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 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.
>
 
Faculty should grow at about the same level as the general population.
Anyone have figures on the current growth rate? A recent survey of
75 institutions (Chemical and Engineering News a few months ago)
indicates that there are indeed many positions that universities
would like to fill but are unable to because of funding. Professors
here at UCSD may soon find themselves teaching many more classes than
before. This is also consistent with the fact that many institutions
advertised for multiple postions this year but only funded one, or
none at all.
 
>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.
 
More like 80-100 in chemistry 2yr's ago. I don't bother to ask
anymore, but my most recent rejection letter from Rutgers did admit
"We were indeed surprised at the number and quality of the applicants
this year...".
 
>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.
 
I can't speak for physics, my boss complains that the best and brightest
undergrads he sees just don't go into chemistry anymore. I can see where
they might get the idea though, considering how unbelievably competative
the job market is. I think many departments have become spoiled with more
than their fair share of superstars.
 
 
-------------------
Richard E. Gillilan
Postgraduate Research Chemist, UCSD
reg@sdchemw2.ucsd.edu
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenreg cudfnRichard cudlnGillilan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / Mike USC /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: wilson@moonshine.llnl.gov (Mike Wilson - USC)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 25 Feb 92 22:06:55 GMT

>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.
 
Unfortunately, the article only mentioned that LLNL would like
to scale down weapons research.
 
My *personal* opinion (on the orginal subject) is that people
who care at all should be asking their congressman why fusion
funding in the US is at such a pathetic level.  Certainly fusion
research did at one time play a major part in LLNL, and could
again.  However, with current funding projections, the future of
US fusion looks bleak through the next decade or so.
 
-mike
--
 -------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wilson               | Unix Sysadmin - M Division
wilson@moonshine.llnl.gov | Lawerence Livermore Nat. Lab
The above is a personal opinion, I have no idea if it is
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwilson cudfnMike cudlnUSC cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / Chris Jensen /  Re: endothermic PdHx
     
Originally-From: ccjensen@fnalc.fnal.gov (Chris Jensen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: endothermic PdHx
Date: 25 Feb 92 23:16:24 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Lab, Batavia IL

In article <north.698986434@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
. About PdHx article and info
. Much text deleted
 
I've just gone to the library and skimmed the article. The full
citation is
"Hydrogen in Metals", D. G. Westlake, C. B. Satterhwaite, and
J. H. Weaver, Physics Today, November 1978, Vol 31, No 11,
pp 32 - 39.
 
The article is very informative. It also has a good list of references
for further reading on the PdH / PdD system. Thanks Mark!
Chris Jensen, ccjensen@fnal.fnal.gov
 
The opinions expressed are mine all mine, and not necessarily those
of DOE or URA
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenccjensen cudfnChris cudlnJensen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 /  chuck /  Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
     
Originally-From: chuck@c1drxl.drexel.edu (chuck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.energy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Sci. and Tech.
Date: 25 Feb 92 23:54:49 GMT
Organization: Drexel University Department of Physics

 
I used to see a couple of LaRouchies set up a table on campus here at
Drexel every once in a while. One day I grabbed a copy of their
newspaper and discovered that (in a full page article) they not only
do not believe in entropy, the L's "uncovered" the ongoing conspiracy
to keep entropy alive in the hearts and minds of "duped" scientists...
 
        I had the page taped to the wall of my office when I worked on
the student newspaper several years ago. It was a riot.
 
Chuck Browne                   |
Physics Grad Student           | Call me, we'll talk...
Drexel University              | about cawfee, no big whoop...
chuck@convex.drexel.edu        |
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchuck cudlnchuck cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / 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: 26 Feb 92 11:56:47 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

In article <kql4rbINNgmq@network.ucsd.edu> reg@sdchemw2.ucsd.edu (Richard E.
 Gillilan) writes:
 
>I can't speak for physics, my boss complains that the best and brightest
>undergrads he sees just don't go into chemistry anymore. I can see where
>they might get the idea though, considering how unbelievably competative
>the job market is. I think many departments have become spoiled with more
>than their fair share of superstars.
 
At the same time, chemical _engineers_ are getting the highest first-year
pay of _any_ undergrad degree, nearly 50% higher than a business bachelor's.
My contention holds -- we are crying out for, and paying big $$$ for, people
who can _make_ things, instead of merely theorizing about them.
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 670 papers, 85 patents).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 670 papers, 85 patents).
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 17:56:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
the latest. Note that three items come out of the J. Less-Common Metals, which
has changed its name (to something with alloys, I'm too lazy to run up to the
library to check). A dignified journal, anyway. Well, the Yamamoto+ tells us
very little (top loading < 0.8), Tsuchida+ reckon d-d distance is in fact
closer (sometimes) than the 0.74 A in D2 gas but not, whether this means the
fusion rate is that claimed by some; my memory tells me the distance needs to
be a lot less, like 0.25 A or so. And Switendick gives high loadings a chance,
but they fail the test. So rumours of high loadings are not supported by the
theorists, nor by experiment. Another idea, though - that contamination, such
as radon or the like might be mimicking cold fusion - is squashed flat quite
convincingly by Karamdoust et al.
 The rest - the one patent, Mallove complaining about an unfavourable review
of his book, and a first report of the SRI explosion, etc, make themselves
plain below.
                                                                        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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karamdoust NA, Majeed A, Durrani SA; Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 19 (1991) 627.
"Cold fusion: Radon contribution to neutron production ?".
** Several authors have suggested that neutron emissions from PdD may
originate from impurities inherent in the Pd used, such as U, Th or radon, Rn.
This team investigated this possibility by experiment. A high-purity Pd foil,
as used in the same laboratory in a cold fusion experiment (where some
neutrons were found) was sandwiched between CR-39 detector foil for one week.
The activity recorded was 3 orders of magnitude below that of the possible
cold fusion emission level. In another experiment, Pd foil was allowed to
absorb Rn for 9 hours and was then left for 2 hours between CR-39 detector
foils. Again, the activity recorded was far below that claimed for cold fusion
experiments. Thus U/Th/Rn impurities cannot explain cold fusion results.   ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Switendick AC;                        J. Less-Common Met. 172-174 (1991) 1363.
"Electronic structure and stability of palladium hydrogen (deuterium) systems,
PdH(D)n, 1 <= n <= 3".
** Self-consistent augmented plane-wave total energy calculations were
performed as a function of the cubic lattice constant within the local density
approximation using Hedin-Lundquist exchange, on the mono-, di- and trihydrides
of Pd (and deuterides), correcting an earlier erroneous paper. The results are
compared with cold fusion inspired theoretical work of Sun+Tomanek, Wang et al
and others. The monohydride is the only stable species, and p-p or d-d
distances greatly exceed that in the corresponding gas, i.e. 0.74 A. There is
a large energy barrier against close approaches.                      ?/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsuchiya K-I, Ohashi YH, Ohashi K, Fukuchi M;
J. Less-Common Met. 172-174 (1991) 1371.
"Interaction between two neighboring deuterium atoms in palladium".
** Again an approach to the feasibility of cold fusion in terms of the
possible close approach of two d's in the lattice. Here, electron screening is
looked at, to see whether it could allow a closer approach than previously
thought. In principle, there might be sufficient space for an extra deuterium
atom between lattice sites. The jellium model is invoked, and potentials are
calculated. The potential well is broad and flat, with a minimum at about 0.66
A, which is closer than the D2 gas value of 0.74 A. No conclusions are drawn
as to whether this might explain cold fusion.                         ?/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamamoto T, Taniguchi R, Oka T, Kawabata K;
J. Less-Common Met. 172-174 (1991) 1381.
"In situ observation of deuteride formation in palladium foil cathode by an
x-ray diffraction method".
** Since some theories of cold fusion focus on high deuterium loading in Pd,
it is worthwhile looking at what can be achieved. The aim here was to look at
the lattice constants and loadings as a function of electrolysis overpotential
in 0.18M LiOD (D2O), by means of x-ray diffraction. Use of a Pd foil allowed
this; the electrolyte was on one side, the x-ray equipment on the other. This
showed the progression from pure Pd through a mixture of the alpha and beta
phases to pure beta. Later, some alpha phase reappears. It is concluded that
the maximum loading was no greater than 0.8.                          ?/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ishikawa A, Katsumi M;         Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 78,691, 23-Aug-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(6):47853 (1992).
"Power generation by cold nuclear fusion".
** "Thermal energy is generated by implanting D in a substance (e.g. Pd) to
cause cold nuclear fusion, and the thermal energy is converted into elec.
power by thermoelec. means". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton DP;                                  Science 255 (1992) 153 (10-Jan).
"A lethal 'cold fusion' blast".
** The first report in this journal of the explosion at the SRI labs. Not much
is known at this point, and there are conflicting accounts: either it occurred
while three people were placing a steel cyclinder, containing the experiment,
on a shelf; or  someone attempted to open a jammed valve on a deuterium gas
cylinder.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallove E;                                              C&EN 10-Feb-92, p. 2.
"Cold fusion" (Letter to the Editor).
** Eugene Mallove objects to the review of his book, Fire From Ice, by Trevor
Pinch, in a previous issue of C&EN. EM says that Pinch, like Close, do not
understand that the evidence favours cold fusion and points to the journal
Fusion Technology as a source. Only his book tells the true story of how cold
fusion was dismissed arrogantly by the scientific establishment, writes EM.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / Edmund Hack /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 26 Feb 1992 16:05:07 GMT
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston

In article <1992Feb26.115647.10265@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
 writes:
>At the same time, chemical _engineers_ are getting the highest first-year
>pay of _any_ undergrad degree, nearly 50% higher than a business bachelor's.
>My contention holds -- we are crying out for, and paying big $$$ for, people
>who can _make_ things, instead of merely theorizing about them.
 
However, 8 years ago, a Chem E. degree was only good for getting a job in a
convenience store.  A close friend with a BSChE from one of the best schools
in the country and a MChE from a very good one was thrown out of work 3 times
in 4 years as the petrochemical industry fell apart.  The demand for all degree
types associated with the oil and related industries is highly cyclical.  Right
now a BS in Petroleum Engineering has a very high starting pay (higher than a
ChemE degree), but geologists are starving.  Similar cycles hit aerospace as
well (although aerospace is low paying compared to other engineering sectors,
even in boom times).
 
 
--
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
| "Space People read our mail.  The Space People think that TV news
| programs are comedies, and that soap operas are news."- D. Byrne
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhack cudfnEdmund cudlnHack cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / Phil Fraering /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 19:00:09 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes:
>However, 8 years ago, a Chem E. degree was only good for getting a job in a
>convenience store.  A close friend with a BSChE from one of the best schools
>in the country and a MChE from a very good one was thrown out of work 3 times
>in 4 years as the petrochemical industry fell apart.  The demand for all degree
>types associated with the oil and related industries is highly cyclical.  Right
>now a BS in Petroleum Engineering has a very high starting pay (higher than a
>ChemE degree), but geologists are starving.  Similar cycles hit aerospace as
>well (although aerospace is low paying compared to other engineering sectors,
>even in boom times).
 
Actually, what demand there is in the oil industry for _all_ types
of employees has been and will be moving overseas. Work will be
easy to find, but you may have to relocate to Indonesia or that
paragon of civil rights, Saudi Arabia.
--
Phil Fraering pgf@nasa12.usl.edu 318/365-5418
Disclaimer: The preceeding is my opinion alone. These machines are
called the nasa## machines for historical reasons, so these are not
the opinions of USL, NASA, etc... ||"Ninety-two," he said, "and you don't
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpgf cudfnPhil cudlnFraering cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / Eugene Miya /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 18:52:05 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

ARPA existed during some rather unique times.  It is not clear to me that we
could reproduce those.  I think Bob Taylor has even changed as a person. ;^).
Certain I have found no personalities inside of NASA to equal the brain
power that I saw in ARPA from a distance in the late 70s.  It would be
interesting to tour ICOT (I get their newsletter), MITI, and Tsukuba.  People
in the DOC have certainly thought about this.
 
Also before you blast Livermore (and I am not trying to justify it)
it has some unique facilities which I think are lacking in just about
every other major Lab and research center in the US.  Teller in his
infinite wisdom tried to establish links to the educational part of
the UC as well as industrial concerns.  Any subsequent research effort
had best base it view on some of those ideas.  Surgerically remove those
ideas from the weapons program.  And as with ARPA,
scale must be a concern.  My officemate George tells me Teller's
last words were:
	This place stopped being a fun place to work when the numbers
	passed 3,000 people.
Tours are certainly available to US citizens in professional groups
subject to approval.
 
This is not to justify that money be wasted at LLNL.  Research
in many ways is a "wasteful" endeavour.  If you just counted the number
of materials Edison tried before deciding on the "best" filament, versus
theone success, maybe the money wasted on debugging computer runs,
then nothing would ever be discovered.  Don't get hung up on false
economies.  Look to the long-term.  Don't let the bean counters be
the sole judge of the future.
 
Ampex: has a museum on video tape and video tape recorders.  We held Bay Area
ACM/SIGGRAPH meetings there.  I recommend a brief tour, the first equipment
used to televise the first Olympics seen on TV is there (1964, Tokyo 8^).
 
--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:
cuddy26 cudeneugene cudfnEugene cudlnMiya cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / 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: 26 Feb 1992 19:29:50 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Feb26.115647.10265@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick
 Szabo) writes:
>
> In article <kql4rbINNgmq@network.ucsd.edu> reg@sdchemw2.ucsd.edu (Richard E.
 Gillilan) writes:
>
> >I can't speak for physics, my boss complains that the best and brightest
> >undergrads he sees just don't go into chemistry anymore. I can see where
> >they might get the idea though, considering how unbelievably competative
> >the job market is. I think many departments have become spoiled with more
> >than their fair share of superstars.
>
> At the same time, chemical _engineers_ are getting the highest first-year
> pay of _any_ undergrad degree, nearly 50% higher than a business bachelor's.
> My contention holds -- we are crying out for, and paying big $$$ for, people
> who can _make_ things, instead of merely theorizing about them.
>
>
> --
> szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
> Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
>
>
 
NIck,
 
A. There is more to life than making things, consuming things and killing
people. There is beauty and knowledge. The importance of these things
shoul not be overlooked even though their benefits to mankind are much
more subtle.
 
B. More money was made from the discovery of the integrated circuit (a
scientific breakthrough in solid state physics), than all the incremental
engineering work done since its inception. The same thing can be said for
the laser, the Zener diode, nuclear fission, the photoelectric effect,
the heat engine, etc...
You have to have the foundation before you can build the fortress, Nick.
To contend that scientists don't make anything worth buying is a gross
inaccuracy. This prevalent misconception which you so eloquently state is
what is killing our competitiveness in the world market. Science has more than
paid for the small investment made in its performance.
 
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlafave cudfnDr cudlnLaFave cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / R Ottolini /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 20:09:18 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation, Anaheim, California

In article <pgf.699130809@nasa13.usl.edu> pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>Actually, what demand there is in the oil industry for _all_ types
>of employees has been and will be moving overseas. Work will be
>easy to find, but you may have to relocate to Indonesia or that
>paragon of civil rights, Saudi Arabia.
 
The American Geological Institute finds a static situation for earth
science jobs in the USA.  See my detailed posting in sci.geo.geology.
There were about as many jobs as graduate degrees.
Both jobs and graduates have been declining.
 
The USA situation as the poster notes is not the same as overseas.
Exploration in the USA has virtually halted.  Seismic crews and drill rig
counts are at their pre-WWII levels or all time lows since these statistics
were compiled by trade journals and societies.  International exploration
is still very lively.  I would guess most major USA oil companies are spending
about a quarter of their exploration budgets in the US, soon to drop to
about 10%.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenstgprao cudfnRichard cudlnOttolini cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.26 / William Johnson /  Return of The Survey: your responses wanted!
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Return of The Survey: your responses wanted!
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 22:22:56 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

 
 
As promised in my earlier posting, here's the survey of readers' use of
sci.physics.fusion.  The data from this will be used in a paper chronicling
the use of computer news/mail systems in the cold-fusion episode.  All
responses will be held in confidence and no names will be used.  Please
send your responses to me (mwj@beta.lanl.gov) or to Scott Hazen Mueller
(scott@zorch.SF-bay.org); non-Internet addresses should be obviously derivable
for both of us.  Please try to respond by 3/6/92 if possible.
 
Thanks much for your help.  I'll again post a summary of findings in a couple
of weeks.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
1. (from previous poll) Complete the following "Credo" statement so that it
best describes your perception of "proof" required for cold fusion:
	For cold fusion to be shown to exist, researchers at [institution A]
	must demonstrate [phenomenon B] under [conditions C].
 
	Choices for A:
		a. any single laboratory
		b. any single PRESTIGIOUS laboratory [use your own definition
		   of "prestigious"]
		c. more than one laboratory
		d. more than one PRESTIGIOUS laboratory
		e. (other, please specify)
 
	Choices for B:
		a. excess heat
		b. tritium production (NOT observed in real time)
		c. production of nuclear observables (neutrons, gamma rays)
		   that ARE observed in real time
		d. excess heat plus tritium production
		e. excess heat plus nuclear observables
		f. tritium plus nuclear observables
		g. heat, tritium AND nuclear observables
		h. other
 
	Choices for C:
		a. in at least 1 cell
		b. in at least 2 cells
		c. in a large number of cells [e.g. >10]
		d. in a significant fraction of all cells they run
		e. on demand
		f. other (specify)
 
2. Do you feel that this condition has been met by now? (yes/no)
 
3. Do you feel that this condition *will be* met at some point?  (yes/no; if
   you would answer this question differently for FPH-level results than for
   Jones/Menlove-level ones, please so indicate)
 
4. Which of the following reports did you hear via the net *before* you
   heard them through other media:
	a. Original FPH report of cold fusion
	b. Announcement of the Santa Fe cold-fusion workshop
	c. Reports/critiques of papers from the Santa Fe workshop
	d. Descriptions of other experiments (list)
	e. Letter from FPH lawyer to Salamon team threatening to "take
	   whatever action is appropriate" to protect FPH interests
	f. "Anonymous" donor of $500k to NCFI turns out to have ties to U
	   of Utah
	g. "Retraction" of Wolf tritium results
	h. _Science_ report of worries about possible fraud in Bockris group
 
5. (optional, from previous poll) What is your educational status (degree
   level, field) and field of employment (computer science/engineering/
   physical science/other, student/university faculty/national laboratory/
   industry/other)?  Have you ever been involved in a cold-fusion experiment?
 
6.  (optional) Where do you live and work? (city, state/province, country)
 
7.  From 1=not at all important to 5=very important, rank the importance
    of the network cold fusion information...
    A.  ...in your work?
    B.  ...as a general information source?
 
8. At this time, are you a regular reader/subscriber of sci.physics.fusion or
   any mailing list/bulletin board on which cold fusion is discussed? (yes/no)
 
9. (optional) Append any comments you deem appropriate:
 
--
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:
cuddy26 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.25 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Funding and Basement research facilities.
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Funding and Basement research facilities.
Date: 25 Feb 92 22:37:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
 
> Since the US government is getting out of business of supplying funds
> for research ...
 
Are they?  The Bush budget proposal includes increases in civilian science
funding above and beyond inflation.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.24 / K Eriksson /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 24 Feb 92 21:24:29 GMT
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden

In article <199202232254.AA16416@ames.arc.nasa.gov> ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
 writes:
>In answer to ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) who wrote:
>>In article <199202132152.AA28190@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Henry Bauer 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.
 
You mean that "primacy of observation" is true of science in the long run
but not in the short run?
 
I think you are a bit hasty in ruling out primacy of observation as a
common factor. I think it should be expected that a theory is not abandoned
immediately when some contradicting observations are made. Doing so would
serve no purpose, until you have a _new_ theory to replace the old one
with. And inventing a new theory can take some time. Before that, the
only effect of abandoning the old theory would be that you would have no
theory at all to work on. The old theory, after all, most often can still
be useful in its earlier domains, and even a known wrong theory is often
better than no theory at all. Actually, I think it should be expected that
science most of the time (or at least for long periods) would be working
with already falsified theories.
 
My impression is that many people mistakenly believe that "the scientific
method" (or whatever we choose to call it) prescribes a straight path from
falsification to abandonment of a theory, and observing that science in
practice does not work that way, they conclude that "the scientific method"
is false, and proceed to replace it with various sociological descriptions
of how theories are accepted and rejected by groups of scientists. But in
my view, the theory of science that they reject is a ridiculously simplified
version, that is not fully thougt through.
 
Maybe you too is one of these people? Or do have examples where data is
blatantly being disregarded without justification just because it
contradicts the current theory? I mean, one thing is to discard data
that doesn't matter to your experiment, or that you have no better
theory to handle it with, and another is to keep claiming that the
current theory is entirely _correct_ in spite of accepted contradicting
data or failing experiments.
 
--
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:
cuddy24 cudenske cudfnKristoffer cudlnEriksson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.27 / 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: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 08:57:19 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

marki%jrs@ics.uci.edu writes:
 
>In article <1992Feb23.062341.3285@coplex.com>, chuck@coplex.com
> (Chuck Sites) writes:
>> marki@pyramid.unr.edu (Mark Iverson) writes:
 
>Dear Mr. Sites,
 
>must have touched a nerve...
 
[My flaming nonsense, and Mark's kind reply removed]
 
>>>Are people's lives worth risking for something that is nothing more than
>>> "pathological science"?
 
  Yes Mark you did hit a nerve. I am not a fan of the pathological science
label that some folks are trying to stick on cold fusion.  That's my beef.
When you consider all that has been done and the theories that have developed
because of this crazy idea that D might fuse if forced into a metal lattice,
it's obvious this does not fit mold of pathological science.  To me, CF
appears to be a break through concept that lacked a solid experimental
method of demonstrating it.  There are some key theoretical papers by Koonin,
Acer and others early on about electron screening of D fusion in metals.
These where based on static models but the overall effect was to raise the
estimated fusion rate from 10E-80 fusion/sec, to 10E-28f/s.  To explain
the heat P&F where seeing the rate needed to be 10E-23f/s, so these papers
where consider a no vote for cold fusion.  However, D can be made mobile in
some metals, and this additional parameter can cause an observable fusion
rate. The D transport work of Nishioka is one such experiment.  Another
one might be the cluster impact work of Kim to name a few.
 
  Anyway Mark, it was just bad timing. I had just read a real piece of
TRASH in the Jan92 American Scientist about pathological science that
implies cold fusion is one, and was frankly shocked that it even passed
the editors. The whole story was a rehash of the dispute between Pons &
Fleishman, and Jones and the unusual start cold fusion had. And really,
it was nothing that Morrison at CERN has not already said, although
D. Morrison was much more fair about his labeling and more knowledgable
about was being done than this guy was.  The big objection I have with
labeling something pathological science is where does one differentiate
between the defense of ones convictions (wrong as they may be) and what
is pathological?  Suppose the concept is right, but the method of proof
is wrong?  Is it still pathological?  Suppose the method of proof is
correct, but the theory is wrong.  Is this pathological?  If there are
valid science questions being pursued why make it more difficult by
labeling it pathological?
 
   Ok, I was a bit insulting in my off the cuff flame.  For that
I do oppolgize sincerely.  But I also feel that before one flipently
labels an experiment as pathological science, one must have an
understanding about what's wrong and can demonstrate the error.
To my knowledge the only thing wrong that's been demonstrated with
any certainty in CF is the lack of a distinct nuclear signature from
a P&F type cell.  But that little quirky excess heat thing, that's
another matter. The P&F cell was just one method, (all be it, the
the most well known method) of trying to break that Coloumb barrier.
There's Jones, Menlove, Nishioka, Lopez, Claytor, and a few thousand
others who are trying other methods.  See if that fits the mold of
pathological science.  It does not.
 
   Well, anyway you now have the reasons behind my flamey follow up.
I'm sorry I was personal, and I'll try to keep my dialog focused to
more scientific matters.
 
Have fun,
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:
cuddy27 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.27 / Jon Webb /  Re: Return of The Survey: your responses wanted!
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of The Survey: your responses wanted!
Date: 27 Feb 92 14:39:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992Feb26.222256.2828@newshost.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William
 Johnson) writes:
 
   1. (from previous poll) Complete the following "Credo" statement so that it
   best describes your perception of "proof" required for cold fusion:
	   For cold fusion to be shown to exist, researchers at [institution A]
	   must demonstrate [phenomenon B] under [conditions C].
 
	   Choices for A:
		   e. at least one PRESTIGIOUS laboratory, and other
		      laboratories
 
	   Choices for B:
		   h. a, b, or c
 
	   Choices for C:
		   d. in a significant fraction of all cells they run
 
   2. Do you feel that this condition has been met by now? (yes/no)
		no
 
   3. Do you feel that this condition *will be* met at some point?  (yes/no; if
      you would answer this question differently for FPH-level results than for
      Jones/Menlove-level ones, please so indicate)
		I find this doubtful, but still possible.
 
   4. Which of the following reports did you hear via the net *before* you
      heard them through other media:
		all items listed.  The net has been my primary source
		of information.  In some cases I have looked up articles
		based on references from the net.
 
   5. (optional, from previous poll) What is your educational status (degree
      level, field) and field of employment (computer science/engineering/
      physical science/other, student/university faculty/national laboratory/
      industry/other)?  Have you ever been involved in a cold-fusion experiment?
		Phd, Computer Science, Faculty at Carnegie Mellon
		School of Comp. Sci.
 
   6.  (optional) Where do you live and work? (city, state/province, country)
		Pittsburgh, PA
 
   7.  From 1=not at all important to 5=very important, rank the importance
       of the network cold fusion information...
       A.  1
       B.  5
 
   8. At this time, are you a regular reader/subscriber of sci.physics.fusion or
      any mailing list/bulletin board on which cold fusion is discussed?
 (yes/no)
	yes
 
   9. (optional) Append any comments you deem appropriate:
	Everything I heard about the MKF series of experiments & Droege's
	refutation of them came from the net.  I consider this the very
	best example of the net at work.  The FPH series of
	experiments still haven't been resolved, yet, in my opinion,
	but I'm losing hope they will be resolved favorably.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.27 / Jon Webb /  cancel <WEBB+.92Feb27093955@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU>
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <WEBB+.92Feb27093955@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 14:48:50 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.28 /  fusion@zorch.S /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 15:24:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenfusion cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.28 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 672 papers, 85 patents).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 672 papers, 85 patents).
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 15:25:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
you might think this is a bit thin but, for one thing, it's Friday, and for
another, my last posting left the "Total in Section 2" unupdated, as well as
the date, and I've felt bad about it. It should be OK now. The two papers
below will not tell us much, certainly not the Polish one, being just a
general talk. Seeliger has written quite a lot by now, and here reiterates his
confidence that cnf might be real, from theory. The numbers don't quite make
it but he waves his hands at some further possible enhancements. He is, of
course, part of a team that has in fact measured neutrons, so it's not just
armchair stuff.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 28-Feb. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 672
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gajewski R;                             Postepy Fiz. 42 (1991) 85 (in Polish).
"Fuzja, nadzieja czy iluzja?"       (Nuclear fusion, hope or illusion?)
** Prof. Ryszard Gajewski, who works for the DOE in Waszyngton, USA, gave a
talk to the Polish Academy of Science in 1989, on fusion. This is an account
of the lecture. Most aspects of fusion, including hot, cold, muon catalysed
and ion beams, are discussed. No references.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeliger D;                                    Acta Phys. Hung. 69 (1991) 257.
"Theoretical limits of nuclear fusion in condensed matter".
** The two dd reactions, and the dp and dt reactions, are considered, with the
main emphasis on the dd --> (3)He + n one. Solid state screening effects are
considered, and it gives enhancements over the D2 gas rate of 1E-63/s by 10-15
- maybe even 20 - orders of magnitude. Dynamical effects and fluctuations give
another 6-8 OOM, and there is a chance of further gain by temperature and
density fluctuations. The bottom line is that rates of 1E-46 to 1E-29 fusions
per dd pair per s are not impossible.                                 Aug-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.28 / John Logajan /  1.48*I*time -- bogus?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1.48*I*time -- bogus?
Date: 28 Feb 92 00:07:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Tom Droege writes:
> Measure gas flow.  Looks like 100% efficient electorlysis. +/- 5%.
 
> 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.
 
I'm having problems reconciling the above two statements.  Presumably
there is a correlation between the quantity of gas generated per second
and the input electrical current density (I).  You say you are getting
all the gas expected, but then you imply that the gas contains less than
1.48*I*(some time factor) total energy when it is recombined.
 
How can this be?  I mean, either X volumes of O2 and H2 contain 1.48*I*time
units of energy or they never did.
 
If the ratio of current (I) to gas volume is changing, then everything
again makes sense -- that is, less gas is produced than assumed.  But if
the gas is all there, and it still comes up with an energy deficit, then
the 1.48*I*time function is and always was wrong.
 
Yes?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.28 / Jon Webb /  Re: 1.48*I*time -- bogus?
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 1.48*I*time -- bogus?
Date: 28 Feb 92 18:25:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992Feb28.000721.10339@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
 
   I'm having problems reconciling the above two statements.  Presumably
   there is a correlation between the quantity of gas generated per second
   and the input electrical current density (I).  You say you are getting
   all the gas expected, but then you imply that the gas contains less than
   1.48*I*(some time factor) total energy when it is recombined.
 
   How can this be?  I mean, either X volumes of O2 and H2 contain 1.48*I*time
   units of energy or they never did.
 
If the gas is cooler than expected then it would contain less energy,
right?
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.29 / D Arthur /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 29 Feb 92 02:59:43 GMT
Organization: grayhawk; Des Moines, Iowa public access unix; 515/277-6753

Well some other non-conventional (i.e. not funded by the big guns)
research mentioned in an old issue of Omni mentioned these works:
 
- Robert Golka : Fireball fusion using Tesla coils to create ball
                 lightning that would confine the fusion electrostatically.
 
- Bogdan Maglish : Migma, a device that used boron as a base to collide
                 nuclei with converging paths.
 
- Robert Bussard : Riggatron and subsequent copper alloy based magnetic
                 confinment schemes that is economical and comparatively
                 cheap when looking at TFTR and JET costs.
 
Not mentioned in Omni (that I am aware of) is Paul K. and the PlasMak
system.  What is happening by these crews of pioneers or where did they
have to stop?  Any more details emerge in the press lately?  (Since Jan. 1990)
 
Thanks...
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.29 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:23:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Kristoffer Eriksson writes:
>it should be expected that a theory is not abandoned immediately when
>some contradicting observations are made.... My impression is that many
>people mistakenly believe that "the scientific method"... prescribes a
>straight path from falsification to abandonment of a theory....
Precisely one of the reasons for writing my book. I cite pundits of
science, including social scientists, who define the scientific method in
such simple terms. I demonstrate with plenty of examples that this is not
true to actual practice; including for example the statement by Eddington
that one shouldn't believe the results of experiments until they have been
confirmed by theory...
But I go further than that the usual description of the scientific method
is too simplified. I maintain that NO description of scientific method
that bases itself only on considerations of logic and method can be an
accurate and adequate one. How would you explain the following:
1. Why modern science dates from 17th century Western Europe?
2. Why the progress of science involves periodic _replacement_ of view-
points (paradigm shifts) rather than steady growth with modification?
3. Can you offer a definition that enables one to distinguish from science
what is not science and what is pseudo-science; in such a way that
reasonably intelligent people applying the definition to particular
contemporary instances would come to agreement? Would it have worked with
cold fusion? With polywater, N-rays, spiritualism, parapsychology,
ufology, acupuncture, ball lightning?
4. Why philosophers of science have been unable to agree, despite more
than half a century of attempts, on a definition of science that is based
solely on logic and method?
So yes, I believe that an understanding of how the scientific community
operates is a necessary part of the definition of science. I believe the
best descriptions have so far been given by John Ziman, FRS, solid-state
physicist before he turned science-sociologist, in PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE;
RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE; INTRODUCTION TO SCIENCE STUDIES, in particular.
No, I do not hold with those sociologists who claim that because science
is a social activity therefore scientific knowledge is no more reliable
than any other sort of knowledge. Yes, I do believe that scientific
knowledge approximates some things in the real world--to varying and
unknown degrees--because in the long run, which may be very long indeed,
reality exerts primacy over theory. I don't think "sociological
description" is inherently unworthy, no matter the ill repute many
sociologists bring to it.
Please read SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AND THE MYTH OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
(University of Illinois Press, 1992, official publication in March or
April). European distributors are University of Illinois Press, c/o Trevor
Brown Associates, 1st Floor, Dilke House, Malet Street, London  WC1E 7JA,
England; 71-436-1874; FAX 71-436-1868.
|===================================================================|
|     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:
cuddy29 cudenBAUERH cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.29 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:24:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I'm planning to write an article using the cold-fusion episode as an
illustration that misconceptions about scientific practice are rife--which
is why there was such a furor aroused by the Fleischmann-Pons
announcement. If chemists and physicists as well as the media and the
public had an authentic understanding of scientific practice, I suggest,
then there would not have been quite so great an uproar.
I would appreciate receiving suggestions as to what exactly it was about
the claim by Fleischmann and Pons that caused so many people to criticize
it or them as unscientific.
|===================================================================|
|     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:
cuddy29 cudenBAUERH cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.02.29 / A Boulanger /  Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF vis-a-vis conventional status quo thinking.
Date: 29 Feb 92 16:50:33 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Feb29.025943.25276@grayhawk.rent.com> siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
(D. R. Arthur) writes:
 
 
   Not mentioned in Omni (that I am aware of) is Paul K. and the PlasMak
   system.
 
 
There also is (was) a similar Ball-lightning approach conducted by
Geert Dijkhuis of the Netherlands. He was using submarine batteries to
create > 150KA currents to strike a ball lightning discharge in a
reaction chamber. The ball lightning structure was thought to be two
back-to-back vortices.  I do not know if he is still doing this.
(The 150 KA figure came form the minimum observed current necessary to
create ball lightning created by current switching equipment on
submarines.)
 
 
There also was a two colliding vortex ring idea that a Dr Wells at the
U. of Miami was playing with in the mid 70's. I was present during
some trial runs of his set-up. It was pretty impressive when the spark
gaps of a huge capacitor bank initated the discharge. This design used
induction to create the plasma rings. (Sometimes it would misfire and
scare the daylights out of you when you did not have your earmuffs
on.)
 
 
Cheers,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Looks like it's over
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looks like it's over
Date: 2 Mar 92 02:00:05
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I don't quite understand.  What you are saying seems to imply
strongly that the recombination energy is less than 1.48*I.  This
would indicate that for some reason (such as the deuterium being in a
below ground state), that there is a process which is consuming some
of this energy.  Sounds like a possible MKF confirmation to me.  (The
next experiment I would try would be to electrolyze the D2O from the
recombiner, and recombine it again.  Whether or not the  energy the
second time is 1.48*I, you have an important result to follow up on.
In one case I would suspect something like an unknown D4 or D8 gas
phase, in the other case, something other than pure deuterium coming
off the cathode.)  In may not lead to a new energy soucre, but it
should be interesting science.
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.02 /  /  What we know about MKF
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What we know about MKF
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 23:59:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some of you seem to think that I have refuted MKF.  This is not true.
I have done several rounds of experiments which indicate enough problems
to me that I have decided to go back to P&F type experiment.
 
My results would seem to indicate that there could be a problem with the
calorimetry, or that there is less gas than expected from 1.48*I, or that
the gas which does come off has less than 1.48*I heating value, or all or
none of the above.  Further it is obvious to me that complex chemistry can
be taking place which requires long running times to eliminate.
 
Whatever is going on is probably worth looking at or we all could have
quickly provided an explanation.  But not by me as there are better people
(those out of work chemists who have to work as computer programmers) to
explore this phenomina.
 
Meanwhile, I am faced with the problem of what to say when venture capitalists
call and ask if they should invest money.  I tell them it is hard and difficult
work, and therefore worthy of support.  What would you say?  They want me to
either tell them there is nothing there, and therefore they should save their
money; or that it is a sure thing and they will make millions.  But even this
kind of answer can hurt the researcher seeking financing.  i.e. lack of a
strong positive answer causes them to hold on to their money.
 
So technical problems generate moral problems.  It is always thus.  Next time
I get such a call I will refuse to say anything unless they pay me to render
an opinion.  Then at least Milton Friedman will be proud of me!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.02 / John Logajan /  Cold pump or accounting error?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold pump or accounting error?
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 21:07:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) says:
>In one case I would suspect something like an unknown D4 or D8 gas
>phase, in the other case, something other than pure deuterium coming
>off the cathode.)  In may not lead to a new energy soucre, but it
>should be interesting science.
 
Expanding upon this, (by the way, Droege was running H and not D in
his MKF experiments) it could perhaps be O3-On?  or  H3-Hn? or some
combo HxOy.   The only requirement is that this strange gas has
a chemical energy storage somewhere between H2 + O2 on the high
end and H2O on the low end.  These sorts or reactions would simply
result in less than 1.48*I energy being carried away, say 1.1*I
or some nearby figure.  The there is no reason to invoke cold pumps
or sub-state hydrogen.  (see my other post.)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.01 / John Moore /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 1 Mar 92 15:18:46 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <199202291602.AA16169@ames.arc.nasa.gov> ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
 writes:
]I would appreciate receiving suggestions as to what exactly it was about
]the claim by Fleischmann and Pons that caused so many people to criticize
]it or them as unscientific.
 
Well...
  The paper was written in a sensational style - the math gave very impressive
numbers that, when scrutinized more closely, were derived from a much smaller
effect.
  Crucial information (surface poisoning agent, electrode preparation) was
reportedly left out of the paper.
  The nuclear science measurements that were done were very poor and has since
been discredited.
--
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:
cuddy1 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.02 / John Logajan /  Droege invents cold pump?  (speculation)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege invents cold pump?  (speculation)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 19:19:32 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I base this latest speculation on the following assumptions, as stated
or implied by Tom Droege's experimental work.  (Inspired by Robert I.
Eachus's D4/D8 post.)
 
1.) Electrolysized gases H2 and O2 are produced in correct quantity for
    the electrical input current.
 
2.) De-combination end is net exothermic (produces more heat than is
    accounted for by input energy, and losses due to H2 and O2 creation.)
 
3.) When re-combination end is thermodynamically coupled to de-combination
    end, net reaction (minus electrical input energy) is zero balance.
 
 
This sounds like a cold pump to me -- even though the mechanism for
transporting the cold isn't apparent.  It suggests a further test, does
the re-combination end, tested in isolation of the de-combination end,
result in a local endothermic reaction?
 
If I were to speculate even further, and accept the Mills Farrell notion
of sub-state hydrogen, then a possible cold transport mechanism appears.
 
The sub-state hydrogen gas bubbles its way to the re-combination end of
the apparatus.  There it recombines with O2 to form H2O *AND* it picks
up the missing thermal energy from the local surroundings to restore the
hydrogen back to its normal state.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.04 /  Attas /  Exo or Endo?  A metallurgist comments.
     
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Exo or Endo?  A metallurgist comments.
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 19:49:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My colleague Roger Dutton has been following the debate on the cold fusion
email list with some interest.  I asked him if he had any comments he would
like to add regarding the thermodynamics of metal hydriding, and he was
pleased to provide the following.  He can be reached through me by email, or
directly by regular mail at the same address as me:
 
==================
       Michael Attas          Analytical Science Branch
       Pinawa, Manitoba       AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories
       Canada  R0E 1L0        (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited)
                                     (204) 753-2311 Ext. 2796
       attasm@wl.aecl.ca
 
==================
 
 
There have been several postings  recently on the exothermic or endothermic
nature of hydrogen (deuterium) absorption in metals.  It is the sign of the
heat (enthalpy) of solution that  distinguishes hydride forming metals from
non hydride forming  metals.    In  the  former,  when the concentration of
dissolved hydrogen exceeds the  terminal  solid solubility, a hydride phase
is precipitated; in the  latter,  a  molecular  gas bubble is precipitated.
The exothermic absorbers are  hydride  formers, e.g., palladium, zirconium,
titanium.    They  have   high  solubilities,  decreasing  with  increasing
temperature.  The endothermic absorbers,  e.g., platinum, iron, copper have
low solubilities, increasing with  increasing  temperature  and do not form
hydrides.  Nickel (and  a  few  other  metals)  is  anomalous in that it is
usually an endothermic  absorber,  except  that  it  can  form a metastable
hydride under some circumstances, e.g., at high pressure.
 
Heat is  evolved  when  hydrogen  is  absorbed  by  the exothermic (hydride
forming) metal: heat is  absorbed  in  the  case  of the endothermics.  The
normal sign  convention  requires  the  enthalpy  to  be  negative  for the
exothermic  absorber.    However,  some  care  must  be  taken  in  drawing
conclusions from this fact.  Heats of solution are usually measured for the
case where  the  source  of  hydrogen  is  gas  (at  fixed temperatures and
pressure).  The first step in  the  absorption process is for the molecular
hydrogen to dissociate.  This  is  an endothermic (heat absorbing) process,
the heat of dissociation, of about 52 k cal/mol, being included in the heat
of solution of hydrogen  into  the  metal.    With  respect to the relative
enthalpy state  of  a  hydrogen  atom  internal  or  external  to the metal
lattice, we must use  the  "reduced"  heat  of  solution.   For the case of
palladium, where the normal heat  of  solution is about -8.4 k cal/mol, the
reduced heat of solution is about  -60.4 k cal/mol.   For the case of iron,
where the normal heat of solution is about +6.7 k cal/mol, the reduced heat
of solution is -45.3 k cal/mol.    Thus,  on  this basis, the solubility of
(atomic) hydrogen is exothermic for both  palladium  and iron.  It seems to
me that this distinction is important  for the case of deuterium absorption
in an electrolysis cell.   The  1.54  volt  correction normally made to the
cell potential to take into  account  the enthalpy of electrolysis, is with
respect to the production  of  deuterium  (and oxygen) gas, i.e., molecular
deuterium.   However,  at  the  cathode,  the  electrolytic  reaction first
produces atomic deuterium, before molecular association (exothermic) occurs
to form the gas bubble.  It  is  the atomic deuterium which is absorbed and
the  appropriate  heat  of  solution  is  then  -60.4 k cal/mol,  not  -8.4
k cal/mol, and the 1.54 volt  correction  is  not the appropriate factor to
use when there is  a  net  uptake  of  deuterium.   The non hydride forming
metals would "produce" heat too (-45.3 k cal/mol for iron).
 
Questions have been raised with  respect  to the dependence of the enthalpy
of solution on the concentration of  deuterium in the palladium lattice.  A
good discussion on the underlying physics  of this, in the two-phase field,
is given by Flanagan and Lynch, J. Phys. Chem. 79 (1975) 444.  A maximum in
the enthalpy is predicted  at  H/Pd  of  about  0.5.    This  is due to the
balancing  of  two  opposing  effects,  namely  the  attractive interaction
between dissolved  hydrogen  interstitials  (the  basic  driving  force for
hydride formation)  and  the  filling  in  of  the  electronic  d  band, in
accordance with the  protonic  model.    As  the  concentration exceeds the
maximum, the enthalpy  of  absorption  becomes  less  exothermic.   This is
supported by the experimental data  (up  to  H/Pd = 0.8) of Kuji et al., J.
Phys. F: Met. Phys. 13 (1983)  1785.    As  pointed  out by Rock et al., J.
Electroanal. Chem. 293 (1990) 261,  when  the d bands are completely filled
(at H/Pd = 0.6) and the subsequent electrons  must enter the s and p bands,
the hydride phase is analogous  to  the noble metals, which absorb hydrogen
endothermically.  It seems to  me  that  this conclusion is consistent with
the fact that a higher hydride  (beyond  the beta phase) does not exist, in
contrast to other hydride forming systems such as zirconium and titanium.
 
A more recent experimental study of  the enthalpy (and entropy) of solution
and dissolution in the alpha,  alpha  plus  beta,  and beta phase field has
been reported by Flanagen et  al., Metal-Hydrogen Systems, Elsevier Sequoia
1991, Vol 1, p 42.   They  compared  the  case of hydrogen and deuterium in
palladium, using pressure-composition  isotherms  and calorimetry, with the
cold fusion scenario specifically  in  mind  (no excess heat was detected).
(Note that some experimentalists  express  the  enthalpy in units of energy
per mol of H2 and others per mol of H, or per gram atom.  There is a factor
of two difference, which can be  confusing.)  At infinite dilution, i.e., a
D/Pd ratio of zero,  the  enthalpy  of  solution is about 4.8 k cal/mol D2.
This increases through the alpha  phase  field  to a plateau value of about
8.3 k cal/mol D2,  which  remains  constant  through the (alpha+beta)-phase
field.  As we enter the beta phase, the enthalpy goes through a sharp peak,
to about 10.2 k cal/mol D2  at  D/Pd  of  about 0.63, decreasing rapidly to
about 5.8 k cal/mol  D2  at  D/Pd  of  about  0.76.    Note  that these are
exothermic and have not  been  corrected  or  "reduced", by the enthalpy of
deuterium dissociation, as discussed above.  As the cold fusion experiments
are normally run in the  100%  beta-phase  field, it is these latter values
which apply  and  indicate  a  decreasing  exothermic nature (extrapolating
towards endothermic behaviour) as the concentration increases, as discussed
above.
 
In summary, the trend  towards  an  endothermic  absorber is not a "dubious
extrapolation",  but  quite  reasonable   in   my   view,  being  based  on
experimental data and theoretical  understanding.    However, to enter this
regime requires the H/Pd ratio to  exceed  about 0.9.  At room temperature,
this requires a fugacity equivalent to a hydrogen gas pressure in excess of
10 GPa, Hemmes et al., Phys.  Rev.  B,  39 (1989) 10606 (achievable only in
diamond anvil cells).  The high pressure, necessitated by the steep rise in
the pressure-composition isotherm  in  the  beta-phase field, is consistent
with a metal tending towards  an endothermic absorber, characterized by low
solubility.  What's more, the extra  deuterium may precipitate as a bubble,
with an internal pressure sufficient to  break  the material apart.  I have
not seen  any  totally  convincing  demonstrations  that  the required high
fugacities (or deuterium  loadings)  can  be  actualized in electrochemical
cells, see Bockris and Subramanyan, Electrochim. Acta 16 (1971) 2169.  Even
if they were, the  enthalpy  of  absorption  is only mildly endothermic and
decomposition of the beta phase (the exothermic process proposed by Rock et
al.) would quickly place the H/Pd ratio back into the exothermic absorption
region, terminating the postulated "thermal runaway".
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenattasm cudfn cudlnAttas cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.002 / Brendan Miller /  A request (J R. Oppenheimer).
     
Originally-From: brendan@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Brendan Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A request (J R. Oppenheimer).
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 17:49:56 EST
Organization: Princeton High School, Princeton, New Jersey

    I am writing a report on J Robert Oppenheimer and his physics
for my physics class and would appreciate your assistance in my
research. Specifically, if you knew Mr. Oppenheimer in any
capacity, responses to the following questions in any form you
prefer would help me greatly. You need answer only the question you
wish to address, but of course I prefer answers to all questions
that apply to your relationship with him. If you prefer to answer
free-form, without respect to the questions, feel free to do so.
Furthermore, if there are questions you would like to answer that
are not stated, please include them.  I guarentee you full credit
for all responses I use and I thank you in advance for your effort.
Responses can be mailed to:
               brendan@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 
1) Your current name, location, and occupation. (Necessary if you
    would like credit for your responses.)
 
2) In what capacity and during what period did you know Mr.
    Oppenheimer?
 
3) What are your impressions of him as a man?
 
4) What are your impressions of him as a physicist?
 
5) What do you see as his greatest accomplishments, either in
    or out of physics?
 
6) Please describe your feelings and/or recollections associated
    with Mr. Oppenheimer and his securty hearing.
 
7) Please describe your feelings and/or recollections associated
    with Mr. Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb.
 
Thank you again,
 
          Brendan Miller  :  brendan@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us
DISCLAIMER: Author bears full responsibility for this message.
DISCLAIMER: Disembodied gutteral noise need not make sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbrendan cudfnBrendan cudlnMiller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.03 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 22:04:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On another list, we were told that John R. Huizenga, COLD FUSION: THE
SCIENTIFIC FIASCO OF TEH CENTURY, has been published by University of Rochester
Press, price $45
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBAUERH cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.04 / 	FNALD::DROEGE  /  Trying again
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE        3-MAR-1992 18:02:01.68
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trying again
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 04:44:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE        3-MAR-1992 18:02:01.68
To:	GOV%"fusion%zorch%@ames.arc.nasa.gov"
CC:	DROEGE
Subj:	Looks like "accounting error" to me.
 
The one thing I am willing to state for sure on my MKF experiment is that
the calorimeter balance was less with the recombiner in the calorimeter
than with it outside.  The last run was recombiner outside - inside -
outside.  When outside with the 1.48*I correction the balance was larger
than when inside without the 1.48*I correction.  This had been done several
times before, but the last run was performed with longer periods (a day or
more) in each condition.
 
Every effort was made to keep everything else the same.  Tubing length, etc.
One difference pointed out by Mills is that when the recombiner and the mercury
bubbler were inside they were at 55 C while when they were outside, they were
at 23 C.  Should only make the recombiner more efficient, but the mercury
bubbler might be doing something awful.  What happens when hot H2 and O2 are
bubbled through mercury?  Whatever it might be has to do something with heat
for a day or more.
 
So how does the reaction know where the recombiner is located?  My bet is that
the recombined gas does not produce the expected heat.  I have done cell
outside and recombiner inside the calorimeter, but this is not satisfactory.
I need to build a second calorimeter.
 
Note, since I grouse at others for not making error statements, I give the
outside-inside-outsid experiment 10 sigma based on the known calorimeter
calibrations.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.004 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Droege invents cold pump?  (speculation)
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege invents cold pump?  (speculation)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 00:22:57 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Mar2.191932.27840@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>I base this latest speculation on the following assumptions, as stated
>or implied by Tom Droege's experimental work.  (Inspired by Robert I.
>Eachus's D4/D8 post.)
>
>1.) Electrolysized gases H2 and O2 are produced in correct quantity for
>    the electrical input current.
>
>2.) De-combination end is net exothermic (produces more heat than is
>    accounted for by input energy, and losses due to H2 and O2 creation.)
>
>3.) When re-combination end is thermodynamically coupled to de-combination
>    end, net reaction (minus electrical input energy) is zero balance.
>
>
>This sounds like a cold pump to me -- even though the mechanism for
>transporting the cold isn't apparent.  It suggests a further test, does
>the re-combination end, tested in isolation of the de-combination end,
>result in a local endothermic reaction?
>
>If I were to speculate even further, and accept the Mills Farrell notion
>of sub-state hydrogen, then a possible cold transport mechanism appears.
>
>The sub-state hydrogen gas bubbles its way to the re-combination end of
>the apparatus.  There it recombines with O2 to form H2O *AND* it picks
>up the missing thermal energy from the local surroundings to restore the
>hydrogen back to its normal state.
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
I raised this possibility before here, but then realized that Thermodynamics
seems to contradict this possibility. To suck heat from colder region and
put it in hot region always (as far as I know) requires additional work to
be done on the system.
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.04 /  Britz /  RE: What we know about MKF
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: What we know about MKF
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 14:36:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I need to remind you lot of Ockham's Razor: "Do not needlessly multiply
entities" - or, in other words, use the simplest possible explanation.
 
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes
>Some of you seem to think that I have refuted MKF.  This is not true.
>I have done several rounds of experiments which indicate enough problems
>to me that I have decided to go back to P&F type experiment.
>My results would seem to indicate that there could be a problem with the
>calorimetry, or that there is less gas than expected from 1.48*I, or that
>the gas which does come off has less than 1.48*I heating value, or all or
>none of the above.  Further it is obvious to me that complex chemistry can
>be taking place which requires long running times to eliminate.
 
and eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) then speculates
>... Sounds like a possible MKF confirmation to me.  (The
>next experiment I would try would be to electrolyze the D2O from the
>recombiner, and recombine it again.  Whether or not the  energy the
>second time is 1.48*I, you have an important result to follow up on.
>In one case I would suspect something like an unknown D4 or D8 gas
>phase, in the other case, something other than pure deuterium coming
>off the cathode.)  In may not lead to a new energy soucre, but it
>should be interesting science.
 
and al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) further multiplies entities:
>eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) says:
>>In one case I would suspect something like an unknown D4 or D8 gas
>>phase, in the other case, something other than pure deuterium coming
>>off the cathode.)  In may not lead to a new energy soucre, but it
>>should be interesting science.
>Expanding upon this, (by the way, Droege was running H and not D in
>his MKF experiments) it could perhaps be O3-On?  or  H3-Hn? or some
>combo HxOy.   The only requirement is that this strange gas has
>a chemical energy storage somewhere between H2 + O2 on the high
>end and H2O on the low end.  These sorts or reactions would simply
>result in less than 1.48*I energy being carried away, say 1.1*I
.. etc.
 
What I think Tom Droege is saying that he has not disproved M&F's theory, or
their experiment, just that he has failed to confirm it. It seems to me that
the simplest explanations for this failure are that either the effect does not
exist and/or Tom's measurements were not sufficiently accurate to draw a
conclusion. To invoke unlikely chemical species is to violate Ockham's Razor.
As John Wanklyn once said in a posting: "should we not be considering these
mundane possibilities first, before..." - my memory fails me here but you get
the point.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.04 / Russ George /  Cold Fusion Autor Honored
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Autor Honored
Date: 4 Mar 92 04:25:41 GMT
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958

Gene Mallove, author of the fine cold fusion book "Fire From Ice" has
been nominated for a Pulitzer prize for his efforts.  A worthy nomination
Headlines in Japan today read "The Boom Reborn Low Temperature Fusion"
"Heat Generation is thousands of Times Greater Than Chemistry"
"Neutrons Not Appearing"
Perhaps Takahashi's work is gathering some momentum.
 
Congratulations Gene.  I think Doug Morrison owes you a case of wine.
 
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.04 / Jorge Stolfi /  Peltier effect and "anomalous heat"
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peltier effect and "anomalous heat"
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 02:14:55 PST
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

    > [John Logajan:] This sounds like a cold pump to me -- even
    > though the mechanism for transporting the cold isn't apparent.
 
I remember a couple of postings to this bboard suggesting that the
"anomalous heat" in the cold fusion experimetns could be somehow due
to the Peltier effect.  Would that do it?
 
I suppose that the Peltier effect *can* indeed produce an apparent
"anomalous heat" in such experiments, in several ways.  Unfortunately,
I do not know enough to tell whether the effect is big enough to be
measured, much less to explain the positive results.  (In fact, I
can't even tell whether it would have the right sign!)
 
Nevertheless, this looks like a perfectly good excuse to exercise my
Basic Usenet Right, namely waste a sizable share of the net's
bandwidth with a gross display of my ignorance; so here are it goes...
 
First, the facts (?):
 
  When current flows through the junction between two different
  materials, it typically causes the junction to absorb or emit heat.
  The sign and magnitude of this heat flow depend on the two
  materials, and the direction and intensity of the current.  This
  phenomenon is called the Peltier effect.
 
  The basic formula of the Peltier effect is W = (p_A - p_B)*I, where
  W is the thermal power released or absorbed at the junction (watts),
  I is the current (amperes), and p_A, p_B are the so-called Peltier
  coefficients of the two materials (measured in thermal watts per
  ampere, i.e.  volts).
 
  A trivial consequence of this formula is that the combined Peltier
  heating or cooling of two or more consecutive junctions (say, from
  material A to B and then from B to C) is equal to that of a single
  junction between the first and last material (A to C).  In
  particular, in any closed circuit the total Peltier heating/cooling
  of all junctions is zero.  This property is nice because it allows
  us to compute the total Peltier heating in a complicated system
  (e.g., a P&F cell) even if we don't know what is inside it.
 
  Note that the Peltier heating is independent of, and adds to, any
  Joule (resistive) heating that may be going on at or near the
  junction.  For one thing, the Joule heating is a volume effect,
  whereas the Peltier heating/cooling is a surface effect concentrated
  at the junction.
 
  Another manifestation of the Peltier effect is the Thompson effect:
  a current flowing through a homogeneous conductor whose temperature
  is not uniform will either heat it up or cool it down (in addition
  to the normal Joule heating).  The heat produced or absorbed per
  unit length is proportional to I*(dT/dx)*(dp/dT), where I is the
  current, dT/dx is the temperature gradient, and dp/dT is the
  derivative of the material's Peltier potential with temperature.
  (Think of the whole conductor as a gradual junction between two
  different "materials" with different Peltier potential, namely "hot
  metal" and "cold metal")
 
  In most (?) ordinary situations, the extra heating/cooling due to
  the Peltier effect goes unnoticed; first, because it is usually
  swamped by Joule heating, and, second, because it is usually
  canceled by an equal Peltier cooling/heating at another nearby
  junction.  For instance, if we attach a nickel-alloy resistor to a
  battery by means of two copper wires, and put the entire resistor
  inside a calorimeter, the heating we will measure is exactly what is
  predicted by the Ohm/Joule law, W = V*I.  There will be some
  Peltier heating and cooling happening at the two copper-nickel
  junctions, but the extra heat released at one junction will
  exactly cancel the heat absorbed by the other junction.
 
  However, if only one end of the resistor is inside the calorimeter,
  or if we replace one of the copper wires by a wire of a different
  metal, then we *should* measure (at least in principle) an "anomalous"
  heating or cooling effect, on top of V*I.
 
  Depending on the materials, the Peltier effect may be quite
  noticeable.  Some semiconductors (bismuth telluride, for example)
  have Peltier potentials of a volt or so, positive or negative.  They
  have been used to build refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners
  --- somewhat expensive, but perfectly workable.
 
Well, this is about as far as my knowledge goes.
Now for some wild speculation:
 
  In the "classical" P&F cell, the current flows from a copper wire
  to a platinum anode, then through the complicated chemical soup
  inside the cell, then to the palladium cathode, and then to another
  copper wire.  Both the copper/platinum and copper/palladium junctions
  lie outside the calorimeter; by the cancellation principle, everything
  inside the cell should be equivalent (as far as Peltier is concerned)
  to a single platinum/palladium junction.  So, we should expect to
  measure in addition to the Joule heating V*I, an "anomalous" Peltier
  heating or cooling given by (p_Pt - p_Pd)*I.
 
  Unfortunately, I suspect that this effect would be too small to
  explain the anomalous results of cold fusion.  I believe that the
  Peltier potential of most metals is on the order of 1-10 millivolts,
  so the Peltier heating of the Pt-Pd junction is at best on the order
  of 1% of the total power consumed in the cell.
 
  I wonder whether the typical "cold fusion" calorimeters are
  sensitive enough to detect this effect.  The experiment should be
  rather easy: take a P&F style cell, replace the electrolyte by an
  equivalent resistor connecting anode and cathode (inside the
  calorimeter, of course), run a current through the cell, and check
  whether the heat measured is indeed V*I.  By the cancellation
  principle, the extra heating or cooling due to the Peltier effect in
  the Pt-resistor-Pd system will be the same as that of the whole
  Pt-electrolyte-Pd system (or, for that matter, of a single Pt-Pd
  junction).
 
  Even if the Peltier effect for the Pd-Pt junction is negligible, the
  story may not end here.  Note that, inside the cell, the current
  goes through at least two main junctions between dissimilar
  materials, namely platinum-electrolyte and electrolyte-palladium.
  It is quite possible that these two junctions show large (but, of
  course, almost opposite) Peltier effects.  In that case, the current
  would be actively pumping heat from one electrode to the other.
 
  This internal heat flow could easily mess up the calorimetry.  For
  instance, recall that in the classical P&F cell the anode was a thin
  Pt wire, while the cathode was a thick Pd bar that extended half an
  inch or so out of the cell.  Now, suppose that the Peltier
  potentials are such that heat is released at the Pt-electrolyte
  junction, and absorbed at the electrolyte-Pd junction.  Then the
  cathode will get colder than the solution, and that will reduce (or
  even reverse) the loss of heat from the cell to the environment
  through the cathode's exposed end.  At the same time, the Pt anode
  will get hotter than the solution; but because of its small diameter
  it would not be able carry much heat out of the cell.  The net
  result is that the electrolyte will get hotter, until the extra heat
  flow through the cell walls matches what would normally be lost
  through the cathode.
 
  Moreover, note that the electrolyte-Pd junction at the cathode is
  actually two consecutive junctions: electrolyte-PdD and PdD-Pd.
  If the Peltier effect is pumping heat from the latter to the former,
  that too would tend to cool the cathode and heat up the electrolyte.
  (Anyone knows the Peltier potential of palladium deuteride?)
 
  In either case, any heat pump that affects the temperature
  distribution inside the cell is likely to result in a calorimetric
  "constant" different from the one measured at calibration (with no
  current, hence no heat pump).  In that case, the energy-balance
  computations based on the latter would show an anomalous "excess
  heat" (or "missing heat") that is not actually there.
 
  Apart from the heat loss through the cathode, an internal heat pump
  may also affect the heat loss through the evolved gases.  Note that
  the two electrodes produce different gases in different amounts.
  So, if the Peltier effect is pumping heat from one electrode to the
  other, in the right direction, the evolved gas mixture may be
  significantly cooler than the solution.  Again, if this cooling is
  not taken into account, the computations will show an "anomalous
  excess heat".
 
  Again, I don't know whether these internal heat pumps are strong
  enough to be measured, let alone to explain the "anomalous heat"
  reports.  In any case, I suppose it would be easy to test this
  hypothesis experimentally.  For instance, one could use a hollow Pd
  cathode, and check whether the equilibrium temperature inside it is
  significantly lower or higher than that of the surrounding
  electrolyte.  Any takers?
 
    Jorge Stolfi
    Department of Really Cool Fusion
    DEC Systems Research Center
    stolfi@src.dec.com
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: My employer obviously does not endorse any of this nonsense.
 
	      Another common feature of the recollections concerns
      the sense of urgency with which people set about repeating
      Deryagin's experiments.  The methods looked so simple and did
      not require expensive equipment.  [...] In contrast with space
      research, which was then flourishing and which required the
      battalion approach, one- or two-man teams could make significant
      contributions.
			   -- Felix Franks, /Polywater/ (1981)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.05 /  /  Thanks to Roger Dutton
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks to Roger Dutton
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 00:52:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Roger Dutton's article on heat of absorption of hydrogen in metals is an
example of this media operating at its best.  i.e. an expert oblerves
neophytes flubbing around in the muck and gives them the difinitive word.
Thank you.  I will use the numbers to check my next experiment.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.04 / Tom DeBoni /  SISAL Workshop Announcement - corrrected syllabus
     
Originally-From: deboni@fernando.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: SISAL Workshop Announcement - corrrected syllabus
Date: 4 Mar 92 17:46:57 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 
	[ ATTENTION News Group Moderators:
	[ This is the corrected version of a workshop announcement
	[ which is intended for any who do scientific or numerical
	[ programming or who are interested in very high performance
	[computing or parallel programming. If you feel strongly that
	[ it is inappropriate for your news group, I will accept your
	[ judgement. If you feel it is approppriate, thank you for
	[ including it.
	[ T. M. DeBoni (deboni@diego.llnl.gov)
 
                          A SISAL Workshop
 
		      (Corrected Announcement)
 
                      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. Let expressions
 
   4. If expressions
 
   5. Functions
 
B. Afternoon Laboratory
 
   1. Introduction to SISAL Software
 
   2. Programming exercises
 
Day 2
-----
A. Morning Lecture
 
   1. Arrays and Records
 
   2. For initial expressions
 
   3. For expressions
 
B. Afternoon Laboratory
 
   1. Programming exercises
 
   2. Students can begin working on their codes
 
Day 3
-----
A. Morning Lecture
 
   1. Foreign language interface
 
   2. Advance program examples
 
   3. Performance and implementation issues
 
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:
cuddy4 cudendeboni cudfnTom cudlnDeBoni cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.05 /  Britz /  RE: Exo or Endo?  A metallurgist comments.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Exo or Endo?  A metallurgist comments.
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 14:31:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
>My colleague Roger Dutton has been following the debate on the cold fusion
>email list with some interest.  I asked him if he had any comments he would
>like to add regarding the thermodynamics of metal hydriding, and he was
>pleased to provide the following.
 
Please thank Roger Dutton for this valuable information; I certainly will be
chasing up that Flanagan reference in Metal-Hydrogen Systems (must be a new
journal?). Dutton's last point makes sense, though: the heat given off by
super-equilibium loaded deuteride decomposing (as suggested by, e.g. Pauling)
cannot amount to much, as this stops again when the loading goes down to the
normal level.
 Good stuff, all of it - except one point, which I fear will cause some
confusion; the bit about the 1.54 V not being applicable, because it is D
atoms that get absorbed, not D2 gas. Dutton gives us the two enthalpies, -8.4
kcal/mol for D2 absorbed and -60.4 kcal/mol for D. Before you seekers of
excess heat get out your calculators and work out that this means 1.54 V *
60.4 / 8.4 = 11.1 V, and so subtract I*11.1, please remember that in
thermodynamics, the pathway does not matter. The enthalpy change for a
reaction is the sum of the enthalpies of the final state, minus that for the
initial state. The 1.54 V comes from the break-up of (heavy) water into D2 and
O2 gases, and it does not matter what intermediate reactions there might be.
During the loading phase, the D2 gas that might otherwise be evolved, gets
absorbed by the Pd and this complicates the story. When this process is
complete, you get a steady state (with some D2 missing), and from this point
onwards, the I*1.54 correction applies.  If you want to count calories during
loading, again the D-atom intermediate is not relevant. The overall reaction
is then (simplifying to PdD0.5, i.e. a D/Pd loading of 0.5)
                D2O + 4Pd --> 4PdD0.5 + 0.5 O2
and the reaction enthalpy is simple to calculate. Mind you, is doesn't happen
that way, the actual individual steps are quite complicated. You will
undoubtedly get local heating and cooling in various parts of the cell and if
you are relying on, say, a single thermistor, you might get strange results.
In a well stirred cell in a reasonable calorimetric setup, it is the heat of
the overall reaction that is measured.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Trying again
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trying again
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 07:03:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
Tom Droege writes:
>My bet is that the recombined gas does not produce the expected heat.
 
If it is because the re-combiner is producing something other than water
(i.e. not giving up all the stored chemical energy) then MKF is still
standing.
 
If it is because too little gas, or other than H2 or O2 gas (too little
energy transport) then MKF is just an accounting error -- or a heat
pump of some sort.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.05 /  /  Reply to Jorge Stolfi
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jorge Stolfi
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 20:47:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jorge Stolfi has posted a long note where he speculated on possible Peltier
effect source for the "anomalous heat" experiments.
 
As old analog computer (late 50's) designers we worried about such effects.
All leads to our calorimeter come through a constant temperature gap which
is held to 0.001 C or better.  All the leads are the same material.  The
potential of each lead is measured by a separate "potential lead" which
makes contact only in the gap.  The other end of the potential leads are
also held at a constant (but different) temperature, so we believe that
all temperature effects are cancelled according to Jorge's nice discussion.
 
We do the experiment suggested by Jorge Stolfi regularly as part of the
calibration of our experiment, though not always in the configuration that
he suggests.  The last MKF experiment, for example was started by running
the cell in the calorimeter without exectrolyte.  Then the electrolyte was
added.  While not exacly his proposal, most of the thermoelectric junctions
were present during the cell empty calibration.  There was even a resistor
between the anode and cathode (but outside the cell - with the cell operated
at zero current so that this did not contribute heat).  It is always very
tricky to do these things exactly right the first time.  The experiments
are so long that one does not always want to take time to do them over because
of a remotely possible error - i.e. the thermoelectric junction configuration
was not just right.
 
As to the speculation that P&F cells are somehow pumping heat out of their
leads, I give it the same probability that DD fusion is taking place.  It
would require a pretty good Peltier device to move the required amount of
heat.  In spite of great effort in the 60's, the best Peltier devices are
not very good, a few percent efficiency.  I would more suspect errors in
calorimetry.  I finally set up a conduction type Dewar calorimeter to try to
check its linearity.  I find that by my standards it is awful.  With a good
Dewar, time constants are of order 16 hours, requiring 3 days for a 1%
measurement.  With a high conduction cell, time constants are still hours and
now the requirements on the thermometers make accurate measurements difficult.
 
So the most creditible work to me is done in closed systems i.e. the SRI
flow calorimetry, or my kludge.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.06 /  /  Another try for help
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another try for help
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 05:24:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are starting another round of P&F experiments.  We plan to machine more
slices out of our Engelhard "coin" bar.  Does anyone out there want to
join our collaboration and make silver alloy Pd?  We can machine, we can
even make "lost wax" molds for you to cast into.  But we do not have good
facilities to melt under inert atmospheres etc.  Someone with a Mett. lab?
Also someone interested in looking at cathodes after they have run and
particularly those that we think (Ha!) show heat.  Some of you out there have
big fancy machines.  From time to time we also have gas samples.  Distance is
not a problem.  UPS and FedEx seem to go everywhere you might be.  The last
such request brought responses only from programmers - but I admit we mentioned
data analysis, and you will hear from us when we get some new data worth looking
at.
 
Does anyone out there work with his hands anymore?  We can furnish most
materials needed, i.e. Pd bar, and can buy anything reasonable so you don't
feel bad about snarfing up stuff from your institution.  But this is after all
legitimate research and your institution should want you to do it.  Still it
is "frontier science" as described by Henry Bauer in Fusion Digest #206.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.05 / Dave Stephenson /  Nova Fusion
     
Originally-From: daves@sun470.geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson (Geophysics))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nova Fusion
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:36:21 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa

There was an interesting line in an article on laser research at
Livermore Labs in Aviation Week in Feb 21st (?) issue. In
describing the NOVA interial fusion system for nuclear weapons
simulation the 100 KJ laser shot on a Deu-Trit pellet was said
to produce 'many times the system's input energy.'
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendaves cudfnDave cudlnStephenson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.05 /  marki%jrs@ics. /  My view of the "forest"...(was "...status quo thinking)
     
Originally-From: marki%jrs@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My view of the "forest"...(was "...status quo thinking)
Date: 5 Mar 92 13:44:16 GMT

 
 
In article <1992Feb27.085719.21105@coplex.com>, chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
> marki%jrs@ics.uci.edu writes:
>>
>>Dear Mr. Sites,
>>
>>must have touched a nerve...
>
> [My flaming nonsense, and Mark's kind reply removed]
 
not necessarily nonsense, chuck; your feelings have some justification.
having been involved in the scientific research field for a number of years,
i have seen the level to which it has degraded...at least part of it...
especially now that funding is drying up.
 
ONE THING PEOPLE MUST REALIZE IN ANY COMPETITIVE SYSTEM IS THAT WHEN THINGS
START TO GET TOUGH, THE ANIMALS INVOLVED WILL BEGIN TO DO THINGS THAT THEY
NORMALLY WOULD NOT DO.  If we didn't have some form of laws and ethics,
this world would not be a very nice place to live!!!!  In fact, the human
animal would have probably not gotten this far had it not been able to
establish ethics/morals/honor/principles...hmmmm, wonder if that's the
reason other advanced civilizations died out???? [could go on, and on about
this, but won't as it is not appropriate for this group...]
 
One more observation from a "big picture" person...
 
Very curious that CNF, Ball lightning, Sonoluminescence, and other science
anomalies have at least 2 of the following 3 things in common,
 
1) the system is far-from-equilibrium.
2)  "    "    is nonlinear at that point.
3)  There is an energy flux present.
 
Read "Order Out of Chaos" by Ilya Prigogine/Isabelle Stengers.
They make a pretty strong argument for the possibility of a spontaneous
ordering occuring in a normally random/chaotic system given the above 3
conditions are present.
 
Could it be that current theory ONLY APPLIES FOR SYSTEMS THAT ARE WITHIN A
CERTAIN RANGE FROM EQUILIBRIUM?  Outside, or at the limits of the range,
all bets are off, and some other physical entities come into existence that
"equilibrium" theory cannot explain.  The resonance occuring in the
Sonoluminescence experiments is pushing the system to, or beyond, the normal
range of physics; the extremely hi potentials in thunderstorms (greater than
1**6 volts/meter) and the loading of the electrodes in CNF are also pushing
the systems involved to the extremes...Nikola Tesla's work in Colorado
Springs involved Very Hi potentials (millions of volts/thousands of amps),
and he regularly produced ball lightning.  Doesn't take a PhD to realize
that all the above phenomena involve at least 2, and probably all 3 of the
conditions stated by Prigogine/Stengers.
 
==========================================================================
What other unusual phenomena occur in systems that satisfy the above
conditions??? anyone care to contribute possibilities???  Please briefly
explain how the three conditions are met in any examples you can think of.
Give the physical parameters (temp/pres/potential/current/etc) involved
and the values that were necessary before the anomalies showed up.
==========================================================================
 
Couple this with the postulated existence of the vacuum energy/quantum
fluctuations/zero-point energy/whateverthehellyouwanttocallit, and we have
a virtual sea of energy that pervades ALL SYSTEMS, even at the atomic level.
Within the range of conditions that current theory was developed under, we
see various "physical" manifestations (i.e. electrons, neutrons, etc.) that
represent local orderings of the vacuum energy (VE); with little or no
exchange going on between the VE and these local orderings.  Now, when a
system is pushed to the limits, CURRENT THEORY NO LONGER APPLIES, and we get
new types of local orderings (ball lightning) that come into existence, but
eventually dissipate since the above three conditions do not remain in effect.
Won't go into the possibility of some kind of exchange/induction/conversion
of VE into some other form of energy, as this'll really give the physicists
indigestion.  From the estimates by Feynman and Wheeler, the VE is an
EXTREMELY dense form of energy, albeit chaotic.  We'll let your imagination
take it from there... ;-)
 
The current laws of physics (referring to the conservation of energy and
entropy) were developed from experiments under a given range of physical
parameters and before the concept of the VE.  Thus, THEY ONLY APPLY UNDER
THAT RANGE and any closed system that does not involve the VE.  If we
consider the possibility of some kind of energy/momentum transfer between
the VE and other forms of energy, then the idea of a CLOSED system MUST BE
REDEFINED and boundary limits put on the various physical parameters of a
system if current theory is to apply.
 
..just throwing some long pondered observations out into the "chaos" of
the net, and lets see if any new "local orderings" come out of it!  ;-)
 
hope this causes a few of you to lose some sleep!
 
>>>>Are people's lives worth risking for something that is nothing more than
>>>> "pathological science"?
>
>   Yes Mark you did hit a nerve. I am not a fan of the pathological science
> label that some folks are trying to stick on cold fusion.  That's my beef.
 
>   Anyway Mark, it was just bad timing. I had just read a real piece of
> TRASH in the Jan92 American Scientist about pathological science that
 
yep, read it too, and had a bit of a problem with it also...in fact, i've
read a few other things in science magazines, granted not referred journals,
that really got to me...
Discover, Jan 92, pg.49, article on "heavy" neutrinos,
 
"Physicists don't actually see the neutrino; they *KNOW* [my emphasis] it
 exists, though, because they have no other plausible way to account for a
 consistently small amount of energy that's lost from the radioactive atom
 and its by-products during beta decay."
 
this is a perfect example of the carelessness that is common in the popular
science press, and which does have an effect on those in the field, especially
the ones still in school.  Physicists don't KNOW it exists; they BELIEVE it
exists according to theory (lets say they postulate it exists, OK?  Hope this
keeps all those really sensitive ones from flaming me for implying that science
isn't that far from religion!).  Well, maybe science has no other plausible
explanation because current theory has some holes in it (which it does...).
Now whether this is a hole, or if theory (THE MODEL) is accurate, is an
ambiguity (sp?) that may or may not be worthwhile spending $ on to remove that
ambiguity.  But don't go saying science KNOWs something, when it actually
doesn't.  Oh boy, here come the philosophical types on whether its possible
to even "know" anything.
 
If you look at theory and the whole scientific
endeavor, its searching for an accurate MODEL (theory) for explaining facts
and observations, using what tools it has (e.g. math/logic/deduction, etc.).
BUT THE THEORIES ARE JUST THAT, A MODEL (albeit, in many cases very accurate)
AND NOTHING MORE.  We have very accurate models for the electron, but we don't
really know what it is.  We believe that if the model is accurate, then it is
an accurate reflection of the physical reality.  So, at the fundamentals of
scientific thought, IS a belief system.  Granted, its a belief system that is
not simply based on faith, but on experimental/theoretical "proof"; based on
alot of rational, and mostly objective, thought.  (there i go stirrin the pot
again...as he puts on his asbestos suit! :-)
 
just some food for thought...
 
> The big objection I have with
> labeling something pathological science is where does one differentiate
> between the defense of ones convictions (wrong as they may be) and what
> is pathological?  Suppose the concept is right, but the method of proof
> is wrong?  Is it still pathological?  Suppose the method of proof is
> correct, but the theory is wrong.  Is this pathological?  If there are
> valid science questions being pursued why make it more difficult by
> labeling it pathological?
 
good points...couldn't agree more!
 
>    Ok, I was a bit insulting in my off the cuff flame.  For that
> I do oppolgize sincerely.  But I also feel that before one flipently
> labels an experiment as pathological science, one must have an
> understanding about what's wrong and can demonstrate the error.
 
I think you did miss my point, Chuck.  I was being a bit sarcastic in my
original posting when i said,
 
    Are people's lives worth risking for something that is nothing more
    than "pathological science"?
 
NO, people's lives are not worth risking for this...and EPRI isn't about to
spend scarce resources ($) on "pathological" science; it may not be "cold"
fusion, but there are, apparently, enough interesting results, that EPRI
feels VERY comfortable sinking more money and manpower into it despite
further risk of life.  Would really like to look at the instrumentation
data right before the "rapid disassembly of the pressure vessel."
 
>    Well, anyway you now have the reasons behind my flamey follow up.
> I'm sorry I was personal, and I'll try to keep my dialog focused to
> more scientific matters.
>
> Have fun,
> Chuck
 
no problem; the open forum on this network is hopefully here to stay!
I view this network as a *TREMENDOUS* pool of knowledge, and more
importantly, new IDEAS, and I respect the people who take the time to
contribute their life's knowledge and wisdom.
 
Have a problem with the dogmatic scientists, though...in fact, they bother
me more than the religious fanatics since they are getting sucked into the
same kind of dogmatic thinking that they so vehemently abhor!
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjrs cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.06 /  lsste7290@nsul /  Request for information
     
Originally-From: lsste7290@nsula.DNET.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request for information
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 21:44:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings from Louisiana!
 
	I need a little bit of information for a research project I'm
involved in currently. It's a time corrollary dealing with gravitational
fields. Could someone send me information (i.e. equations) about time dilation
in intense gravitational fields? Also, I would like any additional theoretical
information dealing with time dilation in say, the strong force interaction,
the weak force interaction, or the electromagnetic interaction. Actually,
if you could tell me anything about time, I'd like to know.
	If and when I finish, I will submit a summary of the project on this
forum. Reply over fusion mail forum or E-mail, but I don't know everything
about E-mail so I don't know if the address is correct.
		Thank you for your time,
			Michael Stewart
			Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts
 
E-mail address:
  lsste7290%7669.dnet@east.gsfc.nasa.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlsste7290 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.06 / Robert Cain /  MKF?
     
Originally-From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MKF?
Date: 6 Mar 92 21:10:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Could someone kindly give a concise description of MKF as opposed to
P&F for those of us who follow this group peripherally and have missed
it?  I have tried to glean it from context and have failed.
--
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
 
"Systems should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
                                                    A. Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrcain cudfnRobert cudlnCain cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.08 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Trying again
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trying again
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 09:37:58 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
 
 
>Tom Droege writes:
>>My bet is that the recombined gas does not produce the expected heat.
 
>If it is because the re-combiner is producing something other than water
>(i.e. not giving up all the stored chemical energy) then MKF is still
>standing.
 
>If it is because too little gas, or other than H2 or O2 gas (too little
>energy transport) then MKF is just an accounting error -- or a heat
>pump of some sort.
 
  Not necessarily so, but interesting speculation.  MKF sub-ground state
hydrogen theory is interesting, but there are some key problems. For example
what is the width of the sub-1s1 orbitals?  If they have a width then at some
point they should overlap.  Then there is the transparancy of these
orbits which respect to the trapped EM field that might cause thier
spontanious decay.  If sub-1s1 states are possible by the EM considerations
are they stable?   Then there is the whole conceptual poblem of where
light comes from. Is it simply the trapping and release of an EM quanta,
or is light created during state transitions.  The QED thing.
 
  Those are some of the problematic areas I see in the theory.  This is
not true of thier experiment. There is certainly exothermic process
going on there but if its not catalyized sub-1s1 hydrogen, it has to be
chemical.  I think what Tom was trying to point out with the problem of
excess gasses is that it indicates a chemical process may be taking place,
and if this is occuring, then the power function P=(V-1.48)I no longer
applies.  Specifically if one is recombining the gasses to achieve P=IV.
I am not a chemist so all I can do is speculate on the process. Here
are some of the canidate chemical processes that might be involved.
 
[1] H2O + (e-) => Habs + OH-         (abs=absorbed in solution)
[2] Habs + H2O + (e-) => H2^ + OH-
[3] Habs => H lattice                (Ni Catalysed H=> H(+) + (e-)  )
[4] Habs + Habs => H2^
[5] 4OH- => H2O + O2^ + 4(e-)
[6] 2H2 + O2 => H2O                  (Recombination)
[7] K2CO3 + (e-) => K2 + CO3-
[8] 2K + 2H2O => 2KOH + H2^
[9] 2K + 2H(+) => K(+) + H2^         (H+ from lattice reaction)
[10] 2K(+) + 2OH- => 2KOH
[11] 2K2CO3 + 2H2O  => 4KOH + 2CO2^ + O2^
[12] K2 + 1/2O2 => K2O + heat
[13] K2 + H2 => 2KH + heat
[14] K + Ni => KNi + heat?
[15] 2CO3 => 2CO2^ + O2^
 
The reactions between between water and potassium are commonly know,
and the reactions are violent and heat producing, however, the quantity of
heat released by the reaction is not.  At least thats what my little bit
of research showed.  If there are any chemists out there that cares to
add a word or two about the kenetics of potassium reactions with water,
it would be appreciated.
 
Because there several reactions which cause the formation of gasses in
addition to the normal electrolysis of water, it could cause all kinds
problems with recombination.  For example if the potassium reacts with
H2O to release H gas, and the carbonate ions, bond to release O2 gas,
in addition to that done by electrolysis, then upon recombination,
there is this amount of transfered chemical energy released that makes
the cell look like it created more heat than it did.  It's a complicated
system thats for sure.  My little bit of speculation for the night
is how long can these reaction proceed before the K is all used up,
or is it somehow being recycled through the system.
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \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:
cuddy8 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.08 / John Moore /  Re: Another try for help
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another try for help
Date: 8 Mar 92 03:58:27 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <920305175955.20800340@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
]We are starting another round of P&F experiments.  We plan to machine more
]slices out of our Engelhard "coin" bar.  Does anyone out there want to
]join our collaboration and make silver alloy Pd?  We can machine, we can
]even make "lost wax" molds for you to cast into.  But we do not have good
 
Have you been able to cast palladium? We tried casting it in a helium
atmosphere using an induction furnace, but it ended up reacting with
the crucible. Have you gotten around that? Unfortunately I know longer
have access to that equipment, so I can't help, but I am curious.
--
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.09 /  Britz /  RE: MKF?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: MKF?
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 15:51:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
>Could someone kindly give a concise description of MKF as opposed to
>P&F for those of us who follow this group peripherally and have missed
>it?  I have tried to glean it from context and have failed.
>--
>Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
 
OK: the shortest answer is the references, which you should be able to get
quite easily:
 
1. Fleischmann M, Pons S, Hawkins M;
 J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989) 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
 "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium".
2. Fleischmann M, Pons S, Hawkins M;      J. Electroanal. Chem. 263 (1989) 187.
 "Errata".
3. Mills RL, Kneizys SP;                          Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.
 "Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate
 electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion".
 
"MKF" really should be "MK", as Farrell is not a coauthor of that paper,
although he does seem to be the spokesman on the net.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.09 /  marki%jrs@ics. /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: marki%jrs@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 9 Mar 92 17:21:53 GMT

 
In article <1992Feb25.165448.11547@newshost.lanl.gov>, mwj@beta.lanl.gov
 (William Johnson) writes:
>
> 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.
 
agreed, this is not at all relevant to s.p.f, but we don't get any other groups
that i could post this to...not even alt.test, or alt.flame !!  :-)
 
 [statements of my posting deleted...]
 
> Well, I *know* that "confirmation of such revolutionary info..., if valid,
> would ... make it past the security administrator."  I was there.
 
With all due respect to Bill Johnson, whose contributions to this group since
its inception have been very informative and valuable...his commenting on
the security practices in the national lab where he makes his living is sort
of like asking a fox to count the number of chickens in the hen-house,
isn't it?  :-)
 
I'm certainly not in a position like Bills, and have never worked at any
similar facility, but would like to make a few comments re: his rebuttal
to my posting...
 
> 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,
 
..the "Facility Security Officer" or FSO; is that a little more accurate?
 
Geez, the title of the position is not the issue.  Its the reason for the
position, as well as the entire security system, that was being discussed.
Any place where work is being done that could be of interest to national
security must have some kind of system in place to control sensitive
information (if its government funded); thats just the way it is...at least
for now.
 
