).
 Another feature of pathological science is that, when something goes wrong,
an ad hoc explanation is invented. Farrell's explanation of why a closed cell
calorimeter with a recombination catalyst will not produce the effect is in
this category. Let me elaborate: the excess heat is claimed to be coming from
the hydrogen's orbital electron going down to sub-ground levels, releasing
some energy, as heat. A very few of these shrunken hydrogens then go on to
fuse, producing a very small amount of neutron etc emission. This is said to
account for the neutron/heat imbalance. Farrell says that the closed cell
calorimeter does not work, because the catalyst catches the shrunken
hydrogens; according to the M&F theory, i.e. the theory of where the heat
comes from, this should not matter at all - the heat has already been given
off, so what happens to these small hydrogens is of no concern. I had occasion
to read the Dec-90 issue of Fusion Facts [sic], for a special reason, and I
note that some workers now claim a M&F confirmation in a closed system. So
what now with this dubious explanation, Prof. Farrell? Do you lightly throw it
out, or can you now explain why SOME closed systems will work anyway?
 All you tut-tutters, feel free to tut-tut at me for having another go at
Farrell.
 Having said this, I still have to admit that there is a small group of cold
fusion results (NOT several hundreds but maybe 10) that I cannot simply
dismiss, so I am not an "unbeliever" - yet.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.04 /  howp@skyfox.us /  Wanted: a source of tritium
     
Originally-From: howp@skyfox.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wanted: a source of tritium
Date: 4 Feb 92 21:07:27 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Hello.  I am cross-posting this message to various sci.* related newsgroups.
I would like to know where one can get a hold of a radioactive substance for
use as indicating marker paint on an upcoming shuttle experiment.  In
Canada, I was informed that all of the tritium here is controlled by the
government, in particular the AECL ( Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ).
I was wondering if there is an alternate source for tritium, as a back up
just in case the AECL tritium doesn't get through to us.
 
 
Thank you for your time
Peter How
The Perpetual Grad. Stud.
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
 
***************************************************************************
*    -  I have nothing witty to say.                                      *
***************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhowp cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.05 / S Freshman /  Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 5 Feb 92 05:52:28 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College -- Storm Lake, IA

In article <1992Feb3.211156.552@bvc.edu>, yuqian@bvc.edu writes:
> Could any one tell me what Mercury 20.20 is.  Please be as specific as
> possible.
>
> thanx
> SF
> BVC
 
Well some body thinks I am going to build a thermo because this posting.
I would if I have the money.
 
What I know about Mercury 20.20 is:
 
     	Density 		20.20
     	Formula			b207HgZ
	Isotopic Temp		160.87
	MG			196.052
	Radio Element		SF 6 SIG 0.794
	  Natural
	Gamma FS		0.44
	Radiation
	  Approyno		0.74-0.80
	  - Melt.P.		35.87.GRC
	  - Flash P.		160026 GRC
	ABBF			0.082
	Color			Red Natural or Cherry Red
 
 
So could somebody tell what is the application of this "thing".
 
Thanx again
 
SF
BVC
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenyuqian cudfnSuicidal cudlnFreshman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.05 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Questions for Farrell and Droege
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Farrell and Droege
Date: 5 Feb 92 05:31:55 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

In the past two months of postings  on the MKF experiments, several
questions have occurred to me.
 
For Farrell:
 
1.  Can you now give us some status on the 1000 W reactor that you
started up in early December?
 
2.  You once posted that six groups had repeated your experiment
with positive results.  What is the current number?  Have some
groups tried but failed to get positive results?
 
3.  Do you have any papers on recent results that will be presented or
 
published soon?
 
4.  Do you have any evidence (other than excess heat) to help confirm
or reject your sub ground state hydrogen theory?
 
For Droege:
 
1.  Are you the unnamed MKF confirmation referred to by John
Logajan in early January (55 mw excess heat), or was that yet
another confirmation?
 
2.  Are your experiments being done at a University or with a
company?  Where?
 
For Both:
 
1.  Have either of you tried to directly observe UV radiation by
putting UV-sensitive phosphors near the cathode?
 
2.  What name do you use to refer to this field/effect?   From
experience, I have learned that if you want someone to take you
seriously, never mention "cold fusion."
 
3.  Do you have any results at temperatures at or above 100 deg C?
This has obvious implications in engineering a device to use the
excess energy.
 
4.  Will either of you be lecturing in the SF bay area anytime soon?
It would be interesting to get a first-hand account of your
experiments.
 
Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide.  Both of you are
to be commended for your openness in explaining your experiments in
 
sci.physics.fusion.  This is in sharp contrast to the sketchy second
hand reports, secretive nature, and patent paranoia of the F&P work.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.05 / Alex Orenshteyn /  The latest setup.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The latest setup.
Date: 5 Feb 92 16:19:37 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis

Can someone mail me info about the latest setup of M&F, which has been
confirmed to work by five groups. Has anyone yet detected, the "small"
hydrogen? I also would like to find out about vendors in US from I can
obtain Pd and other appropriate materials.
 
Best Regards.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 19:58:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A lot of the argument over cold fusion hinges on assumptions about what is
good science, bad science, and pseudo-science; and I think many common beliefs
or assumptions about those things are seriously misinformed. I aimed to
ameliorate that by writing a non-technical account of how students of science
"from the outside", people who study and teach "science, technology, and
society", think about what really defines or describes science. So
  I'd like to draw to your attention that my book, Scientific Literacy and
    the Myth of the Scientific Method, has just been published. Some
    quotes:
Ignorance and misconception can have regrettable consequences. Nowadays,
science and technology are so inextricably a part of our lives that
ignorance and misconception about them may have particularly regrettable
consequences....
What has not been widely remarked... is the high order of prevailing
misconception... among the very people who most loudly bemoan the
prevalence of scientific illiteracy....
Perhaps the central fallacy is that there exists an entity called
"science" about which sweeping generalizations can validly be made; for
example, that science is characterized and defined by the scientific
method....
The point... is not that the social sciences are not interesting or
valuable but that they are not sciences, because "science" MEANS
(admittedly, among and as well as other things) a body of agreed-upon and
to-be-relied-upon knowledge.... The social sciences do not command such a
coherent body of acknowledged fact.
The book can be ordered from University of Illinois Press, P. O. Box 4856,
Hampden Post Office, Baltimore  MD  21211; phone (800)545-4703; FAX
(301)338-6969. ISBN 0-252-01856-7, hard-cover, $24.95.
Ask for review copies from Editorial & Marketing Office, 54 E. Gregory
Drive, Champaign IL 61820, phone (217)333-0950, FAX (217)244-8082.
 
I'VE JUST SEEN THE FIRST REVIEW, IN PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, 27 JANUARY, 83;
IT'S IN SOCIOLOGESE, BUT I THINK IT'S FAVORABLE
|===================================================================|
|     Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies      |
|                     VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212              |
|        (a.k.a. 'Josef Martin', author of TO RISE ABOVE PRINCIPLE: |
|                           THE MEMOIRS OF AN UNRECONSTRUCTED DEAN) |
|  Internet:  BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1)  |
|  Phone:     (703)231-4239(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:
cuddy6 cudenBAUERH cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
Date: 6 Feb 92 00:07:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
 
>By the way, we have been running for several days at **0** current and 75 mw.
>Once it gets started it keeps going????  Note that this is a big power gain.
>
>Actually it does seem to be running down.  We are trying to measure the time
>constant.  It does seem like it can be charged back up again by a brief "on"
>period.
 
In my small experiments, I noticed a strong fuel cell effect.  The applied
voltage and current would produce the expected hydrogen and oxygen
gases.  Then if you disconnected the power source, the cell would produce
its own voltage (about 1.5 volts)  I imagine this was from the disolved
gases recombing in the standard fuel cell sort of way.
 
The fuel cell mode ought to continue until all the gases escape or recombine.
Since there is no external current flow, recombination is limited to
whatever leakage paths exist??  The cell voltage ought to linger on for
quite some time, then.
 
If Droege's observation is correct, the MKF conditions may be met with
very little input energy (just enough to charge the fuel cell to full
voltage.)  Gas evolution and recombination can be minimized, perhaps to
the point of ignoring them.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Reply to Ted Dunning
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Ted Dunning
Date: 6 Feb 92 01:12:45 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <920203122345.2040316f@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   One observes "white gunk" in the cell, and the pH goes down.  Sorry
   that I can not say what really happens but I do not have a
   chemistry lab in my basement.  Hopefully one of you out there will
   duplicate this.  So eventually the voltage goes up so high that the
   run has to be terminated.
 
   Sounds like you are forming a palladinate. (sp?) With a platinium
electrode you get things like SiPt06. (Using Si02 from the glass or
quartz.)
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 / Mark North /  Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
Date: 6 Feb 92 04:24:34 GMT

scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
 
>By the way, we have been running for several days at **0** current and 75 mw.
>Once it gets started it keeps going????  Note that this is a big power gain.
 
>Time to start selling stock???
 
Ok, one more time. First, if I had stock in you I certainly would start
selling it. End of sarcasm. The absorption of H (or D) in Pd (or any other
Group VIII metal) is endothermic. This means that when you turn off your
current and it starts coming out it produces heat. This is in contrariness
to the case in a metal like Lithium which also likes to absorb H (or D).
(When I say it likes to, I mean it will or it can). The situation in Li is
like the situation where you release a compressed gas -- the container gets
cold. The Group VIII metals aren't like that. If you do a careful energy
balance you should see the effect. The reference I have for this is
in the overhead of my garage. As soon as my ribs heal I will crawl up there
and dig it out (I didn't think I would ever need than CNF stuff again).
For those of you that can't wait see the article in Physics Today about
10 years ago by Cam Satterthwaite and his students. Cam is retired but you
can get his Ph no. if you call the U of Ill. Physics dept and ask. After you
have put this much effort into it and still want to argue send me email.
Bye,
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 / Corey Sweeney /  Re: fusion without fission
     
Originally-From: mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion without fission
Date: 6 Feb 92 03:45:54 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Feb3.210906.551@bvc.edu>, yuqian@bvc.edu writes:
>
>A friend of mine said something about fusion reaction without a fission trigger
>
> was posted here, could somebody send me a copy of that, as detail as
>possible, and please include some numbers (as much as you can)
>
>Thanx in advance
>Duke
>BVC
 
 
Is this for a bomb or a reactor?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmad cudfnCorey cudlnSweeney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Scaling Up.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scaling Up.
Date: 6 Feb 92 16:07:50 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

There has been a lot of discussions about how difficult it is
to do good calorimetry. From the recent discussions about the
MF method I surmise the cell can be scaled up easily. My question
is, has anyone tried to build a cell large enough so that calorimetry
is no longer an issue. If one demonstrates that the cell produces
large amounts of unaccounted for heat (like boils the eloctrolyte)
we know something is going on. Also has anyone done any carefull
weighing of cell components to see if some stuff is bleeding from
vessel walls or we are forming strange compounds in the electrodes,
how much gas really escapes, etc...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 17:15:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) says:
>Droege writes:
>>By the way, we have been running for several days at **0** current and 75 mw.
>>Once it gets started it keeps going????  Note that this is a big power gain.
>
>The absorption of H (or D) in Pd (or any other
>Group VIII metal) is endothermic. This means that when you turn off your
>current and it starts coming out it produces heat.
 
If I understand Droege, he is saying that the 75mw is excess, that is,
all input energy has already been accounted for and he is still seeing
75 mw with zero additional input energy.  It doesn't really matter
from an energy balance point of view what the source of this latent
energy is.  As long as more comes out than was put in...
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.07 / D Arthur /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 7 Feb 92 04:33:59 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

>Some company currently has a battery with about the performance of a car
>battery thats about the size of a pack of cigerettes.  It's soposto be
>released soon.  (expected to go in electric cars)
 
Lets hear where this battery is from, I am very interested in concentrated
energy sources, either stored like batteries or small fusion generators
for the future.  Well please give us some detail, if it is real that is.
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.07 / D Arthur /  Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 7 Feb 92 04:43:11 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

In article <1992Feb04.151125.117131@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>In article <1992Feb3.211156.552@bvc.edu> yuqian@bvc.edu writes:
>>Could any one tell me what Mercury 20.20 is.  Please be as specific as
>>possible.
>>
>>thanx
>>SF
>>BVC
>I have a feeling this guy is trying to collect info to build a thermo-nuclear
>device.
 
So what if he is, maybe atleast some people would realize that this person
is trying to educate us to how easy such devices can be made from a basis
of new theory.  There are strong indications that if CNF does happen, it
would lead to low cost fusion bombs that would be easy to make.  Think of
who discovers how to do this commercially as the next Nobel.  Low cost
plus high explosive yield with clean byproducts (i.e. radioactives
contained and in low quantity) would still allow for many industrial uses
of fusion that have had to be put on the back burner.  If there is a high
flux of alpha particles, it should be possible to use these for many kinds
of useful reactions, without the transmutation problems that neutron fluxes
can lead to.
 
I would like to hear of what possibilities there are to reach critical mass
with deuterium saturated rods of hydrideable metals?  This is a short list
of metals with hydride uses:
 
Nickel
Titanium
Palladium
 
Are there more, or published lists that show just what level of permeability
of a metal is possible and the physical characteristics during hydration?
 
Please post the critical mass equation, lets see if the calculations even
come close to critical mass if hydration of a metal, followed by implosion
with convential explosive is attainable.
 
Thanks to those who post.
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.07 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 09:36:28 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <north.697350274@watop>, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>
>>By the way, we have been running for several days at **0** current and 75 mw.
>>Once it gets started it keeps going????  Note that this is a big power gain.
>
>>Time to start selling stock???
>
> Ok, one more time. First, if I had stock in you I certainly would start
> selling it. End of sarcasm. The absorption of H (or D) in Pd (or any other
> Group VIII metal) is endothermic. This means that when you turn off your
> current and it starts coming out it produces heat. This is in contrariness
 
I beg to differ here, Mark. Palladium and Nickel are both exothermic occluders
of hydrogen, as shown by their enthalpies of formation:
 
NiH0.5   -2.1 kcal/mole
PdH0.5   -9.44 kcal/mole
 
So loading is exothermic and unloading is endothermic, and when you turn off
the current you should see an energy deficit as the hydride decomposes. Of
course you should see an energy surplus (= deficit) during the formation of
the hydride, so the overall gain in the absence of XS heat is zero.
 
--------
Todd Green
Department of Chemistry
University of Western Australia
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentiq cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.07 /  fsmith@kean.uc /  Re: Wanted: a source of tritium
     
Originally-From: fsmith@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wanted: a source of tritium
Date: 7 Feb 92 14:52:44 GMT
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada

Yes you can get tritium from Amersham Canada, whose address is 1166
South Service Rd., West, OAKVILLE, Ont, L6L 5T7.   Frank R. Smith,
Memorial Univ ersity of newfoundland.In article
 <4FEB92.21072772@skyfox.usask.ca>, howp@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
> Hello.  I am cross-posting this message to various sci.* related newsgroups.
> I would like to know where one can get a hold of a radioactive substance for
> use as indicating marker paint on an upcoming shuttle experiment.  In
> Canada, I was informed that all of the tritium here is controlled by the
> government, in particular the AECL ( Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ).
> I was wondering if there is an alternate source for tritium, as a back up
> just in case the AECL tritium doesn't get through to us.
>
>
> Thank you for your time
> Peter How
> The Perpetual Grad. Stud.
> University of Saskatchewan
> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
>
> ***************************************************************************
> *    -  I have nothing witty to say.                                      *
> ***************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenfsmith cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.07 / Jim Easton /  Re: Electrochemical densities
     
Originally-From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical densities
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 20:47:26 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>Since the output is heat rather than electricity, this table is not the
>final word, but here are the energy densities of commmon battery types:
 
>Cell Type                  Watt Hour/pound
>-------------------------  ----------------
>Carbon Zinc                 20
>Zinc Chloride               40
>Alkaline Manganese Dioxide  45
>Nickel-Cadmium              16
>Mercury Oxide               50
>Silver Oxide                50
>Lithium Manganese           30
>Zinc Air                   150 (weight of the air not counted.)
 
Where does lead acid (common car battery) come in this table?
 
	Jim
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnEaston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.07 /  gsteckel@vergi /  Re: Reply to Ted Dunning
     
Originally-From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel - Sun BOS Hardware
 CONTRACTOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Ted Dunning
Date: 7 Feb 92 20:38:10 GMT
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)332-9252

In article <EACHUS.92Feb5191245@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <920203122345.2040316f@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>
>   One observes "white gunk" in the cell, and the pH goes down.  Sorry
>   that I can not say what really happens but I do not have a
>   chemistry lab in my basement.  Hopefully one of you out there will
>   duplicate this.  So eventually the voltage goes up so high that the
>   run has to be terminated.
>
>   Sounds like you are forming a palladinate. (sp?) With a platinium
>electrode you get things like SiPt06. (Using Si02 from the glass or
>quartz.)
 
One possible way to avoid this might be to preload a sealed cell
system with a certain amount of excess hydrogen to recombine with
the oxygen.  This would compensate for amounts of hydrogen lodged
in or on the electrodes.  Presumably, a relatively small amount would
be needed (a liter or so? @ STP).
 
Alternatively, as the electrodes were loaded, hydrogen could be added
from any number of calibrated sources to maintain pressure or volume
as needed.  Either hydrogen or deuterium-enriched hydrogen could be
used, depending on experimental goals.
 
Are there any reasons this wouldn't work?
 
	regards,
	geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU)
			(...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line.
This posting is entirely the author's responsibility.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengsteckel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.08 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: brian@hpfcdj.fc.hp.com (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma Focus
Date: 8 Feb 92 01:32:37 GMT
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy

 
Has anyone here every heard of a plasma focus?  It is a device proposed for
fusion (hot) which uses the EM field created by moving plasma to help compress
it.  It could be build at a much smaller scale that a tokamak.
 
It certainly sounds like an interesting idea!  Does anyone have anymore to add
about this?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.09 / Jim Easton /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 9 Feb 92 00:21:22 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH writes:
 
>The point... is not that the social sciences are not interesting or
>valuable but that they are not sciences, because "science" MEANS
>(admittedly, among and as well as other things) a body of agreed-upon and
>to-be-relied-upon knowledge.... The social sciences do not command such a
>coherent body of acknowledged fact.
 
I think you're dead wrong.  If a study is based on experiment then
it is a science.  That is the definition of the term - look it up
in the dictionary.  The fact that the social sciences are still in
their infancy and that they cannot set up controlled experiments
but have to use what nature provides makes them no less a science.
 
I'll grant that there is lot hogwash and opinionated crap bandied
about but that is true of any science.  The difference is that
experiment resolves the issues.
 
If you are going to call the "social sciences" non-science then
you also have to call astronomy non-science.  After all astronomers
cannot set up controlled experiments but have to make do with what
nature provides.
 
	Jim
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnEaston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.09 / Michael Gemar /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 04:23:25 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto

What this is doing in sci.physics.fusion I have no idea, but I feel compelled
to leap to the defence of my discipline...
 
In article <jim.697594882@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
>ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH writes:
>
>>The point... is not that the social sciences are not interesting or
>>valuable but that they are not sciences, because "science" MEANS
>>(admittedly, among and as well as other things) a body of agreed-upon and
>>to-be-relied-upon knowledge.... The social sciences do not command such a
>>coherent body of acknowledged fact.
 
Nonsense, at least if you count psychology as a "social science".
There are *plenty* of phenomena which are easily replicable by any
undergraduate.  While you don't usually find experiments in sociology,
my understanding is that there are also numerous social phenomena which
are acknowedged as the data-to-be-explained.  Now I will grant that there
may not be a body of agreed-upon *theories* in these disciplines, but
that is a different issue.
 
>I think you're dead wrong.  If a study is based on experiment then
>it is a science.
> That is the definition of the term - look it up
>in the dictionary.
 
Experimentation may be a *sufficient* condition for an area to be a
science, but it is certainly not a *necessary* one, since as you
note below, astronomers don't do experiments (or at least, wouldn't
*need* to to qualify as scientists).  So I wouldn't rely on the
dictionary for this - I much prefer to ponder what those who are paid
to think about this issue, namely, philosophers of science, think that
science is.
 
 
> The fact that the social sciences are still in
>their infancy and that they cannot set up controlled experiments
>but have to use what nature provides makes them no less a science.
 
Again, if you're lumping psychology in which the social sciences,
controlled experiments are routinely done and have been for over 100 years.
I agree that sociology doesn't have as easy a time of it in producing
"controlled experiments", but some empirical work in the domain of
social psychology shades into sociology.
 
>If you are going to call the "social sciences" non-science then
>you also have to call astronomy non-science.  After all astronomers
>cannot set up controlled experiments but have to make do with what
>nature provides.
>
 
Yeah, what HE said!
 
- michael
 
(just another defensive psychologist...)
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnGemar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.09 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion (not)
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion (not)
Date: 9 Feb 92 06:00:34 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <1992Feb9.042325.20710@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu
 (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>Nonsense, at least if you count psychology as a "social science".
>There are *plenty* of phenomena which are easily replicable by any
>undergraduate.  While you don't usually find experiments in sociology,
>my understanding is that there are also numerous social phenomena which
>are acknowedged as the data-to-be-explained.  Now I will grant that there
>may not be a body of agreed-upon *theories* in these disciplines, but
>that is a different issue.
 
Yer basic problem, Mike, is that in much of psychology and all of sociology
there are plenty of facts, but no way to definitively test any theories you
may come up with.  Which means that you have science, but there's no gas in
the tank and the tires are all flat; you can push the little pedals all day
but you're not getting anywhere any time soon.
 
c
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.08 / D Arthur /  Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Subject: Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 8 Feb 92 22:41:56 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

 
>>  of new theory.  There are strong indications that if CNF does happen, it
>>  would lead to low cost fusion bombs that would be easy to make.
 
> A reply by rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted on Fri, 7 Feb 92 14:40:39 MST
> there are no such indications.  there are, in fact, strong indications
> to the contrary.
 
Subject: Re: Mercury 20.20
 
Well then, why is the big research outfits so anxious to quash
development and outfits like SRI doing research on it to begin with
when that kind of science is not generally covered by them?
 
The saying that 'strong indications to the contrary' leads me to wonder
if you may be incorrect in the supposition of saying that critical mass
may not be possible.  Many times the prevailing attitude will fly in the
face of the results that can actually occur.
 
Maybe you would be willing to have such a thermonuclear device tested
in your backyard with such confidence of it not working it should be
interesting to see you take a shot of disbelieving during a test.
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.08 / D Arthur /  Re: Wanted: a source of tritium
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wanted: a source of tritium
Date: 8 Feb 92 22:49:10 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

In article <4FEB92.21072772@skyfox.usask.ca> howp@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
>Hello.  I am cross-posting this message to various sci.* related newsgroups.
>I would like to know where one can get a hold of a radioactive substance for
>use as indicating marker paint on an upcoming shuttle experiment.  In
>Canada, I was informed that all of the tritium here is controlled by the
>government, in particular the AECL ( Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ).
>I was wondering if there is an alternate source for tritium, as a back up
>just in case the AECL tritium doesn't get through to us.
>
>
>Thank you for your time
The following file is a picture in the PICT format for Macintosh
that describes how to refine tritium from some ecologically questionable
sources.  It is encoded with binhex, it is not public domain but may
be used for research purposes without approval by the author.
 