> 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.
 
Alot of non-classified work probably does go on at all of the national labs,
and for this, no security measures would be necessary.  However, there are
at least 2 ways that information of the kind we are discussing can come into
existence:
 
1. researching what already *IS* classified, thus leading to new info that
   needs to be classified.
 
2. non-classified work that happens to "stumble" onto something of interest
   which then needs to be classified, or, stumbling onto something that is
   already known and classified.
 
Maintaining the confidentiality of new info obtained via #1 is easy...but,
it would only be prudent to plan for all possible scenarios, thus, what if a
non-classified line of research were to lead to something new that may have
national security interest?  I would think that the group leader would have
the responsibility to notify the appropriate people so some kind of decision
could be made as to how to handle the situation.  If this procedure was not
followed, then it would be very difficult to maintain the secrecy of important
information that comes up via #2.
 
The groups Bill was aware of were, apparently, under no security guidelines.
However, by the very nature of the place, he couldn't possibly be aware of
whats going on in any classified groups that he was *not* actually working
with...as alluded to in Bill's next statement...
 
> The only time (that I know of) when a CNF paper from here almost didn't get
> out was...
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
need i say more?  ;-)
 
[deleted rest of bills description of one group whose work was almost
 suppressed; not for security reasons, but for quality and reputation of
 work coming out of LANL reasons...]
 
> 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
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
touche'
 
> such confirmation would have been repeated quickly enough at one or another
> private/business laboratory.  Remember that a key ingredient of the original
 
if done at a business lab you can bet any details wouldn't get out; not if they
want to make money on it, which is the whole reason they would have researched
it in the first place...if done at a private lab, it may or may not get out...
depends on the circumstances...
 
> 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!
 
I don't question the validity of the above situation, as it would be easy to
verify by asking bill for the details of where to find the paper.  However,
it really doesn't lessen the validity of my statements since bill is not
exactly in a position to say anything even if he knew...not if he wants to
keep his job.  This is just one of those things that can never (probably) be
resolved, since those on the inside can't tell, and those on the outside will
never gain access to the info to find out for themselves...thus, its an issue
that is probably best put to rest...
 
> 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.
> --
 
fair enough, but...
think you might be a bit "near-sighted" in this case...   ;-)
 
> 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)
 
well, to sum up Bill's rebuttal...
 
it went from "I *know*...", to "(that I know of)", to "I don't think..."
 
nice try bill!!!  :-)
 
now, how many chickens did you say were in the hen-house?
none?
;-)   (sorry, just couldn't resist)
 
usual disclaimer:   my opinions, NOT my employers!
 
sincerely,
 
Mark Iverson
 
PS- really like your .signature quote...who is A. Pope, though?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjrs cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.10 /  nestorm@fedc04 /  Access to information (unclassified)
     
Originally-From: nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Access to information (unclassified)
Date: 10 Mar 92 21:23:05 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Mark Iverson's response to Bill Johnson's post caught my eye -- almost none of
the work being done at "my" national laboratory (Oak Ridge) is classifed, and I
have NO  access to classified information -- so I guess that if this is a
henhouse, I  must be one of the chickens (as in "Nobody here but us ...?")
 
However, those on the outside SHOULD be able to gain access to the most of the
information produced in the course of research at the national laboratories IF
if it isn't classified, since it's all the property of the U.S. Government, and
DOE mandates dissemination of scientific and technical information "as security
patent, contractual, and other DOE policy considerations permit" (DOE Order
1430.2A, if you care). So anyone who wants to go to the trouble of filing a
Freedom of Information Act request, and knows what to ask for, can get at it.
 
I would like to know what Mark's background/current educational status is,
though. I admit that Alexander Pope isn't someone I'd expect the
sci.physics.fusion group to be conversant with, but most English
majors have at least a dim idea of who Isaac Newton was; is it too much to
expect that a few of you (other than Bill, bless him!) recognize the name of
his contemporary?
 
Bonnie Nestor
"The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennestorm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.10 / Daan Sandee /  Re: Access to information (unclassified)
     
Originally-From: sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Access to information (unclassified)
Date: 10 Mar 92 22:47:11 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <10MAR92.16230532@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov>, nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov
 writes:
> Mark Iverson's response to Bill Johnson's post caught my eye -- almost none of
> ....... I admit that Alexander Pope isn't someone I'd expect the
> sci.physics.fusion group to be conversant with, but most English
> majors have at least a dim idea of who Isaac Newton was; is it too much to
> expect that a few of you (other than Bill, bless him!) recognize the name of
> his contemporary?
 
Um, I have to be careful here, because a long time ago on another newsgroup
there was this discussion about the influence of Adam Smith (on computer chip
development, or something), and some guy said hey, who IS this Smith guy
that you are talking about ; and I flamed him good and hard ; and the
newsgroup turned around and flamed *me*.
So, no flames (although Mark's manner of contributing to a discussion is
provoking, to say the least).
Would somebody else recognize A.Pope on this newsgroup ? Let me say this
to Mark (just as apposite as Bill's signature) :
 
   " A little learning is a dangerous thing,
     Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
                                  --- A. Pope
 
No, I'm not an English major. It's not even my native language. And yes,
I also know who Isaac Newton was.
Also, I don't work for a National Lab (they wouldn't let me), so Mark has
no reason to suspect me of being prejudiced.
 
Daan Sandee                                           sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, B-186
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052  (904) 644-4490
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensandee cudfnDaan cudlnSandee cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.11 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 676 papers, 89 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 676 papers, 89 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 19:20:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
here we go again. You note Bruce Lewenstein, who has amassed a cold fusion
archive complete with T-shirts, and, it seems, a huge collection of journal
reports dwarfing my bibliography; he and Baur have written a very useful cold
fusion chronology, indispensible for anyone looking into this affair, both AS
an affair or even its history. I know Bruce watches this list but keeps quiet.
 Bressani et al find Jones-level neutron emissions, using what looks like
being a clean method; might have to add this one to my "quality positives"
list. Lewis of Sweden (a private consultancy it seems) has analysed some
strange coincidences in his (and Skoeld's) previous paper, where some of these
were briefly commented. In two cases, radiation turned off heat events; but
in another, it was associated with one. Work that out if you can.
 The Mizuno et al reckons they have found tritium and that this proves cold
fusion; the measly 50% could, however, be due to electrolytic enrichment. No,
I haven't learned Japanese, it had an English abstract, luckily.
 Then there are four more patents, see for yourselves what delights they have.
 Fred Hapgood has pointed out to me that I don't distinguish between granted
patents and patent applications; he is right. I get these almost 100% out of
Chemical Abstracts, and I mix them freely. Fred reasonably asks whether I have
any way of determining which of these applications make it into proper
patents, and I don't. I am not even sure how an application looks. Does (see
below) "Fr. Demande" mean it's an application? What about "Ger. Offenl."?
Offenlegung means exposure and I don't suppose that can be a final granted
patent. I admit patents are less interesting to me than "real" publications,
my main thrust. Some of them are interesting for experimental evidence they
(occasionally) provide or the novel approach they (rarely) take. Hagelstein's
had a letter to a pair of friends in the middle of it, and this was
interesting, in a different way. Anyway, I am going simply to change the title
of the patents archive, whose name will however continue to be CNF-PAT.
 More stuff coming soon.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Mar. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 676
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bressani T, Calvo D, Feliciello A, Lamberti C, Iazzi F, Minetti B, Cherubini R,
Haque AMI, Ricci RA;        Il Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fiz. 104A (1991) 1413.
"Observation of 2.5 MeV neutrons emitted from a titanium-deuterium system".
** This team recognised the difficulties of low-level neutron measurement and
started, some time ago, to design a suitable detector system. They chose a
time-of-flight system, together with a scattering trick which, although
lowering the sensitivity to 3E-04, had the advantage of almost complete
immunity to background. 3g of Ti shavings were pressurised under H2 or D2 at
up to 2 atm at temperatures from 25-540 degC. The Ti was degassed for one day
at 540 degC. During pressurising, the temp. was cycled up and down. At the
high temps., all gas escaped the Ti, and was reabsorbed during the down cycle.
During the downs with D2, small enhancement of the neutron spectrum around
2.45 MeV were observed; none with H2 gas. Signal averaging of up cycles and
down cycles separately and subtracting these averages gave a much clearer 2.45
MeV peak than reported previously. The intensity amounts to about 13 n/s/g Ti,
or a fusion rate of about 1E-21 fus/pair/s.                      Aug-91/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewenstein BV, Baur W;               J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 152 (1991) 273.
"A cold fusion chronology".
** Science historian-philosophers Lewenstein and Baur have compiled a useful
chronology of key events in the cold fusion saga, starting with Paneth and
Peters in 1926, the 1927 patent application of John Tandberg, some early
speculation on fusion in hydrides; the idea, and its verification, of muon
catalysed cold fusion, the early Jones work, and (now getting denser in time)
the recent events that gave a new special meaning to the term "cold fusion".
There are 163 references, many of them from the press. This paper is an
invaluable aid to anyone studying this science-sociological phenomenon.
                                                                      Jan-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis D;                                 J. Electroanal. Chem. 316 (1991) 353.
"Some regularities and coincidences in thermal, electrochemical and radiation
phenomena observed in experiments at Studsvik on the Fleischmann-Pons effect".
** A previous paper by Lewis and Skoeld reported finding some excess heat.
In that paper, it was noted that the start of temperature excursions occurred
after topping up with fresh D2O, and other workers have also noted this. The
old L&S data is analysed here and it is seen that out of 11 runs showing
excess heat, 9 showed this effect, with a delay time < 15 min (this being the
sampling time). Simultaneously, there was a rise in cell voltage, probably due
to the change in electrolyte conductance. At the time, no neutron emission
flares were found associated with these events. However, now the data has been
compared with solar flare data and one such flare correlated with the
extinction of a thermal event in the cell. To test this unlikely connection,
Lewis placed a (252)Cf neutron source near the cell, and observed the
extinction of another thermal event; in a third case, a thermal event was
accompanied by some neutron emission, i.e. the opposite effect. The first
effect might be consistent with resonance theories, and the second effect with
theories involving the (4)He branch. Cold fusion seems to be indicated by the
level of the thermal events.                                     Jul-91/Oct-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mizuno T, Akimoto T, Azumi K, Sato N; Denki Kagaku 59 (1991) 798 (in Japanese).
"Tritium evolution during cathode polarization of palladium electrode in D2O
solution".
** Tritium in the electrolyte was measured, before and after electrolysis.
There was also a temperature probe at the top of the Pd rod. The cell was
sealed and heated to various temperatures. There were some pressure peaks
lasting a month or so over the 200 day experiment. The tritium level increased
by about 50% and the authors equate this to a fusion rate of 1E-23 fus/pair/s,
roughly in line with Jones+89.                                        Mar-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dufour JJJ;                                Fr. Demande FR 2,655465, 01-Dec-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:70223 (1991).
"Energy source".
** "A method and app. for prodn. of energy by nuclear fusion is described
comprising: filling a body with ions or radical of >= 1 isotopes of H, forming
at least in a part of the body a metal hydride-type lattice; using the above
body as a conductor of a capacitance system inside an elec. circuit, the other
conductor being connected to a source of electricity; and recovering the
energy produced inside the body when elec. voltage is applied". (Direct quote
from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miyanaga S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,226,694, 01-Feb-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:70226 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion based on electrochemistry in ultrasound field".
** "In cold nuclear fusion, in which elec. energy is applied between a pair of
electrodes immersed in a heavy-H2O-filled tank, to cause reaction between the
electrode surface and D, the whole reaction system is placed in an ultrasound
field. The method can improve the efficiency of cold nuclear fusion". (Direct
quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeliger D;                                 Ger. (East) DD 293,147, 12-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:70224 (1991).
"Arrangement for cold fusion in electrochemical cell".
** "The title arrangement comprises a D-contg. electrochem. fusion cell with a
D-oxidizing anode. The evolved gases from the cathode are fed into the anode
where D and O recombine to form D2O. This arrangement reduces the loss of
heavy water during the electrolytic fusion of D". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiesener K, Seeliger D, Ohms D, Rahner D, Meister A, Schwierz R, Wuestner P;
Ger. (East) DD 293,148, 12-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:70225 (1991).
"Arrangement for cold fusion in electrochemical cell".
** "The title arrangement comprises a D-contg. electrochem. fusion cell and a
D-O-fuel cell. The evolved gases from the fusion cell are fed into the fuel
cell where D and O recombine to form D2O. The thus produced D2O is fed back to
the fusion cell so that there is no loss of D2O during electrolytic fusion of
D". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.12 / Mark North /  Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
     
Originally-From: north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would YOU do with Livermore?
Date: 12 Mar 92 03:12:29 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1261%jrs@ics.uci.edu> marki%jrs@ics.uci.edu writes:
>
> [ long ramble in which he accuses Bill Johnson of being unobjective
>   and demonstrates his total ignorance of just about everything ]
 
I'm really not in the mood to go through your silly post and point out
line-by-line your mistakes and innuendo. However, if you want to press the
point, I will when I am less busy. In the mean time why don't you take your
ignorance over to alt.conspiracy where you will get a warm welcome and much
satisfaction, I am sure. Should I put a smiley at the end of this like you
did after each of your disengenious snide remarks. I don't think so.
 
Have a nice day.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Access to information (unclassified)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Access to information (unclassified)
Date: 12 Mar 92 07:25:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <10MAR92.16230532@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov> nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov
 writes:
>Mark Iverson's response to Bill Johnson's post caught my eye -- almost none of
>the work being done at "my" national laboratory (Oak Ridge) is classifed, and I
>have NO  access to classified information -- so I guess that if this is a
>henhouse, I  must be one of the chickens (as in "Nobody here but us ...?")
 
Nevertheless, there is a big el_stinko about a whistle blower from down your
way and how certain "information" was not forth coming, and the consequences
of being too free with other information.
 
>However, those on the outside SHOULD be able to gain access to the most of the
>information produced in the course of research at the national laboratories IF
>if it isn't classified, since it's all the property of the U.S. Government, and
>DOE mandates dissemination of scientific and technical information "as security
>patent, contractual, and other DOE policy considerations permit" (DOE Order
>1430.2A, if you care). So anyone who wants to go to the trouble of filing a
>Freedom of Information Act request, and knows what to ask for, can get at it.
 
Hmmmm!  You think the FIR works?  Should right.. it's the law..  of course
it does.  Okay now use it,..  to get information on "near-sensitive" but
unclassified information - - say from a DoD/DoE lab.  Let's say you have an
interest in high pulsed power application for fusion ..  with very very fast
rise times .. Z- or toroidal pinches or plasma focus..    Then see how far
you get.  Of course, to get the full effect of your possible difficulty,
make the request through a lawyer friend, or if you do it yourself, try
using your home address with an ", Esq." behind your name.  If you are
caught I disavow any personal knowledge of you or way you would go to such
extremes to bother the bureaucracy.
 
Seriously, I've seen too many outright *deliberate* falsehoods that
certain of such information does not exist, even though I have visted
the site, reviewed the project and know the researchers.
 
>Bonnie Nestor
>"The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing."
 
I'll bite .. what?
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222         |
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP         (301) 445-1075 |
| Paul M. Koloc **********  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.12 / Eamonn Wilmott /  SUPERNET INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
     
Originally-From: supernet@nic.cerf.net (Eamonn Wilmott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SUPERNET INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
Date: 12 Mar 92 21:41:50 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

 
BULLETIN:  SUPERNET INTERNATIONAL welcomes all to a new information
service for high-performance computer users!
 
SUPERNET INTERNATIONAL, a division of Supercomputing Review magazine,
was launched January 31, 1992.  Currently, the service carries:
--profiles of leading research projects in the world
--jobs available in the HPC field
--software libraries
--daily news, analysis, commentaries and newsletters
--forums to exchange information and opinions with other leading
  scientists worldwide
--online issues of Supercomputing Review magazine
--information on the Internet and other features.
 
We're continually improving the system, so we heartily encourage users to
look into SUPERNET and give us your feedback!  Thanks.
 
To access SUPERNET,
telnet: supernet.ans.net or 147.225.1.51
and please read ALL screen instructions carefully.
 
For more information please call (800) 234-7977.  Thanks again and please
feel free to post this notice in other appropriate forums.
 
Eamonn Wilmott
President
SUPERNET INTERNATIONAL
Thanks so much again.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensupernet cudfnEamonn cudlnWilmott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.16 /  SCHULTZ@CDDIS. /  Contemporaries
     
Originally-From: SCHULTZ@CDDIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Contemporaries
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 14:41:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In article <10MAR92.16230532@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov>, nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov
 writes:
> ....... I admit that Alexander Pope isn't someone I'd expect the
> sci.physics.fusion group to be conversant with, but most English
> majors have at least a dim idea of who Isaac Newton was; is it too much to
> expect that a few of you (other than Bill, bless him!) recognize the name of
> his contemporary?
 
                 "Nature and nature's laws lay hidden in night,
                  God Said 'Let Newton Be!', and all was light"
                                                    Alexander Pope
 
Dan Schultz
Hubble Space Telescope Flight Operations
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt Md.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenSCHULTZ cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.17 / F Heylighen /  An Appeal to Support Researchers in Flanders
     
Originally-From: fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be (Francis Heylighen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An Appeal to Support Researchers in Flanders
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 14:37:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleague,
 
We are spreading this message in order to ask colleagues abroad to help the
actions of Flemish researchers against drastically reduced funding. The
funding for basic research in Belgium, and especially in its northern
region of Flanders, has been getting worse and worse during the last years,
and has become especially dramatic lately. Since the group of researchers
in Flanders is small and not very well organized as yet, and since it has
no political power, we have decided to appeal to friends and colleague
researchers abroad to help us in our protest against these measures, by
sending us  letters of support.
 
In Belgium the main institution that provides employment and grants for
researchers is the "National Fund for Scientific Research" (NFWO/FNRS).
There is a wide consensus within the Belgian academic world about the
outstanding quality of this institution, as well with respect to its
administrative functioning, as to the high scientific level of its
researchers.  Hence, the recent measures to cut funding for the NFWO cannot
be justified by any criticism of the institution.
 
As you may know, Belgium is gradually evolving towards a federal structure
with two main independent regions of about 5 million inhabitants each: the
French-speaking Wallonia, and the Flemish-speaking Flanders. This process
has recently led to a split-up of the National Fund into a French and a
Flemish part. Presently the French part is being strenghtened, financially
and structurally. This was to be expected since Belgium as a whole was
spending much less money on basic research than comparable countries.
According to the OECD, less than 0.5 % of GNP is spent by government for
research in Belgium, compared to around 1 % in the neighbouring France,
Holland, Germany and UK (and even more in Japan and the USA). Therefore the
effort of Wallonia to increase funding can be seen as an attempt to adapt
itself to the European level.
 
It came as a complete surprise and shock then, when the Flemish government
decided to cut funding for the Flemish part of the NFWO, and that to such
an extent that its internal function must collapse. In the short term, the
measure implies the complete disappearance of long-term research contracts,
the diminishing of short term contracts, and a radical reduction of about
80 % in the funding for general working costs and equipment of major
research centers.  In the long term the only effect can be the factual
disappearance of basic research in Flanders.
 
Practically this means that young researchers, however bright they are,
will be unable to continue their career in academic research. The situation
in the universities is not much better, and there are no ways of escape
there either. In the recent past (10 to 20 years ago) relatively many
people have received a permanent research contract because of university
expansion. This means that they will stay there until their retirement. In
these times of budget cuts, however, there is practically no money left to
create new positions, and hence the younger generation simply does not have
any outlook for continuing research, unless they emigrate. And this in
spite of the fact that the average level of research in Belgium is quite
high, as testified by famous research centers such as the one created by
the Belgian Nobel-prize winner Ilya Prigogine.
 
Though the Belgian and Flemish governments do have important budget
deficits, that is not a sufficient argument to cut spending on research.
First, as outlined above, the funding in Belgium is already much below what
could be expected from a highly developed country. Second, what politicians
do not understand is that the development of knowledge is the single most
important factor determining economical and societal development, and as we
are moving towards a post-industrial information society that factor is
gaining in importance with every day that passes. Cutting funding on R&D
can only keep down future economic growth and, hence, income for the state.
Third, in spite of the budget deficit, Belgium (and especially Flanders) is
still one of the richest regions in the world, with an economy that has
been doing quite well recently and a per capita income higher than those of
France or the UK, and only slightly below that of Germany.
 
The  reasons for saving money in research rather than in other domains are
to be found in short-sightedness, lack of understanding of what research
really means, and the lack of political power of researchers as a group.
When train engineers, factory workers, or nurses are unhappy, they go on
strike, and everybody is immediately alarmed. If researchers would go one
strike, nobody would notice, unless many years later. But then it would be
too late to repair the damage. So we are looking for other ways to attract
the attention of the public and the politicians to our grievances.
 
For example, on February 6, for the first time in Belgian (and perhaps
World?) history there has been a public demonstration of some 5000
researchers in Brussels, protesting against the reduced funding. We have
further been organizing several panel discussions with famous scientists
(such as Prigogine) and politicians. Until now the actions have had success
insofar that the new Flemish government has taken a more positive attitude
and has promised to study the problem. But no concrete measures have been
taken as yet concerning the reduced funding. So we need to keep putting
pressure on them.
 
That is the reason we are making an appeal to international solidarity. We
ask all our colleague researchers to write a letter in which they express
their solidarity with our movement, stressing the importance of an adequate
funding for basic research, and protesting against the cutting down of the
NFWO. If you have had personal contacts with researchers employed by the
NFWO, we would ask you to emphasize the quality of their work, which was
made possible by the NFWO.
 
>From people with experience in R&D management, we would like to hear about
statistics, models or research findings showing the impact of research on
economy and society in general, to be used as arguments to convince
politicians that investment in basic research is not lost money. We would
also be interested in suggestions on how we might continue our actions.
 
We would  ask you to distribute the present message to all people you know
who might be interested, so that an as a large as possible public of
researchers is reached.
The letters of support (and possible further reactions) are to be sent to
"Focus Research. Belgian Association for the Advancement of Science", a
recently founded group representing all researchers, which will distribute
them to the press and to politicians. The address is:
 
Focus Research
Triomflaan 63
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium
 
Phone: + 32 - 2 - 647 77 13
Fax: + 32 - 2 - 647 31 57
 
We thank you in advance for your support.
 
Sincerely,
 
Francis Heylighen
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
Dr. Francis Heylighen                                Systems Researcher
PO, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B -1050 Brussels, Belgium
Phone:+32-2-6412525; Fax:+32-2-6412489; Email: fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be
_______________________________________________________________________
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfheyligh cudfnFrancis cudlnHeylighen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.17 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 680 papers, 89 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 680 papers, 89 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 21:12:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello everybody,
 "More stuff coming soon", I said a week ago - and here it is. Among the items
we have, at last, the Liaw et al, until now in everybody's mouth from
conferences, THE hot item it seemed. Well, see for yourself whether you
believe the huge excess heat figures; in my book, the figures in the paper
look more like about 25% excess, but they are very clear excesses, and hard to
dismiss. Another quality work with a positive result. Then we have two papers
with mention of p-d fusion - one theoretical (Rosen) and an experimental one
(Babu et al), not all that convincing. Nevertheless these workers found heat
events associated with gamma emission. And then there is Lowther, who says
that cnf is discredited and looks to phase changes for the heat. This seems to
be the flavour of the month, there have been several phase-change arguments
lately, it seems to me.
 Lastly we have a paper by Rousseau as a Comment, in which he uses polywater,
cold fusion and the infinite dilution affair as examples of pathological
science. I have noted before that cold fusion does indeed fit all the criteria
of pathological science; this itself does not, however, prove that it is in
fact pathological science. I got the tip-off for this paper from somebody but
I have forgotten who it was. Sorry, whoever you are, I can't give you credit
here.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 17-Mar. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 680
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Babu KSC, Lalla NP, Pandey RN, Tiwari RS, Srivastava ON;
Adv. Hydrogen Energy 1990, 8(Hydrogen Energy Prog. VIII, Vol. 2), 1051.
"On the formation of palladium deuteride and its relationship to suspected
cold fusion".
** The authors note that it is not always appreciated that the formation of
the metal deuteride is exothermic. They carried out a calorimetric experiment
of their own, and found two regimes: the first, during deuteration, showed
accountable heat (of deuteration); the second, upon full loading, was not so
easy to account for. They also electrolysed in light water, after fully
loading in heavy water, and here found the greatest excess heat, confirming
the theoretical prediction that p-d fusion is favoured. Measurements of gamma
emission also showed greatest deviation from the background for this p-d
system. Cold fusion appears to be confirmed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liaw BY, Tao P-L, Turner P, Liebert BE;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 319 (1991) 161.
"Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd + D system".
** This team used a new approach to a cold fusion electrolysis, employing a
molten salt electrolyte instead of the usual 0.1M LiOD heavy water one. They
perform the electrolysis at a Pd anode [sic] in a LiCl and KCl eutectic
mixture at above 350 degC; the eutectic was saturated with LiD, providing D-
ions in the melt. This strong reductant removes oxide from the metal and is
also the source of deuterium, upon oxidation at the Pd anode. The cathode was
Al, and Li is deposited there. No gases are generated, a decided advantage
from many angles, not least the calorimetry. An isoperibolic calorimeter was
used, with resistance heating for calibration. After the prolonged
electrolysis, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to examine surface
changes on the Pd. The graph of power in vs. temperature shows a consistent
slope during calibration and a much steeper slope for electrolysis; excess
heats are calculated (in an unusual way) as high as 1500% or over 7 MJ/mol D2,
strongly indicating a super-chemical process. There was no correction for the
thermoneutral power, so these figures may be low. Some metals, notably Fe and
Zn were found on the surface afterwards. Some preliminary experiments using
LiH (a possible control) have been carried out without excess heat being
found, and will be reported elsewhere.                           Mar-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowther JE;                        Suid-Afrik. Tydskr. Wetenskap 87 (1991) 17.
"Hot spots in palladium hydride and cold fusion".
** L says that cold fusion has been discredited as a nuclear effect but that
the anomalous excess heat is real and significant. In this article, the author
reflects on Pd hydride and suggests a possible explanation. This is the
segregation of two different phases PdHp and PdHq which form an unstable
mixture at their interfaces and thus, perhaps, local hot spots. These may be
the origin of the anomalous heat.                                     ?/Jan-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen G;                                            Hadronic J. 13 (1990) 255.
"Groundstate thermalization of hydrogen isotopes in certain metals:
enhancement of p+d and d+d nuclear fusion rates by Bethe-Bloch polarization".
** Rosen first calculates the rms displacement of a proton in an octahedral
site of PdH as 0.25 A; then he calculates it again from the ground state
thermalization formula and gets 0.2 A, in good agreement with the first. Then
invoking Bethe-Bloch polarisation for such a proton and for a deuteron, Rosen
is able to calculate fusion rates greatly enhanced beyond those from Coulomb
barrier arguments: up to 1E-20 fus/pair/s. Rosen comments that difficulties in
achieving this experimentally may have to do with inconstancy of ground state
thermalization in porous metals with a high concentration of motile protons
and deuterons.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rousseau DL;                                 American Scientist  Jan-92, p.54.
"Case studies in pathological science".
** Polywater, cold fusion and Benveniste's homeopathic paper in Nature are
used here as examples of PS. The author was himself involved in the first of
these three, and its debunking; he found the impurities that caused the
"anomalous" behaviour of water, i.e. traces of sweat. DLR believes that cold
fusion, like the other two cases, is one of self delusion. There is a good
Johnny Hart cartoon.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.17 /  fusion@zorch.S /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 21:11:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfusion cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.18 /  Britz /  [sic]
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [sic]
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 14:49:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
in my most recent bibliography update, I write in the Liaw et al abstract,
 
>Liaw BY, Tao P-L, Turner P, Liebert BE;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 319 (1991) 161.
>"Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd + D system".
>** This team used a new approach to a cold fusion electrolysis, employing a
>molten salt electrolyte instead of the usual 0.1M LiOD heavy water one. They
>perform the electrolysis at a Pd anode [sic] in a LiCl and KCl eutectic
                                        ^^^^^
etc.
 
Now I take "[sic]" to mean "just like that, I am not making a mistake here".
I have had a gentle rebuke already and expect more. I agree that usually, it
means "ho ho, they made a mistake" but I expected everybody to know it means
what it means. The fact is that this team did indeed use a Pd anode, instead
of the usual Pd cathode. In their case, D is generated anodically (from D-
ions).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.17 / Lyndon Fletcher /  Muon Catalysed Fusion Reactions.
     
Originally-From: etllnfr@bagpuss.ericsson.se (Lyndon Fletcher)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon Catalysed Fusion Reactions.
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 17:13:52 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Cellular Division

Hello all,
          I was wondering what the latest state of research into Muon catalysed
fusion was. Last time I checked the main lines of research where more efficient
muon production techniques and for methods to reduce the "Muon sticking time".
 
What's the state of play now? Has any damage been doe to low temperature
fusion research by the hype given to cold fusion?
 
Lyndon Fletcher
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenetllnfr cudfnLyndon cudlnFletcher cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.18 / T Riedemann /  Re: Contemporaries
     
Originally-From: tmr@iastate.edu (Trevor M. Riedemann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Contemporaries
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 19:19:51 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <920316075651.2e17@CDDIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV> SCHULTZ@CDDIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes:
 
 
>                 "Nature and nature's laws lay hidden in night,
>                  God Said 'Let Newton Be!', and all was light"
>                                                    Alexander Pope
 
                  "It did not last; the Devil howling, 'Ho,
                   let Einstein be!', restored the status quo"
                                                     J. C. Squire
 
 
--
Trevor M. Riedemann    ->  tmr@iastate.edu ->
Iowa State University  ->  Project Vincent ->      Whoever created Unix
Towers Residence Acc.  ->  RA Coover House ->         was a sadist!
I'm a physics major!   ->  Why? Who knows! ->                            ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentmr cudfnTrevor cudlnRiedemann cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.19 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 686 papers, 89 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 686 papers, 89 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 14:38:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
As you see, I've seen the (for me) most recent issue of Fusion Technology and
got 5 papers (including a Letter to the Ed) out of it. Storms weighs in most
heavily with 44 pages and 359 references. The paper is about the experimental
evidence; I count about 60 non-papers (my own definition), i.e. conference
proceedings, private communications and references to Fusion Facts, which I do
not recognise as a journal; of the remaining 300, about 100 (at a guess) are
theory papers. This still leaves 200 real experimentals, and Storms has done a
good job of summarising them. He includes only papers he himself has read, a
good policy - even though this seems to cut him off from non-English ones.
This one, in any case, is a must for anyone serious about cnf.
 Case has an interesting explanation for where the neutrons are, and a sort of
mechanism of cnf. Mayer is unhappy about the Mills and Farrell theory, and the
Mills and Kneizys experiment, in competition with his own theory. Nice to have
a TB arguing with another. Russia and the US get together with Tsarev and
Worledge's paper, only 24 pp, reporting the Provo conference. The authors are
clearly on the Jones et al side. They are not uncritical of the many
suggestions put forward and this one, too, is well worth a read. Finally,
Vaidya invokes coherence (as have others) and this seems to explain the
sporadic nature of cnf, as well as the observed fusion rates, which stretch
from 1E-19 down to 1E-22 or less.
 Ault writes a sort of wrap-up and critices the Williams et al paper, thought
to be one of the pillars of the skeptic community. Hm. Maybe. Then we have one
commentary, passed on to me by Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell.
 My desk is almost clear now, except for a Viet Namese paper, with which I
will need help, my Viet Namese not being quite up to it, I am afraid. Tomorrow
I'll look at the next Chem. Abstr...
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Mar. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 686
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ault MR;                             Radiat. Protect. Managem. 8(3) (1990) 49.
"Cold fusion: the story behind the headlines".
** A run-down, up to about the end of 1990, of the cold fusion story. Ault
rejects Williams et al's (Harwell) paper's rebuttal, criticising it for its
scatter gun approach. He concludes that cold fusion may well be real and needs
further investigation.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case LC;                                        Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 478.
"The reality of 'cold fusion'".
** The fact that the positive results of cold fusion experiments are few in
number and widely scattered is not evidence against the phenomenon, but
instead evidence of a lack of understanding of the required conditions, writes
Case. He then looks at the results of Yamaguchi and Nishioka and concludes
that these can only be due to a nuclear process, most likely d-d fusion. He
proposes a tentative mechanism, catalysed (initiated) by traces of tritium
present in heavy water. D+T fusion releases neutrons, which then catalyse the
main D+D fusion reaction, which releases further tritium, etc. There remains
the lack of neutrons. These might be captured, e.g. by tritium or (3)He, both
present. This leads to suggestions for improving experiments.    May-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer FJ;                                       Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 511.
"Comments on 'Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous
potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion'".
** FJM comments critically on Mills and Kneizys' paper in ibid 20 (1991) 65.
He sets aside the doubtful "theory" (FJM's quote marks) of the authors, but
points out an alternative explanation of the excess heat. This is the effect
on the electrolyte conductivity of the radioactive decay of (40)K present in
all potassium salts. If the conductivity changes, the calorimetry calibration
may be wrong. There is no such effect with Na, which accounts for the lack of
excess heat with sodium carbonate (M&K's control), whereas with Rb there is
the effect (from the (87)Rb), again consistent with M&K's paper. Mayer
suggests the use of Lu, which also has a radioactive isotope but may not fit
with the M&K theory. Finally, in normal cold fusion calorimetry, the
production of tritium may also have this effect on conductivity and should be
watched for.                                                     Jul-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storms E;                                       Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 433.
"Review of experimental observations about the cold fusion effect".
** A review of the experimental evidence for cold fusion as of July 1991.
Storms believes that careful work has shown evidence for heat, tritium,
neutron and helium production. The author has himself read all the papers (he
does not refer to others) and gives a competent and detailed account, complete
with tables and figures. Fractofusion is included. The key ideas in favour of
cold fusion are outlined, such as dendrites (suggesting large voltages but
naming only gradients), or the use of the Nernst equation for an overpotential
(suggesting immense pressures). The paper concludes that the evidence is
overwhelmingly for cold fusion. Of the 359 references, about 200 are real
experimental papers.                                             May-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA, Worledge DH;                         Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 484.
"New results on cold nuclear fusion: a review of the conference on anomalous
nuclear effects in deuterium/solid systems, Provo, Utah, October 22-24, 1990".
** It all started with the Jones group in Utah, say the authors (clearly
defining their loyalties) and this is where this conference was held. The most
important conclusion was that there is a body of quality evidence for the
phenomenon, although it is sporadic and has little to do with nuclear fusion
as understood up to now; hence also the conference name. The paper then
outlines the successful detection of neutrons, charged particles, tritium, and
some correlations (acoustic/electromagnetic radiation (emr), neutrons/acoustic,
protons/emr. The geological evidence, which is the driving force behind the
Jones group's work, is reiterated, such as "natural" tritium, anomalous ratios
of (3)He/(4)He etc. In summary, the phenomena are not normal d-d fusion; the
theory is not yet in line with experiment; the quality of experiments is going
up; widely varying experiments are giving much the same results; the field
deserves wider support.                                          Jun-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaidya SN;                                      Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 481.
"On the possibility of coherent deuteron-deuteron fusion in a crystalline
Pd-D lattice".
** The author proposes that in the PdD lattice with its periodic fields, there
may be coherent interaction between this lattice and the wave-propagated
deuterons, and that this interaction might enhance d-d fusion rates greatly.
The condition for this is that the de Broglie wavelength of the deuterons are
equal to the lattice spacing. This may be the case only sporadically in
polycrystalline Pd and thus may explain the sporadic nature of cold fusion.
Resulting fusion rates are in the observed range. The theory opens the
possibility of optimising the process.                           May-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port O, Carey J, Buderi R, Gross N;              Business Week 2-Mar-92, p.90.
"Cold fusion isn't dead in the water yet".
** A lively summary of the current status of cold fusion. It focusses in
particular on the theory and experiments of R.T. Bush, and those of A.
Takahashi, both of which are highly controversial. Tom Droege's basement
experiments round off this interesting discussion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.19 /  Bauer /       Re: Fusion Digest 223
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 223
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 21:24:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

"sic", as Dieter points out, means "this is the way it was in the original"; it
 is Latin for "thus" or "so" [sic transit gloria mundi, for example].
IN SOME CASES, that makes it seem a snide comment, when what stands in front of
the "sic" is absurd or silly or wrongheaded. But "sic" does NOT inherently have
any pejorative or snide connotation.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfn cudlnBauer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.18 / Charles Lindsey /  BBC Horizon Programme
     
Originally-From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BBC Horizon Programme
Date: 18 Mar 92 10:24:06 GMT

 
There was a BBC Horizon programme last Monday on hot fusion which gave
glowing accounts of JET and the forthcoming ITER project and other such
mega-tokamak/giga-buck projects. Seems if we wait 50 years and spend all the
money we might have otherwise spent on alternative energy sources in the
meantime there could be a really great future in store :-).
 
There was also a good account of inertial-confinement techniques.
 
However, the interesting feature, right at the end, was an account of a
device known as START being built in the UK. Seems it had been built by a
few enthusiasts with left over bits of kit and money from other projects.
Rather than a torus, it confined its plasma "into the shape of an apple".
They showed a picture of an apple with a nice dimple in it, but did not
explain much more. But it reminded me of descriptions of Paul Koloc's
device, or maybe other SPHEROMAKs. Can anyone provide a better description
of what START is and where it fits into the picture.
 
While I am asking questions, here is another that has been troubling me with
inertial confinement. I have seen lots of description of how these huge
lasers are going to focus in on this poor little pellet of deuterium, but
nobody has explained how they are goping to get the energy out of it, if and
when it works. It seems to me that, if there are these elaborate optical
systems to focus in on the pellet, and if the pellet ignites, then those
same optical systems are going to focus all the energy back into the lasers,
which might not be good for them :-). So what am I missing?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.19 / Anthony Siegman /  Power from Laser Fusion? (was Re: BBC Horizon Programme)
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power from Laser Fusion? (was Re: BBC Horizon Programme)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 02:13:32 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <chl.700914246@cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles
Lindsey) writes:
 
>While I am asking questions, here is another that has been troubling me with
>inertial confinement. I have seen lots of description of how these huge
>lasers are going to focus in on this poor little pellet of deuterium, but
>nobody has explained how they are goping to get the energy out of it, if and
>when it works.
 
   This may be the least of the problems.  Note that if a 100 kJ laser
pulse produces an energy gain of 10X, that's 1 MJ per pellet, which is
a few _pennies_ (!) worth of electrical energy.  (1 KWh = 3.6 MJ = 10
cents retail.)
 
  So you have to make the (complex) pellet, build the (enormous)
lasers, drop and position the pellet (to micron accuracy), fire and
focus the lasers (a technological feat), catch all the particle and
radiation energy coming off the pellet (several story high walls of
flowing liquid lithium is one of the methods considered), convert this
to steam (molten liquid lithium heat exchangers?), convert the steam
to electricity in generators (efficiency?), pay the capital and
operating costs, and eventually dispose of the whole radioactive mess
-- for a *fraction of a cent* per pellet and per shot.
 
  The purposes of the Livermore effort have been (a) possible future
power generation, (b) testing and validation of A-bomb design codes
(by applying them to the pellets, not bombs), and (c) studies of
radiation effects (using the pellets as point radiation sources), with
the relative proportions to be attributed to each of these objectives
left as an exercise for the reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.19 / Dave Stephenson /  Re: Power from Laser Fusion? (was Re: BBC Horizon Programme)
     
Originally-From: daves@sun470.geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson (Geophysics))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power from Laser Fusion? (was Re: BBC Horizon Programme)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 16:15:01 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
>In article <chl.700914246@cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles
>Lindsey) writes:
 
>>While I am asking questions, here is another that has been troubling me with
>>inertial confinement. I have seen lots of description of how these huge
>>lasers are going to focus in on this poor little pellet of deuterium, but
>>nobody has explained how they are goping to get the energy out of it, if and
>>when it works.
 
>   This may be the least of the problems.  Note that if a 100 kJ laser
>pulse produces an energy gain of 10X, that's 1 MJ per pellet, which is
>a few _pennies_ (!) worth of electrical energy.  (1 KWh = 3.6 MJ = 10
>cents retail.)
 
>  So you have to make the (complex) pellet, build the (enormous)
>lasers, drop and position the pellet (to micron accuracy), fire and
>focus the lasers (a technological feat), catch all the particle and
>radiation energy coming off the pellet (several story high walls of
>flowing liquid lithium is one of the methods considered), convert this
>to steam (molten liquid lithium heat exchangers?), convert the steam
>to electricity in generators (efficiency?), pay the capital and
>operating costs, and eventually dispose of the whole radioactive mess
>-- for a *fraction of a cent* per pellet and per shot.
 
>  The purposes of the Livermore effort have been (a) possible future
>power generation, (b) testing and validation of A-bomb design codes
>(by applying them to the pellets, not bombs), and (c) studies of
>radiation effects (using the pellets as point radiation sources), with
>the relative proportions to be attributed to each of these objectives
>left as an exercise for the reader.
 
The problems of energy extraction from an inertial fusion reactor
using D-T are only an extreme version of the problems of getting
worthwhile energy out of any D-T reactor. 85% of the energy comes
out as 14 MeV neutrons. These have to be captured in a medium that
will not become radioactive (too much) and will act as a heat
transfer medium. The neutron flux associated with  any D-T reactor
is liable to tear a reaction vessel apart by making it highly
radio active and brittle over a few years. Still a D-T reactor does
not have a large radio active inventory and the fuel ( at least half
of it anyway) can be found in unlimited quantities and without too
much environmental cost. Lithium is prefered as a capture medium since
it transmutes into tritium i.e breeds fusion fuel.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendaves cudfnDave cudlnStephenson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.19 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Power from Laser Fusion? (was Re: BBC Horizon Programme)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power from Laser Fusion? (was Re: BBC Horizon Programme)
Date: 19 Mar 92 19:49:25 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

Even though it's a decade old, I recommend the late Denis Keefe's
survey paper, "Inertial confinement fusion," Annual Review of
Nuclear and Particle Science 32 (1982) pp. 391-440.  If you can't
find it in your library, reply with your snail address and I'll
send you a copy.  This paper and the (aging) references therein
comprise a good start in learning about IFE on a technical level.
 
Read it with a grain of salt when you come to numbers that look
engineering-correlated, such as pulse rate -- we can see through
the fog a bit better now, and the next decade will undoubtedly
bring its own revised numbers.  But the general principles haven't
changed much.
 
One of the more intriguing engineering problems in IFE is related
to the pulsed nature of the reactions.  The reactor will have to
cope with (don't examine the analogy in close mechanical detail)
the shock effects of several dozen sticks of dynamite going off
several times a second.  But we still have awhile :) to figure
this out (the weapons labs will have to confront a version of the
problem if/when one of them gets a laboratory microfusion facility).
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.20 / D Danforth /  Laser confined deuterium
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laser confined deuterium
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 01:50:28 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

>From sci.physics.fusion Thu Mar 19 17:16:27 1992
>From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
>Date: 18 Mar 92 10:24:06 GMT
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: BBC Horizon Programme
>
>...
>While I am asking questions, here is another that has been troubling me with
>inertial confinement. I have seen lots of description of how these huge
>lasers are going to focus in on this poor little pellet of deuterium,
>...
 
Something about the way this was worded triggered the thought that sustained
laser confinement, in the way now being explored with individual atoms, could
be applied to deuterium nuclei. What intensities and light gradients would be
needed to confine two nuclei long enough for violations of expected fusion to
be observed? If several days, weeks, months of confinement are possible then
wavefuntion overlap could lead to observable fusion events. Do the events
occur as predicted by standard quantum calculations?
 
--
Douglas G. Danforth   		    (danforth@riacs.edu)
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS)
M/S T041-5, NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.21 /  Attas /  Roger Dutton on Exo/Endo again
     
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Roger Dutton on Exo/Endo again
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:19:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Roger has pondered these questions again and has a few more comments below.
I'm posting them for him, but I won't be able to get any responses back to
him until April 6 or so.  Cheers!           Michael Attas
 
==================
 
A few questions have arisen as a result of my recent posting on exothermic/
endothermic occluders.  The following responds:
 
1.  I read the Flanagan  et  al.  paper  in a book (Metal-Hydrogen Systems:
    Fundamentals and Applications) of the  proceedings of a conference held
    in Banff, Canada, on September 1990.   After my posting, I noticed that
    the proceedings  were  also  published  in  Journal  of the Less-Common
    Metals.  The paper  is  to  be  found  in volumes 172-174, 1991, p. 42.
    Title is  "Calorimetric  enthalpies  of  absorption  and  desorption of
    protium and deuterium by palladium", by Flanagan, Luo and Clewley.
 
2.  The following  question  was  sent  to  me:  "But  doesn't the critical
    loading depend on the temperature, in such  a way as to give a positive
    feedback?  I.e., a slight decomposition of the beta phase releases some
    heat,  which  raises  the  temperature,  which  lowers  the equilibrium
    loading, which causes more decomposition, which, ...".  The loading (at
    constant fugacity) DOES  depend  on  temperature  - the system response
    follows the phase diagram.  In an exothermic occluder (hydride former),
    the concentration of absorbed  deuterium  will decrease with increasing
    temperature, i.e., deuterium will  be  rejected  from the beta phase to
    the electrolyte.    Now,  a  slight  decomposition  of  the  beta phase
    releases some heat ONLY when the D/Pd ratio exceeds about 0.9, when the
    heat of absorption becomes (presumably) endothermic, as discussed in my
    first posting.   The  temperature  increases,  as  you say, and further
    decomposition occurs.  However,  if  this process moves the composition
    to a D/Pd ratio which is  less  than  0.9,  we are back into the normal
    exothermic heat of  absorption  range.    Now any further decomposition
    will be endothermic, i.e.,  heat  absorbing,  and  hence the runaway is
    terminated.  Thus, when  D/Pd  is  greater  than 0.9, you have positive
    feedback, when D/Pd is less than 0.9 you have negative feedback.  It is
    important to note that  in  the  case  of  desorption, the deuterium is
    rejected from the cathode, where  it  forms  a bubble of molecular gas.
    Thus, the heat of desorption  includes  the heat of association to form
    D2 and the value  obtained  by  Flanagan  et  al.  does  not need to be
    corrected in the manner discussed in  my first posting.  Note also that
    well  into  the  beta  phase,  the  magnitudes  of  the  enthalpies  of
    absorption and desorption (with respect to the molecular gas reference)
    are the same.
 
3.  Deiter Britz posted a cautionary note  on  March  5.  I am in agreement
    with the points he makes on  the  steady  state.  The next bit gives me
    problems.  He writes:
 
    "If you  want  to  count  calories  during  loading,  again  the D-atom
    intermediate  is  not  relevant.      The   overall  reaction  is  then
    (simplifying to PdD0.5, i.e. a D/Pd loading of 0.5)
 
         D20 + 4Pd --> 4PdD0.5 + 0.5 O2          (1)
 
    and the reaction enthalpy is simple to calculate."
 
    I'm not so sure  this  is  so  simple.    One has to use experimentally
    measured  quantities,  such  as  the  heats  of  solution  reported  by
    Flanagan et al.  Experimentalists  measure  enthalpy  changes.   In the
    case of Flanagan, this was for the reaction
 
        =D2 --> D absorbed in palladium          (2)
 
    The issue that I was trying to  address (for the period of loading) was
    how do you use  enthalpies  from  Equation  (2) in absorption scenarios
    such  as  represented  by  Equation   (2)?     I  believe  the  "D-atom
    intermediate" is relevant in this  exercise.    You have to worry about
    the enthalpy involved in  a  distinction  between a source of deuterium
    being D, D2 or D2O.    It  seems  to  me  you  have also to worry about
    whether the 1.54 V correction  is  correct  when you are concerned with
    the distinction  between  forming  D  (for  direct  absorption into the
    palladium) or D2 (produced as a gas bubble).
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenattasm cudfn cudlnAttas cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.21 /  Attas /  Roger Dutton on "runaway" reactions
     
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Roger Dutton on "runaway" reactions
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:25:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here is a second posting from Roger on the hydriding behaviour of metals.
He asked me to leave a gap between the last one and this one, but I can't
resist posting it right away.  Happy Spring!      Michael Attas
 
==================
 
This is a follow up to  the  recent discussions on exo and endothermic effects.
As time  and  thoughts  have  progressed  since  my  original  posting,  I have
reflected further on  the  positive/negative  feedback  issue associated with D
concentrations higher or lower than 0.9.    I  have modified my thinking.  This
was primarily triggered by the  emerging  concern  that  if there is a positive
feedback phenomenon, i.e., the  possibility  of  a  runaway effect when D/Pd is
greater than 0.9, then there would be considerable experimental difficulty with
gross instabilities when loading an  endothermic  metal such as iron or copper.
This struck me as incorrect; not encountered in practice.  I believe, now, that
I have been guilty of  falling  into  my  own  endo/exo  trap of confusion.  To
decrease the confusion and help my  own thoughts, some basic definitions should
first be written down (reiterated):
 
(a)  for exothermic occluders (a fancy word for absorb and retain):
     -  deuterides are formed (beta phase in Pd) at higher concentrations
     -  an increase  in  temperature  causes  a  decrease  in  concentration of
        absorbed deuterium (at constant external pressure) and vice versa
     -  rejection of deuterium  (e.g.,  a  transient  lowering  of the external
        pressure) causes heat to be absorbed and vice versa
 
(b)  for endothermic occluders
     -  deuterides are not formed  (internal  gas  bubbles  are formed when the
        terminal solubility is exceeded)
     -  an increase in temperature causes an increase in concentration and vice
        versa
     -  a decrease in concentration causes heat to be emitted and vice versa
 
(c)  There  has  been  a  rather   loose   use  of  the  word  "decomposition".
     Classically, this would  refer  to  a  process  whereby  a pure beta phase
     undergoes a phase transformation  (decomposes)  to  alpha plus beta.  Note
     that this could occur (e.g.,  a  decrease in temperature moving the system
     from the beta field  to  the  alpha  plus  beta field) without necessarily
     changing the overall D/Pd  ratio.    There  would  also  be some change in
     enthalpy in this case..    In  the  context  of  our discussion, we're not
     talking about this.  We  are  well  into  the  high D/Pd range of the beta
     phase and we are not talking  about  phase changes (i.e., the formation of
     alpha).  A  more  appropriate  word  is,  simply,  desorption, rather than
     decomposition.  We are not talking about the exchange of deuterium between
     beta and alpha, or a change in the volume fraction ratio of beta to alpha.
     When desorption occurs, the deuterium  leaves  the cathode and bubbles off
     in the electrolyte,  and  decreases  the  D/Pd  ratio.   The cathode still
     remains as 100% beta (unless excessive desorption proceeds to produce D/Pd
     < 0.6, when we enter the alpha plus beta field at room temperature).
 
Using the above set of rules, we can proceed to look at two scenarios, using an
external supply of  deuterium  gas  as  a  reference,  for simplicity (the same
principles apply to the electrolysis case):
 
(1)  D/Pd < 0.9, i.e., exothermic occluder
 
     This is the case that we have all correctly analyzed.  A fluctuation event
     (e.g., sudden decrease in voltage, or gas pressure) causes some desorption
     of deuterium  (an  endothermic  process).    This  results  in  heat being
     absorbed and the  temperature  drops.    If  the external pressure remains
     constant, the decrease in temperature causes some reabsorption (exothermic
     occluder) of deuterium from the gas  to  the cathode, some heat is emitted
     and the temperature rises.  We are  back  to where we started.  The system
     is stable because of negative feedback and we have no runaway situation.
 
(2)  D/Pd > 0.9, i.e., endothermic occluder
 
     I got confused  in  my  previous  statements  on  this  case, i.e., that a
     runaway was possible.  I've  changed  my  mind.  A fluctuation causes some
     desorption to occur.  Being  an  endothermic occluder, this does result in
     the production of heat and a rise  in temperature.  However, this DOES NOT
     result in  further  "decomposition"  as  previously  stated.    A  rise in
     temperature of  an  endothermic  occluder  results  in  the  ABSORPTION of
     deuterium.  The result of this process is that heat is absorbed and so the
     temperature decreases.  Again, we are back  to where we started.  There is
     no positive feedback, no runaway and the system is stable.
 
Thus, if you get the definitions  and  logic right, fluctuations above or below
0.9 produce a stable response, negative feedback and no runaway in either case.
Contrary to what  has  been  said  before  the  behaviour  of D/Pd > 0.9 cannot
explain heat production.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenattasm cudfn cudlnAttas cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.21 / Jim Bowery /  RED MERCURY IDENTIFIED???
     
Originally-From: daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RED MERCURY IDENTIFIED???
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 02:28:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

SPECULATION AS TO RED MERCURY IDENTITY
 
Neptunium dissolved in Mercury
 
Right density, color and price.
Large cross section.
Neptunium is sorta hot and can be shipped in Mercury.
Easy to separate.  Just boil off mercury.
Because of density and large cross section its good for
inertial confinement:
 
Hot enough to not go critical but it donates its neutrons.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.20 / quentin king /  Re: BBC Horizon Programme
     
Originally-From: qak@jet.uk (quentin king)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Programme
Date: 20 Mar 92 09:40:29 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <chl.700914246@cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>In the BBC Horizon...
>There was also a good account of inertial-confinement techniques. [...]
>While I am asking questions, here is another that has been troubling me with
>inertial confinement. I have seen lots of description of how these huge
>lasers are going to focus in on this poor little pellet of deuterium, but
>nobody has explained how they are goping to get the energy out of it, if and
>when it works. It seems to me that, if there are these elaborate optical
>systems to focus in on the pellet, and if the pellet ignites, then those
>same optical systems are going to focus all the energy back into the lasers,
>which might not be good for them :-). So what am I missing?
 
I don't think you are missing anything.  I attended a very entertaining
seminar about the progress of laser driven inertial fusion (at JET 25/6/91)
and people asked exactly these questions. Here are a few of the points
which I remember:
 
To get energy out, one proposal involves a reaction vessel >10M in
diameter, and filled with low pressure gas. The gas would protect the
inner wall by slowing the high speed debris from the exploding pellets.
The vessel would be surrounded by a lithium blanket and so on... This
made me wonder how they would deliver the pellets (which are around a
millimeter in size) to the dead centre of the vessel with micron
accuracy.
 
The most difficult part of it, as far as I could tell, will be the
shear violence of the reaction.  They are looking for a repetition rate
of between 5 and 10 pellets per second, with about 200MJ released per
pellet! (i.e. 1-2 GW gross yield, which is comparable to a large coal
fired power station).  If you consider that 1Kg of TNT releases about
4MJ, each pellet will be delivering the energy equivalent of about 50Kg
of TNT.  Most of this energy will be in the form of a very short pulse
of neutrons which will be stopped in the lithium blanket.  This will
cause a significant thermal shock, to say the least.  Now repeat this >5
times a second, without losing allignment of your optics, or your
pellet delivery, and taking into account the neutron damage to your first
wall and primary mirrors, and remember you must maintain a partial vacuum
in a vessel >10M accross.  Hmmmm....
 
--
 ***** **** *****  +--++--+   Quentin King              Tel: +44 235 464438
   *   *      *    | /||\ |   CODAS Division            Fax: +44 235 464404
   *   ***    *    ||*||*||   JET Joint Undertaking     E-mail: qak@jet.uk
*  *   *      *    | \||/ |   OX13 3EA
 **    ****   *    +--++--+   England                  `Rythenery flout-stik!'
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenqak cudfnquentin cudlnking cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.22 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Laser confined deuterium
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laser confined deuterium
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 19:37:55 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Mar20.015028.9076@riacs.edu> danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G.
 Danforth) writes:
 
>>While I am asking questions, here is another that has been troubling me with
>>inertial confinement.
>
>Something about the way this was worded triggered the thought that sustained
>laser confinement, in the way now being explored with individual atoms, could
>be applied to deuterium nuclei. What intensities and light gradients would be
>needed to confine two nuclei long enough for violations of expected fusion to
>be observed? If several days, weeks, months of confinement are possible then
>wavefuntion overlap could lead to observable fusion events. Do the events
>occur as predicted by standard quantum calculations?
 
I see utterly no way to make this work at all.  Standard confinement of
atoms depends on details of the spectroscopy of the atomic states of
these atoms.  At *either* densities or temperatures appropriate to
fusion these details vanish, and things like collison broadening and
ionization make it completely irrelevant to worry about detials like
doppler shifts and such.  It is possible that there are nuclear
excitations of appropriate nuclei which would survive relatively
untouched in the fusion environment but there are no lasers at gamma-ray
frequencies (and certainly none which are tunable).
	Probably the best idea along these lines would be a laser
accelerator which would (possibly) allow deuterium atoms/ions to be
accelerated into a tritium target or something making it hot and causing
fusion.  This might possibly be energy efficient *if* the accelerator
had high enough efficiency (not good for lasers) and large enough
currents.  I would not hold my breath (even in the absence of such
activities I expect to die prior to the manufacture of such an
accelerator.)
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.23 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 687 papers, 91 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 687 papers, 91 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 14:38:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
A bit of spill-over from last week, I like to clear the deck. A single paper,
in Viet Namese, I have a friend who could (just) read it and tell me the
salient points. The Chem. Abstr. item was frustrating, just a copy of the
English abstract at the paper's end, and it simply said that results are
reported - but not what they were.
 A couple more patents, these using cold fusion as a neutron source for
neutron activation analysis. Good idea - if it works. I seem to have seen this
before - yes, it is one of the suggestions made in the Fleischmann et al
patent.
 Then there is a comment by Miles on the China Lake helium results, rejecting
chance contamination, and an interesting item out of Business Week, sent to me
by Bruce Lewenstein.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 23-Mar. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 687
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tran DN, Tran DT, Truong TA, Phi TH, Tran VV;
Tap Chi Vat Ly 15(1) (1990) 29 (in Viet Namese).
"Investigation of nuclear fusion at the normal temperature".
** At the Center for Nuclear Physics, an experiment was performed, both the
Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis, and a gas-phase experiment with an applied
electric field. No heat, gamma or tritium were found, and neutrons were not
found reproducably.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamoto E;                    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,237,397, 14-Feb-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(10):93662 (1992).
"Neutron radiographic apparatus based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "An n radiog. app., which contains an n source, and a film on which n from
the source is projected across the sample target, uses a cold-nuclear-fusion
device as the n source". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamoto E;                    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,237,398, 14-Feb-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(10):93661 (1992).
"Radioactivation analyzer using cold-nuclear-fusion apparatus as neutron
source".
** "A radioactivation analyzer which is equipped with an n source and a
radiation detector, is characterized in that the n source is a
cold-nuclear-fusion app.". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles MH;                          Science 255 (1992) (13-Mar), 1335, Letters.
"Cold fusion: China Lake results".
** A reply to Gary Taubes' earlier piece 'A cold fusion deja vu at Caltech',
ibid 254 (1991) 1582, in which GT mainly focusses on Fleischmann and Pons but
also sums up the state of cold fusion as he sees it. Among other things, GT
claims that the China Lake (4)He results are likely to be due to
contamination. Miles here points out the unlikelihood of this: in 8 out of 8
cells producing excess heat, He was found; in 6 out of 6 cells not producing
excess heat, no He was found. This coincidence is not likely to be due to
chance, having a probablity of 1/16384, writes Miles.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port O, Carey J, Buderi R, Gross N;              Business Week 2-Mar-92, p.90.
"Cold fusion isn't dead in the water yet".
** A lively summary of the current status of cold fusion. It focusses in
particular on the theory and experiments of R.T. Bush, and those of A.
Takahashi, both of which are highly controversial. Tom Droege's basement
experiments round off this interesting discussion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.23 /  Britz /  RE: Roger Dutton on Exo/Endo again
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Roger Dutton on Exo/Endo again
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 14:40:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Michael Attas <attasm@wnre.aecl.ca>
 
>Roger has pondered these questions again and has a few more comments below.
>>3.  Deiter Britz posted a cautionary note  on  March  5.  I am in agreement
>>    with the points he makes on  the  steady  state.  The next bit gives me
>>    problems.  He writes:
>>
>>    "If you  want  to  count  calories  during  loading,  again  the D-atom
>>    intermediate  is  not  relevant.      The   overall  reaction  is  then
>>    (simplifying to PdD0.5, i.e. a D/Pd loading of 0.5)
>>
>>         D20 + 4Pd --> 4PdD0.5 + 0.5 O2          (1)
>>
>>    and the reaction enthalpy is simple to calculate."
>
>    I'm not so sure  this  is  so  simple.    One has to use experimentally
>    measured  quantities,  such  as  the  heats  of  solution  reported  by
>    Flanagan et al.  Experimentalists  measure  enthalpy  changes.   In the
>    case of Flanagan, this was for the reaction
>
>        =D2 --> D absorbed in palladium          (2)
>
>    The issue that I was trying to  address (for the period of loading) was
>    how do you use  enthalpies  from  Equation  (2) in absorption scenarios
>    such  as  represented  by  Equation   (2)?     I  believe  the  "D-atom
>    intermediate" is relevant in this  exercise.    You have to worry about
>    the enthalpy involved in  a  distinction  between a source of deuterium
>    being D, D2 or D2O.    It  seems  to  me  you  have also to worry about
>    whether the 1.54 V correction  is  correct  when you are concerned with
>    the distinction  between  forming  D  (for  direct  absorption into the
>    palladium) or D2 (produced as a gas bubble).
 
Well, it really IS so simple. What Flanagan et al have measured - reaction
(2) - is the enthalpy of formation of what you call "D absorbed in palladium",
which I call PdD0.5. The possible intermediate step of the formation of atomic
D is not relevant. To calculate the reaction enthalpy, you subtract the sum
of the enthalpies of formation on the LHS from that on the RHS, which is
simple. Reaction intermediates do not matter. The source of the atomic D is
D2O, which also appears in my equation (1). As for the 1.54 V correction, this
applies only to the electrolysis of D2O, which is the only process remaining
after the Pd is fully loaded; while the Pd is being loaded, the figure is not
correct. Doing the sums, the equivalent figures for reaction (1) would be
about 10% smaller, i.e. about 1.35 V or so (I don't have the exact figures
handy). So you would, during this time, be getting an apparent excess heat
of 10% or less if you applied the 1.54V correction. This is of course the heat
given off by the deuterium absorption into the Pd.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.23 /   /   Strange Correlations in McKubre Data
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Strange Correlations in McKubre Data
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:00:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The true believers in CF these days seem to point most often to the work
at SRI by McKubre, et al. in which they claim surplus heat from electrolysis
in closed cells.  I recently was sent a copy of the paper McKubre presented
at Como as an attempt to move me from my position as a non-believer.  At
first glance the calorimetry seems to be well beyond suspicion as the
experimenters covered every possible source of error.  I am left grasping
at straws to explain the result, and the first thing I see is that there
is an unexpected correlation in the data between the cell current and the
measured surplus heat in the first of the runs showing a surplus.  In
this experiment the current was ramped slowly except for some "glitches"
where they either dropped back and started the ramp over or dropped to
current momentarily and then resumed at the level where the ramp would
have been.  In all cases the surplus heat shows exactly the same behavior
such that one would be forced to conclude that the surplus heat (if real)
is proportional to the cell current.
 
I have an alternative explaination:  cross talk between electrical signals!
 
Are there any TBs familiar with this data who would care to propose a
mechanism (other than my choice) that would keep the surplus heat in
lock step with the cell current?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.22 / Dr Pepper /  Japan CF results
     
Originally-From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Dr Pepper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japan CF results
Date: 22 Mar 92 00:15:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:103/241 - GG Tech, Westminster CA

 
 > Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
 > Message-ID: 1992Mar19.040412.13388@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu
 
 > A friend of mine just handed me a printou of an article he saw
 > on a compu$erve
 > forum (network earth, I think).  It says, in part:
 
 > On Jan. 27, 1992, at the IEEE ISEM Nagoya meeting, Dr. A. Takahashi
 > of Osaka Univ. announced that he had achieved a stable CF reaction that
 > produced 150 watts of excess heat for over one month. Dr. T's experiment
 > is elegant and foolproof.  Cooling water flows through his calorimeter at
 > 10 L per minute; to determine heat output, he measures the temperature
 > difference between the water going in and the water coming
 > out (the Delta T).  Calibration before the experiment showed that a 7 deg.
 > C difference coincided with 100 watts of power; the average excess
 > temperature, above joule heating, was 10 deg C.  This temperature is so
 > easy to measure with a precision thermometer, and so far above the
 > minimum sensitivity of the instrument, that there can no longer be any
 > reasonable scientific doubt about the existance of the effect.
 
I'd be a lot more impressed if he'd tried to subtract the amount of heat
 generated by the power input to the electrodes.
 
10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4
 
---
 * Origin: GG TECH: Fandom and conversation (1:103/241)
--
 
Dr Pepper
Internet: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPepper cudfnDr cudlnPepper cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Strange Correlations in McKubre Data
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strange Correlations in McKubre Data
Date: 24 Mar 92 00:54:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU> writes:
>I have an alternative explaination:  cross talk between electrical signals!
 
At the change rates I assume you are talking about, capacitive or inductive
coupling are out of the question.  The capacitor or inductor dimensions would
have to be huge for this ultra-low frequency.
 
Therefore, if it is "cross-talk" it would be some sort of DC circuit, a
direct current path from input power to the thermal measuring device and
back to the other side of the input power.
 
Bare wires or cracked insulation on thermal measuring devices immersed in
conductive liquids would be the ultimate in sloppy technique.  I'll give
them the benefit of the doubt.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.24 / Colin UCT /  Re: Muon Catalysed Fusion Reactions.
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Catalysed Fusion Reactions.
Date: 24 Mar 92 12:29:29 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Mar17.171352.20154@ericsson.se>, etllnfr@bagpuss.ericsson.se
 (Lyndon Fletcher) writes:
> Hello all,
 
>           I was wondering what the latest state of research into
> Muon catalysed fusion was. Last time I checked the main lines of
> research where more efficient muon production techniques and for
> methods to reduce the "Muon sticking time".
>
> What's the state of play now? Has any damage been doe to low temperature
> fusion research by the hype given to cold fusion?
>
 
The collaboration of which I'm a very small cog has just had an
application for beam time at the Rutherford Appleton Lab's Meson
factory turned down. We're trying to measure the muon sticking
coefficient ("time?" - surely we should be trying to _increase_ this?
:-) directly.
 
It's probably the climate pervading UK science at this moment - the
short term view etc - which caused this rejection rather than the
diversion of funds into hot fusion. Perhaps also the safety officer at
RAL is rather nervous of handling tritium!
 
So now we have an experiment more or less ready which needs to be
plugged into a muon beam.
 
Anyone out there have a few free muons to give us?
 
As far as I know, there's experimental stuff still going on at PSI
(Petitjean) and Petrograd (St. Petersburg?) , as well as theoretical
stuff at Arizona (?) and in Russia. There's also a Muon Catalysed
Fusion conference at Uppsala in July, so things are still ticking
along very nicely. We're hoping to interest another meson factory in
our experiment then.
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.24 / Jon Noring /  Just Posted New Vacuum Energy Paper to alt.sci.physics.new-theories
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environment,sci.misc,sci.p
 hysics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Just Posted New Vacuum Energy Paper to alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:05:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I just posted a paper written by Dr. H.E. Puthoff.  It was originally
published in the journal Speculations in Science and Technology.  It is posted
with the permission of Dr. Puthoff.
 
In this paper, Dr. Puthoff, who has published several papers in QED and SED
in Physical Review, claims that energy production from the vacuum of space may
be possible.  I'll let the paper speak for itself.
 
If you don't get alt.sci.physics.new-theories, e-mail me and I'll send you
a copy, or, better yet, wait to download it via anonymous-ftp from
lupulus.ssc.gov in the /papers subdirectory (it's not there yet, but I'm now
sending it).
 
Dr. Jon Noring
 
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If you make $50,000 today, you have the same buying power as the average
coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John Sestina,
nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.25 /  Britz /  Re: Muon Catalysed Fusion Reactions.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Catalysed Fusion Reactions.
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 14:33:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
 
>In article <1992Mar17.171352.20154@ericsson.se>, etllnfr@bagpuss.ericsson.se
> (Lyndon Fletcher) writes:
>> Hello all,
 
>>           I was wondering what the latest state of research into
>> Muon catalysed fusion was. Last time I checked the main lines of
>> research where more efficient muon production techniques and for
>> methods to reduce the "Muon sticking time".
>>
>> What's the state of play now? Has any damage been doe to low temperature
>> fusion research by the hype given to cold fusion?
>>
 
>The collaboration of which I'm a very small cog has just had an
>application for beam time at the Rutherford Appleton Lab's Meson
>factory turned down. We're trying to measure the muon sticking
>coefficient ("time?" - surely we should be trying to _increase_ this?
>:-) directly.
 
>It's probably the climate pervading UK science at this moment - the
>short term view etc - which caused this rejection rather than the
>diversion of funds into hot fusion. Perhaps also the safety officer at
>RAL is rather nervous of handling tritium!
>
..
>--
>Colin Henderson
>Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
>colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
>------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
 
 
Your paranoia is misplaced here, Colin. I have email contact with Frank Close,
of the Rutherford Lab., and he tells me that he was in fact on the selection
committee. This is what else he says (I have his permission to quote him):
 
> My understanding is that the expt is not to be funded in this financial year
>but it is still regarded as a live proposal.
>  There is no "meson factory" at Rutherford Lab. There is a neutron spallation
>source (ISIS) which is funded by the Science Board of the SERC; I saw the
>proposal in my capacity as theorist on the Particle Physics Selection Panel
>(which is part of the Nuclear Physics Board of the SERC). The proposal was
>evaluated early in 1991 within the Science Board. Various recommendations
>were fed back to the proponents in order to "aid resubmission" - in particular
>it was noted that the field of MuCF contains areas of fundamental physics that
>are worthy of funding by the SERC but the size of the original submission was
>regarded as unrealistic in the present financial circumstances. A resubmission
>was made to the Science Board and it was also evaluated by the Ptle Phys Expt
>Selection Panel. That is how I know of it. My personal feeling is that
>   the expt is atomic and molecular fundamental physics with a possible
>development into fusion; this is not high energy particle physics within the
>way that UK science is set up. So the fact that we have not funded it from
>particle physics, which may be the background to Colin Henderson's posting,
>is not necessarily to be equated with "rejection". As I said above, my
>understanding is that this expt will not be funded this financial year but is
>still a live proposal.
>  Concerns about tritium and safety are not, to the best of my knowledge, a
>central issue in the present debate. Furthermore, funding of hot fusion is
>irrelevant in this too: the MuCF proposal and the Rutherford Lab involves
>the SERC which has no relation to the JET laboratory. WE only get paid
>half as much as they do AND we have to pay taxes too.
>  I hope that the MuCF expt eventually gets funded and that this note helps
>set the history in perspective. If Colin, or anyone, has heard to the
>contrary, namely that this expt HAS been turned down totally, please let me
>know as I would be interested to see the reasons.
>  These are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the
>SERC etc etc.
 
So there you have it from one of the horses' mouths.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.25 /  Britz /  RE:  Strange Correlations in McKubre Data
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Strange Correlations in McKubre Data
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:55:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
 
>The true believers in CF these days seem to point most often to the work
>at SRI by McKubre, et al. in which they claim surplus heat from electrolysis
>in closed cells.  I recently was sent a copy of the paper McKubre presented
>at Como as an attempt to move me from my position as a non-believer.  At
>first glance the calorimetry seems to be well beyond suspicion as the
>...
>this experiment the current was ramped slowly except for some "glitches"
>where they either dropped back and started the ramp over or dropped to
>current momentarily and then resumed at the level where the ramp would
>have been.  In all cases the surplus heat shows exactly the same behavior
>such that one would be forced to conclude that the surplus heat (if real)
>is proportional to the cell current.
>I have an alternative explaination:  cross talk between electrical signals!
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL
 
Now, Dick, let's be reasonable; I agree with John Logajan that at these signal
levels, cross talk is extremely unlikely. The TB does indeed have an
explanation for this correlation, and within the TB's framework, i.e. within
some of the theories of cold fusion, it is quite reasonable. In fact, this
observation agrees roughly with FPALH-90, where we have a figure showing a
positive correlation of excess heat (when observed) and current density. This
caused F&P to change their minds about cnf being a volume effect; they now
think it is a near-surface effect, which I thought it ought to be all along -
if there be an effect at all. The explanation in these terms would be that at
higher current densities, you have higher overpotentials and use of the Nernst
equation (which I am a bit skeptical of in this non-equilibrium context) gives
correspondingly higher D2 fugacities and thus higher loading pressures. This
would be favourable - within this framework - to higher cold fusion rates.
 I have not seen the McKubre paper, and don't want to either, until it's out
as a proper publication. One way to perhaps separate electronic effects from
real cnf is to look at the time delay. If it's cross talk, this would appear
with no delay; excess heat would take a finite lag time to propagate to the
thermistors measuring it. So what is the delay time? Or is the time scale so
large that one can't see this?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.25 /   /   McKubre Crosstalk as Sloppy Technique
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  McKubre Crosstalk as Sloppy Technique
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:56:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my post on possible electrical crosstalk, John Logajan
replies:
<<  Bare wires or cracked insulation on thermal measuring devices immersed
<<  in conductive liquids would be the ultimate in sloppy techniques.
<<  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
Giving every experimenter with a positive result the benefit of the doubt
is one possible resolution of the CF question, but it isn't a very
satisfactory one in that it still leaves plenty of logically inconsistent
results.  There are other ways of getting into trouble with electrical
measurements than just the most obvious one you reject.  Consider the
particulars of this case.  The experimenters were very concerned about
the avoidance of calorimetric errors so they choose their wiring configuration
carefully to prevent thermal errors.  As a result the signal wires all share
a common path into the calorimeter and steps are taken to keep the wires
in good thermal contact with the coolant as it exits the calorimeter, i.e.
wires are in close contact.  Next the thermometry is done with platinum
resistance transducers so that signal level is relatively low, and the
cell current is rather high.  I don't know what the exitation current
used in thermometers might have been, but it probably was not much
larger than the stray currents in that setup.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.26 /  /  Discussion of enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Discussion of enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:14:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re the discussion of Roger Dutton, Michael Attas, Dieter Britz et. al. on
the enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium.
 
Keep it up, guys, this is very helpful to those (me) actually making these
measurements as part of the ongoing P&F experiments.  I don't know about the
rest of you, but I find it very hard to keep the signs straight when I am
thinking about this stuff.
 
For example re Michael Attas posting in FD 227.  He says that during charging
one should get excess heat because of the 1.54V correction.  But I am not
taking the 1.54V correction as I am running a closed system.  Therefore I
should (and do) see excess cooling during charging.  But it always seems to
require a "double think" to keep things straight.
 
MA says "(1) would be about 10% smaller, i.e. about 1.35 V or so".  Seems to
me that the 1.35V will depend on the rate of absorption.  We have measured
this to be above 90%.  Can MA tell me how an exact figure is possible?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.26 /  /  Takahashi experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi experiment
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:29:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr.Pepper writes about the Takahashi experiment:
 
>I'd be a lot more impressed if he'd tried to subtract the amount of heat
>generated by the power input to the electrodes
 
I have a 14 page fax and several other pieces of correspondence on the
Takahashi experiment.  His calculation is rather straight forward.  He does
subtract the input power.  In fact the power gained is so large that hes
does not seem to bother to subtract the 1.54*I in his open cell.
 
He does several things together that I have not seen combined in one exp.
before:
 
1) By running a cooling coil in the cell, the electrolyte is probably kept
at a lower temperature than most other experiments.
 
2) He uses a saw tooth ramp to charge the sample.
 
3) The electrode spacings are more precise that any experiments known to me -
but note the technique used by P&F would have generated accurate spacing.
 
4) He uses a .3M LiOD electrolyte.
 
5) He runs with a Hi-Lo current switching on a 6 hour clock.
 
We have made runs similar to all of the above but not at the same time.  When
we were running in mode 5) with a 10 minute switch time, Mike Danos of NBS
wanted us to switch to longer periods but we never got around to it.  There
is a lot of territory to explore!
 
We certainly think that varing the current is a good idea as gas pumps in and
out of the electrode which should over a number of cycles eliminate any
initial H absorbed to the level of H in the electrolyte.  For example in the
present experiment we are switching between 20 and 400 ma per sq cm and see
about 50 realative volumes of gas pump in and out at each transition.
 
Charging with a 20 to 600 ma per sq cm we got to 0.93 +/- 0.04 D/Pd ratio
with a saw tooth profile.  This is higher than with most previous charging
profiles.
 
Should note that the McKubre designes I have seen look to be precisely
machined.  Note that in general electrochemists do not pay much attention to
mechanical spacing of electrodes.
 
Needless to say, we are frantically machining a precise cell.  But there is
no logical reason why this should be important.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.25 / John Logajan /  Re: McKubre Crosstalk as Sloppy Technique
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre Crosstalk as Sloppy Technique
Date: 25 Mar 92 22:12:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU> writes:
>Giving every experimenter with a positive result the benefit of the doubt
>is one possible resolution of the CF question, but it isn't a very
>satisfactory one in that it still leaves plenty of logically inconsistent
>results.
 
I only meant to say that I'd not discount this as a confirmation on that
speculative basis alone -- however, given a little more information either
way, I'd re-evaluate.  It's really a philosophical issue -- who do you
trust?  Is the world really round?  Does it have existance outside my
imagination?  Is Dieter Britz a real person?
 
Personally, I won't believe in cold fusion until I have a CNF cell
powering my scooter.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.27 /  Britz /  RE: Discussion of enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Discussion of enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 14:41:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Re the discussion of Roger Dutton, Michael Attas, Dieter Britz et. al. on
>the enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium.
>...
>MA says "(1) would be about 10% smaller, i.e. about 1.35 V or so".  Seems to
>me that the 1.35V will depend on the rate of absorption.  We have measured
>this to be above 90%.  Can MA tell me how an exact figure is possible?
 
>Tom Droege
 
It wasn't MA, it was DB, i.e. me. I didn't bother to look up the figues but I
have done so now. You have two reactions going on at the same time, both
electrochemical; the overall reactions are (scaling to D2):
 
D2O   -->   D2  +  0.5 O2                  (1)
 
D20  +  4 Pd   -->  4PdD0.5  + 0.5 O2      (2)
 
(I take the deuteride at a loading of 0.5, for which I can find the figures in
Lewis's The Palladium Hydrogen System). Reaction (1) is the one that swallows
a power equal to I*1.54 W, is endothermic (297 kJ/mol D2 formed), and you get
the 1.54 figure from the equation nFE = -deltaH, i.e. E = -deltaH/n/F, and
n = 2 here. Reaction (2) is still endothermic with an overall deltaH of +262
kJ/mol D2. Note this point - maybe it is here that Mark North gets his
endothermic from - what is exothermic is the partial reaction, connecting (1)
and (2):
 
D2  +  4 Pd  --> 4 PdD0.5                  (3)
 
with its 35 kJ/mol D2 "heat of absorption", as it says in Lewis' Hydrogen in
Metals, i.e. -35 kJ deltaH of formation of the deuteride.
 
OK, back to reactions (1) and (2). If you are at the beginning of the
electrolysis, reaction (2) is what is happening; all (potential) D2 goes into
the deuteride, and only O2 is evolved. The deltaH of 262 kJ/mol comes to a
thermoneutral potential of 1.36 V (I wasn't so far off with my rough stab at it
before); i.e. at this stage, you should correct for I*1.36 W. Note that you
should do this even if you have a recombiner, since there is nothing to
recombine. If you correct by I*1.54 W, you will observe an apparent excess
heat here, and this is the heat given off by reaction (3), i.e. I*0.18 W.
Later, as you approach full loading, reaction (2) takes place less and less,
and is replaced by reaction (1). If you have no recombiner, this means that
the correction (the power swallowed) approaches I*1.54 W. If you do have a
recombiner, it goes down to zero, because reaction (1) is in fact not taking
place at all, OVERALL: in the cell, it does take place but at the recombiner,
it is reversed. Overall, nothing. At this point, the cell output power should
equal the total input power, if there is no hitherto unknown process producing
excess heat.
I hope this has made it a bit clearer.
 
By the way, Tom, in another posting, you mention that you have a final loading
of 0.93 +- 0.04; how do you measure this - using the volumes of evolved gases?
In the case of total recombination, I guess the O2 evolved would provide the
figure.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.27 /   /   Heat proportional to Current?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Heat proportional to Current?
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 17:29:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reference to the McKubre SRI Como paper and my comments, Dieter Britz
says:
 
  << Now Dick, let's be reasonable.  I agree with John Logajan that
  << at these signal levels cross talk is extremely unlikely....
 
That assumes something about the signal levels in question that may
not be true.  The thermometer was done with platinum resistance sensors
rather than thermistors as Dieter assumes, and for calorimetric reasons
wires exiting the calorimeter were in a common bundle.
 
As a more orthodox explaination for the proportional relationship between
current and surplus heat Dieter offers something like the following:
 
High current density begat higher overpotential which begat higher D2
fugacities which begat higher loading pressure which begat higher cold
fusion rate.  My problem with this 4 step chain is that I doubt that
each of the steps involves a linear relationship.
 
Then Dieter says, "Look at the time delay."  My thoughts exactly!  I
don't see any time delay in the data, it's like squarewave in gives
squarewave out.  As I said, hmmm?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.26 / Cary Maguire /  Red Mercury Archives
     
Originally-From: cmaguire@time.Princeton.EDU (Cary Maguire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Red Mercury Archives
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 02:24:33 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

 
Greetings!  I seem to have missed a number of recent postings on
concerning the "red mercury" being sold from Eastern Europe.  Jim
Bowery recently posted a speculation as to its identity.  Could
someone please inform me where I can obtain the archives, if any, for
this newsgroup so that I might retrieve these posts?  Barring that,
could anyone please either forward me those posts on this subject they
might have saved, or summarize the discussion thus far?  I would
GREATLY appreciate any information!
 
Thanks!
 
--
======================================================================
Internet: cmaguire@phoenix.princeton.edu
"O Son of Man!  Veiled in my immemorial being and in the ancient
eternity of Mine essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencmaguire cudfnCary cudlnMaguire cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.27 /  /  Lets have more thoughtful criticism of CF experiments
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lets have more thoughtful criticism of CF experiments
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 23:37:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Without actually saying anything nasty to Dick Blue, I would like to cite
my experience with a skeptic back when my measurements indicated excess
heat.
 
I dragged the (famous physicist) skeptic down into my basement and described
the experiment.  He asked "have you measured A".  I said "no, it did not
seem important."  "Thats the error" he said and left.  So while the answer
seemed obvious, I took a week and measured "A" and got the expected result.
 
So I hauled him back.  This went on through B, C, and D.  Always a half
thought out criticism.  But he was a famous physicist.  At this point I had
him cornered.  There were no obvious trivial things left to criticize.  It
was going to take hard work and a deep understanding of the experiment to
make the next suggestion.  So he left and I can't get him back.
 
In this business it is easy to create endless tasks with half thought out
criticisms.  The most trivial experiment takes a week.  Most tests take
much longer.  We need to concentrate on the most probable problems.  What
is needed in critics is thoughtful people who will do some hard work.
 
Now McKubre could be seeing heat from cross talk, but note that the most
trivial calibration run would uncover this problem.  We all do a lot of
calibration runs.  I myself think we should check on "dark matter" streaming
from the sun, or esp as more probable causes.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.03.27 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Discussion of enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discussion of enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 06:18:28 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920325124551.20a01ac8@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
> Re the discussion of Roger Dutton, Michael Attas, Dieter Britz et. al. on
> the enthalpy of deuterium absorption in palladium.
>
> Keep it up, guys, this is very helpful to those (me) actually making these
> measurements as part of the ongoing P&F experiments.  I don't know about the
> rest of you, but I find it very hard to keep the signs straight when I am
> thinking about this stuff.
>
> For example re Michael Attas posting in FD 227.  He says that during charging
> one should get excess heat because of the 1.54V correction.  But I am not
> taking the 1.54V correction as I am running a closed system.  Therefore I
> should (and do) see excess cooling during charging.  But it always seems to
> require a "double think" to keep things straight.
>
> MA says "(1) would be about 10% smaller, i.e. about 1.35 V or so".  Seems to
> me that the 1.35V will depend on the rate of absorption.  We have measured
> this to be above 90%.  Can MA tell me how an exact figure is possible?
 
 
Tom, you are right in suggesting that the thermoneutral potential will vary
with the amount of D absorption. There is a good paper on the thermodynamics
of these experiments by Divisek et al. in J. Electroanal Chem. vol 278, p85
(1990) which calculates the effective thermoneutral potential as a function of
the current effeciency of D2 evolution. When the current effeciency is 100%,
corresponding to a fully loaded electrode, Eth = 1.53V. At 50% it is 1.43V, and
at 10% 1.35 V. So, if you are measuring the amount of D2 and O2 gases
produced, you can calculate what Eth should be at various stages in the loading
process. In practice, all this might be hard to do and I've always thought it
easier to make sure the electrode is fully charged before starting on the
calorimetric measurements.
 