(This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0)
:"e4bDA4TG@d!4&*A4de%8PF"!!!!#hi!!!!!1h"%8PG(683!"J!$!!!!5!")!!!
!!!,`!N$rh2rZ![3#8J%'"5J$r!!"!!!!5!")!!!!!!,`!N!!5!!J!N!,3!!B!!%
"!3!!!!%R$`!"!3%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%J!!!")!!!!!!%!!J-#!!-!!!-$!3%!!!%
"!!%!!Y!#3!,3!N!#d!*!!+!!!!!"!J%*!!%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D!"S
!!!bU!#8!!!"'!!!#5J!!!D%!!!!!!"B!!`!9!!3!&`!8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!N!!3!#!`%!!!!!K!!1!*!!!!!!5!!!!3i!!!'-!!!$#3#
3!!!!!%J!!!%1!!!!5!!!!1%!!!"X!!!""3!!!*!!!!!!f!!!!,3!!!$m!!!!Y!!
!!2`!!!%J!!!!f!!!!5!!!!%&!!!"4!!!!1%!!!&S!!!"$J!!!B`!!!#3!!!!!B`
!!!#C!!!!r!!!!*N!!!$B!!!"!!%!!J-"!!!8K&J!"!%"!J!!$J%H!-S"+3%16@&
TEL"ABA4PFL"#BAN*!!%!!J-&!!!!!%3!"J$K!!!!Vi!!!2`!!!%NJ!!$#3$PJ!!
!Vi!!!2`!!!#p!!!!r!!!!4F!!!$M3!!"*)!!!1%!!!$m!!!!i3!!!0J!!!N!!3!
#!`8!!!!!4!!'!1S!!!"e!!!!r!!!!+D!!!-*!1S!!!"e!!!!pi!!!(i!!!$m!!!
!Q3!!!1S!!!#QJ!!!kJ!!!*5!!!$U!!!!K`!!#3!"!!)$"3!!!!"%!!B!kJ!!!5f
!!!$m!!!"A`!!!`N!kJ!!!9m!!!$hJ!!"9J!!!2`!!!%l!!!!kJ!!!5f!!!$U!!!
"2i!!!1S!!!&0!!!#!!%!!J-#!3%EJ!!!kJ!!!3#!!!$U!!!"!!%!!J-"!!!8K$3
!"!%"!J!!'`%H!4m"0!&Y3fpZC'9ZFf9N$84PGA4PFQPeE5"%D@piD@4P!J!"!!)
$!J%"'i!!!8L!!!%!J!!"5)!!#3!"!!)$"3!!!!"%!!B!kJ!!!%J!!!$m!!!!Ci!
!!`N!lS!!!%J!!!$m!!!!6)!!!2`!!!"9J!!!kJ!!!'H!!!$U!!!!@J!!!1S!!!"
4!!!"!!%!!J-"!!!8Jq!!"!%"!3!!&J%H!%J"2`"l3fpZC'9ZFf9N$8aTCfKd)!e
ABA4PFJ)!!3!#!`)"!4Z!!!"4!!!"!)!!!&%!!!N!!3!#!`%!!!!!,!!$!*f!!!#
V!!!"'i!!!0J!!!!*!4Z!!!#V!!!!f!!!!+X!!!#GJ!!!f!!!!`!"!!)$!J%!f!!
*!+X!!!#GJ!!!f!!!!3!"!!)$!3!!&)1i!!3"!3)!!&m"(J"R!8S!k84bEh"c)'p
Q$94bDA4TG@dJ4'P[H'PNC5"bC@0[EQ4PER0P$@e[FQ8JC@&cD@aj)'&ZC#"KFQ8
JFQ9dGA*ZC@30G'mJBf9ZG'9b)'*KH5"KEQ3JBfpZBf9ZG(*KG'8Z"J!"!!)&"3!
!Q3!!!0b!!!#L!!!!i3!!!3!"!!)$!3!!&)1`!!3$!3)!!-3!*3"I!(N"Fe0*69"
-45"88NP85990)%K"8PC&8e4&8Je6H@eYCA4bD@0KE#"(E'&cFb"@CA0cB@`J8fK
KF'9N$A4[)%0[EQ0PER4bBA4P)#K-DA4PFQ&XE(NT)&4bDA4TG@dJ4'P[H'PNC3e
XC@&VD@jR)'PZG'mJFh4bC@&YFb"ZC@&b)%KKEQC[FQ3X)&GKFfKTEQGdEfi0CR*
[E5"`Efpb)'9MEfa[CfPMB@`JF(*KBh4TBf9c)'*j)(4SC5"REhCPFQjYC@jd,Jd
*!!%!!J-&!!!!!%3!"J$U!!!"E)!!!2`!!!'-!!!$#3$ZJ!!"M!!!!2`!!!'(J!!
!r!!!!Ak!!!$U!!!"E)!!!1S!!!&k!!!!kJ!!!B-!!!B!!3!#"38!!*N!!!$PJ!!
!SJ!!!1S!!!B!!3!#"38!!*N!!!$ZJ!!!SJ!!!2-!!!B!!3!#"38!!-m!!!$K!!!
!f!!!!1@!!!3!!3!#!`-!!*!!!!!!JS!!!*N!!!#,J!!$!!%!!J-#!3#(!!!!`B!
5!*!!!!!!N!!!!!%!!3!#!`%!!"5$J!!%!3%#!!!J!)%![J#-!8K6D@aTBf%J8(*
PFh0eFQ8J8Q9XC@&cC5"@B@afC5Kc+3%!!3!#!`%!!"5$H!!%!`%"!!1I!@S!4J*
+!D&3E'&MC5"fCA0cC@`JD@jdEb"YD@0bEhGKGQ8JEhCPEL"dEb"SC@&d)(4SC5"
hBA4PFL"dEb"dD'8J$A4bDA"XC5e`EfPZG#"KEQ3JB@aXEhFJD'9KGRNJGf&dCA)
JG'mJB@0MG@eeE'&dC5"TEL"MC@jdCA)Z)#!03A*bBANJG'mJD@jMFQ9KFf8JBfp
ZBf9ZG(*KG'P[EL"dEb"SD@GS)'9ZEh9RD#"NC@GbC@8JCQpb)!ebC@&MG'pb)'C
eC@`JEh)JG'mJDR9cG#"QEh)JCfa[GfPZCb"TEL"dD'8JC'&bDbiJ)&0`C@0dFQp
YCA4PFL"MB@iJ$@*P)(9cC@3JG'mJG(9ZC5"QEh)JD'PRD#"MEfjMC@jdFQ&dD@p
ZFb"KEQ3JG'mJBfpZG(*[E#"QC@9NBQ&MD`eTCL"YD@0bEhGKGQ8JEhCPEL"SBA-
JBQ9PEL"YEf4TCQPPC#iJ)&0KGQ8JE@pZCANJBRNJGA0TEQF0D@jQEh*YBA4TEfi
JCR*[E5"KER4T,@jeBfaPBA)JCh*[GA"c)(4[)'a[Bf&dC5"cG(*PB@ec)'pQ$@K
PBACj)(GKG'9b)(GTG'JJE'9cFb"PH("XEh*KG'P[EL"KEQ3JGA0P)(9cC@3JE@P
MFQphBACP$@pfC@jc)(4[)'aTE@Pd)'0KF'PdB@`JCAK`C@jNDA4eFQ9c,L!J4fa
KFh-JGQ9cFf9X)'eKH5"ZC@9N$A4[)'*P)'0eFh4[E5"YB@4P)'*j)'GXBA0c)'*
XEhGPFL`JCQPZC#"[EQ8JG'KKG#"MB@iJE@&VC3ehDA4SEh9d)'9iBf9cFfPfC5"
aG@&ZG'PdD@9c)'pQ)'aPB@3JEh)JEh4SCA)JE@9dB@ac)'PZ)'GXBA0c,Je9Ff8
JBR*[Df9Z)%0[FQjTEQGhBA*PUL"KFb"RE'&cFb"LE'phD@jR)(*KGb"cG'pMDb"
dD'&d$@0KEL"LC5"MG@aXC@3JCR*[E5"RBA*KCf8JFf&XCA-Z)#"9Ff8JBfpYE@p
ZFf9ZFf8JB@jN$A4bC@&d)'0[EQ0PER4bBA4PFb"hDA4S)'0KFQ8JBRNJFh4[FQP
ZCb"TEL"LEh4dE'9c)("XB@0PC#"TEJeXC@&N)'aTEQ9N)'*[H'9c)(9ZG'PX)'j
PC@4PC#iJ)%0[ER0TC'9b)&0KGQ&ZEQ&S)&*TGQ9b)!eKFb"KE(4PFQjKG'8JFfP
dC5"QEh)JCQ9PC(0dEf0VFbi%!!%!!J-$!!#3!!!!!8L!!!#C!!!"8B!!!3!"!!)
$!3!!&)0S!33$!3%!!"8"8`")!@%!dNGPEQ9bB@`J5@jcG(*eBh4TEfjc1J!!!3!
#!`)!!Ii!!!:
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.09 / Michael Gemar /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion (not)
     
Originally-From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion (not)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 07:31:33 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto

In article <101223@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>In article <1992Feb9.042325.20710@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu
 (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>
>>Nonsense, at least if you count psychology as a "social science".
>>There are *plenty* of phenomena which are easily replicable by any
>>undergraduate.  While you don't usually find experiments in sociology,
>>my understanding is that there are also numerous social phenomena which
>>are acknowedged as the data-to-be-explained.  Now I will grant that there
>>may not be a body of agreed-upon *theories* in these disciplines, but
>>that is a different issue.
>
>Yer basic problem, Mike, is that in much of psychology and all of sociology
>there are plenty of facts, but no way to definitively test any theories you
>may come up with.  Which means that you have science, but there's no gas in
>the tank and the tires are all flat; you can push the little pedals all day
>but you're not getting anywhere any time soon.
 
Oh, no, we've been found out!!!  In all serious, I would agree in part
with this analysis (which is why I included the caveat about theoretical
agreement above).  However, things are not as bleak as you make out, especially
in neuropsychology (admitted the "hardest" of the sub-disciplines).  In
any event, given the complexity of the subject at hand, and the impossibility
of completely isolating any function under study (unlike, say, physics -
*you* try to generate general laws of fluid dynamics by only watching
Niagara Falls...), and it isn't too surprising that there is a paucity
of theories which are exact enough to be testable and broad enough
to be interesting.  But hey, we're all wearing ourselves out pumping
away on those tires...
 
- michael
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnGemar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.09 / Corey Sweeney /  Re: Positive MKF result.
     
Originally-From: mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Positive MKF result.
Date: 9 Feb 92 06:08:52 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Feb7.043359.11295@grayhawk.rent.com>, siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
(D. R. Arthur) writes:
>>Some company currently has a battery with about the performance of a car
>>battery thats about the size of a pack of cigerettes.  It's soposto be
>>released soon.  (expected to go in electric cars)
>
>Lets hear where this battery is from, I am very interested in concentrated
>energy sources, either stored like batteries or small fusion generators
>for the future.  Well please give us some detail, if it is real that is.
>
>
>--
> /----------------------------/
> / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
> /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
> /----------------------------/
 
 
I posted the original message.  I am sorry for posting it because I just
recently started into the internet and did not realize that you should have
actual references to back you up.  The places that I have posted before
comming to internet never asked about where you got the info.  Anyway I am
trying to backtrack the information chain.  It will take a long time before I
can actually give a reference to the orgin of this.  I had heard this from a
guy that I no longer talk to but will tryi to get in contact with him soon.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmad cudfnCorey cudlnSweeney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.09 / Ted Dunning /  Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 9 Feb 92 21:10:28 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab

 
i am not sure why i resond to halfway incoherent postings like this...
 
but i do.
 
In article <1992Feb8.224156.6494@grayhawk.rent.com> siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D.
 R. Arthur) writes:
 
 
   >> of new theory.  There are strong indications that if CNF does
   happen, it >> would lead to low cost fusion bombs that would be
   easy to make.
 
   > A reply by rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted on Fri, 7 Feb 92 14:40:39 MST
   > there are no such indications.  there are, in fact, strong
   indications > to the contrary.
 
   Subject: Re: Mercury 20.20
 
   Well then, why is the big research outfits so anxious to quash
   development and outfits like SRI doing research on it to begin with
   when that kind of science is not generally covered by them?
 
the big research outfits i have worked with have not tried to quash
development.  los alamos in particular has spent quite a bit of effort
on cold fusion and has obtained some of the most interesting results
to date (i speak of menlove here).  other big research outfits that
have worked on cold fusion include oak ridge and sandia.
 
   The saying that 'strong indications to the contrary' leads me to
   wonder if you may be incorrect in the supposition of saying that
   critical mass may not be possible.  Many times the prevailing
   attitude will fly in the face of the results that can actually
   occur.
 
i can't understand quite what is being said here.
 
is critical mass being used metaphorically?  or are you confused about
how fusion is normally achieved?
 
   Maybe you would be willing to have such a thermonuclear device
   tested in your backyard with such confidence of it not working it
   should be interesting to see you take a shot of disbelieving during
   a test.
 
again... i don't quite understand this.
 
given these last two postings, i would be quite willing to have you
test any device you like.  in fact, to make it more formal, you have
permission to test any device you like in my _front_ yard as long as
you promise not to spill any electrolyte on the grass and as long as
the constituents are no more toxic than a strong lye solution.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / Corey Sweeney /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 10 Feb 92 02:10:59 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <jim.697594882@st-michael>, jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
>ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH writes:
>
>>The point... is not that the social sciences are not interesting or
>>valuable but that they are not sciences, because "science" MEANS
>>(admittedly, among and as well as other things) a body of agreed-upon and
>>to-be-relied-upon knowledge.... The social sciences do not command such a
>>coherent body of acknowledged fact.
>
>I think you're dead wrong.  If a study is based on experiment then
>it is a science.  That is the definition of the term - look it up
>in the dictionary.  The fact that the social sciences are still in
>their infancy and that they cannot set up controlled experiments
>but have to use what nature provides makes them no less a science.
>
>I'll grant that there is lot hogwash and opinionated crap bandied
>about but that is true of any science.  The difference is that
>experiment resolves the issues.
>
>If you are going to call the "social sciences" non-science then
>you also have to call astronomy non-science.  After all astronomers
>cannot set up controlled experiments but have to make do with what
>nature provides.
>
>	Jim
 
Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
The science version of phycology is neural networking (which as of now is a
bunch of crap but still a science).  Because anyone can re-create a neuron set
and reproduce a observation.  So if it's un-reproducable it's not a science.
(note that this does not mean that there is no use for attempting to
determine some statistics on phycology and social non-sciences but just says
that they aren't sciences)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmad cudfnCorey cudlnSweeney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / Nick Szabo /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 10 Feb 92 09:30:33 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <1992Feb7.214357.15838@pixar.com> loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
 writes:
 
>Just over the hills from here is Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.  About
>1/2 their staff designs (designed) "devices" and associated miscellany.
>The rest work on stuff like BIG lasers and exotic optics and such.
 
>The place is a national treasure.  The combined smarts & tools just has
>to be kept together.
 
>So.  What would you have 3-4000 QM hackers, mathematicians and programmers
>do?
 
First off, there is still plenty of work to be done for DoD, especially
SDIO, which is getting a big budget boost this year despite the overall
decline in DoD.   We are moving from offense to defense.  Defense is
going to require quite a bit of new tech, and LLNL can play a big role.
LLNL would make a great site for Paperclip 2, interfacing Russian and U.S.
scientists for defense and commercial applications.
 
>Some ideas:
>	renewable energy systems
>	aneutronic fusion (note the 'a')
>	antimatter propulsion
>	a physics "Media Lab" for unconstrained research
 
The best application for LLNL skills in energy is probably
nuclear fission and fusion.  We need economical antimatter production
before propulsion; that might be a quite fruitful (but also dangerous)
area of research.   If we can get more reasonable antimatter production
a host of plasma- and fusion-related processes become interesting.
 
Energy is probably not a fruitful line of research, though.  Oil is
as cheap as it has ever been, coal and fission with current physics
tech are cheap and plentiful, etc.   Specialized applications
of energy, eg lasers and particle beams in manufacturing processes,
could become quite valuable.  Energy-beam machine tools and
advanced CAD/CAM could be a way to leapfrog the Japanese in this
crucial industry.
 
The greatest demand for scientists is in the medical industry.
LLNL skills could come quite in handy in developing new medical imaging
systems, tracers, implant devices, etc.
 
LLNL could bid for pieces of Timberwind and the Russian Hall-effect
electric rockets.  These could provide big breakthroughs in
upper stages, increasing the payload of current ELVs to GEO
and deep space by a factor of 3-4.
 
With all due respect to JPL, we need a competitor site for planetary
exploration.  Applied exploration, from  Mission to Planet Earth to
looking for space native materials for future space ventures, might
be a good niche for LLNL to move into.
 
LLNL's Brilliant Pebbles related work would be quite valuable
to small comsat projects like Iridium, Globalstar and OrbComm.
Can LLNL take on commercial contracts?
 
None of this obviates the need for _massive_ retraining of LLNL
personell.  I can't see any way to avoid moving from "pure" science
to commercially applicable engineering for a large chunk of the
LLNL science staff.
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / R Raghunath /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: raghu@wam.umd.edu (Ramanujam Raghunath)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 13:56:21 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park

I gather that one they have gotten into is climate change/global warming
related studies.
This is well within their expertise and with their collective smarts and
computing power, that field would advance rapidly I fear, for that might
leave me without a job!!
raghu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenraghu cudfnRamanujam cudlnRaghunath cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Aneutronic Fusion (Was: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aneutronic Fusion (Was: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?)
Date: 10 Feb 92 16:10:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>What is the current state of research (if any) in aneutronic fusion?  Better
>yet, what exactly _is_ aneutronic fusion?
 
I can't answer the first question, and have crossposted to
sci.physics.fusion (and directed followups there) in search of
someone who can.
 
Let me take a guess at the second question:  fusion reactions that
don't release neutrons.  Most fusions of the light elements are,
in fact, aneutronic, but they have disadvantages in high threshold
temperature and/or low energy gain.  The table below lists a few of
the fusion reactions that have been thought about.
 
                           Reaction        Threshold      Maximum
                           energy          plasma temp    energy gain
                           (MeV)           (keV)          per fusion
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
D + T -> He-4 + n          17.6               4              1800
D + D -> He-3 + n           3.2              50                70
D + D -> T + p              4.0              50                80
D + He-3 -> He-4 + P       18.3             100               180
Li-6 + p -> He-3 + He-4     4.0             900                 6
 
(Other heavier fusions omitted because two right columns are similar)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-- Edited from Keefe, "Inertial confinement fusion," Ann. Rev. Nuclear
   and Particle Sci. Vol. 32 (1982), p. 392; after Dean, editor,
   Prospects for Fusion Power (Pergamon Press, 1981), p. 3.
 
You can see why fusion energy (currently in diapers, though crawling
around promisingly) has to put up with two of the relatively few
neutronic reactions.  D + T is the next step for the big current
projects and the next generation, so one of the issues is how best to
live with the activation (and materials damage) from its 14.1-MeV mean
neutron energy.  Aneutronic reactions might prove easier to live with...
someday.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrochemical Density of our experiment
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 08:20:46 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Just an added note
 
There are some very violent chemical reactions one needs to be aware of when
looking at and calculating excess heats in the M&K electrolysis experiments.
The electrolysis of H2O/K2CO3 electrolyte should involve the following
reactions.
 
[1.]   2H2O + (2e-) -> 2H + O2
[2.]   K2CO3 + (e-) -> 2K + CO3
[3.]   2K + 2H2O -> 2KOH + H2 + Heat      (Violent reaction.)
[4.]   2K + 2H(+) -> 2K(+) + H2 + Heat    (Violent reaction.)
[5.]   2K(+) + OH(-) -> 2KOH + Heat
 
It would seem to me, that recombination of H & O gas would be minor when
compaired to the later reactions.  Now what's interesting in all this is
that there is an activation energy that must be exceeded before these
reactions can proceed.  But if you recall a catalyst (like nickel) will
reduce the activation energy.  When the system suplies that reduced
activation energy by the addition of a current, all of the process above
should proceed and release a substantial amount of energy with a very low
activation energy. This slow reaction might proceed for weeks depending on
concentration K2CO3. The end result chemically should be 2KOH and a change
in pH to base I would think.  Why Na2CO3 does not show the same heat, may
be caused by the way Ni and Na interact.  As a control for a catalysed
reaction it shouldn't suprise anyone potassium carbonate reacts differently
in the presents of a catalyst compared to the sodium carbonate equivalent
with the same catalyst.
  Reactions 4. and 5. are quite common with all group 1A metals including
lithium, although  2Li + 2H20 -> 2LiOH + H2 + heat, is much less violent.
I'm not sure about the isotopic deuterium versions. This does make me wonder
about a chemically assisted fusion reaction.  It was shown by Acer et. al.
back in 1989 that ionic screening could reduce the Coulumb barrier of D2
quite substantially, much like electron screening does.  In addition,
dynamic interactions from a violent chemical interaction would enhance that
effect.  Now if these chemical reactions happen on the surface of a catalyst
in the ion dense D-layer, it seems to me the combination would yield a good
possibility for an enhanced D+D fusion rate.   The key here is the difference
between the isotopic versions of the reactions and the protium versions. Do
they proceed more violently or less violently?  And what are the intermediate
atomic configurations during the reactions that might enhance the rate if any?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / Michael Gemar /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 17:00:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto

Well, as apparently the only psychologist who reads sci.physics.fusion, I
feel compelled to leap once again into the fray and defend my discipline.
Yeah, I know this isn't exactly the most appropriate place for this
discussion, but as long as folks keep posting this tripe, I will feel
obliged to respond (we take an oath when we get our degree, you know...:-)
 
 
In article <mad.1m65@amiganet.chi.il.us> mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
 writes:
 
>Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
>science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
>just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
>personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
>The science version of phycology is neural networking (which as of now is a
>bunch of crap but still a science).  Because anyone can re-create a neuron set
>and reproduce a observation.  So if it's un-reproducable it's not a science.
>(note that this does not mean that there is no use for attempting to
>determine some statistics on phycology and social non-sciences but just says
>that they aren't sciences)
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, the above is just utter nonsense.  There are
an *enormous* number of findings in psychology which are replicable by any
undergraduate.  *Anyone* doing the experiment will come up with (allowing for
statistical variation) the *exact same result*.  It may very well be that
the *clinical* branch of psychology is problematic, but this is just a
small fraction of what psychologists do (heck, most experimental psychologists
don't even *talk* to clinicians :-).  Look in any general textbook for
introductory psychology, or if you want something more "technical," look
at the texts in cognitive psychology or neuropsychology.  They are *loaded*
with reproducible results.  Psychology's problem is not that it doesn't
have repeatable observations, but that is has no good theories to explain
them.
 
(Boy, *see* what happens when you piss of a psychologist by misspelling
the name of his discipline...)
 
- michael
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnGemar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 /  /  MKF Results
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MKF Results
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 06:55:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From last message:
 
"No need to run longer, better stop and look for the error. (in MKF)"
 
We have been running a lot of combinations.  Cell in the calorimeter, re-
combiner out.  Cell out of the calorimeter, recombiner in the calorimeter.
Same as above only reversed cell operation.  Same as above but running
Pt-Pt electrodes in same cell.
 
Everything does not make sense yet, but when we ran with the cell outside
the calorimeter, and the recombiner in the calorimeter, we did not see
1.48*I heat in the calorimeter.  Further when we measured the gas volume
it agreed with the calorimeter.  Now we had measured the gas volume at
various times in earlier runs - but it was most often done at the start
of a run.  So it may be that after running a while, that the cell starts
recombining and then looks like it is putting out "anomalous heat".  One
telling experiment was to run the cell outside the calorimeter where it is
measured to be putting out less than 1.48*I in heat.  Then reverse the cell
whence it then starts putting out 1.48*I.
 
I therefore make the following statement:  I withdraw previous confirmation
of the MKF "anomalous heat".  I do ***not*** make any statement about what
MKF are seeing.  It is up to them to publish more checks on recombination if
they so choose.
 
Experiments continue.  The present experiment in a completely closed system
still shows a small amount of "anomalous heat".  But it is 1.5 to 2 sigma
instead of the previously reported results which were 28 sigma for me.
 
These experiments are very tricky.  I spend more time calibrating the
calorimeter than anything else.  We now are good to about 9 mw from a series
of calibrations involving opening and closing the calorimeter to test the
effect of installing a new experiment.  We are much better (100uw) when
the experiment can be designed so that it is not necessary to open the
calorimeter.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S. Would like very much to see error limits on the Mills-Kneyzis and
Noninski type of calorimetry.  Error limits that I have seen from others
on this type of calorimetry would put most of their results in the noise???
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 /   /   Exo- or endo- or both?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Exo- or endo- or both?
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 06:56:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For those of us still trying to pin down the facts on the electrochemistry
I would like to ask Todd Green to expound a bit more on his recent state-
ment:
 
  <Palladium and nickel are both exothermic occluders of hydrogen...>
 
My question is how this depends on concentration of hydrogen in the
metal?  From the beginning of the Cold Fusion flap we have been told
of the need to push toward a deuterium/palladium ratio of 1.0 and
various claims as to what ratios were actually reached have been a
big part of the debate as to why some experiments failed to show the
effect.  It seems to me that the process can be endothermic only up
to some saturation value, and then if it is possible to raise the
concentration further it must be done at the expense of some energy
input, i.e. the process becomes endothermic.  Perhaps a further
complication is that of possible temperature dependence such that
for a given cell voltage the net flow of deuterium in/out of the
palladium could reverse direction as a function of temperature.
Am I totally off base with these notions?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbitnet cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 /  /  Various answers to questions
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various answers to questions
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 06:57:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hal Lillywhite asks "And if the chemicals in the dummy cell were giving off
heat isn't that *exactly* what you want in a control?...
 
Not exactly, Hal, that is what makes it a problem.  What if the control is
endothermic.  That would give a false positive.  I know that it is hard to
believe, but some of us want to also guard against false positives.  The
best, still, that I can find is a good calibration on the empty calorimeter.
 
Dieter Britz lists a long quote from McBreen.
 