Summing up, if you use the 1.53 V and there is some D absorption going on then
you will see excess heat that really isn't there. You must use the effective
thermoneutral potential calculated from the current effeciency to get the
right result. Even if you use a closed cell, there will still need to be a
correction to I*V during the loading stage and this can be calculated from the
enthalpy data for the formation of PdDx and the current effeciency for D2
evolution.  Anyway, check out the above paper for a lucid discussion on how
this can be done.
 
 
In a further message, Tom alludes to the importance of a precise arrangement
of the cathode and anode. The reasoning here is that the the anode has to be
symmetrically placed around the cathode to ensure that the current and
potential distribution at the cathode are uniform. This is supposed to lead
to more uniform charging of the cathode and higher loadings. The first bit I
can deal with but I don't see how the loading should be enhanced. You might
argue that a highly non uniform current density might be better because
you would have localised areas where the overpotential is much higher than
expected from the average current density, and hence the loading would be
higher in these regions.
 
---
 
Todd Green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentiq cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.01 /  Britz /  TRITIUM AT HARWELL
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TRITIUM AT HARWELL
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 14:30:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have it from a source who prefers not to be named, that tritium has been
found at Harwell. Here is what my source says:
 
>I learned from my mole (very reliable) in the Harwell [deleted] that
>a paper has been sent to Nature about update on CNF experiments and that there
>will be a press release in a week or so. It seems that some of Mallove's
>criticisms have been taken on board. Although amounts of heat are still
>not significantly above errors the story is that there really is tritium
>present. Naturally one has to wait for the official announcement but the
>tritium news is already out in the open due to a leak (metaphorically).
>There has been some concern  about Harwell and contamination, in another
>context, and then this business about tritium came up in some election
>smear.
 
Make what you will of this.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.01 /  /  A plea for more responsible debate
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A plea for more responsible debate
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 21:44:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue (an official skeptic in my book) writes:
"I have an alternative explaination:  Cross talk between electrical signals"
In his discussion of the McKubre et al paper.
 
John Logajan (looks like a true believer to me) responds:
"... I'll give them the benefit of the doubt."
 
Dieter Britz (a neutral observer to me) writes:
"I have not seen the the McKubre paper, and don't want to iether, until it's
out as a proper publication."
 
Dick Blue then responds with a long list otf things that might be wrong.
 
This is a vacuous debate.
 
None of the gentleman appear to have read the article.  At least Dieter Britz
says that he has not read it.  It is now available to all in the "Proceedings
of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion".  I suppose that this does not
meet Diter Britz's requirements for "a proper publication" but it is out in
public and available to all.  Now days, by the time information gets into a
"proper publication" it is so old that it is "history record" and not a source
of information.
 
Now if Dick Blue had read the paper he would have found the following:
 
   "For each of the cells P12 through P16, there were occasions when, for
nominally identical current ramps, similar average D/Pd ratios were obtained
but with no manifestation of excess power within the sensitivity of the
calorimeter.  For the full duration of the P13 experiment, the calorimeter
was observed in the steady state to be within +/- 50 mW of thermal balance."
 
This paragraph is the followed by a reference to Figure 7, which would appear
to be Blue's source for his cross talk.  So there where measurements without
this corelation, McKubre just did not fill up journal space with straight
line plots.
 
So had Dick Blue read the paper he would have proposed "intermittant" cross
talk.
 
But even without reading, he could have found Figure 8.  Here a light water
cell (P13) is operated in series with a heavy water cell (P14).  P14 shows
excess heat which ramps with the current (but read the discussion in the
paper) while the light water cell, P13 shows no heat.
 
So now we need a rather fancy "intermittent series bypassing" crosstalk!
 
There are plenty if interesting questions to be debated when one reads the
proceedings.  For example, does anyone have any idea why it takes so long
for the first appearance of heat?  P12 of McKubre was charged for 1300
hours.  Sorting through all the papers one sees a very long average charging
time for the "successful" experiments.  A cynic would would call this the
"average mean time to failure".  But Mckubre lists as one of his experimental
features:  "* Multiple redundancy of mesurement of critical variables e.g.
temperature."
 
Come on guys, lets debate the facts we have available, not hot air!
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.01 / Cary Jamison /  Re: TRITIUM AT HARWELL
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TRITIUM AT HARWELL
Date: 1 Apr 92 20:16:37 GMT
Organization: esl

In article <78B36487C49F007754@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
 writes:
> Date: 1 Apr 92 14:30:48 GMT
>
> I have it from a source who prefers not to be named, that tritium has been
> found at Harwell.
[...]
> Make what you will of this.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ==============================================================================
 
April Fool!!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.02 /   /   Carping about CF experiments
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Carping about CF experiments
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 20:28:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I accept as valid what Tom Droege has to say about skeptics picking
over the details of the results of the various CF experiments.  It really
isn't possible for anyone who wasn't there to say what is wrong with any
particular measurement.  For that reason I confine my comments to this
forum rather than making them more public.  It would be nice if we
could all make our own measurements, but so far all that seems to lead
to is a very incoherent collection of doubtful looking stuff.  Meanwhile
back on the McKubre case.  While it is true, as Tom says, that cross
talk between signals should have been found during calibration runs there
can be lots of reasons why it didn't show up.  Only one more fact to
support my notion:  The run P12 which was early in the series of
experiments showing excess heat is the only run that shows the proportionality
I have been wondering about.  In subsequent measurements made after the
cells were obviously reconnected in new configurations there is no simple
relationship between excess heat and input current.  This was a non-
reproducible effect that is of course one hallmark of cold fusion.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.03 /  /  More on deuterium absorption
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on deuterium absorption
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 03:32:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Dieter Britz and Tod Green for enlightening comments.
 
Here is why I am concerned.  We are about to run a Takahashi like cell.  It
will have a much larger Pd sample than I usually run.  Since these runs take
so long this will be this years chance to do a good absorption experiment and
I want to do it right.  Any false start is a failure as the Pd is then not the
same.
 
By starting the run with reverse current and then switching to forward current
the thermal switching transient can be kept low, particularly if there is
a cell power correction made at the reversal.  This allows two measurements
of the D/Pd loading to be made:
 
1)  The integral of the net power during loading is the difference between
the endothermic term because H and O are not recombined, and an exothermic
term below .9 and and endothermic term above .9 (per Roger Dutton)
 
2) The net accumulated gas (presumed to be oxygen) is a measure of the
absorbed H/D.
 
For the 0.1 cc pd sample we will be using, we will be able to measure the net
energy to about 20 J over the four hour charging time.  This should give us
a few percent energy measurement.  I can't believe that this is a constant
35 kJ per mole over the whole range because it is supposed to go from
exothermic to encothermic at .9 D/Pd.  So the problem with using this as a
measure of loading is that I don't know what the energy vs D/Pd curve looks
like.  I have ordered the Divisek paper (Fermilab has nothing useful for
cold fusion), perhaps it will help.
 
Possibly I have seen the exothermic/endothermic crossover on earlier
experiments.  I did not know about it before so this time I will try to look
for it.  If there are any sudden changes integral energy vs D/Pd it would
be very useful to know about them as calibration points.
 
The accumulated gas 2) measurement also has several problems.  First, oxygen
disappears from the system, probably forming the white gunk previously
discussed here.  One would expect its loss to be a function of oxygen content
which varies form 20% for the air filled cell to 70% at near 1/1 for the
proposed run.  This is expected to undermeasure the loading by 1-2% during
the 4 hour charging time.  Next, the catalyst recombines in spurts/and or/
gas pumps in and out of the Pd.  I have been watching this for two years and
I think both happen.  I have yet to figure out a really good way to separate
the two.  A thermometer in the catalyst helps, but is not foolproof as the
hot catalyst spot can move around giving false indications of activity.
 
In earlier experiments we used a third method to measure D/Pd by using a
four point Kelvin measurement of the cathode.  This has the problem that
the cell current is of the same order of magnitude as the measurement current
and adds a lot of noise to the measurement.  So I have give up on resistance
even though it is interesting.  Getting all those leads in the cell is a pain.
 
Another method some have used is weighing.  I have watch 10% of the gas leave
in a few seconds - no time to dry off and get to a scale.
 
So the goal of all this is to combine the two measurements to get a good D/Pd
ratio.  So to answer Dieter, evolved oxygen is the primary source of the 0.93
D/Pd measurement, but there was some confirmation from the energy balance.
 
To answer Tod about the importance of symmetry, I don't know either.  I just
look at alleged "successful" experiments and try to see what they have in
common.  One thing I notice is that my favorite experiments either have
machine shops that naturally make things square (Scott), are Japanese
(Takahashi), or use a technique that is naturally square (P&F).  McKubre I
would include in the machine shop list.
 
One thing I will guarantee, if square turns out to be important, there will be
a theory requiring it in minutes.  But that is the experimenters job.  To try
silly things (hopefully with some basis) and give the theorists ammunition.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.04 / John Covici /  Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
     
Originally-From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 4 Apr 92 22:58:55 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

I thought the readers of this would be interested in a recent article
about the press conference of Preparata -- this is the only coverage
I have seen of this.
 
FLEISCHMANN AND PONS TO BUILD A COLD
FUSION BOILER THIS YEAR
 
By Carol White and Laurence Hecht
WASHINGTON, March 27
(EIRNS)--At a packed press conference
today in the nation's capital, leading
Italian physicist Dr. Giuliano
Preparata announced dramatic new steps
forward in the development of cold
fusion as a practical, cheap source of
clean energy. Preparata, a professor of
physics at Milan University, is a close
collaborator of cold fusion pioneers
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.
   Speaking at the National Press
Club here, Preparata reviewed the very
substantial and repeatable results
reported by several independent
groupings of electrochemical
researchers at the Second Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion held last
summer in Lake Como, Italy, and
announced the release of the conference
proceedings to an audience of over 50
members of the press, diplomatic corps,
Congressional representatives,
scientists, and others.
   Dr. Preparata emphasized that,
despite the important implications of
cold fusion for the development of new
technologies, its greatest importance
is in giving birth to new science. The
conference was called to announce the
release of a 527-page English-language
book, ``The Science of Cold Fusion,''
produced by the Italian Physical
Society, which contains the scientific
papers from the Lake Como conference,
and which Preparata invited science
journalists to review.
         - Japanese Funding -
   While Preparata stressed the
preeminent importance of the scientific
implications of the historic
Fleischmann-Pons discovery, he also
relayed the exciting announcement by
Pons that he expects to have built a
demonstration boiler by the end of this
year, which will operate at 158@dg
Fahrenheit, powered by a cold fusion
reactor.
   Working with a scientific team in
Nice, France, Pons and Fleischmann are
now routinely achieving power
depositions in the range of one
kilowatt per cubic centimeter, in a
series of repeatable experiments. This
is a power density about 1,000 times
greater than that achieved in
commercial nuclear fission plants.
   Pons also has revealed that he and
Dr. Fleischmann have been financed by
the Japanese high-technology consortium
Technova. They have been working with a
group of 10 assistants in the Nice lab.
    - The Enemies of Cold Fusion -
   The press conference was chaired
by Dr. Eugene Mallove, author of the
book ``Fire from Ice,'' the story of
the development of cold fusion. Mallove
updated the story of persecution of the
many scientists who confirmed
Fleischmann and Pons' contention that
fusion could be achieved at room
temperatures, only to be ostracized by
the leaders of the scientific
establishment.
   After the publication of his book,
Dr. Mallove, who had been a press
officer at MIT, resigned from his
position there rather than defend what
he saw to be a deliberate fraud being
committed by leading scientists at MIT
to discredit the Fleischmann-Pons
results.
   Mallove reviewed the hideous
treatment accorded cold fusion
experimenters in the United States, and
said he believed technological
implementation is very near. ``Within
this decade, I would expect to see cold
fusion cells heating homes and perhaps
even powering home-generating stations
in certain situations.... Spectacular
applications to aerospace are also
possible, such as the powering of
electric ion thrusters.''
   Mallove and Preparata attacked the
vicious witchhunt conducted in the U.S.
and Europe against scientists who had
the courage to attest to the reality of
this revolutionary new science, and
then were subjected to persecution
similar to that which drove the two
pioneers to leave the United States.
   In perhaps the most exciting
moment of this dramatic press
conference, Dr. Preparata gave an
impassioned defense of truth in
science: ``I want you to understand
that we are in a really serious
situation, because our science is now
dominated by an Aristotelian ideology,
and this is what lies behind the
adverse reaction that we are getting to
the results of cold fusion....
   ``We are witnessing the birth of a
new physics here, but the scientific
establishment behaves like a priestly
caste that will not allow in any new
ideas. Really, we are in a situation
with respect to microphysics analogous
to the situation after Copernicus had
shown that the Ptolemaic epicycles
could be replaced'' as an astronomical
model.
   Mallove and his associate Jed
Rothwell have formed a group, Cold
Fusion Research Advocates, which called
the press conference and is lobbying in
Congress for increased financial
support to cold fusion research. As a
first step, they are demanding that
Congress hold hearings on cold fusion.
Mallove announced support from many top
scientists in this and other countries
for this effort.
      - Fusion in His Basement -
   Mallove also announced that he and
some collaborators were attempting to
repeat experimental results obtained by
Dr. Akito Takahashi in Japan. Takahashi
has run a cold fusion cell over a
two-month period with well over 100%
excess heat, at an average power
density conservatively estimated at 50
watts per cubic centimeter.
   On two occasions, he witnessed
sudden bursts of excess heat which
caused his electrolyte to rapidly boil
off, and once, when he removed his
experiment from the electrolyte, he saw
the beginnings of what he feared would
be a runaway fusion reaction. To avert
this he restarted electrolysis, thus
effectively stirring the electrolyte in
order to bleed heat more easily from
the overheating cathode.
   Mallove hopes to have himself some
confirming, positive results by the
time Dr. Takahashi comes to MIT, where
he is scheduled to give a talk April
15. Mallove warmly described
Takahashi's collaboration with the
international scientific community to
replicate his experiment.
   Unlike the case of hot fusion--in
which nuclei of deuterium (the heavy
isotope of hydrogen) are accelerated to
high speeds so that they will crash
into each other and fuse into a new
heavier nucleus--in cold fusion the
remarkable metal, palladium, is used to
promote the fusion reaction.
   Takahashi uses a palladium cathode
(positive electrode), with a plate-like
shape and a volume of 0.6 cubic
centimeters. Using electrolysis, he
pumps deuterium (which is liberated by
electrolysis from a heavy-water
electrolyte) into the palladium, in a
ratio above one atom of deuterium to
each atom of palladium. Other groups in
Japan, Italy, and the United States are
repeating his experiment.
   In response to one reporter's
obsessive demands for an explanation of
why some scientists had been unable to
reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons results,
Preparata explained that certain
criteria had to be met in the loading
of the cells--that is, the procedure by
which deuterium is caused to be
absorbed into the palladium metal
lattice. But once these are met,
competent experimenters can and have
regularly reproduced the phenomenon of
cold fusion.
   Preparata pointed out that cold
fusion scientists are being subjected
to a double standard. There are
experiments that go on in the
solid-state physics lab, in which the
accepted phenomena are much more
difficult to reproduce than this one.
Often things go wrong. But no one ever
questions the validity of the
phenomena, because these are done in
the laboratories supervised by Nobel
Prize winners who are considered
unassailable, Preparata asserted.
   ``You are dealing with a subtle
process here which must be explained by
real scientific thinking,'' Preparata
said. Then he directed an impassioned
appeal to the audience that they,
especially the laymen, not be dissuaded
from fighting for scientific truth.
``For the sake of your children, for
the sake of the future of humanity, we
must fight this stranglehold on science
that affects us all.''
 
From New Federalist V6, #14.
 
 
----
Please respond by e-mail as I get very far behind in reading this
newsgroup.
 
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencovici cudfnJohn cudlnCovici cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  Britz /  RE: Re: TRITIUM AT HARWELL
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: TRITIUM AT HARWELL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:25:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
 
>In article <78B36487C49F007754@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
> writes:
>> Date: 1 Apr 92 14:30:48 GMT
>>
>> I have it from a source who prefers not to be named, that tritium has been
>> found at Harwell.
>[...]
>> Make what you will of this.
>>
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>>
 ==============================================================================
>
>April Fool!!
 
Full marks, Cary. Must have been too obvious, though, judging by the lack of
response. How about this, Scientists Making Jokes? What will Prof. Farrell
think of us?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  Britz /  RE: A plea for more responsible debate
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: A plea for more responsible debate
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:26:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Dick Blue (an official skeptic in my book) writes:
>>"I have an alternative explaination:  Cross talk between electrical signals"
>>In his discussion of the McKubre et al paper.
 
>Dieter Britz (a neutral observer to me) writes:
>"I have not seen the the McKubre paper, and don't want to iether, until it's
>out as a proper publication."
 
Well, prompted as I was from several quarters, I did get hold of a copy of the
McKubre+ paper and did read it this weekend. Speaking not as bibliographer (who
will still wait for the proper, refereed, paper), I must say it is one of the
most carefully executed experiments in this field that I have read about. I do
have my small doubt about the loading figures (based on measurement of the
resistance of the Pd cathode) but I'd have to read the Baranowski papers
referred to, to make that more definite. It seems clear, however, that they
got loadings well in excess of 0.8, where there is a resistance maximum. This
team went to tedious and pedantic trouble to eliminate problems and to
check obvious quantities. Their precision appears to be about 0.3% (they
say 0.1%) or - better: +-50 mW. So when they get up to about 1W excess power,
and a clear difference between an H2O and a D2O cell (respectively, zero
and 0.5 W excess), their restrained conclusion, that this heat (at 490 eV/atom
Pd) is too large to come from a chemical or mechanical effect, seems very
reasonable. It is possible that they have overlooked something but it is not
something obvious.
 
 As for Dick Blue's <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU> point:
>Subject:  Carping about CF experiments
..
>back on the McKubre case.  While it is true, as Tom says, that cross
>talk between signals should have been found during calibration runs there
>can be lots of reasons why it didn't show up.  Only one more fact to
>support my notion:  The run P12 which was early in the series of
>experiments showing excess heat is the only run that shows the proportionality
>I have been wondering about.  In subsequent measurements made after the
>cells were obviously reconnected in new configurations there is no simple
>relationship between excess heat and input current.  This was a non-
>reproducible effect that is of course one hallmark of cold fusion.
 
The authors themselves mention the irreproducability, although they did manage
to get their effect in several cells. I had asked about time delays in these
signals, and I note now, looking at the paper (Fig. 7, and the comment near
the bottom of page 434, that a step change in the current is followed by a
change in excess heat, with a time constant of a few tens of minutes, the time
constant of the calorimeter, NOT an instantaneous change as would be the case
if it were due to electrical cross talk. Whatever this is, it seems to be heat
in response to current. To relegate this clear effect to something random is
grasping at straws, this time by a skeptic.
 Fig. 8, in which we see the H2O and D2O cells in the same bath, one giving no
excess heat, the other 0.5 W excess, has a puzzling feature, and I suspect
there is something wrong with the time axis on either current or power: in two
places (t = 490 h, t = 610 h), the excess heat change precedes the current
change by a definite amount. The final (t = 610 h) is the most dramatic: here,
the current is cut off, but the power zooms down about 4 hours prior to that.
Surely this is sloppy overlaying of recorder traces?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.03 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 688 papers, 96 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 688 papers, 96 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 15:23:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
gleanings from Chem. Abstracts; the trickle is indeed a trickle now. At this
rate, patents will overtake real papers. Chapnik has written before about
unusual reactions taking place in the PdD lattice, and here elaborates on it.
We have a Letter to the Editor, interesting to those who are pondering loading
as a function of electrolysis current. It is apparently a long-known fact that
hydrogen (or deuterium) bubbles off the Pd cathode when you stop charging.
This could mean FPH are correct with their Nernst equation business (or in any
case, in the right ball park), or - as has been pointed out to me by Bernd
Speiser of Tuebingen - that duting electrolysis you get a solution near the
Pd, saturated with D2, which forms bubbles when you let go. There is a book
review by a skeptic, who also wants to hammer nails into the coffin. These two
items were kindly sent to me by HH Bauer of VPI, author of "Scientific Literacy
and the Myth of the Scientific Method", a good book to read and think about.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 3-Apr. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 688
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapnik IM;                                    Physics Lett. A 161 (1991) 111.
"Possibility of electrochemically induced transmutation in PdD".
** Chapnik here follows up an earlier paper in which he suggested that the
process in cold fusion is the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction, in which neutrons
from deuterons tunnel into other, heavier atoms, such as Pd. This would emit
beta, gamma and proton radiation, any of which can be detected. This paper
considers optimal conditions for the observation of the effect. One method of
promoting this reaction might be mechanical distortion (twisting, bending) of
the PdD sample, to cause inhomogeneities.                        Sep-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drexler J;                            PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 15,017,  23-Mar-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:115385 (1992).
"Deuterium energy accumulation".
** "Method and app. are described for promoting electrolyte ionization of
heavy water to thereby produce D ions that are accelerated by an elec. field
and collected in the interior of an accumulator. Neg. and pos. electrodes,
spaced apart, are immersed in the liq. with an approx. const. voltage
impressed between them. An ion accumulator substantially surrounds the neg.
electrode, is formed of an accumulator material through which the ions may
flow, and has a metal that readily absorbs D at its surface. The accumulator
material can absorb a fraction of the D ions that would otherwise flow to the
neg. electrode. D ions, absorbed into the accumulator material, may produce
heat energy by cold fusion therein." (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamoto E;                    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,237,397, 14-Feb-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(10):93662 (1992).
"Neutron radiographic apparatus based on cold nuclear fusion".
** "An n radiog. app., which contains an n source, and a film on which n from
the source is projected across the sample target, uses a cold-nuclear-fusion
device as the n source". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamoto E;                    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,237,398, 14-Feb-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(10):93661 (1992).
"Radioactivation analyzer using cold-nuclear-fusion apparatus as neutron
source".
** "A radioactivation analyzer which is equipped with an n source and a
radiation detector, is characterized in that the n source is a
cold-nuclear-fusion app.". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khudenko BM;                           PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 14,267, 13-Mar-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:115386 (1992).
"Method and apparatus for nuclear fusion".
** "The present invention relates to a method and app. for cold nuclear fusion
in which fusionable particles located within an electrolyte are accelerated by
local electromagnetic fields in a migrational transport layer. This
migrational transport layer can be induced either by creating a cementation
system, applying an outside source of current to an electrode system, or a
combination of both". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer FJ;                             PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 17,546,  09-May-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:115385 (1992).
"Resonant direct nuclear reactions for energy and tritium production".
** "An app. is described comprising: means for energizing a 1st nucleus to an
energy of <= 3 keV; means for contg. a 2nd nucleus therein; means for
contacting the energized nucleus with the 2nd nucleus, whereby an n transfer
reaction occurs between the nuclei under conditions wherein the energy of the
energized nucleus is substantially below the Coulomb barrier energy for the
reaction and the reaction generates products having a kinetic energy
substantially in excess of the energy of the energized nucleus, which is
dissipated to the reactor as thermal energy; and means for withdrawing thermal
energy from the reactor". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murbach W;                                                C&EN 9-Mar-1992, p.3
"Cold fusion" (Letter).
** WM comments on the SRI explosion, pointing to an old inorganic chemistry
text (Therald Moeller, 1952), which notes that hydrogen is released
explosively from palladium hydride when the electrolysis current is turned
off. Also, he points out that ignition in hot fusion has not been easy to
achieve, and reckons that this gives an exceedingly small chance to cold
fusion, in principle.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore SN;                                    Skeptical Enquirer 16 (1992) 301.
"Seeking 'resurrection' for cold fusion" - a review of Fire from Ice, Mallove.
** SS, a NASA physicist, here reviews Eugene Mallove's book. He makes his own
position clear by saying that the coffin has been nailed on cold fusion, and
Frank Close has written the definitive book on it, serving as obituary -
almost; Mallove seeks to resurrect it. SN believes Mallove wrote a work of
wishful thinking, rather than one of science or sociology. Mallove's main
point is the large number of positive findings; he quotes 92 groups that have
done so. SN looks at these, and finds that one fifth are comprised of just
four groups (two in Indian, one at Oak Ridge, one at Case Western Reserve) and
that only 19 are from refereed journals, six out of newspaper reports. These
papers vary widely in what they report, and Mallove does not mention the much
larger number of negative findings. He concludes that Mallove's book should be
read, if only to have a record of the believer's case.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 / Jim Bowery /  Proposed Fusion Legislation
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed Fusion Legislation
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:48:12 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Please review this legislation.
If you disagree with it, please send me your criticizms.
If you agree with it, please forward it to:
 
The Honorable Tom Bevill
2302 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
 
and
 
The Honorable Philip Sharp
2217 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
03/26/92 REPLACEMENT OF
PUBLIC LAW 96-389, sec 3
Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1540
CHAPTER 101 -- FUSION
ENERGY ENGINEERING
 
(Author's note:  For a legislative history and purpose see 1980 U.S.
Code Cong. And Adm. News, P. 3336.)
 
(The purpose of this revision of 03/26/92 is to provide small grants
to fusion innovators who posess fusion technology patents, allowing
them to devote more time and effort in the pursuit of private capital
sources.)
 
Sec 9301. Congressional findings and declaration of policy
 
(a) The Congress hereby finds that --
 
        (1) the United States and the world would enjoy enormous and
critically needed benefits from the commercial availability of
environmentally clean and virtually inexhaustible sources of energy;
 
        (2) in theory, the fusion of light atomic nuclei can provide
the basis for such energy sources;
 
        (3) the concept of fusion energy based on the  confinement of
high temperature plasmas has been the subject of ongoing government-funded
research and development for over three decades;
 
        (4) during these decades our understanding of high temperature
plasmas has progressed to the point that, with appropriate government
incentives, the tradition of diversity and risk management in our free
enterprise system can expand the frontiers of fusion energy technology
at a rate far greater and at a cost far lower than centrally planned
programs funded by the government alone;
 
        (5) progress in fusion energy systems is currently limited by
the lack of a diversity in technical approaches being explored;
 
        (6) to ensure the timely commercialization of fusion energy
systems, the United States Government must create an environment in
which the inherent commercial rewards of fusion energy technology are
leveraged by supplementary Federal funds so as to motivate many
diverse inventors and investors in the private sector who will freely
and rapidly develop the frontiers of fusion energy technology;
 
        (7) it is vital that the Federal Government continue its
direct financial support for scientific research in the physics of
high tempurature plasmas as this creates fundamental new knowledge of
immense value which cannot be patented or reasonably treated as
intellectual property;
 
        (8) it is a proper role for the Federal Government to
stimulate accelerated commercial investment in the development and
demonstration of fusion energy technologies; and
 
        (9) the stimulation of commercial investment in the
development of fusion technology can be accelerated through the award
of cash prizes to entrepreneurs achieving significant technical
milestones and the granting of funds matching those put at risk by
private investors.
 
 
(b) It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States and
the purpose of this chapter to stimulate commercial investment in the
development and demonstration of fusion energy systems and continued
scientific research into the physics of high temperature plasmas.
Further, it is declared to be the policy of the United States and the
purpose of this chapter that the objectives of such a program shall be
--
 
        (1) to promote an orderly transition from the current research
and development program to a new one in which the private sector
capitalizes and manages risks inherent in the development and
demonstration of fusion energy technologies under the disciplined
diversity of free enterprise while the government continues to
directly fund plasma physics research;
 
        (2) to stimulate private sector investment in fusion energy
technology by awarding substantial prizes for significant technical
achievement and matching private investment with public grants;
 
        (3) to, over time, systematically remove public support for
private investment in fusion energy development and demonstration
commensurate with the removal of barriers to commercial deployment of
fusion energy systems;
 
        (4) to continue international cooperation in plasma science
for the benefit of all nations;
 
        (5) to give preferential treatment to aneutronic fusion
cycles;
 
        (6) to give preferential treatement to fusion cycles that make
use of readily available fuels;
 
        (7) to stimulate the commercial deployment of competitive
fusion energy sources; and
 
        (8) to demonstrate that United States science in partnership
with commercially financed technology development and operation
continues the tradition of world leadership in science and technology.
 
 
Sec. 9302.  Definitions
 
For the purposes of this chapter --
 
        (1) "fusion" means a process whereby two light nuclei, such as
deuterium and tritium, collide, forming a compound nucleus, which
subsequently separates into constituents which are different from the
original colliding nuclei, and which carry away the accompanying
energy release;
 
        (2) "energy system" means a facility designed to utilize
energy released in the fusion process for the generation of
electricity and the production of hydrogen or other fuels;
 
        (3) "Secretary" means Secretary of Energy.
 
        (4) "scientific research" means activities that discover
knowledge about natural phenomena, which, under existing statute,
cannot be held as intellectual property via patent;
 
        (5) "scientific knowledge" means knowledge acquired or
discovered through scientific research;
 
        (6) "development" means the acquisition of knowledge or
reduction to practice of an invention which does not exist in nature
and which has some practical value or which has value as intellectual
property under patent law or other statutes;
 
        (7) "engineering break-even" means the production, by a fusion
energy device, of a fusion burn which consumes at least 5% of the
confined fusion fuel and which produces at least twice the energy
consumed by the fusion energy device during the burn;
 
        (8) "commercial break-even" means the self-sustaining
operation of a fusion energy device by feeding its power output back
to its power input without the need for any outside input except its
fuel;
 
        (9) "commonly available" is any fuel whose dollar (1991) per
ounce commercial price multiplied by the number of tons of plant and
equipment required to burn it per million watts sustained power
production is a quantity less than 10,000 dollar-tons per megawatt-ounce;
 
        (10) "energetically aneutronic" means any fuel which, when
burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron radiation carrying
away less than 10% of the produced energy;
 
        (11) "environmentally aneutronic" means any fuel which, when
burned in a fusion energy system, produces neutron radiation carrying
away less than 1% of the produced energy;
 
 
(continued)
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  Britz /  RE: More on deuterium absorption
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: More on deuterium absorption
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:29:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>For the 0.1 cc pd sample we will be using, we will be able to measure the net
>energy to about 20 J over the four hour charging time.  This should give us
>a few percent energy measurement.  I can't believe that this is a constant
>35 kJ per mole over the whole range because it is supposed to go from
>exothermic to encothermic at .9 D/Pd.  So the problem with using this as a
>measure of loading is that I don't know what the energy vs D/Pd curve looks
>like.  I have ordered the Divisek paper (Fermilab has nothing useful for
>cold fusion), perhaps it will help.
 
I don't think it will help you much, and I doubt that anyone knows. If anyone,
it would be the Flanagan et al lot, whose work is familiar to Dutton, and he
would have said something more about it than the qualitative guesses he has
made. You might be on your own here, Tom. I don't think there is agreement
about what happens at loadings beyond 0.8. Does the extra D really go into
vacant (but reluctant) lattice sites, or maybe into voids formed at this
stage, as compressed D2 gas? If the former, this might be a gradual admixture
of a new phase with its own definite thermodynamics; if the latter, what?
 
>In earlier experiments we used a third method to measure D/Pd by using a
>four point Kelvin measurement of the cathode.  This has the problem that
>the cell current is of the same order of magnitude as the measurement current
>and adds a lot of noise to the measurement.  So I have give up on resistance
>even though it is interesting.  Getting all those leads in the cell is a pain.
 
Also, the curve goes through a maximum at 0.8, and calibrations that I have
seen do not go much beyond that, so I don't know how you'd get a loading from
it if you are in fact beyond it. Strictly speaking, the measurement would be
ambiguous anyway - McMubre+ use a decrease in resistance as evidence of
increased loadings, but it could - in principle - also be a decrease to <0.8.
 
 
>To answer Tod about the importance of symmetry, I don't know either.  I just
 
Here is one theoretical possibility: if we assume that at high current
densities, you get high effective loading pressure (FPH's enormous fugacity),
then an unsymmetrical electrode arrangement might be unfavourable, because
there would be different current densities at different places on the Pd. So
in one place, you would be super-loading D into it, but in another, you might
be letting it out again. In other words, there would be transport within the
Pd, nullifying high loadings at a few points. If you have an even and high
current density, as you'd get with a symmetric setup, this can't happen.
Symmetry is possible for only two geometries: a spherical cathode, not
shielded anywhere (not possible), or a cyclindrical rod, surrounded by a
cyclindrical anode (but a spiral would be OK, at a sufficient distance of a
few cathode diameters), with the important proviso that the top and bottom of
the cathode are flush with the cell top and bottom and not electrochemically
accessible. I'd say that square cathodes would give you very uneven current
density distributions.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 / Jon Webb /  Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:25:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

This article is taken from the New Federalist, a publication of the
political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, which makes it suspect.  The
LaRouchies have for years been claiming a conspiracy to suppress cold
fusion.  I'd wait for it to be reported elsewhere before giving it any
credibility.  Hell, if the press conference was packed, why haven't
there been any other stories about it?  -- J
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  /  Comments on McKubre et al
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on McKubre et al
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:43:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes:
 
"Surely this is sloppy overlaying of recorder traces?"
 
First I would like to invite someone from McKubre et al to get on the net
and explain figure 7 and 8.  Next notice that figure 8 is dated 10/31/90,
and P16 data is dated 12/21/90 as run start.  So these runs were completed
about the end of January.  It looks to me like the work of people with
patent attorneys who are timing their publications to match the one year
delay of an international patent application.
 
My problem is with Figure 7.  For Figure 8, I would attribute the increase
at 488 to the current change at 472.  From all that I read, a big time delay
is expected.  Looks to me like the cell died at 610, then they turned off the
current.  Why else stop a cell that is running after only 6 days of output?
After waiting 20 days to see something?  I sure wouldn't turn a running cell
off so quickly.  Figure 8 looks like Mac output, so I would expect it to
be lined up properly.
 
Figure 7 looks like chart recorder output, so could suffer the allignment
problem.  But note that if the allignment is OK, then first the power
dropped to zero, then the current was turned off.  Placing a straight edge
on the numbered tic marks shows the allignment is *not* right.  Looks like
variable stretch in chart paper to me.  By actually reading the text (perish
the thought - top of page 436) they say that the cell voltage went up and
the changes were an attempt to keep it going.  Going all the way back to
early P&F statements, this is one way working cells die.
 
Has anyone noticed that the three out of five cells that worked were all
implanted with He4?  That first heat varied from 1330 hrs P12 to 474 hours
P14?  P15 implanted with He4 gave heat while its brother P16 implanted with
He3 did not?
 
We have found that polishing the surface increases the loading.  This based
on a circa 1900 reference.
 
The present dilemma is whether to turn off the present cell which got to
0.93 D/Pd after running it 600+ hours in order to run a Takahashi type cell
with advertised 5 day to heat time.  I need to build build about 10 more
calorimeters so that all options can be explored.  But my associate who
gives me money to build water machines would kill me!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  /  Waht is magic about 158 F (70 C)?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Waht is magic about 158 F (70 C)?
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:44:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From FD 232
 
"FLEISCHMANN AND PONS TO BUILD A COLD FUSION BOILER THIS YEAR"
 
Can anyone speculate about the temperature figure quoted as 158 F in the
article?  Now 158 F (70 C) is the temperature rating of most commercial
electronic parts.  Why would this possibly be a limit for a boiler?  Is
this just below some phase change?  This number must have come from some
where!  Must say that Dieter Britz got me, so I looked at the date of the
press conference.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 / John Covici /  Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
     
Originally-From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:52:20 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb @ School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
 University) once wrote....
>Hell, if the press conference was packed, why haven't
>there been any other stories about it?  -- J
 
 
Very good question.  If you don't believe the press conference took
place why not ask Malov, etc.  And why not ask the press who didn't
cover it why they didn't.
 
 
----
Please respond by e-mail as I get very far behind in reading this
newsgroup.
 
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencovici cudfnJohn cudlnCovici cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  jstimson@hmcva /  COLD FUSION?  Get a life.
     
Originally-From: jstimson@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION?  Get a life.
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:06:44 PST
Organization: Harvey Mudd College

Is anyone out there knowledgable about real fusion experiments, or is this
simply a newsgroup for cro-magnon pop-science fans with their cold fusion fad?
There seems to be some real progress being made in magnetic confinement fusion,
with planning for the ITER going smoothly, while the cold fusion fiasco has
died out except in the pages of Omni and Discover, and your occasional aberrant
newsgroup...If you aren't going to discuss real fusion, then change the name to
sci.physics.cold-fusion, or better yet, rec.fiction.cold-fusion.
					- John Stimson
					Harvey Mudd College '94
					Caltech: The perfect backup school
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjstimson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 / Jim Bowery /  Proposed Fusion Legislation (part 2 of 2)
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed Fusion Legislation (part 2 of 2)
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:50:55 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

 
 
Sec. 9303.  Program activities
 
(a) Scientific research in areas where lack of knowledge limits the
development of fusion energy systems;
 
        (1) The Secretary shall periodically survey commercial
participants in fusion energy technology development or potential
investors in same, to determine critical gaps in scientific knowledge;
 
        (2) The Secretary shall initiate scientific research
emphasizing gaps in scientific knowledge as determined from the survey
of commercial developers and investors;
 
        (3) The Secretary shall fully disclose to the public all
discoveries made in the course of government funded research under
this program;
 
        (4) The Secretary shall, on an annual basis, convene an
independent panel, no member of which may have received Federal funds
for fusion-related research or development in the last 5 years nor
served on the panel in the last 5 years, to review scientific research
activities to ensure Federal plasma physics funds are not being used
for patentable fusion technology development purposes instead of
unpatentable scientific research into plasma physics;
 
        (5) If the independent review panel determines an activity is
development rather than research, the Federal funds used for such
development must be repaid to the United States Treasury to reduce the
federal debt;
 
        (6) Physicists receiving income from government-funded fusion
energy research or development prior to the enactment of this
legislation are to be awarded an annual grant for the next 5 years
equal to their average annual income derived from Federally-funded
fusion energy programs over the last 5 years, up to a limit of
$60,000(1991) per year, the purpose of which is to recognize their
committment and contribution to the field and to aid in their
transition to the new funding environment; and
 
        (7) Commercial Fusion Enterprises, as defined in 9303.b.1 may
enjoin the government from continuing to directly fund scientific
research in plasma physics which they believe to be in competition
with their efforts to develop fusion technology.
 
 
(b) The stimulation of commercial investment in fusion technology
development;
 
        (1) Any private, for profit, business owned or controlled by
United States persons which is primarily engaged in the development of
fusion technology qualifies as a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.
 
        (2) Every U.S. citizen possessing a patent for a fusion energy
system is to be provided with full reimbursement of all  tax-deductible
expenses incurred the pursuit of up their patent, up to a
maximum of $100,000; the purpose of which is to assist the inventor in
the pursuit of private financing of further development of the
patented technology under the incentives of the current Act.
 
        (3) Any facility owned or controlled by United States persons
generally used by Commercial Fusion Enterprises and primarily used for
the development of fusion technology qualifies as a Commercial Fusion
Center and also as a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.
 
        (4) Commercial Fusion Enterprises shall receive matching funds
from the government for each private investment they make toward the
development of fusion technology.
 
        (5) Funds provided by the government, as well as the private
funds they match, shall be used to develop fusion energy technology.
Failure to use such funds to develop fusion energy technology shall
render the Commercial Fusion Enterprise liable for such damages and
criminal penalties as are warranted under the existing statutes
against securities fraud currently enforced by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
 
        (6) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the
Fusion Energy Trust Fund, which is hereby established, and whose
contents are to be invested in 30 year Treasury instruments and whose
disbursements are to be administered by the National Academy of
Engineering.
 
        (7) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even using an cycle burning an energetically
aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the fusion
Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (8) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even using an cycle burning an environmentally
aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the fusion
Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (9) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even using using a cycle burning a commonly
available energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (10) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even using using a cycle burning a commonly
available environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000
prize from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (11) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the
Fusion Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (12) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even based on a fusion cycle burning an energetically
aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion
Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (13) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even based on a fusion cycle burning an
environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize
from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (14) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even using a cycle burning a commonly available
energetically aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from
the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (15) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even using a cycle burning a commonly available
environmentally aneutronic fuel shall receive a $100,000,000 prize
from the Fusion Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (16) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
engineering break-even at power densities above 1 million watts per
ton of equipment shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion
Energy Trust Fund.
 
        (17) The first Commercial Fusion Enterprise to demonstrate
commercial break-even at power densities above 1 million watts per ton
of equipment shall receive a $100,000,000 prize from the Fusion Energy
Trust Fund.
 
        (18) Interest income on the Fusion Energy Trust Fund shall be
used to increase the value of all prizes according to the Producer
Price Index.  Excess income shall be returned to the United States
Treasury used to reduce the national debt.
 
        (19) One year after this bill becomes law, The Secretary shall
hold a series of 10 monthly publicly advertised auctions.  At each
auction 10 kilograms of Helium-3 will be sold to the highest bidder.
The winning bidder must:
        a) be a Commercial Fusion Enterprise.
        b) not have already won a previous auction.
        c) not have cross-ownership with any other Commercial Fusion
Enterprise that has already won at a previous auction.
        d) have a board of directors and officers that do not overlap
with the board of directors and officers of any other Commercial
Fusion Enterprise that has already won at a previous auction and;
        e) not have more than 10% of its ownership in common with any
other Commercial Fusion Enterprise that has already won at a previous
auction.
 
        20) The Secretary shall make 100 acres of the Nevada nuclear
test range available to Commercial Fusion Enterprises.  This land
shall:
        a) cost no more than $1000 per month to lease per acre,
including all user fees.
        b) be remote enough that the instantaneous release of 1 gram
of tritium gas per month will pose no significant health risk to those
outside the test range.
        c) be located on land suitable for construction.
        d) have paved access to the center of the 100 acre area.
 
 
Sec. 9304  International cooperation;
 
Scientific research, as defined specifically in this act, being of a
limited and nonproprietary nature, shall be conducted in a spirit of
academic freedom and openness wherein scientists shall freely
cooperate and communicate with other scientists without regard to
national boundries.  It is the intent of Congress that the State
Department take  action to facilitate the free international exchange
of such purely scientific information and work.
 
 
Sec. 9305.  Dissemination of information
 
(a) The Secretary shall take all necessary steps to assure all
scientific knowledge relevant to fusion is made readily available to
interested United States persons:  Provided, however, that upon a
showing to the Secretary by any person that any information or portion
thereof provided to the Secretary directly or indirectly from such
person would, if made public, divulge (1) trade secrets or (2) other
proprietary information of such person, the Secretary shall not
disclose such information and disclosure thereof shall be punishable
under section 1905 of Title 18.
 
(b) The Secretary shall maintain an aggressive program in the United
States for the provision of public information and educaitonal
materials to promote widespread knowledge of  fusion among
educational, community, business, environmental, labor, and
governmental entities and the public at large.
 
 
Sec. 9306.  Annual report
 
        As a separate part of the annual report submitted pursuant to
section 7321 of this title, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an
annual report of activities pursuant to this chapter.  Such report
shall include --
 
        (a) a list of recent scientific discoveries in plasma physics
as funded under this chapter;
 
        (b) a list of Commercial Fusion Enterprises, their levels of
capitalization, Fusion Energy Trust Fund prize applications and Fusion
Energy Trust Fund prize awards;
 
        (c) an analysis of the progress made in commercializing
fusion technology; and
 
        (d) suggestions for improvements in the national  fusion
program, including recommendations for legislation.
 
 
Sec. 9307.  Authorization of appropriations; contract authority
 
        There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, such sums as
are provided in the annual authorization Act pursuant to section 7270
of this title.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.07 /  jstimson@hmcva /  cancel <1992Apr6.140644.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
     
Originally-From: jstimson@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Apr6.140644.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:47:34 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College

cancel <1992Apr6.140644.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjstimson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 /  jstimson@hmcva /  cancel <1992Apr6.140644.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
     
Originally-From: jstimson@hmcvax.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Apr6.140644.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:49:06 PST
Organization: Harvey Mudd College

cancel <1992Apr6.140644.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjstimson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.03 / Raul Baragiola /  Cluster impact fusion
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cluster impact fusion
Date: 3 Apr 92 17:12:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

An erratum is in press in Phys. Rev. Letters by Beuhler, Friedlander and
Friedman. They have found what many have suspected, i.e., that the
anomalously high fusion rates (Phys. Rev. Lett 63, 1292 (1989); J. Phys.
Chem. 94, 7665 (1990); Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 473 (1991) and Bae et al,
Phys. Rev. A44, R4091 (1991)) were caused by traces of light contaminant
ions containing deuterium.
 
Now we can wait for errata from Pons and Fleishmann (and others) ....
 
Ciao,
 
Raul Baragiola
Univ. Virginia
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.06 / Ethan Bradford /  Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
     
Originally-From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleishmann & Ponz To Build Cold Fusion Boiler This Year
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:31:20 GMT
Organization: U. of Washington

In article <WEBB+.92Apr6092543@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
 writes:
 
   This article is taken from the New Federalist, a publication of the
   political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, which makes it suspect.  The
   LaRouchies have for years been claiming a conspiracy to suppress cold
   fusion.  I'd wait for it to be reported elsewhere before giving it any
   credibility.  Hell, if the press conference was packed, why haven't
   there been any other stories about it?  -- J
 
Actually, before cold fusion arrived they were claiming that hot
fusion would be fueling our cities today if it weren't for the nasty
conspirators (the usual suspects include Henry Kissinger and Queen
Elizabeth).  I once accidently joined their organization and got their
magazine for a couple of years -- it was enlightening to see what some
people can believe.
--
 
-- Ethan (ethanb@u.washington.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenethanb cudfnEthan cudlnBradford cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 698 papers, 96 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 698 papers, 96 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:26:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here are mostly papers out of the (my) latest Fusion Technology, which remains
faithful to CNF, despite recent signs of its death - or some contend. There is
also a science-sociological paper, and after some soul-searching, I put it
into the Comments section; it does not deal with cold fusion as such, but uses
it as an example of something sociological. Bruce Lewenstein sent me this one,
which I would otherwise have missed; thanks, Bruce. We can probably expect a
rising tide of such papers - they might even overtake real cnf papers in
frequency.
There is a bunch of real papers, too, as you see below. Nothing to excite us,
except perhaps the emissions of neutrons (and maybe tritium), correlated with
increases in current densities, in the Gozzi+ effort. The tritium search in
volcanic craters interested me, since the Jones wing seems to believe that
this has indeed been found, but I have yet to see such papers. This one, in
any case (Quick et al) finds nothing. They are undoubtedly unhappy at the high
"noise level" which obviates sensitive measurements, coming from man-made
fall-out. Even tiny traces of tritium coming out of volcanoes would be clear
evidence of fusion in the Earth, in contrast with the many reports of
anomalous (3)He/(4)He ratios, for which there may be any number of
explanations, (3)He being stable.
The other papers speak for themselves and don't need my comments (possibly
no papers do).
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 8-Apr. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 698
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan SR, Gibson JH;                             Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 95.
"Comments on 'Nuclear energy release in metals'".
** A letter to the Editor, commenting on Mayer and Reitz's previous paper (FT
19 (1991) 552). M&R claimed that there is experimental evidence for their
theory of a nuclear reaction with the Pd atoms, leading to Pd isotope
distribution changes. Bryan and Gibson say that this is a misinterpretation,
and no such changes took place.                                  Aug-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannizzaro F, Greco G, Raneli M, Spitale MC, Tomarchio E;
Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 86.
"Search for neutrons as evidence of cold fusion".
** Report of a Palermo effort. Electrolysis was carried out in D2O containing
sodium sulphate, and a mixture of sodium sulphate and iron, nickel and calcium
salts. The Pd and Ti cathodes were in the form of plates. Two independent
systems of BF3 thermal neutron counters were used, with pulse height analysis.
Current densities went up to 24 mA/cm**2. The results do not confirm even
Jones+ levels, at an upper limit of 3.6E-24 fus/d-d pair/s.      May-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gozzi D, Cignini PL, Tomellini M, Frullani S, Garibaldi F, Ghio F, Jodice M,
Urciuoli GM;                                     Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 60.
"Neutron and tritium evidence in the electrolytic reduction of deuterium on
palladium electrodes".
** A FPH reenactment, using 10 cells and lasting 3 months, was carried out.
All 10 cells were placed in the same water bath and shared the same current.
A neutron detector was placed in the centre, and gamma detectors outside the
ring. Tritium was measured in the recombined evolved gases. One of the 10
cells contained an H2O solution instead of D2O. Pd electrodes were gas (D2 or
H2) charged prior to electrolysis. Current densities were changed according to
a program suggested by a Texas A&M result, up to 500 mA/cm**2, and there is
a correlation between neutron emission and current density, with a threshold
at about 320 mA/cm**2. Also, 3 cells out of the 9 showed tritium in excess of
enrichment, at the same currents as produced neutrons. Some anomalous thermal
effects were found but are in doubt. No gamma emissions were found. The
authors conclude that more work is needed.                       Apr-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jin S-X, Ding Y-B, Wu B-L, Liu Y-Z, Yao D-C; Science in China A 34 (1991) 697.
"The possibilities of electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium".
** (That should read "possibility"). The authors examine the FPH and Jones+
papers, propose some possible mechanisms and calculate fusion rates. The
deuterium ions in the Pd lattice form a strongly coupled plasma, which can
enhance fusion rates by screening effects, as has been found by others. One
possible mechanism is thermal motion and d-d collisions. This does not lead to
observable effects, except at temperatures above the melting point of Pd. The
other possible mechanism is the formation and fusion of D2 molecules; this,
too, leads to insufficient rates except at impractical loadings (around some
1000's). Therefore, if there is any cold fusion, it must be produced by some
other process, perhaps a nonequilibrium phenomenon causing high local
densities or energies.                                           Jun-89/Jun-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer FJ, Reitz JR;                              Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 95.
"Response to 'Comments on "Nuclear energy release in metals"'".
** Answer to Bryan and Gibson's polemic (FT 21 (1992) 95) denying the validity
of M&R's claim for nuclear reactions between deuterium and Pd, leading to
changes in Pd isotope distribution. M & R agree that the evidence for such
changes is not there, but insist that their hydron theory of cold fusion fits
the facts.                                                       Aug-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mills RL;                                        Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 96.
"Reply to 'Comments on "Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an
aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold
fusion"'".
** Reponse to a polemic by Mayer (FT 20 (1991) 511), who doubts Mills and
Kneizys's report; Mills shows that electrolyte conductivity changes due to
natural K isotopes are irrelevant. He concludes that, although quantum
mechanics is indeed, as Mayer notes, firmly entrenched, this does leave room
for new ideas such as his; experimental results rule.            Sep-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick JE, Hinkley TK, Reimer GM, Hedge CE;
Phys. Earth Planet. Interior 69 (1991) 132.
"Tritium concentrations in the active Pu'u O'o crater, Kilauea volcano,
Hawaii: implications for cold fusion in the Earth's interior".
** Cold fusion might be an important planetary heating mechanism, if it takes
place. (3)He and T out of volcanoes might be indicators of such fusion, with T
being the more definite. To avoid contamination by man-made sources (bomb test
fallout etc), the study focussed on the Pu'u O'o crater, where there is large
release of magmatic water. Comparisons with rainwater and similar controls
reveal no extra tritium emissions from the volcano, in fact, in-crater levels
were lower than those for rain.                                  Jan-91/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tian ZQ;                                         Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 92.
"A proposal for a cold fusion study in the Ti/D system".
** Three conditions are required for cold fusion to take place: (1) a high
deuterium loading; (2) triggering the system to a nonequilibrium state and (3)
capturing the reaction products to sufficient sensitivity. Point (2) is often
overlooked, says the author. The most promising system is the Ti/D system. The
use of a special electrolysis method would ensure high loading, and triggering
might be done by passing a high current through the sample. Electrolysis can,
for example, be carried out at low temperatures in methanol or other
nonaqueous electrolytes. Surface treatment, to control oxide layers, is also
important.                                                       Jun-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhm HS, Lee WM;                                  Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 75.
"High concentration of deuterium in palladium".
** A high ratio D/Pd is required for solid state fusion, say the authors, as
well as being interesting for other electrochemical studies. At beyond 1, the
substance PdD2 forms, with a d-d distance of only 0.94 A. New schemes for high
loading are presented here. One is plasma ion implantation into a Pd rod
coated with a diffusion-barrier layer. Parameters are found for which large
loadings are possible. The other scheme is the use of a temperature gradient,
with the D-loaded Pd rod placed into a snugly fitting steel tube; a portion of
the Pd is heated, which leads to high concentrations in some regions. Both
proposed techniques can increase the D/Pd ration to several times the usually
obtained values.                                                 Jul-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang W-X;                                       Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 82.
"Possibility of phase transitions inducing cold fusion in palladium/deuterium
systems".
** The authors believe that cold fusion is a real phenomenon, and propose a
mechanism for it. There are two possibilities: (1) localised energy
concentrations, giving small numbers of deuterons in the Pd lattice an energy
of some 100 eV and thus enabling low-efficiency fusion; (2) muon catalysis.
The latter does not agree with observations, so the local-energy mechanism
must be responsible. In this paper, it is suggested that local transitions
from the beta phase to a mixture of alpha- and beta- produce very high local
stresses and thus cracks, which induce fusion. This leads to some of the
observations, such as long charging times before something happens, irregular
neutron emission, deactivation of the Pd samples, poor reproducibility, and
the fact that the effect appears only in Pd and Ti.              Apr-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor CA;                                      Commun. Monogr. 58 (1991) 402.
"Defining the scientific community: A rhetorical perspective on demarcation".
** A scholarly paper by a science sociologist/philosopher on how science
defines its borders; cold fusion is used as a case study. The idea is
propagated here, that Big Science, i.e. hot fusion, felt itself under attack
and reacted. Reaction focussed on the errors committed by cold fusion
researchers, and on the lack of universality (reproducibility), a clear
criterion for the demarcation of what is science from what is not.    ?/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 /  fusion@zorch.S /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:50:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenfusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 / Jim Bowery /  Disincentives
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Disincentives
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:20:15 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

The more I get involved with legislative reforms of the space
program and fusion energy, the more it appears that the
incentives of these programs are deliberately designed
to suppress progress.
 
For example, everyone receiving money directly or indirectly
from these projects knows that if they actually do open
up access to space or actually do solve the fusion problem,
their personal positions will disappear and they will receive
no royalties from the technologies they develop at government
expense.
 
And guess what?  They all behave exactly as though they were
aware of that fact!
 
They stretch out each little technical innovation for as long
as possible extracting as much money as possible from Congress
while providing minimal returns and engaging in character
assassination of any "outsiders" who come up with innovations
that might work quickly and cheaply.
 
Now given the potential importance of fusion and space, it
leads me to wonder, why is it that we have set the incentives
of these programs up to produce suppression of progress in
these areas?
 
Is it just stupid, short-sighted porkbarrel politics?
 
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 / Phil Fraering /  Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
     
Originally-From: pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:00:08 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
>For example, everyone receiving money directly or indirectly
>from these projects knows that if they actually do open
>up access to space or actually do solve the fusion problem,
>their personal positions will disappear and they will receive
>no royalties from the technologies they develop at government
>expense.
[...]
>They stretch out each little technical innovation for as long
>as possible extracting as much money as possible from Congress
>while providing minimal returns and engaging in character
>assassination of any "outsiders" who come up with innovations
>that might work quickly and cheaply.
 
A thought comes to mind: as soon as the "inner solar system" is open
to us, why are all the propulsion engineers going to lose their
positions?
 
After all, there's the good ol' Alpha Centauri Probe Propulsion
Project that is going to eat up a _lot_ of manpower...
 
Instead of Space Industrialization wrt Earth, let's have it for
Space Exploration! Let's industrialize space so we can finally
launch some starprobes and answer the Fermi Paradox!
 
_NOW_ does industrialization sound any better than the Mad
Dash to Mars? Mars is lifeless anyway, but Alpha Centauri has
two stars with lifezones where planets may be found.... and
if that's no dice, there's always Tau Ceti.
 
An _unmanned_ Orion won't need nearly all those shock absorbers that
a manned mission would :-)
 
--
Phil Fraering pgf@nasa12.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"How about a dragon that breathes neutrons instead of fire?  Kills the
elves, leaves the buildings intact..." - Nick Szabo
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpgf cudfnPhil cudlnFraering cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 / James Chung /  A. Takahashi Seminar on Pulsed D20/Pd Electrolysis at MIT on 4/15
     
Originally-From: chung@mtl.mit.edu (James E. Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A. Takahashi Seminar on Pulsed D20/Pd Electrolysis at MIT on 4/15
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:27:52 GMT
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories

 
 
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE LECTURE
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 4PM
GRIER ROOM 34-401
 
EXCESS HEAT AND NUCLEAR PRODUCTS FROM PULSED D2O/Pd ELECTROLYSIS
PROF AKITO TAKAHASHI
OSAKA UNIVERSITY
 
The lecture will present results of the latest experiments in which a
cell has produced 100 watts, on average, of excess (anomolous) power
continuously,  for more than two months. Correlations have been observed
with weak neutron emission. Two types of neutron spectra have been
observed- the classical "Jones type", and another one with a broad 3-7
Mev peak, in addition to the usual 2.45 Mev peak.  Details of the
experiments will be discussed.
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer:
 
The author is posting this message as a public service
and has no opinion (public anyways) about cold fusion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenchung cudfnJames cudlnChung cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 /  71033.536@comp /  COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: 71033.536@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:51:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,
 
Dr. Douglas Morrison of CERN asked me to submit this excellent summary of
recent "cold fusion" activities and reports.
 
I would add a brief concern that I find the recent trend towards increased
involvement by LaRouche front organizations (e.g., "New Federalist") to be
at best a major embarassment, and at worst an indictment that NONE of the
recent reports should be taken seriously.  Starting off an article with
some (apparently) real data and ending it with loosely connected ad hominem
attacks is hardly the way to get people to take you seriously.
 
LaRouchian "technical" articles tend to have a remarkably consistent style,
which goes roughly like this:  Place the fairly innoculous and interesting
materials up front (and begin with a reasonably amiable tone), and then try
to pull in the reader to an emotionally-charged "it's us versus them"
perspective towards the end.  Often by the last sentence it degenerates to
the point of pretty much ranting and raving, which is one reason why this
style is usually not overly successful with folks who are more interested
in content than emotion.  But it can be very successful with people who
are angry or have been (genuinely or supposedly) slighted or harmed in some
way, which is perhaps one of the reasons why the LaRouchians have succeeded
in gaining a fair bit of momentum among former and current researchers who
have been involved in the often intense accusations and counter-accusations
of the "cold fusion" community.
 
My suggestion:  If you really are a scientist, stop reading/participating
in this LaRouche trash, and instead go back read some of the classics in
scientific methods.  Dyed-in-the-wool card-carrying LaRouchians are NOT
your friends, no matter how much they may seem to be befriending you --
they have their own agendas, and I assure you they not the same as yours.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
				Compuserve: 71033.536@compuserve.com
				(Please use the above for replies/comments)
 
-- Opinions are my own, not those of where I work (or of Douglas Morrison) --
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colleagues,                                         5 April 1992.
 
                 COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6
 
     CRITICISM OF PONS AND FLEISCHMANN'S EXPERIMENTS "DEVASTATING"
 
                JONES RESULTS DECONFIRMED.
 
PONS, FLEISCHMANN. PREPARATA, BRESSANI, AND DEL GIUDICE SUE FOR 8 BILLION LIRE.
 
SUMMARY
        A group at the General Electric Company, including Fritz Will, have
examined the Pons and Fleischmann's analysis and found major errors which make
their claims of Cold Fusion unacceptable. Robert Park of the APS describes the
GE paper as "devastating".
    Steve Jones and Howard Menlove have tried to repeat their experiments
claiming small yields of neutrons in the giant Japanese Kamiokande detector
and after many months of trying have failed to reproduce their early results.
    One asks, with the two experiments that excited world-wide attention in
March 1989 now gone, can Cold Fusion survive?
    Since the last Cold Fusion Update No. 5 in July 1991 after the Second Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion in Como, there has been no major experiment which
observed excess heat and comparable amounts of fusion products. There have
been a few claims of Cold Fusion effects but the excitement was each time
not sustained.
     The tragic death of Andy Riley at SRI greatly saddened all who knew him.
     The Third Cold Fusion Conference is scheduled to be held in Japan
in October 1992. There was a "semi-secret" Cold Fusion meeting in Turin in
March.
     Funding continues - Stan Pons together with Martin Fleischmann, are
working at the Science Research Park near Nice for a Japanese supported
company. It is reported that the Electrical Power Research Institute, EPRI,
has given further money, $12 million, to the Stanford Research Institute, SRI,
for continuing Cold Fusion work.
    Drs. Pons Fleischmann, Preparata, Bressani and del Giudice are taking legal
action against the Repubblica newspaper and asking for 8000 million lire.
 
SUBJECTS
 
  1. General Electric paper.
     1.1 Background and Introduction
     1.2 Title, Authors, Abstract
     1.3 Critique of Analysis of Fleischmann and Pons
     1.4 Experimental results
     1.5 Reaction of Fleischmann
     1.6 Conclusions
 
  2. Kamiokande experiment for Jones and Menlove
     2.1 Background and Introduction
     2.2 Experimental results
     2.3 Conclusions
 
  3. Andy Riley, SRI and EPRI
     3.1 Introduction
     3.2 Andy Riley
     3.3 Experiments at SRI
 
  4. Other Experiments
     4.1 Helium measurements of Bush et al.
     4.2 Mills et al. and Tom Droege
     4.3 Takahashi, Osaka
     4.4 Bressani et al.
     4.5 Cold Fusion in China
     4.6 Withdrawal of Cluster Fusion Result
 
  5. Books
 
  6. Meetings, Press Conferences, Legal Actions
 
  7. Conclusions.
 
 
1. GENERAL ELECTRIC PAPER
 
    1.1 INTRODUCTION
                        After the 23 March 1989 press conference, General
Electric, like many power companies, signed confidential agreements with
the University of Utah. Also then sent people to work with Dr. Pons in
Utah and at the same time, and completely independently, started working
on Cold Fusion experiments at their Research and Development labs at
Schenectady. It is the work of this latter group that will be published
this spring in the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry. However the major
part of their paper is a very detailed consideration of of the Fleischmann
and Pons work where they find many errors , several of which are serious.
      The GE experimental work was done on a large scale within the first year,
but for a variety of reasons has not been generally available. I learnt of
major errors in the Fleischmann and Pons analysis over a year ago and these
have been presented to them. Publication was delayed appreciably and the
final paper is carefully written. Here the rather kindly  abstract will be
given and then the main evidence will be presented so that everyone may judge.
 The authors include former GE researcher Fritz Will who after the experimental
work was essentially completed, became the Director of the National Cold
Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City.
 
 
  1.2 TITLE, AUTHORS AND ABSTRACT
 
  "Analysis of Experiments on Calorimetry of LiOD/D2O Electrochemical Cells
 
        R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil and F.G. Will".
 
    Abstract
              "In this paper we present a detailed analysis of calorimetry with
heavy water electrolytic cells, especially of the type described by Fleischmann
Pons et al. in recent publications. We also summarise our own experiments,
which involve calorimetry of electrolytic cells of various designs. None of
our experiments has yielded any excess heat or radiation products within the
detection limits. We evaluate the data and methods of Fleischmann, Pons et
al. and, where sufficient data are available, conclude that they significantly
over-estimate the excess heat. This is in part because they did not include
in their calibration calculation the change in input electrochemical power
to the cell resulting from the calibration heater power. An additional
significant overestimate of excess energy occurs when the calibration is made
at cell temperatures above 60 C, due to the increased evaporation of heavy
water duing the calibration. Furthermore we find unexplainable inconsistencies
in the data on light water controls as reported by Fleischmann and Pons.
While our analysis shows their claims of continuous heat generation to be
significantly overstated, we cannot prove that no excess heat has been
generated in any experiment".
 
   1.3 Analysis of Fleischmann and Pons
                           A detailed discussion of the open cell used by
Fleischmann and Pons is first given and it is pointed out that several terms
are not properly accounted for but fortunately do not lead to significant
errors. Other potential errors such as inadequate mixing and recombination are
believed not to be significant. However the heat loss calibration procedure
does lead to important errors, this being established partly theoretically
and by experiments with cells similar to those of F&P, thus the heat loss
is found to be half by radiation and half by conduction whereas F&P now treat
all heat losses as radiative(in their first paper they treated all heat losses
as conductive - Newton's law of Cooling). Two calibration procedures are used
by F&P, firstly "approximative" and the second a very complicated
multiparameter regression analysis which is said to give "exact" excess
energies. The calibration depends on giving a brief additional burst of heat
to the cell. This temperature change is not taken into account in the first
procedure and it is shown that this error substantially reduces the excess heat
claimed. Since the second method is claimed by F&P to agree very closely (few
milliwatt) with the incorrect first analysis, hence there must be error(s) in
the second analysis. A possible error in the second calculation which would
account for this is identified.
   When a correct calibration procedure is used, the excess heat claimed is
significantly reduced. "Because of the paucity of experimental details in their
publications, it has been difficult to determine quantitatively the effect of
calibration errors" eg "they have not reported cell temperatures or
calibration power" so that pictorial data have been used instead.
    Several effects have been neglected by F&P, two of which are important -
the reduction in resistance when the cell is heated by the calibration heater
and secondly the evaporative cooling of the electrolyte important at higher
operating temperatures and which is increased by the calibration heater. The
magnitude of the errors caused by these neglects is such that "in some cases
the errors are greater than their inferred 'excess heat'" and "in some some
instances excess heat remained after correcting for these errors."
     "The control experiments reported by F&P also pose a dilemma. Using their
approximate method to calculate excess heats, they find no excess heat within
a few milliwatts. If, however they used the procedures they describe for
determining excess heat, they should have obtained significant positive values
as a result of neglecting the effects described above. The results they report
are inconsistent with the procedures they describe." Further embarrassing
problems are also indicated.
 
      1.4 Experimental Results
                               A very extensive series of experiments were
performed. In one set the cells and procedures of F&P were followed - no excess
heat was found. Many small variations(eg different types of palladium and
different shapes, different electrolyte) were also tried and also major changes
such as thermal insulation to avoid radiation effects, and closed cells with
recombination catalysts and a flow cell. The current was varied between a few
milliamps to 0.5 amps per cm2. The length of time was varied. "Within
experimental error, no excess energy was found."
   "A few experiments were carefully monitored for gamma ray and neutron
production" using good techniques(particularly liked the use of Manganese
nitrate solution where the 55Mn captures a neutron to give 56Mn which decays
with a half-life of 154 minutes giving a gamma of 0.847 MeV - this is an
energy region with little background- this is useful for integration of
neutron signals; other detectors were used for direct neutron detection).
Activation foils were also used. "Nothing was found above background". "Many
of the electrolytes were checked for tritium build-up. No increase above
concentration by electrolysis was found". "Nor was the concentration of 4He in
the Pd rods found to be above background."
 
   1.5 Reaction of Fleischmann
                              Business Week of March 2nd reported that
"there's bad news ahead for cold fusion" and then talked about the
conclusions of the GE paper - the reporter did not seem to have read the
paper himself. The article continued that Pons and Fleischmann asked the
journal to let them write a rebuttel - but they have not done so yet.
Fleischmann is quoted as saying "Those people have got mental constipation
about this thing". Hope this is not a correct quotation as have always found
Martin a charming person, but have found that some people who have no answer to
scientific evidence against their work, do react this way. Sad, it would have
been pleasanter to see a scientific reply.
 
   1.6 Conclusions
                   There are two parts to the GE paper. Their experimental
results are very extensive, some of them copying the P&F experiments, others
are superior; all give no evidence for excess heat or for fusion products.
It might be thought that this should be enough convince even True Believers
that there is nothing there, but this has already happened with the Harwell
experiments led by David Williams who was helped by Fleischmann before
the 23 March 1989 press conference, and whose group also did a very large
number of experiments, some the same as P&F and others better - and TB's
ignore or discount this work.
   However the main thrust of the GE paper is to show that the analysis of
the calorimetry had many errors some were so serious that when the P&F data were
corrected the excess heat claimed became sometimes a negative effect and
sometimes a positive effect so that the conclusion was that one cannot trust
the results.
   In the Abstract it is written that "we cannot prove that no excess heat has
been generated in any experiments". This statement, which unintentionally, has
some legal use, covers the fact that the paper was concerned with the main
claim of Cold Fusion, that a steady source of power was possible. The GE paper
does not discuss the question of heat bursts. Thus the real question is;
"Can the P&F experiments be considered to give trustworthy evidence in favour of
the existence of Cold Fusion as a steady source of power?" The GE analysis shows
that the P&F work is so full of errors that it is not clear whether they found
a positive or a negative effect as is shown clearly in their table 2. In other
words the uncertainties are so great that the P&F work cannot be used as a
justification for the existence of Cold Fusion.
   There is also the embarrassing matter that the control experiments
which were said to show no effect, should have shown an effect if they had
been analysed the way that P&F said they had analysed them.
   The GE authors say that is in principle possible to obtain results on
excess heat with the Pons and Fleischmann type cells, but it is complicated
and needs to be done properly, which was not the case. Many times it has been
suggested that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann do a good experiment with a closed
cell and several constant temperature baths surrounding the cell for then the
corrections become fewer and small. Also they should much use bigger cells so
that the effects are clear - but they have only reported results from the
original small cells which gave excess heat with the errors in calculation.
     The GE paper is not a light paper, the appendixes contain very detailed
work. The GE authors are major experienced researchers in this field. It is
surprising that no response has been made since Drs. Pons and Fleischmann have
been aquainted with these difficulties and have been in possession of the
GE paper for some considerable time.
     The overall conclusion must be that there is no good evidence for useful
excess heat or fusion products in the Fleischmann and Pons experiments.
 
2. KAMIOKANDE EXPERIMENTS OF JONES AND MENLOVE
 
    2.1 Background and Introduction
                                    The Kamiokande detector is a tank
of 3000 tons of very pure water in whose walls are many photomultipliers
which can detect Cherenkov radiation produced by electrons.
The experimental team is large and well-funded. They have done
outstandingly good work in neutrino detection. They detected (along with
the IMB detector) neutrinos from Supernova 1987A. They have also detected
neutrinos from the Sun and have shown that there is no variation with time
(in particular not with the inverse of the sunspot number as had been
surprisingly claimed by another experiment). Also their measured flux
of solar neutrinos is in agreement with Evolutionary model(SSM)
calculations of the Saclay group though some other SSM predict higher
neutrino fluxes. Thus their experiment is playing a major role in the
important question of whether there is a solar neutrino problem or not.
The question is important as the solar neutrino problem is the only major
result where there may be disagreement with the Standard Model of
particle physics.
    The Kamiokande detector was off for a year and half to improve and
maintain the detector. During this time an installation was made in the
centre of the Kamiokande detector where Cold Fusion cells could be
installed and surrounded by a sodium chloride solution. If any neutrons
were given off by the Cold Fusion cells they would be detected by capture
by the 35Cl giving off energetic gammas producing electrons which the
photomultipliers would detect by their Cherenkov rings. The system has been
calibrated using a 252Cf source and the efficiency for neutron detection
is about 20%.
     The Kamiokande detector is so big that the Cold Fusion work does not
seriously interfere with the Solar Neutrino and Supernova watch activities.
For the period January to end May 1991, Kamiokande effectively ran for
99 days for neutrinos and 2 days for Cold Fusion (during neutrino running the
Cold Fusion cells were normally running but not interfering with the main
work of Kamiokande). It is expected that Cold Fusion measurement will continue
until April 1992.
         The emission of neutrons from Cold Fusion cells is highly
controversial. Most workers did not find neutrons above background but
a considerable number of claims were made, several of which have been
withdrawn (eg the original claim of 40 000 neutrons/second of F&P).
Of the positive claims, some of the lowest rates are from the original
1989 paper of Jones et al. in Nature. However other groups (eg Moshe Gai at
Yale, the Frejus/Bugey group) obtain no neutron signal and give upper limits
which are one to two order of magnitude lower.
     Jones et al. claimed to measure in Run No. 6 a flux of neutrons of
   Run No. 6   (4.1 +/- 0.8 )*10**-3 n/s above background
   Background  (1.4 +/- 0.13)*10**-3 n/s.
Later this rate was lowered by averaging over the other runs where no
significant effect had been observed and this gives
   Average     (0.62 +/- 0.1)*10**-3 n/s above background
that is an average which is less than half the background.
   As the efficiency was only (1 +/- 0.3)%, this meant that the corrected
counting rate was about 0.1 neutrons/second. Kamiokande which has a
detector efficiency of about 20%, proposed that with their detector they
could obtain a background 10 000 times less. The limit of their neutron
sensitivity was expected to be 4*10**-5 n/s with a threshold energy of 7 MeV.
     Later Steve Jones joined with the Howard Menlove group at Los Alamos
and discovered bursts of neutrons. In the summer of 1990 graphs were presented
showing bursts of 20 to 149 neutrons observed being emitted in less than
128 microseconds. As the efficiency of the counters was between 21 and 34%,
this means bursts of 100 neutrons or more were frequently being observed.
Such bursts would be easily detected by the Kamiokande detector.
 
   2.2 Experimental Results
                            The first experiments were said to be of gas and
titanium, but with relative lack of success, and electrolytic cells were tried
including some with the "mother earth" type recipe.
     First results were presented by Dr. Ikegami at the Second Annual
Cold Fusion Conference with a newspaper article claiming that Kamiokande
had detected neutrons - this caused quite some excitement but is not
included in the published proceedings. However it turned out that these were
observed as "bursts" of 2, 3 or 4 neutrons (one neutron is excluded as
a "burst"). Now if Uranium (or plutonium) were present as a contaminant in the
cell (eg in the Palladium) then as the number of neutrons per fusion can be as
large as 6 (or 7), this would account for the effect. The Kamiokande group
have already taken enormous precautions to reduce the background from U or Pu
and it is sited at a depth of 2700 mwe in the Kamioka mine and is surrounded
by a shield of 6 to 7 metres of U-free water so that the background can
be as low as one count per year. Quickly it was learnt that neutrons were
also detected when H2O and not D2O was used which would appear to confirm
that the bursts were not from fusion but from contamination. This is
contested by Steve Jones who feels that the data may be significant and
one should wait. The prelimainary data that I have seen show that relatively
little running was done with H2O so that the statistics are not very
 significant.
    However after this excitement, the main result tended to get lost that
the counting rate was less than one-hundredth of that claimed in the 1989
paper of Jones et al. Thus after more than two years development work, and
the insertion of many cells in Kamiokande, the original claim presented in 1989
cannot be justified.
    A second main result is that large bursts (here taken as > 27 neutrons)
as claimed in the 1990 paper of Menlove et al. cannot be justified as no
large burst has been observed.
    Steve Jones claims that small bursts (defined as 2 to 10 neutrons)
are being observed and the rates are being studied. We shall have to wait and
see if some new effect will be claimed at a much lower rate than the previous
claims. No statement has been made about intermediate bursts (11 to
26 neutrons).
    Have been exchanging many messages with Steve - he is genuinely anxious to
find out the truth and discuss in a scientific manner (this does not mean
he agrees with my conclusions - his position is unclear to me)
    At present some surprising tests are being made using cells filled
with concrete. The basic idea is the hope that this would represent in
some way what is happening in the earth where Jones et al. claim fusion
may be occurring. It is well known that concrete contains radioactive
materials, in particular thorium. It is surprising that such an
uncontrolled substance is being introduced into Kamiokande which makes
such efforts to remove contamination. It is to be hoped that this does not
interfere with Kamiokande's main mission to study neutrinos.
 
     2.3 CONCLUSIONS
                     It must be concluded that the original work on low
level neutron counting is not confirmed by a large margin due to the
high quality and enormous size of the Kamiokande detector.
    This is not the conclusion of Steve Jones who claims some possible
effects and that more time and work is needed. What I have seen of these
claims makes them look like statistical fluctuations combined with trials
of a number of data selections, but there could be other data which has not
yet been presented. However whether there are or are not such very low level
effects, this does not change the two main conclusions that the level of
neutrons observed in 1989 and the level of bursts claimed in 1990, have been
disproved by the same experimenters working with numerous cells tested for
long periods of time in the Kamiokande detector under favourable conditions.
 
3. ANDY RILEY, SRI AND EPRI
 
    3.1 INTRODUCTION
                            The Stanford Research Institute, SRI, does
research for agents that give it funding. Thus it is not an academic
establishment with a commitment to making available all its results
without the agreement of its funding organisations. The Electrical
Power Research Institute, EPRI, is the agent of the power companies
and has many activities. It has been sponsoring research in Cold Fusion
and in particular has been giving appreciable funds to Mike McKubre's
group at SRI. In Business Week of 2 March it is written that EPRI will
give $3 million to SRI for this year and there is talk of $12 million
over three years.
 
    3.2 Andy Riley
      Andy Riley was a materials scientist. He was employed by the National
Cold Fusion Research Institute in Utah. It was there that I got to know
and like him. He was not concerned about the reality or not of Cold Fusion,
but was greatly interested in the materials research work that he could do.
He was very knowledgable and it was a pleasure to learn from him.
He had a great love of the desert and it was he who persuaded me to spend a
weekend visiting the Southern Utah desert - he was right, it is splendid.
    After NCFI closed down, Andy went to work at SRI. Newspaper reports
quote firemen as saying that the explosion which killed Andy was due to the
removal of a cell from its container as Andy had found an automatic pressure
relief valve had stuck and was trying to open it manually. Happened to be in
Palo Alto a week later for a seminar and phoned Mike McKubre who was one of
those injured in the explosion. This was Mike's first day back at work and
fortunately he was much better. He told me that SRI was now going to start
its investigations and the conclusions might be different.
   At no time did anyone suggest that the explosion had any connection with
the existence or not of Cold Fusion.
   It is interesting to recall that in 1989 among the thorough experiments of
many German groups (all of which found nothing) was the work of Kreysa,
Marx and Plieth of Frankfurt and Berlin who took a deuterium-loaded
palladium sheet and placed it on a table where it burnt the table. The point is
that considerable energy is stored in the palladium when the deuterium is
driven in by electrolysis and when the Pd sheet is removed the energy raises
the temperature of the palladium which then becomes an efficient catalyser
for hydrogen and oxygen (in the air) to burn. This is the principle of the
flameless catalytic combustion of hydrogen which is used in catalytic
hydrogen burners. The experimenters then found that if after extracting
a D-loaded Pd sheet and placing it on glass rods, a temperature
rise of the palladium from 20 C to 418 C occurred within 74 seconds after an
incubation time of 15 seconds. There are many reports of Cold Fusion cells
exploding and everyone should be aware of the potential dangers and take
precautions.
    We all grieve for the loss of Andy Riley.
 
   3.3 EXPERIMENTS AT SRI
                         The fact that EPRI is giving large grants to SRI
and that they refer obliquely to results that justify this funding, raise
interest in the work at SRI.
   In an account of the 2nd Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, 2ACCF, in Update
No. 5, it was written that "This was perhaps the most impressive positive
result." This has now been published in pages 419 to 443 of "The Science of
Cold Fusion" - the 2ACCF proceedings. Again it reads very impressively saying
the positive excess heat occurs at high D/Pd loading, greater than one. the
loading was measured by the axial resistivity and by volumetric displacement of
gas during loading in a closed system at constant volume and pressure. Andy
Riley once commented to me that axial resistivity was not a reliable measurement
as there was also radial distortion that had to be taken into account.
   It seems that the high loading was achieved by using "substantial current
densities(typically 300 to 600 mA/cm2, but up to 6400 mA/cm2) for considerable
periods of time(typically 1000-2000 hours)" and also with high pressures from
40 to 10 000 psi above atmospheric pressure. The effect of high pressure alone
has been tried at much higher values - at Harvard 105 000 atmospheres(1.6
million psi) gave a loading of 1.34 +/- 0.1 and at Los Alamos a megabar was
achieved for 14 microseconds, but in both cases negligible numbers of neutrons
were produced and at Harvard no excess heat was found with an upper limit of
1.6*10**-8 fusions/dd pair/second. It is of course obvious that very high
pressures would not be suitable for confinement of a commercial fusion process
as the strength of the walls would decrease with bombardment by fusion products.
     The calorimetry used in the experiments was much superior to any other
experiment that had claimed excess heat as it used closed cells and insulation
and a surrounding isothermal bath. However as there was only one bath, there
was needed a "effective conductive loss term, k'. The conductive power loss
for the large calorimeters was typically 3 to 5% of the total input power. The
accuracy claimed was the greater of 10mW or 0.1%.
    While the calorimeters were greatly superior to previous ones giving
positive results, they could still be substantially improved by following the
Harwell design as used by David Williams. These had the following features;
1. The best measurements avoid corrections by trying to make null
measurements as in the Wheatstone bridge. Thus the Harwell calorimeter
kept the temperature of the inner isothermal bath constant by varying the
input power which then compensated any excess heat produced
2. There were three constant temperature baths
3. Calibration was done by inserting a known source of heat into the calorimeter
- this could be a calibrated alpha source.
    In view of the substantial sums being invested by EPRI, it is to be hoped
that these improvements will be tried.
    The 2ACCF paper states that typical excess output power was 5 to 10% with
a maximum of 28%. However could not find in the paper the value of the excess
power integrated over the whole period  of each experiment(which is the number
of importance for commercial applications, but at 2ACCF, was told that it was
between 1% and 2 to 3%. Such values are too low to be of commercial use
which would require more like the values of 300 to 900% originally
claimed in March 1989.
 
4. OTHER EXPERIMENTS
 
     There have been fewer new experimental results published recently.
Dieter Britz who now has a total of 688 papers and 96 patents/applications
says it is now a "trickle". None of these recent papers are complete
experiments or very convincing (apart from the GE complete work
and the high quality Kamiokande experiment). However some have attracted
attention and will be presented.
 
   4.1 HELIUM MEASUREMENMTS OF BUSH et al.
         Drs. Bush and Lagowski of Univ. of Texas at Austin have been
looking for helium in the electrolysis experiments of Drs. Miles and Ostrom at
the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA. They claim to find 4He when
excess heat is observed. John Huizengz has criticised the experiments saying
the level is very low and helium contamination is a possible explanation - this
is strongly denied by Bush et al. The outgoing gasses from the cell are
collected for about an hour in a 0.5 litre vessel. It is said that amounts
of < 10**12, 10**12, 10**13 and 10**14 atoms of 4helium are found corresponding
to no peak, small, medium and large peaks in the spectrometer and there is a
correlation with the amount of excess power - the values given for excess power
were (0.07 and 0.29 W), (0.12 and 0.17 W), (0.24 and 0.40 W) and (0.22, 0.36,
0.46 and 0.52 W) resp. There is a correlation but it is a poor one and it
would appear that the relationship was more of a power law than a linear
one as might be expected. If all the reactions were   d + d ---> 4He + 23.8 MeV
then it is claimed that the highest excess power would yield 5.4 10**14 atoms
and "About 10**14 atoms were detected which is within experimental error
of then theoretical amount." - this is the nearest one gets to an estimate
of errors in the 2ACCF paper.
     No 3He was found - this is curious as experiments on dd fusion find
that 10**7 times as much 3He should be produced as 4He.
     The experiment looks very simple and it is to be hoped that the authors
will continue it with better apparatus for a longer time since if their result
were correct it should be easily possible to produce large ammounts of helium
which would put the matter beyond doubt.
 
    4.2 MILLS et al. and TOM DROEGE
             For a while there was some excitement when Mills et al.
announced significant excess heat and then Tom Droege with his very high
quality calorimeter, confirmed it. But further work by Tom showed there were
fatal problems with the calibration procedures or to be more precise an invalid
correction. The calorimeter built by Tom is accurate down to near the milliwatt
level and is beautifully instrumented as can be seen on pages 243 to 248 of
"The Science of Cold Fusion". Tom has a very good reputation in Fermilab,
for example for the work he did for the giant CDF detector which one hopes
will be able to find the long sought after top quark.
 
    4.3 TAKAHASHI et al., OSAKA
          In February Dr. Ikegami gave a talk at Frascati which people who
doubted Cold Fusion, found impressive. The highlight of the talk was a
description of the results of the group of Dr. Takahashi at Osaka University.
They have done four experiments and have presented results on neutrons, tritium
and excess heat plus a theory that explains all results. In the early runs peaks
in the neutron spectrum were observed at 2.45 MeV as expected from
d + d --->  3He + n,  and over the region 3 to 7 MeV which is not expected.
In the fourth experiment excess heat of 200W per cc of Pd was observed and
more than 100 MJ of heat produced. Tritium was also observed with a ratio
n/t of 10**-5. The neutrons were observed at a rate of 1 to 100 n/s/cc. It was
claimed that there was a correlation between neutron production and excess heat
but the fig. 1 of the paper seems to prove the contrary, the highest neutron
rate being near the lowest excess heat claimed. In another transparency it was
noted that when the power increases the neutron production decreases - this is
contrary to all previous experience of believers and non-believers.
   The electrolysis cells have cooling water passing through them and the
temperature of the incoming and outgoing water is measured and after calculation
the excess heat is deduced. The cells are basically similar to those of
Pons and Fleischmann in being open and poorly insulated. Hence all the comments
and criticisms of the GE scientists would have to be considered before any
claim could be evaluated. In the description available there is not enough
detail to follow how all the calibration and heat loss calculations were done,
so a serious account of the work, mentioning the GE considerations, is needed
before the claims of excess heat could be justified.
   A theory is proposed that explains all the results including the n/t ratio
of 10**-5 and the n/f ratio of 10**-12 (where f is the rate of fusions expected
in the reaction d + d ---> 3He + n ). The model assumes "multibody fusions"
where not only do d-d fuse but also three and four deuterons, ie d-d-d and
d-d-d-d. The four atom fusion is calculated to give a megaWatt per cc while
ordinary water would yield a kiloWatt per cc because of the one atom in 6700
which is deuterium. Normal considerations of barrier penetration do not
seem to have been considered in this theory which is liable to find few
supporters even among True Believers - but one never knows.
 