My question is about error measurements on the Noninski (and Mills-Kneyzis)
cells.  I know how hard I have to work to get 9 mw one sigma on my calorimeter
which is at least the most complicated ( if not most accurate ) thing around.
How can anything be said about a 0.05 watt measurement on an open calorimeter?
I have seen error measurements as high as 0.5 watt for this type of device.
Is the 3 degree rise significant?  In short, what are Noninski's error limits?
 
Answers to Robert W. Horst
 
Yes, I was the early January confirmation.  But as of now retracted
 
My experiments are being done in my basement at my own expense.  I have a
corporation which helps with the taxes.  I hope to make money from "colt
fusion".  At least as far as the IRS is concerned.
 
No tries for UV.  I like "anomalous heat" for both.  This does not seem to
make blood pressure rise.  We have run everything but the first run at 50
C which is as high as the calorimeter can go comfortably.  We had planned
to put a conduction calorimeter inside the calorimeter to allow us to go
to higher temperatures, but now we will first work on conformation.  No
plans to go to CA.  I do have a video tape of a talk I gave at Fermilab,
but it mostly covers how the calorimeter is constructed and calibrated.
 
Reply to Mark North who writes "First if I had stock in you I certainly
would start selling it..."
 
Gosh, Mark, you were so busy composing your sarcastic remark that you
failed to notice that my own remark was tinged with sarcasm!  Either
the no current heat was garbage (likely - but hard to find) or it had
a 180 day time constant.  Hard to do with chemistry.  Thank you, I will
keep my own stock in me.  I report the really strange stuff here in the
hope that someone will know a reason.  This work covers enough disciplines
that it is hard to be an expert.  Later we will be experts, but then the
fun will be gone.
 
Reply to Alex Orenshteyn
 
Your last item  "how much gas really escapes, etc..."
 
Yep, and it ain't enough!!  See earlier posting.  But we speak only for our
cells.
 
Reply to John Logajan
 
"If I understand Droege , he is saying that the 75 mw is excess,..."
 
This is hard work.  I stick with the 75 mw and with my error of 9 mw - but
this is only one experiment.  Certainly such a result has to be repeated
a number of times before being taken seriously.  While much faster than
P&F experiments, progress is slow.  One only gets to take the current to
zero once per Farrell and then you have to make a new cell.
 
Many thanks to Tod Green who posted the enthalpies of several compounds.
This is why I make postings.  To exchange information.
 
Reply to Geoff Steckel
 
We have considered preloading with Hydrogen.  Other than the problem of a
Hydrogen bottle in the basement ( I am told to burn a vigel candle to be
safe ), the reason is that the excess Oxygen is a measure of the Palladium
loading which we want to measure.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / Jeffrey Lee /  How to create fusion with out a fission trigger.....
     
Originally-From: jeffreyl@beach.csulb.edu (Jeffrey Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to create fusion with out a fission trigger.....
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 22:03:08 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

 
	Sure, I'll tell you for ohhh...about $50,000,000.
 
 
(Then you will have to cut down the mightest tree in the forest with...a
Herring!)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjeffreyl cudfnJeffrey cudlnLee cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 / Jim Easton /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 00:52:16 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney) writes:
 
>Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
>science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
>just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
>personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
>
Ah yes but you can't force the sun to shine either - any more than you
can force someone into a multiple personality.  On the other hand anyone
can confirm that multiple personalities exist - same as they can confirm
the sun exists - by observation.  In both case you have to accept the sun
or the multiple personality as nature gives them to you and you have to
make observations about them without the ability to manipulate the
experiment.
 
Even if their body of knowledge is not to your liking they, for the
most part, conduct their investigations in a scientific manner.  I'll
agree that there are plenty of fields which call themselves science
and are not but you cannot lump social sciences together and condemn
them all.  The test is "Is experiment the final court of appeal - if
so its a science"
 
	Jim
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnEaston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 / Larry Wall /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 11 Feb 92 18:43:56 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <jim.697769536@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
: The test is "Is experiment the final court of appeal - if so its a science"
 
Nah, "experiment" is too strong a word.  So is "theory", for that matter.
 
Science is a body of knowledge marching about on two legs, one of which
is observation, and the other of which is logic.  We try to use both,
but sometimes we limp.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 / Jack Jansen /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 11 Feb 92 15:50:10 GMT

mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney) writes:
 
>Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
>science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
>just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
>personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
 
Ok, would you please show me a neutron, then? Or, even better, a
couple of interesting quarks? A magnetic field, perhaps?
 
On the other hand, if you don't believe in psychological laws, I suggest
you go visit a couple of soccer matches. That'll give you a nice
feeling for some of the aspects of group psychology. Or watch some
adverts on TV. Or go read some interviews with ex-nazi-burocrats.
 
If you're looking for an art to look into I'd suggest "English".
 
*flame on*
drivel like this is what is exactly what is giving 'hard'
scientists a bad name in the general community: the impression that we
feel far above other scientists. I think the attitude of the original
author cannot be condemned often enough.
*flame off*
--
--
Jack Jansen        | In Holland things are serious, but never hopeless.
Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | In Ireland things are hopeless, but never serious.
uunet!cwi.nl!jack   G=Jack;S=Jansen;O=cwi;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 / John Logajan /  Thanks, Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks, Tom Droege
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 19:52:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
I'd just like to thank Tom Droege for his efforts to confirm or deny
the MKF (as well as P+F) claims.
 
He undertook the MKF experiments with an open mind even though he had
just come off two years of null results from P+F experiments.
 
He made many runs of the MKF experiment to confirm it was running as
they claimed and then after establishing that, he started looking for
possible explanations.
 
I suppose it is disappointing to find a probable explanation that doesn't
point to a new energy source, but somebody had to do it, and I think
Mr. Droege was highly qualified to be the one, and I'm glad he
volunteered to do it.
 
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 / Michael Gemar /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 18:25:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto

In article <jim.697769536@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
>mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney) writes:
>
>>Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
>>science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
>>just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
>>personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
>>
>Ah yes but you can't force the sun to shine either - any more than you
>can force someone into a multiple personality.  On the other hand anyone
>can confirm that multiple personalities exist - same as they can confirm
>the sun exists - by observation.  In both case you have to accept the sun
>or the multiple personality as nature gives them to you and you have to
>make observations about them without the ability to manipulate the
>experiment.
>
>Even if their body of knowledge is not to your liking they, for the
>most part, conduct their investigations in a scientific manner.  I'll
>agree that there are plenty of fields which call themselves science
>and are not but you cannot lump social sciences together and condemn
>them all.  The test is "Is experiment the final court of appeal - if
>so its a science"
>
 
You are conflating the terms "observation" and "experiment".  Observation
involves merely watching something happen, without manipulation, whereas
experiments involve determining if there are regular changes observable to
some phenomenon when variables are manipulated.  Heck, even us dumb ol'
psychologists know this...
 
So, as far as I'm concerned, astronomy would fail the test you provide,
since it doesn't do *experiments*, but only makes *observations*.  For
that matter, a lot of biology would fail the test as well.
 
Perhaps a better maxim would be "Is *observation* the final court
of appeal..."  But this really isn't the place to discuss philosophy
of science (sci.philosophy.tech would be more appropriate...)
 
- michael
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmichael cudfnMichael cudlnGemar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.11 / nod sivad /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 23:29:18 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>There are *plenty* of phenomena which are easily replicable by any
>undergraduate.  While you don't usually find experiments in sociology,
 
Oh yeah?  How about Welfare, Prohibition (the Drug War), and Morality Laws?
The government experiments in sociology all the time.  It just doesn't pay
attention to the results.
 
Gee.  sci.physics.fusion is the perfect newsgroup for this stuff, isn't it?
 
					me
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 /  /  More on MKF experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on MKF experiment
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 00:05:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I want to make perfectly clear my message on MKF results.  A positive
confirmation was withdrawn because I now know that my experiment was
not very good.  The simple open experiment seems to work.  The closed
experiment is much trickier.  I do not yet know what I am doing.
 
Both Mills and Farrell are accessable and are very helpful.  I am sure
that Mills has told me things that would make his patent attorney cringe.
Mills suggests that my problems with evolved gas measurement were likely
due to Nickel hydride formation.  I keep learning.
 
I continue my goal of either confirming this experiment or learning why
it appears to produce heat.  How did get snookered into grapping this
tiger's tail?  Once grabbed it is hard to let go!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 12 Feb 92 00:10:47 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

 
Yo! Take this discussion to alt.science.wannabees and
leave us sci.physics.fusion folk out of it.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.10 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: brian@hpfcdj.fc.hp.com (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 10 Feb 92 23:59:03 GMT
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy

/ hpfcdj:sci.physics.fusion / siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur) /  3:41 pm
  Feb  8, 1992 /
>
>Well then, why is the big research outfits so anxious to quash
>development and outfits like SRI doing research on it to begin with
>when that kind of science is not generally covered by them?
 
Shoot, I sure thought that they did thay kind of science!
 
>The saying that 'strong indications to the contrary' leads me to wonder
>if you may be incorrect in the supposition of saying that critical mass
>may not be possible.  Many times the prevailing attitude will fly in the
>face of the results that can actually occur.
 
What the heck is "critical mass" in a fusion bomb?!?  There is no chain
reaction, so increasing the mass will not make it explode.  It is very
difficult to conceptualize a means of creating a bomb out of cold fusion.  If
the cell gets hot enough it will melt, creating a mess but not an explosion.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 / Jim Easton /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 00:27:07 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
 
>In article <jim.697769536@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
 
>>them all.  The test is "Is experiment the final court of appeal - if
>>so its a science"
 
>You are conflating the terms "observation" and "experiment".  Observation
>involves merely watching something happen, without manipulation, whereas
>experiments involve determining if there are regular changes observable to
>some phenomenon when variables are manipulated.  Heck, even us dumb ol'
>psychologists know this...
 
>So, as far as I'm concerned, astronomy would fail the test you provide,
>since it doesn't do *experiments*, but only makes *observations*.  For
>that matter, a lot of biology would fail the test as well.
 
Trust a psychologist - I had to look conflating up in the dictionary.:-)
 
I don't think I'm getting them mixed up.  We are now arguing only sematics
and it is clear that your definition and my definition are not the same.
 
I looked the word up in my dictionary and meaning one is; "A test made
to demonstate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis,
or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
 
It says nothing about being able to manipulate the parameters nor who
makes the test etc.  It is my thinking that in astronomy nature is
providing untold countless numbers of "experiments" from which the
astronomer has to choose.
 
If you want to make manipulation part of the definition then I guess
I can't stop you but I made my statement of what constitutes science
with my definition in mind. :-)
 
	Jim Easton
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnEaston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 653 papers, 84 patents).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 653 papers, 84 patents).
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 15:48:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
it's been slow lately, because I am busier with my real work. Here are four
new items plus an update, the Rees et al, which I previously had as just Rees,
since I only got a copy of Rees' part of this panel discussion which I think
should go as one collective paper. The other three papers need no comment,
excpet to say that I was lucky to have a Pole in our group to read the Polish
paper for me; Polish I do not know.
 There are four book reviews. I don't know about Pinch except that I think he
works with Lewenstein at present, but I do know that Bauer and Lewenstein read
this news group, and I'd be willing to bet that Garwin does, too. They agree
to a large extent about the books they review but clearly focus on those parts
that they themselves work with, i.e. sociology, philosophy or the hard
science, and all do a good job of it.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 27-Jan. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 649
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnikar HJ;                                    Ind. J. Chem. Sci. 4 (1990) 65.
"'Cold fusion' - a misnomer".
** A recital of the author's belief that there is no cold fusion. There may be
chemisorption or occlusion of electrolytically produced deuterium, both of
which are exothermic and yield at most 10 eV, not 0.5 MeV as required for
fusion. So fusion cannot be happening. As well, there ought to be helium,
neutrons and gammas, and there is no good evidence for these. Ergo, nix.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britz D;                       J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Lett. 155 (1991) 377.
"Parameter correlations in cold fusion measurements".
** Besides listing some of those few cold fusion experiments in which
correlations between different measured parameters were found, the author
looks closely at the paper of Birgul et al, which clearly shows some
remarkably correlated gamma emissions and cell temperature; Birgul et al do
not seem to make much of this. Britz calculates the cross correlation function
and finds a peak of 0.34 at a lag of 16 min, i.e. the temperature tends to
lead gamma emissions by 16 minutes on average. No explanation is offered.
                                                                 Aug-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidonis R, Duskesas G, Kalinauskas R, Makarinunas K, Petrauskas J,
Remeiskis V, Ruzele B;                Litovskii Fiz. Sbornik 30(6) (1990) 65.
Original: Liet. Fiz. Rinkinys 30(6) (1990) 727 (in Russian).
"An experimental evaluation of the probability of cold fusion".
** In May and June 1989, a cold fusion experiment was run in the Institute of
Physics of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, and this is a report. A quartz
cell with cooling jacket was used for the electrolysis, using the usual 0.1 M
LiOD, and a Ti or Pd rod, 8 mm dia., 40 mm long. Heat was measured as the
difference in temperature between the outlet and inlet of the coolant, which
entered at 10 degC. This was calibrated using a resistive heater in the cell.
The cell was placed in a plastic scintillator well for neutron counting (by
proton recoil), and a gamma spectrometer recorded gammas using a NaI crystal.
10 cm of Pb shielding was used to reduce the background. Several measurement
series were carried out, at 0.1 and 0.5 A/cm**2, for both Pd and Ti cathodes,
and a duration of 24-72 hours.  The results show that the upper limit for
fusion was 5 orders of magnitude below that reported by FPH-89. Also, the
27-fold tritium increase in the electrolyte (no details given how this was
measured) was in line with electrolytic enrichment considerations.    Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rees LB, Dautovich DP, Linford RK, Thomassen KI;
J. Fusion Energy 10 (1991) 111.
"Panel discussion. Cold fusion: What do we know? What do we think?".
** This is a number of short items by the authors, individually, arising from
a panel discussion. Rees discusses the possibilities and problems of muon
catalysed cold fusion, and Palmer's geological clues to possible fusion in
the Earth, namely the anomalous helium ratios and tritium in the atmosphere,
from volcanoes. This led to the well known Jones+ work, and Rees gives some of
the background here. As possible explanation, piezonuclear fusion (which would
not prodcue bursts) and fractofusion (Rees mentions only US work and ignores
the Russians). FPH's results are considered doubtful by Rees. Dautovich
accounts for Canadian work in the area. D singles out the work of Bockris et
al, of the Huggins group, Jones et al and Scaramuzzi et al, as the significant
results that might be convincing. Linford gives a standard rundown of what is
known (one week after the Santa Fe conference) and offers some tentative
explanations such as reduced lattice spacing or fractofusion. Thomassen notes
that the excess heat and neutron emissions may not be related, and this may be
a case of pathological science, but does give credit to the excess heats of
Srinivasan and Appleby, and of the Huggins group, who did not correct for the
heat of water electrolysis, so are independent of the recombination question.
                                                                      ?/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sobkowski J;                            Wiad. Chem. 44 (1990) 587 (in Polish).
"Cold fusion - facts and opinions".
** The author was apparently asked by the journal editor to write this review,
shortly after a cold fusion conference in Poland in May 1989. This review was
submitted in February 1990, and is a summary of the field, without much in the
way of contribution by the author himself. The problems raised by cnf are
described, such as the branching ratio, and some of the motivation background
is mentioned (the alleged anomalous (3)He/(4)He ratio in the atmosphere, in
some metals etc). Some of the possible ways to detect cold fusion are
named such as neutron and gamma detection. There is a detailed description of
the Jones+ and FPH work, and the critical papers of Keddam, Horanyi, Kreysa
and others. Supporting work is also included, such as works suggesting the
(4)He branch, and the quiet dissipation as heat of the 24 MeV released from
that branch. The author concludes that cold fusion will continue to live for
some time, but that practical applications are unlikely.              Feb-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bauer HH;                                    J. Sci. Exploration 4 (1991) 267.
Book review: "Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion".
** Electrochemist and science philosopher HH Bauer reviews Frank Close's book.
While it compares well with the "pot boiler" by Peat, it appears to have major
failings. For example, Close does not know the stature of Fleischmann, and
does not explain some things of importance such as FPH's derivation of the
famous fugacity of 1E27 (HHB does not mention that this is itself a doubtful
concept). As for the sections of the book of a science-philosophical nature,
HHB considers them very weak, and suggests a separate book on the subject.
There are complaints (not for the first time) about the proofreading and
editing of the book.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garwin RL;                                   Science 254 (1991) 1394 (29-Nov).
Book review: "Fire from Ice".
** Garwin reviews Eugene Mallove's book at some length. Garwin makes a hobby
of debunking false claims and has scored in the areas of gravity waves and
polywater. He stresses here that experimental results are of primary
importance, which Mallove also says in defense of cold fusion in the face of
its theoretical rejection. However, the experiments cited by Mallove are
found, on closer examination, to be inconclusive. Garwin writes that cold
fusion may, after all, be an example of pathological science.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewenstein B;                                Publ. Underst. Sci. 1 (1992) 132.
Book Review: "Too Hot to Handle: The Story of the Race for Cold Fusion".
** Science sociologist BL reviews Frank Close's book on cold fusion. It comes
in for some criticism. BL classes it as the popularisation of science, which
Close will be pleased to read. BL considers the book timely and clearly
written by a professional but complains of wordiness, repetition and
muddiness, in part the fault of poor editing. The rejection of cold fusion is
perhaps too facile, based largely on FPH; the over 600 articles now public
present much more than this early slim evidence for the phenomenon. A
scholarly analysis of the place of public communication of science in this
affair remains to be done, writes BL.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinch T;                                         C&EN January 13., 1992, p.28.
"Cold fusion fiasco".
** Trevor Pinch, an associate professor of the sociology of science and
technology, compares the cold fusion books of Frank Close and Eugene Mallove,
respectively "Too Hot to Handle" and "Fire from Ice". He finds them both good
accounts of the story and the technical details, but wanting in the authors'
attitude to how science is done, and considers both authors biassed. Close
praises the negative experiments, while Mallove considers lack of evidence as
proof of cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 /  Britz /  Update update
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Update update
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 15:49:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I forgot to mention, when writing my comments on the latest bibliography
update, that Garwin, in his review of Mallove's book, singles out Tom Droege
as the person who has the kind of calorimeter everybody should be using. Tom's
postings also impress me, in that he has that attitude of a "real scientist",
i.e. he doubts even his positive results and goes back to check them. My
remarks on this have unfortunately started one of those epidemics in this
group, a discussion of an issue irrelevant to this group.
 Tom Droege's experience tells me that despite some claims that recombination
of D2 (or H2) and O2 in solution is negligible, this may not be true. McBreen
clearly meant this when he referred to the milky appearance of the
electrolyte, meaning a suspension of very fine bubbles. Everybody also claims
very efficient mixing - and this I do believe, as in fact gas evolution is one
of the best ways to mix a solution. This then means that these bubbles will
often hit each other and the electrode, and recombination may well occur. For
the M&F- (or M&K-) type experiments to be convincing, it must either be shown
that there is no recombination to speak of, or excess heat must be defined in
the more severe manner of the Huggins group, that is without subtraction of
the heat of water electrolysis. This is what makes the Huggins work (Belzner
et al) such a strong positive.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 / D Arthur /  CNF, Tritium, Li-6 et al * Up we go *
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: CNF, Tritium, Li-6 et al * Up we go *
Date: 13 Feb 92 03:53:08 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

 
In a message, quotes of me indented initially, replied to by:
 
*** From: rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted ***
 
 
   Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 20:34:11 CST
   From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
 
   Well I was meaning critical mass in the sense that a release of energy
   could also chain react from D - D or D - T in cold fusion if the density
   could be achieved and maintained.
 
but it isn't really a chain reaction in the sense of fission at all.
in fission, each neutron that causes a fission releases 2-3 more
neutrons.  critical mass is the mass where the cross section times the
production rate averaged over the entire mass exceeds 1.  this causes
an exponential increase in the neutron production until the geometry
is changed enough to decrease the cross section.
 
   What part of a thermonuclear system
   causes the hydrogen to fuse?  The density?
 
small atoms have a probability of fusing at any given temperature and
density.  this probability goes up with more temperature and density.
 
at a critical triple product of temperature, density and confinement
time, fusion will occur and will produce significant amounts of energy.
 
  The neutron flux?
 
not really relevant.
 
   Li-6 in
   combination?
 
lithium is used for secondary fusions after the reaction gets hot
enough.
 
(* sidebar, the secondary fusions should be initiated by
   neutrons, if so then CNF is a viable fusion event source see below *)
 
   Also, why would a glorified thinktank like SRI do CNF research?
 
why shouldn't they.  they have good people with good facilities.
 
los alamos did cf research, too and did some of the finest work
around.
 
 
   The facility
   is fairly small on a physical basis and lab space has got to be small and thi
s
   is not generally in the range of research that SRI has done
   historically.
 
not true.  they have some _very_ good electrochemists who were working
on electrolysis in the palladium system before the bruhaha.
 
   Are you running an experiment now?
 
no.
 
   Have you tried any tritium in the mix?
 
do you know the handling problems with tritium?  i didn't think so.
 
   Would you try tritium in the mix i.e. a multi-blind study with a structure
   somewhat like this:
 
not without serious facilities.  tritium is hazardous.
 
/// Start of reply by me ///
 
 
Of course it is, but that does not mean it should not be done.
Plutonium is far worse and has been extensively worked with
and I consider tritium comparatively tame, it is only a damn
beta emitter for all of that.
 
By the way I am not saying that SRI should not do work, only
that it is quite curious to see them out of their element.
By the way what is your lab, facility name that matches
your e-mail address of:
 
   rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted
 
So far, I do not understand your resistance to possible avenues
of research aka tritium and CNF.  Well fine they also have electrochemists,
but that is still interesting considering the amount of PUBLIC ridicule
that is foisted upon the CNF community and seaming downplay in the press.
Why would SRI allow their best to go down a cul-de-sac?  Perhaps the
public interplay is as much a ruse as anything, and should be retracted
to allow more researches to get into CNF without a stigma.  Perhaps there
are some that would prefer this not to occur.
 
Lets try some tritium, and now lets spice the mixture with Li-6 hydroxide
to get some different facets.  If it is not fusion, then the Li-6 will
do little or nothing, if their are neutrons, then beware.  It is amazing
how much mental effort you have devoted the dampening of enthusiasm for
and area of research that has been unnecessarily maligned on a grand scale.
Why are you supportive of SRI, and yet are cool to the efforts to widen
the discourse in public on avenues that could lead to new and better ways
to an end to energy woe.
 
By the way, I understand the risks of tritium, li-6, even deuterium and
the like, I have been checking into nuclear research material since 1973.
A proper lab, or those that have the knowledge that can deal with the
possibilities adequately.
 
Have your prose ready...
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.12 / Corey Sweeney /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 12 Feb 92 22:43:07 CST
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Feb10.170013.17405@psych.toronto.edu>,
michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>Well, as apparently the only psychologist who reads sci.physics.fusion, I
>feel compelled to leap once again into the fray and defend my discipline.
>Yeah, I know this isn't exactly the most appropriate place for this
>discussion, but as long as folks keep posting this tripe, I will feel
>obliged to respond (we take an oath when we get our degree, you know...:-)
>
>
>In article <mad.1m65@amiganet.chi.il.us> mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
> writes:
>
>>Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
>>science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
>>just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
>>personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
>>The science version of phycology is neural networking (which as of now is a
>>bunch of crap but still a science).  Because anyone can re-create a neuron set
>
>>and reproduce a observation.  So if it's un-reproducable it's not a science.
>>(note that this does not mean that there is no use for attempting to
>>determine some statistics on phycology and social non-sciences but just says
>>that they aren't sciences)
>
>Not to put too fine a point on it, the above is just utter nonsense.  There are
>
>an *enormous* number of findings in psychology which are replicable by any
>undergraduate.  *Anyone* doing the experiment will come up with (allowing for
>statistical variation) the *exact same result*.  It may very well be that
>the *clinical* branch of psychology is problematic, but this is just a
>small fraction of what psychologists do (heck, most experimental psychologists
>don't even *talk* to clinicians :-).  Look in any general textbook for
>introductory psychology, or if you want something more "technical," look
>at the texts in cognitive psychology or neuropsychology.  They are *loaded*
>with reproducible results.  Psychology's problem is not that it doesn't
>have repeatable observations, but that is has no good theories to explain
>them.
>
>(Boy, *see* what happens when you piss of a psychologist by misspelling
>the name of his discipline...)
>
>- michael
 
 
For true phyco theroys to come around,  wouldn't they have to come from the
neural-networkers?  Neural-networking is the "basic componet" of phyco and I
don't beilieve that anyone is looking at it.  Most phycos just sit around and
talk about things that have been from expierence right?  They don't say "Gee I
think that he lacks interconnectivity" do they?  if they did that they would
be a science like electronics.  ( Electronics is based on very few assumptions
just like neural networking).  But the way it is done now it's more of a
non-science like thermol-dymanics.  They are bolth just a bunch of statistics
with invalid laws.
 