    4.4 BRESSANI ET AL.
          T. Bressani et al. have carried out experiments to measure the
energy of neutrons emitted from Ti metal loaded with gaseous deuterium ie
following the ideas temperature cycling of Dr. Scaramuzzi. They use a neutron
spectrometer with time of flight and double scattering technique. They report
a two and a half standard deviation effect corresponding to 1.3 +/- 0.5
neutron per second per gram of Ti - this would correspond to about 10**-12 watts
for the reaction   d + d ---> 3He + n,  they do not report searching for 3He.
   The D2 gas pressure used by Bressani et al. was very low with a maximum
value of only 1.5 10**3 Torr. They remark that the volume and pressure
measurments give a D/Ti loading of only 0.32 which they comment is "totally
inconsistent with the Ti-H phase diagram", but the low loading seems
consistent with the low loadings for similar pressures used by Steve Jones
and collaborators. It seems slightly inconsistent for Dr. Bressani to have
employed such a low loading value when he strongly emphasises the
necessity of high loadings to obtain the threshold value that is claimed to be
necessary to observe Cold Fusion.
   Many groups have reported not finding any neutrons when adopting the
Scaramuzzi technique and some have upper limits less than one thousandth
of the Scaramuzzi claim. As the early reports of Scaramuzzi claimed
5000 neutrons per second using 100 grams of Ti, Dr. T. Bressani must be
congratulated for joining the experimental groups that have found different
results from Dr. Scaramuzzi  - it is surprising that he has not made a
comparison of his result with that of the earlier paper which would
have allowed him to make a comment himself.
 
    4.5 COLD FUSION IN CHINA
          While at the Pugwash Conference talked with Dr. Li who is the
leader of the Chinese scientist working on Cold Fusion. He told me that there
were very little funds available. The apparatus used is rather primitive
and few results are emerging.
 
    4.6 WITHDRAWAL OF CLUSTER FUSION RESULT
     In an errata in Physical Review Letters(in press), the group at Brookhaven
that had claimed to have observed fusion when using clusters of D2O to
bombard targets, have withdrawn their observation for technical reasons.
The problem was light contaminant ions containing deuterium.
   This puzzling result which could not be quite explained, was described as
cold or lukewarm fusion and was not considered central to the debate about
the existance or non-existance of Cold Fusion.
 
5. BOOKS
         Hear that John Huizenga's long-awaited book on Cold Fusion has
finally been published. It is an excellent serious book for those interested in
Science (and psychology). A must for those involved in Cold Fusion as well as
for others.
     Gary Taubes phoned me about another subject (neutrinos). His book has
unfortunately been delayed until later this year.
     Saw Frank Close's book on the shelves in Geneva - good for you Frank!
     The proceedings of the Second Annual Cold Fusion conference last June
at the Villa Olmo in Como, have now appeared. The dust jacket is very tasteful
with delicate images of Volta (a special hero in Como), a cold fusion cell
with all the parts labelled, the original 1989 Jones et al. neutron result,
Scaramuzzi's controversial plot, something that has a vague resemblence to a
Feynman graph but I doubt if he would acknowledge it, etc. The main heavy
writing on the cover which stands out well is
            THE SCIENCE OF COLD FUSION
and the publishers title. There are 527 pages.
 
6. MEETINGS, PRESS CONFERENCES, LEGAL ACTIONS
           There was a "semi-secret" meeting lasting three and a half days in
Turin on Cold Fusion early in March. It was attended by about 40 people,
mainly local but some foreigners such as Stan Pons also attended. Was told that
there was not very much new. Although the press attended, it was not widely
advertised - not even in the University of Turin!
    The account of the Turin meeting in a newspaper of 17 March said that it
was organised by the Turin section of the INFN and was called "Cold Fusion
Three Years After". The participants were described as being under tension
and prudent like the adepts of a secret society who are sure of their ultimate
triumph. They were particularly encouraged by the new results from Osaka
indicating excess heat of 100 Watts per cm3.
      At a press interview, Dr. Pons said there were no more doubts; he
took a sabbatical from Utah to open a lab in Nice. There are about
10 people working there with important financial backing from Technova
- a company that finances research for some Japanese industrial groups.
They have developed a new type of electrolytic cell with Palladium
to obtain a kilowatt per cc of electrode. Reproducibility has been attained
at 100% and depends on a new type of Palladium alloy. He said that to
understand the new phenomenon one must put aside classical fusion reactions
in a vacuum and think of alternatives. Preparata's ideas can explain the
results. Dr. Pons said the aim was to present to the public a practical
application before the end of the year. He also said other labs had prototypes
and quoted McKubre at SRI and Bressani at Turin. Prof. Bressani, who was
introduced as leader of the Obelix experiment at CERN, Geneva, confirmed that
his group had interesting effects from a cell with D2 gas and Titanium of
the type proposed by Dr. Scaramuzzi, but said that it would need more
time to construct a demonstration cell.
     Heard about it only because I was invited to give a seminar at Turin
reviewing Cold Fusion and some people were astonished when they were told about
the meeting two weeks after it had occurred. The seminar was well received
except that a True believer, TB, came forward at the end and made
comments of a violence that astonished his colleagues. His essential
point was that I was biased as I had not mentioned recent work including
his own, reporting evidence for Cold Fusion. Tried to explain that my talk
was based on the one I gave at the Sakharov Conference last summer,
consisted of three main parts, (1) a summary of ALL results, positive
and null(with upper limits often lower than the positive values), (2) for
the period since then, only good experiments with complete, careful calibration
and controls, (3) understanding of the results in human terms. As Dr. Ikegami
had recently given a lecture at Frascati which was written up in the newspapers
on recent research on Cold Fusion in Japan and in particular had spent
some time reporting on the results of Dr. Takahashi of Osaka, I showed in
reply, 5 transparencies showing his results and explaining the problems
that had led me to exclude it from the "good" experiments. The TB was
not satisfied and continued in the same violent manner. Afterwards (too late)
noticed that he had not questioned anything that was presented in the
seminar and in particular not the "devasting" results of the GE analysis
of Pons and Fleischmann's work. The seminar finally lasted longer than
normally scheduled, two hours but it was observed to me that almost no one
left before the end!
     Have received an invitation from Dr. Ikegami who is head of one section
of the Japanese National Fusion Institute in Nagoya, to attend the Third
International Cold Fusion Conference which will be held in Nagoya from
21 to 25 October 1992. "The conference will cover the broadest topics
relevant to Cold Fusion phenomena in the research fields including nuclear
physics, electrochemistry, and solid state physics". As the organising body
is the very serious National Institute for Fusion Science which has done
excellent work on Inertial Confinement, etc., it may be expected that this
will be a serious conference where the organisers will ensure that the
conference will be balanced and that all points of view and both null and
positive experiments will be reported and discussed. If these justified hopes
are fulfilled, it could be a significant conference and it is to be hoped
that many who have worked at some time or other on Cold Fusion will attend.
Dr. Ikegami is chairman of the conference. The Fax address is 052 781 9564 and
the Email address is
                     ikegami@nifs.ac.jp
    When in Turin learnt that the important newspaper Repubblica is being sued
by 5 True Believers for defamation. They are Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons
Guiliano Preparata, Tullio Bressani, and Emilio del Giudice. This arose from
an article in Repubblica where Cold Fusion was defined as a "truffa scientifica"
which I am told means "scientific fraud". It appeared on the 20 October 1991.
It was said that the results of Pons and Fleischmann cannot be reproduced
in any other laboratory. Later another article based on a letter from
Believers was entitled "No, we are not False Prophets", but the comment was
apparently not withdrawn. Now the newspaper is being sued for a total of
eight billion lire which is roughly five million US dollars - this is made up of
2 billion lires for P&F and one billion for Preparata, Bressani and del Giudice
plus 200 million for each of the five for repeated violence.
    Personally I am against such legal proceedings. It would be much better to
wait until the end of this year and see the prototype of Dr. Pons actually
giving a kilowatt per cc - preferably a big prototype with many cc giving many
kilowatts such as Dr. Pons has been photographed with. Wonder if the Five and
Repubblica have read the article in Nature of 19 March, Vol. 356, page 191
where the definition of scientific fraud is discussed. A US senior federal
advisory committee has proposed that a strict-constructionist definition
of fraud be adopted, namely "plagiarism, the fabrication or intentional
falsification of data, research procedures or data analysis, or other deliberate
misrepresentations in proposing, conducting, reporting or reviewing research".
This report will go to the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is
concerned mainly with health and biomedical agencies.
 
POST-SCRIPT
           On the SCI_FUSION net, some of the above stories from a press
conference in Turin, were "confirmed" by an account with the heading Washington
beginning "At a packed press conference today (March 27) in the nation's
capitol, leading Italian physicist Dr. Giuliano Preparata announced dramatic
new steps forward in the develoPment of cold fusion as a practical, cheap
source of clean energy", "Speaking at the National Press Club". Dr. Eugene
Mallove, former chief press officer of MIT who wrote the book "Fire from
Ice" in favour of cold fusion, also spoke and said he hoped  to repeat the
results of Dr. Takahashi from Osaka, before the April 15 when Dr. Takahashi
is scheduled to give a talk at MIT. "Mallove and Preparata attacked the
vicious witch-hunt conducted in the US and Europe against the scientists
who had the courage to attest to the reality of this revolutionary
new science, and then were subject to persecution similar to that which drove
the two pioneers to leave the United States."
    The press report finished "You are dealing with a subtle process here
which must be explained by real scientific thinking", "For the sake of your
children, for the sake of the future of humanity, we must fight this
stranglehold on science that affects us all."
   Jon Webb then pointed out that "this article was taken from the
New Federalist, a publication of the political extremist Lyndon LaRouche."
"if the press conference was packed, why haven't there been any other stories
about it?" Mr. LaRouche is described in one of the associated magazines as
"a political prisoner in federal prison in Rochester, Minn." - others say the
long jail sentance has something to do with tax.
 
POST-SCRIPT 2
       Have just received on the net, the text of the proposed change to
the Law which would favour Fusion. The phrase "Cold Fusion" is not mentioned,
but it is easy to see it would help people doing such experiments.
The title is "Replacement of Public Law 96-389, sec 3, Oct. 7, 1980, 95Stat 1540
Chapter 101 -- Fusion Energy Engineering." "(The purpose of this revision
of 03/26/92 is to provide small grants to fusion innovators who possess
fusion technology patents, allowing them to devote more time and effort
in the pursuit of private capital sources)".
It says that preference should be given to aneutronic fusion - which is
defined as "any fuel which when burnt in a fusion energy system, produces
neutron radiation carrying away less than 10% of the produced energy." The
figure of 10% seems very high for an aneutronic reaction which means
no neutrons. It would allow more than 10**16 neutrons per second from
a megawatt power plant which would be a major radiation hazard and would
damage the materials used in the construction.
   "Every US citizen possessing a patent for a fusion energy system is to be
provided with full reimboursement of all tax-deductible expenses incurred in
the pursuit of the patent, up to a maximum of $100,000"
   "(2) to stimulate private sector investment in fusion energy technology
by awarding substantial prizes for significant technical achievement
and matching private investment with public grants" The prizes are substantial
12 of them each of $100,000,000.
     At the Nevada nuclear test range, 100 acres should be made available at
a "cost of no more than $1000 per month to lease per acre, including all
user fees." This shall "be remote enough that the instantaneous release
of 1 gram of tritium gas per month will pose no significant health risk to
those outside the test range."
     There would be 10 monthly auctions of "10 kilograms of Helium-3". Curious.
 
7. CONCLUSIONS
 
    The major recent event is that the two original experiments of Pons and
Fleischmann and of Jones et al., seem both to have been discredited.
    If there was no effect there to confirm, it is not surprising that the
majority of experiments found nothing.
    The fact that a minority of experiments found some evidence that appeared
to confirm the two original experiments, is not unusual in these kind of
affairs.
    New experiments are decreasing to a "trickle" but it seems the band of
True Believers has decided on an active campaign using the media. One
wonders if some of them are becoming associated with Lyndon LaRouche or
only adopting his style. The well-funded journals, New Federalist and
21st Century Science and Technology, which support LaRouche, have been most
generous in their support of Cold Fusion
    Expect that the Third Cold Fusion conference will take place. Since it is
under the auspices of the very respectable Japanese National Institute for
Fusion Reseach, it is to be expected that the meeting will be conducted in a
normal scientific manner - that the programme committee will contain both
people who believe in Cold Fusion and those who do not. Similarly one can expect
invited speakers from the main experiments that do and do not find Cold
Fusion effects. It should be an interesting meeting which will do honour to
its sponsors.
 
                                                 Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden536 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 / Nahum Goldmann /  Announcement:  ONLINE INFORMATION HUNTING, by Nahum Goldmann
     
Originally-From: ACOUST@BNR.CA (Nahum Goldmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Announcement:  ONLINE INFORMATION HUNTING, by Nahum Goldmann
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:13:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Dr. Mueller - please place the attached announcement on fusion.
I believe that this book could be of interest to its participants.
Please send me the issue with this announcement.
 
Greetings and thanks
 
Nahum Goldmann
<acoust@BNR.CA>
 
 
Announcement:  ONLINE INFORMATION HUNTING, by Nahum Goldmann
 
 (Please also pass this announcement to the Library/Information Resource
  Center in your organization.
 
This book (McGraw-Hill/Windcrest, ISBN 0-8306-3945-4, tel. 1-800-233-1128,
price Paper $17.95, Hard $29.95) is amongst a limited number of
publications on computerized information retrieval specifically addressed
to the end-user.  The book describes what kind of information is available
online, how to search for it, and how to use it to your professional
advantage.  Also included is a brief introductory section on academic
e-mail networks.
 
The book outlines the SUBJECT EXPERT SEARCHING TECHNIQUE - a new
methodology for online information gathering.  This efficient
research method is especially tailored for the end-users of
information who are working in rapidly developing scientific
areas, and can be used as a means of professional survival in rapidly
changing scientific and professional areas.  It has been successfully
used by several R&D organizations.  With this technique, occasional users
such as scientists and students can now master the use of online
databases for themselves.
 
"... Although intended for end-users, the book could serve as... an
introductory online search course for librarians."
                       - Dr. Roger K. Summit, Dialog
 
"... I recommend that practicing physicians, researchers, and students
start with this very useful book."
                       - Can. Med. Ass. J
 
"... A definite basis for an undergraduate course in '(Intelligent)
Information Retrieval.'"
                       - Dr. Alex Meystel, Drexel U.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenACOUST cudfnNahum cudlnGoldmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: A plea for more responsible debate
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A plea for more responsible debate
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:24:55 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920401140931.23a00c21@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>            ...               Now days, by the time information gets into a
>"proper publication" it is so old that it is "history record" and not a source
>of information.
 
That is not a very good excuse, nor is it true.
 
My own experience is that a paper published in the Physical Review will
appear in print, in the library, about twice as fast as if it were in a
conference proceedings.  Typical lead times of the former are about 4-5
months from the moment I send it off to the moment it appears in the mail.
Less if no revisions are required, more if one has to fight the referee.
 
Now that paper may be late in being _submitted_ because I was too busy
talking about it at conferences and writing up proceedings of same, but
that is never a very good excuse.  Conference proceedings are not as
widely distributed as journals.  The only advantage of talking at a
conference is that people (who are also likely to be an interested
audience) see the work and know to look for it when it is published.
 
A good example.  Two talks were given at a March 1991 conference that I
attended.  The proceedings arrived in late February 1992.  A completed
version of one of the papers was submitted to the Phys. Rev. in October
of 1991 and appeared in March 1992.  The full paper is 10 pages and
contains tables and figures and discussion that makes a clearer physical
point than the proceedings, where only 6 pages in a smaller format were
available.  Given my time, I actually read the PR paper before looking
back in the proceedings to see the original!  Now the other talk on a
similar subject, given at that same conference, has still not even been
submitted -- partly because it is based on data that were shown at a
conference and "published" 7 years ago but have not yet made it into a
refereed publication.  Science suffers because the latter is not uncommon.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.07 / JOSEPH CHEW /  HIF Proceedings in print at last
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HIF Proceedings in print at last
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:14:59 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

The Proceedings of the International Symposium on Heavy Ion
Inertial Fusion (Monterey, CA, December 1990) have finally
arrived (shades of Jim Carr's posting!).
 
Mostly it's about the guts of accelerators, but there are
some papers of broader interest on topics that have come up
on this newsgroup, like target physics, muon-catalyzed fusion,
and reactor design.  And there's a paper which holds that the
real usefulness of heavy-ion inertial fusion will be as a
neutron source for cooking fission wastes.
 
It's published as Volumes 37-38 of Particle Accelerators,
which is put out by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
I don't have copies to give out, but your friendly neighborhood
technical library should be able to tell you where to get it.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 /   /   Science by Lawyers
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Science by Lawyers
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:24:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I trust that anyone who considers endorsing the proposed legislation that
has been posted here will read the full text carefully.  Somehow I have
the feeling that someone is trying to pull a fast one here.  What may
sound like a good way to get more funding for cold fusion research has
some rather odd features tacked on that have nothing to do with cold
fusion as we presently know it.  I call your attention to but one of
these, the bit about selling off large quantities of 3He.  Anyone know
who might find that to be something useful to have on the law books?
And what do they have in mind when researchers are given access to a
bit of the Nevada test range?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL         Those who have it archieved should reread D. Morrison's
             comments on pathalogical science and political inter-
             ference in scientific matters.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 /  morrison%vxpri /  Cold Fusion Update No. 6.
     
Originally-From: vac+@cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate)
Originally-From: morrison%vxprix.cern.ch@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison Cold Fusion Update No. 6
Subject: Cold Fusion Update No. 6.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:52:02 GMT
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 15:07:09 +0200
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
Douglas Morrison sent this to me.
 
    -- Vince
 
 
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 15:07:09 +0200
Originally-From: morrison%vxprix.cern.ch@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: Cold Fusion Update No. 6.
To: vincent.cate%sam.cs.cmu.edu@MINT.decnet.cern.ch
 
Dear Colleagues,                                         5 April 1992.
 
                 COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6
 
     CRITICISM OF PONS AND FLEISCHMANN'S EXPERIMENTS "DEVASTATING"
 
                JONES RESULTS DECONFIRMED.
 
PONS, FLEISCHMANN. PREPARATA, BRESSANI, AND DEL GIUDICE SUE FOR 8 BILLION LIRE.
 
SUMMARY
        A group at the General Electric Company, including Fritz Will, have
examined the Pons and Fleischmann's analysis and found major errors which make
their claims of Cold Fusion unacceptable. Robert Park of the APS describes the
GE paper as "devastating".
    Steve Jones and Howard Menlove have tried to repeat their experiments
claiming small yields of neutrons in the giant Japanese Kamiokande detector
and after many months of trying have failed to reproduce their early results.
    One asks, with the two experiments that excited world-wide attention in
March 1989 now gone, can Cold Fusion survive?
    Since the last Cold Fusion Update No. 5 in July 1991 after the Second Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion in Como, there has been no major experiment which
observed excess heat and comparable amounts of fusion products. There have
been a few claims of Cold Fusion effects but the excitement was each time
not sustained.
     The tragic death of Andy Riley at SRI greatly saddened all who knew him.
     The Third Cold Fusion Conference is scheduled to be held in Japan
in October 1992. There was a "semi-secret" Cold Fusion meeting in Turin in
March.
     Funding continues - Stan Pons together with Martin Fleischmann, are
working at the Science Research Park near Nice for a Japanese supported
company. It is reported that the Electrical Power Research Institute, EPRI,
has given further money, $12 million, to the Stanford Research Institute, SRI,
for continuing Cold Fusion work.
    Drs. Pons Fleischmann, Preparata, Bressani and del Giudice are taking legal
action against the Repubblica newspaper and asking for 8000 million lire.
 
SUBJECTS
 
  1. General Electric paper.
     1.1 Background and Introduction
     1.2 Title, Authors, Abstract
     1.3 Critique of Analysis of Fleischmann and Pons
     1.4 Experimental results
     1.5 Reaction of Fleischmann
     1.6 Conclusions
 
  2. Kamiokande experiment for Jones and Menlove
     2.1 Background and Introduction
     2.2 Experimental results
     2.3 Conclusions
 
  3. Andy Riley, SRI and EPRI
     3.1 Introduction
     3.2 Andy Riley
     3.3 Experiments at SRI
 
  4. Other Experiments
     4.1 Helium measurements of Bush et al.
     4.2 Mills et al. and Tom Droege
     4.3 Takahashi, Osaka
     4.4 Bressani et al.
     4.5 Cold Fusion in China
     4.6 Withdrawal of Cluster Fusion Result
 
  5. Books
 
  6. Meetings, Press Conferences, Legal Actions
 
  7. Conclusions.
 
 
1. GENERAL ELECTRIC PAPER
 
    1.1 INTRODUCTION
                        After the 23 March 1989 press conference, General
Electric, like many power companies, signed confidential agreements with
the University of Utah. Also then sent people to work with Dr. Pons in
Utah and at the same time, and completely independently, started working
on Cold Fusion experiments at their Research and Development labs at
Schenectady. It is the work of this latter group that will be published
this spring in the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry. However the major
part of their paper is a very detailed consideration of of the Fleischmann
and Pons work where they find many errors , several of which are serious.
      The GE experimental work was done on a large scale within the first year,
but for a variety of reasons has not been generally available. I learnt of
major errors in the Fleischmann and Pons analysis over a year ago and these
have been presented to them. Publication was delayed appreciably and the
final paper is carefully written. Here the rather kindly  abstract will be
given and then the main evidence will be presented so that everyone may judge.
 The authors include former GE researcher Fritz Will who after the experimental
work was essentially completed, became the Director of the National Cold
Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City.
 
 
  1.2 TITLE, AUTHORS AND ABSTRACT
 
  "Analysis of Experiments on Calorimetry of LiOD/D2O Electrochemical Cells
 
        R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil and F.G. Will".
 
    Abstract
              "In this paper we present a detailed analysis of calorimetry with
heavy water electrolytic cells, especially of the type described by Fleischmann
Pons et al. in recent publications. We also summarise our own experiments,
which involve calorimetry of electrolytic cells of various designs. None of
our experiments has yielded any excess heat or radiation products within the
detection limits. We evaluate the data and methods of Fleischmann, Pons et
al. and, where sufficient data are available, conclude that they significantly
over-estimate the excess heat. This is in part because they did not include
in their calibration calculation the change in input electrochemical power
to the cell resulting from the calibration heater power. An additional
significant overestimate of excess energy occurs when the calibration is made
at cell temperatures above 60 C, due to the increased evaporation of heavy
water duing the calibration. Furthermore we find unexplainable inconsistencies
in the data on light water controls as reported by Fleischmann and Pons.
While our analysis shows their claims of continuous heat generation to be
significantly overstated, we cannot prove that no excess heat has been
generated in any experiment".
 
   1.3 Analysis of Fleischmann and Pons
                           A detailed discussion of the open cell used by
Fleischmann and Pons is first given and it is pointed out that several terms
are not properly accounted for but fortunately do not lead to significant
errors. Other potential errors such as inadequate mixing and recombination are
believed not to be significant. However the heat loss calibration procedure
does lead to important errors, this being established partly theoretically
and by experiments with cells similar to those of F&P, thus the heat loss
is found to be half by radiation and half by conduction whereas F&P now treat
all heat losses as radiative(in their first paper they treated all heat losses
as conductive - Newton's law of Cooling). Two calibration procedures are used
by F&P, firstly "approximative" and the second a very complicated
multiparameter regression analysis which is said to give "exact" excess
energies. The calibration depends on giving a brief additional burst of heat
to the cell. This temperature change is not taken into account in the first
procedure and it is shown that this error substantially reduces the excess heat
claimed. Since the second method is claimed by F&P to agree very closely (few
milliwatt) with the incorrect first analysis, hence there must be error(s) in
the second analysis. A possible error in the second calculation which would
account for this is identified.
   When a correct calibration procedure is used, the excess heat claimed is
significantly reduced. "Because of the paucity of experimental details in their
publications, it has been difficult to determine quantitatively the effect of
calibration errors" eg "they have not reported cell temperatures or
calibration power" so that pictorial data have been used instead.
    Several effects have been neglected by F&P, two of which are important -
the reduction in resistance when the cell is heated by the calibration heater
and secondly the evaporative cooling of the electrolyte important at higher
operating temperatures and which is increased by the calibration heater. The
magnitude of the errors caused by these neglects is such that "in some cases
the errors are greater than their inferred 'excess heat'" and "in some some
instances excess heat remained after correcting for these errors."
     "The control experiments reported by F&P also pose a dilemma. Using their
approximate method to calculate excess heats, they find no excess heat within
a few milliwatts. If, however they used the procedures they describe for
determining excess heat, they should have obtained significant positive values
as a result of neglecting the effects described above. The results they report
are inconsistent with the procedures they describe." Further embarrassing
problems are also indicated.
 
      1.4 Experimental Results
                               A very extensive series of experiments were
performed. In one set the cells and procedures of F&P were followed - no excess
heat was found. Many small variations(eg different types of palladium and
different shapes, different electrolyte) were also tried and also major changes
such as thermal insulation to avoid radiation effects, and closed cells with
recombination catalysts and a flow cell. The current was varied between a few
milliamps to 0.5 amps per cm2. The length of time was varied. "Within
experimental error, no excess energy was found."
   "A few experiments were carefully monitored for gamma ray and neutron
production" using good techniques(particularly liked the use of Manganese
nitrate solution where the 55Mn captures a neutron to give 56Mn which decays
with a half-life of 154 minutes giving a gamma of 0.847 MeV - this is an
energy region with little background- this is useful for integration of
neutron signals; other detectors were used for direct neutron detection).
Activation foils were also used. "Nothing was found above background". "Many
of the electrolytes were checked for tritium build-up. No increase above
concentration by electrolysis was found". "Nor was the concentration of 4He in
the Pd rods found to be above background."
 
   1.5 Reaction of Fleischmann
                              Business Week of March 2nd reported that
"there's bad news ahead for cold fusion" and then talked about the
conclusions of the GE paper - the reporter did not seem to have read the
paper himself. The article continued that Pons and Fleischmann asked the
journal to let them write a rebuttel - but they have not done so yet.
Fleischmann is quoted as saying "Those people have got mental constipation
about this thing". Hope this is not a correct quotation as have always found
Martin a charming person, but have found that some people who have no answer to
scientific evidence against their work, do react this way. Sad, it would have
been pleasanter to see a scientific reply.
 
   1.6 Conclusions
                   There are two parts to the GE paper. Their experimental
results are very extensive, some of them copying the P&F experiments, others
are superior; all give no evidence for excess heat or for fusion products.
It might be thought that this should be enough convince even True Believers
that there is nothing there, but this has already happened with the Harwell
experiments led by David Williams who was helped by Fleischmann before
the 23 March 1989 press conference, and whose group also did a very large
number of experiments, some the same as P&F and others better - and TB's
ignore or discount this work.
   However the main thrust of the GE paper is to show that the analysis of
the calorimetry had many errors some were so serious that when the P&F data were
corrected the excess heat claimed became sometimes a negative effect and
sometimes a positive effect so that the conclusion was that one cannot trust
the results.
   In the Abstract it is written that "we cannot prove that no excess heat has
been generated in any experiments". This statement, which unintentionally, has
some legal use, covers the fact that the paper was concerned with the main
claim of Cold Fusion, that a steady source of power was possible. The GE paper
does not discuss the question of heat bursts. Thus the real question is;
"Can the P&F experiments be considered to give trustworthy evidence in favour of
the existence of Cold Fusion as a steady source of power?" The GE analysis shows
that the P&F work is so full of errors that it is not clear whether they found
a positive or a negative effect as is shown clearly in their table 2. In other
words the uncertainties are so great that the P&F work cannot be used as a
justification for the existence of Cold Fusion.
   There is also the embarrassing matter that the control experiments
which were said to show no effect, should have shown an effect if they had
been analysed the way that P&F said they had analysed them.
   The GE authors say that is in principle possible to obtain results on
excess heat with the Pons and Fleischmann type cells, but it is complicated
and needs to be done properly, which was not the case. Many times it has been
suggested that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann do a good experiment with a closed
cell and several constant temperature baths surrounding the cell for then the
corrections become fewer and small. Also they should much use bigger cells so
that the effects are clear - but they have only reported results from the
original small cells which gave excess heat with the errors in calculation.
     The GE paper is not a light paper, the appendixes contain very detailed
work. The GE authors are major experienced researchers in this field. It is
surprising that no response has been made since Drs. Pons and Fleischmann have
been aquainted with these difficulties and have been in possession of the
GE paper for some considerable time.
     The overall conclusion must be that there is no good evidence for useful
excess heat or fusion products in the Fleischmann and Pons experiments.
 
2. KAMIOKANDE EXPERIMENTS OF JONES AND MENLOVE
 
    2.1 Background and Introduction
                                    The Kamiokande detector is a tank
of 3000 tons of very pure water in whose walls are many photomultipliers
which can detect Cherenkov radiation produced by electrons.
The experimental team is large and well-funded. They have done
outstandingly good work in neutrino detection. They detected (along with
the IMB detector) neutrinos from Supernova 1987A. They have also detected
neutrinos from the Sun and have shown that there is no variation with time
(in particular not with the inverse of the sunspot number as had been
surprisingly claimed by another experiment). Also their measured flux
of solar neutrinos is in agreement with Evolutionary model(SSM)
calculations of the Saclay group though some other SSM predict higher
neutrino fluxes. Thus their experiment is playing a major role in the
important question of whether there is a solar neutrino problem or not.
The question is important as the solar neutrino problem is the only major
result where there may be disagreement with the Standard Model of
particle physics.
    The Kamiokande detector was off for a year and half to improve and
maintain the detector. During this time an installation was made in the
centre of the Kamiokande detector where Cold Fusion cells could be
installed and surrounded by a sodium chloride solution. If any neutrons
were given off by the Cold Fusion cells they would be detected by capture
by the 35Cl giving off energetic gammas producing electrons which the
photomultipliers would detect by their Cherenkov rings. The system has been
calibrated using a 252Cf source and the efficiency for neutron detection
is about 20%.
     The Kamiokande detector is so big that the Cold Fusion work does not
seriously interfere with the Solar Neutrino and Supernova watch activities.
For the period January to end May 1991, Kamiokande effectively ran for
99 days for neutrinos and 2 days for Cold Fusion (during neutrino running the
Cold Fusion cells were normally running but not interfering with the main
work of Kamiokande). It is expected that Cold Fusion measurement will continue
until April 1992.
         The emission of neutrons from Cold Fusion cells is highly
controversial. Most workers did not find neutrons above background but
a considerable number of claims were made, several of which have been
withdrawn (eg the original claim of 40 000 neutrons/second of F&P).
Of the positive claims, some of the lowest rates are from the original
1989 paper of Jones et al. in Nature. However other groups (eg Moshe Gai at
Yale, the Frejus/Bugey group) obtain no neutron signal and give upper limits
which are one to two order of magnitude lower.
     Jones et al. claimed to measure in Run No. 6 a flux of neutrons of
   Run No. 6   (4.1 +/- 0.8 )*10**-3 n/s above background
   Background  (1.4 +/- 0.13)*10**-3 n/s.
Later this rate was lowered by averaging over the other runs where no
significant effect had been observed and this gives
   Average     (0.62 +/- 0.1)*10**-3 n/s above background
that is an average which is less than half the background.
   As the efficiency was only (1 +/- 0.3)%, this meant that the corrected
counting rate was about 0.1 neutrons/second. Kamiokande which has a
detector efficiency of about 20%, proposed that with their detector they
could obtain a background 10 000 times less. The limit of their neutron
sensitivity was expected to be 4*10**-5 n/s with a threshold energy of 7 MeV.
     Later Steve Jones joined with the Howard Menlove group at Los Alamos
and discovered bursts of neutrons. In the summer of 1990 graphs were presented
showing bursts of 20 to 149 neutrons observed being emitted in less than
128 microseconds. As the efficiency of the counters was between 21 and 34%,
this means bursts of 100 neutrons or more were frequently being observed.
Such bursts would be easily detected by the Kamiokande detector.
 
   2.2 Experimental Results
                            The first experiments were said to be of gas and
titanium, but with relative lack of success, and electrolytic cells were tried
including some with the "mother earth" type recipe.
     First results were presented by Dr. Ikegami at the Second Annual
Cold Fusion Conference with a newspaper article claiming that Kamiokande
had detected neutrons - this caused quite some excitement but is not
included in the published proceedings. However it turned out that these were
observed as "bursts" of 2, 3 or 4 neutrons (one neutron is excluded as
a "burst"). Now if Uranium (or plutonium) were present as a contaminant in the
cell (eg in the Palladium) then as the number of neutrons per fusion can be as
large as 6 (or 7), this would account for the effect. The Kamiokande group
have already taken enormous precautions to reduce the background from U or Pu
and it is sited at a depth of 2700 mwe in the Kamioka mine and is surrounded
by a shield of 6 to 7 metres of U-free water so that the background can
be as low as one count per year. Quickly it was learnt that neutrons were
also detected when H2O and not D2O was used which would appear to confirm
that the bursts were not from fusion but from contamination. This is
contested by Steve Jones who feels that the data may be significant and
one should wait. The prelimainary data that I have seen show that relatively
little running was done with H2O so that the statistics are not very
 significant.
    However after this excitement, the main result tended to get lost that
the counting rate was less than one-hundredth of that claimed in the 1989
paper of Jones et al. Thus after more than two years development work, and
the insertion of many cells in Kamiokande, the original claim presented in 1989
cannot be justified.
    A second main result is that large bursts (here taken as > 27 neutrons)
as claimed in the 1990 paper of Menlove et al. cannot be justified as no
large burst has been observed.
    Steve Jones claims that small bursts (defined as 2 to 10 neutrons)
are being observed and the rates are being studied. We shall have to wait and
see if some new effect will be claimed at a much lower rate than the previous
claims. No statement has been made about intermediate bursts (11 to
26 neutrons).
    Have been exchanging many messages with Steve - he is genuinely anxious to
find out the truth and discuss in a scientific manner (this does not mean
he agrees with my conclusions - his position is unclear to me)
    At present some surprising tests are being made using cells filled
with concrete. The basic idea is the hope that this would represent in
some way what is happening in the earth where Jones et al. claim fusion
may be occurring. It is well known that concrete contains radioactive
materials, in particular thorium. It is surprising that such an
uncontrolled substance is being introduced into Kamiokande which makes
such efforts to remove contamination. It is to be hoped that this does not
interfere with Kamiokande's main mission to study neutrinos.
 
     2.3 CONCLUSIONS
                     It must be concluded that the original work on low
level neutron counting is not confirmed by a large margin due to the
high quality and enormous size of the Kamiokande detector.
    This is not the conclusion of Steve Jones who claims some possible
effects and that more time and work is needed. What I have seen of these
claims makes them look like statistical fluctuations combined with trials
of a number of data selections, but there could be other data which has not
yet been presented. However whether there are or are not such very low level
effects, this does not change the two main conclusions that the level of
neutrons observed in 1989 and the level of bursts claimed in 1990, have been
disproved by the same experimenters working with numerous cells tested for
long periods of time in the Kamiokande detector under favourable conditions.
 
3. ANDY RILEY, SRI AND EPRI
 
    3.1 INTRODUCTION
                            The Stanford Research Institute, SRI, does
research for agents that give it funding. Thus it is not an academic
establishment with a commitment to making available all its results
without the agreement of its funding organisations. The Electrical
Power Research Institute, EPRI, is the agent of the power companies
and has many activities. It has been sponsoring research in Cold Fusion
and in particular has been giving appreciable funds to Mike McKubre's
group at SRI. In Business Week of 2 March it is written that EPRI will
give $3 million to SRI for this year and there is talk of $12 million
over three years.
 
    3.2 Andy Riley
      Andy Riley was a materials scientist. He was employed by the National
Cold Fusion Research Institute in Utah. It was there that I got to know
and like him. He was not concerned about the reality or not of Cold Fusion,
but was greatly interested in the materials research work that he could do.
He was very knowledgable and it was a pleasure to learn from him.
He had a great love of the desert and it was he who persuaded me to spend a
weekend visiting the Southern Utah desert - he was right, it is splendid.
    After NCFI closed down, Andy went to work at SRI. Newspaper reports
quote firemen as saying that the explosion which killed Andy was due to the
removal of a cell from its container as Andy had found an automatic pressure
relief valve had stuck and was trying to open it manually. Happened to be in
Palo Alto a week later for a seminar and phoned Mike McKubre who was one of
those injured in the explosion. This was Mike's first day back at work and
fortunately he was much better. He told me that SRI was now going to start
its investigations and the conclusions might be different.
   At no time did anyone suggest that the explosion had any connection with
the existence or not of Cold Fusion.
   It is interesting to recall that in 1989 among the thorough experiments of
many German groups (all of which found nothing) was the work of Kreysa,
Marx and Plieth of Frankfurt and Berlin who took a deuterium-loaded
palladium sheet and placed it on a table where it burnt the table. The point is
that considerable energy is stored in the palladium when the deuterium is
driven in by electrolysis and when the Pd sheet is removed the energy raises
the temperature of the palladium which then becomes an efficient catalyser
for hydrogen and oxygen (in the air) to burn. This is the principle of the
flameless catalytic combustion of hydrogen which is used in catalytic
hydrogen burners. The experimenters then found that if after extracting
a D-loaded Pd sheet and placing it on glass rods, a temperature
rise of the palladium from 20 C to 418 C occurred within 74 seconds after an
incubation time of 15 seconds. There are many reports of Cold Fusion cells
exploding and everyone should be aware of the potential dangers and take
precautions.
    We all grieve for the loss of Andy Riley.
 
   3.3 EXPERIMENTS AT SRI
                         The fact that EPRI is giving large grants to SRI
and that they refer obliquely to results that justify this funding, raise
interest in the work at SRI.
   In an account of the 2nd Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, 2ACCF, in Update
No. 5, it was written that "This was perhaps the most impressive positive
result." This has now been published in pages 419 to 443 of "The Science of
Cold Fusion" - the 2ACCF proceedings. Again it reads very impressively saying
the positive excess heat occurs at high D/Pd loading, greater than one. the
loading was measured by the axial resistivity and by volumetric displacement of
gas during loading in a closed system at constant volume and pressure. Andy
Riley once commented to me that axial resistivity was not a reliable measurement
as there was also radial distortion that had to be taken into account.
   It seems that the high loading was achieved by using "substantial current
densities(typically 300 to 600 mA/cm2, but up to 6400 mA/cm2) for considerable
periods of time(typically 1000-2000 hours)" and also with high pressures from
40 to 10 000 psi above atmospheric pressure. The effect of high pressure alone
has been tried at much higher values - at Harvard 105 000 atmospheres(1.6
million psi) gave a loading of 1.34 +/- 0.1 and at Los Alamos a megabar was
achieved for 14 microseconds, but in both cases negligible numbers of neutrons
were produced and at Harvard no excess heat was found with an upper limit of
1.6*10**-8 fusions/dd pair/second. It is of course obvious that very high
pressures would not be suitable for confinement of a commercial fusion process
as the strength of the walls would decrease with bombardment by fusion products.
     The calorimetry used in the experiments was much superior to any other
experiment that had claimed excess heat as it used closed cells and insulation
and a surrounding isothermal bath. However as there was only one bath, there
was needed a "effective conductive loss term, k'. The conductive power loss
for the large calorimeters was typically 3 to 5% of the total input power. The
accuracy claimed was the greater of 10mW or 0.1%.
    While the calorimeters were greatly superior to previous ones giving
positive results, they could still be substantially improved by following the
Harwell design as used by David Williams. These had the following features;
1. The best measurements avoid corrections by trying to make null
measurements as in the Wheatstone bridge. Thus the Harwell calorimeter
kept the temperature of the inner isothermal bath constant by varying the
input power which then compensated any excess heat produced
2. There were three constant temperature baths
3. Calibration was done by inserting a known source of heat into the calorimeter
- this could be a calibrated alpha source.
    In view of the substantial sums being invested by EPRI, it is to be hoped
that these improvements will be tried.
    The 2ACCF paper states that typical excess output power was 5 to 10% with
a maximum of 28%. However could not find in the paper the value of the excess
power integrated over the whole period  of each experiment(which is the number
of importance for commercial applications, but at 2ACCF, was told that it was
between 1% and 2 to 3%. Such values are too low to be of commercial use
which would require more like the values of 300 to 900% originally
claimed in March 1989.
 
4. OTHER EXPERIMENTS
 
     There have been fewer new experimental results published recently.
Dieter Britz who now has a total of 688 papers and 96 patents/applications
says it is now a "trickle". None of these recent papers are complete
experiments or very convincing (apart from the GE complete work
and the high quality Kamiokande experiment). However some have attracted
attention and will be presented.
 
   4.1 HELIUM MEASUREMENMTS OF BUSH et al.
         Drs. Bush and Lagowski of Univ. of Texas at Austin have been
looking for helium in the electrolysis experiments of Drs. Miles and Ostrom at
the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA. They claim to find 4He when
excess heat is observed. John Huizengz has criticised the experiments saying
the level is very low and helium contamination is a possible explanation - this
is strongly denied by Bush et al. The outgoing gasses from the cell are
collected for about an hour in a 0.5 litre vessel. It is said that amounts
of < 10**12, 10**12, 10**13 and 10**14 atoms of 4helium are found corresponding
to no peak, small, medium and large peaks in the spectrometer and there is a
correlation with the amount of excess power - the values given for excess power
were (0.07 and 0.29 W), (0.12 and 0.17 W), (0.24 and 0.40 W) and (0.22, 0.36,
0.46 and 0.52 W) resp. There is a correlation but it is a poor one and it
would appear that the relationship was more of a power law than a linear
one as might be expected. If all the reactions were   d + d ---> 4He + 23.8 MeV
then it is claimed that the highest excess power would yield 5.4 10**14 atoms
and "About 10**14 atoms were detected which is within experimental error
of then theoretical amount." - this is the nearest one gets to an estimate
of errors in the 2ACCF paper.
     No 3He was found - this is curious as experiments on dd fusion find
that 10**7 times as much 3He should be produced as 4He.
     The experiment looks very simple and it is to be hoped that the authors
will continue it with better apparatus for a longer time since if their result
were correct it should be easily possible to produce large ammounts of helium
which would put the matter beyond doubt.
 
    4.2 MILLS et al. and TOM DROEGE
             For a while there was some excitement when Mills et al.
announced significant excess heat and then Tom Droege with his very high
quality calorimeter, confirmed it. But further work by Tom showed there were
fatal problems with the calibration procedures or to be more precise an invalid
correction. The calorimeter built by Tom is accurate down to near the milliwatt
level and is beautifully instrumented as can be seen on pages 243 to 248 of
"The Science of Cold Fusion". Tom has a very good reputation in Fermilab,
for example for the work he did for the giant CDF detector which one hopes
will be able to find the long sought after top quark.
 
    4.3 TAKAHASHI et al., OSAKA
          In February Dr. Ikegami gave a talk at Frascati which people who
doubted Cold Fusion, found impressive. The highlight of the talk was a
description of the results of the group of Dr. Takahashi at Osaka University.
They have done four experiments and have presented results on neutrons, tritium
and excess heat plus a theory that explains all results. In the early runs peaks
in the neutron spectrum were observed at 2.45 MeV as expected from
d + d --->  3He + n,  and over the region 3 to 7 MeV which is not expected.
In the fourth experiment excess heat of 200W per cc of Pd was observed and
more than 100 MJ of heat produced. Tritium was also observed with a ratio
n/t of 10**-5. The neutrons were observed at a rate of 1 to 100 n/s/cc. It was
claimed that there was a correlation between neutron production and excess heat
but the fig. 1 of the paper seems to prove the contrary, the highest neutron
rate being near the lowest excess heat claimed. In another transparency it was
noted that when the power increases the neutron production decreases - this is
contrary to all previous experience of believers and non-believers.
   The electrolysis cells have cooling water passing through them and the
temperature of the incoming and outgoing water is measured and after calculation
the excess heat is deduced. The cells are basically similar to those of
Pons and Fleischmann in being open and poorly insulated. Hence all the comments
and criticisms of the GE scientists would have to be considered before any
claim could be evaluated. In the description available there is not enough
detail to follow how all the calibration and heat loss calculations were done,
so a serious account of the work, mentioning the GE considerations, is needed
before the claims of excess heat could be justified.
   A theory is proposed that explains all the results including the n/t ratio
of 10**-5 and the n/f ratio of 10**-12 (where f is the rate of fusions expected
in the reaction d + d ---> 3He + n ). The model assumes "multibody fusions"
where not only do d-d fuse but also three and four deuterons, ie d-d-d and
d-d-d-d. The four atom fusion is calculated to give a megaWatt per cc while
ordinary water would yield a kiloWatt per cc because of the one atom in 6700
which is deuterium. Normal considerations of barrier penetration do not
seem to have been considered in this theory which is liable to find few
supporters even among True Believers - but one never knows.
 
    4.4 BRESSANI ET AL.
          T. Bressani et al. have carried out experiments to measure the
energy of neutrons emitted from Ti metal loaded with gaseous deuterium ie
following the ideas temperature cycling of Dr. Scaramuzzi. They use a neutron
spectrometer with time of flight and double scattering technique. They report
a two and a half standard deviation effect corresponding to 1.3 +/- 0.5
neutron per second per gram of Ti - this would correspond to about 10**-12 watts
for the reaction   d + d ---> 3He + n,  they do not report searching for 3He.
   The D2 gas pressure used by Bressani et al. was very low with a maximum
value of only 1.5 10**3 Torr. They remark that the volume and pressure
measurments give a D/Ti loading of only 0.32 which they comment is "totally
inconsistent with the Ti-H phase diagram", but the low loading seems
consistent with the low loadings for similar pressures used by Steve Jones
and collaborators. It seems slightly inconsistent for Dr. Bressani to have
employed such a low loading value when he strongly emphasises the
necessity of high loadings to obtain the threshold value that is claimed to be
necessary to observe Cold Fusion.
   Many groups have reported not finding any neutrons when adopting the
Scaramuzzi technique and some have upper limits less than one thousandth
of the Scaramuzzi claim. As the early reports of Scaramuzzi claimed
5000 neutrons per second using 100 grams of Ti, Dr. T. Bressani must be
congratulated for joining the experimental groups that have found different
results from Dr. Scaramuzzi  - it is surprising that he has not made a
comparison of his result with that of the earlier paper which would
have allowed him to make a comment himself.
 
    4.5 COLD FUSION IN CHINA
          While at the Pugwash Conference talked with Dr. Li who is the
leader of the Chinese scientist working on Cold Fusion. He told me that there
were very little funds available. The apparatus used is rather primitive
and few results are emerging.
 
    4.6 WITHDRAWAL OF CLUSTER FUSION RESULT
     In an errata in Physical Review Letters(in press), the group at Brookhaven
that had claimed to have observed fusion when using clusters of D2O to
bombard targets, have withdrawn their observation for technical reasons.
The problem was light contaminant ions containing deuterium.
   This puzzling result which could not be quite explained, was described as
cold or lukewarm fusion and was not considered central to the debate about
the existance or non-existance of Cold Fusion.
 
5. BOOKS
         Hear that John Huizenga's long-awaited book on Cold Fusion has
finally been published. It is an excellent serious book for those interested in
Science (and psychology). A must for those involved in Cold Fusion as well as
for others.
     Gary Taubes phoned me about another subject (neutrinos). His book has
unfortunately been delayed until later this year.
     Saw Frank Close's book on the shelves in Geneva - good for you Frank!
     The proceedings of the Second Annual Cold Fusion conference last June
at the Villa Olmo in Como, have now appeared. The dust jacket is very tasteful
with delicate images of Volta (a special hero in Como), a cold fusion cell
with all the parts labelled, the original 1989 Jones et al. neutron result,
Scaramuzzi's controversial plot, something that has a vague resemblence to a
Feynman graph but I doubt if he would acknowledge it, etc. The main heavy
writing on the cover which stands out well is
            THE SCIENCE OF COLD FUSION
and the publishers title. There are 527 pages.
 
6. MEETINGS, PRESS CONFERENCES, LEGAL ACTIONS
           There was a "semi-secret" meeting lasting three and a half days in
Turin on Cold Fusion early in March. It was attended by about 40 people,
mainly local but some foreigners such as Stan Pons also attended. Was told that
there was not very much new. Although the press attended, it was not widely
advertised - not even in the University of Turin!
    The account of the Turin meeting in a newspaper of 17 March said that it
was organised by the Turin section of the INFN and was called "Cold Fusion
Three Years After". The participants were described as being under tension
and prudent like the adepts of a secret society who are sure of their ultimate
triumph. They were particularly encouraged by the new results from Osaka
indicating excess heat of 100 Watts per cm3.
      At a press interview, Dr. Pons said there were no more doubts; he
took a sabbatical from Utah to open a lab in Nice. There are about
10 people working there with important financial backing from Technova
- a company that finances research for some Japanese industrial groups.
They have developed a new type of electrolytic cell with Palladium
to obtain a kilowatt per cc of electrode. Reproducibility has been attained
at 100% and depends on a new type of Palladium alloy. He said that to
understand the new phenomenon one must put aside classical fusion reactions
in a vacuum and think of alternatives. Preparata's ideas can explain the
results. Dr. Pons said the aim was to present to the public a practical
application before the end of the year. He also said other labs had prototypes
and quoted McKubre at SRI and Bressani at Turin. Prof. Bressani, who was
introduced as leader of the Obelix experiment at CERN, Geneva, confirmed that
his group had interesting effects from a cell with D2 gas and Titanium of
the type proposed by Dr. Scaramuzzi, but said that it would need more
time to construct a demonstration cell.
     Heard about it only because I was invited to give a seminar at Turin
reviewing Cold Fusion and some people were astonished when they were told about
the meeting two weeks after it had occurred. The seminar was well received
except that a True believer, TB, came forward at the end and made
comments of a violence that astonished his colleagues. His essential
point was that I was biased as I had not mentioned recent work including
his own, reporting evidence for Cold Fusion. Tried to explain that my talk
was based on the one I gave at the Sakharov Conference last summer,
consisted of three main parts, (1) a summary of ALL results, positive
and null(with upper limits often lower than the positive values), (2) for
the period since then, only good experiments with complete, careful calibration
and controls, (3) understanding of the results in human terms. As Dr. Ikegami
had recently given a lecture at Frascati which was written up in the newspapers
on recent research on Cold Fusion in Japan and in particular had spent
some time reporting on the results of Dr. Takahashi of Osaka, I showed in
reply, 5 transparencies showing his results and explaining the problems
that had led me to exclude it from the "good" experiments. The TB was
not satisfied and continued in the same violent manner. Afterwards (too late)
noticed that he had not questioned anything that was presented in the
seminar and in particular not the "devasting" results of the GE analysis
of Pons and Fleischmann's work. The seminar finally lasted longer than
normally scheduled, two hours but it was observed to me that almost no one
left before the end!
     Have received an invitation from Dr. Ikegami who is head of one section
of the Japanese National Fusion Institute in Nagoya, to attend the Third
International Cold Fusion Conference which will be held in Nagoya from
21 to 25 October 1992. "The conference will cover the broadest topics
relevant to Cold Fusion phenomena in the research fields including nuclear
physics, electrochemistry, and solid state physics". As the organising body
is the very serious National Institute for Fusion Science which has done
excellent work on Inertial Confinement, etc., it may be expected that this
will be a serious conference where the organisers will ensure that the
conference will be balanced and that all points of view and both null and
positive experiments will be reported and discussed. If these justified hopes
are fulfilled, it could be a significant conference and it is to be hoped
that many who have worked at some time or other on Cold Fusion will attend.
Dr. Ikegami is chairman of the conference. The Fax address is 052 781 9564 and
the Email address is
                     ikegami@nifs.ac.jp
    When in Turin learnt that the important newspaper Repubblica is being sued
by 5 True Believers for defamation. They are Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons
Guiliano Preparata, Tullio Bressani, and Emilio del Giudice. This arose from
an article in Repubblica where Cold Fusion was defined as a "truffa scientifica"
which I am told means "scientific fraud". It appeared on the 20 October 1991.
It was said that the results of Pons and Fleischmann cannot be reproduced
in any other laboratory. Later another article based on a letter from
Believers was entitled "No, we are not False Prophets", but the comment was
apparently not withdrawn. Now the newspaper is being sued for a total of
eight billion lire which is roughly five million US dollars - this is made up of
2 billion lires for P&F and one billion for Preparata, Bressani and del Giudice
plus 200 million for each of the five for repeated violence.
    Personally I am against such legal proceedings. It would be much better to
wait until the end of this year and see the prototype of Dr. Pons actually
giving a kilowatt per cc - preferably a big prototype with many cc giving many
kilowatts such as Dr. Pons has been photographed with. Wonder if the Five and
Repubblica have read the article in Nature of 19 March, Vol. 356, page 191
where the definition of scientific fraud is discussed. A US senior federal
advisory committee has proposed that a strict-constructionist definition
of fraud be adopted, namely "plagiarism, the fabrication or intentional
falsification of data, research procedures or data analysis, or other deliberate
misrepresentations in proposing, conducting, reporting or reviewing research".
This report will go to the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is
concerned mainly with health and biomedical agencies.
 
POST-SCRIPT
           On the SCI_FUSION net, some of the above stories from a press
conference in Turin, were "confirmed" by an account with the heading Washington
beginning "At a packed press conference today (March 27) in the nation's
capitol, leading Italian physicist Dr. Giuliano Preparata announced dramatic
new steps forward in the develoPment of cold fusion as a practical, cheap
source of clean energy", "Speaking at the National Press Club". Dr. Eugene
Mallove, former chief press officer of MIT who wrote the book "Fire from
Ice" in favour of cold fusion, also spoke and said he hoped  to repeat the
results of Dr. Takahashi from Osaka, before the April 15 when Dr. Takahashi
is scheduled to give a talk at MIT. "Mallove and Preparata attacked the
vicious witch-hunt conducted in the US and Europe against the scientists
who had the courage to attest to the reality of this revolutionary
new science, and then were subject to persecution similar to that which drove
the two pioneers to leave the United States."
    The press report finished "You are dealing with a subtle process here
which must be explained by real scientific thinking", "For the sake of your
children, for the sake of the future of humanity, we must fight this
stranglehold on science that affects us all."
   Jon Webb then pointed out that "this article was taken from the
New Federalist, a publication of the political extremist Lyndon LaRouche."
"if the press conference was packed, why haven't there been any other stories
about it?" Mr. LaRouche is described in one of the associated magazines as
"a political prisoner in federal prison in Rochester, Minn." - others say the
long jail sentance has something to do with tax.
 
POST-SCRIPT 2
       Have just received on the net, the text of the proposed change to
the Law which would favour Fusion. The phrase "Cold Fusion" is not mentioned,
but it is easy to see it would help people doing such experiments.
The title is "Replacement of Public Law 96-389, sec 3, Oct. 7, 1980, 95Stat 1540
Chapter 101 -- Fusion Energy Engineering." "(The purpose of this revision
of 03/26/92 is to provide small grants to fusion innovators who possess
fusion technology patents, allowing them to devote more time and effort
in the pursuit of private capital sources)".
It says that preference should be given to aneutronic fusion - which is
defined as "any fuel which when burnt in a fusion energy system, produces
neutron radiation carrying away less than 10% of the produced energy." The
figure of 10% seems very high for an aneutronic reaction which means
no neutrons. It would allow more than 10**16 neutrons per second from
a megawatt power plant which would be a major radiation hazard and would
damage the materials used in the construction.
   "Every US citizen possessing a patent for a fusion energy system is to be
provided with full reimboursement of all tax-deductible expenses incurred in
the pursuit of the patent, up to a maximum of $100,000"
   "(2) to stimulate private sector investment in fusion energy technology
by awarding substantial prizes for significant technical achievement
and matching private investment with public grants" The prizes are substantial
12 of them each of $100,000,000.
     At the Nevada nuclear test range, 100 acres should be made available at
a "cost of no more than $1000 per month to lease per acre, including all
user fees." This shall "be remote enough that the instantaneous release
of 1 gram of tritium gas per month will pose no significant health risk to
those outside the test range."
     There would be 10 monthly auctions of "10 kilograms of Helium-3". Curious.
 
7. CONCLUSIONS
 
    The major recent event is that the two original experiments of Pons and
Fleischmann and of Jones et al., seem both to have been discredited.
    If there was no effect there to confirm, it is not surprising that the
majority of experiments found nothing.
    The fact that a minority of experiments found some evidence that appeared
to confirm the two original experiments, is not unusual in these kind of
affairs.
    New experiments are decreasing to a "trickle" but it seems the band of
True Believers has decided on an active campaign using the media. One
wonders if some of them are becoming associated with Lyndon LaRouche or
only adopting his style. The well-funded journals, New Federalist and
21st Century Science and Technology, which support LaRouche, have been most
generous in their support of Cold Fusion
    Expect that the Third Cold Fusion conference will take place. Since it is
under the auspices of the very respectable Japanese National Institute for
Fusion Reseach, it is to be expected that the meeting will be conducted in a
normal scientific manner - that the programme committee will contain both
people who believe in Cold Fusion and those who do not. Similarly one can expect
invited speakers from the main experiments that do and do not find Cold
Fusion effects. It should be an interesting meeting which will do honour to
its sponsors.
 
                                                 Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudench cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.08 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Catalysis of nuclear reactions
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Catalysis of nuclear reactions
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:30:56 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

While it is generally considered bad form to advertise one's own work I
recommend that those people who still have an open mind, read my article in
Fusion Facts Vol 1, Issue 7 p.17 (january 1990).  Dieter rightl6y considers
this somewhat of a "rag" but I wanted to put something in print.  The article
is titled: Fusion: An [sic] Historical Perspective and the author is myself
Richard A. Forman, then working for Optimum Technology, Inc., my own company.
It was badly hacked by Herb Fox, the editor of Fusion Facts, but basically
it says, in American vernacular, you can't tell the players without a score-
card.  For Dieter and other non-Americans I would translate this to first find
out the reactants and reaction products. Then worry about why something is
or is not seen.  As a recent paper pointed out there are old mechanisms
that re well known to enhance barrier tunnelling.  MY POINT: WHY TRY TO
UNDERSTAND MECHANISMS WHEN EVEN THE REACTANTS AND REACTION PRODUCTS REMAIN
UNKNOWN. The pilloried pioneers in THIS AREA are Rollison and O'Grady.
I still believe their work is correct.  I am biased because it goes along with
my INDEPENDENT predictions in this area, but still it was a new experiment.
Teller used my work in the press conference so it can't be all that nuts.
I just don't want to be pilloried or worse.  I prefer to let the critics of
new research have their say and will wait for them to be hoist by
their own pitard.  Pitard is a pun for those of you who know older English.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:38:25 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Phil G. Fraering writes:
 
Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
>
>A thought comes to mind: as soon as the "inner solar system" is open
>to us, why are all the propulsion engineers going to lose their
>positions?
 
Because once space becomes economic, the field will become highly
competitive and they aren't used to operating in such an environment.
 
It is a problem all inventors face and it is a major reason the
Japanese are eating our lunch.  We are good at innovation.  Our
business types are good at ripping off innovation from inventors
and making them committ suicide.  But the Japanese are better at
the game of inventor rip-off than our businessmen.  Hell, at least
the Japanese pay SOME royalties.
 
The technosocialists play on this fear in inventors to get them
to buy into "free" bureaucratic cash which is, in fact, the biggest
inventor rip-off of all.  Ever signed an inventions agreement?
At NASA or DoE you don't even get to sign -- it is automatic.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 /  /  Stop Morrison Stop
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stop Morrison Stop
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:48:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Stop Salt Stop!  I think that is what you were supposed to say to stop the
magic salt machine.  But someone forgot and the ship sank and that is why
our oceans are full of salt.
 
I have already received 5 copies of "Cold Fusion Update #6"  I thank Douglas
for his effort, but please, friends, don't send me any more copies.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 /  /  Heat pulses in P&F cells
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat pulses in P&F cells
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:34:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This discussion of D absorption in "anomalous heat" experiments is
being conducted in public rather than as a private message to Dieter
Britz in the hope that others might be interested.  If, as John
Stimson says "is this simply a newsgroup for cro-magnon pop-science
fans...?", readers think it is not of common interest I will take it
private.  Let me know.
 
I have been trying to make sense of temperature measurements taken
in P&F type cells for several years.  The general cell design is
shown on p 244 of the Como proceedings. The cell is about 3 cm dia
by 15 cm tall and has a volume of 100 cc.  The bottom two thirds of
the cell contains electrolyte and is surrounded by a heavy aluminum
spool piece.  The top of the cell contains the re-combiner and
sticks up into air.  The cell bottom and electrolyte are cooled by
conduction to the aluminum spool.  The top and catalyst are
convection cooled to air.  A baffle at the bottom of the catalyst
reduces internal cell convection.  The heat transfer between the
catalyst section and the electrolyte is thought to have a time
constant much longer that the 1 minute measurement interval.  The
cell contains 60 cc of 2N D2SO4 + .1 N LiOD electrolyte.  The Pd
cathode volume is 0.037 cc and the area is 0.57 cm sq.
 
A thermometer (thermister) in a glass tube is positioned near the
center of the electrolyte volume.  A thermometer (solid state) is
taped to the outside of the tube at the top to measure the catalyst
temperature.  Note that is not easy to get a good measurement of the
catalyst temperature as re-combination likely takes place at a hot
spot which can move around over several square inches of catalyst.
 
A constant pressure servo continuously measures the cell gas volume.
We interpret an increase in gas volume as being due to absorption of
deuterium by the cathode leaving behind un-recombined oxygen to be
measured.
 
We have been running for the last thirty days with a current saw
tooth which starts at 40 ma per sq cm, ramps to 600 ma per sq cm
over a half hour, then returns to 40 ma per sq cm.
 
We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
 
While some measurements are consistent with intermittent
recombination, others indicate to us that gas pulses in and out of
the cathode.  We note that the gas volume stays constant during the
first half of the ramp.  This indicates that at low gas evolution
rates the catalyst keeps up with the gas production.  At the higher
rates, there are both sudden decreases (larger) and increases in gas
volume.  In our naive view, we would think that the catalyst would
work better at the high rates, since it is hotter.  The cell
contains at least 10x the catalyst area needed for the current.
Physical observation seems to confirm the pulsing.  Storms seems to
have observed similar behavior. We would welcome comments by
experts.
 
Now for an event of the type that puzzles me.  During the higher
current portion of the ramp, we occasionally observe a sudden
decrease in volume of typically 2 cc, or 100 relative volumes of
deuterium (2/.037 *2). On the same one minute sample time the cell
temperature increases by .15 C and the catalyst temperature
increases.  There is a temporary change in heat balance but the long
term heat balance is consistent with zero to the present calibration
- about 4 mw.
 
Interpretation #1
 
The cathode blows out 4 cc of deuterium.  This is combined with
oxygen in the catalyst to cause it to get warmer.  The result is a 2
cc loss in volume.  Since at high loading, loss of gas is exothermic,
the cathode gets hotter and thus the electrolyte becomes warmer.
But note that this indicates (60cc*.15*4.1)  40 joules for 4 cc of
deuterium or 224 Kj per mole.  This seems very large.  What am I
doing wrong?
 
Details of the measurement indicate that this is not coupling
between the catalyst and the electrolyte.  I have destroyed a lot of
thermometers to prove they are not noisy.  The temperature signals
are 10x to 50x noise.  I really think the measurements are correct
as stated.  We have been observing this phenomena for two years in a
variety of cell configurations.  While the present ramp obscures
thermal measurements, when run at steady current heat measurements
show pulses.  They do not come often enough to be differentiated
between net heat pulses, and a long endothermic reaction followed by
a short exothermic reaction.
 
Interpretation #2
 
This interpretation is too bizarre to be put before the eyes of
skeptics.  Will send in a plain brown mail message to those who ask.
But this is why we keep working.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.009 / Jon Webb /  March 27 news conference
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: March 27 news conference
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 19:52:04 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

I must apologize for my comment about the publication on the March 27
news conference.  I noted that the publication came from the New
Federalist, a Lyndon LaRouche publication, and implied that it may
have been a false report.  My cautionary comment even made its way
into Doug Morrison's Cold Fusion Notes, where it took on the air of
refuting the whole thing. I now have confirmation that the conference
did in fact take place -- both information from people who know people
who were at the conference and an article in Chemical and Engineering
News, April 6, 1992.  Most of the claims in the New Federalist article
are repeated in the article in Chemical and Engineering News, so the
press conference must have taken place, and those claims must have
been made.
 
By the way, I'm one of those True Believers you hear about.  In spite
of it all, I'm still looking forwards to the Fleischmann-Pons cold
fusion generator (1992 version).
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / Jim Bowery /  Clarification and History of Proposed Fusion Law
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarification and History of Proposed Fusion Law
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:01:14 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

 
 
I apologize for not foreseeing the need to post the origin and
history of the proposed replacement of the Magnetic Fusion
Engineering Act.
 
I am acting as the chairman for the Coalition for Science and
Commerce, a grassroots network of science and technology enthusiasts
who got their start in politics trying (successfully) to draft and
pass legislation to reform NASA's launch procurement policies.
 
After the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 (the Packard Act),
which we originated and pushed through Congress, was signed into
law, we looked around at other key areas of federal science and
technology policy that appeared to be in the same failure mode
as NASA's space transportation policy.
 
Although there were several candidates, from the Human Genome project
to the National Research and Education Network project, it appeared
the area with the greatest potential that most resembled NASA in its
policy failure, was the DoE's fusion program.
 
I went down to the law library in San Diego, dug out the McCormick
Act that informs the current fusion program, and began to look for
ways it might be amended to correct the failures of the current
fusion program.  The first thing I noticed was the lack of a prohibition
against conflicts of interest in the committees.  That, in itself,
was sufficient to ensure failure.  I hoped that correcting the
constitution of the advisory committee to exclude conflicts of interest
would be sufficient to fix the problem.
 
However, as I began researching the political history of the fusion
program, it became clear that the effects of this central policy failure
had, over time, created an exceedingly politicized milieu -- so
politicized, in fact, that minor legislative fixes would be
overwhelmed by the vested interests that had become entrenched
within the program.
 
Further, it became clear that this failure had been going on for so
long that, like NASA's Shuttle program, a substantial inventory of
attractive innovations had built up, awaiting modest amounts of
funding, while large sums of money were still being spent on the
Tokamak technology -- a system design which had failed to meet the
expectations of its original proponents so miserably that those
proponents were turning against it.  However, most were silenced by
the political milieu that funded them.  The lone exception was
Bob Hirsch, whose stature in the field allowed him to speak the words
that so many engineers were afraid to say publicly (paraphrasing):
 
"The Tokamak is not the right system design.  It's time to move on."
 
The parallels with the programmatic failures of NASA's Shuttle were
compelling.  But the unrealized potential of fusion energy was far
greater than the unrealized potential of space transportation,
especially considering the fact that appropriate fusion technology
could make all current efforts in space transportation moot.
 
Efforts to raise private funds were hampered by a perception in
the investment community that if the DoE was spending hundreds
of millions of dollars a year on the Tokamak, there was no point
in even considering an investment in alternative fusion technologies.
Cold fusion exacerbated this situation.  The political rancor over
cold fusion further chilled private investors toward fusion.
 
Over the course of the last year and a half, I have identified several
alternative fusion technologies, cold fusion among them, which have
their enthusiastic proponents -- proponents who are highly skeptical
of all technologies but theirs.  This is typical of a robust and
immature field of technology.
 
My role was to talk to these innovators, brainstorm with them and
get their input on what sort of government program would be most
helpful to them without showing favoritism toward any one technical
approach.
 
Naturally, all innovators want money given to them to become the
next "flagship" program, but since this is precisely the policy
failure that led us into the mess we now face, I was careful to
set up a technically competitive program with incentives for private
investment in the actual achievement of engineering milestones on
the way to a viable commercial fusion system.
 
The result of that effort is the proposed Fusion Engineering Act
which you have received.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / Jim Bowery /  Response to Concerns About the Fusion Engineering Act
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Concerns About the Fusion Engineering Act
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:36:37 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

 
 
In response to the concerns raised by Doug Morrison and Dick Blue
about the proposed Fusion Engineering Act:
 
>It says that preference should be given to aneutronic fusion - which is
>defined as "any fuel which when burnt in a fusion energy system, produces
>neutron radiation carrying away less than 10% of the produced energy." The
>figure of 10% seems very high for an aneutronic reaction which means
>no neutrons. It would allow more than 10**16 neutrons per second from
>a megawatt power plant which would be a major radiation hazard and would
>damage the materials used in the construction.
 
The Act sets up two definitions of "aneutronic":
 
"Energetically aneutronic" and "Environmentally aneutronic"
 
The rational for the 10% figure on the "Energetically aneutronic"
definition was to allow for D-He3 systems, which typically have
5% of their energy carried away by neutrons, to win one of the
milestones.  The idea here is that 90% of the energy is carried away
in a totally aneutronic form which could use a different conversion
mechanism from that used to shield against neutrons.  Although
it is very unlikely that a realistic system will produce between
5% and 10% neutronic energy, 10% figure was chosen so that the
associated milestone wouldn't be He3-specific.  (Note:  The
 definition most widely used for "aneutronic fusion " is the D-He3
 level of 5% -- a level which is most decidedly NOT "aneutronic"
 from an environmental standpoint.)
 
With "Environmentally aneutronic" the 1% figure was chosen as a level
which would make fusion significantly more attractive, from an
environmental standpoint, than current nuclear plants and therefore
which should be treated as a milestone.  The expected winner here is
either H1-B11 at 0% neutronic energy or some wildcard like cold fusion
with only very sporadic neutron emissions.
 
>There would be 10 monthly auctions of "10 kilograms of Helium-3". Curious.
 
The He3 auctions were carefully structured to ensure that no one,
in government or out, could exclude a qualified Fusion Engineering
Enterprise from access to He3 as test fuel for the achievement of
the related milestones in "energetically aneutronic fusion."
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / MIKE JAMISON /  Filament Fusion
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Filament Fusion
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:37:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I just received my latest Electronic Engineering Times (Monday, Apr. 6,
Issue 687).  On page 39 there's an article that might be interesting to all
you non-EEs, as well as us EEs.  The title is "Fusion trials challenge EM
theory".
 
The thrust of the article is toward the Ampere force, which supposedly acts
in the direction of current flow, proportional to the square of the current
, not predicted by Maxwell's equations.  Some of the experiments in which
this (possible) force *may* be seen are filament fusion experiments.
 
According to the article, Deuterium is frozen into a solid "wire".  The
"wire" is then subjected to a large current (1E6 Amperes, for ~1 ns,
according to the article) and some of the D fuses.  No information is given
on power out vs power in, etc.
 
Anyone have any more information on this?
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
Disclaimer:  NASA and I aren't responsible for each other.
 
"Believe in your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours"
						-Richard Bach
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.10 /  Britz /  FF and turbulence
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FF and turbulence
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:06:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Forman alias M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes
>It was badly hacked by Herb Fox, the editor of Fusion Facts, but basically
Well, Dick, you are hacking Hal Fox's name here. Getting even?
                            ^^^
As for Dick's piece, I agree that what we need is experimental evidence; so
far, this is not unambiguous. With the exception of my very few "quality
positives", most of the "several hundred" papers of positive results cited by
ardent TB's are weak. This, as I have often said, does leave those few strong
ones to think about. Not that TB's hesitate to point to theories that support
cold fusion... I agree that fusion products should be looked for - and have
been, and sometimes apparently found; but mostly at doubtful levels, too close
to background for comfort.
 I do not agree that journals have treated cold fusion badly. Close to 700
papers have been published in a mix of fairly..very reputable journals. Where
is all this discrimination? So what if Nature and Science do not take papers?
There are plenty of others that do, and they are not el-cheapos. This ashes
on the head stuff is getting a bit tiresome.
 The same goes for research money. Very few research areas get specially
dedicated and large amounts of money from the respective governments. Again,
judging by the number of published papers, many many teams have received
research grants to do cold fusion, via the normal channels. These involve the
dreaded referees... and they have passed lots of cold fusion proposals. Don't
cry foul; write a grant application, like other people.
 On the other hand, when you come up with something that challenges entrenched
ideas, you must expect some resistance - if it were not there, we would be far
less sure of what we regard as True and Known. Some conservatism is
appropriate here. There are, as I say above, sufficient channels to show your
stuff, and gradually, the pressure of evidence will turn the tide. This is how
real science works, as HH Bauer has written so well about. Plug, plug: read
his book.
 
 
Tom Droege alias ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes
>We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
>p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
>of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
>with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
>intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
 
What is the mixing time in the cell? In other words, could this be thermal
fluctuations due to thermally inhomogeneous electrolyte? There is turbulence
in these cells, and several different sources and sinks of heat; these take
a finite time to come together. One ought to lowpass filter the cell
temperature with a cutoff at that mixing time (and of course sample the
filtered signal at double the corresponding frequency, i.e. 2/t(mix)).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.10 /  /  Inventions
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inventions
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:07:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Jim Bowery's comment about inventions.  Good news, Jim, the
rules have changed.  The Regan administration greatly changed the patent
rules.  Now it is worth getting patents even if you suck at the government
tit.  (sorry for being crude).
 
After a few patents in the early 60's I realized they were not worth the
pain of having to read your attorneys claims.  So I took pains for many
years to just put my ideas into the public domain through publication.
 
But now it is all different, if you patent something, even in DOE or NASA,
and the government is able to license it and collect royalties, you will get
a substantial portion of what they can collect.
 
The only real problem left is that the average government bureaucrat has no
idea how to market your invention.  So you must do it yourself.  They also
have no idea how to "transfer" your "technology" so you must do it yourself.
But if you do set out to sell your invention, even if you do it on government
time, you will probably not be stopped.  At least if you are not to blatent.
 
As my technology transfer representative told me "we would like nothing better
than to see our parking lot filled up with Porche's bought by inventors from
their royalties."
 
Another sign of the times.  Texas Instruments profit this year (if any) will
be from royalties from the Japanese.  So in the last year I have received one
patent and have four more in progress.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 /  Albatross /  Re: March 27 news conference
     
Originally-From: alberti@mudhoney.micro.umn.edu (Albatross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: March 27 news conference
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:22:37 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: CIS

In <WEBB+.92Apr9145204@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
>By the way, I'm one of those True Believers you hear about.  In spite
>of it all, I'm still looking forwards to the Fleischmann-Pons cold
>fusion generator (1992 version).
 
Pons and Fleischmann have signed a contract with Norelco, Inc., to market this
new item under the name "Mr. Fusion".  A model capable of powering a DeLorean
will be available in late 1993.
--
Bob Alberti: Computer & Information Services U of MN   |aka: Albatross| Unitar-
Internet   : alberti@boombox.micro.umn.edu             |Metropolis BBS| ian/
Disclaimer : My employer does not mean what I say.     |(612) 721-1870| Univer-
Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% comment, 30% cutesy signature.| salist!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenalberti cudlnAlbatross cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / Snide Pucker /  Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
     
Originally-From: millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:22:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue Univ. School of Nuclear Engineering

In article <q3wXiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
#>
#>It is a problem all inventors face and it is a major reason the
#>Japanese are eating our lunch.  We are good at innovation.  Our
#>business types are good at ripping off innovation from inventors
#>and making them committ suicide.  But the Japanese are better at
#>the game of inventor rip-off than our businessmen.  Hell, at least
#>the Japanese pay SOME royalties.
#>
#>The technosocialists play on this fear in inventors to get them
#>to buy into "free" bureaucratic cash which is, in fact, the biggest
#>inventor rip-off of all.  Ever signed an inventions agreement?
#>At NASA or DoE you don't even get to sign -- it is automatic.
 
   Basically, we're back to the same problem of letting the people who
have the money/power (managers) reaping the benefits of the actual
workers (labor/inventors).  Why is it that investors always make more
than inventors?  There truly is little incentive other than pursuit
for it's own sake to doing one's best.  It's bad enough that there is
little money in it (relatively speaking), but that technical reports
get the manager's name on them is adding insult to injury.  What's even
worse is that it is worse.  Why is honesty and integrity only stressed
for engineers and not managers?  It blows my mind sometimes.
 
 
--
   Jerry W. Miller                   #   "Opinions?  Of course they
   millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu         #    are mine, do YOU want them?"
   Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmillerj cudfnSnide cudlnPucker cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / Larry Wall /  Re: Science by Lawyers
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science by Lawyers
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:54:22 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <199204081532.AA03791@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU> writes:
: I trust that anyone who considers endorsing the proposed legislation that
: has been posted here will read the full text carefully.  Somehow I have
: the feeling that someone is trying to pull a fast one here.  What may
: sound like a good way to get more funding for cold fusion research has
: some rather odd features tacked on that have nothing to do with cold
: fusion as we presently know it.  I call your attention to but one of
: these, the bit about selling off large quantities of 3He.  Anyone know
: who might find that to be something useful to have on the law books?
: And what do they have in mind when researchers are given access to a
: bit of the Nevada test range?
 
This all becomes much clearer if you stop thinking about cold fusion
and start thinking about stuff like Paul Koloc's Plasmak(TM) notions.
(Paul has been plugging his aneutronic device for years in this and
similar forums.)  Note particularly the prizes for extremely large
output from a small amount of equipment.  We're basically talking
about a fusion rocket engine, and no way are you going to do that with
cold fusion.  I can well imagine that someone like Paul might want to
get a bit of test range, along with the implied federal blessing of a
certain amount of potential messiness in the early test phases.  :-)
 
: NSCL         Those who have it archieved should reread D. Morrison's
:              comments on pathalogical science and political inter-
:              ference in scientific matters.
 
I'm sure the loyal oppostion can and will point out that the matters
they're trying to interfere with politically aren't themselves purely
scientific in nature.  They probably see it more as a big science vs.
little science thing, with the understanding that big science can't
help but be too political from the outset.  Personally, I thought the
proposed legislation was a bit whacked out (whose 3He are they going to
auction off, anyway?), but I'm not in principle opposed to giving the
little guys a break upon occasion.  $1.2G is QUITE a bunch of carrots,
though.
 
Still and all, if the tokomak folks are right, they'll end up claiming
those prizes themselves in another 50 years or so, so they shouldn't be
too upset--unless, of course, they're already older than about 25...
 
It is said that patience is a virtue.  I think it depends.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.09 / A Palfreyman /  Re: A. Takahashi Seminar on Pulsed D20/Pd Electrolysis at MIT o
     
Originally-From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A. Takahashi Seminar on Pulsed D20/Pd Electrolysis at MIT o
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:42:12 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

: EXCESS HEAT AND NUCLEAR PRODUCTS FROM PULSED D2O/Pd ELECTROLYSIS
: PROF AKITO TAKAHASHI
: OSAKA UNIVERSITY
:
: The lecture will present results of the latest experiments in which a
: cell has produced 100 watts, on average, of excess (anomolous) power
: continuously,  for more than two months. Correlations have been observed
: with weak neutron emission. Two types of neutron spectra have been
: observed- the classical "Jones type", and another one with a broad 3-7
: Mev peak, in addition to the usual 2.45 Mev peak.  Details of the
: experiments will be discussed.
 
So why DISCUSS the damned thing? Why not bring along the foaming beaker
powering some little thingummyjig on the lecturn as he speaks?
 
How hideously indirect.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | wolfpack, silver, down to the water             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew palfreyman@cup.portal.com   |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlordSnooty cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.10 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:13:59 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920409175943.208004be@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
 
> A constant pressure servo continuously measures the cell gas volume.
> We interpret an increase in gas volume as being due to absorption of
> deuterium by the cathode leaving behind un-recombined oxygen to be
> measured.
>
> We have been running for the last thirty days with a current saw
> tooth which starts at 40 ma per sq cm, ramps to 600 ma per sq cm
> over a half hour, then returns to 40 ma per sq cm.
>
> We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
> p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
> of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
> with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
> intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
>
> While some measurements are consistent with intermittent
> recombination, others indicate to us that gas pulses in and out of
> the cathode.  We note that the gas volume stays constant during the
> first half of the ramp.  This indicates that at low gas evolution
> rates the catalyst keeps up with the gas production.  At the higher
> rates, there are both sudden decreases (larger) and increases in gas
> volume.  In our naive view, we would think that the catalyst would
> work better at the high rates, since it is hotter.  The cell
> contains at least 10x the catalyst area needed for the current.
> Physical observation seems to confirm the pulsing.  Storms seems to
> have observed similar behavior. We would welcome comments by
> experts.
>
> Now for an event of the type that puzzles me.  During the higher
> current portion of the ramp, we occasionally observe a sudden
> decrease in volume of typically 2 cc, or 100 relative volumes of
> deuterium (2/.037 *2). On the same one minute sample time the cell
> temperature increases by .15 C and the catalyst temperature
> increases.  There is a temporary change in heat balance but the long
> term heat balance is consistent with zero to the present calibration
> - about 4 mw.
 
This is more of a general comment on recombiners and loading measurements
than an explanation of your strange results, but here goes.
Firstly, a better way of measuring the loading might be to fill the cell
headspace initially with deuterium gas. Then, the excess oxygen will recombine
with deuterium and there will be a volume decrease which can be related to the
loading. Actually, I prefer to do keep the thing at a constant volume and
look at the pressure drop but the methods are equivalent. The rationale for
filling the cell with deuterium is that the catalyst is always kept in a
reducing enviroment and is kept in its most active state. In a cell where
there is an oxygen rich enviroment (ie in your cell) you run  the risk of
partially oxidising the Pt catalyst and killings its activity.
The effect is quite dramatic, and the catalytic activity can drop by more
than an order of magnitude  for fairly moderate amounts of oxidation of the
catalyst. Maybe this effect can be related to your observations, Tom.
Recombination is certainly intermittent in any case. In the few closed cells
I've run, it was fairly common to see the calorimeter output plunge below
the calibration and then shoot above it briefly before settling. This was
consistent with the catalyst effeciency dropping below 100% and then
"catching up" again. One cell would do this about every two hours, regular as
clockwork.
 
--
Todd Green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentiq cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.10 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:58:03 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Snide Pucker writes:
>   Basically, we're back to the same problem of letting the people who
>have the money/power (managers) reaping the benefits of the actual
>workers (labor/inventors).
 
From a technological/economic progress standpoint, the ripoff of
inventors is qualitatively different from that of laborers.
 
When a laborer enters the job market, he can switch from job
to job anytime he likes.  His "product" is a continuous stream
in a highly competitive market.  Normal market forces are far
more efficient at discovering his true worth and if he is ripped
off, it is only temporary.  He can always walk.
 
An inventor may spend his entire life, sacrifice his ability to send
his kids to college (assuming he ever has any), lose his wife (assuming
 any woman without AIDS would have a pathetic kook like him) etc. just
to come up with one exceedingly valuable invention.  When he goes out
to the capital markets, he finds a scarcity of capital sources due to
wealth centralization.  These capital sources:
 
1) Didn't make their fortunes inventing themselves and therefore
        haven't a prayer of distinguishing between technologies that
        are viable and those that are jokes (nor are they able to
         distinguish between technical advisors who can fill that
         roll for them and those that can't).
2) Have a torrent of proposals passing before them.
3) Usually have an inferiority/guilt/hostility complex against the
        creative skill of inventors and therefore neurotically want to
        "put them in their place."
4) Knows the inventor knows this about him and therefore wouldn't be
        looking for capital if the inventor weren't desperate.
5) Know the inventor spent his life working on arcane skills instead
        of wheeling and dealing skills.
 
Needless to say, this "setup" has one outcome:
 
The inventor's technology is sold for a song (assuming he can sell it
 at all).  Seeing his life's work consumed by parasites, he frequently
considers suicide.  Inventors of major technologies have a higher
suicide rate than almost any other professional group.
 
Inventors end up with less capital and "wheels" with more capital.
 
Now what do you think this does does to technical and economic advance?
 
Somehow, I don't think Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson intended
this sort of situation to arise when they replaced patents of nobility
with patents of invention in the Constitution.
 
PS:  For those who think this is simply the way a free capital
market is supposed to operate, and that any "supposed" wealth
centralization is merely a natural market equilibrium, I refer you
to the asset valuation formula:
 
AssetValue = Integral  Risk(t)*Profit(t)/(DiscountRate+1)**t  dt
 
        where   Profit(t) is the profit stream at some point in time
                Risk(t) is the probability of realizing that Profit
                DiscountRate is the zero-risk rate of return on money
                        typically linked to government debt instruments
 
Now for all his talk about Edison and the Wright Brothers, I don't
hear Ross Perot talking much about the impact of "DiscountRate" on
the centralization of capital sources and the difficulty that creates
for inventors.  I don't suppose that would have anything to do with
the fact that he is a billionaire.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.10 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Science by Lawyers
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science by Lawyers
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:11:10 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Larry Wall writes:
>This all becomes much clearer if you stop thinking about cold fusion
>and start thinking about stuff like Paul Koloc's Plasmak(TM) notions.
Paul was one of several inventors who had input on the creation of
this law.
 
>Personally, I thought the
>proposed legislation was a bit whacked out (whose 3He are they going to
>auction off, anyway?)
 
The DoE has more than enough He3 to support these auctions.
 
> $1.2G is QUITE a bunch of carrots, though.
 
The time-valued money spent on fusion to date is around $30 billion.
The net present value of the future fusion budget cashflow, is about
the same.
 
Please let me know if you have any other concerns.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.12 /  /  Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
     
Originally-From: PacBell.COM!uunet.uu.net!syntllct!anasaz!john
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:01:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In article <920409175943.208004be@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> you write:
]Interpretation #2
]
]This interpretation is too bizarre to be put before the eyes of
]skeptics.  Will send in a plain brown mail message to those who ask.
]But this is why we keep working.
 
As long as the postal inspectors (or whatever) don't arrest us for it,
please send me your plain brown mail message. Thanks.
 
Send to john@anasazi.com.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.12 / V Sukhanovsky /  ---- Russian scientist seeking a PhD position in Nuclear Physics
     
Originally-From: phvas@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Vsevolod A Sukhanovsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ---- Russian scientist seeking a PhD position in Nuclear Physics
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:31:07 GMT
Organization: James Cook University

 
Dear collegues,
 
Below you can find a letter from my friend Alexander V. Kuzin seeking
a position for PhD studies. Please reply him directly or use my account
for urgent enquires.
 
Yours sincerely,
Vlad Sukhanovsky ( phvas@marlin.jcu.edu.au)
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Alexander V. Kuzin
 
Date of birth: 28 May 1966
 
Area of expertise:   nuclear physics
Area of interests:   experimental neutron physics and physics of
                     accelerators
 
Education: Diploma of Moscow University which is being recognized as
           equivalent of MSc degree in Physics
 
Records: March 1992 - 1989   scientific worker at the Institute for
                             Nuclear Research (Pulsed Neutron Sources
                             Laboratory headed by Prof. Stavissky), Moscow
         1987 - 1989  Part time work at the Institute for Nuclear Research
                      within the frame of the graduation work.
         1983 - 1989  studies at the Moscow State University, Physical
                      Dept. Since 1986 specializing in nuclear physics
                      (Chair of Atomic Nucleus headed by Prof. Tulinov)
 
Results obtained:  - "Measurement of the Neutron Yield from the Tungsten
                      Target Irradiated with 70 GeV Protons" in Proc. of
                      ICANS-XI, Japan, October 1990
                   -  report on the International Workshop PANS-91 held
                      at Dubna, Russia in June 1991
                   -  two more papers concerning measurement of the
                      neutron yield due to delayed fission of tungsten
                      nuclei irradiated with the 70 GeV protons and
                      calculation results relevant to the construction
                      of Moscow Meson Facility and approving the
                      obtained experimental data were reported and are
                      ready for publishing
 
Email address:  kuzin@inr.msk.su
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenphvas cudfnVsevolod cudlnSukhanovsky cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Inventions
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inventions
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:38:58 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Tom Droege writes:
>In reply to Jim Bowery's comment about inventions.  Good news, Jim, the
>rules have changed.  The Regan administration greatly changed the patent
>rules.  Now it is worth getting patents even if you suck at the government
>tit.  (sorry for being crude).
 
Amazing!  Is this just the small business exclusion (which I was already
 aware of) or does this apply to civil servants and larger contractors
as well?  What is the statute reference so I can look this up?
 
>As my technology transfer representative told me "we would like nothing
better
>than to see our parking lot filled up with Porche's bought by inventors
from
>their royalties."
 
>Another sign of the times.  Texas Instruments profit this year (if any)
will
>be from royalties from the Japanese.  So in the last year I have received
one
>patent and have four more in progress.
 
Raising the economic and social status of the inventor is the ONLY way
we will ever compete with the Japanese.  The TI situation is good news.
I'll be a lot more hopeful, however, when I see people like you getting
filthy rich and appearing on the Forbes list.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.12 / Jon Webb /  Re: Inventions
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inventions
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:22:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <NJP5iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
 
   Raising the economic and social status of the inventor is the ONLY way
   we will ever compete with the Japanese.  The TI situation is good news.
   I'll be a lot more hopeful, however, when I see people like you getting
   filthy rich and appearing on the Forbes list.
 
This is way off the subject of this group (so I've redirected replies
to comp.patents), but something like this happened.  There was a guy,
whose name I forget, who got the idea of putting all the components of
a microprocessor on a single chip, and applied for a patent.  For
years he's been laughed at by the makers of microprocessors, but he
was awarded a patent recently.  He negotiated a deal with Siemens (I
think), who agreed to pay him royalties and also to handle pursuing
other manufacturers for royalties on his behalf.  The Siemens deal
lone has netted him hundreds of millions of dollars.  He's plowing it
back into his own research.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.13 /  HANKINS@PKEDVM /  Government Fusion Legislation
     
Originally-From: HANKINS@PKEDVM8.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Government Fusion Legislation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:35:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Jim Bowery's comments that the previous legislation was
doomed to failure because it allowed subcommittees to have conflicts of
jurisdiction (I'm not sure of the precise wording), and previous
comments about the apparently self-serving and self-opposing nature of
the legislation, I'd like to offer the following meager insights from
Systems Theory:
 
1. From my initial scan, this looks to me like a large system set up to
   solve The Problem.
 
2. There is a phenomenon I like to call Large Systems Precession, and
   which has been given other names by Systems Theory researchers.
 
   Large systems are like tops; they spin okay for a while, but then
   gravity pulls downward on them.  They destabilize and instead of
   falling over they begin to dissipate their energy in unexpected
   directions.
 
3. Attempts to restabilize the system by pushing it back
   into place or (God forbid) adding additional "stabilization systems"
   only cause it to dissipate energy in even more unexpected directions.
   You push it -this- way, it goes -that- way.
 
4. Attempts to build a more stable system of comparable size only amount
   to pointing the system in a different direction.  Gravity still
   exerts a force on the system, and it begins to precess.
 
5. Large systems tend to oppose their own function, the longer they
   operate the more they oppose it.
 
6. Large systems behave as if they have a will to live; they behave in
   ways that tend to further their own existence at the expense of their
   overt function.
 
A good, almost stupidly simple example of this is "The War on Drugs".
The Problem is drug-related crime and lives destroyed by addiction.  The
Solution is drug laws and enforcement.  Those who enforce the laws can
tell when their efforts are successful when the price goes up.  Let's
follow the system around the rest of the loop.  More enforcement leads
to decreased supply leads to higher prices leads to more theft and
theft-related crime (breaking and entering, armed robbery, muggings,
etc.) and also more crime related to the higher value of the merchandise
(more violence over dealer turf and deals gone bad).  This makes The
Problem bigger, which leads to calls for more of The Solution, and...
 
Substitute Prohibition for The War on Drugs, and make the other
corresponding substitutions on substances and recent poor immigrant
populations and varieties of violence and you'll see that The War on
Drugs is creating much the same large system that Prohibition did, in
which a push in one direction leads to a movement in another.
 
These systems are set up by well-meaning folk;  it's just that we have a
cultural myth (and I think this is a global we) that we can solve each
Problem by building a system.  It's just one of those things we do.
 
Given these tendencies, the likely effect of new legislation on the
fusion effort is that there will be unexpected and anti-expected effects
of this legislation on fusion research, just different ones than the
ones we're getting now.
 
 
Dan Hankins
Standard disclaimer applies.
A day without segmented addressing is like a day without electroshock.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenHANKINS cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.13 /  fsmith@kean.uc /  Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
     
Originally-From: fsmith@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:48:10 GMT
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada

In article <920409175943.208004be@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
> This discussion of D absorption in "anomalous heat" experiments is
> being conducted in public rather than as a private message to Dieter
> Britz in the hope that others might be interested.  If, as John
> Stimson says "is this simply a newsgroup for cro-magnon pop-science
> fans...?", readers think it is not of common interest I will take it
> private.  Let me know.
>
> I have been trying to make sense of temperature measurements taken
> in P&F type cells for several years.  The general cell design is
> shown on p 244 of the Como proceedings. The cell is about 3 cm dia
> by 15 cm tall and has a volume of 100 cc.  The bottom two thirds of
> the cell contains electrolyte and is surrounded by a heavy aluminum
> spool piece.  The top of the cell contains the re-combiner and
> sticks up into air.  The cell bottom and electrolyte are cooled by
> conduction to the aluminum spool.  The top and catalyst are
> convection cooled to air.  A baffle at the bottom of the catalyst
> reduces internal cell convection.  The heat transfer between the
> catalyst section and the electrolyte is thought to have a time
> constant much longer that the 1 minute measurement interval.  The
> cell contains 60 cc of 2N D2SO4 + .1 N LiOD electrolyte.  The Pd
> cathode volume is 0.037 cc and the area is 0.57 cm sq.
>
> A thermometer (thermister) in a glass tube is positioned near the
> center of the electrolyte volume.  A thermometer (solid state) is
> taped to the outside of the tube at the top to measure the catalyst
> temperature.  Note that is not easy to get a good measurement of the
> catalyst temperature as re-combination likely takes place at a hot
> spot which can move around over several square inches of catalyst.
>
> A constant pressure servo continuously measures the cell gas volume.
> We interpret an increase in gas volume as being due to absorption of
> deuterium by the cathode leaving behind un-recombined oxygen to be
> measured.
>
> We have been running for the last thirty days with a current saw
> tooth which starts at 40 ma per sq cm, ramps to 600 ma per sq cm
> over a half hour, then returns to 40 ma per sq cm.
>
> We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
> p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
> of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
> with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
> intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
>
> While some measurements are consistent with intermittent
> recombination, others indicate to us that gas pulses in and out of
> the cathode.  We note that the gas volume stays constant during the
> first half of the ramp.  This indicates that at low gas evolution
> rates the catalyst keeps up with the gas production.  At the higher
> rates, there are both sudden decreases (larger) and increases in gas
> volume.  In our naive view, we would think that the catalyst would
> work better at the high rates, since it is hotter.  The cell
> contains at least 10x the catalyst area needed for the current.
> Physical observation seems to confirm the pulsing.  Storms seems to
> have observed similar behavior. We would welcome comments by
> experts.
>
> Now for an event of the type that puzzles me.  During the higher
> current portion of the ramp, we occasionally observe a sudden
> decrease in volume of typically 2 cc, or 100 relative volumes of
> deuterium (2/.037 *2). On the same one minute sample time the cell
> temperature increases by .15 C and the catalyst temperature
> increases.  There is a temporary change in heat balance but the long
> term heat balance is consistent with zero to the present calibration
> - about 4 mw.
>
> Interpretation #1
>
> The cathode blows out 4 cc of deuterium.  This is combined with
> oxygen in the catalyst to cause it to get warmer.  The result is a 2
> cc loss in volume.  Since at high loading, loss of gas is exothermic,
> the cathode gets hotter and thus the electrolyte becomes warmer.
> But note that this indicates (60cc*.15*4.1)  40 joules for 4 cc of
> deuterium or 224 Kj per mole.  This seems very large.  What am I
> doing wrong?
>
> Details of the measurement indicate that this is not coupling
> between the catalyst and the electrolyte.  I have destroyed a lot of
> thermometers to prove they are not noisy.  The temperature signals
> are 10x to 50x noise.  I really think the measurements are correct
> as stated.  We have been observing this phenomena for two years in a
> variety of cell configurations.  While the present ramp obscures
> thermal measurements, when run at steady current heat measurements
> show pulses.  They do not come often enough to be differentiated
> between net heat pulses, and a long endothermic reaction followed by
> a short exothermic reaction.
>
> Interpretation #2
>
> This interpretation is too bizarre to be put before the eyes of
> skeptics.  Will send in a plain brown mail message to those who ask.
> But this is why we keep working.
>
> Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenfsmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.13 /  fsmith@kean.uc /  Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
     
Originally-From: fsmith@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pulses in P&F cells
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:05:25 GMT
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada

In article <920409175943.208004be@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
> This discussion of D absorption in "anomalous heat" experiments is
> being conducted in public rather than as a private message to Dieter
> Britz in the hope that others might be interested.  If, as John
> Stimson says "is this simply a newsgroup for cro-magnon pop-science
> fans...?", readers think it is not of common interest I will take it
> private.  Let me know.
>
> I have been trying to make sense of temperature measurements taken
> in P&F type cells for several years.  The general cell design is
> shown on p 244 of the Como proceedings. The cell is about 3 cm dia
> by 15 cm tall and has a volume of 100 cc.  The bottom two thirds of
> the cell contains electrolyte and is surrounded by a heavy aluminum
> spool piece.  The top of the cell contains the re-combiner and
> sticks up into air.  The cell bottom and electrolyte are cooled by
> conduction to the aluminum spool.  The top and catalyst are
> convection cooled to air.  A baffle at the bottom of the catalyst
> reduces internal cell convection.  The heat transfer between the
> catalyst section and the electrolyte is thought to have a time
> constant much longer that the 1 minute measurement interval.  The
> cell contains 60 cc of 2N D2SO4 + .1 N LiOD electrolyte.  The Pd
> cathode volume is 0.037 cc and the area is 0.57 cm sq.
>
> A thermometer (thermister) in a glass tube is positioned near the
> center of the electrolyte volume.  A thermometer (solid state) is
> taped to the outside of the tube at the top to measure the catalyst
> temperature.  Note that is not easy to get a good measurement of the
> catalyst temperature as re-combination likely takes place at a hot
> spot which can move around over several square inches of catalyst.
>
> A constant pressure servo continuously measures the cell gas volume.
> We interpret an increase in gas volume as being due to absorption of
> deuterium by the cathode leaving behind un-recombined oxygen to be
> measured.
>
> We have been running for the last thirty days with a current saw
> tooth which starts at 40 ma per sq cm, ramps to 600 ma per sq cm
> over a half hour, then returns to 40 ma per sq cm.
>
> We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
> p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
> of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
> with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
> intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
>
> While some measurements are consistent with intermittent
> recombination, others indicate to us that gas pulses in and out of
> the cathode.  We note that the gas volume stays constant during the
> first half of the ramp.  This indicates that at low gas evolution
> rates the catalyst keeps up with the gas production.  At the higher
> rates, there are both sudden decreases (larger) and increases in gas
> volume.  In our naive view, we would think that the catalyst would
> work better at the high rates, since it is hotter.  The cell
> contains at least 10x the catalyst area needed for the current.
> Physical observation seems to confirm the pulsing.  Storms seems to
> have observed similar behavior. We would welcome comments by
> experts.
>
> Now for an event of the type that puzzles me.  During the higher
> current portion of the ramp, we occasionally observe a sudden
> decrease in volume of typically 2 cc, or 100 relative volumes of
> deuterium (2/.037 *2). On the same one minute sample time the cell
> temperature increases by .15 C and the catalyst temperature
> increases.  There is a temporary change in heat balance but the long
> term heat balance is consistent with zero to the present calibration
> - about 4 mw.
>
> Interpretation #1
>
> The cathode blows out 4 cc of deuterium.  This is combined with
> oxygen in the catalyst to cause it to get warmer.  The result is a 2
> cc loss in volume.  Since at high loading, loss of gas is exothermic,
> the cathode gets hotter and thus the electrolyte becomes warmer.
> But note that this indicates (60cc*.15*4.1)  40 joules for 4 cc of
> deuterium or 224 Kj per mole.  This seems very large.  What am I
> doing wrong?
>
> Details of the measurement indicate that this is not coupling
> between the catalyst and the electrolyte.  I have destroyed a lot of
> thermometers to prove they are not noisy.  The temperature signals
> are 10x to 50x noise.  I really think the measurements are correct
> as stated.  We have been observing this phenomena for two years in a
> variety of cell configurations.  While the present ramp obscures
> thermal measurements, when run at steady current heat measurements
> show pulses.  They do not come often enough to be differentiated
> between net heat pulses, and a long endothermic reaction followed by
> a short exothermic reaction.
>
> Interpretation #2
>
> This interpretation is too bizarre to be put before the eyes of
> skeptics.  Will send in a plain brown mail message to those who ask.
> But this is why we keep working.
>
> Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenfsmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: FF and turbulence
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FF and turbulence
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:35:25 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <718B9FD4871F005BB5@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>Dick Forman alias M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes
>>It was badly hacked by Herb Fox, the editor of Fusion Facts, but basically
>Well, Dick, you are hacking Hal Fox's name here. Getting even?
>                            ^^^
>As for Dick's piece, I agree that what we need is experimental evidence; so
>far, this is not unambiguous. With the exception of my very few "quality
>positives", most of the "several hundred" papers of positive results cited by
>ardent TB's are weak. This, as I have often said, does leave those few strong
>ones to think about. Not that TB's hesitate to point to theories that support
>cold fusion... I agree that fusion products should be looked for - and have
>been, and sometimes apparently found; but mostly at doubtful levels, too close
>to background for comfort.
> I do not agree that journals have treated cold fusion badly. Close to 700
>papers have been published in a mix of fairly..very reputable journals. Where
>is all this discrimination? So what if Nature and Science do not take papers?
>There are plenty of others that do, and they are not el-cheapos. This ashes
>on the head stuff is getting a bit tiresome.
> The same goes for research money. Very few research areas get specially
>dedicated and large amounts of money from the respective governments. Again,
>judging by the number of published papers, many many teams have received
>research grants to do cold fusion, via the normal channels. These involve the
>dreaded referees... and they have passed lots of cold fusion proposals. Don't
>cry foul; write a grant application, like other people.
> On the other hand, when you come up with something that challenges entrenched
>ideas, you must expect some resistance - if it were not there, we would be far
>less sure of what we regard as True and Known. Some conservatism is
>appropriate here. There are, as I say above, sufficient channels to show your
>stuff, and gradually, the pressure of evidence will turn the tide. This is how
>real science works, as HH Bauer has written so well about. Plug, plug: read
>his book.
>
>
>Tom Droege alias ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes
>>We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
>>p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
>>of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
>>with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
>>intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
>
>What is the mixing time in the cell? In other words, could this be thermal
>fluctuations due to thermally inhomogeneous electrolyte? There is turbulence
>in these cells, and several different sources and sinks of heat; these take
>a finite time to come together. One ought to lowpass filter the cell
>temperature with a cutoff at that mixing time (and of course sample the
>filtered signal at double the corresponding frequency, i.e. 2/t(mix)).
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
I told Fox he had hacked the piece when he sent me the copy.
If you want to see the letter to me from Science, I'll fax it to you.
I think that the Triage process used at Science is to make the jiob easier for
their editors. I had very long discussions about this with Langenberg.
I guess that my assumption that the journals are there to serve authors and rea
ders is not correct.  The journal has to get out--so the editors, NOT THE
PEER REVIEWERS--are in control.  If I cannot get my original submission date
from Science, I will send the original ms. with the update to account for the
new Japanese data to J. Chem. Phys., where I published my first paer in 1963.
The only time I got into Science was with the ruby pressure standard for the
diamond anvil cell.  At least they did give a peer review to my "Cornjack"
paper.
Having served on the Board of Editors of Review of Scientific Instruments,
I can only say the APS, for all its flaws runs a better shop than AAAS or
Nature.
 
 
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Deuteron induced fission
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuteron induced fission
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:56:49 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

One of the real problems in science today is the paucity of mentors.
Mentors could be counted on to know the old literature.  How many nuclear
physicists are aware of Segre's paper on deuteron induced fission of
molybedenum to produce (for the first time) technicium?  And it was published i
n the relatively high prestige journal Nature.
The year 1937.  The source the E.O. Lawrence cyclotron at UC-Berkeley.
I think this may be related to the "new" work in this area from NY.
N. Bohr has a Phys. Rev. paper on D-induced fission in 1940.
I'll bet that his work was done without computers and fancy models...
and neutrinos that change from electon neutrinos to... so that the
standard model for the Sun doesn't need to be corrected.  Galilleo
may have recanted but I am an atheist.  I believe something is wrong
with the nuclear physics being practiced by some theorist.  Experiment
is all there is.
 
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198; FAX: (703)883-5200
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
please, please, do not clutter up the fax lines. Others use and need them.
Dick Forman formerly of NBS.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.14 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Deuteron induced fission
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:35:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <167C810A71.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
> One of the real problems in science today is the paucity of mentors.
> Mentors could be counted on to know the old literature.  How many
> nuclear physicists are aware of Segre's paper on deuteron induced
> fission of molybedenum to produce (for the first time) technicium?
> And it was published in the relatively high prestige journal Nature.
 
Fission of molybdenum to make technetium would be a neat trick, since
technetium has a higher atomic number!
 
What you are garbling is the creation of Tc-99 from Mo-98 by the (d,p)
reaction, followed by beta decay of Mo-99.  This is covered in some
detail in nuclear physics texts.
 
For example, in the well-known text "Nuclei and Particles".
 
The author of which is Emilo Segre.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.14 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Deuteron induced fission
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:52:39 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr14.003514.9862@cs.rochester.edu>
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
>
>In article <167C810A71.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>> One of the real problems in science today is the paucity of mentors.
>> Mentors could be counted on to know the old literature.  How many
>> nuclear physicists are aware of Segre's paper on deuteron induced
>> fission of molybedenum to produce (for the first time) technicium?
>> And it was published in the relatively high prestige journal Nature.
>
>Fission of molybdenum to make technetium would be a neat trick, since
>technetium has a higher atomic number!
>
>What you are garbling is the creation of Tc-99 from Mo-98 by the (d,p)
>reaction, followed by beta decay of Mo-99.  This is covered in some
>detail in nuclear physics texts.
>
>For example, in the well-known text "Nuclei and Particles".
>
>The author of which is Emilo Segre.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Sorry, I have never seen that book.  It was my understanding that there
were also some other Tc isotopes.  Also, how does Mo(d,p)Tc reaction differ
black box process of Mo + d = Tc + radiation products.  That is, if I
don't know the answer because I understand the nuclear physics, why isn"t
it just like the P&F stuff.  I have input of Molybdendum and deuterons
and fusion occurs.  Or is it fission since I get radiation products out
after the decay of the intermediate state?  Thanks for the mentoring
anyway.
Dick
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.14 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Deuteron induced fission
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:33:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <167C97CE1.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
  > Sorry, I have never seen that book.  It was my understanding that there
  > were also some other Tc isotopes.  Also, how does Mo(d,p)Tc reaction differ
  > black box process of Mo + d = Tc + radiation products.  That is, if I
  > don't know the answer because I understand the nuclear physics, why isn"t
  > it just like the P&F stuff.  I have input of Molybdendum and deuterons
  > and fusion occurs.
 
Let me correct something: the discovery of technetium may have
involved simple neutron capture on Mo-98, with the neutrons produced
by deuterons bombardment of a (beryllium?) target in a cyclotron.
I'll have to go check the paper.  There is a nuclear reaction in which
a nucleon is stripped off a deuteron as it skims the nucleus (to be
contrasted with the usual nuclear reaction mechanism, in which the
projectile and target form a compound nucleus); this type of reaction
is covered in Segre, but I don't know if it was the one used to
discover technetium.
 
As for why this is not like the P&F stuff: a cyclotron is an
*accelerator*.  The deuterons are energetic, and can penetrate nuclear
potentual barriers.  This is all pretty mundane and understandable
using conventional physics.  Nuclear reactions have been done using
MeV range particles for more than half a century now.  The downside is
that simply shooting MeV range particles into a solid target can't
give a positive energy yield, since the vast majority of the particles
are stopped by electronic effects before they can collide with nuclei
(it is a useful way to make isotopes and neutrons, though).
 
P&F, on the other hand, posited some mysterious method of getting
very low energy (< 1 eV) deuterons to fuse.
 
  >  Or is it fission since I get radiation products out
  > after the decay of the intermediate state?
 
Not at all.  Fission is a specific kind of nuclear reaction that
produces radioactive nuclei, but there are plenty of other nuclear
reactions that do the same.
 
If you don't know the difference between fission and other nuclear
reactions, I suggest you get yourself a text on nuclear physics and
read it.  Segre is a bit advanced, but there should be others at a lower
level.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.14 / Jim Carr /  Re: Deuteron induced fission
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:16:14 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <167C97CE1.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr14.003514.9862@cs.rochester.edu>
>dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>>In article <167C810A71.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>
>>> Mentors could be counted on to know the old literature.  How many
>>> nuclear physicists are aware of Segre's paper on deuteron induced
>>> fission of molybedenum to produce (for the first time) technicium?
>>> And it was published in the relatively high prestige journal Nature.
 
 I do not need to be aware of it, or any of the many thousands of similar
 facts published in the past 50+ years of nuclear physics and nuclear
 chemistry.  These data, and all other data for deuteron induced reactions
 on Mo isotopes, are summarized and indexed in a number of ways so that
 I can access them easily if I need to work in that area.  Some of these
 indexes are on-line (BNL NNDC), others are the Nuclear Data Tables and
 Nuclear Data Sheets, plus the data compilations published in Nuclear
 Physics.  Finally, simple summaries are given in the Table of the
 Isotopes.  Where one looks first depends on the mass region.
 
>>Fission of molybdenum to make technetium would be a neat trick, since
>>technetium has a higher atomic number!
>>
>>What you are garbling is the creation of Tc-99 from Mo-98 by the (d,p)
>>reaction, followed by beta decay of Mo-99.  This is covered in some
>>detail in nuclear physics texts.
>>
>>For example, in the well-known text "Nuclei and Particles".
>>The author of which is Emilo Segre.
>
>Sorry, I have never seen that book.
 
 So what do you use for a reference on nuclear physics?
 
>                                     It was my understanding that there
>were also some other Tc isotopes.
 
 There are quite a few.  My wallet card lists 23 of them, plus 9 metastable
 states.  All of them have 1 more proton than any Mo isotope, hence none
 could be reached by "fission" of Mo.
 
>                                   Also, how does Mo(d,p)Tc reaction differ
>black box process of Mo + d = Tc + radiation products.  That is, if I
>don't know the answer because I understand the nuclear physics, why isn"t
>it just like the P&F stuff.  I have input of Molybdendum and deuterons
>and fusion occurs.  Or is it fission since I get radiation products out
>after the decay of the intermediate state?  Thanks for the mentoring
>anyway.
 
 Neither.  It is a transfer reaction, followed by beta decay.
 
 I am baffled as to what any of this has to do with sci.physics.fusion.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.14 / Jim Carr /  Re: Deuteron induced fission
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron induced fission
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:44:56 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <167C810A71.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>I think this may be related to the "new" work in this area from NY.
 
 This must be the point I missed in all this.  What work on d induced
 fission is being referred to here?
 
>N. Bohr has a Phys. Rev. paper on D-induced fission in 1940.
>I'll bet that his work was done without computers and fancy models...
 
 I am sure he used "computers" (1940 definition, a person: himself) and the
 same fancy model he developed and that is still used today, with some
 important improvements to include single-particle effects.  After all,
 Bohr could not predict the fissionable isotopes like we can today, he
 was providing an explanation of the plausibility of such an instability.
 
 As to your statement that "experiment is all there is", I can only refer
 you to Kant:
                Concepts without percepts are empty,
            whereas percepts without concepts are blind.
 
 or Darwin:
            How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation
            must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.15 /  /  Current Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current Experiment Status
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:46:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cathode Electrode: 0.037 cc, 0.58 sq cm, cylinder with spherical ends.
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: 2N D2SO4 + 0.1N Li2SO4
Charging Profile: Ramp from 40 ma per sq cm to 600 ma per cq cm over 1/2 hour
Duration: Day 35
Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.93
Heater + Cell Power: 9.23 watts
Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 1 to high of 3 volts.
Temperature: 10 C
 
Calorimeter balance over the last 6.25 hours was -4.7 joules.  Note this is
out of 207675 joules which passed through the calorimeter (9.23*3600*6.25).
 
Calorimeter balance since day 0 is 22,500 joules.  But this includes
approximately 25000 joules picked up when we changed the operating temperature
from 20 C to 10 C, and 500 joules lost in charging the sample.  This puts us
about 3000 joules away from perfect balance over 35 days or a negative drift
of about 1 mw.   Much of this error is due to not correcting calibration
properly as changes were made.  We calibrate with a slight negative drift to
be conservative.
 
Skeptics:  Take heart.  We have no heat output to within -4.7 joules in 6.25
hours or within 0.005 watt per cc.  P&F in a typical experiment claim 20 watts
per cc so our measurement would place a "Morrison upper limit" 4000 times
below the P&F claim.
 
True Believers:  Take heart.  The average time to first heat from the P&F
patent is 70 days.  You have 35 more days of hope.  But much longer if we
use statistics and several samples.
 
Others:  Take heart.  It is possible to keep a kludge like this running for
long periods of time in spite of thunderstorms and flooding of the Board of
Trade.  What will I ever do with 13.6 Mb of data so far?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.12 / Les Degroff /  Re: Disincentives
     
Originally-From: degroff@.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: Re: Disincentives
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:25:52 GMT

In article <g57ViB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
|> The more I get involved with legislative reforms of the space
|> program and fusion energy, the more it appears that the
|> incentives of these programs are deliberately designed
|> to suppress progress.
|>
|> For example, everyone receiving money directly or indirectly
|> from these projects knows that if they actually do open
|> up access to space or actually do solve the fusion problem,
|> their personal positions will disappear and they will receive
|> no royalties from the technologies they develop at government
|> expense.
|>
|> And guess what?  They all behave exactly as though they were
|> aware of that fact!
|>
|> They stretch out each little technical innovation for as long
|> as possible extracting as much money as possible from Congress
|> while providing minimal returns and engaging in character
|> assassination of any "outsiders" who come up with innovations
|> that might work quickly and cheaply.
|>
|> Now given the potential importance of fusion and space, it
|> leads me to wonder, why is it that we have set the incentives
|> of these programs up to produce suppression of progress in
|> these areas?
|>
|> Is it just stupid, short-sighted porkbarrel politics?
|>
|>
|> --
|> INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
|> UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
|> NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
   Lack of significant "panic" success or we find somebody else attention
is a  important as "pork" politics.  Besides if your description is
valid (which I believe is a good observation of the facts) this
behavior is rational (not stupid)  and long sighted (not short sighted)
from the organizations and many individuals points of view!!!
   A second factor beyond, "short sight" and a driver but not actually
part of the "pork politics" process is that most researchers have
agenda's of their own and while congress is pursuaded by some combination
of "jobs and money in my turf" and national policy, in the labs its
a jungle of "do my experiment...work with me" competition where the higher
goals of making a working power system or economic space transport
are lost far above. The problems of Ivory tower abound, and even there
are the problems of insufficient resources.
   As the scale of effort gets large, this just gets worse because it
is at root (zero sum) (losers are out) kind of thing.
   The one good side (so far (whats the smilie for a grimace of pain :.|))
   is that by continuing to have research we maintain the potential to
    a. understand what our international competitors achieve,if and when they
    pull way ahead. (remember how much enhancement, American chemical
    companies got when  we "nationalized" Patents held by Germans in WWII.
    b. we have a base to start with if it becomes "Manhatten project" time...
   panic/ do or die mode again.
    ( My one hope for Moon and Mars expeditions in my natural life time has
 faded with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was giving better than
50/50 odds that the Soviets would expand Mir, then place a small Lunar
colony triggering another Panic space race. Les
   On unfeasible solution (just as is being proposed for politicians) is
to always be forcing new blood into the system by limiting the terms
of senior researchers and project leaders...(do it in 8 years or get off
the pot and let someone else try :))  The main (nearly impossible) trick
is to set primary focus on "engineering" goals  and put science in
second fiddle.
 There is some pretty good
evidence esp. for physics and maths that primary "great work" is
done before 30 although tempered by the fact that there is large value in
being mentored, guided and shielded by older scientists.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendegroff cudfnLes cudlnDegroff cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.13 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Comments on McKubre et al
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on McKubre et al
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:02:32 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
   Hi all.  It's been a while since I've added anything to the discussion,
(business kept getting in the way) but here are a couple of points I thought
might be useful.  I haven't heard this discussed yet, and I wonder if this
is important to the Takashai type experiments.  (D. Morrison's non-belief
in excess heat kind of gets me.  It should be obvious from the argument
below there should be an effect of some sort).
 
   Since we are discussing the heat of formation in PdD, here are some
more numbers to confuse the situation.  In the AIP conference proceedings
#228, Dr. Y.E.Kim of Purdue University presented a paper under the title
"Surface-Reaction Theory of Cold and Warm Fusion" were he discusses a
hysteresis effect in PdD and PdH loading.  He references A. Iervert, W.Danz
Z. Physik. Chem (B) 34, (1936, & 1937) who showed the solubility of D & H
in Pd as a function of temperature (Figure 1).  Kim uses this to characterize
a hysteresis cycle in the electrolysis type CF experiments.  There are two
stages in the temp/PdD loading; the desorption phase at Temp-Pd from 103C
to 113C where D/Pd decreases from 0.55 to 0.06 by rapid desorption, and the
absorption phase at Temp-Pd from 73-86C where the D/Pd ratio increases from
0.05 to 0.56.  What he suggests is that the electrolysis of Pd-D2O starts
slowly in the reabsorption phase, which upon loading to D/Pd 0.56 leads a
rapid desorption stage, which then cause a reabsorption phase. The result
causing a hysteresis cycle.
 
         | o* o
         |     * o o o
     0.6 +         *  o o o                      Isobaric solubilities
         |           *       o                   of deuterium in palladium
         |            .       .                  as a function of temp.
     0.5 +             .       .                 Reported in Y.E. Kim's
         |              .      .                 paper.
         |              .      .
     0.4 +   D2 (*)     *      .
D/Pd     | Absorption   .      |    D2 (o)
Loading  |              *      v  Desorption
     0.3 +              .      .
         |              .      .
         |              ^      .
     0.2 +              |      .
         |              .      o
         |               .      .
     0.1 +               .       .
         |                *       o
         |                 * * * * oo*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*
     0.0 +----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|
         20       60        100       140       180       220
                         Temp Pd (degrees C)
 
   To describe the effect let me throw in the numbers.  This is extracted
from my notes on the Kim paper. It's pretty much verbatim except for my little
bit of speculation at the end.  To start,
 
D2O + Qa  -> D2 + 1/2 O2   (Qa = 70 kcal/mole of D2 or 4.87E-19 J/D2)   [1]
 
The power disapated by the reaction is given by infamous P=1.53IW, and the
rate of D2 production is given by R_a=(0.3125E19)I (D2's/sec).  The other
reaction Dieter mentioned several notes back is:
 
2Pd + D2 -> 2(PdD) + Qb    (Qb = 9 kcal/mole of D2 or 6.36E-20 J/D2)    [2]
 
The enthalpy for H absorption into Pd in alpha phase is -19 kJ/mole
of H2, and for beta phase is -46 kJ/mole of H2.  For a common alpha+beta
mix with H/Pd <= 0.5 the enthalpy is aprox. -38 kJ/mole of H2.  The heat
of desorption (endothermic) is the same except for the change in sign. As
a common test case, at 25C, Pd can be loaded to 0.66 D/Pd.  Assuming a
Pd density 6.767E22 Pd's/cm^3 the deuteron density is 1/2(0.66) n_Pd =
2.23E22 D's/cm^3. The energy released from 2Pd + D2 -> 2(PdD) + 38kJ/mole
gives Q_b n_D2 = 1.40kJ/cm^3 released by loading Pd from 0 to 0.66.
 
   Now during the initial stages of loading, the rate of absorption is
approximately the same as the rate of D2 production from reaction 1.
The power produce by [2] is then, P_b = Q_b R_a = 0.196I W. Finally one
can estimate the time to load a volume of Pd (V_Pd), by:
 
Delta T = V_Pd Q_b n_D2  / P_b = V_Pd n_D2 / R_a.
 
After this period of absorption, the temp will have increased from Joule
heating, and from reaction 2.  The desorption is expected to be slow,
until the desorption stage of the hysteresis cycle is reached, at which
time almost all absorbed gases will be release.  For a Pd rod 2cm diam,
5 cm length, the desorption time has been measured to be aprox 80 sec.
with a total hysteresis cycle time of 10min. During desorption the number
of deuterons released is f(n_D2) where f <= 1. Because of the short time
period, the result is non-equilibrium condition where an amount of D2
gas is release in competition with the rate of D production from reaction 1.
This can create a double layer electric field, with a large potential of
10E9 Volts/meter across the surface. This and the fact that desorption
would create a large D+ D2+ ion current at the surface.  Kim goes on
to argue that given all the correct conditions, one can expect an apparent
11%+-3% excess heat from the electrolysis of Pd-D2O.
 
   One reason why I find this interesting is that in the Takasashi type
electrolysis experiments, they use a sawtooth voltage followed by
a long period square wave.  With in the concept of a hysteresis cycle,
the long gradual increase in power applied would charge the cell to the point
of a desorption, at which time (assuming the timing is correct) the power
into the cell drops to zero, allowing the discharge without creation of
the intense D-layer. This may allow for an easier loading during the next
cycle than would be normally possible by a constant current.  In addition
there is the reaction:
 
 2D+ + 2e- => D2 + 31.7eV       (This is equal to 3056 kJ/mole D2).  [3]
 
  It's believed that D absorbed looses it's electron to Pd electronic band
state, and if rapid desorption occurs, the D released would likely favor
D+ ion state.  With the sawtooth current, this may allow for re-absorption
of the D+ ions, far easier than energy required by reaction 1. This may be
the reason why doping Pd with Ag is rumored to generate heat. The extra
electron donated to Pd by silver, either participates as in [3] or cause
reabsorption without applied current.  But this is just speculation on
my part.  The main focus of the Kim paper is his development of a theory
that suggests a very low energy resonance state in D+D fusion maybe
responsible for the nuclear oddities in cold and warm fusion experiments.
Considering all of the evidence in cold & warm fusion, this may not be
a bad assumption.  It would certainly be hard to detect in normal colider
experiments. I suspect the only way to test this hypothesis with any
mechanism acceptable to the general science community would be via muon
catalyzed fusion, or by the creation of a very low energy collider
system with extremely fine controls (perhaps laser steered D ion
collisions?)  It's a theory that should be considered if not for D+D
fusion, then perhaps for other easily nuclear reacting particles. Who
knows, it seems to be unexplored territory.
 
   Anyway, Kim's theory on the formation of an apparent excess heat by
means of hysteresis cycle is a very convincing argument upon scrutiny.
It's something that I think skeptic and believer can agree upon as a
base line for heat formation in PdD(x).  I still hold out on my
heavy heat hypothesis as a possible additional effect.  Even more so
now that hydrogen banding has been observed and measured on the surface
of Ni! (see Nature N&V article "Hydrogen Band Together").
 
Have fun and experiment.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.15 /  Close /   Some comments from Frank Close on recent net news.
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Some comments from Frank Close on recent net news.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:38:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Re: Some recent net postings.
 
"Fleischmann and Pons to Build CF Boiler This Year" (3/27/92). How many
of you had deja-vu as I did? In my cabinet full of memorabilia I found
Deseret News of July 89: "Hot Water Device Percolates in Pons' Lab". Steve
Jones sent me a memo (that I cant now trace) in which "end of this year (89)"
was associated with THAT story. So it seems that CNF is really ecologically
friendly: it is pollution free and recycles.
 
Thank you to all who wrote me, via the net or privately, about Robert Bass
who had invited me to sue him for having compared the smell of Too Hot To Handle
with the odour of a squashed spider among other things. Sorry Robert,
I am less interested in lining lawyers pockets than in establishing facts. I
 hope only that others gained as much entertainment as I did, however, as
 so many gave me your address could you please reply to my love letters?
 Bass is periodically cited in Fusion Facts (sic) whose editor Hal Fox has been
featured on the net recently with and without typing errors. Those of you who
subscribe to this periodical might wish to correct a typo in a recent edition.
Dieter Britz was quoted, without being consulted by FF, as saying that my
 skeptical position on the reality  of CNF had "softened". The word "not"
 should have preceded that.
 
Thanks also to Douglas Morrison for his latest update in which he notes
 that FP are alleged to be suing La Repubblica for, effectively,1 million
 dollars each (less, I presume, legal fees) on account of that paper referring
to CNF "fraud" (DROM's translation). I would very much like sight of that
article to see exactly what was written. As I wrote above, I am interested in
establishing the facts and have much unpublished documentation backing up
what appeared in Too Hot To Handle. If  Douglas' story is correct then, like
him, I hope that this action is withdrawn; if it is proceeded with then I hope
 that La Rep. has not been foolhardy and that they will attempt to substantiate
 their publication rather than having an insurance policy pay out of court.
The latter would leave a bad taste all round and shed little if any light
on the truth of the matter (I live in the UK  where the restrictive libel laws
have stifled investigative journalism for years; an extreme example of how this
can lead to abuse came to light with the  recent death of Robert Maxwell.
Anyone prepared to write about Maxwell was duly threatened, and out of court
settlements were made. Maxwell appeared to be vindicated thereby, even as
(it is now generally accepted) millions of pounds were disappearing  from
 his employees' pension fund. Thus an out of court settlement, with no public
 presentation of the issues, need not imply the innocence of the persons
 bringing the suit. Conversely, it would be unfortunate if Maxwell's demon
 were to cause genuinely wronged persons to be tainted.)
 
 
So, can some kind person with access to an Italian newspaper library photocopy
the said article and mail it to me at Rutherford Appleton Lab, Chilton, Didcot,
Oxon OX11 0QX, UK.
 
Douglas' report of the GE paper is also disturbing. I have yet to see that
 paper but hope that there will be some relevant discussion/explanation about
 it on the net, from Dieter, Todd Green et al. Douglas quotes selectively
from it that "The results [FP] report
are inconsistent with the procedures they describe"----"they should have
obtained significant positive heat [in the control ordinary water experiments]"
So how come FP managed to have thermal balance in ordinary water, at the time
of the press conference 3/23/89 (as claimed in FPALH90) if their analysis
should have produced (spurious) excess heat?
 
One explanation is that they had NOT obtained the results as claimed in FPALH90.
I have discussed this paper with two of the authors, neither of whom could
substantiate this claim as they were not directly involved. Stan Pons never
answered me. Martin Fleischmann however, made the following remark to Carlo
Rubbia at CERN on 3/31/89 (do you remember Douglas?) People who have heard
my CNF talk will have heard this tape and confirm that the question was clearly
put without pressure, and the answer was equally explicit and definitive.
There was no doubt then, nor, I am informed, at Harwell on 3/28/89 that
NO expts with ordinary water had been done. For the interest of net readers
I quote from the tape:
Rubbia: Have you replaced heavy water with ordinary water and if so with what
result?
MF:"I must confess to you that those expts are just going on now and I hope
[to] give you the answer shortly". MF then gave some reasons why they had NOT
 done expts with ordinary water and added that "I accept that we have to".
As FPALH90 makes a claim which is clearly false if MF testimony is true, then
how are we to know which claims are the ones that we are to take on board?
 
When the ordinary water experiments (of which MF was referring on 3/31/89) were
performed -  THEY GAVE EXCESS HEAT! (or at least, so Stan Pons believed at
the time).   The sources substantiating this are various
and are documented in my book. If GE's analysis is correct, then this explains
the events as reported to me at the time by several people and which formed
the basis of my claims in THTH about the ordinary water saga. It is in part
because of the  fact that both heavy and ordinary water gave similar thermal
(im)balance that I, and others, have always insisted that either there is a
chemical effect or nothing at all. GE now suggest that it is the latter
that is the case.
 
 Incidentally, I have not seen anyone comment on another interesting
datum in FPALH90 (table2, heat balance). There it mentions 0.8cm rods which
showed thermal BALANCE with HEAVY water!.As I noted in THTH, and as was known
 to Harwell at the time, FP's 0.8cm rods were "dead" (in FP language) -this,
 incidentally, was one of the reasons why FP believed that they had their
 thermal balance right and did not need to make ordinary water controls.
Now look back at your copies of the original FP(H)89 paper: the "gamma"
 ray data was supposedly taken over a 0.8(sic) rod which was not mentioned
 elsewhere in that preliminary note. Today we know that there was no "gamma"
 ray but at the time we were presented with supposed fusion radiation coming
from a cell that gave no heat!  As CNF has involved miracles enough already,
this one is hardly out of line. This remark has little to do with GE's paper but
may be taken on board by H Bauer who was recently asking why people thought the
FP paper was "unscientific".
 
Apologies for using up so much bandwidth but I dont write very often. I prefer
to read the net and hope that some evaluation of the GE paper will ensue.
I apologise too for posting all of this stuff about 89, at three Easters
remove from the Utah miracle, but as sociologists, historians and commentators
now seem to be getting on the bandwaggon I would like to see their theses
based on facts, insofar as one can discern them. I am having some interesting
discussion with Bruce Lewenstein and he in particular wishes to get the
chronology of CNF recorded accurately. If there are net readers who can add
to the above or, perhaps more important, correct it, then please alert
me or Bruce. The above posting expresses my personal opinions which are not
necessarily those of Bruce, my employers, etc.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenUK cudfn cudlnClose cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.15 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Low Temperature Electrolysis.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Low Temperature Electrolysis.
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:32:26 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

If I had the means I would try the experiment myself, but since I
do not I decided to propose it here. Has anyone tried to load Pd
by doing electrolysis in liquid D2 (actually the proper name might
not be "electrolysis"). Since the boiling T of D2 is well known at
1 Atm and room T of, say, 20C and will remain constant throughout
the boiling out process which would simplify lots of calculations.
Keeping Pd electrodes at very low T may put into superconducting state
(I am not sure, I would have to look it up). At these temperatures all
kinds of unusual QM effects may kick in. If D2 does not happen to conduct
(but I think it should) it could be fixed by adding doppants. Measuring
heat evolution can done by continously monitoring the weight of the
entire apparatus.
 
If someone has the necessary materials, I would very much like to
hear of any results.
 
Cheers.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.15 /  /  What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What should I do next?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:06:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to all of you that have tried to teach me some electrochemistry.  I
have not replied as I would like, since I have to absorb (or is it adsorb) the
information.
 
The vote seems to be to keep up discussion in this open forum.  So I would
like to interact with you all in the same way that I would with colleagues in
the halls and lunchroom if I were anywhere else but Fermilab with 500 hostile
physicists.
 
My present problem is what to do next.  At 35 days into a run that per P&F
might take 70 mean days to show heat, I suspect that this might not be the
best way to use my calorimeter.
 
There has been from the start the suspicion that time to first "anomalous
heat" might go as the square of the smallest dimension.  Note that Appleby got
results in a rather short time with fine wires.  Also now Takahashi found heat
in 5 days with a 1 mm thick plate.
 
Some of you have supported the symmetry argument to achieve high loading.
Dieter Britz suggested (FD 233) "..., with the important proviso that the top
and the bottom of the cathode are flush with the cell top and bottom and not
electrochemically accessible."  How does one do this.  At the "enormous
fugacity" (I guess this means pressure) won't the gas just blow out the top
and bottom no matter what is used as a seal?  Note there have been some
reports of success with one sided plates with a different metal on one side.
But wouldn't this just blow off.  My favorite reference, G.A. Moore's 1939
princeton thesis has pictures of absorbed H lifting off sections of metal.
Some of the reports indicate plated seals.  My brother, an electroplater, does
not think a plated surface would seal anything, as it tends to be made up of
dendritic spongy growths.
 
So what do you all think of using long, fine, wires.  The idea would be to
load them faster than the gas can work its way out the ends which are
necessarily not sealed.  I would argue that this is why Takahashi was able to
achieve high loading.  His plate was 1 mm by 25 mm sq.  So maybe only the
center spot was loaded.
 
Moore used 100 mm lengths of 0.05 mm wire.  A very high aspect ratio.  Things
were still changing after 10 hours of charging.  He thought he achieved
loadings of 2+ to 1.  What could take so long??  If a linear effect then my
present 3 mm cylinder should take 600 hours to stop changing.  But if higher
order, say a square effect as implied by rumor, then changes could still be
going on for 36000 hours.  We are presently at about hour 860.
 
I have a Takahashi style cell almost built (by Cam Tibbals who will do a
precision job).  This cell will have a 1 cm by 1 cm by 1mm cathode.  I also
have some 0.5 mm wire coming.
 
By loading the electrolyte after the calorimeter has been closed up, one sigma
error is about 100 microwatts.  This means that 2 or 3 milliwats would be
fairly convincing, but would take a minimum of one day to measure.  10 to 20
milliwats would be visible in an hour or so.  If we assume that 20 watts per
cc is the going performance, then a .5mm by 50 mm wire would give 200 mw and
be well above our sensitivity.
 
So here are some of the possibilities, act like I have cornered you in the
hall and react:
 
1) Keep running the present cell.  3 mm dia by aprox. 12 mm long cathode with
spherical ends.  How long to run before giving up?
 
2) Run the Takahashi style cell when I get it.
 
3) Run the Takahashi style cell but machine the plate thinner to get a higher
aspect ratio.  How thin?
 
4) Run the Takahashi style cell with a thin plate of the Pd-Ag alloy provided
by Mark Hugo
 
5) Run a long thin wire, .5 mm by 50 mm.
 
Wile I would welcome a collaborator or two, here is an opportunity to tell me
what to do without being responsible.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.15 / Jim Bowery /  CNF Matrix
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Matrix
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:33:36 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Has anyone done a comprehensive survey of the experiments in electrolytic
CNF which tries to parameterize the "experimental space" and scatter the
various experiments in that space to see how much of it has been explored
and what the results look like for different regions of the space?
 
What I'm thinking of is something like:
 
Experimental parameters: ->  H2O, D2O, Li, ...
Experimental conditions:
         |
         V
Pons and Fleishman              ,  * , * , ...          Results
Pons and Fleishman            * ,    , * , ...          Results
Pons and Fleishman              ,  * ,   , ...          Results
Pons and Fleishman            * ,    ,   , ...          Results
Mills et al                     ,  * , * , ...          Results
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.16 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:04:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <920415153333.208015bd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>Thanks to all of you that have tried to teach me some electrochemistry.  I
>have not replied as I would like, since I have to absorb (or is it adsorb) the
>information.
>
>The vote seems to be to keep up discussion in this open forum.  So I would
>like to interact with you all in the same way that I would with colleagues in
>the halls and lunchroom if I were anywhere else but Fermilab with 500 hostile
>physicists.
>
>My present problem is what to do next.  At 35 days into a run that per P&F
>might take 70 mean days to show heat, I suspect that this might not be the
>best way to use my calorimeter.
>
>There has been from the start the suspicion that time to first "anomalous
>heat" might go as the square of the smallest dimension.  Note that Appleby got
>results in a rather short time with fine wires.  Also now Takahashi found heat
>in 5 days with a 1 mm thick plate.
>
>Some of you have supported the symmetry argument to achieve high loading.
>Dieter Britz suggested (FD 233) "..., with the important proviso that the top
>and the bottom of the cathode are flush with the cell top and bottom and not
>electrochemically accessible."  How does one do this.  At the "enormous
>fugacity" (I guess this means pressure) won't the gas just blow out the top
>and bottom no matter what is used as a seal?  Note there have been some
>reports of success with one sided plates with a different metal on one side.
>But wouldn't this just blow off.  My favorite reference, G.A. Moore's 1939
>princeton thesis has pictures of absorbed H lifting off sections of metal.
>Some of the reports indicate plated seals.  My brother, an electroplater, does
>not think a plated surface would seal anything, as it tends to be made up of
>dendritic spongy growths.
>
>So what do you all think of using long, fine, wires.  The idea would be to
>load them faster than the gas can work its way out the ends which are
>necessarily not sealed.  I would argue that this is why Takahashi was able to
>achieve high loading.  His plate was 1 mm by 25 mm sq.  So maybe only the
>center spot was loaded.
>
>Moore used 100 mm lengths of 0.05 mm wire.  A very high aspect ratio.  Things
>were still changing after 10 hours of charging.  He thought he achieved
>loadings of 2+ to 1.  What could take so long??  If a linear effect then my
>present 3 mm cylinder should take 600 hours to stop changing.  But if higher
>order, say a square effect as implied by rumor, then changes could still be
>going on for 36000 hours.  We are presently at about hour 860.
>
>I have a Takahashi style cell almost built (by Cam Tibbals who will do a
>precision job).  This cell will have a 1 cm by 1 cm by 1mm cathode.  I also
>have some 0.5 mm wire coming.
>
>By loading the electrolyte after the calorimeter has been closed up, one sigma
>error is about 100 microwatts.  This means that 2 or 3 milliwats would be
>fairly convincing, but would take a minimum of one day to measure.  10 to 20
>milliwats would be visible in an hour or so.  If we assume that 20 watts per
>cc is the going performance, then a .5mm by 50 mm wire would give 200 mw and
>be well above our sensitivity.
>
>So here are some of the possibilities, act like I have cornered you in the
>hall and react:
>
>1) Keep running the present cell.  3 mm dia by aprox. 12 mm long cathode with
>spherical ends.  How long to run before giving up?
>
>2) Run the Takahashi style cell when I get it.
>
>3) Run the Takahashi style cell but machine the plate thinner to get a higher
>aspect ratio.  How thin?
>
>4) Run the Takahashi style cell with a thin plate of the Pd-Ag alloy provided
>by Mark Hugo
>
>5) Run a long thin wire, .5 mm by 50 mm.
>
>Wile I would welcome a collaborator or two, here is an opportunity to tell me
>what to do without being responsible.
>
>Tom Droege
 
 
As long as you are asking for suggestions, I repeat mine: "Run the
cells with liquid D2", this should simplify the accounting.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.16 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 12:36:11 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Apr16.010412.46751@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>As long as you are asking for suggestions, I repeat mine: "Run the
>cells with liquid D2", this should simplify the accounting.
 
Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
of ions which will dissolve in it as it is a highly non-polar molecule,
being very tightly covalently bonded and made up of identical molecules.
It is also true that this would require a not inexpensive cooling
apparatus as D2 is liquid in an "awkward" range between the liquid
ranges of the usual cryogenic fluids.  It should also be noted that H2
(and therefore also D2) gas is highly explosive and in the days before
there was helium as a cryogenic fluid and H2 was the coldest cryogenic
fluid there were lots of (dangerous) explosions in cryogenic labs.
Finally you would have to keep the whole thing cold and worry about heat
leaks into the system as a possible source of error and expend many
times as much energy cooling the system as is used in electrolysis
heating it.
 
I can not say, in consequence of the above reasoning that I think this a
good idea.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.16 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:40:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr16.123611.22389@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.010412.46751@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>>
>>As long as you are asking for suggestions, I repeat mine: "Run the
>>cells with liquid D2", this should simplify the accounting.
>
>Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
>likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
>of ions which will dissolve in it as it is a highly non-polar molecule,
>being very tightly covalently bonded and made up of identical molecules.
I agree here that finding an appropriate doppant would be tricky
 
>It is also true that this would require a not inexpensive cooling
>apparatus as D2 is liquid in an "awkward" range between the liquid
>ranges of the usual cryogenic fluids.  It should also be noted that H2
>(and therefore also D2) gas is highly explosive and in the days before
>there was helium as a cryogenic fluid and H2 was the coldest cryogenic
The idea is not to keep it cold but to measure the rate of evaporation
(with appropriate control) to see if unknown source of heat exists.
 
>fluid there were lots of (dangerous) explosions in cryogenic labs.
Yes, it is dangerous, that is why I am not doing it myself since I do
not have appropriate facilities.
 
>Finally you would have to keep the whole thing cold and worry about heat
>leaks into the system as a possible source of error and expend many
>times as much energy cooling the system as is used in electrolysis
>heating it.
One does not need to worry about leaks into the system as long as one
knows how much is leaking in.
 
>
>I can not say, in consequence of the above reasoning that I think this a
>good idea.
>--
>Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
>Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
>Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
>Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
You may be right that it is a difficult and dangerous experiment and
has no commercial future, but at this point people are trying to prove
or disprove THE EXISTENCE of CNF, so I believe this is as valid an experiment
as any other.
 
Best Regards.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.16 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Yet another suggestion for Tom Droege.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another suggestion for Tom Droege.
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:08:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I understand graphite is very amenable to packing its crystal lattice
with foreign molecules. In fact, in previous Space-shuttle missions
it was found that graphite lost its ability to act as a lubricant
because it lost the gas from its lattice. So, if you Tom have access to
some graphite electrodes it might be interesting to try to use it instead
of palladium (and cheaper too).
 
Best Regards.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.16 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:46:06 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

In article <1992Apr16.123611.22389@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>
>Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
>likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
>of ions which will dissolve in it as it is a highly non-polar molecule,
>being very tightly covalently bonded and made up of identical molecules.
 
	All true, but the electric field will induce polarization in D2 anyway
and therefore make it a better solvent. Alternatively one has to find another
gas which can act as a solvent for D2.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.17 /  Belle /       Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Doug Van Belle <ASDAV%ASUACAD.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:54:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Harmonic oscillations and cold Fusion
 
Please forward to persons exploring this subject
Particularly Professors Fleishman and Pons a the University
of Utah
 
 
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal concerning a
replicable cold fusion experiment performed at the University
of Osaka by professor Akito Takahashi struck a cord (pardon
the pun), leading me to the hypothesis that cold fusion might
be a result of harmonic oscillation of deutrium atoms in the
cages from by the surface of the palladium.  This could
explain not only how fusion might occur but also the
difficulty in duplicating the results found by Fleischmann
and Pons.  The experiment used a palladium foil and a varying
electrical current to generate heat excess heat much like
that found in the experiments at the university of Utah by
Fleischmann and Pons.  The key was the variable current.
 
Harmonic oscillations in the cold fusion would be analagus to
the textbook example of the Tacoma Narrows bridge being
shaken apart by a steady 50mph wind because the wind passing
over it set up a self-reinforcing harmonius oscillation whoUs
period was defined by the elasticity of the bridgeUs
structure.  In the cold fusion experiments the steady breeze
would be supplied by the electrical current and the elasticty
would be defined by the structure of the palladium surface,
and the chemical properties of the Duetrium solution.  A
steady durrent might hit or miss the right resonance energy,
and the chemical properties of the duetrium solution might
only have to vary slightly inorder to change the resonance
energy.  there fore the same set up on different days may or
may not produce the same results of excess heat.
 
However, by varying the electrical current, the resonence
frequency will almost certainly be hit twice per cycle (once
on the increase and once on the decrease).  Thus the varying
current would produce results consistantly whereas a steady
current would produce a hit or miss situation.
 
The question them becomes would the harmonic oscillations be
strong enough or set them selves up quickly enough for a
varying current to initiate cold fusion (or a possible super
tight chemical bound that releases heat).  I believe the
answer to be yes on both points.  The oscillations would
probably be on the frequency of the natural vibrations of the
atom, and if I remember right the duetrium atom being much
lighter, has a much higher frequency of vibration than the
ceasium atom used for atomic clocks, which vibrates Hundreds
of housands (millions?) of times a second.  Some textbook
calculations of the forces that harmonic oscillations can
produce indicate that amplitudes that are hundreds of
thousands times the imput energy is not unthinkable.
 
 
Douglas A. Van Belle
Department of Political Science
Arizona State University
Tempe,  AZ  85287-2001
 
Bitnet-ASDAV@ASUACAD
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBITNET cudfn cudlnBelle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.16 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 23:35:34 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Apr16.164606.187361@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.123611.22389@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>>
>>Well this is somewhat difficult.  D2 is a molecular fluid which is not
>>likely to conduct very well at all and it is difficult to try to think
 
>	All true, but the electric field will induce polarization in D2 anyway
>and therefore make it a better solvent. Alternatively one has to find another
>gas which can act as a solvent for D2.
 
(Yawn)  Well without even looking it up I can tell you that nothing will
work.  The only things which have a chance of being liquid at the
temperatures at which D2 is a liquid (and at ordinary pressures, or are
we thinking about doing this at a few hundred thousand atmospheres?) are
going to be other non-ionic fluids (Actually I doubt that there are any
[except H2, DH, TH,T2, etc.]) such as neon or Helium.  Ionic
interactions are so strong that they will make all those things into
solids long before liquid D2 temperatures.  Otherwise people would not
have used  (dangerous) D2 as a cryogenic fluid.
 
The induced polarization is miniscule and can be basically ignored.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.17 /  /  A Reply to Frank Close
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Reply to Frank Close
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 23:08:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A Reply to Frank Close
 
As I have said before in this media, the final decision on the CNF question
will be made with the feet.  Those of us working will just walk away.  Since
almost no one has support, it will be easy to quit when we begin to think that
there is nothing to be found.  But in magnetic confinement fusion, there are
people who have built their entire careers extracting money from various
governments.  They will fight to keep their support.  This is why the
criticism of CNF is so vehement.  CNF reminds everyone how long money has been
poured down the magnetic confinement rat hole.  Working at the PPA in the
60's, I had some contact with the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as we
shared the Forrestall research campus.  I was not impressed with the quality
of the work then, and have not since seen any results in proportion to the
money spent.
 
The really galling thing to the hot fusioneers is that they can't stop us.
There are a lot of us doing this work in the quiet of their basements,
garages, or what have you.  More than you think.  As long as we do not
organize and keep to cells like spies we will be safe.  The US is free enough,
and we already have enough material (even if heavy water and Palladium come
with MSDS's that make your hair stand on end) that no law can stop us now.  We
will just go underground.  The price of entry is low, less than sailing, or
even Golf (Michael Jordan style).
 
I can not think of any technology success that has taken 40 years to develop
(but I certainly recognize the proceeding years of research).  Most take only
a few years.  The transistor and the railroad come to mind.  Other promising
technologies, like bubble memory (and magnetic confinement fusion) that are
always on the verge of a breakthrough, just never make it.  I say give up for
now, and come back to it in 20 or 30 years.  Spend the money on other ideas.
Any other ideas.  There is also the problem that spending money keeps good
people from thinking.  After thousands of years of attempted flight, the
airplane was achieved by amateurs.
 
Who cares about the nits of when P&F did this or that experiment, or whether
they applied a correction that they thought was proper, but which later
proved to be in error.  Anyone who has tried to do this work will agree that
the initial disclosure was five years worth of work by two guys working on the
side from their normal duties.  It is also apparent that they were not experts
at measuring neutrons.  So what!  This does not detract from the part of the
work that has held up. (for some of us).  There is the added complication that
the dissemination of the results are clouded by patent considerations due to
the potential great commercial value.  They were clearly instructed to try to
withhold information by lawyers.  Since they were not trained as lawyers, they
found it hard to lie consistently.  I say I think better of them for it!
 
It is no wonder, Frank, that you keep talking about the old work of P&F.  If
you looked at the current good work in this field, say McKubre, you would be
forced to either call the workers liars, imagine a fantastic experimental
error, or admit that their results were interesting.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.17 / John Moore /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:34:27 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <920415153333.208015bd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
Ignorance alert: I am not an electrochemist!
 
]Some of you have supported the symmetry argument to achieve high loading.
]Dieter Britz suggested (FD 233) "..., with the important proviso that the top
]and the bottom of the cathode are flush with the cell top and bottom and not
]electrochemically accessible."  How does one do this.  At the "enormous
]fugacity" (I guess this means pressure) won't the gas just blow out the top
]and bottom no matter what is used as a seal?  Note there have been some
 
I am not at all convinced that symmetry is important. As I understand it,
the hugh fugacity is caused by the electrochemical potential. This
occurs in a microscopic region along the surface. In between the Anode
and this surface is a fairly good conductor (the electrolyte).
Since the surface layer acts like a relatively constant voltage drop, we
should not see a closer part of it "shorting out" the current flow and
keeping it from getting to a farther part.
 
In electrical terms, we can diagram this (for two points on the surface,
one close and one far) as:
 
                                  V+
                                  |
                        +---------*-------+
                        |                 |
                        |                 |
                       ---               ---
                      |   |             |   |
                      |R1 |             |R2 |
                      |   |             |   |
                       ---               ---
                        |                 |
                        |                 |
                        | +               | +
                      -----   B1        -----  B2
                    ---------         ---------
                        |                 |
                        +---------*-------+
                                  |
                                  V-
 
In this circuit, R1 represents the electrolyte "resistance" to
the surface region represented by the battery B1. In a symmetrical
situation, R1 = R2. In either case, B1 = B2.
 
As I understand it, the fugacity "pressure" is determined by the
potential at B1 or B2.
 
Now, if the batteries were ideal batteries, the potential would be
identical in both cases. In practice, there is probably a little bit
of parallel resistance which would make the impressed voltage slightly
different. However, in either case the fugacity is enormous.
 
Thus, I doubt that symmetry is important in determining loading (unless
you do something really radical like having part of the palladium
above the surface of the electrolyte). In fact, since as I understand it
unloading Pd at high loadings is exothermic, couldn't this explain
there very high temperature events such as the F&P "meltdown?"
 
Comments?
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.19 / Steve Crocker /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 03:14:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

 
In a message dated
Wed Apr  8 13:51:16 1992
 
71033.536@compuserve.com  (Tery Bollinger)
 
Says, in part:
 
<begin quote>
 
I would add a brief concern that I find the recent trend towards increased
involvement by LaRouche front organizations (e.g., "New Federalist") to be
at best a major embarassment, and at worst an indictment that NONE of the
recent reports should be taken seriously.  Starting off an article with
some (apparently) real data and ending it with loosely connected ad hominem
attacks is hardly the way to get people to take you seriously.
 
LaRouchian "technical" articles tend to have a remarkably consistent style,
which goes roughly like this:  Place the fairly innoculous and interesting
materials up front (and begin with a reasonably amiable tone), and then try
to pull in the reader to an emotionally-charged "it's us versus them"
perspective towards the end.  Often by the last sentence it degenerates to
the point of pretty much ranting and raving, which is one reason why this
style is usually not overly successful with folks who are more interested
in content than emotion.  But it can be very successful with people who
are angry or have been (genuinely or supposedly) slighted or harmed in some
way, which is perhaps one of the reasons why the LaRouchians have succeeded
in gaining a fair bit of momentum among former and current researchers who
have been involved in the often intense accusations and counter-accusations
of the "cold fusion" community.
 
My suggestion:  If you really are a scientist, stop reading/participating
in this LaRouche trash, and instead go back read some of the classics in
scientific methods.  Dyed-in-the-wool card-carrying LaRouchians are NOT
your friends, no matter how much they may seem to be befriending you --
they have their own agendas, and I assure you they not the same as yours.
 
<end quote>
 
Let me say to begin, that I am a lay person in the sciences, but I
have always regarded the enterprise of science as one of humanity's
noblest achievements, which enriches our lives not only through the
new technologies which science makes possibilities, but by scientific
discovery itself which enriches both our view of the universe and of
ourselves. This is no small part of the reason why I began in the mid
seventies to support the policies and programs of Lyndon LaRouche and
his organization.
 
You don't need to be a "rocket scientist" :) to realize that both science
and technology have been under ideological attack in recent years.
Although this certainly didn't start with the counter-culture of the
sixties or the radical enviromentalism of the seventies, I think it
would be hard to deny that anti-scientific, anti-technological, and
avowedly irrationalist viewpoints have gained a mass following starting
during that period.
 
Larouche has consistently championed the value of progress in science,
technology, and the economy. He has supported programs such as hot
fusion, including non-mainstream reactor designes, continued use of
fission, especially with advanced reactor designs such as the HTGR, the
space program (in 1988 he devoted an entire 30 minute nationwide TV
spot to advocacy of Mars colinization), and in general has advocated
the necessity of "science driver" programs to help restore the health
and morale of the U.S. economy.
 
Yes, LaRouche politicizes science. He is an advocate for the value
of science against those who oppose it. Further, he is an advocate for
what he sees as the proper philosophical basis of the scientific method
as against competing philosophical stances which are today more
"mainstream". He supports the "contentinal" school of mathematical
physics associated with Leibniz as against the empiricist views
associated with the British. He appears to consider the Gottingen
tradition exemplified by those such as Reimann and Klein as the high
point in mathematical physics from which more modern trends represent
an epistomological retreat (Now THERE would be some "classics" worth
recommending). Admittedly these are controversial viewpoints. Indeed,
I suspect that it might be controversial in many quarters to even
assert that the epistomological basis of science is worth debating.
Now if somebody thinks he's wrong about such matters, say so and say
why. I'm not really astute on such things, but I would expect that we
could find SMOEBODY here who could hold up the other end of a
discussion about Newton vs. Leibniz or the value of Reimann's
perspectives for modern science. Or don't debate it if you don't
consider such questions important. But if you don't want to debate
somebody's views, then I think attacks on them are merely ad hominem
and not appropriate.
 
As a science advocacy organization, I think LaRouche and his people
have taken an important step which I have not seen from other such
groups. That is to bring the debate on the value of science and
technology to audiences that are usually neglected. The National
Space Society, for example, organizes at Science Fiction conventions.
This isn't BAD, but it is a little like "preaching to the choir".
LaRouche, in contrast, talks to union members, civil rights activists,
anti-war activists and just plain people - people who have grown up
in an America that was BUILT on scientific and technological progress,
but to whom that value may never have been articulated explicitly.
There is a constituency for progress among non-professional, non-student,
non-Yuppie Americans. If LaRouche stops addressing that constituency,
who will do so?
 
 
In closing I have to challenge the statement:
"..they have their own agendas, and I assure you they not the same
as yours."
 
What exactly does Terry imagine this "agenda" to be? How does he
know that it is or isn't "the same as yours" for all the "real
scientists" he addresses? Does he oppose LaRouche's science
advocacy generally? Does he oppose LaRouche's positions vis a
vis the philosophy of science? Or does he perhaps think that
LaRouche's views on political conspiracy make his scientific
program irrelevant? Or does he think that LaROuche has been
insincerely championing scientific causes for the last 18 years
(to my personal knowledge) so that he could seduce rich physicists
into turning over their credit card numbers :)
 
Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Finally, I must say that I am grateful that this criticism of
LaRouche came from somebody that opposes the practice of ad homenin
attacks. I would have hated to see the level to which discussion
might have sunk had he considered them acceptable.
 
Best wishes,
Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 / Steve Crocker /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 09:17:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

 
PART ONE OF TWO
 
In a post here dated:
Sun Apr 19 17:51:30 1992
 
houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
 
Raises a number of points worth responding to
 
<Paul says>
        Adolf Hitler was able to gain the support of German industry because
he was hard on communism.  I think that many people in industry and science
felt threatened by the counter-culture and environmentalist movements,  and
LaRouche saw that he could use opposition to this to gain support from
them.  This is why people like LaRouche make friends around the national
labs.
 
<I say>
If LaRouche's pro-science stance were simply an attempt to win support,
I would expect to find it much more shallow than it is. I was committed
to the principles of environmentalism, radical decentralism, "appropriate"
technology, "limits to growth", etc. when I first encountered LaRouche's
arguements to the contrary. After much soul searching I realized that
such issues were fundamentally philosophical rather than technical
(although with important secondary technical considerations). LaRouche
convinced me that I had been wrong, and that his philosophical
perspective was more credible than that of the environmentalists. I
do not believe an opportunist could have accomplished this.
 
 
 
<Paul says>
        One problem with LaRouche is that he is anti-technology.  Sure,
there are certain kinds of technology he supports.  He really likes nuclear
power.  He doesn't realize that solar power is *CHEAPER* than nuclear
power today,  and that conserving a watt of energy is almost always cheaper
than generating a watt using any existing technology.  If nuclear power
were not heavily subsidized by the government,  it would dry up and disappear,
as it is already doing.  It just has not shown it's ability to economically
compete,  while alterative energy is rapidly demonstrating this capability
even with the massive subsidies that we put into fossil and nuclear energy.
Prehaps with new technologies,  nuclear power can be improved,  but
nuclear reactors require so much complex infrastructure that I'm not very
optimisitic for this.
 
<I say>
This argument, in my view, is just plain incorrect. Geez, where should
I start.
 
First, it appears that Paul is using dollar measures as though they
represented true social costs. This would be reasonable only in the
absence of distorting factors in the marketplace. For instance, there
has been a massive political campaign against nuclear power at least
since the mid-seventies. A favorite tactic has been to raise safety
concerns during the licensing process. This has led both to the
substantive costs of redesign, the lawyer subsidies inherent in
protracted litigation, and most importantly the need to seek
refinancing for such projects, often at the usurious rates current
during the early eighties. With the possible exception of any
actually necessary redesign, none of these "cost" factors are
inherent in the technology.
 
A more resonable way to estimate costs, in my view, would be a
measure of man-hours per megawatt-hour of delivered energy. I
don't have figures, but I vividly recall the proponents of solar
power arguing FOR their technology on the basis that it was
labor intensive compared to nuclear! This suggests that either
the typical wages of a worker in the solar industry would have
to be pegged lower than their counterpart in the nuclear industry,
or the costs of delivered energy would have to rise, or a combination.
In any case, the social cost is higher.
 
Another measure of cost sometimes used is "energy payback". I.e.
how long would it take an operating plant to pay back the energy
consumed in its production. Although LaRouche does not advocate
this particualr measure as a rigorous indicator of social cost, it
is interesting to review the comparisons. The figures I have seen
are not sharp in my memory, but I can give them approximately.
Coal and conventional nuclear came in roughly equal at about
4-6 months. I believe figures for a hypothetical fusion reactor
were estimated slightly less, but in a similar ballpark. Space
based solar (powersats) came in at around 3 years (NASA estimate)
while ground based solar showed an astonishing 20 years!
 
Which brings us to the "Kapitza Criterion". This measure originated
with the Soviet physicist P. Kapitza, although it is LaRouche who
popularized it in the U.S. It states that an approximte measure
of the economic viability of an energy technology can be estimated
on the basis of the "energy flux density" (I believe the dimensions
of this quantity are W/cm^2, but I can't find the reference).
Although I can't give the definitive arguement for the usefullness
of this measure, it seems intuitively plausible that energy released
in a more concentrated form would require smaller (albeit more
sophisticated) collection and transformation mechanisms. In the case
of ground based solar, we get a clue from this criterion to the truly
astonishing energy payback time cited above. The key phrase to remember
is  1 kW/M^2 (one kilowatt per square meter). This is the approximate
density of sunlight reaching the earth under optimum contitions, and
thus represents an absolute limit to the performance of a hypothetical
totally efficient collector. Somebody with good arithmetic skills can
surely work out the area needed for a 1000 mW plant, and throw in
some fudge factors representing actual or projected conversion
efficiencies, and to allow for the practicalities of spacing collectors,
etc. Then use some imagination and try to imagine what would be involved
im BUILDING one of these monsters (the mind boggles). Then tell me again
why this is "cheaper" in any meaningful sense than the equivalent
nuclear installation.
 
A more subtle component of cost benefit analysis of energy
technology are the scientific and technological spin-offs
which are "subsidized" by the development of the energy technology
as such. This probably needs clarification. Consider an ideal
case in which the megawatt-hour/man-hour ratios of two technologies,
were equivalent. One technology uses off the shelf components and
requires no new science and involves no extraordinary design problems.
The other is, shall we say, challenging. Assume we have confidence
that the scientific and engineering problems will yield to attack and
we have factored these costs into our ratio. By choosing the more
challenging technology, we get the spin-offs of the scientific and
engineering development work "for free". To leave the realm of
abstract examples and get to practical examples. By basing an
energy strategy on fission rather than coal or solar, we get "free"
a profession of nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists who can
serve as "cadre" for the development of the whole range of
technologies based on the interaction of neutron fluxes with various
nuclei. By developing magnetic confinement fusion, we get (so I
am told) the solution to a number of interesting problems having
to do with non-linear instabilites in plasma. Supposedly these are
challenging in a sufficiently general sense that their solution
would involve new science that would be widely applicable beyond
plasma physics per se. In the area of the SDI LaRouche was a
vigorous proponent of the less developed beam technologies over
the off the shelf kinetic approaches. This might appear wrong
headed unless one realizes that he was trying to use a national
defense concern, valid in its own right, to "subsidize" the new
science and engineering necesary to realize the beam approach.
 
END OF PART ONE OF TWO
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 01:56:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <920415153333.208015bd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
writes:
> here is an opportunity to tell me
> what to do without being responsible.
 
Now for something completely different: How about loading
a Pd lattice with D, and then cooling the loaded lattice to
liquid He temperatures.
 
One could hope for vaious things to occur. Perhaps some
form of bose condensation would occur, allowing the D to
condense to a higher density, and thus fuse*. Perhaps
the thermal contraction of the lattice would put a squeeze
on things. Perhaps the lattice symmetry and low thermal noise
would encourage some unanticipated quantum correlations. Perhaps
nothing.
 
Look for neutron or gamma emmissions,
I suppose, or maybe just for a sudden rise in temperature of the lattice.
 
(Q: has anyone done this yet? I know they have gone to liquid
N temps, but down to liquid He?)
 
*I know this doesn't happen in ordinary liquid D, but maybe
the lattice structure would alter things.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next?
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 02:00:42 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <920415153333.208015bd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
writes:
 
> here is an opportunity to tell me
> what to do without being responsible.
 
How about taking a D loaded Pd lattice and running a massive current through
it (e.g. discharge a big capacitior through it). Driving this
massive current through the ``D plasma'' in the crystal should
excite all manner of beam-plasma instabilities, create lots
of turbulence, and perhaps the turbulent fluctuations would
initiate some localized fusion events.
 
Here the Pd would be destroyed, probably, so better look
for gamma or neutrons. (And stand back).
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.19 / Marvin Minsky /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 05:18:54 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Apr19.031434.11447@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
 
>Yes, LaRouche politicizes science. He is an advocate for the value
>of science against those who oppose it. Further, he is an advocate
for >what he sees as the proper philosophical basis of the scientific
method >as against competing philosophical stances which are today
more >"mainstream". He supports the "contentinal" school of
mathematical >physics associated with Leibniz as against the
empiricist views >associated with the British....As a science advocacy
organization, I think LaRouche and his people >have taken an important
step which I have not seen from other such >groups. That is to bring
the debate on the value of science and >technology to audiences that
are usually neglected...  > >In closing I have to challenge the
statement: >"..they have their own agendas, and I assure you they not
the same >as yours."
 
Well, I don't know quite what that agenda is, but I once read a
Larouche article that made various political points, supported by
reference to an imaginary plot on the part of me and Noam Chomsky.
Now, I don't have to explain to anyone who knows either of us that
that is no less than a paranoid fantasy.  I could only presume that
similar kinds of thinking also support the rest of the agenda. I would
hope that Mr. Crocker, as a layman, would consider the hypothesis that
a lot of that other philosophical stuff may also be of the same
nature.  People with delusions can also be exceedingly smart, and I
presume that Crocker is impressed with some aspect of these writing's
internal coherence and consistency.  But remember that good fiction
writers have more control over consistency than do those poor
"empiricists" who force themselves to face facts instead of inventing
them.
 
Note that this is written only on the basis of personal annoyance of
being the victim of just such an outright fiction.  I certainly have
no intention to study the Larouche agenda any further.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenminsky cudfnMarvin cudlnMinsky cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.19 / Paul Houle /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: 19 Apr 92 21:51:30 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <1992Apr19.031434.11447@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>
>You don't need to be a "rocket scientist" :) to realize that both science
>and technology have been under ideological attack in recent years.
>Although this certainly didn't start with the counter-culture of the
>sixties or the radical enviromentalism of the seventies, I think it
>would be hard to deny that anti-scientific, anti-technological, and
>avowedly irrationalist viewpoints have gained a mass following starting
>during that period.
 
	Adolf Hitler was able to gain the support of German industry because
he was hard on communism.  I think that many people in industry and science
felt threatened by the counter-culture and environmentalist movements,  and
LaRouche saw that he could use opposition to this to gain support from
them.  This is why people like LaRouche make friends around the national
labs.
 
>Larouche has consistently championed the value of progress in science,
>technology, and the economy. He has supported programs such as hot
>fusion, including non-mainstream reactor designes, continued use of
>fission, especially with advanced reactor designs such as the HTGR, the
>space program (in 1988 he devoted an entire 30 minute nationwide TV
>spot to advocacy of Mars colinization), and in general has advocated
>the necessity of "science driver" programs to help restore the health
>and morale of the U.S. economy.
 
	One problem with LaRouche is that he is anti-technology.  Sure,
there are certain kinds of technology he supports.  He really likes nuclear
power.  He doesn't realize that solar power is *CHEAPER* than nuclear
power today,  and that conserving a watt of energy is almost always cheaper
than generating a watt using any existing technology.  If nuclear power
were not heavily subsidized by the government,  it would dry up and disappear,
as it is already doing.  It just has not shown it's ability to economically
compete,  while alterative energy is rapidly demonstrating this capability
even with the massive subsidies that we put into fossil and nuclear energy.
Prehaps with new technologies,  nuclear power can be improved,  but
nuclear reactors require so much complex infrastructure that I'm not very
optimisitic for this.
 
>Yes, LaRouche politicizes science. He is an advocate for the value
>of science against those who oppose it. Further, he is an advocate for
>what he sees as the proper philosophical basis of the scientific method
>as against competing philosophical stances which are today more
>"mainstream". He supports the "contentinal" school of mathematical
>physics associated with Leibniz as against the empiricist views
>associated with the British. He appears to consider the Gottingen
>tradition exemplified by those such as Reimann and Klein as the high
>point in mathematical physics from which more modern trends represent
>an epistomological retreat (Now THERE would be some "classics" worth
>recommending). Admittedly these are controversial viewpoints. Indeed,
>I suspect that it might be controversial in many quarters to even
>assert that the epistomological basis of science is worth debating.
>Now if somebody thinks he's wrong about such matters, say so and say
>why. I'm not really astute on such things, but I would expect that we
>could find SMOEBODY here who could hold up the other end of a
>discussion about Newton vs. Leibniz or the value of Reimann's
>perspectives for modern science. Or don't debate it if you don't
>consider such questions important. But if you don't want to debate
>somebody's views, then I think attacks on them are merely ad hominem
>and not appropriate.
 
	Yes,  LaRouche has some really weird ideas about science.  Why
don't you tell the nice people here about the articles in his
magazines that explain why the "C=256" music system is so superior
to the "A=440" system (doesn't rot people's brains) because of the
fact that 256 hertz is exactly 40 octaves below the natural ultraviolet
resonance of DNA.
 
>As a science advocacy organization, I think LaRouche and his people
>have taken an important step which I have not seen from other such
>groups. That is to bring the debate on the value of science and
>technology to audiences that are usually neglected. The National
>Space Society, for example, organizes at Science Fiction conventions.
>This isn't BAD, but it is a little like "preaching to the choir".
>LaRouche, in contrast, talks to union members, civil rights activists,
>anti-war activists and just plain people - people who have grown up
>in an America that was BUILT on scientific and technological progress,
>but to whom that value may never have been articulated explicitly.
>There is a constituency for progress among non-professional, non-student,
>non-Yuppie Americans. If LaRouche stops addressing that constituency,
>who will do so?
 
	Yes,  I've met lots of people who have opinions like LaRouche;
they think they are pro-technology.  Most of them don't know what
they're talking about,  and the rest of them have knowledge that is
so specialized that they can't understand the implications of,  say,
nuclear power on a life-cycle,  human ecological,  and social basis.
The fact is that they are pro-1945 technology.  I actually agree with
them on some counts.  I believe in space exploration.  Yet,  I'm not
the kind of idiot who wants to sell out on space science just so we
can build a figurehead space station in orbit to impress all the
third world countries (now that we don't have a Soviet Union to impress).
Maybe people in Latin America can hate us even more when our new star
passes through the sky,  what to them will appear a star of oppression.
 
>
>In closing I have to challenge the statement
>"..they have their own agendas, and I assure you they not the same
>as yours."
>
>What exactly does Terry imagine this "agenda" to be? How does he
>know that it is or isn't "the same as yours" for all the "real
>scientists" he addresses? Does he oppose LaRouche's science
>advocacy generally? Does he oppose LaRouche's positions vis a
>vis the philosophy of science? Or does he perhaps think that
>LaRouche's views on political conspiracy make his scientific
>program irrelevant? Or does he think that LaROuche has been
>insincerely championing scientific causes for the last 18 years
>(to my personal knowledge) so that he could seduce rich physicists
>into turning over their credit card numbers :)
 
	What LaRouche calls science advocacy has nothing to do with
real science.  It has to do with the tortured pretensions towards science
that american industry,  failing because of a lack of understanding of
human ecology,  uses to prop itself against what it believes as a tide
of irrationality.  When people like LaRouche see a group like Earth
First! (which I don't entirely endorse) fight for America's public lands,
they see a bunch of people who just want to take away jobs,  destroy
America and ultimately ruin civilization.  They don't have any idea of
what really motivates Earth First! people,  and they don't realize that
their own supposedly "pro-job",  "pro-mankind" arguments are absolutely
untenable.  Keep cutting down the old-growth forest in Washington and
Oregon,  and pretty soon it will be all gone and all those people will
lose their jobs.  Keep overgrazing on public lands,  keeping ranchers
on the dole,  and watch productivity go slowly downward through the
years.  If you really believe in America,  you would care about what
our productivity will be in a hundred years -- and you'll realize that
any use of public lands in an unsustainable way is just cheating our
children.  Putting some of them into wilderness preserves,  and other
parts into various kinds of wisely managed sustainable uses,  and we
can keep ourselves ecologically and economically healthy and strong
into the forseeable future.  This isn't what LaRouche and his ilk
want.  They see the world through blinders.  They don't know that
the universe has given us what we need if we use our resources wisely.
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 / Steve Crocker /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 09:21:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

 
PART TWO OF TWO
 
<Paul says>
 
        Yes,  LaRouche has some really weird ideas about science.  Why
don't you tell the nice people here about the articles in his
magazines that explain why the "C=256" music system is so superior
to the "A=440" system (doesn't rot people's brains) because of the
fact that 256 hertz is exactly 40 octaves below the natural ultraviolet
resonance of DNA.
 