By the way if phyco is so repeatable then tell me how to get someone to give
me all thier money and after they do it beilieve that they did the right thing
in 10 easy steps.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmad cudfnCorey cudlnSweeney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.12 / Corey Sweeney /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 12 Feb 92 22:29:37 CST
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Feb10.135621.15521@wam.umd.edu>, raghu@wam.umd.edu (Ramanujam
Raghunath) writes:
>I gather that one they have gotten into is climate change/global warming
>related studies.
>This is well within their expertise and with their collective smarts and
>computing power, that field would advance rapidly I fear, for that might
>leave me without a job!!
>raghu
 
 
Does anyone know how you could get a job at one of these places?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmad cudfnCorey cudlnSweeney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.12 / Dave Chapman /  Re: Thanks, Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks, Tom Droege
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1992 21:14:00 GMT
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

Thanks, Tom Droege.
--
Dave Chapman   	       	       	    |
Integrated Measurement Systems	    | The chickens are in the air.
9525 SW Gemini Dr.		    |
Beaverton, Oregon		    |
work 503 626 5373                   |
chapman@ims.com                     |
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchapman cudfnDave cudlnChapman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 13 Feb 92 15:18:45 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Does anyone know how you could get a job at one of these places?
 
Contact the Personnel Office, pick out a job you like from the current-
openings poop sheet, and impress the hell out of 'em at the interview.
Followup to sci.misc, where I'll post a more informative response, 'cause
we aren't talking about fusion anymore.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 / John Logajan /  Re: More on MKF experiment
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on MKF experiment
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 92 17:36:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
 
>The simple open experiment seems to work.
 
By open, I presume you mean you assume 1.48*I is used as the energy loss
due to O2 H2 formation.
 
>Mills suggests that my problems with evolved gas measurement were likely
>due to Nickel hydride formation.
 
Wouldn't this mean you should then get a disproportionate amount of O2?
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 /  Bauer /       Scientific Literacy and teh Myth of teh Scinetific Method
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Scientific Literacy and teh Myth of teh Scinetific Method
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 06:13:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I think the comments on my "teaser" quote from the book, about the social
sciences, illustrate one of the main important points: there is no general
agreement about what constitutes "a" science; or "good" science; or
"pseudo"-science. That was also shown in this forum by various attempts to
label the cold-fusion episode, which is why I dared mention the book here
in the first place.
Please read my book before writing off the views in it, many of which
represent something like a consensus in the community of people studying
"Science, Technology, and Society". That field itself could reasonably be
labeled "social science"; and the best put-down yet of my "put-down" of
social science came from a student in my class: "If social science has no
body of knowledge, what do you call what's in your book?!"
Here, seriously, is the line of argument:
1. Since there's no agreement over what "science" is....
2. but nobody disputes that biology, chemistry, geology, physics--the
natural sciences--definitely ARE "science"
3. look at what is done in those, for an accurate description.
4. It turns out that nothing is common across all the natural sciences:
not any primacy of observation over theory, not falsifiability, no
"scientific method"....
EXCEPT people working communally, with CONSENSUS as the only final
arbiter.
5. Much about the role of science in the wider society can be
satisfactorily understood by thinking of it in that way: people trying to
reach as wide a consensus as possible, helped toward "objectivity" because
to get consensus you have to have agreement from diverse people and helped
too because Nature sooner or later tells you unmistakably when you're
wrong.
 
In this fashion one can explain many things that the "scientific method"
view cannot explain:
1. Some science is very reliable--even though theories and even facts
change over time.
2. What was decisive about the 17th century "Scientific Revolution" (it's
NOT that the "scientific method" was then discovered!)
3. Why parapsychology is regarded as pseudo-science by many who regard
psychology as science; why searching for the Loch Ness monster is not
science even though controlled observation and sophisticated equipment is
used.
4. Why "knowing" some science--even a great deal of science--isn't the
needed qualification for science policy.
5. What's fundamentally wrong with media coverage of "science": it
concentrates on the latest "exciting" stuff, which more often than not
turns out to be wrong but is widely thought to be reliable because it's
published as science--instead of recognizing that FRONTIER SCIENCE is
quite a different thing from TEXTBOOK SCIENCE, which IS reliable.
 
So please read the whole thing, and the references in it, before deciding
it's hogwash.
|===================================================================|
|     Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies      |
|                     VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212              |
|        (a.k.a. 'Josef Martin', author of TO RISE ABOVE PRINCIPLE) |
|  Internet:  BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1)  |
|  Phone:     (703)231-4239(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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 /   /  Voyager pictures.
     
Originally-From: "Robert.Cowling" <OFA05@msu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Voyager pictures.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:14:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Can anyone inform me as to a reliable source for NASA/JPL pictures and data.
 
Thanks
 
Robert Cowling
Michigan State University
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenOFA05 cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 / Gary Coffman /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 13 Feb 92 15:47:43 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Feb10.093033.11135@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>
>None of this obviates the need for _massive_ retraining of LLNL
>personell.  I can't see any way to avoid moving from "pure" science
>to commercially applicable engineering for a large chunk of the
>LLNL science staff.
 
*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
 
Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengary cudfnGary cudlnCoffman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 / Ted Dunning /  Re: CNF, Tritium, Li-6 et al * Up we go *
     
Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: CNF, Tritium, Li-6 et al * Up we go *
Date: 14 Feb 92 16:01:07 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab

 
 
apparently, siproj (whoever that is) doesn't want to be corrected in
private.  something to do with conspiracy theories.
 
In article <1992Feb13.035308.1381@grayhawk.rent.com> siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 (D. R. Arthur) writes:
 
   (* sidebar, the secondary fusions should be initiated by neutrons,
   if so then CNF is a viable fusion event source see below *)
 
at the temperatures involved in the fusion of li, cnf isn't going to
be a source of anything except palladium gas.
 
	... [tritium is hazardous and requires special facilities] ..
 
   Of course it is, but that does not mean it should not be done.
 
no.  but frankly, it seems more profitable to get some sort of
replication of the basic phenomenon before committing expensive
facilities to the effort.
 
   Plutonium is far worse and has been extensively worked with and I
   consider tritium comparatively tame, it is only a damn beta emitter
   for all of that.
 
sure.  but on the other hand, the phenomena that plutonium is being
used for are beyond doubt real.  keep in mind that plutonium wasn't
used for quite some time in nuclear experiments.  (decades if you
start with the curies).
 
   By the way I am not saying that SRI should not do work, only that
   it is quite curious to see them out of their element.
 
but they aren't out of their element.  they do electrochemistry all
the time.
 
   By the way what is your lab, facility name that matches
   your e-mail address of:
 
      rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted
 
new mexico state university.
 
what is _your_ facility?
 
i also worked for a short time with a group at los alamos, but was not
formally affiliated with the lab.
 
   Well fine they also have electrochemists, but that is still
   interesting considering the amount of PUBLIC ridicule that is
   foisted upon the CNF community and seaming downplay in the press.
 
if anything, the press overplayed cold fusion.  it isn't their fault,
they were told that it was earth-shaking.
 
   Why would SRI allow their best to go down a cul-de-sac?
 
most major labs pretty much let their best do damn near anything they
like.  of course, their best tend to get results that relate back to
the basic mission of the lab.
 
   Perhaps the public interplay is as much a ruse as anything, and
   should be retracted to allow more researches to get into CNF
   without a stigma.  Perhaps there are some that would prefer this
   not to occur.
 
this conspiracy stuff has even less basis in fact than cold fusion.
at  least cold fusion _might_ be real.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.13 / paul nelson /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: pauln@cbnewsd.att.com (paul.h.nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 13 Feb 92 21:54:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Feb13.154743.29802@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
>In article <1992Feb10.093033.11135@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>>
>>None of this obviates the need for _massive_ retraining of LLNL
>>personell.  I can't see any way to avoid moving from "pure" science
>>to commercially applicable engineering for a large chunk of the
>>LLNL science staff.
>
>*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
>and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
>is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
>
>Gary
 
Bell Labs IS being gutted.  The future of America is going down the drain.
 
Paul Nelson
Bell Labs
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpauln cudfnpaul cudlnnelson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 653 papers, 84 patents).
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 653 papers, 84 patents).
Date: 14 Feb 92 06:01:35 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <9E7CD60840BF0147A2@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
 
 
> Davidonis R, Duskesas G, Kalinauskas R, Makarinunas K, Petrauskas J,
> Remeiskis V, Ruzele B;                Litovskii Fiz. Sbornik 30(6) (1990) 65.
> Original: Liet. Fiz. Rinkinys 30(6) (1990) 727 (in Russian).
> "An experimental evaluation of the probability of cold fusion".
> ** In May and June 1989, a cold fusion experiment was run in the Institute of
> Physics of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, and this is a report. A quartz
> cell with cooling jacket was used for the electrolysis, using the usual 0.1 M
> LiOD, and a Ti or Pd rod, 8 mm dia., 40 mm long. Heat was measured as the
> difference in temperature between the outlet and inlet of the coolant, which
> entered at 10 degC. This was calibrated using a resistive heater in the cell.
> The cell was placed in a plastic scintillator well for neutron counting (by
> proton recoil), and a gamma spectrometer recorded gammas using a NaI crystal.
> 10 cm of Pb shielding was used to reduce the background. Several measurement
> series were carried out, at 0.1 and 0.5 A/cm**2, for both Pd and Ti cathodes,
> and a duration of 24-72 hours.  The results show that the upper limit for
> fusion was 5 orders of magnitude below that reported by FPH-89. Also, the
> 27-fold tritium increase in the electrolyte (no details given how this was
> measured) was in line with electrolytic enrichment considerations.    Dec-89/?
 
This last sentence seems a bit odd. The electrolytic D/T separation factor for
Pd in a variety of different electrolytes has been measured and found to be
in the vicinity of 2 to 3. So, the maximum increase in tritium could only be
two to three-fold. I'm assuming that the D2O they are adding to the cell has
the same tritium activity as the D2O initially in the cell, but if the make-up
D2O has a higher activity, the 27x might not be unreasonable. Dieter, maybe you
could clear up what these people actually mean.
 
Todd Green
Department of Chemistry
University of Western Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentiq cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Exo- or endo- or both?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Exo- or endo- or both?
Date: 14 Feb 92 06:22:40 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <199202101916.AA08705@ames.arc.nasa.gov>,
 BLUE%MSUNSCL.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
> For those of us still trying to pin down the facts on the electrochemistry
> I would like to ask Todd Green to expound a bit more on his recent state-
> ment:
>
>   <Palladium and nickel are both exothermic occluders of hydrogen...>
>
> My question is how this depends on concentration of hydrogen in the
> metal?  From the beginning of the Cold Fusion flap we have been told
> of the need to push toward a deuterium/palladium ratio of 1.0 and
> various claims as to what ratios were actually reached have been a
> big part of the debate as to why some experiments failed to show the
> effect.  It seems to me that the process can be endothermic only up
> to some saturation value, and then if it is possible to raise the
> concentration further it must be done at the expense of some energy
> input, i.e. the process becomes endothermic.  Perhaps a further
> complication is that of possible temperature dependence such that
> for a given cell voltage the net flow of deuterium in/out of the
> palladium could reverse direction as a function of temperature.
> Am I totally off base with these notions?
 
Interestingly enough, there is a paper in Dieter Britz's bibliography
which alludes to this. The papers is by P.A. Rock et al. in the Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry. They argue that while the loading Pd with D or
H is exothermic up to a mole ratio of 0.8, beyond this the process is
endothermic. So, if an electrode that is loaded to near 1.0 spontaneously
decomposed to 0.8 this process would be exothermic, and the authors suggest this
as an explanation for the infamous cube meltdown reported by F&P. Unfortunately
there is no thermodynamic data for PdDx for x > 0.8 and Rock et al. arrive at
this conclusion by a rather dubious extrapolation of thermodynamic data
obtained at low loading ratios. But at the same time, I wouldn't rule out the
possibility that at some critical value of x the loading process becomes
endothermic, and for sure the enthalpy of formation of the hydride/deuteride
is a function of x.
 
Todd
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentiq cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 / D Arthur /  Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 14 Feb 92 02:44:53 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

In article <17850009@hpfcdj.fc.hp.com> brian@hpfcdj.fc.hp.com (Brian Rauchfuss)
 writes:
>/ hpfcdj:sci.physics.fusion / siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur) /  3:41
 pm  Feb  8, 1992 /
>>
>>Well then, why is the big research outfits so anxious to quash
>>development and outfits like SRI doing research on it to begin with
>>when that kind of science is not generally covered by them?
>
>Shoot, I sure thought that they did thay kind of science!
 
They have been historically more to think tank and not a do tank.
The doing is usually done at Stanford and or Lawrence Livermore
which have more room and are not squeezed into a building or two
in Menlo Park.  What other hard (i.e. tangible science) has SRI done
besides SHAKY the robot?
 
>>The saying that 'strong indications to the contrary' leads me to wonder
>>if you may be incorrect in the supposition of saying that critical mass
>>may not be possible.  Many times the prevailing attitude will fly in the
>>face of the results that can actually occur.
>
>What the heck is "critical mass" in a fusion bomb?!?  There is no chain
>reaction, so increasing the mass will not make it explode.  It is very
>difficult to conceptualize a means of creating a bomb out of cold fusion.  If
>the cell gets hot enough it will melt, creating a mess but not an explosion.
 
Okay, one way an explosive device would be made is by saturating the
rod with deuterium (possibly spiced with tritium) and then imploding it
for higher density.  The metal atoms would squeeze the deuterium in the
matrix to the point of raising the fusion activity to a high point
quickly, and maybe to the point of causing the fusion to self sustain
for a few nanoseconds with a large simultaneous release of energy
that would be physically explosive.  This is only being cast as a possibility
and is not a presentation of something that would happen for sure.
Do not take advantage of my candor here, CNF is not fully proven and
until it is or someone does something to verify it, the above is
just creative conjecture.  If it ever becomes fact, then H-Bomb technology
would be easier to attain than fission by almost any small group.
The scientific community should be aware of such a possibility and
also consider the expansion with such a great energy source that is
fairly clean.
 
By critical mass, I mean simply a widening of the paradigm for the CNF
arena to accomodate a conjectural point of view that a rod could be
imploded for higher energy release by momentary density increases made
by high and sudden pressure coupled with a saturated solution of heavy
hydrogen isotopes.
 
Think about it...
 
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.15 /  Croft /  thanks, Tom.
     
Originally-From: Bill Croft <sjsca4!uunet!igc.org!croft>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: thanks, Tom.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1992 06:21:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For your continued postings in sci.physics.fusion.
Please know that many of us out here are rooting for
the success of you and your company.  I have heard that
the Japanese are pouring big dollars into this, but I
guess they are keeping their hand pretty close.
 
	--Bill Croft, Institute for Global Communications
			(EcoNet, PeaceNet, ConflictNet)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfn cudlnCroft cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 14 Feb 92 08:36:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Feb13.154743.29802@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
>In article <1992Feb10.093033.11135@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>>
>>None of this obviates the need for _massive_ retraining of LLNL
>>personell.  I can't see any way to avoid moving from "pure" science
>>to commercially applicable engineering for a large chunk of the
>>LLNL science staff.
 
Simply turn Larry Labs into a "research for profit" or even a
'private non-profit corporation' fed from unconflicting sources.
 
Now that the war-science has cooled down, much of the make-do-work
suggested is politically driven by those with out a complete picture
of "the particular problem".  OF COURSE they have the Correct
answer.  That's trouble.
 
For Example:   - Getting the CO2 problem wrong could kill off lots
more biomass than otherwise because much of that biomass is stressed
to the max by other environmental factors and to have a flourishing
existence it depeneds directly or closely on having an abundant
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Political strings are bad for
science.  Principal funding from Government for technology has no
place here, since it takes money raised from corporations and then
uses it to compete for product or technology development.  The
record has been that the government then has no compunction about
selling the patents for manufacture to the highest bidder .. .even
if they are "sold-for a Profit?" to THE Japanese.  But WHERE is all
that tax revenue that could be collected from the manufacture of
the invented product here in the USA and then sold world wide???
Not in the inital (and only) view?
 
By the way, there is a rule that pension funds, representing the
sweat of a sizeable number of workers must, by some silly
congressional law, invest the fund money on a quarter by quarter
basis to obtain the HIGHEST return. This means they must look for
the best Short Term financial gain which precludes technology
development.   After the chocolate melts off of that one, we find
pension funds often bought junk bonds to satisfy the law, and when
a number defaulted, getting kicked in the proverbial squirrel feed
bag.  How much better off would we be if they could invest a
portion .. . say 10% in technology-startups.   5% or 7% mimimum
could mandated to be spent into such investments.
 
The results would be, a larger number of groups at Larry Lab would
be able  to successfully, albeit gradually, go private (say over a
weaning period of 3 or 5 years).  We Americans would have the
technology in the hands of the inventors who would have some desire
to develop any technology here first before going abroad.  Note also
that a good pool of available capital would exist to bring worthy
technologies online.   We might even get tax relief, and for
Corporations that could mean getting back into doing competitive
product R & D.  Thus, the pool of out of work Larry Labites, could
be reduced by hiring at least a good number of the sub-groups that
just happened to NOT originally make the grade.
 
>*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
>and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
>is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
 
The USA produces many theories and Nobel Prize winners, and very little
of the razzle dazzle working consumer technology, some of which could
be sitting around on your shelving or furniture.
 
Nippon produces Technology and very little in the way of Nobel
Prize Scientists.  Don't presuppose that science leads technology,
consumer-technology-wise.  If it did, we would be the hottest potato
on the block.  The two (sci and tech) are quite orthogonal although
their cooperation affords a basis to prosper.  I don't think it's
that the Japanese are too stupid to pull in lots of Nobel Prizes, I
just think that they are too busy moving a new concept of science
to a technological one and then to a real and commercially viable
physical embodiment.
 
>Gary
 
Let's say: '"WELCOME LARRY LABS" to the free world', and then offer
them a few meager care packages like we do the CIS.  And maybe even
send them a few precious "PopTarts".
 
Things are rough out here, where goverment checks aren't pressed firmly
into the hand or hip pocket every two weeks or so.  No reason, we all
can't share a little of the sweat and strain   - --  to get this
engine-America turned up and around.
 
		Besides -- isn't Vanna getting old enough to
                                   start creaking just a bit.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk@prometheus.UUCP          ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 21:01:18 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 20:58:23 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

Claim made re SRI:
 
>They have been historically more to think tank and not a do tank.
>The doing is usually done at Stanford and or Lawrence Livermore
>which have more room and are not squeezed into a building or two
>in Menlo Park.  What other hard (i.e. tangible science) has SRI done
>besides SHAKY the robot?
 
Not to argue with any of the rest of this message, but the above is
not correct.  SRI will do, basically, what their customers want, and
what their engineers and scientists can sell (as knowledge output,
that is, not generally consumer products); and this can include basic
science, engineering, analysis, experiment, economic studies,
proprietary product development work, or whatever.
 
Within my limited knowledge SRI has done outstanding basic science in
molecular physics and chemistry; built laser radars (lidars) mounted
in trailers and taken them around the world to measure air pollution;
done CNF experiments; put argon lasers into waterproof cases and taken
them under the ocean in the Bahamas to measure ocean water
transparency in the visible; and so on.  A friend spent some time
going around the world in the jump seat of Quantas airliners measuring
radio static to develop the static charge dissipating cords you used
to see hanging from airliner wingtips.  And remember that the mouse
and various other graphic user interface experiments and devices were
first developed at SRI.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Thanks, Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks, Tom Droege
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1992 10:15:37 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

In sci.physics.fusion you write:
 
>I'd just like to thank Tom Droege for his efforts to confirm or deny
>the MKF (as well as P+F) claims.
 
Dito for me too.  A good experimentalist tackling a problem like
the M&K experiment deserves some recognition for the effort. Without
a little fact finding where would science be?  I would like to ask
a few question of Tom's work.  Does the electrolyte pH go to base
as a chemical reaction might predict?  Is there any excess hydrogen
as measured by a volumetric means that would indicate evolution
H gas by the reaction of K2 with H2O?   Don't just retract those
claims on the account of an error in colorimetry, give us some
details.  This group seems to be starved of them as of late.
 
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:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.14 / John Moore /  Re: Update update
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Update update
Date: 14 Feb 92 15:34:35 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <9E701F1817BF0131E0@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
]the more severe manner of the Huggins group, that is without subtraction of
]the heat of water electrolysis. This is what makes the Huggins work (Belzner
]et al) such a strong positive.
 
What IS the current status of Huggins' work? Is he still tinkering with CNF?
--
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.15 / A Boulanger /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 15 Feb 92 23:12:59 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
 
In article <1992Feb14.083627.1147@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP
(Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
   Simply turn Larry Labs into a "research for profit" or even a
   'private non-profit corporation' fed from unconflicting sources.
 
   Now that the war-science has cooled down, much of the make-do-work
   suggested is politically driven by those with out a complete picture
   of "the particular problem".  OF COURSE they have the Correct
   answer.  That's trouble.
 
   The results would be, a larger number of groups at Larry Lab would
   be able  to successfully, albeit gradually, go private (say over a
   weaning period of 3 or 5 years).  We Americans would have the
   technology in the hands of the inventors who would have some desire
   to develop any technology here first before going abroad.  Note also
   that a good pool of available capital would exist to bring worthy
   technologies online.   We might even get tax relief, and for
   Corporations that could mean getting back into doing competitive
   product R & D.  Thus, the pool of out of work Larry Labites, could
   be reduced by hiring at least a good number of the sub-groups that
   just happened to NOT originally make the grade.
 
Interestingly, political folk are more involved in what the
ex-USSR bomb people are doing. Now, there is a lot of cheap scientific
horsepower over there. I have seen the effects of this ex-USSR open
human resource market already on the network. We must remember that it
is not just the US labs that is an issue.
 
   Let's say: '"WELCOME LARRY LABS" to the free world', and then offer
   them a few meager care packages like we do the CIS.  And maybe even
   send them a few precious "PopTarts".
 
PNL seems to be very aware of the current situation. They are trying
to do technology transfer exchanges of their molecular modeling stuff
with industry.
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.16 / Jim Bowery /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 03:42:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary Coffman writes:
>*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
>and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
>is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
 
Funny, ever since the early 80's when I first observed the best minds
of my generation had been neutralized by Bell Labs and Sarnoff Labs,
I have claimed that these institutions are nothing but intellectual
black holes where the apparent light being emitted is a disappearingly
small fraction of the potential being consumed.
 
I now see that this model applies to all such bureauratic "labs".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.15 /  /  Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Originally-From: rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc
Subject: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 16 Feb 92 17:09:41 GMT
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 13:13:36 MST
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

From rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted@bobsbox.rent.com Sun Feb 16 02:00 CST 1992
Received: by grayhawk.rent.com (5.64/A/UX-2.01-AMR)
	id AA04963; Sun, 16 Feb 92 02:00:36 CST
Received: by bobsbox.rent.com (V1.15/Amiga)
	id AA01x8x; Sat, 15 Feb 92 19:02:12 EST
Received: from opus.NMSU.Edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
	id AA29782; Sat, 15 Feb 92 15:13:44 EST
Received: from lole (lole.NMSU.Edu) by NMSU.Edu (4.1/NMSU-1.18)
	id AA00793; Sat, 15 Feb 92 13:13:36 MST
Received: by lole (4.1/NMSU)
	id AA23994; Sat, 15 Feb 92 13:13:34 MST
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 13:13:36 MST
Message-Id: <9202152013.AA00793@NMSU.Edu>
In-Reply-To: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com's message of 14 Feb 92 02:44:53 GMT
Reply-To: rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted
Originally-From: rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted
To: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Status: R
 
In a quote from ted@nmsu.edu, the mysterious critic to moi.
 
>1) imploding a rod with deuterium just makes fusion harder.
 
>
>2) conventionally ignited fusion explosions are already practical.
 
>3) accelerator based fusion neutron generators are also available (and
>quite small).
 
>none of this needs cold fusion, and cold fusion isn't likely to change
>any of it.
 
1.  Boy talking about foisting a leap of faith that you are absolutely
    correct on something that probably has not even been tried as
    I had described.  Are you an experimentalist or a theorist?
    Or just an enthusiast dampener?
 
2.  Conventionally loaded with fission materials and toxics...
    As I said before, tritium is less threatening than Plutonium etc.
    used in conventional systems... also it would likely be quite
    physically small, and therefore has more commercial promise in
    industrial explosive / energy capture systems as a scaled down system.
 
3.  Well I would like to hear about those 'accelerator based fusion neutron gene
    rators', most I have heard about are bigger than 1000 cc, and
    a system less than that is a likely target for a more controlled
    energy yield and for that matter in asteroid mining, etc.
 
>none of this needs cold fusion, and cold fusion isn't
>likely to change any of it.
 
The commercial value of a system will change it if it is orders of
magnitude cheaper thant status quo solutions...  CNF is inherently less
expensive, therefore more economically attractive.  Why am I saying
that it is less expensive, look at the costs vis-a-vis other fusion
or for that matter other sci.research going on today... It is just
less expensive, no big huge science prerequisite here folks.
 
 
Some side notes to explore:
 
Are you familiar with Billings Research from the mid-to-late 70's to early
80's research in using metal hydrides for storing hydrogen?  They
were doing this for automobile transportation systems, mixed results because
of weight penalties, etc. etc. etc.  However, the patents have more than
likely expired and could yield some interesting directions for calorimetry.y
Who had done the Li6 stuff?  I have heard in the CNF gleanings that
Lithium hydroxide is what Pons and Fleischmann used in some of the original
experiments, maybe some of that early research veiled in murkiness used
some Li6 in the lab in Utah, and they did not have more to use, and did
not want to reveal that as a key ingredient?
 
/// If SRI is willing to explore CNF, then is the stigma of researching
    CNF now gone?  Will the physics community now allow a reinvigorated
    base of research to start?  Will the physics community sanctioned this?
 
    ///
 
 
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudented cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.16 / Ryk Spoor /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 16 Feb 92 20:50:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <jim.697769536@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
>mad@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney) writes:
>
>>Social sciences, phycology, ond others are art not science.  Astronomy is a
>>science because anyone can confirm the observation that the sun exists.  They
>>just look up.  I cannot force anyone that I want to into multipule
>>personalaitys and it is impossible to reproduce anything elce in phycology.
 
	Actually, while researching MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder)
I came across research indicating that, not only COULD MP's be created, but
that in fact they HAD been created by researchers. Now I suppose I'll have
to go back through all my files and see if I can dig up the precise
references. I remember thinking at the time that creating MP's seemed an
awfully risky experiment and wondering just how they got THAT one past
the ethics board...
 
 
					Sea Wasp
					  /^\
					  ;;;
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnRyk cudlnSpoor cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.16 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 22:02:50 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

 
>/// If SRI is willing to explore CNF, then is the stigma of researching
>    CNF now gone?  Will the physics community now allow a reinvigorated
>    base of research to start?  Will the physics community sanctioned this?
 
I'm not speaking to CNF in the following, just SRI, because I know a
little about it.
 
SRI is an organization that exists primarily to do proprietary
research in science, engineering, economics, similar areas, for
clients who will pay for it.  I would think SRI's primary criteria for
accepting or not accepting a task would include:
 
* Does a client want to pay for it?
 
* Is the client reasonably respectable? (e.g., not Saddam Hussein)
 
* Does it seem like a task we can perform reasonably well?
 
* Do we have needed skills, staff, equipment, etc?
 
In addition, SRI might want to focus its resources on things that
might bring future business, or develop its base of skills.
 
Doing CNF research for EPRI (I think they were -- are still? -- the
sponsors for the SRI CNF research) would seem to meet these criteria.
 
SRI might, of course, also be a little cautious about undertaking
projects in areas where the scientific community has some skepticism,
since the whole SRI organization was made to look pretty stupid by the
stupid activities of some of its staff back in the Yuri Geller/remote
viewing/spoon bending days.
 
On the other hand, they *did* accept the spoon-bending projects, and
they *did* accept the recent CNF projects...
 
--AES
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.17 /  Britz /  Red Face Dept., no. lxxiv
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Red Face Dept., no. lxxiv
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 16:50:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
>In article <9E7CD60840BF0147A2@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
> writes:
>...
>> 27-fold tritium increase in the electrolyte (no details given how this was
>> measured) was in line with electrolytic enrichment considerations.
 Dec-89/?
>This last sentence seems a bit odd. The electrolytic D/T separation factor for
>Pd in a variety of different electrolytes has been measured and found to be
>in the vicinity of 2 to 3. So, the maximum increase in tritium could only be
>two to three-fold. I'm assuming that the D2O they are adding to the cell has
>the same tritium activity as the D2O initially in the cell, but if the make-up
>D2O has a higher activity, the 27x might not be unreasonable. Dieter, maybe you
>could clear up what these people actually mean.
>Todd Green
>Department of Chemistry
>University of Western Australia
 
Ooops! I checked the paper and it says 27%. Sorry about this. I did say that
I've been a bit rushed lately but there's no excuse for getting sloppy. Now I
supppose you'll ask me why only 27%, when a factor of 2-3 is expected..
I include below the proper entry for that paper, to replace the previous crook
one.                                                                    Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidonis R, Duskesas G, Kalinauskas R, Makarinunas K, Petrauskas J,
Remeiskis V, Ruzele B;                Litovskii Fiz. Sbornik 30(6) (1990) 65.
Original: Liet. Fiz. Rinkinys 30(6) (1990) 727 (in Russian).
"An experimental evaluation of the probability of cold fusion".
** In May and June 1989, a cold fusion experiment was run in the Institute of
Physics of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, and this is a report. A quartz
cell with cooling jacket was used for the electrolysis, using the usual 0.1 M
LiOD, and a Ti or Pd rod, 8 mm dia., 40 mm long. Heat was measured as the
difference in temperature between the outlet and inlet of the coolant, which
entered at 10 degC. This was calibrated using a resistive heater in the cell.
The cell was placed in a plastic scintillator well for neutron counting (by
proton recoil), and a gamma spectrometer recorded gammas using a NaI crystal.
10 cm of Pb shielding was used to reduce the background. Several measurement
series were carried out, at 0.1 and 0.5 A/cm**2, for both Pd and Ti cathodes,
and a duration of 24-72 hours.  The results show that the upper limit for
fusion was 5 orders of magnitude below that reported by FPH-89. Also, the
27% tritium increase in the electrolyte (no details given how this was
measured) was in line with electrolytic enrichment considerations.    Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.17 /  /  Any Volunteers?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any Volunteers?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 21:54:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Many thanks for the several nice complements.  Looks like this network
could use some more workers.  How about it guys?  Does anyone want to help?
I have interesting data that has never been examined, as I am more a measurer
than an analyzer.  About 1000 floppy disks at last count!
 
We could particularly use a chemist.  But any active worker would be welcomed.
 
We are technically a for profit orginazation.  The corporation is called
"Environmental Optics" and was originally organized by my wife (Optomitrist)
to sell UV glasses to wear in front of terminals.  Never sold a pair.  We
are not business people.
 
To any one who wants to "sign on" to work with us, we offer no pay, no fringe
benefits, and the only people to whom we represent that we hope ever to make
a profit is the IRS.
 
Physical location does not seem to be a problem.  Telephone and this medium
work just fine.  If we make some wonderful discovery we will worry what to
do then.  Probably there will be enough for everyone.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.17 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 19:11:47 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <1992Feb10.093033.11135@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>In article <1992Feb7.214357.15838@pixar.com> loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
 writes:
>>So.  What would you have 3-4000 QM hackers, mathematicians and programmers
>>do?
>
>Energy is probably not a fruitful line of research, though.  Oil is
>as cheap as it has ever been, coal and fission with current physics
>tech are cheap and plentiful, etc.
 
I thought I'd heard somewhere that our oil supply was due to run out in a
few decades.... even if we do despoil all our coastlines...
 
>... advanced CAD/CAM could be a way to leapfrog the Japanese in this
>crucial industry.
>
>The greatest demand for scientists is in the medical industry.
>LLNL skills could come quite in handy in developing new medical imaging
>systems, tracers, implant devices, etc.
 
What about nanotechnology?  Computers and QM will be *very* necessary to
making it work.
 
>LLNL could bid for pieces of Timberwind and the Russian Hall-effect
>electric rockets.  ...
 
What is a Hall-effect electric rocket???
 
On second thought, that should probably be answered in e-mail.  I
assume it's not really fusion related.
 
>I can't see any way to avoid moving from "pure" science
>to commercially applicable engineering for a large chunk of the
>LLNL science staff.
 
Vast regions of nanotech are still pure science, and probably will be
for decades.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.17 / Nick Szabo /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 17 Feb 92 23:17:26 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <1992Feb13.154743.29802@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
 
>>[I suggest training LLNL scientists in engineering]
 
>*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
>and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
>is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
 
First of all, Bell and Sarnoff Labs have not been "gutted", rather many
of the researchers have been lurred to competitor's labs, not to mention
government-subsidized labs.  For example, IBM's lab system has never been
stronger or more productive.   Second, the success of Japanese research
comes from their engineer:scientist ratio being about five times higher
than in the U.S.  (The engineer:lawyer also high, which is another story).
Science is reserved for the most talented who have something original to
contribute, rather than filling up the journals with the obscurely written
wastepaper that dominates U.S. work.
 
Notice I didn't say to de-train LLNL in science, I said to train them
in engineering.  We need people who can work in both science and engineering;
those are the folks that produce the technological breakthroughs based on
new science.  Until we have more scientists working on practical applications
instead of spending their time pleading for government handouts, our R&D
situation and industrial competiveness will continue to suffer.  That goes
for many government mega-engineering projects, as well.
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.18 / Russ George /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 18 Feb 92 23:49:35 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
>
> >/// If SRI is willing to explore CNF, then is the stigma of researching
> >    CNF now gone?  Will the physics community now allow a reinvigorated
> >    base of research to start?  Will the physics community sanctioned this?
>
> I'm not speaking to CNF in the following, just SRI, because I know a
> little about it.
>
> SRI is an organization that exists primarily to do proprietary
> research in science, engineering, economics, similar areas, for
> clients who will pay for it.  I would think SRI's primary criteria for
> accepting or not accepting a task would include:
>
> * Does a client want to pay for it?
>
> * Is the client reasonably respectable? (e.g., not Saddam Hussein)
>
> * Does it seem like a task we can perform reasonably well?
>
> * Do we have needed skills, staff, equipment, etc?
>
> In addition, SRI might want to focus its resources on things that
> might bring future business, or develop its base of skills.
>
> Doing CNF research for EPRI (I think they were -- are still? -- the
> sponsors for the SRI CNF research) would seem to meet these criteria.
>
> SRI might, of course, also be a little cautious about undertaking
> projects in areas where the scientific community has some skepticism,
> since the whole SRI organization was made to look pretty stupid by the
> stupid activities of some of its staff back in the Yuri Geller/remote
> viewing/spoon bending days.
>
> On the other hand, they *did* accept the spoon-bending projects, and
> they *did* accept the recent CNF projects...
>
> --AES
 
Perhaps the following quote from an EPRI exec will illuminate.
When asked if EPRI would continue to fund cold fusion research at SRI>
Dick Claeys stated "So long as we continue to see these kinds of results
funding is assurred."
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.19 / Eugene Miya /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 02:35:55 GMT
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

No, just passing thru....
 
Interesting question.  Actually, I think they should give the NASA Centers
a run for their money.  They might stress a few of the Centers out.
 
This was a question brought to me by representatives of the State of CA
Dept. of Commerce.  They came looking for one of my officemates who was
in fact hired by Teller himself in 1953.  George (Michael) needless to say has
interesting opinions.  I was talking to them, and of all the influences
the representatives seemed clueless of some of the issues perceived but
those outside of the Labs (like the rest of the Academic Senates of the
UC).  These people did not even realize the computing influence the Labs
had.  Can you image the amount of computing these labs have (not to say
it is useful)?
 
The Labs are certainly looking for a mission.  Another Ames Earth scientist
friend has gone over to help them get out of the weapons business.  They
are trying hard to get into the earth sciences buz.  The problems come
come in that they are political footballs (one ALD [Assist. Lab Director]
comes to mind).
 
A few fine scientists work there.  I would have questions about a few
others.  Probably the same every where.  Private industry has no interest
in most of the Labs can and should do.  One Cray User Group meeting proved
that to me.  Private industry in the US?  Some fine examples, and some pretty
bad ones as well (don't make me laugh, but you can certain laugh at the
US Government as well).
 
There are some interesting remaining weapons related programs and
issues left that one is not at liberty to discuss, they are "obvious"
on second thought.  Plenty left for them to do for years to come.  Just a few.
 
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneugene cudfnEugene cudlnMiya cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.19 / D Arthur /  Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 19 Feb 92 01:03:18 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

 
 
Yes, but the relative costs even without it working are lower than
that of regular fusion when it had the same level of experimental
results.  CNF is still new and should be treated accordingly.
 
What do you propose to do to remove the stigma or media over-hype so
atleast CNF is studied seriously, long enough, to determine its efficacy
or if it has any at all.  I do not think the research, despite its less
than great presentation deserves to heaped onto the dustheap until it
is thoroughly investigated.  CNF may work and still be impractical for
other reasons that no one knows or imagines at this point in time.
I will grant that the CNF situations thus far are far from the ideal,
however do this mean that serious research should not be done at all for
eternity?  What do you know personally that reflection should be changed in CNF
research to add credibility with the physics community, maintain proper
dialogues with the electro-chemists, and stop the media from blowing
in an making a confusing mess of it before the research is widely digested
on a world wide basis so that large quantities of minds to wring the idea
out of every last research nugget...  Remember, I do not necessarily believe
that CNF it is present form would be the form that ends up being the most
useful.
 
There some other things that I am wondering about.
 
   1.  Boy talking about foisting a leap of faith that you are
   absolutely correct on something that probably has not even been
   tried as I had described.
 
>imploding palladium has been tried in the laser fusion community.
>also, the materials simulations are straightforward and well
>understood.
 
   > 2) conventionally ignited fusion explosions are already
   practical.
 
   2.  Conventionally loaded with fission materials and toxics...  As
   I said before, tritium is less threatening than Plutonium etc.
   used in conventional systems... also it would likely be quite
   physically small, and therefore has more commercial promise in
   industrial explosive / energy capture systems as a scaled down
   system.
 
>i was talking about igniting a fusion reaction with conventional
>explosions.  no plutonium needed.  just dynamite.  the result is a
>_larger_ bomb that is trickier to build in many ways.  in addition,
>the yield is pretty poor.
 
Regarding your reply to my indented item #1, I am interested in the
data from these simulations, most especially the results you have
omitted and I think others would like to understand them as well.
 
Regarding your next reply to item #2 indented above, where are the
papers on the experiment done with conventional explosives?  The
yield maybe poor, what kind of radioactives are left over?  Such a
low yield device, is the yield poor because the time line of energy
release is longer than that of bombs triggered with fission?  How
low is the yield, and have other mechanical oriented (when using
conventional explosives as a driver, this has the appearance of
being mechanical in nature from my perspective, please correct me
if this is invalid) methods for fusion initiation been attempted?
How expensive is this kind of research to perform.?
 
   3.  Well I would like to hear about those 'accelerator based fusion
   neutron generators', most I have heard about are bigger than 1000
   cc,
 
>they can be as small has about 200cc without too much difficulty.
 
       and a system less than that is a likely target for a more
       controlled energy yield and for that matter in asteroid mining,
       etc.
 
>nope.  they don't reach breakeven.  they just generate neutrons in
>return for electrical input.
 
Regarding the interchange for item #3, of course I know a neutron
generator is not a breakeven device.  Just how efficient is the state
of the art for these small units anyway (benchmark being TFTR).  What
I am talking about is the whole research device being below 1000cc's
in size, including all triggering devices, energy conduit interfaces,
material position, reaction vessel, control sensors etc. etc. etc.
What is the expected level of efficientcy for a 200cc generator, and
how energetic are the neutrons that are generated?  Please remember I
do have knowledge of nuclear area dating back to 1973, your responses
are appreciated, please remember that respect is a mutual ground of
understanding.  Please ignore any obvious typo's.
 
Have a nice day.
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.18 / Gary Coffman /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 18 Feb 92 17:24:51 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Feb13.215402.9753@cbnewsd.att.com> pauln@cbnewsd.att.com
 (paul.h.nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Feb13.154743.29802@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
>>In article <1992Feb10.093033.11135@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>>>
>>>None of this obviates the need for _massive_ retraining of LLNL
>>>personell.  I can't see any way to avoid moving from "pure" science
>>>to commercially applicable engineering for a large chunk of the
>>>LLNL science staff.
>>
>>*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
>>and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
>>is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
>>
>>Gary
>
>Bell Labs IS being gutted.  The future of America is going down the drain.
 
Don't I know it! And Sarnoff is gone. Advanced technology depends on
scientific discoveries. Without the pure science labs, technology suffers,
and breakthru technology virtually disappears. Without Bell Labs, industry
would still be making smaller and smaller vacuum tubes. That's not *all*
bad, GE's TIMs were a wonder. But without breakthru solid state physics
work, the transistor and the IC would not exist. IBM has the largest
commercial pure science lab left, and with the restructuring of IBM
now in progress, it may not exist for long. Advanced technology rapidly
ceases to be advanced without researchers out on the cutting edge looking
around without hope of immediate profit. US business has become too oriented
to quarterly results to fund such work at the levels needed to keep
the US on top of the technological heap. Ma Bell and IBM once had such
a monopolistic lock on their markets that they could invest for the
long term, but no more.
 
The US government is hardly better as a funding source for pure research.
The Congress wants to fund projects on a yearly cycle and micro-manage
the operation. That means that for a long term project to survive it
must win, and keep year after year, pork barrel political support in
Congress. That's incredibly wasteful. NASA projects are painful examples
of this.
 
The best way to foster pure research is to gather a group of brilliant
people, pay them enough that they don't have to worry about feeding the
kids, furnish them with equipment, and let them play at whatever interests
them for as long as they want. It's a proven model that works. Doing
mountains of paperwork and lobbying incessantly is not the way to do
breakthru research. Directed research either solves known problems
inefficiently or totally misses the clue that leads to breakthrus.
 
Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudengary cudfnGary cudlnCoffman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.19 / Robert Cain /  Re: CNF, Tritium, Li-6 et al * Up we go *
     
Originally-From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: CNF, Tritium, Li-6 et al * Up we go *
Date: 19 Feb 92 07:50:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes:
:
: if anything, the press overplayed cold fusion.  it isn't their fault,
: they were told that it was earth-shaking.
:
 
You are right about that?  Were y'all on the Internet that day?  Were you
on any net? I think the press overreacted to overreacting scientists and
engineers.
 
I was at IBM at the time and their internal net was also overflowing with
this news and all the reactions to it.  Experiments were set up and being
reported on within hours of the conference.  The next day, locals were
concerned about the possible neutron flux from hastily set up experiments.
Sheesh.
--
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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.19 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 666 papers, 84 patents).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 666 papers, 84 patents).
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 20:16:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
a mini-offering, just to get these out of the way. There is only one new item:
the Ilic and Rant paper. The Zelenskii+ was already in the bibliography but
I had not read it until now. I had only Chem. Abstr.'s abstract for it. It
probably wasn't worth translating this long paper, it seems yet another one
where the workers do not know about self targeting. When you have an energetic
ion beam aimed at Pd, you ought to get fusion after a while; to verify cold
fusion, you should turn the beam off and THEN measure. The cp's showed clearly
that when they turned the beam off, the flux went to exactly zero. They did
seem to find some neutrons but at feeble (and questionable) levels.
Nevertheless they find for cold fusion. Ah well. Ilic and Rant do not, using
their more and more refined passive devices.
The last peripheral item by Stojic and Jaksic should interest those pondering
isotope separation effects - which enter the argument about whether you have,
or have not, found tritium.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Feb. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 666
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilic R, Rant J;                      Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 19 (1991) 619.
"The search for cold nuclear fusion with track-etch and bubble damage
detectors".
** These authors have previously suggested the use of passive radiation
detection devices, and here discuss the two in the title. The advantages of
these devices are (1) simultaneous detection of neutrons and cp's and the
direct determination of the (controversial) branching ratio; (2) particle
charge, energy and propagation direction can be determined; (3) in situ
detection is possible because of the small size; (4) bursts can be detected,
because there is no finite response time. There is a summary of results of
experiments with such devices, including the authors'. None of these has so
far supported cold fusion.                                                 ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelenskii VF, Rybalko VF, Morozov AN, Tolstolutskaya GD, Kulish VG,
Pistryak SV, Martynov IS;            Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh., Ser.: Fiz. Radiats.
Povrezhdenii Radiats. Materialoved. 1990(1)(52) 65.   (in Russian).
"Experiments on cold nuclear fusion in Pd and Ti saturated with deuterium by
ion implantation".
** Pd and Ti targets were loaded with deuterium by means of a D2+ ion beam at
25 keV, 30-40 microamp, at 100K. The loaded targets were then warmed up to
1200-1300K and emissions monitored: neutrons by a boron-containing detector,
charged particles (cp's) by a surface barrier detector, and gas emissions with
masses 1..6 by a mass spectrometer (MS), to detect possible production of
(3)He, T, protons. Another neutron monitor was placed at 4 m from the
experiment, to monitor the background. Neutron emission intensity depended on
the temperature: for Pd, they were max. at 100-400K and 900-1300K, for Ti at
100-300K and 600-1200K, with highs up to twice background, meaning about 100
n/s. Cp's were observed only during charging, i.e. these must have been from
self-targeting. MS detected no masses in the range 1..6 during warming up. The
authors conclude that dd-fusion occurred and point to fractofusion as the
likely mechanism.                                                     Dec-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stojic DLj, Miljanic SS, Grozdic TD, Bibic NM, Jaksic MM;
Acta Chem. Scand. 46 (1992) 111.
** Jaksic is an expert on electrochemical isotope separation, and reports here
with others on an experimental study.
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.20 /  /  It ain't over till it's over
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It ain't over till it's over
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 03:43:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We continue to run the MKF experiment now with wire provided by Mills.  We
continue to see more heat than we can explain in the simple open experiment.
 
We are now going more slowly, and checking for gas changes at each step.  But
it will take a while to rule out chemsitry at the present power levels.  We
still want to run a closed system, and will somehow figure out how to do it.
 
Note that the Mills supplied wire does not seem particularly different from
the wire we had.  So there does not seem to be anything "magic" about wire.
One more plus over P&F.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.17 / K Eriksson /  Re: Scientific Literacy and teh Myth of teh Scinetific Method
     
Originally-From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scientific Literacy and teh Myth of teh Scinetific Method
Date: 17 Feb 92 19:36:10 GMT
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden

In article <199202132152.AA28190@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Henry Bauer
 <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH> writes:
 >
 >4. It turns out that nothing is common across all the natural sciences:
 >not any primacy of observation over theory, not falsifiability, no
 >"scientific method"....
 >5. ... Nature sooner or later tells you unmistakably when you're wrong.
 
I don't understand. Is not this last sentence exactly what "primacy of
observation over theory" means, that you ruled out under paragraph 4?
 
--
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenske cudfnKristoffer cudlnEriksson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.20 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: It ain't over till it's over
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It ain't over till it's over
Date: 20 Feb 92 13:35:47 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920219170755.20a0a717@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, fusion@zorch writes:
> We continue to run the MKF experiment now with wire provided by Mills.  We
> continue to see more heat than we can explain in the simple open experiment.
>
> We are now going more slowly, and checking for gas changes at each step.  But
> it will take a while to rule out chemsitry at the present power levels.  We
> still want to run a closed system, and will somehow figure out how to do it.
 
Seems to me that it is possible to have an open cell and overcome the
objections of McBreen and Dieter Britz. This would involve surrounding the
cathode with a porous glass tube or a piece of battery seperator material
shaped into a cylinder. If this is done, there is no chance of any
recombination of the gases in the solution, and by extending it into the
cell headspace and having separate vents, gas phase recombination would
be eliminated too. I have used battery seperator material for this purpose
and it works fine, the only drawback being that it increases the cell
resistance by about 15%. But then you are assured that the 1.48 V correction
IS valid.
 
There are other problems to contend with, such as the heat carried away by
the evolved gases, but this can be accounted for. The other problem is the
replacement of the lost solvent, which would require you to open up the
calorimeter periodically, and I gather from you earlier postings that this
comprises the accuracy of the calibration. But since Mills seems to go for
fairly low current  you might be able to run for a week or so without filling
up.
 
Todd Green
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentiq cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.20 / Dan Weinreb /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 20 Feb 92 19:20:27 GMT
Organization: Object Design, Inc.

In article <1992Feb18.172451.29503@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
 
   The US government is hardly better as a funding source for pure research.
   The Congress wants to fund projects on a yearly cycle and micro-manage
   the operation. That means that for a long term project to survive it
   must win, and keep year after year, pork barrel political support in
   Congress. That's incredibly wasteful. NASA projects are painful examples
   of this.
 
   The best way to foster pure research is to gather a group of brilliant
   people, pay them enough that they don't have to worry about feeding the
   kids, furnish them with equipment, and let them play at whatever interests
   them for as long as they want. It's a proven model that works. Doing
   mountains of paperwork and lobbying incessantly is not the way to do
   breakthru research. Directed research either solves known problems
   inefficiently or totally misses the clue that leads to breakthrus.
 