<I say>
Well, had you given me a reference I would look it up in my collection
of 21st Century Science and could respond more readily. I know for a
fact that LaRouche and some of his people consider the optical resonance
properties of DNA biologically significant. If this is a well known
fallacy that has been debunked, perhaps in a Martin Gardner book I have
yet to read, please give me a reference. Otherwise, it sounds to me like
the kind of interesting hypothesis that might go somewhere or perhaps
nowhere, but people will have a lot of fun and learn stuff too in the
process of finding out for sure. Isn't this what science is all about?
Or did I miss something? :)
 
I can also tell you that most of what I've seen from him on the
subject of musical tuning has to do with the problem of singing
classical voice pieces. Apparently, the register structure of the
human voice is such that forcing the tuning higher, as is done by
the A=220 system, puts severe physical strain on the voice. As
LaRouche believes strongly in the role of classical music to
communicate in a direct way, the emotions associated with intellectual
creativity, it is a matter of some concern to him that a tuning
system be used which will allow pieces to be sung in the style intended
by the original composer. I am not a musician myself, and never
acquired an appreciation of anything more profound than Peter, Paul
and Mary, so I am pretty much taking his word on this one. Any
musicians in the crowd who can speak to this, please feel free.
 
(Did he really say C=256 tuning was preferable because of its
relation to DNA resonance?!! Let me rummage through my magazines
and see if I can find this one)
 
Found it! 21st Century Science & Technology. March-April 1988.
Vol 2. No. 2. Warren Hammerman. The Musicality of Living Processes.
 
Now let's see what he has to say.
 
Well, it's 10 pages and I surely don't want to type in any major
amount of it. I can remark generally that it reflects LaRouche's
long standing contention that there is coherence among the laws
governing the microcosm, the macrocosm, and the human scale
processes we ordinarily identify with terms like "creativity"
and the "sense of beauty". He seems to say that this is not anything
mystical, but rather is due precisely to the PHYSICAL characteristics
and structuring of space. It is at this point where LaRouche and his
associates always invoke Reimann and Gauss, ans sometimes Georg Cantor.
I have to admit that I am not familiar enough with the language of
advanced geometry to follow them in any detail.
 
In this article, Hammerman cites apparently well established values
for resonant effects in various biological processes and interprets
them in musical terms. If this is remiscient of Kepler, and his
"Harmony of the Spheres" this is not accidental. Hammerman explicitly
acknowledges Kepler, who the "LaRouche school" regard quite highly.
(They are after all, avowed Platonists).
 
Quoting the first couple of paragraphs might give some of the flavor
of the article (the body of the article is more technical).
 
<begin Hammerman quote>
 
There can be no more dramatic demonstration of the underlying
coherence of the laws of the universe than the discovery by the ancient
Greeks of the compositional features whereby living processes grow,
planetary orbits are ordered, and beauty is acheived in musical
compositions. Leonardo da Vinci and Johannes Kepler later richly
established the modern scientific basis for studying these
compositional features through the LEAST ACTION <italicized in the
original S.C.> harmonic characteristics of the five Platonic solids.
 
Today, in contrast to such an uncompartmentalized approach, science
has grown more adept at measuring smaller and smnaller entities in
their every conceivable aspect. Ironically, this tendency to weigh,
measure and magnify inert "pieces" of a physical process has been
most prominent in the study of biological processes that are
intrinsically alive, self-ordering, and self-developing.
 
<end Hammerman quote>
 
If anybody wants to evaluate the whole article, Email me a
P.O. address and I will send you a photocopy. (Offer good while
supplies last :) If somebody wanted to go to the trouble of
typing it in to post over on sci.physics.new-theories for
all to see, they would have my gratitude. Good faith critiques
identifying and criticizing the hypothesis presented would
also be welcome.
 
<Paul says>
        Yes,  I've met lots of people who have opinions like LaRouche;
they think they are pro-technology.  Most of them don't know what
they're talking about,  and the rest of them have knowledge that is
so specialized that they can't understand the implications of,  say,
nuclear power on a life-cycle,  human ecological,  and social basis.
The fact is that they are pro-1945 technology.  I actually agree with
them on some counts.  I believe in space exploration.  Yet,  I'm not
the kind of idiot who wants to sell out on space science just so we
can build a figurehead space station in orbit to impress all the
third world countries (now that we don't have a Soviet Union to impress).
Maybe people in Latin America can hate us even more when our new star
passes through the sky,  what to them will appear a star of oppression.
 
<I say>
We need a space station not for some mickey mouse considerations of
national prestige, but because space is the proper home of humanity.
Environmentalists are fond of saying we live on a finite Earth. The
fact is that we live in a largely unused solar system within a universe
whose boundaries are as yet only guessed at. The sooner "policymakers"
wake up and realize this, the better it will be for mankind. To
counterpose manned exploration with space science, as many do who should
know bettter, is to let ones ideals be determined by budgetary politics.
This is despicable (nothing personal). This is precisely why we need
a program to rebuild our industrial economy on the basis of energy
dense production technologies, so that we can both fund budgetarily
and produce industrially for the human colonization of the solar
system. Larouche has such a program that is plausible to me. That's
a lot of why I support him. Nobody eles I have seen in the public
debate even comes close.
 
<Paul says>
        What LaRouche calls science advocacy has nothing to do with
real science.  It has to do with the tortured pretensions towards science
that american industry,  failing because of a lack of understanding of
human ecology,  uses to prop itself against what it believes as a tide
of irrationality.  When people like LaRouche see a group like Earth
First! (which I don't entirely endorse) fight for America's public lands,
they see a bunch of people who just want to take away jobs,  destroy
America and ultimately ruin civilization.  They don't have any idea of
what really motivates Earth First! people,  and they don't realize that
their own supposedly "pro-job",  "pro-mankind" arguments are absolutely
untenable.  Keep cutting down the old-growth forest in Washington and
Oregon,  and pretty soon it will be all gone and all those people will
lose their jobs.  Keep overgrazing on public lands,  keeping ranchers
on the dole,  and watch productivity go slowly downward through the
years.  If you really believe in America,  you would care about what
our productivity will be in a hundred years -- and you'll realize that
any use of public lands in an unsustainable way is just cheating our
children.  Putting some of them into wilderness preserves,  and other
parts into various kinds of wisely managed sustainable uses,  and we
can keep ourselves ecologically and economically healthy and strong
into the forseeable future.  This isn't what LaRouche and his ilk
want.  They see the world through blinders.  They don't know that
the universe has given us what we need if we use our resources wisely.
 
<Larouche and I say>
Any FIXED MODE OF PRODUCTION eventually exhausts the preconditions
necessary for production IN THAT MODE. This is what Paul has described
above. This is why continued scientific and technological progress
is not a luxury but a necessity. Want to keep the trees? Better find
alternatives to traditional uses of paper, etc. Want wilderness areas,
better invest in technologies that make your society productive
enough that you can AFFORD to leave some unexploited. Worried about
running out of <x>. Better develop the technology to substitute <y>
 
"Uranium - A metal ... with no known uses"
(attributed to dictionaries ca. 1930)
Or is it an energy resource. That is both a technical AND a political
question.
 
But it's important to go forward, not backward. At the core of
the environmental movement one finds all too often an attitude
which is motivated not by a rational concern for wise resource
developement, but by a philosophical hostility to the special role
of humanity in the universe. (Who was the guy in the World Wildlife
Fund who said he wanted to come back as an AIDS virus?)
Our special role is to be the creators, to continuously improve
upon what nature has given us. Sure, much of our record there is
open to criticism, but that too is a political/technical question.
We can't not reshape the Earth, not if we are to remain human. We'd
better get serious about doing it right.
 
Well, hope this long response answers and maybe raises some questions.
I'll be out of town starting monday night, but go ahead and respond.
I'll try to answer as much as I have time for when I'm back in town.
 
Thanks for listening,
Steve
 
END OF PART TWO OF TWO
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 /   /   Valid CF Experiments
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Valid CF Experiments
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 16:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In suggesting experiments with liquid D2 Alex Orenshteyn says:
 
   <"...but at this point people are trying to prove or disprove  >
   < THE EXISTANCE of CNF, so I believe this is as valid an       >
   < experiment as any other."                                    >
 
Alex, In the real world most experiments you might think of having some-
one else do probably would not answer any of the questions remaining
about CNF whether they are "valid" or not.  If the immediate goal is to
resolve unanswered questions concerning the few unexplained "positive"
results the choice of experiments to do must be restricted to a very
small subset of all the possible combinations of deuterium in various
forms and solid lattices.  If you read Douglas Morrison's latest
summary you will have learn that both of the original Utah experiments
summary you will have learned that both of the original Utah experiments
that got this whole ball rolling have pretty well been trashed.  The
reasons for believing that packing deuterons into a Pd lattice might
lead to fusion were on very shakey grounds in the first place, and
nothing very solid in the way of theory has been proposed to change
that.  In short, about the only reason for undertaking investigations
into other possible systems for cold fusion is because you want to
believe that a positive result might be found somewhere, sometime
The physics that we "know" about these systems still says that
success is an extreme long shot.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 / MIKE JAMISON /  Re: What should I do next
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What should I do next
Date: 20 Apr 1992 13:30 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Tom,
 
If your brother is right about the electroplating, maybe you should
electroplate Pd onto some other metal.  The Pd surface area should be much
larger than it would be if it was a machined surface.
 
Maybe use this technique with the Takahashi (sp?) cell.
 
Just out of curiosity, what kind of data acquisition setup are you using? (
A/D accuracy and speed, mostly.  Commercial or home-brew?)
 
Good luck...
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 / Jim Bowery /  LaMarx
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LaMarx
Date: 20 Apr 92 17:27:55 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Steve Crocker writs:
>A more resonable way to estimate costs, in my view, would be a
>measure of man-hours per megawatt-hour of delivered energy. I
 
MARX ALERT!  MARX ALERT!
 
It is grossly inaccurate to state value in terms of labor.
A lot of people have suffered a great deal to put the lie to
the Marx's fallacy.  I tried slogging through the turgid prose
of "Das Kapital" for awhile until I figured out the reason it
was so turgid was the fact that he was trying to obscure the
weakness of his premise -- the same premise you are using now.
 
>Another measure of cost sometimes used is "energy payback". I.e.
>how long would it take an operating plant to pay back the energy
>consumed in its production.
 
Why is it everyone always forgets the time value of money?
 
Really guys, this is a VERY well understood principle of business
economics and there's no need to flail around.  The value of
ANY present investment is estimated by:
 
AssetValue = Integral  Risk(t)*Profit(t)/(DiscountRate+1)**t  dt
 
        where   Profit(t) is the profit stream at some point in time
                Risk(t) is the probability of realizing that Profit
                DiscountRate is the zero-risk rate of return on money
                        typically linked to government debt instruments
 
If you want to talk about "long term investments" then all you have
to do is use long term treasury instruments in the "DiscountRate".
 
>Which brings us to the "Kapitza Criterion". This measure originated
>with the Soviet physicist
 
Uh Oh...
 
>P. Kapitza, although it is LaRouche who
>popularized it in the U.S. It states that an approximte measure
>of the economic viability of an energy technology can be estimated
>on the basis of the "energy flux density" (I believe the dimensions
>of this quantity are W/cm^2, but I can't find the reference).
 
Any estimates of economic viability that came out of the USSR
are based on the absence of price discovery in the free market.  No
amount of sophisticated discoveries in nonlinear programming and
stochastic optimization algorithms out of the University of Moscow
can make up for the lack of a market.  For a physicist to presume
that some physical parameter can account for the convoluted market
space is hubris exceeded only by Teller and the DoE's fusion program.
 
I never really had much of an opinion on LaRouche except that he held
some eccentric opinions.  If these views represent the application
of his philosophy, I just joined the anti-LaRouche crowd.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 /  /  Latest Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 22:16:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cathode Electrode: 0.037 cc, 0.58 sq cm, cylinder with spherical ends.
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: 2N D2SO4 + 0.1N Li2SO4
Charging Profile: Ramp from 40 ma per sq cm to 600 ma per cq cm over 1/2 hour
*Duration: 40 Days and 40 Nights as of Easter
Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.93
*Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 1 to high of 3 volts.
*Temperature: 21.5 C
*Indicates change since last report.
 
The cell was returned to 20 C range since it appeared to be slowly losing gas,
i.e. the D/Pd loading appeared to be decreasing.  Since then (3 days) there
has been a modest increase in apparent loading after taking into account the
gas volume change due to heating.
 
Anyone know why loading might be better at higher temperature???  We thought
it would be the other way around and butchered a perfectly good de-humidifier
to make a chiller to get to the lower temperature!!!  Making this change also
reduced greatly the accuracy of our null.
 
Since the new operating point had not been calibrated, we balanced the
calorimeter assuming there was no excess power.  We balanced to zero over 24
hours.  Since then there has been a gradual increase of net power to +3 mw
average.  This is not considered to be significant.  Anything less than about
+20 mw would be considered possible balancing error.  In fact, for anything
less than 500 mw apparent excess power, we would now just start over wishing
we had not made a change.
 
Now I am well aware that the above sort of changes are not good experimental
practice.  This is not controlled scientific experiment, but exploration.
When something happens that looks like excess heat we will stop and design an
experiment to test what we did, for example, test that a temperature decrease
causes excess heat.
 
But now for something completely different.  We are running with a current
ramp as shown below (A).  A new value is set every 10 seconds so we have a
174 step staircase.  The low point is 40 ma per sq cm, the high point is 600
ma per sq cm, and the ramp duration is 29 minutes.  The normal behavior of the
cell voltage is as shown at (B).  When the current drops, the cell voltage
drops to the vicinity of 0.6 volts.  Over 2-4 minutes it increases to 2 volts,
then ramps linearly with the current to about 2.6 volts.  Every so often it
drops to a much lower voltage (0.2) as at (C), and stays there for some
minutes, ramping with the current.  It then takes a sudden jump and catches up
with where it would have been on a normal cycle.  For both types of voltage
profile there is about a 2 cc loss of gas in the system as the transition to
low current is made.  The catalyst thermometer confirms the gas release.  I
assume this means that 4 cc of D comes out of the .037 cc Pd sample.  Not much
else seems to be going on.  No particular change in accumulated energy.  i.e.
the power computation seems to be able to accommodate this kind of funny cell
voltage change just fine without computing an erroneous "anomalous heat".
Nothing gets hotter or colder than usual.
 
Please believe that I am looking for electronic and instrumentation causes.
Dick Garwin, my oscilloscope is at hand!
 
I assume that the normal low cell voltage point (0.6 volts) means that the
cell is working temporarily as a battery?  Note we are running with a current
command.  So the cell voltage does whatever it must to accommodate the
requested current.  There does not appear to be any funny gas content change
which accompanies this different voltage profile.  These events did not appear
until we had been running 700 hours or so.
 
As those of you who read these notes know, I am looking for anything that
takes place on a long time scale in order to understand what might be needed.
 
 
                            AAAA                            AAAA
                        AAAA                            AAAA
                    AAAA                            AAAA
                AAAA                            AAAA
            AAAA                            AAAA                            AA
        AAAA                            AAAA                            AAAA
    AAAA                            AAAA                            AAAA
AAAA                            AAAA                            AAAA
 
 
                          BBBBBB                          CCCCCC
                     BBBBB                           CCCCC
                BBBBB                           CCCCC
           BBBBB                           CCCCC
       BBBB                             CCC                               BB
     BB                                                                BBB
    B                                                                BB
   B                                                                B
  B                                    C                           B
                                                                  B
 
 B                                                               B
 
B
                                                                B
 
                                   CCCC
                               CCCC
 
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 22:17:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To all who responded to my "tell me what to do without being responsible"
comment, thank you.  But I was hoping more for proposals aimed at what I can
do best, measure small power levels and make many precision measurements.
 
I tried to persuade Alex Orenshteyn that his neighbors would be impressed
by periodic visits from the Linde (and fire) truck delivering liquid Helium
and Nitrogen as he did the liquid D2 experiment in his basement.  He claims
not to have a basement.  Thanks to Rolfe Petschek for pointing out some of the
problems.
 
A more interesting proposal (for my apparatus) is that by Douglas Van Belle.
Seems like the original P&F paper mentioned the possibilities of resonances.
I remember the use of the term "classical oscillator".  Douglas reminds me
that the reason that I built the present calorimeter was to perform such an
experiment.  In June of 1990, we ran a long slow scan (days) between 10 ma and
1 amp per sq cm.  There were peaks in "anomalous heat" that appeared to be at
the same current on the up ramp as the down ramp.  But the first calorimeter
was just not good enough to say for sure, so we built the new one.  For some
reason, we have not yet got around to running the experiment for which the new
device was built.  No apologies, I have had two hips replaced, and was
diverted by learning to calibrate the damn thing and somehow got off on the
Mills experiment.
 
Note that Bush of Cal Poly claims that there are resonances.  I think that the
reason I have not again tried a long slow scan to confirm his result is that I
might be successful, and his confidence is large enough without having his
theory confirmed by me.  But a look at the log books reminds me that I did sit
on several of his points with no result.
 
As I consider buying another ounce of Pt wire, and more D2O, I am reminded
that there are many things to try.  There is some indication that some of you
out there would have a go at this if it were easier to get all the stuff.  We
get Pt wire by the ounce.  Cost is $500 plus the cost of the Pt per run.  Not
99.99999% pure, but possibly this does not matter.  A very large difference in
price from the first stuff we bought from a chemical supply house which was no
higher purity.  So if any one out there is interested in common buying,
contact me.
 
I am leaning next to either a conventional Takahashi experiment or a slow ramp
on a fine wire for the upcoming run.
 
Thanks to John Moore for pointing out the electrochemist's view that spacing
is not very important since all the voltage drop takes place across a very
thin layer at the cathode surface.  I sort of knew that.  But I am grasping at
straws.  Possibly things are different at these high (for electrochemists)
current densities.  How about it Dieter, what do I do at the cathode top and
bottom?
 
While this group is quick to speculate on most wild topics, I am yet to get
any one to bite on the reason for the long time to first heat.  What's the
matter guys, no imagination?  Is the best we can do Bochris's dendritic
growth?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.20 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Valid CF Experiments
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Valid CF Experiments
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 19:42:18 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

The key words are "the physics we know about..."  You're right you
can't get there from here.  When Professor Takahashi, of the Deparment of
Nuclear Engineering of the Faculty of Enginering of Osaka University, was
at MIT last week at the behest of Professor Emeritus Lew Smullen of the
EE and Computer Science Dept., he discussed in detail what can be accomplished
by "incremental engineering" to extend the work of P&F.  He made a reproducible
experimental apparatus with both heat and neutrons way beyond the 3 sigma
level.  Unfortunately, incremental engineering only can be used to locate
local minima (or maxima, as in this case) and what is needed is an absolute
maxima.  That needs an understanding of the mechnisms at work underlying
the positive results.  How P&F got a result by "cookbook" science, I don't
know, BUT THEY GOT A RESULT. Takahasi PROVED that.  He talked today at Texas
A&M to Bockris (sp?) and collaborators.  I hope someone posts something about
his talk based on that visit.  MIT people apparently want to keep the details
of his talk to themselves, as they have not posted.  Oh well, that is only
one of the problems with "technogists" today.
Yes,I was there and I (alone?) suggested to Takahashi possible other experiment
s that might shed light on this difficult-to-describe-in-conventional-terms
phenomona.  It is just as hard as describing special relativity in the terminol
ogy of Newtonian mechanics.  Let me assure you it will be done.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Mike Pelt /  LaRouche
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LaRouche
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 02:30:57 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <1992Apr19.031434.11447@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
[Praises sung to Lyndon LaRouche deleted]
>In closing I have to challenge the statement:
>"..[LaRouchians] have their own agendas, and I assure you they
> not the same as yours."
>
>What exactly does Terry imagine this "agenda" to be? How does he
>know that it is or isn't "the same as yours" for all the "real
>scientists" he addresses? Does he oppose LaRouche's science
>advocacy generally?
 
[etc., etc.]
 
It is for none of these things that I oppose LaRouche.
 
Most of the positions of LaRouche you've mentioned in your article
seem, at least after a quick reading, to be pretty reasonable.
 
I am quite strongly in favor of nuclear power, fusion research, and
SDI.  Every now and then I let fly at the technophobic cretins on
various newsgroups and BBSes.  My reaction to the first LaRouchies I
met (in the airport, of course) was strongly positive.  I bought a
couple of their magazines, and I really liked the "More people have
died in the back seat of Teddy Kennedy's car than in nuclear power
plants" bumper sticker.  (My father put one of those on his car.)
 
Unfortunately, I didn't have to get more than half way through the
magazine before I was forced to conclude that LaRouche is a lunatic
surrounded by fanatics, or vice versa.  Sorry, but that's the way I see
it.  I wish it wasn't so.  Seeing his performance on TV, and various
other interesting incidents involving LaRouche and his people, have
strongly reinforced that opinion.
 
--
Mike Van Pelt                     "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in
Headland Technology/Video 7        front of Congressional hearings."
..ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp                        -- Meryl Streep
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Mike Pelt /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 02:35:39 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <1992Apr19.215130.4189@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
 
  ... stuff deleted ...
 
Of course, with enemies like this, what need has LaRouche for friends?
--
Mike Van Pelt                     "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in
Headland Technology/Video 7        front of Congressional hearings."
..ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp                        -- Meryl Streep
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Steve Crocker /  Re: LaMarx
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LaMarx
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 02:31:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

 
In a post here Jim Bowery criticizes man-nours per magawatt-hour
as a valid cost indicator based on the fact that it is consistent
with the views of Karl Marx, with which he disagrees. He proceeds
to a discussion of expected value which appears to use dollar values
as an indicator.
 
I don't see it. Clearly the value of a steel plant is not determined
by the dollars it cost to build, nor the dollars for which it
might be sold, nor the dollars which are returned to the owner
in the course of it's operation. Any of these measures MAY
approximate the value of that plant, ant the more rational the
behavior of the market the better the approximation will be. There
is not NECESSARILY a close correlation with any of these measures
and the actual value of the plant, however. The value of a steel plant
is determined by its ability to make steel, including factors such
as the quality of steel which can be made, the speed with which it may
be made, the efficiency of use of manpower, raw materials, energy, etc.
 
All this to one side, howeve. In my post to which Jim is responding
I gave what I thought was a good common sense explanation of why
the labor intensive nature of solar power would necessarily be
reflected in some combination of higher costs for delivered energy
and/or lower average wages in the solar industry. Unless I missed
an implication in Jim's post I don't think he addressed that
point. I still believe it to be pretty conclusive.
 
-Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Paul Houle /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: 21 Apr 92 02:03:08 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <1992Apr20.091700.24095@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
 
>If LaRouche's pro-science stance were simply an attempt to win support,
>I would expect to find it much more shallow than it is. I was committed
>to the principles of environmentalism, radical decentralism, "appropriate"
>technology, "limits to growth", etc. when I first encountered LaRouche's
>arguements to the contrary. After much soul searching I realized that
>such issues were fundamentally philosophical rather than technical
>(although with important secondary technical considerations). LaRouche
 
	Funny enough,  I made the similar journey in the opposite direction.
I grew up in a pretty shelted middle class life in northern New England,
where I developed a viewpoint pretty close to that of LaRouche --
environmentalists are nuts,  Petr Beckmann is god,  all that stuff.  Seeing
the massive abuse of public land in the West,  plus having a set of
other experiences,  I've swung away from those beliefs.  Of course,  my
ideas of "appropriate" technology are very different from the U.N.  To me
appropriate technology is practical technology.  Materials used in bulk
should be obtained locally,  but if a few kilograms of high tech hardware
imported can do the job of a ton of low tech hardware,  use the high
tech stuff.  Is the problem of "Limits to Growth" really philisophical?
I think the "Limits to Growth" are for real on Earth...  Prehaps not
as significant as space travel,  but remember that exponential population
growth will eventually outstrip any rate of resource growth,  even with
100% efficient utilization in a sphere growing at the speed of light
(resource level reaching the limit of T^3 as T goes to infinity)
 
>I start.
>
>First, it appears that Paul is using dollar measures as though they
>represented true social costs. This would be reasonable only in the
>absence of distorting factors in the marketplace. For instance, there
>has been a massive political campaign against nuclear power at least
>since the mid-seventies. A favorite tactic has been to raise safety
>concerns during the licensing process. This has led both to the
>substantive costs of redesign, the lawyer subsidies inherent in
>protracted litigation, and most importantly the need to seek
>refinancing for such projects, often at the usurious rates current
>during the early eighties. With the possible exception of any
>actually necessary redesign, none of these "cost" factors are
>inherent in the technology.
 
	First thing,  you tell us that nuclear power is good for the economy,
and that it's still good for the economy,  even if it costs consumers and
utilities more per kwH.  This leaves me scratching my head.  A lot of
nuclear power people do blame the problems of nuclear power environmentalists.
I answer to them that only the very strict safety regulations that we have
at nuclear power plants have prevent a large number of financial disasters
(TMI) from being human disasters.  Also,  this country is a democracy,
and if people don't want nuclear power,  even if they are wrong,  nobody
has the right to force it down their throats.  Many of us have really
strong feelings about issues such as abortion,  gun control,  you name
it -- yet even the fact that we are convinced we are right doesn't give
us the right to control society.
 
>A more resonable way to estimate costs, in my view, would be a
>measure of man-hours per megawatt-hour of delivered energy. I
>don't have figures, but I vividly recall the proponents of solar
>power arguing FOR their technology on the basis that it was
>labor intensive compared to nuclear! This suggests that either
>the typical wages of a worker in the solar industry would have
>to be pegged lower than their counterpart in the nuclear industry,
>or the costs of delivered energy would have to rise, or a combination.
>In any case, the social cost is higher.
 
	Changes in productivity per unit of labor are a double-edged
sword.  Yes,  increases in productivity means that we can get more
with less work.  Yet,  increasing labor productivity can put people
at work if other resources are limited (even capital could be
such a resource,  but oil,  energy,  trees,  land can all be limiting
factors) -- Suppose I could wave a magic wand and increase labor
productivity 1000 fold tomorrow.  Would it be wise of us to keep
people working 40 hour weeks?  At that rate,  we'd destroy the
forests of the world in weeks,  run out of oil and metal reserves
and all of that stuff.  I like dollar cost per unit output better
because it takes into account that there are such things as energy
productivity,  resource productivity...  How much product you
get for a given investment.  Most existing dollar cost measures
aren't that good because they don't cover many health/environmental
issues,  but they can be fixed by adding in external costs.  This
process depends on who does the calculation,  but nothing in
economics is perfect.
 
>Another measure of cost sometimes used is "energy payback". I.e.
>how long would it take an operating plant to pay back the energy
>consumed in its production. Although LaRouche does not advocate
>this particualr measure as a rigorous indicator of social cost, it
>is interesting to review the comparisons. The figures I have seen
>are not sharp in my memory, but I can give them approximately.
>Coal and conventional nuclear came in roughly equal at about
>4-6 months. I believe figures for a hypothetical fusion reactor
>were estimated slightly less, but in a similar ballpark. Space
>based solar (powersats) came in at around 3 years (NASA estimate)
>while ground based solar showed an astonishing 20 years!
 
	All these figures depend on what figures the people who did
the calculations used to figure it out.  What kind of technology
they forsaw,  and what kind of capital market they expect.  Also,
one must consider the lifecycle costs (which in the case of nuclear
are mostly subsidized by the government) and the fact that different
power plants have different operational lifetimes.  Nuclear ~25 years,
solar systems could last much longer and be made of recyclable
components.  Similarly,  people who assume the materials for powersats
come mostly from earth predict they are hideously expensive,  while
people who forsee getting them from the moon see them as much cheaper.
 
>Which brings us to the "Kapitza Criterion". This measure originated
>with the Soviet physicist P. Kapitza, although it is LaRouche who
>popularized it in the U.S. It states that an approximte measure
>of the economic viability of an energy technology can be estimated
>on the basis of the "energy flux density" (I believe the dimensions
>of this quantity are W/cm^2, but I can't find the reference).
 
	Yes,  there is some truth in this -- yet this simple measure
doesn't even touch the complexity of energy as it is actually used;
nobody really cares about KwH.  They want a warm house,  lights,
a TV set,  a refrigerator,  a stove,  finished goods like aluminum
cans.  When you think of energy in terms of KwH,  you tend to think
of really stupid things like electric heat for homes...  Burn coal
(or split atoms),  dump 60% of the heat in a river and put 30%
of it in your home when you could burn the coal at home,  or better
yet,  weatherstrip your home and modify it to use passive solar.
 
	One source of energy (say solar) isn't appropriate for
all uses.  One metric of the utility of an energy source isn't
good for all applications.  The energy densities involved in nuclear
power are great for space travel,  but are actually much higher
than anyone actually needs for most ground-based applications.
Forseeable (~20 yr) photovoltaic technology could be deployed on
the rooftops of homes to generate (~20 kWh) a day (time-averaged
for most places in the US,  some do better than this) for
a home that use (~13 kWh) a day.  Maybe this won't be practical,
because I won't grant myself the kind of wishful thinking
LaRouche does,  but seeing that the house probably leaks energy
like a sieve,  and by replacing lights with compact flouresents,
getting a better fridge and all that they could cut their usage
of energy by half,  that gives a lot of leeway.  Maybe solar
can't do everything,  but it comes in many forms and it is just
one of many renewable resources.  You can run out of nuclear
fuel,  but we won't run out of sun for several billion years.
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Paul Houle /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: 21 Apr 92 02:32:43 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <1992Apr20.092152.24182@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
 
>
>I can also tell you that most of what I've seen from him on the
>subject of musical tuning has to do with the problem of singing
>classical voice pieces. Apparently, the register structure of the
>human voice is such that forcing the tuning higher, as is done by
>the A=220 system, puts severe physical strain on the voice. As
>LaRouche believes strongly in the role of classical music to
>communicate in a direct way, the emotions associated with intellectual
>creativity, it is a matter of some concern to him that a tuning
>system be used which will allow pieces to be sung in the style intended
>by the original composer. I am not a musician myself, and never
>acquired an appreciation of anything more profound than Peter, Paul
>and Mary, so I am pretty much taking his word on this one. Any
>musicians in the crowd who can speak to this, please feel free.
 
	Seeing that this is only a few percent worth of change and how
much people's voices differ,  I'm not horribly impressed by the difference.
Then again,  I'm not an expert on classical music either.  I hope that
one joins in this discussion.
>
>Well, it's 10 pages and I surely don't want to type in any major
>amount of it. I can remark generally that it reflects LaRouche's
>long standing contention that there is coherence among the laws
>governing the microcosm, the macrocosm, and the human scale
>processes we ordinarily identify with terms like "creativity"
>and the "sense of beauty". He seems to say that this is not anything
>mystical, but rather is due precisely to the PHYSICAL characteristics
>and structuring of space. It is at this point where LaRouche and his
>associates always invoke Reimann and Gauss, ans sometimes Georg Cantor.
>I have to admit that I am not familiar enough with the language of
>advanced geometry to follow them in any detail.
 
	Unfortunately,  nobody seems to know enough advanced geometry
to follow LaRouche and his friends in detail.  This is deliberate.  Remember
that the experience of music is a product of the human nervous system which
is a rather complex machine which can grow up under all kinds of parameters.
Some people can listen to classical music and not feel a thing...  Others
respond to it in ways that are really beautiful.  A person taking a drug
such as alcohol,  marijuania or LSD will react to music in ways that seem
perfectly valid (I saw a person do some wonderful improvisation on the
influence of LSD) but still different from that of most people.  Because
music doesn't have uniform effects on people,  I think it keys into
complex nervous-system scale structures,  not cosmic forces spanning
thousands of decibels from the hot pulsations of gamma rays to the
silent and stately revolution of the galaxies.
 
 
 
>
><begin Hammerman quote>
>
>There can be no more dramatic demonstration of the underlying
>coherence of the laws of the universe than the discovery by the ancient
>Greeks of the compositional features whereby living processes grow,
>planetary orbits are ordered, and beauty is acheived in musical
>compositions. Leonardo da Vinci and Johannes Kepler later richly
>established the modern scientific basis for studying these
>compositional features through the LEAST ACTION <italicized in the
>original S.C.> harmonic characteristics of the five Platonic solids.
>
 
	Well,  the principle of least action is used often in conventional
physics too.  I've tried modeling quantum mechanical wave structures in
terms of the platonic solids,  and found that they aren't flexible
enough to model everything...  You might like Buckminister Fuller's
~Synergetics~ where he develops a nontraditional geometry that could
possibly be used for modelling wave structures and doing other neat things.
>
 
>We need a space station not for some mickey mouse considerations of
>national prestige, but because space is the proper home of humanity.
>Environmentalists are fond of saying we live on a finite Earth. The
>fact is that we live in a largely unused solar system within a universe
>whose boundaries are as yet only guessed at. The sooner "policymakers"
>wake up and realize this, the better it will be for mankind. To
>counterpose manned exploration with space science, as many do who should
>know bettter, is to let ones ideals be determined by budgetary politics.
>This is despicable (nothing personal). This is precisely why we need
>a program to rebuild our industrial economy on the basis of energy
>dense production technologies, so that we can both fund budgetarily
>and produce industrially for the human colonization of the solar
>system. Larouche has such a program that is plausible to me. That's
>a lot of why I support him. Nobody eles I have seen in the public
>debate even comes close.
 
	I agree with you quite a bit on this -- I'm a strong believer
that we should build a space station,  a lunar base,  and then pursue
manned and unmanned flights to Mars and other bodies in the solar
system.  Energy-dense technologies are very important towards this
goal.  And I'm not against them.  Both high and low energy density
technologies have appropriate applications.  If we use them wisely
we can derive great benefits.  If we try to use high-density technology
for a low-density job,  we'll have problems...  Similarly,  using
low-density technology for space travel would be very impractical.
Yet,  for the majority of ground-based applications,  information-
dense technology is far superior to energy-dense technology.  Anyone
intellegent can think of many exceptions to this,  and I'm not
against nuclear energy.  I'm just against people who think it is
a panacea and who wish to stuff it down people's throats.
 
>Any FIXED MODE OF PRODUCTION eventually exhausts the preconditions
>necessary for production IN THAT MODE. This is what Paul has described
>above. This is why continued scientific and technological progress
>is not a luxury but a necessity. Want to keep the trees? Better find
>alternatives to traditional uses of paper, etc. Want wilderness areas,
>better invest in technologies that make your society productive
>enough that you can AFFORD to leave some unexploited. Worried about
>running out of <x>. Better develop the technology to substitute <y>
 
	I agree with you completely here.  I can name many alternative
technologies that can help us keep our air and water clean and
actually reduce production costs in the long term.  I can think of
plenty of ways to have paper without cutting down so many trees.  Some
high-energy-density technologies can be very appropriate here and are
options we need to consider.  Problem is,  many people who believe in
high-energy-density technologies aren't aware of the incredible
potentials at the low end.  It takes 1/20th the energy to recycle an
aluminum can than it takes to make one from Bauxite.  That's the
kind of thing that both environmentalists and business can agree on.
 
>But it's important to go forward, not backward. At the core of
>the environmental movement one finds all too often an attitude
>which is motivated not by a rational concern for wise resource
>developement, but by a philosophical hostility to the special role
>of humanity in the universe. (Who was the guy in the World Wildlife
>Fund who said he wanted to come back as an AIDS virus?)
>Our special role is to be the creators, to continuously improve
>upon what nature has given us. Sure, much of our record there is
>open to criticism, but that too is a political/technical question.
>We can't not reshape the Earth, not if we are to remain human. We'd
>better get serious about doing it right.
 
	Yes,  but we don't always know what the future holds and we're
not omnipotent.  We can screw up in ways that will kill us.  As man
gains in power (as he certainly will),  he needs to develop more
wisdom too.  Even the germanic classics that LaRouche loves so much
will attest to that...  Ever read ~Faust~?  I think some environmentalists
go too far.  Yet,  they bring us some valuable opinions.  Man isn't
the only species on this earth.  We're just one link in an incredible
chain in nature.  Nature has given us many possibilities,  from
spreading life throughout the universe,  from dying away just like any
other species,  or destroying life on earth.  We can't really know
our true fate...  Only work towards what we believe is the best.  Maybe
a hundred years from now,  ecocentrism will be seen as an advance towards
objectivity just like the heliocentric universe.  Maybe not.  In either
case,  everyone has a right to speak in the democratic process even
if they're wrong.  That means both Earth First! and LaRouche.  I'll
also hold both of them accountable for their actions.
 
	In my experience I've had good luck opening dialogues between
business/technology people and environmentalist people.  High information-
density,  (maybe high wisdom-density?) technology has a lot to offer
both of them.  I see myself as somewhere in between.  I was one of those
industrial-technological people all the way once,  and I've also experienced
the same kind of nearly religious connection with the natural world that
motivates most radical environmentalists.  Probably neither side is
totally right.
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Paul Houle /  Re: LaMarx
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LaMarx
Date: 21 Apr 92 02:37:18 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <9ciJJB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
>Steve Crocker writs:
>>A more resonable way to estimate costs, in my view, would be a
>>measure of man-hours per megawatt-hour of delivered energy. I
>
>MARX ALERT!  MARX ALERT!
 
	Funny enough,  although I forgot to mention it in my previous
posts,  LaRouche was a marxist before the early 1970's.  He wrote quite
a few articles in communist-oriented magazines under the pseudonum Lynn
Marcus.  He also appears to have been an informant for the FBI.  I'm
not bringing this up to be pejorative...  Many intellegent and honest
people have been Marxists,  and Marx wasn't so dull himself.  Yet,  it's
very interesting when LaRouche plays up the fact that he was a fink
in his autobiography,  but doesn't talk about all the tracts he wrote
in the late 50's and 60's.
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  Britz /  RE: Fusion Digest 251
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 251
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 13:31:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
 
>As long as you are asking for suggestions, I repeat mine: "Run the
>cells with liquid D2", this should simplify the accounting.
 
(and a fair amount of follow-up). Have you asked yourself why electrochemistry
enters the picture at all? Why the "Italian school of cnf" do not use it in
their metal cum gas setups? Electrolysis of heavy water serves the primary
purpose of generating deuterium to be absorbed by the metal. If you start with
liquid D2 (as with gaseous ditto), you already have it, and it would be soaked
up, presumably - although I don't know what the equilibrium loading would be
at those low low temperatures.
 Now, you may be after that extra kick from those supposed enormous fugacities
calculated (dubiously) from the overpotential. The figure 0.8 eV is used here,
i.e. a deuteron with extra energy of 0.8 eV is "better" at making its way into
Pd than one with no extra energy. This is a lot like ion beam loading, with a
deuteron beam of 0.8 eV. Ho ho ho, you might respond here, they need several
keV to get anywhere, and so they do. You have in fact (assuming that you'd
have used the above as an argument for using electrochemistry) pointed me at
an argument against this fugacity thing. Thank you.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  Britz /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 13:33:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
 
>In the case
>of ground based solar, we get a clue from this criterion to the truly
>astonishing energy payback time cited above. The key phrase to remember
>is  1 kW/M^2 (one kilowatt per square meter). This is the approximate
>density of sunlight reaching the earth under optimum contitions, and
>thus represents an absolute limit to the performance of a hypothetical
>totally efficient collector. Somebody with good arithmetic skills can
>surely work out the area needed for a 1000 mW plant, and throw in
>some fudge factors representing actual or projected conversion
>efficiencies, and to allow for the practicalities of spacing collectors,
>etc. Then use some imagination and try to imagine what would be involved
>im BUILDING one of these monsters (the mind boggles). Then tell me again
>why this is "cheaper" in any meaningful sense than the equivalent
>nuclear installation.
 
I have the required arithmetic skills, so I'll have go. We want 1000 mW, that
is, 1W. Given 1kW/m**2, this means 1/1000 m**2, or a square of 3.16 cm on a
side; not bad. If we want just heat, this is it. If we want it as electricity,
we'll have to divide by the efficiency. E.g. if we can convert that W of heat
into electricity at 30%, we need a larger square, 3.16 * SQRT(100/30) on a
side, or about 5.77 cm on a side; still not bad. I think it's feasible, and I
don't think we need a nuclear installation here.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  Britz /  RE: What should I do next?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: What should I do next?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 13:41:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
 
>My present problem is what to do next.  At 35 days into a run that per P&F
>might take 70 mean days to show heat, I suspect that this might not be the
>best way to use my calorimeter.
 
Well, why not give it that extra 40 days, otherwise you might wonder for the
rest of your life what MIGHT have happened, if only you hadn't...
 
>Some of you have supported the symmetry argument to achieve high loading.
>Dieter Britz suggested (FD 233) "..., with the important proviso that the top
>and the bottom of the cathode are flush with the cell top and bottom and not
>electrochemically accessible."  How does one do this.  At the "enormous
 
If using a thickish cylinder, cap it at both ends with an insulating disk and
make electric contact through the disk with a thin wire of a metal that does
not occlude hydrogen. The counter-electrode could then be, say, a mesh
cyclinder wrapped around the disks. If a thin wire, forget the ends, they
won't matter. Just lead the wire out of the top, through a disk if you like.
 
>So what do you all think of using long, fine, wires.  The idea would be to
>load them faster than the gas can work its way out the ends which are
>necessarily not sealed.  I would argue that this is why Takahashi was able to
>achieve high loading.  His plate was 1 mm by 25 mm sq.  So maybe only the
>center spot was loaded.
 
I have in the past advocated long fine wires, bundles of them, IF you think
this is a surface effect. They would give you maximum surface. There are
still, however, people who think you need bulk, I think. My guess is that if
there indeed be an effect, it would have to be a near-surface one and if I
were to do it, it'd be with bundles of very fine wires or foils. Even better,
Tom (and you won't like this) would be a fluidised bed of fine Pd powder...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /   /  LaRouche, etc.
     
Originally-From: "Richard Schroeppel" <rcs@cs.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LaRouche, etc.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 18:41:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Could we stick to physics?
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrcs cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  /  News From the Front
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News From the Front
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 20:22:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If I were more conservative, I would say nothing.  If I were less conservative
I would say there is excess heat.  As it is, something is changing after a
little over 1000 hours of electrolysis.  The mean cell voltage is going down.
The the mean cell temperature is getting colder.  You have to think a long time
about closed loop servo systems to understand that one.  And the mean
"anomalous heat" is going up.  Heat seems to come in bursts of 50 to 100
joules.  All efforts to detect somethin funny in the data system have failed.
But sometimes it takes me several days to look at all that data and find the
funny channel.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Latest Status: Takahashi expt. lessons learned
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status: Takahashi expt. lessons learned
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:40:47 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920420141049.20801108@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
fusion@zorch writes:
 
>
>This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
>Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 1 to high of 3 volts.
>Anyone know why loading might be better at higher temperature???  We thought
>it would be the other way around and butchered a perfectly good de-humidifier
>to make a chiller to get to the lower temperature!!!  Making this change also
>reduced greatly the accuracy of our null.
>
*****************************************************************************
>Now I am well aware that the above sort of changes are not good experimental
>practice.  This is not controlled scientific experiment, but exploration.
>When something happens that looks like excess heat we will stop and design an
>experiment to test what we did, for example, test that a temperature decrease
>causes excess heat.
 
*******************************************************************************
That depends on what you mean. I think it is the best science.  The stuff that
so many others do is merely incremental engineering.  This is called
*************INNOVATION********************************************************
 
>As those of you who read these notes know, I am looking for anything that
>takes place on a long time scale in order to understand what might be needed.
Takahashi did two important things.  First he ran the neutron emitting current
stage at 4.25 amperes into a symmmetic system made from a 1" x 1" x 1mm`
thick plate; his cycle was several minutes long.  On the low current part of th
e cycle he used 0.25 amps for an equal time to the high current phase.  The sec
ond thing that he did is something I drew a conclusion from--that is he did
not say this.  Dick Forman says: it is apparently important to keep the sample
of Pd as strain free as possible both in the charging and running steps.
To do this he made side electrodes and both of the 1" square faces were active.
This means that he has volume of unstrained material. [There is a large volume
expansion of the lattice on hydriding].  It may be important to use the side
electrodes to keep the current densities as uniform as possible--this is a
tentative interpretation on my part, there was enough data presented to make th
is conclusion more solid.  The low strain condition is in accord with the
underlying causes of the rumored successes in McKubrie's lab.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Various Replies:More lessons learned re:Takahashi
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies:More lessons learned re:Takahashi
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:58:50 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920420163627.20801108@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
fusion@zorch writes:
****************************************************************************
>A more interesting proposal (for my apparatus) is that by Douglas Van Belle.
>Seems like the original P&F paper mentioned the possibilities of resonances.
>I remember the use of the term "classical oscillator".  Douglas reminds me
>that the reason that I built the present calorimeter was to perform such an
>experiment.  In June of 1990, we ran a long slow scan (days) between 10 ma and
>1 amp per sq cm.  There were peaks in "anomalous heat" that appeared to be at
>the same current on the up ramp as the down ramp.  But the first calorimeter
>was just not good enough to say for sure, so we built the new one.  For some
>reason, we have not yet got around to running the experiment for which the new
>device was built.  No apologies, I have had two hips replaced, and was
>diverted by learning to calibrate the damn thing and somehow got off on the
>Mills experiment.
>
>Note that Bush of Cal Poly claims that there are resonances.  I think that the
>reason I have not again tried a long slow scan to confirm his result is that I
>might be successful, and his confidence is large enough without having his
>theory confirmed by me.  But a look at the log books reminds me that I did sit
>on several of his points with no result.
>
>I am leaning next to either a conventional Takahashi experiment or a slow ramp
>on a fine wire for the upcoming run.
>
Dick Forman says: see recent postings on why this is NOT a good idea.
 
 
>Thanks to John Moore for pointing out the electrochemist's view that spacing
>is not very important since all the voltage drop takes place across a very
>thin layer at the cathode surface.  I sort of knew that.  But I am grasping at
>straws.  Possibly things are different at these high (for electrochemists)
>current densities.  How about it Dieter, what do I do at the cathode top and
>bottom?
***************************************************************************
Dick Forman says: there is more to this than that view.  See my paper in
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 1970 with Dave Aspnes and
Manuel Cardona for the reasons for the need for uniform fields in expts.
that involve interfaces.
*************************************************************************
>While this group is quick to speculate on most wild topics, I am yet to get
>any one to bite on the reason for the long time to first heat.  What's the
>matter guys, no imagination?  Is the best we can do Bochris's dendritic
>growth?
******************************************************************************
David Lasmore (private communication to me) believes that this long charging ti
me is realted to the two phases of palladium deuteride.  He could be right.
It is in accord with the very simiar situation we found with respect to the
magnetic susceptibility of titanium deuteride.  The bulk magnetic susceptibilit
y measures the density of states at the top of the Fermi sea.
******************************************************************************
As far as the "resonance" goes I would interpret the data that Takahashi
showed at MIT as showing underlying resonances.  I suggested to him, and
to any in the audience duplicating his work, that they measure the time
resolved thermal images of the electrodes in correlation with the phenomona.
 
Dick Forman predicts: 1) local hot spots;
                      2) very short duration of the phenomona.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: Valid CF Experiments
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Valid CF Experiments
Date: 21 Apr 92 13:41:44 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <167CFDCDA.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>  ....   That needs an understanding of the mechnisms at work underlying
>the positive results.  How P&F got a result by "cookbook" science, I don't
>know, BUT THEY GOT A RESULT. Takahasi PROVED that.     ....
 
No.  Takahasi (may have) proved that _he_ got a result.  From what I have
seen he has not replicated the P&F experiment (meaning run apparatus of
identical design) nor duplicated their results (meaning the quantitative
relationship between heat and rod size and the number of neutrons claimed
versus heat produced).  If indeed he has such a result, it would be nice
to see a citation -- have I missed one? -- to an article that contains
an accurate description of the experiment so it can be duplicated here.
 
>A&M to Bockris (sp?) and collaborators.  I hope someone posts something about
>his talk based on that visit.  MIT people apparently want to keep the details
>of his talk to themselves, as they have not posted.  Oh well, that is only
>one of the problems with "technogists" today.
>Yes,I was there and I (alone?) suggested to Takahashi possible other experiment
 
Wait.  You were there, and you wonder why no one has posted a summary of his
talk ... Why don't *you* post a summary of his talk?
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Valid CF Experiments
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Valid CF Experiments
Date: 21 Apr 92 15:05:11 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>by "incremental engineering" to extend the work of P&F.  He made a
reproducible
>experimental apparatus with both heat and neutrons way beyond the 3 sigma
>level.  Unfortunately, incremental engineering only can be used to locate
>local minima (or maxima, as in this case) and what is needed is an absolute
>maxima.  That needs an understanding of the mechnisms at work underlying
>the positive results.
 
Locating the local maxima and the gradients around it can be VERY
informative about what dimensions to explore next.
 
>How P&F got a result by "cookbook" science, I don't
>know, BUT THEY GOT A RESULT. Takahasi PROVED that.  He talked today at
Texas
>EE and Computer Science Dept., he discussed in detail what can be
accomplished
>A&M to Bockris (sp?) and collaborators.  I hope someone posts something
about
>his talk based on that visit.  MIT people apparently want to keep the
details
>of his talk to themselves, as they have not posted.  Oh well, that is only
>one of the problems with "technogists" today.
 
MIT is second only to CalTech in debunking cold fusion.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Fusion Digest 251
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 251
Date: 21 Apr 92 17:02:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <68F82E76891F202040@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>(and a fair amount of follow-up). Have you asked yourself why electrochemistry
>enters the picture at all? Why the "Italian school of cnf" do not use it in
>their metal cum gas setups? Electrolysis of heavy water serves the primary
>purpose of generating deuterium to be absorbed by the metal. If you start with
>liquid D2 (as with gaseous ditto), you already have it, and it would be soaked
I think electrolysis serves two roles, 1) producing D 2) forcing higher loading
ratio than would be possible by "soaking up" alone.
 
>up, presumably - although I don't know what the equilibrium loading would be
>at those low low temperatures.
> Now, you may be after that extra kick from those supposed enormous fugacities
>calculated (dubiously) from the overpotential. The figure 0.8 eV is used here,
>i.e. a deuteron with extra energy of 0.8 eV is "better" at making its way into
>Pd than one with no extra energy. This is a lot like ion beam loading, with a
>deuteron beam of 0.8 eV. Ho ho ho, you might respond here, they need several
>keV to get anywhere, and so they do. You have in fact (assuming that you'd
>have used the above as an argument for using electrochemistry) pointed me at
>an argument against this fugacity thing. Thank you.
I am not quite sure what you are saying here, could you elaborate? "argument
against this fugacity thing"?
 
Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Valid CF Experiments
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Valid CF Experiments
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 21:17:05 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <8369@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>
>In article <167CFDCDA.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>
>>  ....   That needs an understanding of the mechnisms at work underlying
>>the positive results.  How P&F got a result by "cookbook" science, I don't
>>know, BUT THEY GOT A RESULT. Takahasi PROVED that.     ....
>
>No.  Takahasi (may have) proved that _he_ got a result.  From what I have
>seen he has not replicated the P&F experiment (meaning run apparatus of
>identical design) nor duplicated their results (meaning the quantitative
>relationship between heat and rod size and the number of neutrons claimed
>versus heat produced).  If indeed he has such a result, it would be nice
>to see a citation -- have I missed one? -- to an article that contains
>an accurate description of the experiment so it can be duplicated here.
>
>>A&M to Bockris (sp?) and collaborators.  I hope someone posts something about
>>his talk based on that visit.  MIT people apparently want to keep the details
>>of his talk to themselves, as they have not posted.  Oh well, that is only
>>one of the problems with "technogists" today.
>>Yes,I was there and I (alone?) suggested to Takahashi possible other
 experiment
>
>Wait.  You were there, and you wonder why no one has posted a summary of his
>talk ... Why don't *you* post a summary of his talk?
****************************************************************
The main reason is that this newsgroup is filled with so much clutter about
non-science issues like Marx and...
The other reason is that I am not an academic and only do my posting on my own
time.  Takahashi has duplicated and gone beyond the published P&F work.  Call
Lew Smullens at MIT at 617-253-2502 and he can tell you where to get the presen
ted viewgraphs and a video of the talk.  My comment on taking time-resolved ima
ges was as far as I want to go today in suggesting other experiments for others
to do.  I have my own (unnamed) collaborators whith whom I will jointly plan
new experiments to test my theory.  Some of those experiments can be deduced
from my short note in Fusion Facts, which Dieter refuses to abstract for the ne
t.  I do not have a FAX machine at home so I will not be able to send copies
to individuals.  A self addressed stamped envelope will bring a copy.
I will also include a copy of my extended abstract that was to be presented
at the Utah Cold Fusion Conference.  I did not attend for various reasons.
If anyone knows whether the extended abstract was printed I would apprecdiate
the information.  Mailing address for SASE: Dr. Richard A. Forman, MITRE
Corporation, Mail Stop Z580, 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3481.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: LaRouche, etc.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LaRouche, etc.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 21:33:02 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <9204211705.AA15935@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
>
>Could we stick to physics?
>
Just so long as we include chemical physics my specialty and the key
to understanding the results of P&F and Takahashi.  As long as this group
continues to ignore the principles set down by the greatest American
physicist, J. Willard Gibbs, they will be ignoring the keys to the solution.
Chemists use free energies to determine what reactions can go, then they
try to improve the reaction rate.  Too many physicists are still stuck on
models for the process, WITHOUT knowing what the actual process is.
*************Dick Forman*********************************************
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
>Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.22 /  /  Status (end) of the current experiment.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status (end) of the current experiment.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 20:26:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.  RIP
 
Cathode Electrode: 0.037 cc, 0.58 sq cm, cylinder with spherical ends.
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: 2N D2SO4 + 0.1N Li2SO4
Charging Profile: Ramp from 40 ma per sq cm to 600 ma per cq cm over 1/2 hour
*Duration: 42 Days
Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.93
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 1 to high of 3 volts.
Temperature: 21.5 C
*Indicates change since last report.
 
Cell 2F3 died tuesday noon.  The D2SO4 got to the connection at the top of
the cell and the cathode connection was eaten.  This must be assumed to be
the source of the recent heat.  Anyone want to do the back of the envelope
computation on the amount of energy given off by the corrosion of an estimated
3 cubic mm of brass?  Please, I did the best I could to protect the connection
with epoxy.  Guess it is time to build a spot welder from scratch.  Does
anyone know where I can get a simple spot welder that will work up to say 1 mm
dia wires?  I would go $500 to $1000.  This is another reason that I keep
looking for a collaborator who wants to build cells to run in my calorimeter.
 
My general rule is it throw out all experiments that are not "near perfect".
So this one goes in the garbage can even though some of the data looks
interesting.  It is still the longest run I have yet made.  More and more I
appreciate the sophistication of of construction of the simple open cells of
P&F.
 
The cathode was a 3 mm dia by approximately 10 mm long sausage.  On post-
mortem, it was split end to end like an overcooked bratwurst.  The crack
penetrated at least to the center.  This indicates that there was some success
in loading.  If anyone out there with a fancy machine wants to look at an
electrode that has run 1000+ hours, it is available.
 
There is about one chance in a zillion that something else happened after the
cathode connection was broken.  The computer actually stopped on an "overflow"
on a variable that could not have overflowed.  This was about two hours after
the cathode lead break.  So the computer dropped its first bit in about 3
years.  One worries that there could have been violent out gassing after the
loading stopped.  There is a "blow out" piston to detect this and it had not
moved.  The only hope for more information is if I get called in when my film
badge is developed at the end of the month.  It lives on top the calorimeter
whether I am there or not.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.22 /  /  Comments on FD-259
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on FD-259
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 21:55:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Wow!  FD-259 is full of good thinking on CNF.  This is what I have been trying
to get started.
 
Dieter Britz writes: "If using a thickish cylinder, cap it at both ends with
an insulating disk ..."
 
How do you do that Dieter?  Seems to me the absorbed gas would just diffuse out
the ends like it diffuses out of an electrode with the current turned off.  My
experience is that it sometimes comes out in a real hurry.  The electrodes
that seem to show heat also seem to get rid of their gas fastest.  Look at the
Moore thesis for absorbed gas lifting pieces of metal at the surface after
removal from electrolysis.  So I don't think there is any way to seal it.
Best to do it by some sort of a rate limited diffusion at the ends???
 
Dieter Britz writes: "I have in the past advocated long fine wires, bundles of
them."
 
Gozzi et al in the Como proceedings report their best excess heat with a
bundle of 31 0.5 mm wires.  (See Dieter, if you don't read proceedings you
don't discover that people share your ideas!)  So I think the next run will be
with 0.5 mm wire that I just got.  Anyone out there want to make me some 0.5
mm silver Pd alloy wire?  I figure I can just comfortably detect 2 watts per
cc power levels in a single 0.5 by 50 mm wire.  This is plenty sensitive to
measure the 80 w per cc reported by Gozzi et al.
 
Dieter also suggested a fluidised bed of Pd and says I won't like the
suggestion.  Come on, Dieter, I will try anything.  But I need someone to
volunteer to build obscure stuff.  Must be same shape as a 100 cc centrifuge
tube, Cole Parmer Catalog #L-06330-70.  See our Como paper for a drawing of
the available space to put other things.
 
Dick Foreman has some nice observations on what might be good about Takahashi.
I must say that I have been coming to the same conclusions.  See the posting
on my dead cell where the electrode split apart like a sausage.  I think Dick
is right.  The advantage of the flat plate is that it can relieve the strain
in a way not possible with a round rod or wire.  Except for talk of micro
cracks, I don't remember any reports of "macro cracks".  Most of my electrodes
have ended up with "big" splits.
 
"Dick Forman predicts:  1) Local hot spots
                        2) very short duration of the phenomona."
 
You Bet!  2) is my "plain brown paper" explanation.  Phase 1.  Get a Takahashi
style cell working.  Phase 2.  Put an IR scanner like they use to locate hot
spots on printed circuit boards in the cell.
 
I second the request by J. A. Carr that Dick Forman write up the Takahashi
talk.  I have about 20 pages of Takahashi material that I will snail mail to
those that ask for it until I get tired of paying the postage.  It has been
faxed too many times, and besides I can not properly use the Fermi fax.
 
Because Takahashi put a chiller coil right in his cell, I butchered a
perfectly good de-humidifier, and now I can move between 5 and 30 C.
Presently doing the required calibration.  When done I will be able to move
around in temperature while maintaining the integrated energy balance. (I
hope).  With the chiller coil right in the cell the actual cathode temperature
would likely be colder than other configurations where the calorimeter sits in
a 20C bath.  By the way, the chiller coil was Pyrex glass.  One more piece of
information for those who read entrails by the side of the road.
 
There is also a set of curves (with a cryptic note "we operate here") that
indicate a very large temperature dependence on loading.  That is why I was
running at 10 C.  But when I moved back to 21 C the loading seemed to
increase?  But it was not very controlled.  I need to get set up to put one
fine wire after another into the calorimeter and try different loading
conditions.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.23 / A Boulanger /  Re: Status (end) of the current experiment.
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status (end) of the current experiment.
Date: 23 Apr 92 01:29:52 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <920422131410.20601c2f@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
 
   Cell 2F3 died tuesday noon.  The D2SO4 got to the connection at the top of
   the cell and the cathode connection was eaten.  This must be assumed to be
   the source of the recent heat.  Anyone want to do the back of the envelope
   computation on the amount of energy given off by the corrosion of an
 estimated
   3 cubic mm of brass?  Please, I did the best I could to protect the
 connection
   with epoxy.  Guess it is time to build a spot welder from scratch.  Does
   anyone know where I can get a simple spot welder that will work up to say 1
 mm
   dia wires?  I would go $500 to $1000.  This is another reason that I keep
   looking for a collaborator who wants to build cells to run in my calorimeter.
 
 
Two places that I can think of that have spot welders and are cheap:
 
Industrial Pipe and Steel (1-800-423-4981) in South El Monte Ca.
They had a basic welder for $583 in the 91 catalog
 
 
Harbor Freight (1-800-423-2567) in Camarillo CA.
I have seen spot welders in their catalogs.
 
 
Hopes this helps you (and any others).
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.23 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Pd mining, Impurities.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd mining, Impurities.
Date: 23 Apr 92 13:50:46 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

 
	I wondering which countries actually mine Pd. Given that there
are probably multiple sources, I further wonder what possible differences
can Pd samples have considering that impurities left in the metal after
processing depend probably on where it was mined and how it was smelted.
Perhaps irreproducibility of experiments has to do something with where Pd
was mined and how it was prepared besides other factors.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.24 /  Britz /  Symmetrical cells
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Symmetrical cells
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 16:10:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Just for completeness' sake, and to satisfy my pedantic mind, there is a third
cell arrangement that gives symmetry and an even current distribution, which
I forgot to mention before: an insulating cylinder, capped at one end with the
cathode, at the other with the anode. This is not likely to be of practical
interest to you, though, Tom; I just mention it.
Parallel plates in an open electrolyte (i.e. not framed by insulating walls)
will give you higher current densities at the edges, and no number of extra
electrodes arranged around the plates will do much good.
That's if any of this is important at all - which I'm not convinced of. Others
have done the opposite, in a quest for the magic ingredient: nonequilibrium
conditions.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.21 / John Moore /  Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 6 (Douglas Morrison)
Date: 21 Apr 92 15:43:18 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1992Apr21.023539.156@hsv3.uucp> mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
 writes:
]In article <1992Apr19.215130.4189@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
]
]  ... stuff deleted ...
]
]Of course, with enemies like this, what need has LaRouche for friends?
 
Err... could we take this non-fusion related discussion elsewhere?
Say.... talk.politics.misc?
 
Thanks.
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.24 / V Sukhanovsky /  Russian scientist seeking a PhD position ---
     
Originally-From: phvas@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Vsevolod A Sukhanovsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Russian scientist seeking a PhD position ---
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 06:19:17 GMT
Organization: James Cook University

 
Dear collegues,
 
Below you can find a letter from my friend Alexander V. Kuzin seeking
a position for PhD studies. Please reply him directly or use my account
for urgent enquiries.
 
Yours sincerely,
Vlad Sukhanovsky ( phvas@marlin.jcu.edu.au)
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Alexander V. Kuzin
 
Date of birth: 28 May 1966
 
Area of expertise:   nuclear physics
Area of interests:   experimental neutron physics and physics of
                     accelerators
 
Education: Diploma of Moscow University which is being recognized as
           equivalent of MSc degree in Physics
 
Records: March 1992 - 1989   scientific worker at the Institute for
                             Nuclear Research (Pulsed Neutron Sources
                             Laboratory headed by Prof. Stavissky), Moscow
         1987 - 1989  Part time work at the Institute for Nuclear Research
                      within the frame of the graduation work.
         1983 - 1989  studies at the Moscow State University, Physical
                      Dept. Since 1986 specializing in nuclear physics
                      (Chair of Atomic Nucleus headed by Prof. Tulinov)
 
Results obtained:  - "Measurement of the Neutron Yield from the Tungsten
                      Target Irradiated with 70 GeV Protons" in Proc. of
                      ICANS-XI, Japan, October 1990
                   -  report on the International Workshop PANS-91 held
                      at Dubna, Russia in June 1991
                   -  two more papers concerning measurement of the
                      neutron yield due to delayed fission of tungsten
                      nuclei irradiated with the 70 GeV protons and
                      calculation results relevant to the construction
                      of Moscow Meson Facility and approving the
                      obtained experimental data were reported and are
                      ready for publishing
 
Email address:  kuzin@inr.msk.su
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenphvas cudfnVsevolod cudlnSukhanovsky cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.26 / Alex Orentshyn /  Pd, Ag, Pt, Au wire source
     
Originally-From: alexo@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU (Alex Orentshyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd, Ag, Pt, Au wire source
Date: 26 Apr 92 18:08:38 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

 
	I have discovered a source for Pd, Pt, etc... wires which can be
obtained in small quantities without having to shell out $500 + price/weight.
Polysciences, Inc. sells the following wires and say that they can also do
custom alloys.
 
All wires are 0.008" diameter, and are garanteed to be 99.99% pure
Pd $27.05 for 10 feet
Au $87.70 for 10 feet
Pt $91.05 for 10 feet
Ag $26.15 for 50 feet
 
Ag $93.80 for 20 feet diameter 0.03"
 
Alloys
Au/Pd 60/40 $74.20 for 10 feet diam. 0.008"
Pt/Pd 80/20 $111.65 for 10 feet, diam. 0.008"
 
Note: these prices are somewhat old, couple of years or so. Things might be
cheaper now.
 
I think paying $27.05 + $91.05 for several experiments is much easier to
swallow than having to buy $1000 worth of stuff.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenalexo cudfnAlex cudlnOrentshyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /  Britz /  RE: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fugacity
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 13:31:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) (Fd-260)
 
>In article <68F82E76891F202040@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
> writes:
>> Now, you may be after that extra kick from those supposed enormous fugacities
>>calculated (dubiously) from the overpotential. The figure 0.8 eV is used here,
>>i.e. a deuteron with extra energy of 0.8 eV is "better" at making its way into
>>Pd than one with no extra energy. This is a lot like ion beam loading, with a
>>deuteron beam of 0.8 eV. Ho ho ho, you might respond here, they need several
>>keV to get anywhere, and so they do. You have in fact (assuming that you'd
>>have used the above as an argument for using electrochemistry) pointed me at
>>an argument against this fugacity thing. Thank you.
>I am not quite sure what you are saying here, could you elaborate? "argument
>against this fugacity thing"?
 
The impression given in FPH-89, and never really opposed, is that the
electrochemical current somehow compresses deuterium into the metal. One paper
even uses the term "electrochemical compression". When you apply a finite
current, you get an electrode potential somewhat away from the equilibrium,
zero-current, potential, by a distance of the overpotential. The current and
the overpotential are related mathematically by the Butler-Volmer equation (if
you have no transport limitations). The equilibrium potential (at zero
current) is related to the activities of all the components taking part in the
electrochemical reaction by the Nernst equation (look these up in a text like
Bard and Faulkner "Electrochemical methods"). It is questionable, to say the
least, to use the Nernst equation to relate the overpotential to such
activities, which is what FPH do in their paper. They somehow got an
overpotential of 0.8 V (and don't say how they measured this - it's not that
easy, but they are experts and we have to take this on trust), and when they
plug this into the Nernst equation, they calculate a "pressure" of 1E27; this
is not a real pressure, but a fugacity or effective pressure. Now the Bockris
and Subramanyam paper (Bockris JO'M, Subramanyan PK; Electrochim. Acta
16 (1971) 2169, "The equivalent pressure of molecular hydrogen in cavities
within metals in terms of the overpotential developed during the evolution of
hydrogen") concludes that you can get no more than the equivalent of about
1000 atm out of this. This corresponds to about the compression of deuterium
to the molar volume in Pd at a loading of about 0.5. The inferred idea that
these loadings mean enormous pressures is therefore a bit of propaganda; you
can easily compress D2 gas to some kbar and you don't get fusion. If there be
an effect, it would not be due to compression but to something special to do
with the Pd lattice - which is why physicists have tried to focus on this
(Dick Foreman, take note).
 My realisation, when making this point before, was that the figures of 0.8 eV
and a fugacity of 1E27 are talking about the same thing, and this gives some
perspective to the compression idea. Such a fugacity (or pressure) is as
effective as a deuteron with an energy of 0.8 eV; and we know that this is
useless for fusion, from beam/target work.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 702 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 702 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 13:32:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
mainly patents (8 of 'em), plus two "real" papers. Well, the Kikuchi is real
enough, it's at least an experiment, and they used tritium to study its
release, a useful thing (for someone else) to do. The Welborn is another case
of nontechnicals getting into this area, in this case a librarian, who
complains about the lack of clarity in the early papers like FPH-89, and the
lack of refereeing. Well, the FPH-89 paper was in fact refereed, albeit in a
hurry. Lack of detail: well, if the paper had been read exclusively by
electrochemists, there would not have been so many complaints, as they know a
lot of what was not said (though not all). The paper was of course dissected
by other chemists, physicists, newspaper reporters, basement amateurs etc. and
it is a little unfair to accuse it of not spelling everything out for
everybody. It was also a Preliminary Report, and FPALH is presumably the full
works.
Adam Frank, in his commentary paper, takes cold fusion to be simply another
case of otherwise sensible people fooling themselves, i.e. unconscious
cheating.  This is far from being established but Frank is entitled to his
view. He ought not to repeat hoary old myths, though, e.g. the one that Kepler
cheated by massaging Tycho Brahe's observational numbers. This has surfaced
again recently, and I have it from a very competent historian of science that
it is false. Kepler made some corrections to Brahe's times, based not on
Kepler's expectations, but on rational arguments, to do with Brahe's known
errors. This is nothing to do with fusion but I just mention it.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 27-Apr. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 702
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kikuchi E, Nomura K, Nogawa N, Saito H, Itoh K, Niikura H, Murabayashi M;
Denki Kagaku oyobi Kogyo Butsuri Kagaku 59 (1991) 880 (in Japanese).
"Effect of charging current density on release characteristics of tritium from
palladium".
** "Tritium was charged electrochemically into annealed Pd at various current
densities, and the release rates of tritium were measured as a function of
time by liquid scintillation counter. Microstructures of Pd were also observed
by a transmission electron microscope before and after annealing. The release
rates decreased by annealing and with increased in the charging current
density". (Direct quote of the English abstract).
I glean further, that annealing took place at a pressure of about 1E-04 Torr
and 1300-1500K for 1-1.5 hours. There is a figure showing the tritium release
rate after charging at 0.1 mA/cm**2, as a function of time; this roughly
follows the expected 1/SQRT(t) shape, and about one order of magnitude
decrease within 1 hour. The tritium surface concentration decreases only
slightly in that time. Higher current densities show similar behaviour, but at
different absolute discharge rates. Some smallish different discharge curves
are seen for annealed, and non-annealed Pd samples.                   May-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welborn V;                           Sci. Technol. Librarian (Spring 1991) 51.
"The cold fusion story: A case study illustrating the communication and
information seeking behavior of scientists".
** Biologist and librarian Victoria Welborne is concerned with the refereeing
process, and finds fault with the haste with which the cold fusion story was
made public, without proper refereeing, initially. A cold fusion chronology,
based largely on newspaper and magazine articles (but also the FPH-89 and
Jones+89 papers) is given. The extreme brevity of the FPH-89 paper and its
lack of detail are criticised, somewhat unfairly, as most electrochemists
knew some of what was left out. VW concludes that this affair has clarified
the role of the referee in scientific publication.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drexler J;                             PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 18,396, 17-May-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160964 (1992).
"Deuterium accumulator for energy conversion".
** "Method and app. are described promoting electrolyte ionization of high
purity heavy water (contg. (6)LiOD), thereby producing d and Li ions that are
accelerated by an alternating voltage. These are swept through a matrix of
suspended D absorbing and Li-absorbing particulates and collected in the
interior of said particulates. The electrodes are spaced apart and immersed
in the liq. with an alternating voltage between them. The matrix of suspended
particulates is located between the 2 electrodes. When the D and Li ions pass
through the particle matrix, a fraction of ions strike the particulates and
are absorbed into them. The D and Li ions which are absorbed in the
particulates may fuse or otherwise combine to produce heat energy". (Direct
quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drexler J;                             PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 18,397, 17-May-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160963 (1992).
"Deuterium accumulation energy conversion apparatus".
** "Method and app. are described for promoting (6)LiOD electrolyte ionization
of heavy water to produce d and lithons that are accelerated by an a.c.
voltage and swept back and forth through a d and lithon-permeable and
absorptive accumulator and collected in the interior of the accumulator. Two
elec. insulated electrodes are spaced apart and immersed in the liq. with an
a.c. voltage impressed between them. The accumulator is positioned between the
2 electrodes and forms a structure through which the ions may flow, and which
consists of a material that readily absorbs the D and the lithons that would
otherwise flow toward the instantaneous neg. voltage electrode. The
instantaneous neg. electrode is elec. insulated from the d and lithons, which
cannot pick up a free e. Thus, the d and lithons are not converted to unwanted
D atoms and gas. Deuterons and lithons, absorbed into the accumulator may fuse
or otherwise combine to produce heat energy". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drexler J;                             PCT Int. Appl. WO 91 19,294, 25-May-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160962 (1992).
"Distributed deuterium-lithium energy apparatus".
** "A method and app. are described for prodn. of thermal energy through
electrolyte ionization of D2O using a (6)LiOD electrolyte, with dissolved D
gas in the heavy water, and pumping the ionized heavy water over a bed of Pd
metal particulates, foils, or porous baffles to collect both D and (6)Li ions
to facilitate ion-ion combination. No electrodes are used to achieve the
fusion process. The container is a closed system such as a loop or helix to
permit continuous cycling of the ionized heavy water over the Pd ion collector
again and again to absorb the max. no. of ions and to reuse the kinetic energy
of the pumped water flow and the thermal energy added to the heavy water.
Porous or perforated baffles are used to contain the Pd accumulator structure
when it is in the form of particulates or loose components. Perforated baffles
made of Pd may also be used as the accumulator structure". (Direct quote from
CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gruendler W, Heckner KH, Heidrich HJ, Herbst A, Jung C, Mueller L;
Ger. (East) DD 295,939, 10-May-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160965 (1992).
"Material combination for electrochemicallly or chemically induced nuclear
fusion and method of its preparation".
** "The title material comprises use of a metal alloy, or intermetallic compd.
in contact with a Li isotope for absorption of H or its isotopes. The
combination provides improved efficiency". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miyanaga S, Yamazaki S;       Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,276,095, 27-Mar-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160967 (1992).
"Nuclear fusion using atmospheric pressure glow discharge".
** "In a gas-phase plasma reaction using an electrode coated with a material
for nuclear fusion in a reactor, nuclear fusion is done by discharging in a
He-D mixt. using a pair of D-adsorbing metal electrodes to generate
overvoltage at the electrode surface, and supplying D to the electrode or its
vicinity". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Momenthy AM;                            Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 461,690, 13-Jun-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160961 (1992).
"Cold nuclear fusion thermal generator".
** "An app. for conducting cold fusion comprises an elec. conductive anode; an
elec. conducting cathode comprised of a constituent for selectively adsorbing
H and releasing larger nuclei, and B or Li; a vessel for contg. the
electrodes; an electrolyte; means to vent gaseous reaction products; and means
to carry away the heat generated by the fusion. A method of producing heat
energy comprises the steps of immersing an anode and a cathode in an ionic aq.
soln. in an electrolytic cell; applying an elec. current across the electrodes
such that H+ ions are produced and H nuclei are adsorbed by the cathode;
fusing the adsorbed H with B in the cathode; and withdrawing heat from the
cell". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ofuku E;                      Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 02,285,283, 26-Apr-89.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160959 (1992).
"Method for nuclear fusion".
** "To bring about a nuclear fusion reaction by electrolysis of heavy water,
a H2-storing alloy comprising >=2 elements is used as the cathode. Typical
alloys include La alloys (LaNi5, LaCo5, etc), Fe alloys (FeTi, Fe(1-x)Be(x)Ti,
etc), Cr alloys (Cr(1.8)Ti), Mg alloys (Mg2Cu, Mg2Ni, etc), Cu alloys
(Cu(x)Ti(1-x)), Mm (misch metal) alloys (MmNi5, MmNi(5-x)Al(x), etc), Ti
alloys (TiCox, etc) and Ni alloys (Ni5Ca etc). An alloy with a higher
H2-storing capacity is preferably used. Solvent heavy water purity >=90% is
desirable. An electrolyte to be added to the solvent includes DCl, DNO3,
D2SO4, DClO4, LiCl, LiNO3, NaCl, NaNO3, etc. Preferred electrode potential is
2-20 V, and desirable elec. current is 10 mA/cm**2 - 1A/cm**2". (Direct quote
from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vigier JP, Rambaut M;                     Fr. Demande FR 2,661,033, 17-Apr-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116:160966 (1992).
"Method and apparatus for producing fusion energy from heavy water".
** "The title process and app. comprises a combustion chamber, a tube ending
in the chamber, means for introducing heavy water in the tube by. e.g., a
water-arc gun, ejecting simultaneously 2 clusters in opposite directions,
means for applying a pulsed elec. discharge on water to produce an
electrodynamic pressure and to accelerate the clusters to a hypervelocity and
eject them outside the tube into the combustion chamber, means for placing
fusible material on the trajectory of the accelerated clusters, and means of
recovering fusion energy". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank A;                             Exploratorium Quarterly (Winter 1991) 12.
"Fooling ourselves".
** Adam Frank, a graduate student in (presumably) one of the natural sciences,
here expands on his interpretation of how scientific cheating might come
about. In many cases, he writes, it is the researcher fooling him/herself.
Some celebrated cases are cited, such as Summerlin (who knew he was cheating),
Baltimore (who probably didn't want to know his postdoc was cheating),
Blondlot (who fooled himself), and Pons and Fleischmann, who also engaged in
wishful thinking, says Frank. He also cites Kepler, echoing other recent
reports that Kepler might have massaged some of Tycho Brahe's numbers; this is
in fact an old chestnut, and a misunderstanding. Kepler did not massage, he
corrected known errors.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /  Britz /  RE: Symmetry, fine wires etc.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Symmetry, fine wires etc.
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 13:34:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Dieter Britz writes: "If using a thickish cylinder, cap it at both ends with
>an insulating disk ..."
 
>How do you do that Dieter?  Seems to me the absorbed gas would just diffuse out
>the ends like it diffuses out of an electrode with the current turned off.  My
>experience is that it sometimes comes out in a real hurry.  The electrodes
>that seem to show heat also seem to get rid of their gas fastest.  Look at the
>Moore thesis for absorbed gas lifting pieces of metal at the surface after
>removal from electrolysis.  So I don't think there is any way to seal it.
>Best to do it by some sort of a rate limited diffusion at the ends???
 
First of all, this was just for completeness' sake, not as a real alternative.
I forgot, when enumerating the possible symmetrical cell geometries, to
mention this, third, geometry. You could, if you absolutely wanted to use it,
approximate to it. To prevent loss of deuterium out the back of the Pd cap,
you could coat the back with something impermeable to D2, like another metal
(Au) film or the like (I sound like a patent here). To let out evolved gases,
the insulating cyclinder could have a small escape vent. As I say, it's not a
"preferred embodiment" {:]
 
>Dieter Britz writes: "I have in the past advocated long fine wires, bundles of
>them."
 
We like fine wires for opposite reasons, it seems. I reckon that - if there is
such a thing as cold fusion - it is likely to be a near-surface effect, and I
would try to maximise the surface area, using fine wires. Tom, you think it is
a volume effect and you want to use fine wires in order to charge the volume
quickly. Take your pick.
 
>Dieter also suggested a fluidised bed of Pd and says I won't like the
>suggestion.  Come on, Dieter, I will try anything.  But I need someone to
>volunteer to build obscure stuff.  Must be same shape as a 100 cc centrifuge
>tube, Cole Parmer Catalog #L-06330-70.  See our Como paper for a drawing of
>the available space to put other things.
 
I didn't think you'd like a setup that would be a whole new game for you with
components that you don't have yet. This is an electrode that is still of
interest in large-scale electrolysis, and has been proposed for, e.g.,
cleaning up effluent water of heavy metals, or for electrosynthesis.
Fleischmann is one of the experts on this cell. A fluidised bed electrode
(FBE) has large surface area and minimal mass transport problems. You take an
upright cyclinder with a central (say, cathode-) rod, cap it top and bottom
with a sieve, put in particles (most often, metal coated glass beads, or even
metal particles), and pump the electrolyte through, containing the stuff to be
electrolysed, up through the bottom. At a sufficient flow rate, the bed of
particles rises and becomes fluid. Then, the particles dash about, sometimes
touching each other or the rod, picking up charges, which they give to
whatever it is that is electrolysed; in this case, the heavy water itself. The
anode is outside the cyclinder somewhere. As I say, this gives a large surface
and probably fast charging, but I suspect that the discontinuous charging (for
a given single particle), might lead to charging/ discharging surges, and thus
to a lower time-averaged loading. So you might not like this set-up. On the
other hand, Matsumoto might, as it would implement his "on-off" effect, which
he believes promotes cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /   /   Takahashi's Neutron Detectors
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Takahashi's Neutron Detectors
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 16:38:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have received a description of the neutron detection set-up used by
Takahashi as derived from his MIT presentation.  He runs his electrolysis
gear and two detectors inside a large pile of polyethlyene blocks, presumably
as shielding from outside neutron sources.  I believe the total thickness
is 20 cm, with cadmium sheet between two 10 cm layers.  There is a 3He
proportional counter (5 cm dia) and a liquid scintillator (NE213) plus
photomultiplier.  Pulses from the 3He detector are processed in a standard
manner and recorded both in a pulse-height analyzer and a multiscaler to
record rate vs. time.  For the NE213 pulse-shape discrimination is employed
to reject gammas, the method employed being that of measuring the time
between a constant-fraction discriminator to time the leading edge and
a cross-over pickoff on double-delay-line shaped pulses to measure decay
time.  A TAC-SCA combination then gates the pulse height into a multichannel
analyzer and multiscaler arrangement.  So far all I have about "results"
is that the observed rates are twice background, which really leaves this
experiment in the "Jones" catagory where the neutrons have little or nothing
to do with the heat.  Of course the key issue is what is the background and
how well is it determined.  My comments would be that the 3He detector is
subject to noise pickup and with all the moderating material around will
respond mostly to thermalized neutrons (or gammas) and the rejection scheme
for the NE213 is probably not better than 99% effective.  Much of what is
detected will thus be gammas, including the 2.23 MeV gammas from neutron
capture in all that "shielding".
 
PS for Tom Droege:  We have a spot welder of the sort your interested in.
It's made by Black and Webster, Model P10-10-2, and has a max pulse output
of 50 J.  Cost was at your upper limit, but if your interested their
address is: 281 Winter St., Waltham, MA 02254, Phone (617)890-9100.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /  /  New Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Experiment Status
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 20:14:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the new P&F experiment.  Word filters back that I am
entertaining the fusion group by posting these messages.  My life goal is to
entertain god.  If I can do that by entertaining my fellow man, then I am
content.  A few negative messages though, and I will quit.  The hope is that
having an actual experiment to examine will stimulate debate.  I also hope for
feedback as to what I am doing wrong.  Please, some of you repeat my
computations of loading, etc., as I am working mostly alone and am vulnerable
to making an awful chemical mistake.  I try to reply to and acknowledge
everyone who makes suggestions.  Sometimes your comment gets lost in the stack
of e-mail.  But comments are both appreciated and remembered and affect future
plans.
 
Cathode Electrode: 0.0098 cc, 0.78 sq cm, 5 cm long wire 0.5 mm dia.
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD , white precipitate in cell bottom
Charging Profile: Ramp from 40 ma per sq cm to 400 ma per cq cm over 1/2 hour
Duration: 24 hours reverse, 20 hours ramp
Initial D/Pd ratio: Close to 0.7, see below
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 2 to high of 2.6 (from memory)
Temperature: 15 C (Takahashi says loading should be better at lower temp?)
 
We have tried to listen to everyone.
 
John Farrell suggested that we anodize the cathode.  This cathode was run at
approximately 200 ma per sq cm for 24 hours before starting the run.  The
cathode turned the color of bronzed baby shoes. (Does anyone remember when
they were the rage?).  For electronic types, the color of magnet wire.
 
We have learned more about catalysts.  The anodizing run was made using the
carbon fiber teflon catalyst provided by Ed Storms.  In the middle of the
night, it quit working, and blew out the syringe which serves as an emergency
release.  This has never happened with our good old "Engelhard Palladium
Catalyst D" which also does not display the "saw tooth" gas conversion that
seems to happen with the Pt based catalysts.  I will try to find out more
about this stuff which is used at Fermilab to remove Oxygen from liquid Argon.
The problem I have with it is that it is on a base that seems to dissolve when
it gets hot and wet, something that the catalyst has to put up with.  It is
all I can do to resist going to the auto parts store and buying a Ford
catalytic converter which is supposed to be made with Palladium.
 
Tod Green suggested it would be better to back fill the cell with Deuterium
and to measure the loss of gas caused by release of Oxygen when the Pd
absorbes D.  This proved to be easier than I thought it would be.  I just
built a two walled cell out of a large and small test tube with a couple of
corks and platinum electrodes.  Cutting a hole in the bottom of the inner
test tube with a Dremmel tool with a carbide bit allows the electrolyte to
communicate.  I just stand there with a syringe and keep the electrolyte
level in the inner and outer tube the same.  Soon I have enough gas and can
transfer it with the syringe to the cell gas system.  To those that do not
have an assortment of 1/8" tubing, valves and fittings; I recommend a hip
replacement operation.  If you are alert and grab what they are about to
throw in the trash you will come away with a wonderful assortment of fittings
and valves.  I mention this detail to encourage those of you who might think
it is hard to do some of these things.
 