The way DARPA worked, at least during the sixties and seventies as far
as I know, resembled the latter a lot more than the former.  Most
DARPA projects that I saw (computer-related ones, from DARPA's
Information Processing Technolgy Office, now ISTO) were too small to
be pork-barrel, i.e. too tiny for a legislator to think about.  But
you can do an awful lot with a whole bunch of little projects,
particularly if you don't mind that only a fraction will produce
useful results.  I think a civilian DARPA would be a great thing.  We
might even see one if we get a Democratic president.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendlw cudfnDan cudlnWeinreb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.20 / Les Earnest /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 22:14:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

Responding to Gary Coffman's remarks about the US government's
tendency to micro-manage research projects that they fund and the
better alternative of finding brilliant people, giving them money, and
letting them do whatever they want, dlw@odi.com writes:
>The way DARPA worked, at least during the sixties and seventies as far
>as I know, resembled the latter a lot more than the former.  Most
>DARPA projects that I saw (computer-related ones, from DARPA's
>Information Processing Technolgy Office, now ISTO) were too small to
>be pork-barrel, i.e. too tiny for a legislator to think about.
.  .  .
 
DARPA did work well in the beginning (when it was called ARPA),
apparently because it had a big budget and a small but very able
staff.  They didn't have time to micro-manage, so they generally used
the second approach, handing out rather large buckets of money.  Over
time, however, as they hired more and more program managers and
Congress pressed them to show relevence of their programs to military
missions, the managers began to use their own judgments about what
should be done instead of following the lead of the researchers and
funding was carved into ever-more-specific bites.  The result was a
progressive decay of research productivity.
 
It is worth considering the establishment of of a civilian version of
ARPA, but in order for it to succeed in the long term, I believe that
it will be important to impose a low ceiling on the size of the agency
staff lest they again "progress" into the micro-management, which is a
natural tendency of all bureaucracies.
--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Van Snyder /  Re: Voyager pictures.
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Voyager pictures.
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 00:15:35 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <199202132240.AA01201@ames.arc.nasa.gov> "Robert.Cowling"
 <OFA05@msu.edu> writes:
>Can anyone inform me as to a reliable source for NASA/JPL pictures and data.
>
>Thanks
>
>Robert Cowling
>Michigan State University
 
Try the public afairs office, or the Planetary Image Facility, at JPL.
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, 818/354-4321.
--
Van Snyder = vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Van Snyder /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 01:29:13 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <1992Feb14.083627.1147@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>Nippon produces Technology and very little in the way of Nobel
>Prize Scientists.  Don't presuppose that science leads technology,
>consumer-technology-wise.  If it did, we would be the hottest potato
>on the block.  The two (sci and tech) are quite orthogonal although
>their cooperation affords a basis to prosper.  I don't think it's
>that the Japanese are too stupid to pull in lots of Nobel Prizes, I
>just think that they are too busy moving a new concept of science
>to a technological one and then to a real and commercially viable
>physical embodiment.
 
Lots of what Nippon produces was invented here.  Some of it infringes
U.S. Patents.  VCR's, for example, were invented by Ampex (or was it
RCA)?  Definitely not Sony or JVC.
 
Science usually DOES lead technology, consumer-technology-wise.
 
Just don't assume the science has to be done in the same country
as the consumer products.
--
Van Snyder = vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenvsnyder cudfnVan cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Peter Tattam /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 21 Feb 92 03:02:05 GMT
Organization: Psychology Department, University of Tasmania

In article <1992Feb18.172451.29503@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
 
[.... misc stuff deleted.....]
>>Bell Labs IS being gutted.  The future of America is going down the drain.
 
>Don't I know it! And Sarnoff is gone. Advanced technology depends on
>scientific discoveries. Without the pure science labs, technology suffers,
>and breakthru technology virtually disappears. Without Bell Labs, industry
>would still be making smaller and smaller vacuum tubes. That's not *all*
>bad, GE's TIMs were a wonder. But without breakthru solid state physics
>work, the transistor and the IC would not exist. IBM has the largest
>commercial pure science lab left, and with the restructuring of IBM
>now in progress, it may not exist for long. Advanced technology rapidly
>ceases to be advanced without researchers out on the cutting edge looking
>around without hope of immediate profit. US business has become too oriented
>to quarterly results to fund such work at the levels needed to keep
>the US on top of the technological heap. Ma Bell and IBM once had such
>a monopolistic lock on their markets that they could invest for the
>long term, but no more.
 
>The US government is hardly better as a funding source for pure research.
>The Congress wants to fund projects on a yearly cycle and micro-manage
>the operation. That means that for a long term project to survive it
>must win, and keep year after year, pork barrel political support in
>Congress. That's incredibly wasteful. NASA projects are painful examples
>of this.
 
>The best way to foster pure research is to gather a group of brilliant
>people, pay them enough that they don't have to worry about feeding the
>kids, furnish them with equipment, and let them play at whatever interests
>them for as long as they want. It's a proven model that works. Doing
>mountains of paperwork and lobbying incessantly is not the way to do
>breakthru research. Directed research either solves known problems
>inefficiently or totally misses the clue that leads to breakthrus.
 
I agree totally, but I think the problem is more global than one thinks.  It
may however also have something to do with the information revolution in two
aspects.
 
1) We can find out what is happening in most parts of the world research
organizations within hours (or a day or two at the maximum)
 
2) The amount of information at one's disposal these days is enormous.  One
or two hundred years ago, one could know almost all there was to know about
science at the time (assuming one had the access to the literature of the
times).  Maybe specialization is what is killing research as well.  Perhaps
we need to rethink our education to stop limiting our information base just
to the specific area of our scientific research.
 
Food for thought???
 
>Gary
 
Peter
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Tattam                                    International Phone 61-02-202346
Programmer, Psychology Department           Australia     Phone   002-202346
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Brian Siano /  21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: 21 Feb 92 02:36:52 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

 
        Has anyone come across this? It's a science magazine that, for all of
its content, is put together by Lyndon LaRouche's merry band of credit card
abusers.
 
        For the most part, it contains articles about specific areas of
science that seem to flaunt their own content; for example, they cover lots
of Cold Fusion stuff, and the more greek symbols and ergs-per-second
equations they can stick in, the better.
 
        What's amazing about the magazine is the degree that it's overtly
anti-environmentalism, characterizing opponents as "Chicken Littles" who
retard the progress of humankind.
 
        Now, I'm up on LaRouche's political doings to a reasonably strogn
degree-- I'd recommend Dennis King's "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American
Fascism" as a good reference-- but I was wondering if anyone with a better
science background than I had had a gander at this magazine.
 
        How factually solid are their articles? Are they pushing the Cold
Fusion stuff for any reason beyond the technology-is-wonderful angle? When
they pooh-pooh the ozone depletion, are their sources reliable?
 
        I'd b e glad to hear _any_ insights on this matter.
 
 
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano
revpk@cellar.org
Organizer of the Delaware Valley Skeptics (though opinions posted are my own,
and not representative).
"Not only does Bush have a depression on his hands, now he's got this self
pitying, pathologically lying pornofreak on the Supreme Court." -- Robert Bly,
in conversation with Deborah Tannen.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrevpk cudfnBrian cudlnSiano cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / D Arthur /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 21 Feb 92 04:00:38 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

>
>Perhaps the following quote from an EPRI exec will illuminate.
>When asked if EPRI would continue to fund cold fusion research at SRI>
>Dick Claeys stated "So long as we continue to see these kinds of results
>funding is assurred."
>
>Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
 
It is good to hear that they are committed.  Is it your opinion with
such committment that if CNF had a stigma, it is now lifted and can
be now taken seriously by a wide cross-section to the Science Community?
 
Did he mention any more details about this research?
 
Thanks
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Kenneth Tolman /  Non-determined events
     
Originally-From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nondeterministic physics
Subject: Non-determined events
Date: 21 Feb 92 11:08:13 MST
Date: 21 Feb 92 10:48:32 MST
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

Subject: Non-determined events
Date: 21 Feb 92 10:48:32 MST
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.104832.18465@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution:
 
 
  I am SERIOUSLY looking for any sort of physical nondetermined events.
 
One that I suspect is the actual position and momentum of a particle
during the "decoupling" phase of matter and energy. I would LOVE a
reference which helped explain this.
 
Also I would like references that helped explain quantum wave function
collapse (or whatever you call the nondetermined part of quantum
mechanics.)
 
Or if there are any other nondetermined physical event, please tell.
Mail directly to me please, I will repost responses on sci.physics if there
is sufficient interest.
 
thank you
Tom Tolman
tolman@asylum.utah.edu
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedu cudfnKenneth cudlnTolman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Douglas Miller /  Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: doug@retzlaff.llnl.gov (Douglas S. Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: 21 Feb 92 19:00:24 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In rg> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>        Has anyone come across this? It's a science magazine that, for all of
>its content, is put together by Lyndon LaRouche's merry band of credit card
>        How factually solid are their articles?
 
Some friends of mine brought "21st Century Sci & Tech" back from the last
APS plasma physics conference.  This rag is great!  Until you've read
Lyndon's screeching about the diabolical connection between the duplicity
of modern research and the Bogomil Heresy you haven't really seen a
screwball.  Let's quote a few lines;
 
"In the 17th century, Bacon, Descartes, And Galileo came along and they
reintroduced Aristotelianism into science under the guise of empiricism.
They deliberately mystified science by denying the existence of the
continuous manifold, the reality of the generating principle."
 
Later on we learn,
 
"It was at the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th
century that we first see the attempt to attack science from an
empiricist, Aristotelian standpoint, but this attempt did not quite
work.  The Rosicrucians were key in this, along with the Bogomil
heresy within the Catholic Church."
 
I probably don't need to add that the articles purporting to be "science"
were equally silly.  Had us on the floor.
 
Doug Miller
doug@retzlaff.llnl.gov
"The existence of parallel universes is generally accepted as scientific fact."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendoug cudfnDouglas cudlnMiller cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Peter Ung /  Beta Pinch Fusion
     
Originally-From: peter@equinox.unr.edu (Peter Ung)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beta Pinch Fusion
Date: 21 Feb 92 18:28:46 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of Old, Senile Physicists

 
	I am posting for a friend. If you have flames/comments and such
	please direct it to pittaya@seas.ucla.edu
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just thinking about high temperature fusion the other day , specificly
about beta pinch fusion reactors and I thought I might have found a way to
produce fusion reactions more economically.  As you know a beta pinch
reactor uses a coil to produce a magnetic field that is exactly the inverse
of that produce by a tokamak reactor (i.e., the field of the beta pinch is
where the coils of the tokamak is and etc.).  The only problem is that
everyone has been trying to produce a uniform field in the beta pinch as
in the tokamak.  My idea is just to let the beta pinch do what it wants to
naturally.  That is to let the field be dispersed outside the coil and
let it concentrate in the middle of the coil's ring.  Thus the plasma
would also concentrate in the center and disperse outside the coil's ring.
What you have now is very similar to a ramjet engine with matter being forced
from a low pressure area to that of a high pressure area and to a low pressure
area again.  The ignition occurs in the high pressure area only and is
perpetuated by the flow of the matter.  The advantages are that you only
need to produce an intense field in a little tiny area. Also this would
solve fuel replenishing and helium removal problem of the tokamak as the
tritium can be loaded by spectrascope at the top of the coil and the helium
can be separated from the fuel and removed by using the reactor as a giant
spectrascope.  The advantages are great especially in the fact that one does
not have to use so much energy to compress and heat up such a large volume
of plasma.  I have already talked to a professor I had who is in the fusion
engineering department here at UCLA and he could not find anything wrong
with it except that he thought that the container for the reactor would
be to big and expensive.  I doubt this very much but I would like your
opinions on this and another advices/criticisms you could give me.
Please e-mail me at pittaya@seas.ucla.edu.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnUng cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Dan Weinreb /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 21 Feb 92 19:46:53 GMT
Organization: Object Design, Inc.

In article <1992Feb20.221448.16699@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
 
   It is worth considering the establishment of of a civilian version of
   ARPA, but in order for it to succeed in the long term, I believe that
   it will be important to impose a low ceiling on the size of the agency
   staff lest they again "progress" into the micro-management, which is a
   natural tendency of all bureaucracies.
 
Yes, I was only familar with ARPA, to the extent that I was, for a
brief period.  And I did hear that they got pressed more by Congress
to show more "relevance", i.e. to work more on current projects and
less on true research.  Too bad.  When I knew about it, ARPA was a
truly unusual government bureaucracy.  It had only three levels of
management: the boss, the heads of the offices, and the actual program
managers.  Program managers were recruited from a wide range of areas,
often (always?) were not career bureaucrats, and had relative short
tenures (thus bringing in new blood and enthusiasm).  They seemed to
have a pretty high degree of autonomy.  Not all of them were so great,
but some of them were quite sharp and had good ideas, and they were
given a remarkable degree of autonomy.  I agree strongly with you that
it would be important for a civilian version of ARPA to re-create this
kind of structure.  And it would have to have strong enough political
protectors in Congress to keep from being pushed away from research
into immediate tangible projects and micro-management, and
simple-minded "picking of winners and losers".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendlw cudfnDan cudlnWeinreb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Dan Weinreb /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 21 Feb 92 19:54:49 GMT
Organization: Object Design, Inc.

In article <1992Feb21.012913.17183@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov
 (Van Snyder) writes:
 
   Lots of what Nippon produces was invented here.  Some of it infringes
   U.S. Patents.  VCR's, for example, were invented by Ampex (or was it
   RCA)?  Definitely not Sony or JVC.
 
My understanding was that original burst of science and technology
that led to the U-matic videotape products were done in the US.  Sony
and Matsushita's main insight was that there was a potential market
for home videotape, a notion that nobody in the US industry took
seriously, and then they figured out how to modify and/or build on
U-matic technology to make it appropriate for a home video product.
 
I wanted to point out that commercial success for technology products
is not just a question of science versus technology, but also
understanding the market.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendlw cudfnDan cudlnWeinreb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Dr LaFave /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 21 Feb 1992 20:31:47 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Feb17.231726.11414@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>
> In article <1992Feb13.154743.29802@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
>
> >>[I suggest training LLNL scientists in engineering]
>
> >*That* would be a national disaster on a par with the gutting of Bell Labs
> >and Sarnoff Labs. *Somebody* has to do the basic science on which technology
> >is based. There's no one left to do it but the Labs and Japan Inc.
>
> First of all, Bell and Sarnoff Labs have not been "gutted", rather many
> of the researchers have been lurred to competitor's labs, not to mention
> government-subsidized labs.  For example, IBM's lab system has never been
> stronger or more productive.   Second, the success of Japanese research
> comes from their engineer:scientist ratio being about five times higher
> than in the U.S.  (The engineer:lawyer also high, which is another story).
> Science is reserved for the most talented who have something original to
> contribute, rather than filling up the journals with the obscurely written
> wastepaper that dominates U.S. work.
>
> Notice I didn't say to de-train LLNL in science, I said to train them
> in engineering.  We need people who can work in both science and engineering;
> those are the folks that produce the technological breakthroughs based on
> new science.  Until we have more scientists working on practical applications
> instead of spending their time pleading for government handouts, our R&D
> situation and industrial competiveness will continue to suffer.  That goes
> for many government mega-engineering projects, as well.
>
>
> --
> szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
> Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
> Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
>
>
 
Nick,
 
History does not back up your claim. Most scientists I know that are now doing
engineering are doing excellent work WITHOUT any supplementary training
except maybe advanced computing courses. Major breakthroughs have almost
always been the result of long-term scientific research, not engineering.
The worst thing that ever happened was the coining of the acronym R&D.
Research is long-term, high-risk, and, by its very nature, must have some
government subsidation to stay healthy (You need alot of people doing alot of
things to get the result and there just aren't enough companies willing to
make the investment, even if it is for their own good.). Research breakthroughs
tend to be more revolutionary, more profitable, and require more patience.
Development leads to incremental improvement, low-risk low-gain. A company
that depends on development alone will get itself in a game where it can only
leap-frog the competition for weeks or months at a time. Engineers are more
than capable of taking scientific breakthroughs and making products from it.
It is a waste of the scientists precious time and resources to have him make
products from his discoveries when he could be searching for new
breakthroughs. Integrated circuits, lasers, superconductors, etc. all
started out as pure science research which was used by engineers to develop
extremely profitable technologies.
 
We don't need more scientists doing engineering (there are plenty of engineers
for that), we need less scientists being wasted doing engineering. There is
an extreme shortage of people in this country doing pure research and it is
a waste of a scientist's talents to make him do development. If we expect to
regain our technical lead, we must regain our lead in science.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlafave cudfnDr cudlnLaFave cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.22 / Mark Iverson /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 22 Feb 92 05:30:57 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno  Department of Computer Science

[ couldn't seem to post this from work, so I got on old acct in Reno...]
[ also, at work, we only get a few newsgroups, and only s.p.f of the above 3]
 
 
In article <cP7cgB1w164w@tsoft.sf-bay.org>, bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org
  (Russ George) writes:
> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
[...most of article deleted...talking about SRI taking on "questionable"
  research projects...and whether funding for CNF would continue...]
 
> Perhaps the following quote from an EPRI exec will illuminate.
> When asked if EPRI would continue to fund cold fusion research at SRI>
> Dick Claeys stated "So long as we continue to see these kinds of results
> funding is assurred."
>
> Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
 
what, you mean if people get killed from some accident that had "obvious"
causes, that couldn't possibly result in any significant knowledge/results,
that that is reason enough to "assure" funding?
 
Are people's lives worth risking for something that is nothing more than
 "pathological science"?
 
hmmm, wonder when the "clarification" from EPRI will come?  Wonder how long
it'll be before Mr. Claeys is "looking to move on..."
 
just stirrin' the pot a bit, guys and gals... ;-)
 
Mark Iverson
marki@jrs.com                      usual disclaimer: my comments; not JRS's.
 
 
Mark N. Iverson
uunet!unrvax!tahoe!marki            /  We dance round in a ring and suppose,
marki@tahoe.unr.edu  (scientists)->|   but The Secret sits in the middle,
marki@clouds.unr.edu                \  and knows.               -- R. Frost
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmarki cudfnMark cudlnIverson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.22 / Mark Iverson /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 22 Feb 92 05:35:07 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno  Department of Computer Science

[ again, posting from Reno instead of work (Calif) ]
 
In article <1992Feb14.083627.1147@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
 (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
> Simply turn Larry Labs into a "research for profit" or even a
> 'private non-profit corporation' fed from unconflicting sources.
 
 [intervening material deleted...]
 
> The results would be, a larger number of groups at Larry Lab would
> be able  to successfully, albeit gradually, go private (say over a
> weaning period of 3 or 5 years).
 
they already are!  There was an article in the Orange County Register
about the big government labs, and now what are the scientists/engineers
who worked on (primarily) DOD related projects going to do?  Well, the
article gave at least 2 examples of companies that were started by small
groups from Los Alamos Labs.  One was using their knowledge about chaos
theory (and I'd guess, neural networks/fuzzy logic) to develop a stock
trend prediction tool.  It should be available sometime this year, I think.
 
> The USA produces many theories and Nobel Prize winners, and very little
> of the razzle dazzle working consumer technology, some of which could
> be sitting around on your shelving or furniture.
 
 [more deletions to save net BW...]
 
>  ...I don't think it's
> that the Japanese are too stupid to pull in lots of Nobel Prizes, I
> just think that they are too busy moving a new concept of science
> to a technological one and then to a real and commercially viable
> physical embodiment.
 
Yes, this is part of the answer.  The other thing one MUST realize about
the major US labs, is what they exist for; namely, for researching things
that are of critical importance to "national security".  The DOD must
remain ahead of industry in technology, AND, it is of extreme importance
that certain information NOT become public.  Why the hell does the security
administration exist -- you know, "need to know", secret, top secret, etc...
Do you *really* think that confirmation of such revolutionary info (CNF),
if valid, would EVER make it past the security administrator of a national
lab?  Or any labs that receive gov't funding?  Now, lets see, how many
independent (i.e. non-gov't funded) labs are there???
 
Droege Research Labs (DRL) is one...   ;-)
 
This is the research environment we're in in this country, like it or not.
 
Japan doesn't have this type of environment; there research goal is to ex-
ploit the technology for commercial gain, whereas our research goal is to
hold on to the knowledge so we can stay ahead of the world militarily, since
we have taken on the role of global "peacekeeper".  Why was the atomic
bomb and the stealth fighter such a surprise? not just to this country, but
to the world.  The security system in this country DOES work, despite an
occasional leak or two...
 
 
l8r,
mark                     Disclaimer:  MY OPINIONS, NOT MY EMPLOYERS!!!
marki@jrs.com
 
 
 
Mark N. Iverson
uunet!unrvax!tahoe!marki            /  We dance round in a ring and suppose,
marki@tahoe.unr.edu  (scientists)->|   but The Secret sits in the middle,
marki@clouds.unr.edu                \  and knows.               -- R. Frost
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmarki cudfnMark cudlnIverson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.22 / Curtis Yarvin /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 22 Feb 92 07:02:18 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <2903@equinox.unr.edu> marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson) writes:
>
>Well, the article gave at least 2 examples of companies that were started by
>small groups from Los Alamos Labs.
>
>One was using their knowledge about chaos theory (and I'd guess, neural
>networks/fuzzy logic) to develop a stock trend prediction tool.  It should
>be available sometime this year, I think.
 
Yeah, that's real economically productive.  Just what we need to catch up
with Japan.
 
Maybe after they make their killing on Wall Street they'll try it on the
horses?
 
c
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencgy cudfnCurtis cudlnYarvin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.21 / Vernon Hoxie /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 21 Feb 92 16:07:25 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Networks, Denver, Colo.

In article <1992Feb20.192027.11170@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
>In article <1992Feb18.172451.29503@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
> I think a civilian DARPA would be a great thing.  We
>might even see one if we get a Democratic president.
 
Better yet, get a Republican Congress to implement Bush's poicies.  Get
rid of the dead wight of eons of pork barrel dispensers who have sucked
the U. S. Treasury dry.
 
vern
 
--
Vernon C. Hoxie                            {ncar,boulder}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   vern@zebra.denver.co.us
Denver, Colo., 80212        voice: 303-477-1780          uucp: 303-455-2670
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenvern cudfnVernon cudlnHoxie cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.22 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Funding and Basement research facilities.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Funding and Basement research facilities.
Date: 22 Feb 92 17:59:17 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Since the US government is getting out of business of supplying funds
for research (for that matter they seem to be getting out of business
of governing also) I think, perhaps, we can setup a 900 telephone #
so that Americans who are concerned about the state of R&D in US can
telephone and supply a grass-roots organization with funds for innovative
research. It does seem like a tricky problem to organize it and to keep
the organization free of fraud, but perhaps it could be done if a group
of scientists with no financial interest in this non-profit organization
would monitor it.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.23 / Matt Kennel /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 23 Feb 92 00:41:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
 
: We don't need more scientists doing engineering (there are plenty of engineers
: for that), we need less scientists being wasted doing engineering. There is
: an extreme shortage of people in this country doing pure research and it is
: a waste of a scientist's talents to make him do development. If we expect to
: regain our technical lead, we must regain our lead in science.
 
I disagree with this.  There is no "shortage" of scientists, in the sense of
jobs going empty that can't be filled with good scientists. In fact, there
is a "glut" in traditional science jobs.
 
The U.S.A. does still lead in science.  It's only the _development_ of the
products of pure science that makes us rich, however.  When push comes to
shove, this is most important, because it means our children get good
schooling, our poor can live better, and our sick can get well, and we can
have a lot more fun.
 
The "shortage" is in national will to apply the results of our science
*breakthroughs* to technology.
 
The Japanese are very good at applying the money the US has invested in
research into producing wealth for their own country.  I don't really blame
them for "freeloading"---they think that we're morons for not doing the
same.  They're right.
 
The US has already invested alot in science, but hasn't tried to collect
the dividends.  We need to invest more in science, and start collecting
the profits as well.
 
 
Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
Future Unemployed Physicist, Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
"Hi, what would you like with your fries?"
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.22 / D Arthur /  CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: CNF, critical mass WAS Re: Mercury 20.20
Date: 22 Feb 92 17:30:15 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 14:03:55 MST
>Reply-To: rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted (Ted Dunning)
>From: rutgers!nmsu.edu!ted
 
   Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 18:48:10 CST
   From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
 
   Yes, but the relative costs even without it working are lower than
   that of regular fusion when it had the same level of experimental
   results.
 
>this is just plain not true.
 
The cumulative spending up through 1970 was well over $200,000,000
in real dollars... The amount of CNF costs so far seem to atleast
an order of magnitude smaller than that when translated to like
dollar values.  Is there some accounting trick used at Los Alamos
that gets around economics that the rest of the country has to endure?
 
>first off, the prevailing theory was clear that fusion should happen
>and that it should release energy (quantum mechanics and binding
>energy calculations), secondly there was convincing evidence that
>exothermic fusion was possible (the sun, for one thing).  and thirdly,
>accelerator based fusion is relatively easy and cheap to detect (on a
>par with cold fusion experiments).
 
Everyone real interested in CNF is likely to have some other
hypothesis/theory regarding the subject.  My own among them
has good descriptions of why the experiments have had a dynamically
variant track record.  What are your own ideas, if for some reason
CNF does work despite your current perspective, on why it may work?
 
>in contrast, the theory predicts that cold fusion will not work, and
>there is no evidence that it does work other than an isolated
>phenomenon that isn't even clearly anything but experimental error.
 
>the situations are diametrically different.
 
CNF does not necessarily seam as diametric of perspective than
that of hot fusion to myself.  Consider that the same fundemental
threshold must be crossed to overcome the forces the prevent
spontaneous fusion by increasing shear density and energy conditions
until those opposing forces no longer stop the two (or more) nuclei
from combining.  CNF would be in essence a way to pressure deuterium
into a metal lattice with charge, until as such point the proximity
of some of those atoms crosses the threshold of resistance and they
combine.  In hot fusion, large energies are used to either radially
(inertial confinement model) drive energy to cause an implosion and
the deuterium then subsequently is packed past that same threshold.
If high temperature and magnetic fields are used (magnetic confinement
model) to raise the pressure and temperature of a plasma to a point
in which atoms of deuterium have a like threshold to cross, then
they fuse.  Lets table the state(s) of fusing matter;
 
        CNF Model     Inertial Confinement     Magnetic Confinement
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
Density            |  Density               |  Density               |
 High in lattice?  |   Momentary & Radial   |   Built up over time   |
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
Time               |  Time                  |  Time                  |
 Long to trigger   |   Very short           |   Medium to slow       |
 Maybe sustainable |   Sustained by repeats |   Sustainable if fueled|
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
Theory models      |  Theory models         |  Theory models         |
 Alverez (Muon)    |   KMS Fusion/H-Bomb    |   Tokamak design+others|
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
State of the art   |  State of the art      |  State of the art      |
 CNF metal rods    |   Nova @ Livermore     |   Bussard / TFTR / JET |
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
Directions         |  Directions            |  Directions            |
 Hydrophilic metals|   X-Ray Lasers         |   Tritium fuel tests   |
 Ceramics          |   Heavy particles      |   International efforts|
 Magnetostriction  |   Modified pellets     |   New heating methods  |
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
Fuels              |  Fuels                 |  Fuels                 |
 Tritium Li-6 Boron|   Boron pellet coatings|   Tritium Helium - 3   |
-------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
 
As you can see, a big picture view yields some parallels and of course
profound differences.  But the similiarities are there too.  Simply
put, the models you say discount CNF as possible, I do not think
are that clear as an ABSOLUTE disproof of it as a legimate line
of inquiry.  My concern, is the research being naysayed to the point
that the research is passed up, then you see some Japanese keiretsu
or German industrial giants start selling a Mr. Fusion (Meister Fusion?).
Do you think that passing up a line is worth this kind of risk?
Are you in the mode of pure short-term research for short-term gain?
 
   ... CNF is studied seriously, long enough, to determine its
   efficacy or if it has any at all.
 
>i don't mind people researching the phenomenon.  i do mind others
>misrepresenting the situation.  the situation is currently that the
>vast majority of experiments are negative and a few produce debatable,
>but possibly positive results.  the positive results that have been
>reported give no hint that they method would be useable for power
>generation.
 
I concur, that the research should not be represented outside of
its bounds.  However, the latter part of your comment should be
deferred until the positive results are consistently generated
enough to yield the data necessary to confidently say that there is
no method at all.  It might just be a case of CNF yielding a low
power generation use only good enough for a CAMcorder or light flash
for a camera you and I do not know, if we did, then we would have
complete ownership of a lab the size of Los Alamos and chat on
videophones connected through graphical workstations about how right
we are and will be.
 
   CNF may work and still be impractical for other reasons that no one
   knows or imagines at this point in time.
 
>the problem is not that it _might_ not work subtle reasons, but that
>all indications are that it _does_ not work for patently obvious
>reasons.
 
This seems to be somewhat a blanket response, although critical
opinions sometimes are good in refining directions in research
in general.
 
   Regarding your reply to my indented item #1, I am interested in the
   data from these simulations, most especially the results you have
   omitted and I think others would like to understand them as well.
 
>the simulation to which i referred were not my own.
 
Do you know whose?
 
   Regarding your next reply to item #2 indented above, where are the
   papers on the experiment done with conventional explosives?
 
>i said conventional methods, not explosives.
 
Well what about those interested in explosives as a trigger?
 
>in particular, the inertial confinement experiments at los alamos and
>lawrence livermore have both produced fusion reactions by conventional
>means for several years.
 
   The yield maybe poor, what kind of radioactives are left over?
 
>in d-d + d-h fusion, you get helium and tritium plus neutron
>activation of surrounding apparatus.  in d-t, similar things happen.
 
I am familiar such basics of fusion and have been for some time,
what was requested is clarification as to possible risk of undesirable
daughter products from the neutron flux (i.e. like the walls in
magnetic confinement experiments are subjected to and yield left
overs that are not really wanted, and should be minimized.).
 
   Such a low yield device, is the yield poor because the time line of
   energy release is longer than that of bombs triggered with fission?
 
[...deleted...]
 
>a couple of million would get you started.  the hard part is either
>building a honking laser or machining the HE.  machining HE is not
>something for the faint of heart.
 
Well creative angst would yield a surprise for the faint of heart,
how about using binary explosives, (aka not unlike those nasty
binary chemical weapons, but for a better moral purpose), machining
of HE binary constituents then the final assembly would be the
resulting containerization of the risk.  How about that way, eh?
The details of HE initiated fusion are still desired, please fill
us in on the experimental data as much as possible.  Where do we
look for this test and what was its' project name?
 
G'day.
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.23 / Paul Houle /  Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: 23 Feb 92 04:45:03 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <6R4ggB5w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
 writes:
 
>        Has anyone come across this? It's a science magazine that, for all of
>its content, is put together by Lyndon LaRouche's merry band of credit card
>abusers.
 
	Yes,  I've followed this magazine for quite some time now.  Before
LaRouche and his "associates" were busted,  this magazine was called
~Fusion~...  It has always focused on plasma and fusion technology,  and
seems to have a religious attachment to cold fusion.
 
>
>        What's amazing about the magazine is the degree that it's overtly
>anti-environmentalism, characterizing opponents as "Chicken Littles" who
>retard the progress of humankind.
 
	Yes,  and unfortunately,  this is an attitude that is taken by
quite a few scientists and engineers,  not to mention businessmen.  I've been
accused of being "anti-business" because I believe that sustainable development
is an absolute must for planning our future.  People don't seem to notice that
sustainability means that we will be able to keep doing business in the
future...  And that the sheer economic cost of things like global warming,
ozone depletion and pollution are often good enough reasons for protecting
the environment.  I think that much of the material in 21st Century is
intended for positioning...  There are an awful lot of people with an awful
lot of money,  such as Adolph Coors,  who are always willing to advance an
anti-environmental agenda.  LaRouche has often attempted to win the favor
of business with these kinds of policies.  (Doesn't that seem just a little
bit like Hitler?)
 
>        Now, I'm up on LaRouche's political doings to a reasonably strogn
>degree-- I'd recommend Dennis King's "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American
>Fascism" as a good reference-- but I was wondering if anyone with a better
>science background than I had had a gander at this magazine.
 
	Yes,  I've read this book too.  It's a good one.  I've also actually
met Lyndon LaRouche,  who is actually a rather good speaker.  I happened to
be one of the masterminds of an effort to shout him down by circulating
slips of paper with loaded questions into an audience of high school students
that I was ready to rebut his answers to.  I was seated about eight feet
away from where he was speaking,  and I think that his aids were rather
afraid that I was going to step up and pop him one.
 
>        How factually solid are their articles? Are they pushing the Cold
>Fusion stuff for any reason beyond the technology-is-wonderful angle? When
>they pooh-pooh the ozone depletion, are their sources reliable?
 
	They actually publish some good articles once in a while.  I liked
one article where they interviewed Klaus von Klitzing.  Other than that,
the LaRouche people used to print lots of articles where they denounced the
A=440 musical system,  claiming that a C=256 system is more "in touch with
the natural resonances of the DNA molecule" -- something you would expect
from left-wing weirdos,  not right-wing weirdos.  They also used to print
articles that proved that rock music was devastating to the brain.
 
	Most of the "pooh-poohing" of the ozone depletion is bunk.  I've been
doing work as an undergraduate assistant on the atmospheric green line,
and I can tell you from reading some papers on the ozone depletion,  that
**MUCH** more is known about the reactions taking place over the south
pole than we know about the pretty simple (just three or four steps) that
are involved in the stuff that I'm studying.  I don't think that any serious
atmospheric scientists are "pooh-poohing" the ozone hole anymore.  The
greenhouse effect is still more controversial;  there are quite a few
feedback loops to be identified,  and it seems that a good portion of
CO2 is disappearing to a place that nobody knows.  As such,  the LaRouchites
can make a real case against it.
 
	The LaRouchites also like to look for anomalous science,  particularly
in engineering applications.  I remember a set of articles that they published
about a machine that killed bugs with microwaves.  I think they wanted to
hang about 100 kw worth of microwave tubes from a helicopter and fly this
thing over fields.  They seemed to suggest that something magical was going
on,  involving resonances in the nervous system making bugs blow up like
people do in the movie "Scanners".  I calculated that setting my home
microwave on a setting of 15 out of 100 would produce an equivalent power
level that their gadget would produce...  And yes,  bugs would pop in my
microwave at that power level;  I used to be a big experimenter with our
microwave until I accidentally blew the door off.  Another miracle gadget
killed the AIDS virus with a dye laser.  They also seem to have a theory
about the geometrical nature of the universe;  they explain the properties
of nuclear isotopes with a model involving the close-packing of spheres,
A la Buckminister Fuller.  The idea was that a uranium nucleus was like
two icosahedrons stuck together at an edge,  and when the atom fissioned,
the two icosahedrons separated.  They also said that this theory explained
the origin of gravity and the fractional quantum hall effect.
 
	In all,  most of the stuff in 21st Century is bunk.  But then,  it's
really fun bunk,  so I reccomend that you steal every copy you can find.
It used to be real fun to harass and steal stuff from Larouchites at your
local airport (or when you're making a connection),  but they have been
hiring security guards ever since Donahue punched one of them out.  Now
it is usually easy to misappropriate (or even just ask for,  since most
librarians don't want it) copies of 21st Century and other fun LaRouchite
stuff at your local high school and college library.  Whatever you do,
don't get a subscription or actually buy a copy.
 
--
LOST:  One Happy Fun Ball, anyone with information should send mail to
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.23 / Chuck Sites /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 23 Feb 92 06:23:41 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson) writes:
 
>what, you mean if people get killed from some accident that had "obvious"
>causes, that couldn't possibly result in any significant knowledge/results,
>that that is reason enough to "assure" funding?
 
There is certainly is an obvious cause of the SRI accident, and that's the
explosion of highly D gas presurized combustion calorimeter.  But who
are you to say thier results couldn't produce any significant knowledge.
 
>Are people's lives worth risking for something that is nothing more than
> "pathological science"?
 
Yeah, and like thats the answer for all things unexplained.  Your full
of it dude.  Nobody has resolved the effects of electron-screening in
combination with dynamic H/D motion in metals like Pd, or Ti.  It's only
now that people are even considering these things.  Wise up, and read!
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \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:
cuddy23 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:58:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 -------------------
In answer to ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) who wrote:
In article <199202132152.AA28190@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Henry Bauer
 <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH> writes:
 >
 >4. It turns out that nothing is common across all the natural sciences:
 >not any primacy of observation over theory, not falsifiability, no
 >"scientific method"....
 >5. ... Nature sooner or later tells you unmistakably when you're wrong.
 
I don't understand. Is not this last sentence exactly what "primacy of
observation over theory" means, that you ruled out under paragraph 4?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I give in my book examples of "good", respectable science in which data is
ignored because it doesn't fit current theory. Of course that can't happen
over the long run, but sometimes the long run can be very long indeed. One
of the salient distinctions that must be made in science, but that
commonly isn't, is that between frontier science and textbook science. At
the frontier science looks very little like the "scientific method" that
is commonly defined; it looks much more like what went on about "cold
fusion"...
|===================================================================|
|     Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies      |
|                     VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212              |
|        (a.k.a. 'Josef Martin', author of TO RISE ABOVE PRINCIPLE) |
|  Internet:  BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1)  |
|  Phone:     (703)231-4239(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:
cuddy24 cudenBAUERH cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.23 / Herman Rubin /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 23 Feb 92 18:05:34 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Feb20.192027.11170@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
>In article <1992Feb18.172451.29503@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
 
			...................
 
>   The best way to foster pure research is to gather a group of brilliant
>   people, pay them enough that they don't have to worry about feeding the
>   kids, furnish them with equipment, and let them play at whatever interests
>   them for as long as they want. It's a proven model that works. Doing
>   mountains of paperwork and lobbying incessantly is not the way to do
>   breakthru research. Directed research either solves known problems
>   inefficiently or totally misses the clue that leads to breakthrus.
 
>The way DARPA worked, at least during the sixties and seventies as far
>as I know, resembled the latter a lot more than the former.  Most
>DARPA projects that I saw (computer-related ones, from DARPA's
>Information Processing Technolgy Office, now ISTO) were too small to
>be pork-barrel, i.e. too tiny for a legislator to think about.
 
Even this latter was not very good, as the projects had to at least
look practical.  Our present research system is essentially the one
warned against by Szilard before 1950.  The situation is even worse
than would appear; universities are unwilling to fund research in areas
in which the government is funding; they tell you to go get a grant.
One cannot even get a graduate student to work on a project in the
mathematical sciences unless that project will lead to a dissertation.
This means that worthwhile things either do not get done, or a senior
investigator has to do low-level work to do it.
 
Multiple sourcing, which was the situation before WWII, is absolutely
essential.  There is even little competition between the federal funding
agencies.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhrubin cudfnHerman cudlnRubin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.23 / Herman Rubin /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 23 Feb 92 18:14:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <kqdrehINN5f0@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
 
			.....................
 
>I disagree with this.  There is no "shortage" of scientists, in the sense of
>jobs going empty that can't be filled with good scientists. In fact, there
>is a "glut" in traditional science jobs.
 
There is no shortage of mediocre scientists, but there is a massive shortage
of good scientists.  The only reason we have even a fair supply is that the
foreign countries treat their scientists even worse than the US does.
 
So what is the difference?  Is it the grades, or the quality of the
dissertation?  No; it is the ability to come up with the crazy ideas,
and to put things together which nobody in his right mind would do.
 
>The U.S.A. does still lead in science.  It's only the _development_ of the
>products of pure science that makes us rich, however.  When push comes to
>shove, this is most important, because it means our children get good
>schooling, our poor can live better, and our sick can get well, and we can
>have a lot more fun.
 
The US still leads, but the Japanese are worried about the lack of good
scientists being produced there.  Europe right now does not even seem to
care if they had any at all.
 
The problem with government funding is clearly addressed in this quote
(from memory) from George Bernard Shaw.
 
	The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment.  The
	unreasonable man attempts to adapt the environment to himself.
	Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhrubin cudfnHerman cudlnRubin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / !djk@Netcom.Com /  Re: Funding and Basement research facilities.
     
Originally-From: ctedge!djk@Netcom.Com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Funding and Basement research facilities.
Date: 24 Feb 92 01:31:53 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering - 714/245-0706

alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
 
> Since the US government is getting out of business of supplying funds
> for research (for that matter they seem to be getting out of business
> of governing also) I think, perhaps, we can setup a 900 telephone #
> so that Americans who are concerned about the state of R&D in US can
> telephone and supply a grass-roots organization with funds for innovative
> research. It does seem like a tricky problem to organize it and to keep
> the organization free of fraud, but perhaps it could be done if a group
> of scientists with no financial interest in this non-profit organization
> would monitor it.
 
 
Nahh... Just invent a better bomb. Get all the $$$ you want. :)
 
-djk
 
 
--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT -------------------------------------
---- NMS&Systems Engineering --------------------------------------
--- Djk@CtEdge.COM / Djk@Netcom.COM -------------------------------
- 'Innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendjk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / John Kreznar /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 24 Feb 92 08:46:01 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <279@zebra.UUCP>, vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes:
> In article <1992Feb20.192027.11170@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
> >In article <1992Feb18.172451.29503@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
> > I think a civilian DARPA would be a great thing.  We
> >might even see one if we get a Democratic president.
>
> Better yet, get a Republican Congress to implement Bush's poicies.  Get
> rid of the dead wight of eons of pork barrel dispensers who have sucked
> the U. S. Treasury dry.
 
The tragedy here is that you're both scheming for the same thing --- to enlist
the US IRS on your behalf to further deprive the US taxpayer of personal choice
in how to use the fruit of his own labor.  Scientific or technical supremacy is
is fatally flawed if it is achieved at the expense of individual liberty.
There's a word for this, and the word is fascism.
 
Accepting government funding causes taxes.  Taxes make slaves.
 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |
   It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.23 / B SCHILLINGS /  cold fusion...
     
Originally-From: benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion...
Date: 23 Feb 92 05:12:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I didn't follow the end of the story, so what was the conclusion (if there is
 one)
about cold fusion and all the hype  around it ?
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbenoit cudfnBENOIT cudlnSCHILLINGS cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 /  etabetv@et.tud /  ETV-ROMMELMARKT '92
     
Originally-From: etabetv@et.tudelft.nl
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ETV-ROMMELMARKT '92
Date: 24 Feb 92 14:16:14 GMT
Organization: TU-Delft, dpt of Electrical Engineering

JAARLIJKSE ROMMELMARKT E.T.V. - 11 MEI 1992
 
ATTENTIE !!
11 mei a.s. zal de traditionele electro-rommelmarkt weer plaatsvinden in
de hal van ET.
 
Zoals elk jaar doen we ook nu weer een beroep op iedereen binnen de faculteit
om spullen aan te leveren voor deze rommelmarkt. Wij zoeken electronica,
bekabeling, printplaten, scopen, voedingen, oude computers etc...
ALLES IS WELKOM !!!
 
Indien u denkt van ja, ik heb nog wel iets in een hoekje staan, waar ik toch
niets meer mee doe, bel dan de Electrotechnische Vereeniging !
 
E.T.V. - Diescommissie
toestel 6189
 
Wij hopen op een grote respons om dit evenement weer tot een minstens even
groot succes te kunnen maken als voorgaande jaren.
 
Bij voorbaat dank.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenetabetv cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 /  /  Looks like it's over
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looks like it's over
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:48:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We have continued to run MKF
 
1) Cell in calorimeter vented to atomsphere.  Using powere correction of
1.48*I to correct for the vented gas the experiment is exothermic.
 
2) Measure gas flow from 1).  Looks like 100% efficient electorlysis. +/- 5%.
 
3) Add external 6 cm mercury bubbler and catalyst, and measure any excess gas
coming off reaction.  Balance as in 1) maintains excess heat.  i.e. the
presence of the catalyst does not kill reaction.  Some excess gas seen.
 
4) Move bubbler and catalyst into calorimeter, maintaining same tubing length
between cell and bubbler and bubbler and catalyst.  Energy balance goes
endothermic, moving to near zero after time.  Now 1.48*I correction does
not apply.
 
5) Move bubbler and catalyst back out of calorimeter.  Again hold same
tubing length and configuration.  Also not apply 1.48*I correction.  Now
the reaction is again exothermic.
 
6) Running as in 5) some time notice that even though the electrolyte is
becomming more concentrated as water is lost from electrolysis, that the
cell voltage is going up.  Possibly indicating the loss of something.
 
That should be "Also now apply 1.48*I correction." in 6)
 
The advantage of paying my own way is that I don't have to keep working because
I have a grant.  So I will likely vote with my feet and go on to something
else.  But it was fun while it lasted.  I recommend the practice.  Get jobs as
ditch diggers or computer programmers or some other honest work and finance
your own science.  Those fancy machines you are all addicted to can always be
had if you have a good idea.
 
The correction is to 5) not 6) Some day I will learn to use the editor.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 /  /  Droege Research Labs
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege Research Labs
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:49:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There is a nice view of DRL on page 90 of the March 2 "Business Week"
 
After you all see it, I will never again be taken seriously, if I ever
was.  A nice even handed article on "Cold Fusion".
 
Curtis Yarvin writes "Maybe after they make their killing on wall street...
 
One reason that I have been able to finance this work is that I have bet on
the othes side of nuclear power disasters.  Bought GPU (Three Mile Island)
at 4 1/2, sold at 30, bought PNH at 2 1/2 sold at 25 ...  There is justice
in the world and good non poluting power sources will win out.  My solution
for nuclear waste - bury it in subduction zones.  By the time it comes up
again it will have decayed.
 
My secret for making money on utilities - if they regulate them not to make
too much money - then they are also regulated not to make too little money.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / Gary Coffman /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 24 Feb 92 16:40:04 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Feb21.012913.17183@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov
 (Van Snyder) writes:
>
>Lots of what Nippon produces was invented here.  Some of it infringes
>U.S. Patents.  VCR's, for example, were invented by Ampex (or was it
>RCA)?  Definitely not Sony or JVC.
 
Yes, Ampex invented helical scan recording, and darn near every other
videotape technology. The Japanese did pay Ampex royalties until the
patents expired. Those royalties helped keep the company solvent through
a lean 15 year period when there were few orders from the broadcast
industry for replacement videotape machines. Ampex's original designs
were too good, they essentially never wore out. An Ampex official said
in my presence that they would never make that mistake again. Unfortunately
their later offerings swung too far the other way and Sony ate their
lunch.
 
Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengary cudfnGary cudlnCoffman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / Bruce Martin /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 21:27:33 GMT
Organization: (none)

In article <279@zebra.UUCP> vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes:
>In article <1992Feb20.192027.11170@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
>>In article <1992Feb18.172451.29503@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:
>> I think a civilian DARPA would be a great thing.  We
>>might even see one if we get a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
				 ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Better yet, get a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS to implement Bush's poicies.  Get
                   ^^^^^^^^^^
>rid of the dead wight of eons of pork barrel dispensers who have sucked
>the U. S. Treasury dry.
>
 
 
Best of all:  Get a LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENT & CONGRESS.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
Andre Marrou's plan will pump $400 Billion into the U.S. economy by abolishing
all Personal Income Taxes (by merely rolling Fed. spending back to 1987 levels).
What will you buy with YOUR share?  I'd invest some in a privatized NASA!
 
Next best:  Term limitation & madatory adjournment of Congress by June.
 
 
    Whoops, sorry this discussion does not belong here!!!!
    I saw all that statist propaganda from DEMOPUBLICANS & REPUBLICRATS,
    and thought for a moment that this must be "sci.politics".
 
    Now, can we go back to talking about science, instead??????
 
 
Bruce A. Martin  {Master of the Tripods of Haephestus.}
  [NOTE:  Statements herein are mine alone!]
 
# include discaimers.h     /***** Marrou/Lord in '92 *****/
# delete BUSHLIPS          /***** CALL 800-682-1776  *****/
 
--
BAM  {Master of the Tripods of Haephestus.}         -/s/-
       <bam@.bnl.gov>      (516) 282-5647         Bruce A. Martin
  [NOTE:  Statements herein are mine alone, ]   Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
  [and are subject to change without notice.]   911C / Accelerator Devel. Dept.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbam cudfnBruce cudlnMartin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 /  marki%jrs@ics. /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: marki%jrs@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 24 Feb 92 18:41:20 GMT

 
 
In article <1992Feb23.062341.3285@coplex.com>, chuck@coplex.com
 (Chuck Sites) writes:
> marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson) writes:
>
>>what, you mean if people get killed from some accident that had "obvious"
>>causes, that couldn't possibly result in any significant knowledge/results,
>>that that is reason enough to "assure" funding?
>
> There is certainly is an obvious cause of the SRI accident, and that's the
> explosion of highly D gas presurized combustion calorimeter.  But who
> are you to say thier results couldn't produce any significant knowledge.
 
Dear Mr. Sites,
 
must have touched a nerve...
 
did you ever look at the way i signed off on this article, before deciding
what the thrust of it was???
 
I was not saying that this work could not produce any significant results,
but one must keep in mind who's funding the research...(see comments below).
 
>>Are people's lives worth risking for something that is nothing more than
>> "pathological science"?
>
> Yeah, and like thats the answer for all things unexplained.  Your full
> of it dude.  Nobody has resolved the effects of electron-screening in
> combination with dynamic H/D motion in metals like Pd, or Ti.  It's only
> now that people are even considering these things.  Wise up, and read!
 
your point in the first sentence is a bit unclear, please clarify...
I have a strong feeling you missed the point of my statement...
 