We loaded by running reversed at 200 ma per sq cm, then switched to the 40
to 400 ma saw tooth.  During the first five minutes we lost 8 cc of gas, then
during the next cycle this peaked at 8.5 cc.  I compute that this means a D/Pd
ratio of about 0.68.  Some one tell me if I am computing this right.  On each
saw tooth, the cathode tends to take in gas until the current density reaches
120 ma per sq cm.  Gas is then lost until near the end of the ramp where at
400 ma per sq cm. gas is again gained, but usually not to the level achieved
at the lower current.  So this argues for charging at low current, then
switching to high current after loading as high as possible, as all the
electrochemists seem to do.  This experiment was planned to follow Akito
Takahashi's charging profile.  There has appeared to be a small increase over
the last 20 hours, but this could be due to a loss of Deuterium out of the
system.  How fast will I loose D2 gas from about 2 meters of mostly PVC, 1/32"
wall tubing?
 
We did not succeed in getting a meaningful energy measurement as hoped when
moving from forward to reverse operation as the transient was too large.  We
would have done better by going from a few ma reverse to a few ma forward, but
we wanted to try the Takahashi loading.
 
We note that the apparent loading is less for this run than the last one.  One
difference is that the last electrode was polished.  Because the electrode
loaded so quickly, we cannot be sure that we started from zero.  It is easy
while getting things started to briefly run the electrode as a cathode even
though we tried not to.  It is not certain that any length of anodic operation
will remove all the absorbed gas.
 
Dieter Britz suggested sealing the ends of the wire from the exectrolyte.  I
have done that.  The ends are pushed into teflon plugs and sealed with epoxy.
If the pressure is 10E27 or even only 1000 atmospheres, I don't think that the
seal will do anything.  My expectation is that the deuterium will diffuse into
the wire where there is electrolytic pressure, then diffuse out again at the
ends where there is none.  My hope is for a rate limit in the long wire so
that there will be a higher loading at the middle.  So possibly, there is
always an underestimate of local loading.
 
We have now calibrated the calorimeter so that we can move around in
temperature while maintaining accuracy of 20 mw or about 200 joules.  We have
a (not very good) model built into the integrated energy computation that
takes into consideration heat leak into the environment and specific heat of
the calorimeter innards.  We can move between 6 C and 30 C.  The plan is to
try some temperature shocks after we give up on long charging times.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Pd, Pt source
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd, Pt source
Date: 27 Apr 92 14:03:54 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

This is a correction to previous post about a source of Pd, Pt and etc.
wires.
 
Seems over the two year period prices have changed and not for the
better.
 
The current prices for the wires are:
Au - $119.00 for 10 feet, diam. 0.008"
Pd - $34.20  for 10 feet, diam. 0.008"
Pt - $124.00 for 10 feet, diam. 0.008"
Ag - $33.00  for 50 feet, diam. 0.008"
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 / Paul Koloc /  Lithium-6         Was: Re: Pd, Ag, Pt, Au wire source
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lithium-6         Was: Re: Pd, Ag, Pt, Au wire source
Date: 27 Apr 92 04:28:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Apr26.180838.6330@tc.cornell.edu> alexo@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU
 (Alex Orentshyn) writes:
>
>	I have discovered a source for Pd, Pt, etc... wires which can be
>obtained in small quantities without having to shell out $500 + price/weight.
>Polysciences, Inc. sells the following wires and say that they can also do
>custom alloys.
>
>All wires are 0.008" diameter, and are garanteed to be 99.99% pure
>Pd $27.05 for 10 feet
 
Pd has been hanging around middle 80's (dollars US) per Troy oz. COMEX
for some time (half the price after the F&P initial announcement).
 
My question has to do with price and availability of another purified
metal isotope salt, namely,  Lithium-6 hydroxide.   By mole or gram??
 
Also:  Anyone running with this as opposed to mother earth lithium-6/7
mix?
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Takahasi summary
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahasi summary
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 17:31:30 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

Dieter has suggested that I post a summary of the talk given by Takahashi at
MIT.  I am not an unbiased reporter and as such would not be the best one to do
 the summary.
Why not one of the other of the 60 or so people who attended the talk?
Further, I am still annoyed at Dieter for deciding that Fusion Facts is not
a suitable journal to abstract.  I hope that his decision does not cost our
scientific community more lives because the warning that I printed in that
journal apparently was not heeded by McKubrie's group.
It is NOT APPROPRIATE for me to simply "re-publish" my article on this BB.
The warning: Great care must be taken because of the possibility of too many
simultaneous nuclear reactions.  Small samples are very small indeed. [This is
a paraphrase of the original.]  Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 21:27:58 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <646143EFDCBF20669C@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
 
> My realisation, when making this point before, was that the figures of 0.8 eV
>and a fugacity of 1E27 are talking about the same thing, and this gives some
>perspective to the compression idea. Such a fugacity (or pressure) is as
>effective as a deuteron with an energy of 0.8 eV; and we know that this is
>useless for fusion, from beam/target work.
 
This is not quite correct.  It is probably true that an (actual)
pressure of a few million atmospheres or an energy per deuterium of a
few hundred electron volts is adequate to cause acceptible fusion rates
in a bulk deuterium sample.  This is very much less than the amount needed to
see fusion rates in colliding beams.  The reason, of course is that you get
many more collisions per unit time for many more atoms in a condensed
system than you get for a single collision of a two beams.
 
In general, however, I agree the fugacity (essentially the pressure the
particles would have if they did not interact at all) is irrelevant,
what matters is the chemical potential (energy) or actual pressure.
This is almost surely in excess of the amounts possibly by
electrochemistry.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Symmetrical cells
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Symmetrical cells
Date: 27 Apr 92 17:44:38 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <6692D89B0CDF203D06@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Just for completeness' sake, and to satisfy my pedantic mind, there is a third
>cell arrangement that gives symmetry and an even current distribution, which
>I forgot to mention before: an insulating cylinder, capped at one end with the
>cathode, at the other with the anode. This is not likely to be of practical
>interest to you, though, Tom; I just mention it.
>Parallel plates in an open electrolyte (i.e. not framed by insulating walls)
>will give you higher current densities at the edges, and no number of extra
>electrodes arranged around the plates will do much good.
>That's if any of this is important at all - which I'm not convinced of. Others
>have done the opposite, in a quest for the magic ingredient: nonequilibrium
>conditions.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
No. Dieter is wrong.  There is no way that pincushion distortion of a cylinder
will produce a large volume of unstrained material.  In a single sided
electrode with a stiff back there is a front surface in tension and a rear
(supported) surface in compression after the lattice expansion by hydrization.
Thus there is a thin plane of low strain material in the center of the bent
sample.  As far as the high fields at the edges they are not important in
the integral that probably occurs. In the case of transverse electroreflectance
we (Forman, Aspnes and Cardona: J. Physics and Chemistry of Solids (1970))
found that the bulk of the response was from the nearly uniform central
region of the INSULATING sample. This is different but not that different.
Dick Forman.
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 /  /  Cathode Damage
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cathode Damage
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 18:52:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In looking over some of my old cathodes, I find them bent, split, shattered,
and generally abused.  My general impression is that the ones that possibly
worked are also the least damaged.  Other (unsuccessful) experimenters tell me
of similar electrode damage.
 
My assumption about this field is that because of patent considerations,
successful experimenters try to conceal the reason for success in order to buy
more time to discover fundamental principals unencumbered by competition.
 
Some of you out there may correct me, but aside from Storms gas absorption
experiments, I remember very little about macro damage to electrodes.  My
assumption is that the missing information is the important information.  So
how about a table from P&F (or anyone else) that compares "successful" and
damaged electrodes.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 /  /  Stuffing wires
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stuffing wires
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 20:19:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to Dieter Britz, my question was not about the insulating cylinder
with end caps, but rather on capping the ends of a cylindrical cathode.  But
the problem is the same.
 
When I look at the pictures in the Moore thesis showing metal (nickel) being
torn apart before your eyes by trapped hydrogen after electrolysis was turned
off, I do not understand how a plated non-permeable cover would help, even if
it is patented.  Seems to me that the interface between a gold plate and the
palladium would be weaker than the undisturbed palladium metal.  The hydrogen
(deuterium) would just split the plating off.
 
So I think of a wire like a long Japanese subway, with stuffers at all
stations.  While a few passengers escape out the ends of the tube, by stuffing
fast enough at the stations we can keep the train packing high.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Takahashi's Neutron Detectors
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi's Neutron Detectors
Date: 27 Apr 92 19:21:40 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Black & WEbster have gone out of business.
Modern Machinery has bought them out, their telephone is
(513)253-4576
Is P10-10-2 good enough to weld metals like Pd, Pt, I thought
they are too conductive for this low-power welder?
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: 27 Apr 92 21:51:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Apr27.212758.7708@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
 
> This is not quite correct.  It is probably true that an (actual)
> pressure of a few million atmospheres or an energy per deuterium of a
> few hundred electron volts is adequate to cause acceptible fusion
> rates in a bulk deuterium sample.  This is very much less than the
> amount needed to see fusion rates in colliding beams.  The reason, of
> course is that you get many more collisions per unit time for many
> more atoms in a condensed system than you get for a single collision
> of a two beams.
 
The "few million atmospheres" is dubious.  1 megabar is about 10^11
J/m^3, or about .6 eV/cubic angstrom.  This is too little energy to
push deuterons very close together.  Higher collisions rates don't
make up for the enormously small barrier penetration rate.  Koonin and
??'s calculations showed that you need to push deuterons about 5 times
closer together to get Jones-level fusion, and ~ 10 times closer to
get P&F level output.
 
As a reality check, consider that the metallic hydrogen core of
Jupiter is at 36 megabar, and that HD fusion should be much faster
than DD fusion, due to the lower barrier.  At tens of times the
pressure at which fusion would supposedly be observable, this reaction
would go very quickly (as the rate goes up exponentially as the
separation decreases).  Yet Jovian hydrogen is ~30 ppmv deuterium.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.27 / Sarah Dwiggins /  Aerodynamic assistance
     
Originally-From: sdwiggin@gluttony.reed.edu (Sarah Lynne Dwiggins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aerodynamic assistance
Date: 27 Apr 92 22:29:42 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

 
To whoever is interested in an exciting project...
 
	  I'm from Reed College up in Portland, OR.  I am part of a group
called the Reed Solar Energy Project, and we are busily working on
constructing a (functioning!) solar car for Sunrayce '93--a solar car race
among 36 colleges & Universities nation-wide, sponsered by the DOE.
	We are in need of someone with any amount of aerodynamic expertise
who is willing to donate or charge us a "student" rate for a few hours of
his/her time to look at our body designs and give us some suggestions,
etc. before we plow ahead unwittingly with aerodynamic simulation
programs.
       Do you know anyone who would be willing to work with us. If not,
could you put me in touch with anyone who might know how to help us with
our situation?  Our whole team would appreciate any assistance you can
lend.
 
Thankyou,
Sarah Dwiggins
sdwiggin@reed.edu
Reed Solar Energy Project
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensdwiggin cudfnSarah cudlnDwiggins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 21:10:47 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr27.215125.24161@cs.rochester.edu>
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>> This is not quite correct.  It is probably true that an (actual)
>> pressure of a few million atmospheres or an energy per deuterium of a
>> few hundred electron volts is adequate to cause acceptible fusion
>> rates in a bulk deuterium sample.  This is very much less than the
>> amount needed to see fusion rates in colliding beams.  The reason, of
>> course is that you get many more collisions per unit time for many
>> more atoms in a condensed system than you get for a single collision
>> of a two beams.
>
>The "few million atmospheres" is dubious.  1 megabar is about 10^11
>J/m^3, or about .6 eV/cubic angstrom.  This is too little energy to
>push deuterons very close together.  Higher collisions rates don't
>make up for the enormously small barrier penetration rate.  Koonin and
>??'s calculations showed that you need to push deuterons about 5 times
>closer together to get Jones-level fusion, and ~ 10 times closer to
>get P&F level output.
>
>As a reality check, consider that the metallic hydrogen core of
>Jupiter is at 36 megabar, and that HD fusion should be much faster
>than DD fusion, due to the lower barrier.  At tens of times the
>pressure at which fusion would supposedly be observable, this reaction
>would go very quickly (as the rate goes up exponentially as the
>separation decreases).  Yet Jovian hydrogen is ~30 ppmv deuterium.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
I'm confused! Does this imply that temperature and pressure are NOT the
way to get fusion?  If so, what does this do to the STANDARD MODEL for the
sun, or is it the universe.  Since the greatest proponent of the S. M.
will talk on solar neutrinos at Goddard on 5 May, I would love to have
extensive comments on my question.  Also what has been done to see if the
S.M. represents what I call "the incremental engineering" approach to the
answer of the qustion: Where does the Sun get its energy?  We started with
the Bethe and (pre-von)Weitzaker model called the Carbon cycle.  We have,
I believe incrementally moved to the S.M.  In terminology I have used before:
Is it possible that the S.M. represents a local solution not THE global
solution?  And what does that mean for the rest mass of the neutrino, and
neutrino oscillations and all those other new wonderful forms of new physics?
I wouldn't want to ask someone from the Institute for Advanced Studies a
retarded question.  Help me before I attend his talk, please.
Dick Forman.  (Good thing he never reads this stuff)
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Cathode Damage
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cathode Damage
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 21:22:23 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920428131315.206006a3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>In looking over some of my old cathodes, I find them bent, split, shattered,
>and generally abused.  My general impression is that the ones that possibly
>worked are also the least damaged.  Other (unsuccessful) experimenters tell me
>of similar electrode damage.
>_________________________________________________ patent considerations____
>successful experimenters ______ conceal the reason for success _______________
_________________________________________________________________________  So
>how about a table from P&F (or anyone else) that compares "successful" and
>damaged electrodes.
>
>Tom Droege
>
Once more Tom has hit the nail on the head.  I wish that there was a
COMPETENT patent attorney active on this BB.  He would tell those
secretive idiots, whoever they may be, that in the US it is the first to invent
.  Yes, there is a one year deadline on filing after publishing, but first you
have to be able to write an enabling disclosure.  It is very unlikely that any
small group will ever have enough info. to write an enabling disclosure that
will produce an enforcable patent.  Let's get the information out there.  I can
understand waiting until something is submitted for peer-reviewed journal
publication, no one want to be scooped.  But if the royalties from a US
patent aren't enough, what is?  Results fuel more results and maybe together
we'll find the way to more than the small local maximum that P&F discovered and
Takahashi incrementally optimized.  Tom D. has more interesting results
BECAUSE he does more than incremental engineering.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenM21742 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 / Phil Fraering /  Paging Paul Koloc,...
     
Originally-From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Paging Paul Koloc,...
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 23:31:22 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

I just tried to e-mail you, using pmk@prometheus.uucp and
many variations, and the message bounced repeatedly. Do you
have a stable address?
 
Also: how is Plasmak coming along (the question in my original
message)?
 
Phil
 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl05.cacs.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"...Norwegian Independence Day, when the Norwegians rose up, and threw
off the yoke of Danish oppression." - Garrison Keillor
 
--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl05.cacs.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"...Norwegian Independence Day, when the Norwegians rose up, and threw
off the yoke of Danish oppression." - Garrison Keillor
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpgf cudfnPhil cudlnFraering cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Cathode Damage
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cathode Damage
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 22:26:12 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <920428131315.206006a3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   Some of you out there may correct me, but aside from Storms gas
   absorption experiments, I remember very little about macro damage
   to electrodes.  My assumption is that the missing information is
   the important information.  So how about a table from P&F (or
   anyone else) that compares "successful" and damaged electrodes.
 
   Way back when the field was new there was lots of discussion about
electrode preparation, casting vs. annealing, outgassing, etc.  I
remember wondering then if anyone was using signle crystal palladium
to minimize distortion.  I decided that growing a palladium crystal
and zone refining it would make for an interesting experiment but was
way outside my area of expertise, and also probably outside the scope
of table-top experiments.  I've seen table top furnaces which can
operate at the melting point of palladium, but building powered
apparatus to work inside one?
 
   Maybe there is someone on the list who could grow such a crystal
for you.  Such an electrode should certainly be able to handle
expansion stress better.
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: 28 Apr 92 22:23:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <167D7F19E.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>>The "few million atmospheres" is dubious.  1 megabar is about 10^11
>>J/m^3, or about .6 eV/cubic angstrom.  This is too little energy to
>>push deuterons very close together.  Higher collisions rates don't
>>make up for the enormously small barrier penetration rate.  Koonin and
>>??'s calculations showed that you need to push deuterons about 5 times
>>closer together to get Jones-level fusion, and ~ 10 times closer to
>>get P&F level output.
 
 
>I'm confused! Does this imply that temperature and pressure are NOT the
>way to get fusion?
 
 
No, it just implies that a pressure of a few megabars is insufficient.
Also, note that fusion occurs in the sun mainly because it's much
*hotter* not because of the higher pressure.  Pycnonuclear fusion
may occur on the surface of neutron stars, but most places fusion
is thermonuclear.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.28 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Baseless Patent applications.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Baseless Patent applications.
Date: 28 Apr 92 23:07:03 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Looking at the latest abstracts of patent applications I cannot
suppress a feeling that people are simply randomly applying for
anything and everything that could possibly be used in a sucess-
full fusion-cell so that later on even if their cells produced
0 joules they can claim that someone somehow infringed on some-
thing they had done. I am really curious just how incremental a
piece of R&D can be and still count as original work?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Stuffing wires
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stuffing wires
Date: 29 Apr 92 00:59:22 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <920428141307.206006a3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>In response to Dieter Britz, my question was not about the insulating cylinder
>with end caps, but rather on capping the ends of a cylindrical cathode.  But
>the problem is the same.
>
>When I look at the pictures in the Moore thesis showing metal (nickel) being
>torn apart before your eyes by trapped hydrogen after electrolysis was turned
>off, I do not understand how a plated non-permeable cover would help, even if
>it is patented.  Seems to me that the interface between a gold plate and the
>palladium would be weaker than the undisturbed palladium metal.  The hydrogen
>(deuterium) would just split the plating off.
>
>So I think of a wire like a long Japanese subway, with stuffers at all
>stations.  While a few passengers escape out the ends of the tube, by stuffing
>fast enough at the stations we can keep the train packing high.
>
>Tom Droege
>
Sorry, if this is a copy I did not see the original.
 
Tom, you are assuming that H(D) will either preferentially diffuse
thru the ends or at least will have the same rate of diffusion in
all directions (including out of the ends). This assumption, I think,
is invalid. If the ends are capped by a metal which does not absorb
H, the diffusion out of the electrode will be only radial. Also, does
the paper you mention (with Nickel) talk about potential macro-defects
in the nickel which were simply augmented by H out-gassing or was the
lattice really ripped apart?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / Alex Orenshteyn /  cmsg cancel <1992Apr29.002333.176851@cs.cmu.edu>
     
Originally-From: alexo@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1992Apr29.002333.176851@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 01:03:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

<1992Apr29.002333.176851@cs.cmu.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenalexo cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / Richard Mathews /  Re: Status (end) of the current experiment.
     
Originally-From: richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status (end) of the current experiment.
Date: 29 Apr 92 00:02:29 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>My general rule is it throw out all experiments that are not "near perfect".
>So this one goes in the garbage can even though some of the data looks
>interesting.
 
Be careful about what you throw out.  I am reminded of the case of someone
throwing out all results within one standard deviation of the expected value
and then announcing that the average was 1.5 standard deviations away from
the prediction.  I am certainly not accusing you of doing this.  I just
want to remind everyone of the importance of keeping "imperfect" results
when "imperfect" means that you didn't get the result you wanted.
 
Richard M. Mathews			G eorge
Internet:   richard@locus.com		 D epression
UUCP:	    ...!uunet!lcc!richard	  B ush casts a
MIL/BITNET: richard%lcc@UUNET.UU.NET	   G loom on us all
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMathews cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Cathode Damage
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cathode Damage
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 04:17:57 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920428131315.206006a3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
> In looking over some of my old cathodes, I find them bent, split, shattered,
> and generally abused.  My general impression is that the ones that possibly
> worked are also the least damaged.  Other (unsuccessful) experimenters tell me
> of similar electrode damage.
 
Most of the cathodes I've looked at didn't seem to have any large scale cracks
even after prolonged electrolysis. Using SEM though,  a large number of micro-
cracks were visible on the  surface. Presumably the strain produced during
loading causes these. One interesting thing is that the cathodes are black
by the time they are pulled out from the cells. Most people seem to see this
and it is probably due to the deposition of impurities on to the cathode
surface. A few people (eg. Will and McKubre) emphasise keeping the system very
clean and, in these cases, the electrodes  still have their metallic lustre
at the end of the experiments.
>
> My assumption about this field is that because of patent considerations,
> successful experimenters try to conceal the reason for success in order to buy
> more time to discover fundamental principals unencumbered by competition.
>
> Some of you out there may correct me, but aside from Storms gas absorption
> experiments, I remember very little about macro damage to electrodes.  My
> assumption is that the missing information is the important information.  So
> how about a table from P&F (or anyone else) that compares "successful" and
> damaged electrodes.
>
> Tom Droege
 
Well, F&P and some others seem to be pushing the line that cracking is a bad
thing. F&P claim that they have solved the reproducibility problem by using
Pd/Ag and Pd/Ce alloys in place of Pd. It is fairly well known that adding Ag
to Pd greatly enhances dimensional stability so maybe there is some sense to
this. Johnson Matthey will manufacture these alloys but the price is rather
high. Aim for 10-15% Ce or Pd.
 
---
 
Todd Green
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentiq cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 04:52:20 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
>In article <167D7F19E.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>>>The "few million atmospheres" is dubious.  1 megabar is about 10^11
>>>J/m^3, or about .6 eV/cubic angstrom.  This is too little energy to
>>>push deuterons very close together.  Higher collisions rates don't
>>>make up for the enormously small barrier penetration rate.  Koonin and
>>>??'s calculations showed that you need to push deuterons about 5 times
>>>closer together to get Jones-level fusion, and ~ 10 times closer to
>>>get P&F level output.
 
 
>>I'm confused! Does this imply that temperature and pressure are NOT the
>>way to get fusion?
 
 
>No, it just implies that a pressure of a few megabars is insufficient.
>Also, note that fusion occurs in the sun mainly because it's much
>*hotter* not because of the higher pressure.  Pycnonuclear fusion
>may occur on the surface of neutron stars, but most places fusion
>is thermonuclear.
 
  Interesting, I would think that Jupiter's core would be extremely hot.
Obviously a planet of that size has pulled in quite a bit of rocky
material, including a substantial portion of radioactive material.
Just as the core of the earth is heated by radioactive decay so should
Jupiter's core.  However, a gas planet should have a large hydrogen
shell over that hot core and at 10's of megabars/cm^3.  If those
conditions don't initiate a fair amount of warm fusion, what would?
 
  Your on the money with repsect to neutron stars though.  The huge
gavitational pressures (the same pressures which extinguished the
thermonuclear burning of the star) are awsome.  I was involed in a
research project about 2 years ago that was trying to observe the gradual
slowing of pulsar periodicity, and so had to brush up my fact base on
these astrophysical objects.  The yonger they are the dirty they are.
This should not be a suprise.  After the core collapses in a
type I super-nova and the outer shell is blown off into a planetary
nebula, there is alot of residual fusable material (it's not just hydrogen
at this stage by the way) that collects on the surface and is imbeded in
the remaing core. It's believed the nucleosynthisis continues very slowly
for quite a long period after collaplse.  Pycnofusion is thought to
be one of the process evolved.  But it's not the only one.  Visable
light pulsars indicate a residual thermonuclear process is still on
going at least to some extent with some of these object.
 
Have fun,
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:
cuddy29 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  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: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:13:55 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  morrison@vxpri /  For Cold Fusion net - temperature, pressure etc.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For Cold Fusion net - temperature, pressure etc.
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:50:07 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

Temperature, Pressure, High D Loading and the Sun.
 
   Dick Forman asked some questions about these subjects and "would love
to have extensive comments".
Let's go back to fundamentals. Fusion can take place when a deuterium ion can
penetrate the potential barrier of another deuteron. For normal gaseous
deuterium, D2, the separation of the D nuclei is 0.74 Angstroms and for liquid
deuterium it is also 0.74 A. This separation is so great that the probability of
fusion occuring is vanishingly small - Steve Koonin has calculated the
generally accepted value of 10**-64 fusions per deuterium pair per second!
One way to obtain fusion is to reduce this distance of 0.74 A. This is done
in muon-catalysed fusion (where Steve Jones made his reputation) where a muon
which is some 200 times heavier than an electron, replaces it and pulls the
two deuterium nuclei together to a distance of about 0.035 A and fusion can
then occur. The basic idea of Drs, Fleischmann, Pons and Jones was that as
some metals could contain large amounts of deuterium, perhaps by loading
such metals the deuterium nuclei would be so close that fusion could occur.
Fine idea but unfortunately the numbers do not work out. In a metal such as
Palladium, the nuclei are actually further apart than in the gaseous or
liquid state. These questions have been very extensively studied and for example
in palladium with loadings, D/Pd of up to 0.8, the orthohedral states are
occupied and the separation is 2.85 A while if the loading is increased further
the tetrahedral states are occupied by deuterons and the separation is reduced
but only to 1.74 A - again much too far for fusion to take place.
     Electrolysis can give loadings of 0.8 +/- 0.1 fairly easily with palladium
but no clear evidence has been shown for values much above 1.0.
     Another way to load is by gas pressure. Steve Jones has obtained most
of his results with low gas pressures of a few atmospheres giving loadings
of about 0.3. One of the highest well-measured loading was obtained by a
Harvard group with a very high pressure of 105 000 bar who measured
D/Pd = 1.34 +/- 0.1. They measured no neutrons nor heat production and gave
very low upper limits, confirming that the separation is still much too great.
In other words no pressure effects at "cold" temperatures will reduce the
separation to values that will give reasonable fusion rates.
    The Sun is quite different. A huge cloud of gas containing hydrogen
isotopes, helium and heavier elements (essentially from earlier supernovae
explosions) contracted under gravity and about 4.5 billion years ago this
protostar became a star as the temperature and density became high enough.
At present the centre of the Sun has a temperature of 15 million degrees
and a density of about 150 g/cm3. The cross section for two hydrogen nuclei
to fuse to give deuterium is very small which why the Sun has burned for so
long and will continue to burn for 5 billion years. The reason fusion takes
place is because the temperature is so high that the hydrogen nuclei(protons)
are moving fast enough to have a probability of getting close to one another
to fuse.
    An Evolutionary Model of the Sun following its behaviour from 4.5 billion
years ago until today has been developed, first by Schwarzchild et al.
in 1957. There is an unfortunate tendancy to call this a Standard
Solar Model, SSM. In fact there are a series of calculations by many groups
who continually modify what they do so that the SSM is not standard in the
way there is a Standard Model of particle physics which is basically fixed.
One of the proponents of the SSM is John Bahcall who gives unbelievably
small errors and this helps him to claim that the flux of neutrinos
mesured is much less than he calculates - this has become the Conventional
Wisdom for the last 15 years. Have worked on neutrino physics for some time so
recently have checked on the errors and assumptions of the SSM and of the
experiments. In the following message give a summary of the Evolutionary Model
and of experiments - cannot show the plots here but they are printed in the
March 1992 edition of the magazine, Particle World. This article was finished
in December 1991 and some changes have since taken place, most of which
were presented at the IAU conference "Inside the Stars" held earlier this month.
Bahcall et al. have now incorporated the lower iron value and a lower
7Be(p,gamma) value and have added a diffusion calculation but have only
considered simple diffusion which INCREASES the neutrino flux but do not
include the turbulent diffusion which DECREASES the flux (by a larger amount
according to first calculations). The Saclay group, Turck-Chieze et al.,
made several changes and obtain 5.1 SNU for chlorine but this should be
increased to 6.1 SNU to take into account the new opacities from Livermore.
Bahacall et al. find 7.4 SNU without diffusion.
     Now one awaits within the next few months, the results from the
Gallex experiment who have more data than the SAGE experiment. If Gallex
report about 100 SNU then this would confirm the suspicion that Sage
have a chemistry problem and would indicate that there was no real
Solar Neutrino problem. But as with Cold Fusion, there will probably
be True Believers who continue to Believe.
                                                Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
PS Have just received a copyy of John Huizenga's book "COLD FUSION - the
Scientific Fiasco of the Century". It is a very well and carefully written
book in which the history is given and the scientific arguments are clearly
made. Everyone seriously interested in the subject of Cold Fusion should read
it and consider the arguments. It is published by University of Rochester
Press and can be obtained from Box 41026, Rochester NY and in Europe from
PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, United Kingdom.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  morrison@vxpri /  For Cold Fusion net - Solar Models.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For Cold Fusion net - Solar Models.
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 03:10:59 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

     REVIEW OF SOLAR MODELS AND SOLAR NEUTRINO EXPERIMENTS.
 
                      Douglas R. O. Morrison
                  CERN,  Geneva 23,  Switzerland.
 
ABSTRACT
         The Conventional Wisdom is that the measured flux of neutrinos from
the Sun is significantly less than that calculated from the Standard Solar
Model, SSM and that New Physics is required. Furthermore it has been suggested
that the neutrino flux varies with the inverse of the sunspot activity. The SSM
follows the evolution of the Sun from its formation 4.6 billion years ago, from
a protostar, to the present. The model touches many aspects of physics and
requires many assumptions, but despite the few constraints, it is robust.
However the input data needs improvements and the errors are too low.
Results from the Kamiokande, Chlorine and Gallium experiments, which are in
apparent disagreement, are reviewed and found to be not inconsistent. Studies of
vibrations of the Sun, helioseismology, gives new information. It is concluded
that, at present, the theory and the various experiments are not in significant
disagreement and that there is no need for New Physics.
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION - CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
                       For the last 15 years it has been the conventional wisdom
that there is a serious solar neutrino problem - the experimentally observed
flux was much less than that predicted by the theoretical Standard Solar
Model, SSM(1).
   Over the last 20 years Davis et al.(2) have measured the production of
37Argon from 37Chlorine in 615 tons of perchloroethylene by the reaction
                  nu  +  37Cl  --->  e-  +  37A                      (1)
and have found an average flux of solar neutrinos of 2.1 SNU to be compared with
the theoretical prediction(1) from the SSM of 7.9 SNU where SNU stands for
Solar Neutrino Unit = E-36 s-1 (it is a product of the neutrino flux and
the theoretical cross section).
    Over the last three years the Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector has
measured solar neutrinos and found(3) that the ratio;
        Experiment/SSM theory  =  0.46                                (2)
    Both the above detectors only measure higher energy neutrinos, mainly
from the decay of Boron-8 but new detectors employing Gallium with the reaction
                  nu  +  71Ga  --->   e-  +  71Ge                     (3)
can detect most neutrinos including those from the basic pp reaction. The
Soviet-American Gallium Experiment, SAGE have presented results(4) giving a
best fit of 20 SNU, a 68% upper limit of 47 SNU and a 90% upper limit of 72 SNU
to be compared with the theoretical SSM value of 132 SNU.
     It looks like a major disagreement between three experiments and theory!
However it is necessary to consider errors before making a judgement.
    If a disagreement is one or two sigma (standard deviations) then that is
considered not significant. If there is a three standard deviation effect then
that is generally considered adequate for confirming an expected physical
result ( a famous theorist once did an experiment - he took all the three
standard deviation results he could find and then checked that after some years
only half of them still stood!).
    It has become a convention among many particle physicists that to prove
new and unexpected physics, one needs five standard deviations.
    So the question is - what are the combined errors on the SSM and on the
experiments?
   Take the case of the Kamiokande experiment which is a cleaner experiment than
the two radiochemical extraction experiments since there is an important check
on the events - the direction is known and only the excess of events that are
pointing towards the sun are taken. The ratio (eqn. 2), is;
         Experiment/SSM Theory  =  0.46  +/-  0.05  +/- 0.06           (4)
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. Combining these;
         Experiment/SSM theory  =  0.46  +/- 0.08                      (5).
But this is only the error from the experiment - if the error on the theory
was zero then the difference between theory and experiment would be;
      1.00 - (0.46 +/- 0.08)   =   0.54 +/- 0.08                       (6)
and would be considered significant. In the past the SSM values have been
taken from Bahcall et al. (1) with an 11% error so that the difference would
then be;
  (1.00 +/- 0.11)  -  (0.46 +/- 0.08)  =  0.54 +/- 0.14                 (7)
But there are many SSM model calculations and the other outstanding one
is by Turck-Chieze et al.(5) who predict for the Chlorine experiment 5.8 SNU
with a 22% error which would give for Kamiokande
  (1.00 +/- 0.22)  -  (0.70 +/- 0.12)  =  0.30 +/- 0.25                 (8)
which is just over one standard deviation and not significant. Thus whether or
not there is a significant disagreement depends on which SSM model is chosen.
Hence we must consider effects with errors of the order of 10%. Several
effects with 10% or more errors will be treated below.
    Earlier versions of this work were presented at the 1990 Singapore
Conference (6) and at the 1991 Lepton-Photon Symposium and Europhysics
Conference on High Energy Physics(7).
 
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVOLUTIONARY STANDARD SOLAR MODEL
                                                         For the purpose of
calculating neutrino fluxes, the most useful model is an evolutionary one.
An initial composition of the sun is assumed at its moment of becoming a star,
that is 4.6 billion years ago. It is divided up into a large number of cells
and the evolution of each cell is followed taking into account all the boundary
conditions (hydrostatic equilibrium, energy transport, etc.) ie there are a
series of bins of time as well as of space. The model is required to fit
"all known data" namely the present day  Luminosity L0, Mass M0, Radius R0,
surface composition and age.
   The sun is treated in a first approximation, as consisting of three elements,
called X, Y, and Z where X is the hydrogen fraction (about 70 1/2%), Y is the
fraction of helium (27 1/2%) and Z is the sum of all the other elements from
Lithium to Uranium (about 2%) - Z is also called the "metallicity" or the
"heavy elements".
    Fortunately our sun is a main sequence star which is relatively quietly
burning mainly hydrogen, so many simplifying assumptions can be made such as
spherical symmetry. The five main cycles of reactions are illustrated in fig.1.
The basic problem is how does the heat produced by nuclear reactions
near the centre of the sun get transferred through the sun to the
outer shell. It is assumed that as illustrated in fig. 2, the sun can be
divided into three zone;
CORE - where the nuclear energy is produced by fusion etc. It extends to 0.3 R0.
RADIATION ZONE - where heat is transferred by photons. Extends from 0.3 to 0.7R0
CONVECTION ZONE - where there is convection which is assumed to be the only
                  method of heat transfer. It extends from 0.7 to 1.0 R0.
   It is assumed that the heat is transferred in the Core and Radiation zones by
radiation and this is controlled by a single parameter, the opacity. The opacity
is a complex quantity - it is a function of the temperature and depends
on the abundances of the elements at each radius.
   In the Convection zone it is assumed that the heat transfer can be described
by a single mixing parameter.
   The temperature at the present time is 15 million Kelvin at the centre, 8 at
the Core/Radiation interface and 2 million K at the Radiation/Convection
interface (and about 0.006 million K at the surface).
 
3. PROBLEMS OF THE SSM.
                        Evolutionary models are very complex and involve a
surprisingly wide range of physics topics and necessitate input from many
experiments. Here the most critical issues are evoked.
 
      3.1 OPACITY, ABUNDANCE
    The abundance of most elements is measured at or near the sun's surface.
It is assumed that these are the same as the primordial composition of the
protostar - with corrections to the lighter elements for subsequent nuclear
reactions. This assumption that little has changed over the last 4.6 billion
years is checked by comparing with certain meteorites which are believed to
have the composition of the solar system when it was formed. The subject is
very complex and detailed (8) but finally, there is remarkably good agreement
as shown in fig. 3 - except in the case of iron (and lithium and
beryllium which will be discussed later). Now iron is particularly
important because in the core all the lighter elements are completely
ionised but iron has kept some of its electrons - this increases
the number of processes possible for heat transfer and therefore makes a
considerable change to the opacity - in fact iron contributes about 20% to
the opacity. Other heavy elements behave similarly but their abundance is much
lower which is why iron is so important. The reason for the discrepancy may be
that on the surface of the sun only neutral iron can be measured and this only
represents about 5% of the total amount of iron whereas in meteorites all the
iron is measured.
The ratio of iron to hydrogen, Fe/X = (4.68 +/- 0.33) E-5   at the surface,
                                    = (3.25 +/- 0.075) E-5   in meteorites,
a four standard deviation difference. Courtaud et al.(9 ) have shown that by
taking the value from meteorites instead of from the surface, the flux of
neutrinos detectable by the 37Chlorine experiment is reduced by 20%.
   The neutrino flux is very sensitive to the opacity as a change in it
causes the rate of heat transfer to change and hence the temperature in the
core. The neutrino fluxes vary greatly with the temperature - the powers for the
pp, 7Be and 8B neutrino sources being 4, 11.5 and 24.5 resp. (9). However the
model has considerable stability as there is appreciable feedback. Thus
changes in the temperature are limited by the need to match the present-day
luminosity of the sun.
     It should be remarked that the calculations of opacity are very complex
(for a start one must know all the energy levels of all isotopes) and
historically these have changed significantly several times causing estimates
of the neutrino flux to vary. At present large teams of people are performing
these calculations again and it may well be that the opacity and hence the
neutrino fluxes will vary again. Thus Saio(10) in 1990 found the flux for
37Cl to be 5.8 SNU instead of the value of 7.9 SNU given by Bahcall et al.
(1, 11) - he attributes the difference to using a slightly older set of
opacity tables.
 
      3.2 NUCLEAR REACTION CROSS SECTIONS
                                          Most have been well measured but the
most problematic one is;
                        7Be  +  p  --->  8B  +  gamma                     (5)
   There are two problems. The first problem is that the experimental values
measured are from 110 to 4000 keV while the region of astrophysical interest
is below 20 keV, hence some extrapolation is necessary.
    Bahcall and many other authors use the 1965 extrapolation of Tombrello et
al.(12) who assumed only s-state whereas it can be seen from the data (12)
shown in fig. 4a, that a d-state is also required (9) as the modified cross
section, s17,  rises steeply with energy. This extrapolation with s- and d-state
has been done by Barker(13) and more recently by Kajino(14). Turck-Chieze et
al. (15) used this value and effectively showed that the value of 7.9 SNU of
Bahcall et al.(11) should be reduced by 13% to 6.9 SNU from this cause alone.
    The second major problem is that at the crucial lower energies, below
400 keV, there  are only two series of experimental results and as shown in
fig. 4b, these two disagree violently, there being no overlap of the
data points. Up to now, the convention has been to take the average
assuming the experiments to be of equal worth. However the 1983 experiment
of Filippone is fully described in Phys. Rev. C(16) and seems a
carefully performed experiment with many corrections made whereas
the experiment of Kavanagh et al.(17) was performed much earlier
in 1969 and is referred in 12 lines of an abstract in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.
so that it is difficult to judge the experiment. Now from compiling
thousands of cross sections for CERN/HERA reports, have found that over a
fourteen year period, experimental methods and corrections change appreciably
so that when there is a large discrepancy, it is normal that the later
experiment has learnt from the much earlier one and in time will prove to be
more accurate. Furthermore the convention adopted in the Particle Data Group
compilations(18) is to exclude data which are not reported in refereed journals.
Hence only the Filippone values should be used again lowering the cross section
and hence the neutrino flux.
    Thus the situation is very unsatisfactory and it would be good if one or
more experiments be performed to measure this important and controversial
cross section.
   It should be noted that the measurements are not easy since as shown in
fig. 4c, the cross section falls very steeply with energy and is only
3 nanobarns at the lowest energy reached of 117 keV.
   Two further points should be made;
1) The cross sections of Filippone are lower than the average and hence taking
them alone would reduce the 8B neutrino flux substantially (though the full
calculation has not been done, by extrapolation the reduction is probably
greater than one SNU).
2) Since the experiments disagree substantially, the error taken on the
average should be large enough to take this into account, but it seems
"typical" errors, which are smaller than averaged errors, have sometimes been
taken. To take an extreme example - if one value is 30 +/- 1 and the other
10 +/-1 then taking a "typical" error would give 20 +/-1 while a more
conventional averaging would give 20 +/-10 +/-1. This needs careful checking.
    Thus the theoretical neutrino fluxshould be appreciably reduced and the
errors increased.
 
      3.3 OTHER SSM EXPERIMENTAL PROBLEMS
                         It has been said that the Standard Solar Model
should fit ALL data. However it may be pointed out that there are some other
problems;
    3.3.1 The abundance of 7Li at the surface is 1% of that calculated
    3.3.2 The abundance of 9Be at the surface is half of that calculated
    3.3.3 The abundance of 3He has a small excess over that calculated
    3.3.4 A helioseismology result(19) is in 8 sigma disagreement with the
        calculation of Bahcall et al.(11).
  It is interesting to note that 7Li and 9Be burn at temperatures of 2.5 and
3.5 million Kelvin which is just inside the Radiation zone. Lebreton and
Maeder (20) have suggested that there is appreciable diffusion in the
Convection zone and there is "over-shooting" into the Radiation zone - this
would allow the 7Li and 9Be to burn and would also explain the small 3He excess
as it is produced in the radiation zone.
 
   3.4 ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SSM
                                Among the main assumptions are; no rotation,
no magnetic field, no diffusion (neither turbulent or steady state),
no overshooting, no hydrodynamic convection, spherical symmetry.
 
      3.4.1 ROTATION
                     The sun rotates in 25 days at the equator and 35 days
near its poles. When the sun was born from the large cloud of the protostar,
it was probably like a T. Tauri with a disk; so it was then a fast rotator and
would accrete from its disk. This would burn up 7Li. It would slow down losing
angular momentum with its solar wind (the solar wind is now very small,
E-14 M0 per year). Thus there is some small amount of residual rotation whose
amount inside the sun is unknown though probably small.
 
      3.4.2 MAGNETIC FIELD
                           There exists a magnetic field which is evidenced
by the sunspots observed. The Solar Dynamo is complex and non-linear.
 
      3.4.3 DIFFUSION
                      As explained above diffusion can explain the 7Li and 9Be
disagreements with the SSM. The amount of diffusion in recent eons can be tested
by studying 3Helium - it is created in the Radiation zone and burnt in the Core
zone so that it expected to have a maximum at a radius of 0.3 R0. If there
were appreciable diffusion in the radiation zone then the amount of 3He at
the surface would be much bigger.
 
     3.4.4 OVERSHOOTING
                        In general boundaries between zones are not sharp
as assumed, and evidence for this is given above.
 
     3.4.5 CALCULATIONS IN THE CONVECTION ZONE
                                              Due to the small number of
pieces of input data used, the SSM can assume only one mixing parameter to
describe the Convection zone although there are many complex factors operating
in the Convection zone, such as the giant cells and small ones, the tubes of
magnetic flux, etc.
 
4. HELIOSEISMOLOGY
                   The sun is a resonant cavity with some 10 million modes of
which several hundred thousand have been measured. At present they are best
observed as acoustic p-waves where p stands for pressure, with a 5 minute
period, which are measured to one part in ten thousand (later it is expected
that the g-waves (g for gravity) will be very useful).
     With these very accurate measurements (see for example fig. of ref. 21,
it is possible to do Inversion Calculations which allow the pressure and
temperature to be established at different radii. These calculations give a
lower central temperature than the SSM. This type of work is very recent and
clearly will become more and more important as it gives a totally independent
way of studying the sun. However it is sometimes wise to wait until a field
matures, so the helioseismology results have not been used in this comparison
of theoretical calculations and experiment.
 
5. MANY SSM CALCULATIONS
                         There is a tendancy in the Particle Physics
community to consider that there is only one Evolutionary model calculation
and this is called the Standard Solar Model, SSM, calculation, but in fact
there are many Evolutionary model calculations. Of these two are outstanding;
    1) Bahcall and co-workers (1, 11),
    2) The French - Belgian collaboration of Turck-Chieze et al.(5)
    Although these calculations were initially independent, they agree very well
eg some respective values are;
 
                       BAHCALL    TURCK-CHIEZE
    Central temp.        1.56       1.55  E7 Kelvin
    Central density      148        147.2 g.cm-3
    Central pressure     2.29       2.27  E17 dynes.s-1
Gallium neutrino rate    132        125   SNU
 
But 37Cl neutrino rate   7.9        5.8   SNU
with one sigma errors    0.87       1.3   SNU
    or as %              11%        22%
 
   From all the preceeding discussions, it is clear that the estimate of the
neutrino flux for chlorine and its error, using an Evolutionary model need
some re-evaluatio. After applying the modifications discussed above, it may
be estimated that both of these SSM calculations give values that are close to
5 SNU and the errors on the 37Chlorine rate are about 30% or more. However it
is important that a new full calculation be done to give a more precise
estimate (though it is likely that the error will always be a guesstimate
because of the many uncertainties and approximations).
  It will be noted that this value of 5 +/- 1.5 SNU is less than one standard
deviation from the Kamiokande value.
 
6. EXPERIMENTS
               The experiments are of two types. Firstly the observation
of Cerenkov light by arrays of photomultipliers, from electrons
scattered forwards by neutrinos. Secondly Extraction or Radiochemical
Experiments where neutrinos convert a few atoms of the target to another
element and these atoms are extracted and their decay are counted.
 
    6.1 WATER CERENKOV DETECTOR - KAMIOKANDE.
                                              The Kamiokande experiment is
run by a large powerful, well-funded group. They do many careful calibrations
and their experiment and results are well and fully described.
   The basic process is neutrino scattering of electrons which then give
Cerenkov light which they detect.
   The most important point about their experiment is that they measure TWO
quantities at the same time - firstly a count and secondly the direction of the
electron relative to sun's direction. A clear peak can be seen in fig 5 in the
direction of the sun and the excess in that direction is then taken as coming
from solar neutrinos. If they did not have that directional measurement, then
their experiment would not be useful.
    Assuming the value of 5 +/- 1.5 SNU, then their measurements are less
than one standard deviation from the theoretical value.
    It should be noted that in their 1040 days of operation as Kamiokande 11,
they counted an excess of about 100 events (with corrections this becomes
about the 165 counts shown in the plots). This implies that they count about
one event per 10 days or 37 events per year. It is intended to increase this
counting rate by building SuperKamiokande which will have a total mass of
water of 32000 tons instead of the 3000 tons now. Kamiokande 111 is now taking
data and the Cold Fusion cells of Steve Jones near the centre do not seriously
affect the performance as the volume is so large.
 
    6.2  EXTRACTION OF 37ARGON FROM 37CHLORINE. DAVIS et al.
                                                             Since 1967
Davis and co-workers have been extracting 37Argon from a tank of 615 tons of
tetrachloroethylene, C2Cl4. This contains some 121 or 141 tons of 37Cl
quoted as 2.3 E30 atoms of 37Cl.
   The 37Argon decays by electron capture. The hole in the K-shell can give an
Auger electron of 2.8 keV The counter of 0.5 cm3 volume is designed to measure
this electron. The half-life of the decay is 35 days.
   There are two crucial dates in this experiment begun in 1967;
1) In 1970, it was decided to use the rise time of the pulse as it should be
shorter for a decay which is localised in the counter, than for a traversing
cosmic ray background particle. The data before 1970 were subsequently not
used.
2) For 1 1/2 years in 1985/86, the two pumps had broken down and measurements
were stopped until new pumps could be installed.
    A typical run lasts 50 days and after extraction the counting is continued
for 260 days. For the period 1970 to 1984, the data were analysed to give
339 counts of 37Argon and 435 background counts (22) - this gives an 37Argon
uncorrected counting rate of one per 15 days or 24 counts per year for this
period - comparable with Kamiokande.
    As this gives about 5 counts per run on average, ultra-low level
statistical analysis is required and this is described by Cleveland(23) where
Poisson statistics and maximum likelihood methods are required. It should
however be observed that in the graphs published there seem to be an abnormal
number of runs with zero or one count. It should be noted that in the method of
analysis negative values are not allowed and since these could easily occur by
statistical fluctuations, this could affect the result.
    Now a major point made earlier was that counts alone are not convincing,
it is better to have a second measurement. In the case of Chlorine this could
be the observation of a decay half-life of 35 days characteristic of 37Argon.
    When the Kamiokande 11 data were presented in five intervals of time, it
can be seen in fig. 6, that there was excellent agreement with the Chlorine
experiment for four of the five intervals. If one takes the first two intervals,
Chlorine runs 92 to 100 (ie from 1987.0 to 1988.4), then the Chlorine
experiment found a rate of 3.6 SNU, in agreement with Kamiokande and
furthermore the time distribution of the decays(24) shown in fig. 7a, gives a
half-life of the order of 35 days. However the low interval of the Chlorine
experiment is runs 101 to 104 - the time distribution for these four runs is
not available, but it is for the 5 runs 101 to 105 and as can be seen in
fig. 7b, this shows rather a half-life of 100 to 150 days. This would seem to
suggest that when a 35-day half-life is observed, a neutrino rate equal to
that observed by Kamiokande is found, but when this important 35-day indicator
is absent, a very low counting rate is observed.
    This important consideration should be checked by grouping runs over one
to two year periods to see if the 35 day half-life is observed. Similar
analysis can be made using the 2.8 keV peak expected in the energy spectrum
and which is clearly observed(24) for the combined runs 92 to 100 but very much
less for the runs 101 to 105 (note run 105 has a high flux).
    It is interesting to compare the Chlorine results for various time intervals
with possible expected values.
    Proposed SSM value                       5   +/- 1.5 SNU
    Kamiokande value, approx. 0.46 x 7.9  =  3.6 +/- 0.6 SNU
Reported Chlorine results;
    1972 Upper Limit (25)                  < 1 SNU
    1970 - 1984      (26)                    2.05 +/- 0.3
    1986 - 1988.2    (27)                    3.6  +/- 0.7
    1987.0 - 1990    (3)           4 high periods(about 3.6 SNU) and one low.
 
(note that if one takes the whole period 1970 to 1990, the average is only
2.3 +/- 0.3 SNU and this conceals the possible step up at 1986 when the
experiment was restarted).
 
     6.2.1 POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS
1) Until the pump failure, the rate was low, 2.05 SNU. After the restart,
the rate was high (3.6 SNU) except when the 35 day half-life was not observed.
It would be interesting to know if during the 18-month wait until the
new pumps were available, whether the physicists used the time to improve the
counters or other part of the experiment.
2) It is suggested that results of counts should only be published when that
set of counts shows clear evidence of a 35-day decay half-life.
 
    6.3 GALLIUM EXPERIMENTS
                          There is a tremendous advantage in using Gallium as a
target for the Solar Neutrinos in that low energy neutrinos can also convert
the 71Ga to 71Germanium. With the Kamiokande and Chlorine experiments only the
higher energy neutrinos can be detected and they come from rare processes that
are peripheral to the main pp fusion reaction that gives most of the solar
neutrinos. Hence the argument is often used that by measuring with gallium
the basic mechanism of the sun's burning is being tested and any disagreement
with theory would be much more serious than a disagreement observed in a
peripheral process.
    There are two large Gallium collaborations; the Soviet-American Gallium
Experiment, SAGE, at Baksan, USSR and the Gallex Collaboration which is
installed in the Gran Sasso tunnel, Italy. Both have 30 tons of gallium; the
SAGE experiment has started running with 60 tons. SAGE uses the gallium
as a metal while Gallex has it as a chloride, GaCl3 - this implies different
extraction procedures.
    The 71Germanium decays by capture of an electron from an inner K, L, ....
shell. The half-life is 11.4 days. The energy of the K-shell is 10.37 keV
which should be easy to measure, but it is much less for the L and M shells,
being 1.3 and 0.16 keV resp.. However of the 88% captures that go by the
K-shell, only 41.5% give an Auger electron while the other 46.5% go by
emission of X-rays plus a low energy (1.12 to 0.11 keV) Auger electrons which
are difficult to detect.
      6.3.1 SAGE
                The SAGE experiment uses a 0.7 cm3 proportional counter and
a NaI detector in coincidence for the X-rays. However they say that they can
only measure the Auger electrons of 10.37 keV from the  K-shell - this means
they are only measuring 41.5% of possible decays. Taking into account the
extraction efficiency, counter efficiencies and 71Ge atoms decaying before
being extracted, the counting rate should be about one event per 10 days,
that is about the same as for Kamiokande and the Chlorine experiment.
  Runs lasted from 19 to 42 days and counting results have been shown for 26 to
96 days after. The five runs made in 1989 were rejected (the December run
because a four-day half-life was observed corresponding to Radon). Of the 1990
runs, five were accepted and three rejected.
        In fig. 7 are shown the graphs presented(4) for four of the five
accepted months and a drawing of the other month where one count was
observed on the first day and then no further counts were recorded. The number
of SNU for each month is given(the total gives 20 SNU quoted in Section 1) - it
is calculated on the assumption that there is a constant background and an
expontential decay with a half-life of 11.4 days. It may be noted that there
is no indication of such a 11.4 day half-life - this is shown by the markers,
tau, 2 tau, 3 tau for 11.4, 22.8 and 34.2 days. If one adds the data for all
five months together, there is no indication of an expontial decay, in fact
the data have a small negative component.
    The major worry is that the few atoms of germanium produced are lost
in the long extraction process. If this were so then one might expect
by statistical fluctuations some positive and negative SNU values, however
since the program considers negative values to be unphysical and these are put
to zero SNU, what one should expect would be equal numbers of zero and
positive values and this is what is observed. An attempt has been made to test
directly if germanium is lost or reaches the counter by bringing a 0.2 curie
neutrino source to the gallium, but was unsuccessful. It is intended in the
fall of 1992 to take a stronger source, one curie, whose neutrinos will
irradiate the gallium and the resultant germanium extracted and counted. This
is a crucial test and it is wiser to wait for this result before drawing
conclusions.
 
      6.3.2 GALLEX
                  The Gallex Collaboration have now started to take data in
the Gran Sasso tunnel. They say they will not announce any results until
they have done all calibrations and tests - in about 1 1/2 to 2 years time.
 
      6.3.3 POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS
                                 As for the Chlorine experiment, it is suggested
that results only be presented when sufficient statistics have been accumulated
to confirm that the counts come from 71Ge, for example by observing the 11.4
day half-life.
 
7. SOLAR CYCLES
                The variability of the rates from runs of the Chlorine
experiment have been noted by several authors who suggest that there is a
correlation with solar cycles. Such cycles are well-established and in
deposits in Australia made some 680 million years ago, cycles of 11, 22, 90,
145 and 290 years have been identified.
    The most complete investigation of this question has been that reported
by P. Vogel (28) who took all the data, not a selected sample, and analysed
with Poisson statistics as befits low statistical data. They found the best
fit was obtained with a cycle of 4.5 years. However the most popular fit
suggested is with the inverse of the sunspot activity. They found a
probability of 3.9% for a constant flux while assuming there was also a
correlation with (sunspot number)-1, gave an increase of probability to
only 8.3% which seems a small increase considering the extra free parameters.
    When the Chlorine results are taken for the period after the restart in
1987, no significant effect is seen if one excludes the one bin during which
no 35-day half-life was observed.
    It is suggested that no conclusion on any possible correlation be drawn
until the runs have been grouped to show the 35-day half-life.
    The Kamiokande 11 experiment does not show(4) any fluctuations during a
period when the sunspot activity was varying sharply. Further dividing the data
into night and day, or by seasons, as has been suggested, also does not show
any significant variation. The new Kamiokande 111 data confirms the absence
of any variation with suspot activity and the results for the combined
data is shown in fig.8.
     The overall conclusion is that there is no significant evidence for any
variation of the solar neutrino flux with any solar cycle.
 
8. CONCLUSIONS
               The overall conclusions are that solar neutrinos have been
measured and that the rate for higher energy neutrinos is in agreement with
Evolutionary model calculations. Definitive results for lower energy neutrinos
are awaited. There is no significant evidence that at the present time, could
be interpreted as requiring "New Physics"
    The Sun is the only star near us and it is a tremendous laboratory that
is vital for understanding stellar evoltion. It is important that a wide
variety of experiments be performed to study the Sun.
 
REFERENCES
 
1. J.N. Bahcall, Review talk to Neutrino '90 Conf., CERN, June 1990;
   J.N. Bahcall, Scientific American, p 26-33 June 1990.
2. R. Davis, Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, p 1-13, Ed. M. Baldo-Ceolin,
   Palazzo Loredan, Venice, Feb. 1990.
3. M. Mori, Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, p 61-72, Ed. M. Baldo-Ceolin,
   Pallazo Loredan, Venice, Feb. 1991. and  K.S. Hirata, KEK preprint
   90-43 (1990).
4. SAGE, V.N. Gavrin, Intl. Conf. on High Energy Phys., Singapore, Aug. 1990.
   and Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes , p 1-10, Ed. M. Baldo-Ceolin,
   Palazzo Loredan, Venice, Feb. 1991.
5. S. Turck-Chieze et al., Astrophys. J. 335(1988)415-424.
6. D.R.O. Morrison, Intl. Conf. on High Energy Phys. Singapore 1990, p 676-680,
   Eds K.K. Phua and Y. Yamaguchi, Aug. 1990.
7. D.R.O. Morrison, CERN report PPE/91-104 (1991).
8. E. Anders and N. Grevesse, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53(1989)197.
9. D. Courtaud et al., Solar Phys. 128(1990)49-60.
10. H. Saio, 4th Workshop on Elementary-Particle Picture of the Universe
    Tateyama, Japan, Nov. 1989.
11. J.N. Bahcall and R.K. Ulrich, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60(1989)297-372.
12. T.A. Tombrello et al. Nucl.Phys. 71(1965)459-464.
13. F.C. Barker, Anst.J. of Phys. 33(1980)177 and Phys. Rev. 28(1983)1400.
14. T. Kajino et al. to be publ. in Supl. J. Phys. Soc. Japan,(1990).
15. S. Turck-Chieze, "Inside the Sun", p 125-132, Eds. G. Berthomieu and
    M. Cribier, Kluwer Acad. Publ. Dordrecht, 1989.
16. B.W. Filippone et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 50(1983)412 and Phys. Rev. C,
    28(1983)2222.
17. R.W. Kavanagh et al. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 14(1969)1209.
18. Particle Data group, Phys. Lett. B 239(1990), see page 1.8
19. Y. Elsworth et al., Nature 345(1990)536.
20. Y. Lebreton and A. Maeder, Astron. Astrophys. 175(1987)99.
21. K.G. Libbrecht and M.F. Woodward, Nature 345(1990)779.
22. J. N. Bahcall, "Neutrino Astrophysics", CUP, Cambridge, 1989.
23. B.T. Cleveland, Nucl. Inst. and Meth. 214(1983)451.
24. K. Landy, talk given at Neutrino 90 conference.
25. J.N. Bahcall, Comments on Particle Physics,(1972)p59, and R. Davis Jr.,
    "A Progress Report on the Brookhaven Solar neutrino Experiment", abstract
    of an invited paper for the Washington meeting of the APS, April 1972.
26. Ref. 22, page 319.
27. Ref. 22, page 338.
28. B.W. Filippone and P. Vogel, Phys. Lett. B 246(1990)546.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: 29 Apr 92 14:10:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Apr29.045220.29745@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
 
>  Interesting, I would think that Jupiter's core would be extremely hot.
> Obviously a planet of that size has pulled in quite a bit of rocky
> material, including a substantial portion of radioactive material.
> Just as the core of the earth is heated by radioactive decay so should
> Jupiter's core.  However, a gas planet should have a large hydrogen
> shell over that hot core and at 10's of megabars/cm^3.  If those
> conditions don't initiate a fair amount of warm fusion, what would?
 
 
The temperature in the metallic hydrogen of Jupiter's core is only
thought to reach 19,000 K or so.  The core of the sun is nearly 800 times
hotter.  At the temperature in Jupiter's core, kT is only a few eV.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Paging Paul Koloc,...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Paging Paul Koloc,...
Date: 29 Apr 92 12:43:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <pgf.704503882@srl01.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G.
 Fraering) writes:
>I just tried to e-mail you, using pmk@prometheus.uucp and
>many variations, and the message bounced repeatedly. Do you
>have a stable address?
 
That may? depend on where you are coming from.
Here are examples of address varieties that have been received
here @prometheus:
 
              pmk@prometheus.UUCP
              pmk@promethe.UUCP
              prometheus!pmk
              prometheus!pmk@mimsy
              prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu
              uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU!pmk%prometheus.UUCP
              uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!prometheus!pmk%mimsy
              INTERNET:pmk@prometheus.UUCP
              IN%"prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.EDU"
 
>Also: how is Plasmak coming along (the question in my original
>message)?
 
We have suspended efforts until a shielded block annex is completed.
We should be firing no later than August and will collecting diagnostics
data with others.  For example,  LANL will be recording optical image
data at a thousand frames/sec.  We also h ... got to go .. sorry..
 
>Phil Fraering pgf@srl05.cacs.usl.edu 318/365-5418
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  D00600%imisiam /       Nuclear Cold Fusion In Italy
     
Originally-From: D00600%imisiam.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Nuclear Cold Fusion In Italy
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 13:36:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
PRESSE RELEASE
 
CONFERENCE ON COLD NUCLEAR FUSION IN MILAN( ITALY)
 
On April 9 1992, at the C.N.R.(National Research Center) a conference was held
on the subject of cold fusion research in Italy. At the conference organized by
the magazine '21 Secolo - Scienza e Tecnologia' with the 'Patrocinio' of the
region Lombardy,the following scientists partecipated:
- Giuliano Preparata, professor of high energy physics, Univ. of Milan
- Emilio Del Giudice, physicist of National Institute of Nuclear Physics
- Tullio Bressani, professor physics, University of Turin
- Claudio Manduchi, professor of physics, University of Padua
- Giuliano Mengoli, Electrochemist, National Research Center
The speakers related to the gathered public the results of Nuclear Cold Fusion
obtained in the laboratories of Turin, Padua and Rome. The results were
reassuring, though sporadic due the lack of adeguate finanzing. There was also a
discussion on hypothetical theories that could explain this particular behavior
of palladium.
Prof. Giuliano Preparata, in concluding the conference, polemized with the
accademic community that consisider the Cold Fusion research "not interesting|"
Never the less the research is continuing in Italy, Japan, the United States
and elsewhere, with the groving prospect of realizing a protoype reactor in the
near future.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBITNET cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 708 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 708 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 13:37:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
just got the latest Fusion Technol and you see the result below. Quite - er -
entertaining. We have a new surprise from Matsumoto, suggesting not only two
new fundamental particles but antigravity as well. This is getting more and
more interesting. Also, Noninski reckons he has a Mills, Farrel & Kneizys
confirmation. A rather poor calorimeter, I think; take it or leave it. Much
more carefully done was the Clarke**2 paper which however found nothing, i.e.
no helium or tritium, although they quote limit figures that might make a TB
happy. On the theoretical side, Crawford knocks down Schwinger's theory, while
Jaendel knocks down the Turner/Bush transmission resonance model. Finally,
Wasserman remembers anomalous heat he has observed for 35 years and connects
it with cold fusion - without actually saying so directly.
 Then there is a commentary paper, reporting the retraction of cluster impact
fusion. I ought soon to see the actual paper and will report it. The authors
have not quite given up despite the retraction but I suspect it will not be
long before they turn to other work.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Apr. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 708
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke BW, Clarke RM;                           Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 170.
"Search for (3)H, (3)He, and (4)He in D2-loaded titanium".
** A very careful experiment, using titanium sponge and D2 gas. The D2 was
prepared from heavy water that had been stored since 1946 and was therefore
exceptionally low in tritium contamination (T/D was measured as 1.800E-15). A
very sensitive mass spectrometer was used to determine He and tritium;
sensitivity to (3)He and (4)He was 2E04 and 4E09 atoms, respectively. The Ti
samples were outgassed at various temperatures and found to contain at most
3E03 and 3E09 atoms of the two resp. He isotopes.
The D2 gas was passed over the Ti sponge to be absorbed, to form TiD. The gas
was then driven off at 900 degC and reabsorbed further down the flow line;
this sort of transfer was repeated many times, going to D/Ti ratios up to 2,
and using D2 as well as H2 gas, and mixtures thereof. Each time, the (3)He and
(4)He levels evolved were measured. There appeared to be a release of these
gases but careful accounting showed that it was all due to the He initially
present in the metal, so cold fusion did not need to be invoked. An upper
limit on the fusion rate of 1.4E-21 fusions/d-d pair/s was calculated and
said to be in reasonable agreement with the Jones+ results. Tritium
measurements showed an apparent excess of 9E07 atoms; of four possible sources
of tritium contamination, two could not be ruled out and thus the figure gives
an upper fusion rate limit of 1.6E-19 f/pair/s. The paper ends with a long
discussion of origin of He and T contamination.                  Feb-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford OH;                                    Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 161.
"Examination of a proposed phonon-coupling mechanism for cold fusion".
** In this paper, Crawford takes a critical look at Schwinger's theory how
cold fusion might work, i.e. the idea that coupled harmonic motion of
deuterons in the palladium lattice might lower the fusion barrier; in
particular, Schwinger proposed that the p-d reaction is favoured. It is shown
here that Schwinger's model does not lead to any such thing, that the p-d
interaction potential has nothing to do with cold fusion, which cannot be
expected to be enhanced by this mechanism.                       Jun-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaendel M;                                      Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 176.
"The fusion rate in the transmission resonance model".
** The model of Turner, worked out in more detail by Bush, is examined. In
this model, it is proposed that although there is a large potential barrier
to cold fusion, a pair of such barriers might, by resonance, enhance the
process. Bush did not offer any quantitative calculations of expected fusion
rates based on this model; Jaendel makes these calculations, based on the WKB
model. The conclusion is that transmission resonance cannot account for the
observed cold fusion rates. Jaendel notes that this does not exclude some
other mechanism, and that experimental evidence is paramount.    Jun-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 179.
"Interference phenomena observed during cold fusion".
** Matsumoto has previously observed circular areas of damage on nuclear
emulsions held outside a cold fusion electrolysis cell, and attributes them
to micro-explosions of quad neutrons produced in palladium deuteride. These
quad-neutrons decay within the metal lattice and produce two different kinds
of waves: gravitational and antigravitational. M has now done more experiments
and sees evidence of both of these. Known radiation such as electromagnetic or
sonic, do not behave in this way, so these must be due to entirely new
particles; one of them seems to oppose gravity.                  Feb-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski VC;                                    Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 163.
"Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water solution of K2CO3 with
a nickel cathode".
** The Mills & Kneizys scenario; Noninski has visited the Franklin and
Marshall College where Mills and Farrell work, and carried out a confirmation
experiment. He points out in the introduction that Pons, too, initially
reported excess heat from H2O solutions. Calorimetry was by means of the
difference between two identical Dewar cells, both containing the same
solutions and components. One cell had electrolysis plus an inactive heater,
the other the reverse. Blank Dewars were also used as checks. Ni foil, 7.5 * 4
* 0.0125 cm**3 was used as cathode, and the electrolyte was 0.57 M Na2CO3 and
K2CO3. There were significant differences in the behaviour of the solutions,
with the K2CO3 electrolyte showing an excess heat at about 60% over the input
power. Noninski cannot see any trivial explanation for this excess; neither
can it be due to temperature gradients in the cell, which were checked for by
means of multiple thermistors, all showing the same. The extent of
recombination of evolved hydrogen with oxygen is not known, although this was
assumed zero in the calculation of excess heat. N does not comment further,
except to say that a closed cell with a recombiner would add to the
complications. As others have done, N ends with a statement that experimental
evidence is more important at this stage than theory.            Jul-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasserman A;                                    Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 168.
"Electrochemical method of reducing aluminum oxide and producing additional
energy".
** W has, for a long time, observed that when aluminium is used as the cathode
to clean the surface of oxides, ready for plating, more heat is produced than
is put in. This has been a puzzle for 35 years, until the appearance of the
FPH paper, suggesting an explanation. Heat production was never accompanied by
weight loss of the Al cathode, so cannot be due to dissolving metal. W writes
that the oxide layer is not reducible by hydrogen, except at high
temperatures, so such high temperatures must be produced at the sample. He
does not suggest an origin of this heat.                         May-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amato I;                                     Science 256 (1992) (10-Apr), 178.
"Cluster fusion: Close, but no cigar".
** A first report of the demise of the cluster impact fusion affair, upon the
retraction of the results that started it. The Brookhaven Nat. Lab. team
Beuhler, Friedman and Friedlander had, up to now, defended their work,
claiming that their beams of heavy water clusters were indeed of homogeneous
cluster size; they now admit that some smaller cluster contaminants got in and
caused the "anomalous" results. This is revealed in Phys. Rev. Lett. of
30-Mar. Amato writes that the researchers have not quite given up, however.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  Britz /  RE: Takahasi summary
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Takahasi summary
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 15:52:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman):
 
>Dieter has suggested that I post a summary of the talk given by Takahashi at
>MIT.  I am not an unbiased reporter and as such would not be the best one to do
> the summary.
 
No, I didn't. Not that I don't think you'd do a good job of it, but it was
someone else that suggested this.
 
>Further, I am still annoyed at Dieter for deciding that Fusion Facts is not
>a suitable journal to abstract.  I hope that his decision does not cost our
>scientific community more lives because the warning that I printed in that
>journal apparently was not heeded by McKubrie's group.
 
Feel free to be annoyed but FF is not a refereed scientific journal with real
papers. It is in fact a propaganda blatt. Having said that, I will go so far
as to say that some very capable people write for it, but this does not make
it a real scientific journal. As to the saving of lives, for one thing
everybody knows that H2 and O2 is an explosive mixture but if you persist in
the belief that the SRI explosion was caused by a large cnf event - well, FPH
warned us about that in their 1989 paper. Furthermore, I believe (without much
evidence) that more people read this news group than FF, so post your warnings
here, Dick.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  Britz /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 15:53:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
 
>In article <646143EFDCBF20669C@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
> writes:
 
>> My realisation, when making this point before, was that the figures of 0.8 eV
>>and a fugacity of 1E27 are talking about the same thing, and this gives some
>>perspective to the compression idea. Such a fugacity (or pressure) is as
>>effective as a deuteron with an energy of 0.8 eV; and we know that this is
>>useless for fusion, from beam/target work.
 
>This is not quite correct.  It is probably true that an (actual)
>pressure of a few million atmospheres or an energy per deuterium of a
>few hundred electron volts is adequate to cause acceptible fusion rates
>in a bulk deuterium sample.  This is very much less than the amount needed to
>see fusion rates in colliding beams.  The reason, of course is that you get
>many more collisions per unit time for many more atoms in a condensed
>system than you get for a single collision of a two beams.
 
This IS correct, Rolfe. A large fugacity (which is a sort of pressure; more
precisely an activity or a pressure times an activity coefficient), means a
lot of particles jostling around the metal surface. FPH are suggesting that
this causes fusion. I say that each of these jostling particles has about 0.8
eV and that this is an expression for the same thing. They then establish an
equilibrium with the metal interior, governed by the activity (read: fugacity
or eV or chemical potential, all equivalent) at the surface.
 
 
>In general, however, I agree the fugacity (essentially the pressure the
>particles would have if they did not interact at all) is irrelevant,
>what matters is the chemical potential (energy) or actual pressure.
>This is almost surely in excess of the amounts possibly by
>electrochemistry.
 
The chemical potential is the same as the fugacity. This term means activity
(or chemical potential) applied to the special case of a gas. I.e. the
pressure expressed as a multiple of the standard state (1 atm), times the
activity coefficient. And it is not in excess of the amounts etc; the over-
potential of 0.8 V does indeed give each particle an energy of 0.8 eV. It's
therefore like a broad beam hitting all of the metal surface. I don't know the
numbers but maybe you do. My guess is that if you multiply the fusion rate for
a deuteron at 0.8 eV with the large number of particles hitting the surface
(say 1E10/cm**2) you won't come to a large fusion rate.
 As I say, this only invalidates (I think) the "enormous pressure" argument,
but does not exclude some exotic process taking place within the deuteride
lattice.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 /  Britz /  Re: Symmetrical cells
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Symmetrical cells
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 15:59:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman):
 
>In article <6692D89B0CDF203D06@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>Just for completeness' sake, and to satisfy my pedantic mind, there is a third
>>cell arrangement that gives symmetry and an even current distribution, which
>>I forgot to mention before: an insulating cylinder, capped at one end with the
>>cathode, at the other with the anode. This is not likely to be of practical
>>interest to you, though, Tom; I just mention it.
>>Parallel plates in an open electrolyte (i.e. not framed by insulating walls)
>>will give you higher current densities at the edges, and no number of extra
>>electrodes arranged around the plates will do much good.
>>That's if any of this is important at all - which I'm not convinced of. Others
>>have done the opposite, in a quest for the magic ingredient: nonequilibrium
>>conditions.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>No. Dieter is wrong.  There is no way that pincushion distortion of a cylinder
>will produce a large volume of unstrained material.  In a single sided
>electrode with a stiff back there is a front surface in tension and a rear
>(supported) surface in compression after the lattice expansion by hydrization.
>Thus there is a thin plane of low strain material in the center of the bent
>sample.  As far as the high fields at the edges they are not important in
>the integral that probably occurs. In the case of transverse electroreflectance
>we (Forman, Aspnes and Cardona: J. Physics and Chemistry of Solids (1970))
>found that the bulk of the response was from the nearly uniform central
>region of the INSULATING sample. This is different but not that different.
>Dick Forman.
 
Dick, what what are you talking about here - pin cushion etc.? I merely named
the three possible electrochemical cell geometries which give you an even
current distribution all over an electrode. All other geometries result in
different current densities at different places on the electrodes. If you
think that you must have even distribution then you must at least approximate
one of these three geometries. It is not for me to say whether you in fact
need this or not; I wouldn't know.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Electrode Geometry.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrode Geometry.
Date: 30 Apr 92 11:17:54 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

 
	There has been a lot of discussion whether electrode geometry
matters. I'd like to pose a question to electrochemists about what would
happen if an electrode shaped like a hollow hemisphere is used. Would
the same electrolysis pressure be applied to the internal surface as to
the external surface? From my gedanken experiment I gather what would
happen is that H will enter from the outer surface and leave from the
internal surface. If I am wrong about this, please, correct me. If am
right though, one can use this to limit the diffusion from electrode
ends by making them as hollow hemispheres. Then only the rims at the
electrodes' ends can support out-gassing.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Electrode Geometry.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrode Geometry.
Date: 30 Apr 92 12:08:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr30.111754.270521@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>right though, one can use this to limit the diffusion from electrode
>ends by making them as hollow hemispheres. Then only the rims at the
>electrodes' ends can support out-gassing.
 I take this back, even it is true it is of no use to prevent diffusion
from the ends. I still though would like to know an electrochemist's
point of view about partially concave electrodes.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.29 / John Moore /  Re: Stuffing wires
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stuffing wires
Date: 29 Apr 92 17:39:55 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1992Apr29.005922.197711@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
]Tom, you are assuming that H(D) will either preferentially diffuse
]thru the ends or at least will have the same rate of diffusion in
]all directions (including out of the ends). This assumption, I think,
]is invalid. If the ends are capped by a metal which does not absorb
]H, the diffusion out of the electrode will be only radial. Also, does
]the paper you mention (with Nickel) talk about potential macro-defects
]in the nickel which were simply augmented by H out-gassing or was the
]lattice really ripped apart?
 
Almost any metal will diffuse hydrogen - especially with EMF driving it.
I think Tom is on the right track... consider the wire to be a
low volume (high resistance) escape for the hydrogen... if you can diffuse
it in over the large radial area faster than it can diffuse out the
wire, you win. I think plating is also a good idea, because it can
reduce the diffusion rate through the wire, and finally, keeping a bunch
of the wire in the solution, uninsulated, should reduce the diffusion
through the wire.
 
On another subject, have we resolved the question of whether symmetry
is needed for maximum loading? I posted a note hypothesizing that
symmetry is simply not important, but only Tom has commented.
 
Dieter, what do you think? Did you see my note?
 
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  /  Current Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current Experiment Status
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 01:28:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cathode Electrode: 0.0098 cc, 0.78 sq cm, 5 cm long wire 0.5 mm dia
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: Ramp from 25 ma per sq cm to 400 ma per cq cm over 1/2 hour
Duration: NA
Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.7
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 3.1 to 3.75 during ramp.
Temperature: 15 C
 
We again had the catalyst die.  Good old Englehard Catalyst D.  So I assume
that the problem is related to running at low temperature.  The catalyst quit
working about an hour after switching to 25 ma per sq cm from 400 ma per sq
cm.  Don't have the data here but it quit working at a catalyst thermometer
temperature in the mid 20's.  Note the catalyst thermometer is strapped to
the outside of the cell in the catalyst area.  Not ideal, but the hot spot in
the catalyst can move around.  We had just switched to Hi-Lo from the saw
tooth profile, and the catalyst quit working an hour after switching to low.
We were able to get it working again but had to move the cell temperature to
30 C to do it.  Too bad, we wanted to run at low temperatures.  We designed
the calorimeter to support a heated wire recombiner, as used by Scott.  Guess
I will buy some fine Pd wire and heat it continuously.  But it is a pain to
get the additional stuff in a cell.
 
The following is for the catalyst experts to explain, particularly Tod Green
who persuaded me to run with a Deuterium fill.  After a day reversed at 200
ma per sq cm we started the forward run straight out with the saw tooth
profile, starting at the low end.  On the bottom of the first saw tooth, 8 cc
of gas (deuterium) disappeared from the system.
 
*** By the way, no one confirmed my computation - if you want me to keep
posting this stuff, a few of you should do some work, like compute the D/Pd
ratio when 8 cc of gas disappear.  It will do you all good to do the back of
the envelope calculation and will confirm that I am not making some factor of
two error.*****
 
Once the current was above 120 ma per sq cm or so, some gas reappeared.
Remember, that I measure gas volume, I don't know where it comes from or goes
to.  On the next cycle, the gas loss got to 8.5 cc.  Over the next 8 hours,
the volume stayed nearly constant, with a ramp up and down with the current
density, about 1 cc in amplitude, and less gas (presumably because there was
more in the Pd) at the lower current.
 
Over the next two days, the system slowly lost gas to a total of about 35 cc.
By my computation this would be an astounding 2.8 D/Pd ratio.  But I was
assuming that there was a slow gas leak.  At this point gas loss stopped, and
stayed steady for about 12 hours before the above problem.  During this time,
the variation in gas volume with current became a saw tooth with an amplitude
that increased since the start of the run from 1 cc to 4 cc in amplitude.
 
So where could all that gas hide?  If not in the Pd?  If due to a leak, why
did it stop?  Note the gas measurement servo is run at a positive pressure of
about 3" H2O, so a leak causes a loss of gas.
 
Some possible saw tooth volume explanations:
 
1)  The Pd is better at holding D at low current densities than at high.
 
2)  The catalyst becomes less efficient when it is hotter.  Thus there is a
slow accumulation of D2 and O2 in the cell at high current densities which is
converted when the current density is reduced.
 
Note that the above does not imply that the catalyst efficiency goes to zero.
It does not turn off or the blow out plug pops in a few minutes because the
gas generation rate varies from 2 cc to 4 cc per minute.  There is a second
electrode running at constant current which maintains a minimum gas rate.  So
the efficiency has to change from something like 100% to 97% for explanation
2).
 
In talking to Jim Kilmer, the original source of the Catalyst D, I found that
it had been used for purification of gas in the Hydrogen bubble chamber.  So
it was used at high temperature, and not as I thought for the liquid Argon
detectors.  He said that they quit using it because it converted ortho
hydrogen to para hydrogen and reduced the efficiency of their refrigerator
from 6 to 4 watts.  I may not have this right, as I do not understand it, but
I assume that I cannot continue to hide energy in my closed system??
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 / Gene Riggs /  Re: Paging Paul Koloc,...
     
Originally-From: riggs@cptc1.neep.wisc.edu (Gene Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Paging Paul Koloc,...
Date: 30 Apr 92 17:54:38 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin,Madison., NEEP Department

Paul,
 
   I have tried to reach you at all of the address you gave (and
some variations of them) and have been unsuccsesful.  I know several
people (myself included) who would like it if you would post a
description of the plasmak device/concept to the net.  Also could
you post a list of journal articles which detail or discuss plasmak
and/or the principles which would give it the drastically enhanced
energy and particle confinment which you claim.
 
Gene A Riggs
riggs@cptc1.neep.wisc.edu
Ik heb het gedaan, maar Ik ben niet schuldig.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenriggs cudfnGene cudlnRiggs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  Bollinger /  Geology
     
Originally-From: Terry Bollinger <71033.536@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Geology
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 13:29:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: internet:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Hi folks,
 
A few quotes from "The Earth," by Authur Beiser, Ph.D., copyright 1962.
This book was part of the popular and well-written Life Nature Library that
helped greatly to promote science in schools in the 60s.  Dr. Beiser was a
respected geophysicist who had previously written 12 books on both geology
and physics.  He and his book are very much representative of the views of
the geophysical community of that time.
 
               -----------------------------------------------
 
[p.88] "Some idea of the extraordinary complexity of this subject [of how
the continents came into being] may be gained by taking a brief look at the
history of the continental-drift theory.  Its chief exponent was a German
meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who felt the need to explain the development
of living things throughout the world...  Wegener suggested ... that once
there was a single, giant continental mass called Pangaea, and that the rest
of the globe was covered by a single ocean called Panthalassa.  In time
Pangaea cracked apart, and the piecees wandered away from one another to
produce the continents of today.
 
  ...
 
   "Unfortunately for Wegener's daring and imaginative hypothesis, there are
no known forces strong enough to shove the continents around the earth, let
alone split one into fragments.  Exceedingly precise measurements reveal no
lateral motions whatsoever of the continents today, although the theory
predicts that they should still be drifting.  The oceans were just where
they are now, according to gelological and biological studies of the sediments
on their floors, throughout the period when the continents were supposed to
have been wandering across the face of the earth...  As far as the [ancient]
climate argument is concerned, later research has indicated that glaciers
were present both before and after coal beds were formed in many places,
which Wegner and his followers could only account for my supposing that the
continents had come together again after having been originally dispersed.
And the jigsaw-puzzle matching of the continents does not really work very
well either.
 
   "For all these reasons the theory of continental drift was abandoned by
nearly all geologists...  Theories in science live or die by the sword of
experiment, and no matter how attractive they may seem to the layman, unless
they agree with observation thay cannot be taken seriously..."
 
       --------------------------------------------------------------
 
Misc:  Tom Droege, keep it up.  I for one have been extremely impressed by
you openess, ability to look take hard looks at your own work, and
willingness to stick to your conviction that there is something worth
looking into in all this, despite the many failures.  Could it be (shudder!)
that you are actually one of those rare people whose main objective in all
you do is NOT necessarily to milk the financial daylights out of any idea
that has some smidgeon of hope of making money?  Now THAT'S an idea that's
truly radical -- forget the "cold fusion!"
 
Me?  My interest in this group is as an interesting exercise in reasoning
under conditions of uncertainty, not cheering someone's football team.  Data
I find relevant remain almost exactly the same as two to three years ago:
 
  1) Pons and Fleishmann had a piece of palladium blow up on them when it
     really should not have.  (I've yet to see any other logically relevant
     data or [especially] theories out of those two, incidentally.)
 
  2) Multiple experimenters have occasionally seen decent out-of-bounds
     heat production values (e.g., Oak Ridge's Scott et al data).  Some of
     these, such as the Scott data, contain excursion outside the "envelope"
     of plausible chemical (atomic/molecular electron exchange) energy
     storage and release for such systems.
 
  3) There may be some very low levels of increased "nuclear domain" events,
     none of which have any significant correlation with (2).
 
The incredibly drawn-out and beautifully absurd crap about "cold fusion" is a
fascinating example of how attempts to explain results that are inherently
inexplicable in the accepted theory structure results in severe intellectual
thrashing and some rather wild fluctuations in logic.  Throw in a couple of
lawyers (as did UofU, with a vengence), and you have a marvelous recipe for
how to get a lot of people to through away a lot of intellectual energy
beating on the same points again, and again, and again,... ad nauseum.
 
Once again, for the record:  Any event which makes the particles move fast
enough to react via the strong force (e.g., fusion) must unavoidably move
them into the very well explored domain of particle physics, in which they
will have no further choice but to produce normal nuclear by products.  You
cannot have it both ways -- even if your beach balls (atoms) can manage to
speed up a grain of sand to incredible speeds, they haven't the precision to
further control the details of how the grains then collide.
 
 
"A Twist of Ribbon?"  A completely serious extended exercise in logical
elimination, but one which I refuse to take seriously on a personal level.
I will assert only this about it:  If heat production that is outside of the
normal envelope of chemistry is real, I can assure you with a rather high
probability that the solution to such an enigma will be found somewhere in
in "A Twist of Ribbon."  Why?  Because as I said, it is an exercise in
logical elimination (and "farfetching") in whose objective was to disprove,
not prove, the possibility of such phenomena.  I followed such a strange
route for the simple reason that all the easier ones -- e.g., "cold fusion"
-- were really not all that hard to establish as contradictory to everyday
phenomena and well-established experimental results.  I was satisfied with
my overall results *except* in the area of heavy-particle band phenomena,
for which I was unable to invoke the same kind of reasonably straightforward
arguments that had worked so nicely for eliminating a lot of other dumb
ideas.  Drat it all -- I'd really hate to be right, since it would be
rather disruptive.
 