Re: keeping in mind who's funding this research...
EPRI is concerned with POWER research, not advancing the field of calorimetry.
With funds exceedingly scarce these days, I would think that EPRI is going to
be very careful about funding some line of research that really isn't in line
with their interests.  Might as well leave that to someone else, and save
some money.
 
Now that they have some results, they have obviously (from the EPRI officials
statement) decided that the results are unusual enough to "assure" funding.
I personally feel that if all this was just leading to advances for "highly
pressurized calorimeters", EPRI would not continue funding it.  On the other
hand, the electron-screening effect may be of interest to EPRI.  If this is
the case, then there may be something to CNF.
 
Finally, I do read...alot.  No, i'm not a specialist in physics or chemistry;
never claimed to be.  That is precisely why i have seldom posted anything to
this group, despite the fact that i have been reading it ever since it was
created.  For your information, I do have a degree in science, an advanced
degree in computer science, have worked in atmospheric research for 5.5 years,
and a few years in "the real world" (i.e. industry).  I would consider myself
a generalist; like to look at the forest instead of inspecting the bark on the
trees...just felt the EPRI officials statement was a bit revealing, for the
reasons previously stated, and wanted to "stir the pot" a bit.  Well, guess
i shouldn't assume that everyone on the net would have understood the
metaphor.  The specialization in science is like blinders on a horse (oops,
another one of those metaphors); just READ about a study that found a
surprising lack of knowledge of fundamental concepts by scientists outside of
their field (e.g. biochemists new nothing about plate tectonics, etc...).
 
Any more personal comments you would like to make, please do it via email.
 
Oh, and Chuck, lighten up a little, OK?  Don't be so quick to jump down
people's throat.  It doesn't foster the open exchange that is the main
reason i, and i suspect many who read the technical groups, take the time to
read the "news" (i.e. usenet).  I even find some of your articles interesting
and thought provoking...
 
most sincerely,
mark iverson
marki@jrs.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjrs cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / William Johnson /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 16:54:48 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

I've been sitting quietly and wishing this discussion would go away, since it
has nothing whatever to do with fusion, cold or otherwise.  However, a thing
did come up in a recent posting that is topical and needs rebuttal.
 
In article <2903@equinox.unr.edu> marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson) writes:
>Yes, this is part of the answer.  The other thing one MUST realize about
>the major US labs, is what they exist for; namely, for researching things
>that are of critical importance to "national security".  The DOD must
>remain ahead of industry in technology, AND, it is of extreme importance
>that certain information NOT become public.  Why the hell does the security
>administration exist -- you know, "need to know", secret, top secret, etc...
>Do you *really* think that confirmation of such revolutionary info (CNF),
>if valid, would EVER make it past the security administrator of a national
>lab?  Or any labs that receive gov't funding?  Now, lets see, how many
>independent (i.e. non-gov't funded) labs are there???
 
Well, I *know* that "confirmation of such revolutionary info..., if valid,
would ... make it past the security administrator."  I was there.
 
To review the way cold-fusion experiments happened here at Los Alamos: At
least 8 different groups started doing things within a few days after the
initial FPH announcement came out.  These ranged from low-key things that died
out after a few days, all the way to intensively-instrumented experiments
involving up to 10 people and lasting a couple of years (ours).  An EXTREMELY
important aspect of several of these experiments -- including most of the ones
that lasted past the initial hysteria -- was that they included people who did
not have security clearances, either being non-US nationals or non-lab
employees or both.  Our experiment included an Israeli, and as long as that guy
retains an Israeli citizenship, his chances of getting a security clearance are
roughly those of the proverbial snowball.
 
This is important because there is simply no way that a "security
administrator," to use your somewhat inaccurate phrasing, could have coerced
these guys into clamming up about a secret CNF confirmation.  No coercive power
existed for them -- not being privy to classified information, they never could
have agreed not to disclose classified things, which agreement is the core of
the security-clearance system, and thus couldn't have been subjected to
penalties if they did discuss something.
 
The only time (that I know of) when a CNF paper from here almost didn't get out
of the lab was a case exactly the opposite of suppression by classification.  A
very sloppily-done experiment -- I will name no names -- came up with some
observations that they took as evidence for a cold-fusion-like process.  The
bureaucrat watching their work (a money manager, not a security type) somewhat
uncharacteristically recognized the flaws in the experiment, which the
experimenters inexplicably and adamantly refused to admit, and tried (rather
diffidently) to pressure them not to publish the paper.  The ostensible reason
was that such an important result (!) should be subject to peer review before
publication, but the underlying motivation, IMHO, was more likely embarassment
at seeing the lab's good name sullied by associating it with this garbage
science.  I sat in on the meeting where this pressure was exerted and had very
mixed feelings about it: no scientist likes seeing another scientist pressured
not to publish, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that the work was
slipshod and should have been done more carefully before being published.
 
Academic freedom has long been a big issue here, and the bureaucrat's actions
were viewed as precisely the high-handed tampering that they were; the paper
eventually was published, with the predicted embarassment occurring as a
result.  At no time was a classification issue raised, just the concern about
whether this experimental work was *good* enough to be published -- concern
that eventually proved well-founded.
 
Even if it *had* been possible to cloak a cold-fusion "confirmation" in
secrecy, I don't think it could or would have been done, precisely because any
such confirmation would have been repeated quickly enough at one or another
private/business laboratory.  Remember that a key ingredient of the original
FPH experiments was (at least alleged to be ...) simplicity: any lab *anywhere*
could give it a go, and most did. I wouldn't envy the bureaucrat who did try to
classify something that thereafter became complete public knowledge within
weeks!
 
The above opinions are certainly not official positions of Los Alamos National
Laboratory.  However, they happen to be mine, and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
 
--
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:
cuddy25 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 /  Thaler /  Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1992 08:42:30 PST
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Feb24.193018.17714@hsv3.uucp>, mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
says:
 
>                                 There are plenty of scientists who
>are *very* skeptical of the ozone & greenhouse doomsday crowd.  By
>some strange coincidence, few of these happen to be among the scientists
>with government grants for studying the Horrific Ozone and Greenhouse
>Threats.  I wonder why that is?  :-)
 
Yeah, why is it that their grant proposals (if any) are not approved?
Oh!!! It must be the *BIG CONSPIRACY*.  Sorry, I forgot for a moment.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDOCTORJ cudfn cudlnThaler cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / William Johnson /  The return of The Survey (for the third and probably last time)
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research
Subject: The return of The Survey (for the third and probably last time)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 18:28:46 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

 
Long-time readers of sci.physics.fusion may recall that on two occasions, Scott
Hazen Mueller (one of the prime movers behind getting s.p.f set up) and I have
conducted thumbnail surveys of readers' views on cold-fusion issues and how,
if at all, the newsgroup has shaped those views.  These surveys turn out to
have some interest in their own right as a case study of how Usenet is used,
and their results will be included in an invited talk at a professional meeting
later this year (thanks, Joe!).  We'd like to get more up-to-date data to flesh
out this talk; accordingly, I'm asking readers to help us out one more time.
 
Later today I will post the survey questions that were asked the last time
around (with a few minor changes), and I would appreciate it if readers would
take a moment to respond to them via e-mail.  You can mail either to me at the
above (and below...) address or to Scott at scott@zorch.SF-Bay.org, one or the
other but please not both.  Please do NOT post responses to the net.  All
responses will be held in confidence and will not be attributed to individuals.
Followups regarding the poll itself (as opposed to responses) should probably
be directed to sci.research.
 
Thanks for your help on this.  Note that I have posted this request to other
newsgroups in addition to s.p.f, recognizing the fact that many long-time
readers of that group have lost interest as its original "cold-fusion" charter
has become uninteresting.  The survey, however, will *only* be in s.p.f, and
one of the questions will be whether you're still reading that group.
 
--
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:
cuddy25 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 /  MARK /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: carter@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com (MARK)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 02:47:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

In article <1992Feb21.203147.16301@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes...
>
>History does not back up your claim. Most scientists I know that are now doing
>engineering are doing excellent work WITHOUT any supplementary training
>except maybe advanced computing courses. Major breakthroughs have almost
>always been the result of long-term scientific research, not engineering.
>The worst thing that ever happened was the coining of the acronym R&D.
>Research is long-term, high-risk, and, by its very nature, must have some
>government subsidation to stay healthy (You need alot of people doing alot of
>things to get the result and there just aren't enough companies willing to
>make the investment, even if it is for their own good.). Research breakthroughs
>tend to be more revolutionary, more profitable, and require more patience.
>Development leads to incremental improvement, low-risk low-gain. A company
>that depends on development alone will get itself in a game where it can only
>leap-frog the competition for weeks or months at a time. Engineers are more
>than capable of taking scientific breakthroughs and making products from it.
>It is a waste of the scientists precious time and resources to have him make
>products from his discoveries when he could be searching for new
>breakthroughs. Integrated circuits, lasers, superconductors, etc. all
>started out as pure science research which was used by engineers to develop
>extremely profitable technologies.
>
>We don't need more scientists doing engineering (there are plenty of engineers
>for that), we need less scientists being wasted doing engineering.
**************************
>There is
>an extreme shortage of people in this country doing pure research and it is
>a waste of a scientist's talents to make him do development.
***********************************
>If we expect to
>regain our technical lead, we must regain our lead in science.
 
I responded to the original "What would would you do with Livermore?"
posting a couple of weeks ago and have refrained from the continuing saga.
My original response dealt with defense cuts and the R&D tax
break. I won't repeat those arguments.
 
But, this blanket statement about a scientist shortage is a little too much.
I have worked in academics and industry, and I can see absolutely no shortage
of physicists in this country. In the past year, the administration has hyped
the country on the paucity of scientists being produced. In physics,
this is pure baloney. In 1980, the American Institute of Physics study
showed the average age of a person with a physics Ph.D. at 53.
In 1990, the average age is STILL 53. There is such a glut of physicists
that the AVERAGE age of a physics ASSISTANT professor is 37! No kidding.
 
When I was in Stanford graduate school around 1985-86, I was shocked to
read an article in Physics Today explaining the funding policy of the
government. The plan was to fund large numbers of graduate students in
physics, few postdocs, and almost no professorships. Thereby, we would
have a large supply of technically competent people to channel into the
defense industry. Of course, it is politically more palatable to say
that we will fund "science" (produce more Ph.D.'s) than to say we are
training defense experts. That is why we see so many scientists
becoming engineers to put bread on the table.
 
I view this as a problem of funding too many graduate students. Perhaps,
you and others believe we should fund more research faculty
positions in string theory and particle detection, bringing the
faculty numbers to heights ABOVE our decades of prosperity. If so, I
don't think we will be able to reconcile this fundamental difference.
 
When I was at Stanford, it was common to see 200 applications for 1
or 2 postdoc positions. Last year, when I was at the University of
Maryland, I knew a graduating Ph.D. looking for ANY job. He told
of competing with 500 applicants for 1 teaching position at a small
college.
 
I don't know anyone with a physics Ph.D. who has had an easy time
finding a job outside of academics either. Physicists do adapt
well, given the chance, a point you make for all scientists. I
think we would not simply have very good engineers who used to be
physicists but great engineers who were originally trained as
engineers.
 
We are wasting talent, as you acknowledge, by training
people for jobs they will never be able to fill. Part of the problem
lies with professors who have a naive view that physics Ph.D.'s are
smarter than any other group on the planet and will thus have an easy
time getting a job in "industry" where the "dumb" people work. But,
there are smart people in industry who are trained in precisely what
they do for a living. These same professors lobby for NSF and DOE funds.
(Doesn't it turn your stomach a little to think of scientists as a
lobbying group?)
 
Your comments regarding too few scientists may apply in other fields.
But, not in physics.
 
As you point out, we seem to have a knack for great ideas, but not
enough engineering follow through. It stills seems like we are number
1 in pure science anyway.
 
By the way, what is so extremely profitable about the superconductor
industry?
 
P.S. The lead article in Section B (Metro) section of the
San Francisco Examiner/Chronicle for Sunday Feb. 23 is about
the future of Livermore and the other national laboratories.
*****************************************************************
* Mark R. Carter, Ph.D. 	       *"If you spend all your  *
* 				       * time trying to go 	*
* Lockheed Missiles and Space Company  * somewhere else, you    *
* 				       * never have time to     *
* 				       * to enjoy where you are."
* 				       *	M.R.C, 1989	*
*****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencarter cudlnMARK cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / Mike Pelt /  Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 19:30:18 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <6R4ggB5w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
 writes:
>Has anyone come across this? It's a science magazine that, for all of
>its content, is put together by Lyndon LaRouche's merry band of credit
>card abusers.
 
I haven't, but the first time I encountered LaRouchies in an airport,
my initial reaction was "Hey, neat! Finally, there's a pro-technology
anti-Luddite group finally getting out and countering the reams of
utter nonsense from the granola fascists..."  They gave me a copy of
their magazine at the time, "Fusion".
 
*sigh*  What a load of garbage.  Those people are nuts.  Certifiable.
The "technical" articles were OK up to the "Discover Magazine" level,
then shuffled off into the Twilight Zone with weird, twisted LaRouchian
theories about economics as thermodynamics and whatnot.
 
It was fun to use LaRouche as yet another excuse to snicker at the
Democrats.  At least until David Duke came along... :-(
 
>How factually solid are their articles? Are they pushing the Cold
>Fusion stuff for any reason beyond the technology-is-wonderful angle?
>When they pooh-pooh the ozone depletion, are their sources reliable?
 
I'd check the original sources.  There are plenty of scientists who
are *very* skeptical of the ozone & greenhouse doomsday crowd.  By
some strange coincidence, few of these happen to be among the scientists
with government grants for studying the Horrific Ozone and Greenhouse
Threats.  I wonder why that is?  :-)
--
..Defending the truth...is not something one   |  Mike Van Pelt
does out of a sense of duty or to allay guilt   |  Headland Technology/Video 7
complexes, but it is a reward in itself.        |  ..ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp
                  --  Dr. Petr Beckmann         |  mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / Stanley Friesen /  Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: 24 Feb 92 21:00:37 GMT
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine

In article <1992Feb23.044503.1847@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
|	Most of the "pooh-poohing" of the ozone depletion is bunk. ...
|  I don't think that any serious
|atmospheric scientists are "pooh-poohing" the ozone hole anymore.
 
Yes indeed.  In fact the ozone depletion has me actually *worried*,
and that takes some doing, i tend to be rather skeptical of gloom and
doom scenarios.
 
Even the greenhouse effect does not worry me as much. (OH? the Earth is
going to warm up a wee bit, maybe half way to where it was when the
dinosaurs were around, and its going to take over 50 years to do it - BFD!)
 
| The
|greenhouse effect is still more controversial;  there are quite a few
|feedback loops to be identified,  and it seems that a good portion of
|CO2 is disappearing to a place that nobody knows.  As such,  the LaRouchites
|can make a real case against it.
 
It is also unclear how serious the effects will be.  It will be mostly coastal
areas that are deletriously effected - Siberia and northern Canada would become
major crop belts - a definate advantage.
 
A little advance planning, dikes, and pre-built high-rise docking facilities,
and the effects could be quite minor.
--
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensarima cudfnStanley cudlnFriesen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 /  Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:23:28 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.cnf*
   to get a listing of the bibliography files.  To transfer each file use
   GET (ie. mget fusion.cnf*  or  get fusion.cnf-bks  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 cnf-pap1
   etc, according to what you're after.
   My files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap5 (papers, slices 1..5),
   cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals),
   cnf-unp (unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal
   references from Terry Bollinger).
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / Dr LaFave /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 14:38:20 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <24FEB199218480647@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
 carter@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com (MARK) writes:
>
Note: I never said there was a shortage of scientists, I said there was a
shortage of scientists doing science (i.e. a shortage of science positions).
You seem to understand this so I really don't think we have an arguement.
 
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlafave cudfnDr cudlnLaFave cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Looks like its over
     
Originally-From: daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looks like its over
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 02:16:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
>The advantage of paying my own way is that I don't have to keep working
because
>I have a grant.  So I will likely vote with my feet and go on to something
>else.  But it was fun while it lasted.  I recommend the practice.  Get jobs
as
>ditch diggers or computer programmers or some other honest work and finance
>your own science.  Those fancy machines you are all addicted to can always be
>had if you have a good idea.
 
Somebody give this guy a medal.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / Tom DeBoni /  SISAL Workshop
     
Originally-From: deboni@diego.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Newsgroups:
 sci.misc,sci.optics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: SISAL Workshop
Date: 25 Feb 92 19:04:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 
                          A SISAL Workshop
 
                      University of Puerto Rico
                      Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
                            April 14-16
 
 
                           Presented by
 
                       EPSCoR in Puerto Rico,
              Cornell Mathematical Science Institute (MSI),
                               and
              Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 
              with support from the Army Research Office
            -------------------------------------------------
 
SISAL (Streams and  Iterations in a Single-Assignment Language) is
a general-purpose functional language. Functional languages support
implicitly the development of determinate, machine-independent parallel
software. SISAL has a PASCAL-like syntax similar to structured imperative
languages. This facilitates fast learning and ease of use by non-computer
specialists. SISAL implementations exist for: the CRAY X-MP and Y-MP,
Sequent Symmetry, Alliant FX/80, and Sun and Vax systems. Recent studies
have shown that SISAL programs can run at least as fast as equivalent
FORTRAN programs parallelized using automatic methods.
 
This workshop will cover the fundamentals of functional programming and
the SISAL language. It is intended for graduate students and practitioners
in any scientific field; in particular, we encourage scientists developing
large applications requiring the parallel resources of the largest computer
systems to attend. Students can expect to complete a substantial portion of
an application of their choice in SISAL by the end of the workshop.
 
The workshop is free; however, participants are responsible for their
own travel and accommodations.  A limited number of rooms will be
available at the student center at the Rio Piedras campus of the
University of Puerto at the rates of $15 (single) and $20 (double) per
night. For reservations or information concerning accommodations, please
contact Madeline Ramos whose address is given at the end of this announcement.
 
 
For more information contact:
 
Jaime Seguel or Dorothy Bollman          John Feo or David Cann
Department of Mathematics                LLNL, L-306
University of Puerto Rico                P.O. Box 808
Mayaguez, PR 00681-5000                  Livermore CA  94550
(809) 265-3848                           (415) 422-6389 (423-7875)
J_SEGUEL@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU                feo@crg.llnl.gov
(D_BOLLMAN@UPR1.UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU)        (cann@crg.llnl.gov)
FAX: (809) 265-1225                      FAX: (415) 423-2993
 
Oscar Moreno
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Puerto Rico
Rio Piedras, PR 00931
(809) 765-3263
O_MORENO@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU
FAX: (809) 751-0625
 
 
Objectives:
 
    - Introduction to functional programming
    - An in-depth presentation of SISAL
    - Development of applications of interest to the participants
    - Benchmarking of SISAL applications on commercial multiprocessors
 
The workshop is divided into two parts: 1) Introduction to functional
programming and SISAL (Days 1 and 2), and Advanced topics in programming
and development of large scientific applications in SISAL (Days 3
and 4). People interested in learning about SISAL but not interested in
writing SISAL applications at this time can attend only the first part
of the workshop.
 
 
 
Motivation:
 
The Von Neumann model of execution has greatly influenced the
development of programming languages; so much so, that programs
written in conventional, imperative languages are high-level encodings
of instruction sequences. These programs express "how to" solve the
problem, rather than "what to" solve. Not surprisingly, imperative
languages have proven inappropriate for parallel computing. The encoded
order of computation is usually inappropriate for the target machine
and difficult to parallelize. Further, since programmers must express
how to solve the problem, they are responsible for managing concurrent
accesses to shared data, interprocess communication, and process
scheduling. These additional responsibilities frustrate programmers
and thwart effective machine use.
 
One important alternative is functional programming. In addition
to stressing sound software engineering practices, functional languages
implicitly support the development of determinate, machine independent
parallel software. As a result of recent advances, functional
programs can now execute as fast as imperative programs on supercomputers
in both scalar and vector mode. Performance is no longer an issue. The
functional paradigm is based on the principles of mathematics. The order
of execution depends on the availability of data only. The textual
position of a statement is irrelevant. The programmer describes "what to"
solve and leaves implementation details to the compiler, operating system,
and hardware. In particular, the programmer is not responsible for
managing shared data, interprocess communication, or process scheduling.
Mathematicians write mathematics, chemists write chemistry, and physicists
write physics.
 
The objective of this workshop is to teach the current state of the
art in scientific functional programming. The workshop will be divided
into morning lectures and afternoon laboratory sessions. The lectures
will teach the fundamentals of functional programming and what it means
to think functional (as opposed to imperative). We will teach SISAL, a
general-purpose functional language. We will explain the copy and memory
management problems inherent to functional programming and how we have
solved them for SISAL. We will show by extensive examples, that SISAL is
a natural medium for expressing scientific computations, and that SISAL
programs are simpler, cleaner, and easier to maintain than imperative
programs.
 
In the laboratory sessions, students will design, write and debug
SISAL programs. Students will have access to parallel systems on which
to execute their SISAL programs.  While we will have a series of exercises
for the students to complete, each student should come with their own
application to work on. Students can expect to complete a substantial
portion of their application in SISAL by the end of the workshop.
 
 
 
Tentative Workshop Outline:
 
Day 1
-------------
A. Morning Lecture
 
   1. Why functional languages
 
   2. Basic types
 
   3. Functions
 
   4. Let and If expressions
 
B. Afternoon Laboratory
 
   1. Introduction to SISAL Software
 
   2. Programming exercises
 
Day 2
-----
A. Morning Lecture
 
   1. Arrays, Records, and Unions
 
   2. Parallel and Iterative Loops
 
   3. Performance and Implementation Issues
 
B. Afternoon Laboratory
 
   1. Programming Exercises
 
   2. Students can begin working on their codes
 
Day 3
-----
A. Morning Lecture
 
   1. Memory Management Analysis
 
   2. Copy Elimination Analysis (part 1)
 
   3. Streams
 
B. Afternoon Laboratory
 
   1. Students continue to work on their codes
 
Day 4
-----
A. Morning Lecture
 
   1. Copy Elimination Analysis (part 2)
 
   2. Runtime System
 
   3. SISAL 2.0
 
B. Afternoon Laboratory
 
   1. Students continue to work on their codes
 
 
 
Registration Form :
 
Please register me for the SISAL Workshop.
 
 
 
 
Name:		_______________________________________
 
Affiliation:	_______________________________________
 
Address:	_______________________________________
 
		_______________________________________
 
		_______________________________________
 
Phone:		_______________________________________
 
email:		_______________________________________
 
 
Return to, no later than April 3:
           Madeline Ramos
           Department of Mathematics
           University of Puerto Rico
           Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00681-5000
           (809) 265-3848
 
           M_RAMOS%RUMAD@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendeboni cudfnTom cudlnDeBoni cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / R Gillilan /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: reg@sdchemw2.ucsd.edu (Richard E. Gillilan)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 25 Feb 1992 19:05:15 GMT
Organization: UC San Diego Chemistry

In article <24FEB199218480647@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 carter@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com (MARK) writes:
>
>But, this blanket statement about a scientist shortage is a little too much.
>I have worked in academics and industry, and I can see absolutely no shortage
>of physicists in this country. In the past year, the administration has hyped
>the country on the paucity of scientists being produced. In physics,
>this is pure baloney. In 1980, the American Institute of Physics study
>showed the average age of a person with a physics Ph.D. at 53.
>In 1990, the average age is STILL 53. There is such a glut of physicists
>that the AVERAGE age of a physics ASSISTANT professor is 37! No kidding.
 
I believe it. There's a very bright guy in the office next door with a
physics Ph.D. from Berkeley who has been postdocing with us chemists for
several years now. Well chemistry is not much better off either and he's
looking for jobs in finance now. We have several postdoc openings
within the group and have received in excess of 200 applicants,
at least 10% of whom should have been assistant prof's in my humble
opinion. You would be surprised at the number of ex physicists we get
who think the grass is greener in chemistry.
My office mate and I have been looking for academic jobs for 3 yrs now
without luck. I know a recipient of the much-coveted NSF postdoctoral
fellowship who is now facing the prospect of a 5th year of postdoctoral
work at Livermore of all places!! This is no joke. Ok part of it may
be the recession, but as a graduate student in the late 80's, I remember
postdocs having a tough time as well. Even when I was an undergrad,
a few thoughtful professors gave me words of warning (which I ignored).
 
Why does anyone keep trying and why doesn't supply and demand catch up?
After 9 years of working evenings, nights and weekends, you don't
don't surrender easily. If the market is bad, you just postdoc another
year and publish publish publish. Sort of a trap isn't it?
 
>government. The plan was to fund large numbers of graduate students in
>physics, few postdocs, and almost no professorships. Thereby, we would
>have a large supply of technically competent people to channel into the
>defense industry.
 
Never thought of this before, but it makes some sense.
 
>
>I view this as a problem of funding 