....
 
Thanks, by the way, to Chuck Sites, who was kind enough to point out the
following article to me:
 
   "Surface physics: Hydrogen atoms band together," by Risto Nieminen
   (summarizing a paper by C. Astaldi et all).   Nature, Vol. 356, No. 6367,
   March 26, 1992, p. 289.
 
A quote:
 
   "What is good enough for electrons is good enough for protons, their
   chemical counterparts 2000 times more massive, reports C. Astaldi et al,
   who have discovered band-like behavior of hydrogen atoms moving over the
   surface of copper."
 
Prior to posting "A Twist of Ribbon" on this group I had done a very
thorough literature search at the Library of Congress on the subject of
proton and deuteron banding, and was unable to find any papers that proposed
the idea -- lots of relevant (to me) papers about "proton tunneling" in Pd
and compounds such as niobium hydroxide, but no clear extension to the idea
of describing or analyzing such phenomena in terms of heavy-particle banding.
 
You may also recall that the clear existence of heavy-particle banding is an
absolutely critical requirement to the Twist of Ribbon argument, and that I
proposed the possible existence of such phenomena in no uncertain terms by
a scaling argument comparing protons in a metal lattice to electrons in
quantum dot devices.  (Chuck Sites beat me to the punch on actual proposing
heavy-particle band phenomena on this interest group, by the way, on some
ideas of his own that were unrelated to mine.)
 
Do I regret not publishing that part of Twist in a reviewed journal?  Nope.
I am tired of the second-citizen status for the very interesting world of
electronic group-think, and am rather proud to have (apparently) managed to
nailed down a non-trivial physic prediction by using it.  I hope that some
of you who use this group won't mind saying "hey! our email group clearly
predicted a novel effect a year before it was identified experimentally."
 
Incidentally, the Astaldi results were detectable due to some clever surface
phenomena that he used to verify banding behavior.  I remain quite solid on
my prediction that palladium will eventually be "discovered" to be an
outstanding medium for proton and deuteron banding, and that in fact such
effects are a key component to truly understanding their permeability to
such gases and the many peculiarities of alpha/beta phases and phase
transitions in these an other transition metals (e.g., niobium).  Detecting
such effects within (vs. on the surface) metallic crystals will be a bit
trickier to do experimentally, but some of you out there who are interested
in such things might want to keep the idea in mind for a good physics paper
or two.  If they exist on the surface of copper, I suspect it's nigh-on to
a sure bet that they also exist within the palladium crystal structure.
 
Novel physics, though?  Well, here's the bottom line:  If there is any novel
physics in hydrogen/deuterim banding, it will show up in one or both of
two ways:
 
  1) By increasing the physical size (number of participating particles)
     over which orderly banding occurs, and/or
 
  2) By introducing band structure discontinuities that cause localized
     increases in the density of states.
 
The key thought in both is that while large increases in the density of
states (caused by both of the above) are experimentally known to be trivial
for electron band phenomena, the same assertion has most definitely not been
proved for complex strong-force particles such as protons or deuterons.  It
could very well turn out that such heavy particle density-of-state compress-
ions are flatly trivial and of no real interest -- but since the Astaldi
work has only now discovered the existence of heavy-particle band phenomena
it would seem a pretty sure bet that such density of states compression
experiments have not yet been consciously performed, wouldn't it?
 
(Incidentally, the supreme method for density-of-state compression is a type
of discontinuity called a "band soliton."  You find them mostly in pseudo-1D
media such as polyacetylene, although the 2D equivalents (called anyons)
have also gotten some press lately.  A band soliton nominally produces an
infinite density-of-states compression, and so is doggone hard to calculate
out in terms "real" density-of-state effects.)
 
                              Cheers,
                              Terry Bollinger   (71033.536@compuserve.com)
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden536 cudfn cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  Britz /  Re: Stuffing wires      (and) Symmetrical cells
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stuffing wires      (and) Symmetrical cells
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 13:30:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
 
>On another subject, have we resolved the question of whether symmetry
>is needed for maximum loading? I posted a note hypothesizing that
>symmetry is simply not important, but only Tom has commented.
>
>Dieter, what do you think? Did you see my note?
 
Sorry, John, I probably saw it but was too busy to respond. My postings on
symmetry were a response to questions; I myself have no idea whether symmetry
is needed or not. On the one hand, it feels right that if you want to squash
as much deuterium into the metal as you can, then you have equally at every
bit of the surface; i.e. an even current distribution. You can only get this
with one of the mentioned three geometries (although I should say that two
concentric spheres can also be two concentric hemispheres or an approximation
thereto, e.g. a hemispherical Pd cathode sitting in an insulating plane, with
a large anode at a distance of at least several hemisphere diameters). As I
have said, other people plump for nonequilibrium and some of them believe that
loading gradients within the cathode will give you that; so some have
deliberately used uneven current distributions.
 
 
On another subject, the report on the forthcoming cnf conference in Italy
mentions that it will be arranged by the magazine '21 Secolo - Scienza e
Tecnologia'. You are all aware, of course, that this must be the Italian
version of 21st Century. I just mention it. If they (i.e. LLR) are paying for
this conference, well, good for them.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 / MIKE JAMISON /  Suggestion for contacting Paul Koloc
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suggestion for contacting Paul Koloc
Date:  1 May 1992 10:26 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Gene Riggs:  I had the same problem e-mailing to Tom Droege that you're
having trying to e-mail Paul Koloc.
 
Tom solved the problem by e-mailing me.  I used the header from his e-mail,
and was able to get to him.
 
If Paul will e-mail to you, you should be able to reply.
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Stuffing wires-The Book
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stuffing wires-The Book
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 15:43:29 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr29.005922.197711@cs.cmu.edu>
alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>>with end caps, but rather on capping the ends of a cylindrical cathode.  But
>>the problem is the same.
>>
>>When I look at the pictures in the Moore thesis showing metal (nickel) being
>>torn apart before your eyes by trapped hydrogen after electrolysis was turned
>>off, I do not understand how a plated non-permeable cover would help, even if
>>it is patented.  Seems to me that the interface between a gold plate and the
>>palladium would be weaker than the undisturbed palladium metal.  The hydrogen
>>(deuterium) would just split the plating off.
>>So I think of a wire like a long Japanese subway, with stuffers at all
>>fast enough at the stations we can keep the train packing high.
>>
>>Tom Droege
>>
>Tom, you are assuming that H(D) will either preferentially diffuse     >thru
 the ends or at least will have the same rate of diffusion in
>all directions (including out of the ends). This assumption, I think,
>is invalid. If the ends are capped by a metal which does not absorb
>H, the diffusion out of the electrode will be only radial. Also, does
>the paper you mention (with Nickel) talk about potential macro-defects
>in the nickel which were simply augmented by H out-gassing or was the
>lattice really ripped apart?
Speculation on properties is not necessary.  There is a Springer Verlag
book on Transition Metal Hydrides.  Since I am no longer at the Bureau of Stand
ards location (now occupied by another organization called NIST) I cannot
improve on the citation.  It was about 1986, the series that is yellow orange c
overs with brown or black band.  I hope it is still there.  For the NIST,
the main switchboard number is 301-975-2000.
Dick Forman
*****Does--No I Still Talk--**** appeal as the words the acryonym for
NIST derives from?  The still is there because people and organizations can
STILL do some things after the "heart" stops beating.  Those of you
who do not believe this statement have never been to a live chicken market
where you get really fresh chickens; once in a while you see a headless
chicken running around (for a short while),  Other suggested acronym
decoding suggestions welcomed especially from other alumni.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: For Cold Fusion net - temperature, pressure etc.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For Cold Fusion net - temperature, pressure etc.
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 15:58:33 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr30.025007.28411@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
>Temperature, Pressure, High D Loading and the Sun.
>   Dick Forman asked some questions about these subjects and "would love
>to have extensive comments".
>Let's go back to fundamentals. Fusion can take place when a deuterium ion can
>penetrate the potential barrier of another deuteron. For normal gaseous
>deuterium, D2, the separation of the D nuclei is 0.74 Angstroms and for liquid
>fusion occuring is vanishingly small - Steve Koonin has calculated the
>generally accepted value of 10**-64 fusions per deuterium pair per second!
>One way to obtain fusion is to reduce this distance of 0.74 A. This is done
>in muon-catalysed fusion (where Steve Jones made his reputation) where a muon
>which is some 200 times heavier than an electron, replaces it and pulls the
>two deuterium nuclei together to a distance of about 0.035 A and fusion can
>then occur. The basic idea of Drs, Fleischmann, Pons and Jones was that as
>some metals could contain large amounts of deuterium, perhaps by loading
>such metals the deuterium nuclei would be so close that fusion could occur.
>Fine idea but unfortunately the numbers do not work out. In a metal such as
>Palladium, the nuclei are actually further apart than in the gaseous or
>in palladium with loadings, D/Pd of up to 0.8, the orthohedral states are
>occupied and the separation is 2.85 A while if the loading is increased further
>the tetrahedral states are occupied by deuterons and the separation is reduced
>but only to 1.74 A - again much too far for fusion to take place.
>     Electrolysis can give loadings of 0.8 +/- 0.1 fairly easily with palladium
>but no clear evidence has been shown for values much above 1.0.
>     Another way to load is by gas pressure. Steve Jones has obtained most
>of his results with low gas pressures of a few atmospheres giving loadings
>of about 0.3. One of the highest well-measured loading was obtained by a
>Harvard group with a very high pressure of 105 000 bar who measured
>D/Pd = 1.34 +/- 0.1. They measured no neutrons nor heat production and gave
>very low upper limits, confirming that the separation is still much too great.
>In other words no pressure effects at "cold" temperatures will reduce the
>separation to values that will give reasonable fusion rates.
>    The Sun is quite different. A huge cloud of gas containing hydrogen
>isotopes, helium and heavier elements (essentially from earlier supernovae
>explosions) contracted under gravity and about 4.5 billion years ago this
>protostar became a star as the temperature and density became high enough.
>At present the centre of the Sun has a temperature of 15 million degrees
>and a density of about 150 g/cm3. The cross section for two hydrogen nuclei
>to fuse to give deuterium is very small which why the Sun has burned for so
>long and will continue to burn for 5 billion years. The reason fusion takes
>place is because the temperature is so high that the hydrogen nuclei(protons)
>are moving fast enough to have a probability of getting close to one another
>to fuse.
>    An Evolutionary Model of the Sun following its behaviour from 4.5 billion
>years ago until today has been developed, first by Schwarzchild et al.
>in 1957. There is an unfortunate tendancy to call this a Standard
>Solar Model, SSM. In fact there are a series of calculations by many groups
>who continually modify what they do so that the SSM is not standard in the
>way there is a Standard Model of particle physics which is basically fixed.
>One of the proponents of the SSM is John Bahcall who gives unbelievably
>small errors and this helps him to claim that the flux of neutrinos
>mesured is much less than he calculates - this has become the Conventional
>Wisdom for the last 15 years. Have worked on neutrino physics for some time so
>recently have checked on the errors and assumptions of the SSM and of the
>experiments. In the following message give a summary of the Evolutionary Model
>and of experiments - cannot show the plots here but they are printed in the
>March 1992 edition of the magazine, Particle World. This article was finished
>in December 1991 and some changes have since taken place, most of which
>were presented at the IAU conference "Inside the Stars" held earlier this
 month.
>Bahcall et al. have now incorporated the lower iron value and a lower
>7Be(p,gamma) value and have added a diffusion calculation but have only
>considered simple diffusion which INCREASES the neutrino flux but do not
>include the turbulent diffusion which DECREASES the flux (by a larger amount
>according to first calculations). The Saclay group, Turck-Chieze et al.,
>made several changes and obtain 5.1 SNU for chlorine but this should be
>increased to 6.1 SNU to take into account the new opacities from Livermore.
>Bahacall et al. find 7.4 SNU without diffusion.
>     Now one awaits within the next few months, the results from the
>Gallex experiment who have more data than the SAGE experiment. If Gallex
>report about 100 SNU then this would confirm the suspicion that Sage
>have a chemistry problem and would indicate that there was no real
>Solar Neutrino problem. But as with Cold Fusion, there will probably
>be True Believers who continue to Believe.
>                                                Douglas R.O. Morrison.
>
>PS Have just received a copyy of John Huizenga's book "COLD FUSION - the
>Scientific Fiasco of the Century". It is a very well and carefully written
>book in which the history is given and the scientific arguments are clearly
>made. Everyone seriously interested in the subject of Cold Fusion should read
>it and consider the arguments. It is published by University of Rochester
>Press and can be obtained from Box 41026, Rochester NY and in Europe from
>PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, United Kingdom.
 ****************************************************************
Dick Forman says: There's no true Disbeliever like and old True Disbeliever
*****************************************************************
Let me understand.  What you suggest is that I go down the street, really
about 10 miles to visit my old friend David Mao at Carnegie Geophysical
and do some experiments.  Since I invented the ruby pressure standard for the
diamond anvil pressure cell, and have known David Mao and his former
colleague Peter Bell since those days, he should be willing to do me a
favor and do a quick experiment.  It is unfortunate that we (Gasper Piermarini,
Stan Block and I) decided not to do geophysics and did other
high pressure science instead.  Since Carnegie Geophysical had the charter
and the associated geologist knowledge, we thought we would do what we do
(did?) best and have them do what they do best.  Gasper and I discussed
doing the high pressure experiments at NIST (see previous reply for
meaning of acronym) but I explained to Gasper why it was pointless.
The field didn't need another negative result in 1989.  There
were plenty to go around.  While I believe that is what happens when
physicists like me try to do electrochemistry and they have never done
anything in that field before, the experts that "DISPROVED" the existence
of Cold Fusion believed they did know and understand everything they needed
to do their no-existance proof.  Too bad, Dr. Takahashi didn't listen.  If he
had listened he wouldn't have had too suffer all that jet lag that comes
a flight from Japn to visit Hagelstein et al at MIT and Bockris et al
at Texas A&M.  He probably wouldn't have had any beautiful papers to publish
or been in a position to receive kudos from his colleagues in Science.
I await the learned suggestions on what to do with the diamond cell
filled with metallic hydrogen that is usually available at Carnegie
once a week.  The metallic hydrogen and the cell to produce it are
patented (in the US for sure; elsewhere, I don't know).  Hard to build
though.  Uses aircraft engine steels (maraging??).  I think since you
can carry it around in your hand (the cell that is) it is probably
easier to build than a Tokomak, or a ...  The current best devices for
hot fusion.  The best supplier for diamond anvils is DoubleDee or
D. Drucker unless you have problems buying from a firm that derives its
raw material from an-Afrikaans owned company, deBeers.
If Dvaid is not in ask Russ Hemley for advise on building the cell and
setting up for the ultra-high pressure expts. that you, NOT Me--I don't do
experiements that I expect to fail--plan to do.  I will be happy to comment on
your plans if you post them.  On the West Coast you could see with Ray Janloz
(sp?) in the Geophysics Dept. of UCB would help you out.  He's concentrated
on just the high pressure high temeprature problems, so if you have to have
metallic hydrogen for your expts. you may have to go to Carnegie.
Don't worry the only danger in the experiments will be if you overload
a diamond with pressure and it comes apart with fast moving fragments.
*********************************************************************
Anyone know if the Flat Earth Society is still around. The true disbelievers
ought to have someplace to go where they could find kindred spirits.
I had heard they disbanded the Flat Earth Society when testimony was given by a
stronauts that they really had circled the Earth and it was not flat.  Still
you cna't knock a society that lasted almost 500 years.
Bob and Ray always said (in the show's closing): Write if you get work;
Hang by your thumbs.
A prize of a preprint of my next theory paper to the person that
identifies the author of the following quote.
"A GENERAL IDEA IS A THREAT TO THE EXISTING ORDER (OF THINGS)"
QUERY: What if the nuclear reactions in the Standard model are not the only
ones that occur.  See if you can find the works by Kopsov on this
question.  Hint: Neutrinos is in the title.
No further hints available beause of the availability of free unlimited
funds to some University workers in Cambridge, MA to "flood the patent literatu
re with...." .  I can't compete with that kind of stuff.
But then again they aren't physicists and they certainly do not believe in the
FREE interchange of information and ideas.  I do the best I can to get the info
out there, but as I haven't yet sent it in to a peer-reviewed journal,
see earlier posting for anticipated journal name, I can't let it all hang out.
Dick Forman--Member of the Technical Staff= Systems Analyst.
(As my wife says: once a physicist, always a physicist----besides systems
analysis and engineering is just like physics---just logic at the core)
I do not think physcists can or SHOULD EVEN TRY to do everything.
What physicists are often good at is assembling the team (systems engineering r
ead: hardware and software) to do a job.  I've never known a physicist
that knew how to run the thing if the problem was hard; the easy ones they
can do before the co-operation falls apart.  Richard Rhodes quotes (NIST-
April 1992) Edward Teller as saying that Oppenheimer was the finest lab.
manager he'd ever known, so there apparently are exceptions. At least I
think J.R. Oppenheimer would have described himself as a physicist.  It is
only later in my career that I became a sort-of physicist; my gradute work
was in chemical physics--a peculiar field that has mostly become
materials science in grad. school today.
Actually I always say: I have no paricular specialty, I just enjoy
solving puzzles.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: For Cold Fusion net - Solar Models.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For Cold Fusion net - Solar Models.
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:50:43 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr30.031059.28886@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
 
A Masterful Article Called:
 
>     REVIEW OF SOLAR MODELS AND SOLAR NEUTRINO EXPERIMENTS.
 
Dick Forman says: A MUST READ (ME TOO-ALL WEEKEND--BUT I ONLY HAVE MY
OWN BOOKS UNFORTUNATELY)
 
MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO DR. MORRISON FOR THE OBVIOUS CYNICISM IS MY PREVIOUS
POST.  Clearly YOU are NOT a true disbeliever.
I have books at home that explain why there are no compounds formed by the rare
gases.  They were correct in their day.  Eximers had not yet been discovered.
 
The same type of staements will be made about the models, statements and theori
es that abound today and claim complete understanding for nuclear physics.
My comment is: You know you should stop when you have as many parameters as
you do measurements. (Paraphrase of the conclusion of Professor Keith Breuckner
(sp?) from a talk he gave on his nuclear theory work at University of
Maryland in 1961 or so.
I intend to carefull read Dr. Morrison's review article this weekend to see
if the same observation applies to solar neutrino theories.  I hope that
Dr. Morrison will submit his paper to Review of Modern Physics so that I
can get an archival copy by buying the issue.
 
Dick Forman
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 /  /  Its a gas!
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Its a gas!
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 19:44:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cathode Electrode: 0.0098 cc, 0.78 sq cm, 5 cm long wire 0.5 mm dia
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: Hi-Lo 40 ma per sq cm to 400 ma per sq cm (aprox)
                  8 hour change interval
Duration: Total on of about 4 days
Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.7
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: NA
Temperature: 20 C
 
We have switched to 20 C so that the catalyst survives the high low
transition.  In the several hangs we have lost track of the total evolved
gas, but think it is about -60 cc.  In other words, there is 60 cc less D2 in
the system than when we started the experiment.  No reason to think this is
much more than a wild guess.  Basically we looked at our print out for the gas
volume where something when haywire, and restored that volume when we fixed
the blow out.
 
During the night we had the opposite problem.  The system ran out of gas and
pulled a vacuum.  Something was going somewhere since there was a net energy
loss of 20 mw, which recovered when we added 5 cc of gas to remove the vacuum.
If these gas reports sound like I don't understand what is going on, I don't.
There seem to be much larger gas volume changes than I would have expected.
Another example below.  The servo syringe only has a capacity of 50 cc, which
one would think would be enough to track changes in a 0.0098 cc wire.
 
There is a third electrode in the cell which is run as a cathode at 180 ma.
The idea is to attract junk that will plate out and to hold it.  Thus when we
make a transition from low cathode current (30 ma) to high cathode current
(320 ma) we go from a gas generation current of 210 ma to 500 ma.  I compute
this is 87.8 cc of D2 per hr to 209 cc D2 per hour.  Note the syringe is in
the room at typically 23 C, and at 4" H2O pressure.  Pressure and temperature
corrections for P and T thus almost cancel, and anyway these corrections are
small compared to the error.  Note the syringe temperature, not the cell
temperature should be used if corrections are to be made.  As usual, when I
say "I compute" I hope someone will check the computation.
 
This morning I watched the gas behavior on the low to high transition.  Over
about 15 minutes, the gas volume went up 40 cc.  Over the next 15 minutes the
gas volume was reduced by 35 cc.  So there was a net gain of 5 cc in the
deuterium filled cell.  This implies a loss of 5 cc from the 0.0098 volume of
the wire if the measurement scheme means anything.  It looks like the catalyst
gets fixated on the amount of gas that it will convert.  In fact, the initial
gas gain rate was roughly the increased gas rate.  Then over time it adjusts
to the new rate.  It seems to take longer (aprox. 3x) than the thermal time
constants involved.
 
I am concerned that this scheme of measurement is just junk, and tells almost
nothing about the D/Pd ratio achieved.  Everything is contrary to what my
intuition tells me.  I would expect the catalyst to be more efficient at
higher currents and thus higher temperatures.  But if operation allows some
residual oxygen to remain in the cell depending on the total cell current then
this measurement is worthless.  Note that because of the auxiliary electrode
current there was only a 2 1/2 to 1 gas rate change.
 
Note that earlier measurements with Oxygen in the cell seemed to make sense.
The excess oxygen, cathode resistance, and heat of absorption all seemed to
agree.  I don't like backfilling with oxygen as it forms the white gunk from
the Lithium (or something).  For these measurements, too much Deuterium moves
around to believe.
 
The cell contains both Palladium catalyst D and the Platinum, carbon fiber,
teflon stuff from Storms.
 
So you catalyst experts out there, please tell me what is going on.  What I
really want to know is, is there a way to get the D/Pd loading from the gas
volume?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 01:14:37 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <61D4B386845FA046C9@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
>
>>In article <646143EFDCBF20669C@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>> writes:
>
>>> My realisation, when making this point before, was that the figures of 0.8
 eV
>>>and a fugacity of 1E27 are talking about the same thing, and this gives some
>>>perspective to the compression idea. Such a fugacity (or pressure) is as
>>>effective as a deuteron with an energy of 0.8 eV; and we know that this is
>>>useless for fusion, from beam/target work.
>
>>This is not quite correct.  It is probably true that an (actual)
>>pressure of a few million atmospheres or an energy per deuterium of a
>>few hundred electron volts is adequate to cause acceptible fusion rates
>>in a bulk deuterium sample.  This is very much less than the amount needed to
>>see fusion rates in colliding beams.  The reason, of course is that you get
>>many more collisions per unit time for many more atoms in a condensed
>>system than you get for a single collision of a two beams.
>
>This IS correct, Rolfe. A large fugacity (which is a sort of pressure; more
>precisely an activity or a pressure times an activity coefficient), means a
>lot of particles jostling around the metal surface. FPH are suggesting that
>this causes fusion. I say that each of these jostling particles has about 0.8
>eV and that this is an expression for the same thing. They then establish an
>equilibrium with the metal interior, governed by the activity (read: fugacity
>or eV or chemical potential, all equivalent) at the surface.
 
Well now my post was flawed [it is not 10^6 bars (or atmospheres) but
rather more] however I do insist that the fusion at low temperatures and
pressures will work at reasonable and detectible rates at significantly
lower energies (chemical potential)
per particle than can be reasonably detected in colliding
beam work.  The reason is that the number of effective collisions in a solid
is in very significant excess of the number of particles you can
possibly put in a beam and the rate at which they collide is in great
excess of the repeat rate of any beam (roughly, I suppose one collision
per 10^-13 or so seconds per particle so 10^20 particles gets you 10^27
collisions per microsecond which is more, I expect than have been studied
in colliding beams since the beginning of time).  Admittedly there is a
formula which can be extrapolated which has sound theoretical basis and
which fits beautifully to the colliding beam data.  However there is no
direct experimental data at either the expected to be relevant or
actual energies per particle and, in fact, in solids such things as
potential energy modifications due to electronic motion are not
completely without relevance to the extrapolation (surely to actual
energies of a few volts but even to probably relavant energies).
 
I further insist that the
chemical potential (or *actual* pressure) is what matters and not the
fugacity.  The fugacity is related to the chemical potential, as you
point out, by the formula f=1atm exp((mu-mu_0)/RT) where mu is the chemical
potential, mu_0 is the chemical potential of the corresponding the ideal
gas at standard temperature and pressure.  Well the problem is that if
mu - mu_0 is significantly larger than unity (as in this case) then the
fugacity is huge and would vary catastropically if, say, the temperature
were changed by a factor of 2 without significant change in mu.  However
I am not aware of reliable theories in which the fusion rate is except
to change catastropically with a halving of the temperature in this
[(mu-mu_0)>>RT] limit.  Thus while mu can be backed out of the fugacity
seems silly to quote the fugacity as it only has meaning once you have
backed out the chemical potential.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.01 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Fugacity
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity
Date: 1 May 92 01:23:37 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <61D4B386845FA046C9@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
>>In article <646143EFDCBF20669C@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>> writes:
>
>>> My realisation, when making this point before, was that the figures of 0.8
 eV
>>>and a fugacity of 1E27 are talking about the same thing, and this gives some
>>>perspective to the compression idea. Such a fugacity (or pressure) is as
>>>effective as a deuteron with an energy of 0.8 eV; and we know that this is
>>>useless for fusion, from beam/target work.
>
>>This is not quite correct.  It is probably true that an (actual)
>>pressure of a few million atmospheres or an energy per deuterium of a
>>few hundred electron volts is adequate to cause acceptible fusion rates
>>in a bulk deuterium sample.  This is very much less than the amount needed to
>>see fusion rates in colliding beams.  The reason, of course is that you get
>>many more collisions per unit time for many more atoms in a condensed
>>system than you get for a single collision of a two beams.
>
>This IS correct, Rolfe. A large fugacity (which is a sort of pressure; more
>precisely an activity or a pressure times an activity coefficient), means a
>lot of particles jostling around the metal surface. FPH are suggesting that
>this causes fusion. I say that each of these jostling particles has about 0.8
>eV and that this is an expression for the same thing. They then establish an
>equilibrium with the metal interior, governed by the activity (read: fugacity
>or eV or chemical potential, all equivalent) at the surface.
 
Well now my post was flawed [it is not 10^6 bars (or atmospheres) but
rather more] however I do insist that the fusion at low temperatures and
pressures will work at reasonable and detectible rates at significantly
lower energies (chemical potential)
per particle than can be reasonably detected in colliding
beam work.  The reason is that the number of effective collisions in a solid
is in very significant excess of the number of particles you can
possibly put in a beam and the rate at which they collide is in great
excess of the repeat rate of any beam (roughly, I suppose one collision
per 10^-13 or so seconds per particle 10^31 collisions per microsecond
micromole which is many more than have been studied
in colliding beams since the beginning of time).  Admittedly there is a
formula which can be extrapolated which has sound theoretical basis and
which fits beautifully to the colliding beam data.  However there is no
direct experimental data at either the expected to be relevant or
actual energies per particle and, in fact, in solids such things as
potential energy modifications due to electronic motion are not
completely without relevance to the extrapolation (surely to actual
energies of a few volts but even to probably relavant energies).
 
I further insist that the
chemical potential (or *actual* pressure) is what matters and not the
fugacity.  The fugacity is related to the chemical potential, as you
point out, by the formula f=1atm exp((mu-mu_0)/RT) where mu is the chemical
potential, mu_0 is the chemical potential of the corresponding the ideal
gas at standard temperature and pressure.  Well the problem is that if
(mu - mu_0)/RT is significantly larger than unity (as in this case) then the
fugacity is huge and would vary catastropically if, say, the temperature
were changed by a factor of 2 without significant change in mu.  However
I am not aware of reliable theories in which the fusion rate is expected
to change catastropically with a halving of the temperature in this
[(mu-mu_0)>>RT] limit.  Thus while mu can be backed out of the fugacity
seems silly to quote the fugacity as it only has meaning once you have
backed out the chemical potential.  This, however was possibly also your
point.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: For Cold Fusion net - temperature, pressure etc.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For Cold Fusion net - temperature, pressure etc.
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 17:34:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Apr30.025007.28411@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
 writes:
 
     [much deleted]
 
>     Now one awaits within the next few months, the results from the
>Gallex experiment who have more data than the SAGE experiment. If Gallex
>report about 100 SNU then this would confirm the suspicion that Sage
>have a chemistry problem and would indicate that there was no real
>Solar Neutrino problem. But as with Cold Fusion, there will probably
>be True Believers who continue to Believe.
>                                                Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
     Is this the New Way of doing science?  Does one impugn the Motivations
     of those who Disagree with one by implying Religious and irrational
     devotion to a theory without logical Cause?
 
     Though I have enjoyed much of your writing that I have seen in this
     forum over the years, I humbly suggest that you are performing like
     a True Believer in the Cult of the Irrefutable Solar Model.  I suspect
    that your interpretation of the 'solar neutrino problem' is still in
     the minority for good reason.  The implication of the above that
     anyone who disagrees is doing so irrationally and for religious reasons
     is improper and unfounded at present.
 
                                     dale bass
 
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.02 / Steve Crocker /  LaRouche, Energy, etc. (Reply to Paul Houle)
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LaRouche, Energy, etc. (Reply to Paul Houle)
Date: Sat, 2 May 92 08:02:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

 
In a post here dated:
Mon Apr 20 22:03:08 1992
 
houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
responds to my previous post and raises more points.
 
<I had said>
>First, it appears that Paul is using dollar measures as though they
>represented true social costs. This would be reasonable only in the
>absence of distorting factors in the marketplace. For instance, there
>has been a massive political campaign against nuclear power at least
>since the mid-seventies. A favorite tactic has been to raise safety
>concerns during the licensing process. This has led both to the
>substantive costs of redesign, the lawyer subsidies inherent in
>protracted litigation, and most importantly the need to seek
>refinancing for such projects, often at the usurious rates current
>during the early eighties. With the possible exception of any
>actually necessary redesign, none of these "cost" factors are
>inherent in the technology.
 
<to which Paul responded>
        First thing,  you tell us that nuclear power is good for the economy,
and that it's still good for the economy,  even if it costs consumers and
utilities more per kwH.  This leaves me scratching my head.  A lot of
nuclear power people do blame the problems of nuclear power environmentalists.
I answer to them that only the very strict safety regulations that we have
at nuclear power plants have prevent a large number of financial disasters
(TMI) from being human disasters.  Also,  this country is a democracy,
and if people don't want nuclear power,  even if they are wrong,  nobody
has the right to force it down their throats.  Many of us have really
strong feelings about issues such as abortion,  gun control,  you name
it -- yet even the fact that we are convinced we are right doesn't give
us the right to control society.
 
<I say>
 
Yes, an energy strategy can be good for the (physical) economy despite
the fact that the dollar costs of that strategy may be higher than a
competing one. This is what I meant by referring to "distorting factors".
In the case under discussion, the problem is not that nuclear power is
unreasonably expensive in any physical sense. The problem is that the
dollar cost of that technology has been distorted by unreasonably high
interest rates combined with unnecessary project delays added to the direct
costs of defending against the often bad faith litigation that caused those
delays. And yes, I do mean bad faith. All too often the motivation for
bringing safety-related litigation is not a sincere concern with the safety
issue as such, but rather a philosophical objection to a technology which
is seen as fatally flawed combined with the recognition that overemphazing
the dangers of a little-understood technology is a good way to mobilize
opposition to that technology. It is esentially a tactic of terrorism.
 
Paul's point about democracy, is misleading, I think. Whether it is
abortion, gun control, or nuclear power, as long as there is controversy
over the issue, some people will be condemmed to live in a society
going in what they believe to be the wrong direction. They, of course,
have both the freedom and the responsibility to organize and try to
reverse that direction. It is as coercive to deny nuclear power to me
as it would be to focre it on you. Additionally, it is not clear to me
what the majority sentiment on nuclear power IS (although I will grant
you that the majority of political activists on energy issues are
opposed). Still less clear is what the majority sentiment would be if
people were told the full truth about nuclear safety issues, rather than
being subjected to "hype" on the dangers by those who have other agendas.
When nuclear safety experts begin to get equal coverage in the public
debate compared to anti-nuclear activists, I will grant the possibility
of an informed citizenry (supposedly a necessary precondition to
democratic decision making).
 
<I had said>
>A more resonable way to estimate costs, in my view, would be a
>measure of man-hours per megawatt-hour of delivered energy. I
>don't have figures, but I vividly recall the proponents of solar
>power arguing FOR their technology on the basis that it was
>labor intensive compared to nuclear! This suggests that either
>the typical wages of a worker in the solar industry would have
>to be pegged lower than their counterpart in the nuclear industry,
>or the costs of delivered energy would have to rise, or a combination.
>In any case, the social cost is higher.
 
<Paul responded>
        Changes in productivity per unit of labor are a double-edged
sword.  Yes,  increases in productivity means that we can get more
with less work.  Yet,  increasing labor productivity can put people
at work if other resources are limited (even capital could be
such a resource,  but oil,  energy,  trees,  land can all be limiting
factors) -- Suppose I could wave a magic wand and increase labor
productivity 1000 fold tomorrow.  Would it be wise of us to keep
people working 40 hour weeks?  At that rate,  we'd destroy the
forests of the world in weeks,  run out of oil and metal reserves
and all of that stuff.  I like dollar cost per unit output better
because it takes into account that there are such things as energy
productivity,  resource productivity...  How much product you
get for a given investment.  Most existing dollar cost measures
aren't that good because they don't cover many health/environmental
issues,  but they can be fixed by adding in external costs.  This
process depends on who does the calculation,  but nothing in
economics is perfect.
 
<I say>
The question of resource-limited growth is directly related to the
need for contuously advancing technology which I addressed later in
my post. Even assuming dollar costs represented the true costs of
resources, which is not always true (see example above), there is
still the interesting philosophical question of what makes a resource
a resource. This question has an answer with extremely practical
implications. A RESOURCE IS DEFINED RELATIVE TO A SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGIGAL MODE OF PRODUCTION. Thus, iron and copper were not
resources to stone age man, and uranium was not an energy resource
until the late forties. Deuterium may or may not be an energy resource
at the moment, depending on whose data you believe. The point here
is that TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE CREATES NEW RESOURCES (through
redefinition). This has been true throughout our history and there is
no reason to forsee an end to that process.
 
 
<I had said>
>Which brings us to the "Kapitza Criterion". This measure originated
>with the Soviet physicist P. Kapitza, although it is LaRouche who
>popularized it in the U.S. It states that an approximte measure
>of the economic viability of an energy technology can be estimated
>on the basis of the "energy flux density" (I believe the dimensions
>of this quantity are W/cm^2, but I can't find the reference).
 
 
<and Paul responded>
        Yes,  there is some truth in this -- yet this simple measure
doesn't even touch the complexity of energy as it is actually used;
nobody really cares about KwH.  They want a warm house,  lights,
a TV set,  a refrigerator,  a stove,  finished goods like aluminum
cans.  When you think of energy in terms of KwH,  you tend to think
of really stupid things like electric heat for homes...  Burn coal
(or split atoms),  dump 60% of the heat in a river and put 30%
of it in your home when you could burn the coal at home,  or better
yet,  weatherstrip your home and modify it to use passive solar.
 
        One source of energy (say solar) isn't appropriate for
all uses.  One metric of the utility of an energy source isn't
good for all applications.  The energy densities involved in nuclear
power are great for space travel,  but are actually much higher
than anyone actually needs for most ground-based applications.
Forseeable (~20 yr) photovoltaic technology could be deployed on
the rooftops of homes to generate (~20 kWh) a day (time-averaged
for most places in the US,  some do better than this) for
a home that use (~13 kWh) a day.  Maybe this won't be practical,
because I won't grant myself the kind of wishful thinking
LaRouche does,  but seeing that the house probably leaks energy
like a sieve,  and by replacing lights with compact flouresents,
getting a better fridge and all that they could cut their usage
of energy by half,  that gives a lot of leeway.  Maybe solar
can't do everything,  but it comes in many forms and it is just
one of many renewable resources.  You can run out of nuclear
fuel,  but we won't run out of sun for several billion years.
 
<I say>
But this analysis does not take into account the spin-off factor.
One reason to prefer energy dense processes is that very high
densities of energy tend to manifest themselves in novel ways
that become available for novel uses. LaRouche's people, for instance,
have published discussions of integrated nuclear-industrial complexes
(nuplexes) built around the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) and
using the high temperatures directly for industrial process heat in
steel-making, etc. More speculative, but philosophically similar, is
their proposal to use the high energy photons developed by magnetic
confinement fusion to directly drive chemical reactions on an industrial
scale.
 
Now combine this factor with the labor criterion. We then can frame
the question as follows: Given the existence of a nuclear industry
which we wish to support because of its potential to generate spin-off
applications "subsidized" by the energy produced, what are our choices
for (say) heating houses? Are we better off to spend our available
manpower going around to older houses and retrofitting them for
efficiency, or will we get more "bang for the bod" by heating houses
electrically, accepting the energy waste involved, and putting the
manpower to work more efficiently on other projects?
 
(Note that this example is somewhat idealized - in the real world it
is probably reasonable to design some energy efficiency into newly
constructed housing, but still heat primarily by gas (which might,
however, be produced by nuclear driven coal gasification)).
 
This will raise the point in some minds that hanging insulation or
replacing windows requires a lower skill level than nuclear plant
design or operation. Exactly so. But anyone who argues for investment
in conservation technologies on THOSE grounds is neglecting the social
costs of a skew toward lower skill levels in the work force. The point
here is that lower skill levels are reasonably correlated with lower
general education levels, which are a BAD THING. Now a profound
philosophical question lurks behind the Bushes here. Some people would
argue that the guy (or gal) hanging insulation is doing that kind of
job because they are just TOO DUMB to be a technician, engineer,
physicist, etc. Even such a "progressive" thinker such as George Bernard
Shaw used to talk about the "talented 10%" who in a well ordered society
should be the administrators, etc. Well, LaRouche rejects such notions
and I strongly agree with him. Except for fairly clear cut cases of
brain dysfunction, I know of no evidence to suggest that there are
inborn limits to what a particular individual is capable of learning.
The tricky part is to recover an attitude within society that actually
VALUES this learning capability and is willing to mobilize the human
resources of the society to encourage it.
 
<and in another post, responding to my "PART 2" Paul says more>
<referring to the notorious article on the relation between
DNA optical resonances and the musical scale, I had written>
 
>Well, it's 10 pages and I surely don't want to type in any major
>amount of it. I can remark generally that it reflects LaRouche's
>long standing contention that there is coherence among the laws
>governing the microcosm, the macrocosm, and the human scale
>processes we ordinarily identify with terms like "creativity"
>and the "sense of beauty". He seems to say that this is not anything
>mystical, but rather is due precisely to the PHYSICAL characteristics
>and structuring of space. It is at this point where LaRouche and his
>associates always invoke Reimann and Gauss, ans sometimes Georg Cantor.
>I have to admit that I am not familiar enough with the language of
>advanced geometry to follow them in any detail.
 
<Paul responded>
 
        Unfortunately,  nobody seems to know enough advanced geometry
to follow LaRouche and his friends in detail.  This is deliberate.  Remember
that the experience of music is a product of the human nervous system which
is a rather complex machine which can grow up under all kinds of parameters.
Some people can listen to classical music and not feel a thing...  Others
respond to it in ways that are really beautiful.  A person taking a drug
such as alcohol,  marijuania or LSD will react to music in ways that seem
perfectly valid (I saw a person do some wonderful improvisation on the
influence of LSD) but still different from that of most people.  Because
music doesn't have uniform effects on people,  I think it keys into
complex nervous-system scale structures,  not cosmic forces spanning
thousands of decibels from the hot pulsations of gamma rays to the
silent and stately revolution of the galaxies.
 
<I say>
I don't think LaRouche or his scientific associates are being deliberately
obscure here. Part of the difficulty is strictly personal, which is that
I can't visualize well. LaRouche's approach to the sciences is extremely
geometry-oriented. It almost seems, at points, that he is looking toward
a mathematics in which the elementary operations would be geometrical,
rather than arithmetical. It is obvious that there would be nothing in
principle to prevent a mathematically valid approach on this basis, but
it is equally clear that such an attempt would tend to be obscure to those
trained in the traditional style.
 
As to the presumed great variations in the neurological origins of music,
how then to account for the fact there is as much agreement as there is
on what is "good" or "beautiful" music. I would suggest that we are dealing
here with something that, to use a crude analogy, might correspond to the
role of a "limit cycle" in dynamics. A point can appear anywhere on the
phase plane, but give it time and it will tend toward a particular orbit.
In a more general sense, science is full of examples in which processes
with all kind of parameters are POSSIBLE, but only a certain subset have
the necessary "fit" to be stable (in the sense of self-sustaining). This
is of course, the general approach followed by Kepler who asked why, out
of the various orbits the planets MIGHT have, only a subset were the ones
actually observed. As you know, he looked to both musical harmonies and
the Platonic solids in his search for such a model.
 
 
<I had quoted Warren Hammerman's article, saying>
 
>There can be no more dramatic demonstration of the underlying
>coherence of the laws of the universe than the discovery by the ancient
>Greeks of the compositional features whereby living processes grow,
>planetary orbits are ordered, and beauty is acheived in musical
>compositions. Leonardo da Vinci and Johannes Kepler later richly
>established the modern scientific basis for studying these
>compositional features through the LEAST ACTION <italicized in the
>original S.C.> harmonic characteristics of the five Platonic solids.
 
<and Paul replied>
 
        Well,  the principle of least action is used often in conventional
physics too.  I've tried modeling quantum mechanical wave structures in
terms of the platonic solids,  and found that they aren't flexible
enough to model everything...  You might like Buckminister Fuller's
~Synergetics~ where he develops a nontraditional geometry that could
possibly be used for modelling wave structures and doing other neat things.
 
<I say>
Gee, Paul, it sounds like you might be more sympathetic to LaRouche's
way of looking at physics than you might think. Neither the Platonic
solids or Bucky Fuller's geometry are exactly "mainstream". (Although
the discovery of the Fullerines in chemistry is a dramatic vindication
of Fuller's approach, and of the value of geometric intuition generally).
Why don't you email me a P.O. address and let me send you a couple of
articles. You might actually enjoy it.
 
 
P.S. For what it's worth. The latest Scientific American has a short
blurb which among other things quotes Fleischman
as recommending the LaROuche related 21st Century Science as a good
source for CNF related info.
 
-Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.03 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Geology
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Geology
Date: 3 May 92 06:38:45 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Cheers! :-)
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \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:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.03 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Current Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Current Experiment Status
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 07:17:07 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920430171238.20a00468@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, fusion@zorch writes:
> This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
>
> Cathode Electrode: 0.0098 cc, 0.78 sq cm, 5 cm long wire 0.5 mm dia
> Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
> Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
> Charging Profile: Ramp from 25 ma per sq cm to 400 ma per cq cm over 1/2 hour
> Duration: NA
> Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.7
> Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
> Cell Voltage: Low of approximately 3.1 to 3.75 during ramp.
> Temperature: 15 C
 
> The following is for the catalyst experts to explain, particularly Tod Green
> who persuaded me to run with a Deuterium fill.  After a day reversed at 200
> ma per sq cm we started the forward run straight out with the saw tooth
> profile, starting at the low end.  On the bottom of the first saw tooth, 8 cc
> of gas (deuterium) disappeared from the system.
 
Don't feel obligated to try all out suggestions, Tom. My main reason for
suggesting back filling with deuterium was to keep the catalyst in a
reducing enviroment so that it would remain active. Paradoxically, you seem
to have had more trouble with the catalyst in the new set up so maybe you
should go back to the old method. The Storms supplied catalyst is supported
on teflon so presumably it is wet proofed and impossible to flood, but there
maybe other reasons why it is  failing (eg oxidation, or poisoning). You might
be able to re-activate the catalyst be rinsing it with dilute acid and then
storing it under hydrogen for a few hours. And why not try other catalysts?
Prototech (now E-Tek, I think) manufacture ESN type fuel cell electrodes
that are useful for recombination catalysts and they are fairly cheap to.
Whatever you use use, stuff as much of it as is practical into the cell, just
to be on the safe side.
 
>
> *** By the way, no one confirmed my computation - if you want me to keep
> posting this stuff, a few of you should do some work, like compute the D/Pd
> ratio when 8 cc of gas disappear.  It will do you all good to do the back of
> the envelope calculation and will confirm that I am not making some factor of
> two error.*****
 
 
Ok, I'll check the arithmetic. Firstly:
 
moles of D absorbed = 2PV/RT, where P is pressure, V is the volume, T is
the absolute temperature and R is the gas constant. Assuming that the
volume change is 0.008 liters, the temperature is 283 K and the pressure
is 1.007 atmospheres (1 atm + 3" H2O positive pressure):
 
moles of D = (2*1.007*0.008/0.08205*283)= 6.94E-4.
 
As the cathode contains 1.11E-3 moles of Pd, this corresponds to D:Pd = 0.63.
 
> Once the current was above 120 ma per sq cm or so, some gas reappeared.
> Remember, that I measure gas volume, I don't know where it comes from or goes
> to.  On the next cycle, the gas loss got to 8.5 cc.  Over the next 8 hours,
> the volume stayed nearly constant, with a ramp up and down with the current
> density, about 1 cc in amplitude, and less gas (presumably because there was
> more in the Pd) at the lower current.
>
> Over the next two days, the system slowly lost gas to a total of about 35 cc.
> By my computation this would be an astounding 2.8 D/Pd ratio.  But I was
> assuming that there was a slow gas leak.  At this point gas loss stopped, and
> stayed steady for about 12 hours before the above problem.  During this time,
> the variation in gas volume with current became a saw tooth with an amplitude
> that increased since the start of the run from 1 cc to 4 cc in amplitude.
>
> So where could all that gas hide?  If not in the Pd?  If due to a leak, why
> did it stop?  Note the gas measurement servo is run at a positive pressure of
> about 3" H2O, so a leak causes a loss of gas.
 
The 35 cc loss certainly sounds like a leak to me, but it is strange that it
stopped after a while. Is there anyway that you can periodically pressurise
the system to check for leaks?
 
 
---
Todd Green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentiq cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.03 /  /  Flat Earth Society
     
Originally-From: ames!CDDIS.GSFC.NASA.GOV!SCHULTZ
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Flat Earth Society
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 15:19:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Forman asks:
 
>Anyone know if the Flat Earth Society is still around. The true disbelievers
>ought to have someplace to go where they could find kindred spirits.
>I had heard they disbanded the Flat Earth Society when testimony was given by
>astronauts that they really had circled the Earth and it was not flat.  Still
>you can't knock a society that lasted almost 500 years.
 
Last I heard the Flat Earth Society was alive and well. They believe that the
Earth is saucer shaped and that orbiting spacecraft circle around the rim of
the saucer. And it is not easy to join, an applicant for membership must
submit an essay or otherwise convince them that he truly believes in his
heart that the Earth is truly flat, applications judged to be insincere are
rejected. Sorry, but no I don't have their address, can anyone help out here?
 
                                       Dan Schultz
                                       Hubble Space Telescope Flight Operations
                                       Goddard Space Flight Center
                                       Greenbelt Md
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenSCHULTZ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: LaRouche, Energy, etc. (Reply to Paul Houle)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LaRouche, Energy, etc. (Reply to Paul Houle)
Date: 3 May 92 17:30:05 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

This subject matter belongs in sci.energy or alt.whatever ... take it there.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Its a gas!
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Its a gas!
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 16:33:19 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     My "farfetch" about different forms of deuterium gas is looking
less and less like a farfetch.  The "missing" gas volumes and dramatic
volume changes, plus the poisoning of the catalyst at low temperatures
all seem to point to some "unexpected" gas.  Unfortunately, it might
not be a pure deuterium compound.  For example, you could be forming
ND3 if you have air leaks, or even from nitrates in your electrolyte.
(N2 + 3 D2 <---> 2 ND3 is fairly low energy, definitely reversible
--especially with a platinium catalyst around--and would result in a
two to one volume change.)
 
     The definitive experiment at this point would probably be to
take, say 20 cc of gas from your cell when the volume is low and
quantitatively measure the amount of deuterium it contains.  (As
before the first step would be to dry the gas.  But I'm too long away
from lab chemistry to suggest a workable protocol.)
 
     A much easier experiment might be to look at the absorption
spectrum of the gas in situ.  That I do know how to make work, but
there are probably lots of people better qualified than I who live in
or near your neighborhood.  (Just find your local amateur astronomy
group or local chapter of ATM.)  Even a quick and dirty setup should
allow you to determine the partial pressure of D2, O2, and D2O, and
also find any unexpected lines...
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.04 /  Bauer /       Continental drift; reasoning under uncertainty
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Continental drift; reasoning under uncertainty
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 20:41:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Terry Bollinger for the quoted dismissal of continental drift just a
little while before it became generally accepted. Such dismissals, relying on
contemporarily accepted THEORY and known MECHANISMS, are fallible because they
are based on INTERPRETATIONS of current knowledge and not on the knowledge--
the empirical base--itself.
A nice description of reasoning under uncertainty--speculating in disciplined
fashion in absence of enough necessary data--is in Keith Thompson, LIVING
FOSSIL, about where coelacanths might be found, and where they survived during
the 10s of Megayears after they disappeared from the fossil record and before
their only known contemporary home, the Comores, were formed.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfn cudlnBauer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.04 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 20:19:52 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

 
>	Does anyone know why would Prof. Lew Smullens of MIT
 
   Just for the record, it's Prof. Lou (Louis) Smullin.  Long-time MIT
faculty member and distinguished old-timer in microwaves, plasmas, and
quantum electronics.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.04 / Frank Smith /  Re: Current Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Current Experiment Status
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 20:32:05 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

I agree with Todd Green's arithmetic. I found that your palladium, Tom, consists
of 10.5 E-4 moles and 8 cc of D2 is 7.1 E-4 moles of D, using the 22.4 L/mol
simplification. so I get PdD 0.68 which is close to Todd's.
 
With regard to the catalyst operating in D2 atmosphere, it is commonly found
that catalysts are very good at getting rid of large quantities of gases if
both H2 and O2 are present in more than trace amounts. When the concentration
of one of them becomes very small the prospect is less good. When you started
your experiment in reverse the question is what happened to the palladium? I
calculate that if you ran for 24 hours at 0.2 A you used 0.14 mol of electrons
and that could have formed 0.035 mol of O2 at the palladium. The platinum used
as counterelectrode during this phase was not likely to absorb much D so it
would have evolved about 0.07 mol D2.  Did these gases combine on the catalyst
during the reverse period?
 
When the current flowed in the usual direction the palladium electrode which
must have been oxidised in the reverse phase underwent reduction and then,
being activated by the reversal, absorbed D more rapidly than otherwise.
This seems to be roughly what you observed, Tom. But I don't understand the
wild volume changes and frankly don't believe  a D/Pd ratio of 2.8. Neither
do I agree that any nitrogen deuteride like ND3 is a possibility. The
experimental conditions are not such as to break NN bonds. That requires
lightning!
Tom, as I have been saying to you before, I think you would be much better off
keeping the current high, and varying it a bit from say 200 or 300 to 600 mA
per sq cm. The stresses on the electrode would certainly be less if it
remains all the time in the beta phase.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.004 / Alex Orenshteyn /  cmsg cancel <1992May04.170106.107611@cs.cmu.edu>
     
Originally-From: alexo@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1992May04.170106.107611@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 May 92 20:29:45 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

<1992May04.170106.107611@cs.cmu.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenalexo cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.04 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Geology
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Geology
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 21:28:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920501050339_71033.536_CHJ44-1@CompuServe.COM>
71033.536@CompuServe.COM (Terry Bollinger) writes:
 
>
>To: internet:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Hi folks,
>
>A few quotes from "The Earth," by Authur Beiser, Ph.D., copyright 1962.
>This book was part of the popular and well-written Life Nature Library that
>helped greatly to promote science in schools in the 60s.  Dr. Beiser was a
>respected geophysicist who had previously written 12 books on both geology
>and physics.  He and his book are very much representative of the views of
>the geophysical community of that time.
>
>               -----------------------------------------------
>
>[p.88] "Some idea of the extraordinary complexity of this subject [of how
>the continents came into being] may be gained by taking a brief look at the
>history of the continental-drift theory.  Its chief exponent was a German
>meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who felt the need to explain the development
>of living things throughout the world...  Wegener suggested ... that once
>there was a single, giant continental mass called Pangaea, and that the rest
>of the globe was covered by a single ocean called Panthalassa.  In time
>Pangaea cracked apart, and the piecees wandered away from one another to
>produce the continents of today.
>
>  ...
>
>   "Unfortunately for Wegener's daring and imaginative hypothesis, there are
>no known forces strong enough to shove the continents around the earth, let
>alone split one into fragments.  Exceedingly precise measurements reveal no
>lateral motions whatsoever of the continents today, although the theory
>predicts that they should still be drifting.  The oceans were just where
>they are now, according to gelological and biological studies of the sediments
>on their floors, throughout the period when the continents were supposed to
>have been wandering across the face of the earth...  As far as the [ancient]
>climate argument is concerned, later research has indicated that glaciers
>were present both before and after coal beds were formed in many places,
>which Wegner and his followers could only account for my supposing that the
>continents had come together again after having been originally dispersed.
>And the jigsaw-puzzle matching of the continents does not really work very
>well either.
>
>   "For all these reasons the theory of continental drift was abandoned by
>nearly all geologists...  Theories in science live or die by the sword of
>experiment, and no matter how attractive they may seem to the layman, unless
>they agree with observation thay cannot be taken seriously..."
>
>       --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Misc:  Tom Droege, keep it up.  I for one have been extremely impressed by
>you openess, ability to look take hard looks at your own work, and
>willingness to stick to your conviction that there is something worth
>looking into in all this, despite the many failures.  Could it be (shudder!)
>that you are actually one of those rare people whose main objective in all
>you do is NOT necessarily to milk the financial daylights out of any idea
>that has some smidgeon of hope of making money?  Now THAT'S an idea that's
>truly radical -- forget the "cold fusion!"
>
>Me?  My interest in this group is as an interesting exercise in reasoning
>under conditions of uncertainty, not cheering someone's football team.  Data
>I find relevant remain almost exactly the same as two to three years ago:
>
>  1) Pons and Fleishmann had a piece of palladium blow up on them when it
>     really should not have.  (I've yet to see any other logically relevant
>     data or [especially] theories out of those two, incidentally.)
>
>  2) Multiple experimenters have occasionally seen decent out-of-bounds
>     heat production values (e.g., Oak Ridge's Scott et al data).  Some of
>     these, such as the Scott data, contain excursion outside the "envelope"
>     of plausible chemical (atomic/molecular electron exchange) energy
>     storage and release for such systems.
>
>  3) There may be some very low levels of increased "nuclear domain" events,
>     none of which have any significant correlation with (2).
>
>The incredibly drawn-out and beautifully absurd crap about "cold fusion" is a
>fascinating example of how attempts to explain results that are inherently
>inexplicable in the accepted theory structure results in severe intellectual
>thrashing and some rather wild fluctuations in logic.  Throw in a couple of
>lawyers (as did UofU, with a vengence), and you have a marvelous recipe for
>how to get a lot of people to through away a lot of intellectual energy
>beating on the same points again, and again, and again,... ad nauseum.
>
>Once again, for the record:  Any event which makes the particles move fast
>enough to react via the strong force (e.g., fusion) must unavoidably move
>them into the very well explored domain of particle physics, in which they
>will have no further choice but to produce normal nuclear by products.  You
>cannot have it both ways -- even if your beach balls (atoms) can manage to
>speed up a grain of sand to incredible speeds, they haven't the precision to
>further control the details of how the grains then collide.
>
>
>"A Twist of Ribbon?"  A completely serious extended exercise in logical
>elimination, but one which I refuse to take seriously on a personal level.
>I will assert only this about it:  If heat production that is outside of the
>normal envelope of chemistry is real, I can assure you with a rather high
>probability that the solution to such an enigma will be found somewhere in
>in "A Twist of Ribbon."  Why?  Because as I said, it is an exercise in
>logical elimination (and "farfetching") in whose objective was to disprove,
>not prove, the possibility of such phenomena.  I followed such a strange
>route for the simple reason that all the easier ones -- e.g., "cold fusion"
>-- were really not all that hard to establish as contradictory to everyday
>phenomena and well-established experimental results.  I was satisfied with
>my overall results *except* in the area of heavy-particle band phenomena,
>for which I was unable to invoke the same kind of reasonably straightforward
>arguments that had worked so nicely for eliminating a lot of other dumb
>ideas.  Drat it all -- I'd really hate to be right, since it would be
>rather disruptive.
>
>.....
>
>Thanks, by the way, to Chuck Sites, who was kind enough to point out the
>following article to me:
>
>   "Surface physics: Hydrogen atoms band together," by Risto Nieminen
>   (summarizing a paper by C. Astaldi et all).   Nature, Vol. 356, No. 6367,
>   March 26, 1992, p. 289.
>
>A quote:
>
>   "What is good enough for electrons is good enough for protons, their
>   chemical counterparts 2000 times more massive, reports C. Astaldi et al,
>   who have discovered band-like behavior of hydrogen atoms moving over the
>   surface of copper."
>
>Prior to posting "A Twist of Ribbon" on this group I had done a very
>thorough literature search at the Library of Congress on the subject of
>proton and deuteron banding, and was unable to find any papers that proposed
>the idea -- lots of relevant (to me) papers about "proton tunneling" in Pd
>and compounds such as niobium hydroxide, but no clear extension to the idea
>of describing or analyzing such phenomena in terms of heavy-particle banding.
>
>You may also recall that the clear existence of heavy-particle banding is an
>absolutely critical requirement to the Twist of Ribbon argument, and that I
>proposed the possible existence of such phenomena in no uncertain terms by
>a scaling argument comparing protons in a metal lattice to electrons in
>quantum dot devices.  (Chuck Sites beat me to the punch on actual proposing
>heavy-particle band phenomena on this interest group, by the way, on some
>ideas of his own that were unrelated to mine.)
>
>Do I regret not publishing that part of Twist in a reviewed journal?  Nope.
>I am tired of the second-citizen status for the very interesting world of
>electronic group-think, and am rather proud to have (apparently) managed to
>nailed down a non-trivial physic prediction by using it.  I hope that some
>of you who use this group won't mind saying "hey! our email group clearly
>predicted a novel effect a year before it was identified experimentally."
>
>Incidentally, the Astaldi results were detectable due to some clever surface
>phenomena that he used to verify banding behavior.  I remain quite solid on
>my prediction that palladium will eventually be "discovered" to be an
>outstanding medium for proton and deuteron banding, and that in fact such
>effects are a key component to truly understanding their permeability to
>such gases and the many peculiarities of alpha/beta phases and phase
>transitions in these an other transition metals (e.g., niobium).  Detecting
>such effects within (vs. on the surface) metallic crystals will be a bit
>trickier to do experimentally, but some of you out there who are interested
>in such things might want to keep the idea in mind for a good physics paper
>or two.  If they exist on the surface of copper, I suspect it's nigh-on to
>a sure bet that they also exist within the palladium crystal structure.
>
>Novel physics, though?  Well, here's the bottom line:  If there is any novel
>physics in hydrogen/deuterim banding, it will show up in one or both of
>two ways:
>
>  1) By increasing the physical size (number of participating particles)
>     over which orderly banding occurs, and/or
>
>  2) By introducing band structure discontinuities that cause localized
>     increases in the density of states.
>
>The key thought in both is that while large increases in the density of
>states (caused by both of the above) are experimentally known to be trivial
>for electron band phenomena, the same assertion has most definitely not been
>proved for complex strong-force particles such as protons or deuterons.  It
>could very well turn out that such heavy particle density-of-state compress-
>ions are flatly trivial and of no real interest -- but since the Astaldi
>work has only now discovered the existence of heavy-particle band phenomena
>it would seem a pretty sure bet that such density of states compression
>experiments have not yet been consciously performed, wouldn't it?
>
>(Incidentally, the supreme method for density-of-state compression is a type
>of discontinuity called a "band soliton."  You find them mostly in pseudo-1D
>media such as polyacetylene, although the 2D equivalents (called anyons)
>have also gotten some press lately.  A band soliton nominally produces an
>infinite density-of-states compression, and so is doggone hard to calculate
>out in terms "real" density-of-state effects.)
>
>                              Cheers,
>                              Terry Bollinger   (71033.536@compuserve.com)
As they used to say: Right on.
I'll have to read and digest this before commenting.
Also: Remember that in the 1850s collision with an asteroid was the
ACCEPTED view for dinosaur extinction. Out of fashion for more than
100 years until Alavarez, Alvarez, Asaro, and ...
Repeated collisions out of fashion until L. Alvarez protege named
Rick Muller restored them to fashion under the name of Nemesis.
 
As Yogi (?) said: It ain't over till its over.
Elmer Fudd doesn't exist in science.  He said: That's all folks.
Unfortunately I suffer from the curse of the eating class.  Money
comes from working for a living and I'm paid to do computer science
not chemical physics or nuclear chemistry.
Dick Forman
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: 5 May 92 12:43:25 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May4.201952.7342@EE.Stanford.EDU>
siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>>	Does anyone know why would Prof. Lew Smullens of MIT
>
>   Just for the record, it's Prof. Lou (Louis) Smullin.  Long-time MIT
>faculty member and distinguished old-timer in microwaves, plasmas, and
>quantum electronics.
>
When I offered him a copy of my article on the theory of cold fusion
associated with the palladium deuterium system, received by Science
on 2 May 1989, rejected without review by the "priority" process used
by Science to make the job of the editors easier, I requested that he keep
the contents confidential.  He said it would be better if I did not send it
to him as he was working with Hagelstein and felt it would be necessary
to communicate the contents to him.  As I have stated elsewhere in a "reply"
on this newsgroup, I cannot and do not want to compete with someone who has
unlimited resources in the form of funds to file (in my opinion) worthless
patent applications that MIGHT prevent me from getting the generic patent that
I plan to apply for soon.  Dieter and others have also commented on the
lamentable patent proliferation problem.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Geology
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Geology
Date: 5 May 92 12:54:40 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <167DDF5CE.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org>
M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>
>In article <920501050339_71033.536_CHJ44-1@CompuServe.COM>
>71033.536@CompuServe.COM (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>>
>>The incredibly drawn-out and beautifully absurd crap about "cold fusion" is a
>>fascinating example of how attempts to explain results that are inherently
>>inexplicable in the accepted theory structure results in severe intellectual
>>thrashing and some rather wild fluctuations in logic.  Throw in a couple of
>>lawyers (as did UofU, with a vengence), and you have a marvelous recipe for
>>how to get a lot of people to through away a lot of intellectual energy
>>beating on the same points again, and again, and again,... ad nauseum.
>>
>>Once again, for the record:  Any event which makes the particles move fast
>>enough to react via the strong force (e.g., fusion) must unavoidably move
>>them into the very well explored domain of particle physics, in which they
>>will have no further choice but to produce normal nuclear by products.  You
>>cannot have it both ways -- even if your beach balls (atoms) can manage to
>>speed up a grain of sand to incredible speeds, they haven't the precision to
>>further control the details of how the grains then collide.
>>
>>Thanks, by the way, to Chuck Sites, who was kind enough to point out the
>>following article to me:
>>
>>   "Surface physics: Hydrogen atoms band together," by Risto Nieminen
>>   (summarizing a paper by C. Astaldi et all).   Nature, Vol. 356, No. 6367,
>>   March 26, 1992, p. 289.
>>
>>A quote:
>>
>>   "What is good enough for electrons is good enough for protons, their
>>   chemical counterparts 2000 times more massive, reports C. Astaldi et al,
>>   who have discovered band-like behavior of hydrogen atoms moving over the
>>   surface of copper."
>>
>>You may also recall that the clear existence of heavy-particle banding is an
>>absolutely critical requirement to the Twist of Ribbon argument, and that I
>>proposed the possible existence of such phenomena in no uncertain terms by
>>a scaling argument comparing protons in a metal lattice to electrons in
>>quantum dot devices.  (Chuck Sites beat me to the punch on actual proposing
>>heavy-particle band phenomena on this interest group, by the way, on some
>>ideas of his own that were unrelated to mine.)
>>
>>Do I regret not publishing that part of Twist in a reviewed journal?  Nope.
>>I am tired of the second-citizen status for the very interesting world of
>>electronic group-think, and am rather proud to have (apparently) managed to
>>nailed down a non-trivial physic prediction by using it.  I hope that some
>>of you who use this group won't mind saying "hey! our email group clearly
>>predicted a novel effect a year before it was identified experimentally."
>>
>>Incidentally, the Astaldi results were detectable due to some clever surface
>>phenomena that he used to verify banding behavior.  I remain quite solid on
>>my prediction that palladium will eventually be "discovered" to be an
>>outstanding medium for proton and deuteron banding, and that in fact such
>>effects are a key component to truly understanding their permeability to
>>such gases and the many peculiarities of alpha/beta phases and phase
>>transitions in these an other transition metals (e.g., niobium).  Detecting
>>such effects within (vs. on the surface) metallic crystals will be a bit
>>trickier to do experimentally, but some of you out there who are interested
>>in such things might want to keep the idea in mind for a good physics paper
>>or two.  If they exist on the surface of copper, I suspect it's nigh-on to
>>a sure bet that they also exist within the palladium crystal structure.
>>
>>Novel physics, though?  Well, here's the bottom line:  If there is any novel
>>physics in hydrogen/deuterim banding, it will show up in one or both of
>>two ways:
>>
>>  1) By increasing the physical size (number of participating particles)
>>     over which orderly banding occurs, and/or
>>
>>  2) By introducing band structure discontinuities that cause localized
>>     increases in the density of states.
>>
>>The key thought in both is that while large increases in the density of
>>states (caused by both of the above) are experimentally known to be trivial
>>for electron band phenomena, the same assertion has most definitely not been
>>proved for complex strong-force particles such as protons or deuterons.  It
>>
>>(Incidentally, the supreme method for density-of-state compression is a type
>>of discontinuity called a "band soliton."  You find them mostly in pseudo-1D
>>media such as polyacetylene, although the 2D equivalents (called anyons)
>>have also gotten some press lately.  A band soliton nominally produces an
>>infinite density-of-states compression, and so is doggone hard to calculate
>>out in terms "real" density-of-state effects.)
>>
>>                              Cheers,
>>                              Terry Bollinger   (71033.536@compuserve.com)
>As they used to say: Right on.
>I'll have to read and digest this before commenting.
>Also: Remember that in the 1850s collision with an asteroid was the
>ACCEPTED view for dinosaur extinction. Out of fashion for more than
>100 years until Alavarez, Alvarez, Asaro, and ...
>Repeated collisions out of fashion until L. Alvarez protege named
>Rick Muller restored them to fashion under the name of Nemesis.
*****************************************************************
Only partially digested but some food for thought. In the paper:
NMR Studies of the Ti Resonance in the Ti-H system, J. Chem. Phys., Vol.
48, pp. 5187-5190 (1968) the anomalous behavoir of the static magnetic
susceptibility of versus temperature is reported. At that time the interpretati
on of the results was that the cusp in the susceptibility near 300K
for the TiH2 was not anit-ferromagnetism as previously proposed, but
instead was related to a very high density of states at the top of the
Fermi sea.  In view of this experimental result are you suggesting that
that interpretation is not (or really no longer, since solitons did not
"exist" then) correct?  Also the x-ray work indicated that the transition
from fcc (CaF2 structure) to tetragonal phase differed for the hydride
and deuteride samples. I would expect similar behavior for palladium
hydrides.
Dick Forman.
*******************************************************
 
 
>As Yogi (?) said: It ain't over till its over.
>Elmer Fudd doesn't exist in science.  He said: That's all folks.
>Unfortunately I suffer from the curse of the eating class.  Money
>comes from working for a living and I'm paid to do computer science
>not chemical physics or nuclear chemistry.
>Dick Forman
>E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
>DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
>DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Continental drift; reasoning under uncertainty
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continental drift; reasoning under uncertainty
Date: 5 May 92 13:09:44 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199205041811.AA20324@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
fusion@zorch writes:
>
>Thanks to Terry Bollinger for the quoted dismissal of continental drift just a
>little while before it became generally accepted. Such dismissals, relying on
>contemporarily accepted THEORY and known MECHANISMS, are fallible because they
>are based on INTERPRETATIONS of current knowledge and not on the knowledge--
>the empirical base--itself.
>A nice description of reasoning under uncertainty--speculating in disciplined
>fashion in absence of enough necessary data--is in Keith Thompson, LIVING
>FOSSIL, about where coelacanths might be found, and where they survived during
>the 10s of Megayears after they disappeared from the fossil record and before
>their only known contemporary home, the Comores, were formed.
It is seredniptious and an example of the ultimate in irony that Cold
Nuclear Chemistry will arise Phoenix-like in this the sesqecentennial
anniversary not only of the Discovery of America by Christoforo
Columbo, but also of the beginning of the work of The Defenders of the
True Faith.  This econd event is not as likely to generate celebrations
as it also corresponded to the expulsion of certain heretical individuals
from Spain.  The other name for the event is the Inquisition.  By the way
that was EXACTLY what occurred at the Baltimre Meeting of the American Physical
Society in April 1989 when the P&F work was "discussed."   The methods of
extracting the truth from heretics have changed a little, the heretics were
merely expelled from their "home" at the University of Utah.  They chose
to become expatriates.  Still there is hope in the World if we learn the
lessons of history; there is an old saying about what will happen if we don't.
The Defenders of the True Faith, commonly known as the Jesuits, have become a
major force for the "reform" of their church.  Hopefully some of the members
of the true disbeliever creed will work to test the Cold Nuclear Reaction
experiments and theories and we can get on with science and not return
to the practices used in attacks in Baltimore.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  REQUEST FOR REPOST: ITALIAN MEETING
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REQUEST FOR REPOST: ITALIAN MEETING
Date: 5 May 92 13:22:24 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

The way my NetNews Reader software works I can no longer access the
post on the Italian conference on Cold Nuclear Reactions.  Could someone
please send it to me by e-mail (i.e. forward it(if they can do that)) or
else repost on NNR.
Thanks.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  /  End of Run
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: End of Run
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 20:18:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 2F6
Cathode Electrode: 0.0098 cc, 0.78 sq cm, 5 cm long wire 0.5 mm dia
Anode Electrode: Approximately 3 sq cm of .25 mm Pt wire.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: Hi-Lo 40 ma per sq cm to 400 ma per sq cm (aprox)
                  8 hour change interval
Duration: Total on of about 4 days
Initial D/Pd ratio: 0.7
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: NA
Temperature: 20 C
 
Frank Smith points out that we stored a lot of Oxygen on the Cathode during
reverse operation.  So it could have been released during forward operation,
at least some of it.  So a reason for not running reverse if we want to use
excess Oxygen or Deuterium loss to measure loading.  We will gradually learn
how to do this experiment in a controlled way.
 
We ended the run to start the Takahashi style cell.  On examination, the
cathode was still the golden brown color at the end of the run.  A day later,
however, it was a dull black.  So there was still some oxide on it at run end
but it then left.
 
Everything about this run is consistent with zero anomalous heat.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  /  Question about Catalysts
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question about Catalysts
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 20:19:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It looks to me that my catalysts do a great job converting a small amount
of Hydrogen (Deuterium) in a high percentage Oxygen environment.  On the
other hand, a small percentage of Oxygen in a nearly pure Hydrogen environment
is converted poorly, and seems to accumulate Oxygen until it is up to some
more than trace amount.
 
Does this make sense?
 
My simple minded model has the Hydrogen hit rate on the Oxygen covered
catalyst higher and thus more likely to convert???
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  /  New Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Experiment
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 20:32:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the new P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: Very slow ramp 140 ma per day starting at 2 ma. See Below
Duration: Now at 233410 seconds
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see below
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 3 v to 4.2 v on Takahashi 1/2 hour saw tooth.
Temperature: 20 C
 
Note this experimental design features very close anode to cathode spacing,
saturated LiOD electrolyte, precision machining, and a mirror finish flat
ground cathode.
 
We started with a nice clean Takahashi style cell.  This cell has a top and
bottom access tube.  We put the cell empty in the calorimeter and brought it
to balance.  It seemed like a good idea to purge it with gas from the D2
generator while it was stabilizing.  Not!  Gas went in but it didn't come
out.  This resulted in complete disassembly of a lot of things, eventually I
took apart the pressure switch and set it for lower back pressure.  So the gas
system now runs at a positive pressure of 1.2 cm of H2O (was about 8 cm).
Eventually I tried to fill the cell with electrolyte, which (for still an
unknown reason) would not load.  This caused me to open up the calorimeter to
load the electrolyte and to lose about 10 hours of temperature stabilization.
The cell current was carefully adjusted to be near zero.  This is good with my
set up to about 100 micro amperes.
 
I now realize that the cathode in the empty cell was absorbing Deuterium while
I was trying to purge the cell.  So I have started with an unknown pre-load of
Deuterium.  Very sad, or otherwise I would know what the D/Pd ratio reached.
 
During the next few hours, while we did our best to maintain zero current but
reverse cell potential, the cell slowly lost gas.  About 2 cc per hour.  Gas
was continually provided from the D2 generator, and the supplied gas was
measured by the gas system since closing up the cell.  It looks to me (now)
that the D2 diffused through the electrolyte into the Pd.  We have a reference
which says that Pd will soak up D2 to 0.6 D/Pd ratio.
 
After a good calorimeter balance was achieved (< 50 joules over 10 hours), a
very slow current ramp was started.  The catalyst briefly got hot (0.2 C)
indicating some oxygen was released from somewhere - the cathode??  Then for
the next 5 or so hours, there was a gradual increase in cell gas volume.  It
now looks like the catalyst simply did not convert the released O2 at the very
low current.  After a while the cell temperature started increasing
exponentially.  Since I could compute that there was about 500 joules
accumulated I was debating whether to run for the hills when the system came
to a balance, but always, I think, a little behind in oxygen conversion.
 
After a little over 40 hours of loading the cell was up to 120 ma per sq cm,
and the gas deficit was 121 cc.  During this time the system accumulated a
loss of 1600 joules.  Now I thought that loading under these conditions i.e.
Deuterium atmosphere, would be exothermic.  Can anyone explain?  I really
think the energy balance is good to +/- 200 joules during this loading time.
 
This 121 cc loss indicated an increase in loading of 0.95 D/Pd from an unknown
pre-load.  The absorbed gas then started to decrease.  Since we had previously
noticed that 120 ma per sq cm was some sort of "magic" limit for gas
absorption, I did not want to lose the gas load by continuing the slow ramp.
So I switched to the 40 ma to 800 ma saw tooth over 1/2 hour.  Stay tuned for
the results.
 
Tod Green, suggestions are appreciated.  We only find the problems when we try
things.  My proposal for the next run is to start with an Oxygen fill, then
burn it off by loading with D2 after a good D/Pd charge is measured.
 
Again, I hope that talking about the problems in this experiment will help
others to avoid costly mistakes.  I am confident enough to realize that I am
not the only one who might make such errors in judgement.
 
It's beginning to look like grinding a mirror finish on a cathode is a good
thing to do.  It should form a Beilby layer.  An amorphous surface layer.
Note that this might have the same effect as McKubre's implantation with
helium, which is presumed to also break up the surface crystal structure.
Moore says that this makes a one way window on the surface, but one of you out
there disagreed.  Comments please.  To date three ground surfaces that have
been run have outloaded other cathodes.  Very early cathodes that seemed to
give heat were turned with a dull tool on a small lathe (not by design but by
availability).  This might also have broken up the surface crystal structure.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  /       Re: Fusion Digest 278
     
Originally-From: ames!ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU!ASDAV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 278
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 05:02:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just a thought.  I still have to pull out one of my undergrad texts to
do the math (I have a BS in Phys but my graduate work is in Pol Sci and
my physics skills are more than a bit rusty)
 
The cold fusion situation  Excess heat, with Neutron counts too low
for fusion, and electrostatic forces too low to expect fusion.
 
The electrostatic forces can be accounted for by resonant harmonics
where a low level steady force creates oscillations that build up
to forces high enough for fusion.  ie soldiers marching across the
bridge causing it to collapse or the Tacoma Narrows bridge being torn
apart by a strong steady breeze
 
Excess heat without the production of neutrons is more difficult. to explain
because fusion is the expected process, but what about this.
Duetrium has a proton and a nuetron.  Turn the neutron into a proton
and the ion would tear itself apart.  There would be no neutron radiation
and the energy released ould be mechanical (To protons moving aay from
a near zero seperation would have a lot of energy)
 
My first check of the math has convinced me to put the idea out to
let a few experts che it up and spit it back at me.
 
is this plausible orway off base?
Doug Van Belle
 
DVB
Governor Of Dynamics
Vice President in Charge of Small Things Larger Than Others
Co-Dictator of the Universe
Bane of the Compulsively Neat
Slayer of the English Language
Speaker of the obvious
The humblest of creatures to have ever existed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenASDAV cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  Harrison /  inexpensive catalyst
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: inexpensive catalyst
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 05:03:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

CF experimenters may be interested in the following 3 products which
are available from the manufacturer or at some battery distributors:
 (1) Hydrocap(R) - replaces standard cap on lead-acid car battery
 (2) Catylator(R) #3 "cube" - 7/8 x 7/8 x 3/4 inch, rated 3amp
 (3) Catylator(R) #6 "puck" - 1-1/4 dia x 3/4, rated 6amp.
Price seems to be $7.50 each.
 Hydrocap Corp.
 975 N.W. 95 Street
 Miami, FL 33150
 Tel: 305 698 2504
 
This posting is based on printed literature; I haven't tried them.
  -Chuck Harrison   73770.1337@compuserve.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 18:48:01 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

I appear to have missed the original post to which this reply is
addressed.  Could someone tell me when the tapes will be available.
FURTHER: Since I attended the talk I am prepared to give short brief
answers to questions related to what Dr. Takahashi said about the material
on his viewgraphs.  See earlier posts on why short, etc.  I am assuming that
the distribution of the viewgraphs has not also been delayed.  Does anyone
know whether the talk at Texas A&M was public, was taped, will be summarized
by an attendee, etc.?
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  Britz /  Re: The Martyr myth
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Martyr myth
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 13:34:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman) writes:
 
>as it also corresponded to the expulsion of certain heretical individuals
>from Spain.  The other name for the event is the Inquisition.  By the way
>that was EXACTLY what occurred at the Baltimre Meeting of the American Physical
>Society in April 1989 when the P&F work was "discussed."   The methods of
>extracting the truth from heretics have changed a little, the heretics were
>merely expelled from their "home" at the University of Utah.  They chose
>to become expatriates.  Still there is hope in the World if we learn the
 
Dick, this is just hype, to cast P&F into the martyr mold. Sure, at Baltimore,
the physicists were skeptical, apparently to the point of derision. I ask, so
what? At the time, all they had to go on was a press conference, a lot of
poorly supported hype from P&F and their physics sense told these physicists
that this had to be an error. Since then, there have been quite a number of
more or less distinguished physicists who do not laugh at cold fusion.
 On the other hand, P&F were decidedly not "expelled" from their "home" at the
U of U. In fact, it was the other way around, they were supported, even in
questionable ways. Remember the mysterious grant given by an anonymous donor
to the Institute? Remember how the U of U paid Triggs, Pons's lawyer, to make
trouble for Salamon, another U of U academic? In the end, Pons took leave from
the Department to give himself full-time to cold fusion; he was not expelled.
If he does not return there, it will be by his own choice. Fleischmann never
was at home there, he was and is at home at the U of Southampton, UK, from
which he has not been expelled either. At the moment I believe the pair are in
Nice, France, devoting their full energies to cold fusion.
 The derision etc from physicists will not matter to P&F, when they start
making a lot of money (in a sense you might say, they HAVE started, what with
lots of research and travel support). Pons has got himself photographed next
to a cnf water heater, and this device has been talked about again lately. I
assume Pons is on the level here and he has a device heating water for
nothing. This should sell like hot cakes, and P&F will presumably laugh at
their critics, all the way to the bank. If, that is, it's all as they say it
is.
 
 By the way, Dick (and others), when quoting previous postings, remember that
we have read them, and don't need the WHOLE shmear again, just a relevant
extract from it is enough. You've given us Terry Bollinger's whole thing twice
now. It fills space and causes frustration. I think there is a lot of new
stuff to read, and all I get is a super-long quote plus a short-short
response at the bottom.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 02:13:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DICK FORMAN writes:
>When I offered him a copy of my article on the theory of cold fusion
>associated with the palladium deuterium system, received by Science
>on 2 May 1989, rejected without review by the "priority" process used
>by Science to make the job of the editors easier, I requested that he keep
>the contents confidential.  He said it would be better if I did not send it
>to him as he was working with Hagelstein and felt it would be necessary
>to communicate the contents to him.
 
Is that slime-ball Hagelstein STILL at it?
 
I think all those cold-fusion patents of his stand a greater chance of
firing up the ovens of Auschwitz than they do of contributing to the
progress of civilization.
 
I don't know how the courts treat the scatter-shot style "inventors",
but I certainly hope that every time they come into court with a
bunch of sleazey financial backers that the court slaps punitive
damages against them amounting to about 25% of their collective net worth.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.006 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: inexpensive catalyst
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inexpensive catalyst
Date: Wed, 06 May 92 11:47:19 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <920506032244_73770.1337_EHA52-2@CompuServe.COM> Chuck Harrison
 <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>CF experimenters may be interested in the following 3 products which
>are available from the manufacturer or at some battery distributors:
> (1) Hydrocap(R) - replaces standard cap on lead-acid car battery
> (2) Catylator(R) #3 "cube" - 7/8 x 7/8 x 3/4 inch, rated 3amp
> (3) Catylator(R) #6 "puck" - 1-1/4 dia x 3/4, rated 6amp.
>Price seems to be $7.50 each.
> Hydrocap Corp.
> 975 N.W. 95 Street
> Miami, FL 33150
> Tel: 305 698 2504
>
>This posting is based on printed literature; I haven't tried them.
>  -Chuck Harrison   73770.1337@compuserve.com
>
 
 
Can someone suggest other catalyst manufacturers? The catalyst has to
be effective at low teperatures (3-100 Centigrade). Also, it would be
helpfull if someone could share their experiences with catalyst which
that someone used for H2/O2 recombiner.
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Question about Catalysts
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question about Catalysts
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 12:27:21 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920505130434.20203ad4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
fusion@zorch writes:
 
>
>It looks to me that my catalysts do a great job converting a small amount
>of Hydrogen (Deuterium) in a high percentage Oxygen environment.  On the
>other hand, a small percentage of Oxygen in a nearly pure Hydrogen environment
>is converted poorly, and seems to accumulate Oxygen until it is up to some
>more than trace amount.
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>My simple minded model has the Hydrogen hit rate on the Oxygen covered
>catalyst higher and thus more likely to convert???
>
>Tom Droege
I think you are correct. Contact Dr. Robert Roth at NIST at 301-975-2000
and ask for him.  As I remember what we did when we worked on getting the
H2 out of O2 for our cuprous oxide growth work the trick was to pass the
gas over copper turning heated to exactly the correct temperature. The
phase equilibria between Cu2O and CuO and Cu metal is complicated but
Bob and Harry Parker (deceased) did figure out the "operating point."
If gettering the oxygen is an alternative approach try aqueous solution
of pyrogallic acid; sources of pyrogallic acid check with Dr. Fred
Brinckman at NIST--same route for extension as above.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: New Experiment
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Experiment
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 12:35:40 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920505152243.20203ad4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
fusion@zorch writes:
 
>
>This is the status of the new P&F experiment.
>
>Cell 4A1
>Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
>Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
>                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
>Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
>Charging Profile: Very slow ramp 140 ma per day starting at 2 ma. See Below
>Duration: Now at 233410 seconds
>Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see below
>Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
>Cell Voltage: Presently 3 v to 4.2 v on Takahashi 1/2 hour saw tooth.
>Temperature: 20 C
>
>Note this experimental design features very close anode to cathode spacing,
>saturated LiOD electrolyte, precision machining, and a mirror finish flat
>ground cathode.
>
>We started with a nice clean Takahashi style cell.  This cell has a top and
>bottom access tube.  We put the cell empty in the calorimeter and brought it
>to balance.  It seemed like a good idea to purge it with gas from the D2
>generator while it was stabilizing.  Not!  Gas went in but it didn't come
>out.  This resulted in complete disassembly of a lot of things, eventually I
>took apart the pressure switch and set it for lower back pressure.  So the gas
>system now runs at a positive pressure of 1.2 cm of H2O (was about 8 cm).
>Eventually I tried to fill the cell with electrolyte, which (for still an
>unknown reason) would not load.  This caused me to open up the calorimeter to
>load the electrolyte and to lose about 10 hours of temperature stabilization.
>The cell current was carefully adjusted to be near zero.  This is good with my
>set up to about 100 micro amperes.
>
>I now realize that the cathode in the empty cell was absorbing Deuterium while
>I was trying to purge the cell.  So I have started with an unknown pre-load of
>Deuterium.  Very sad, or otherwise I would know what the D/Pd ratio reached.
>
>During the next few hours, while we did our best to maintain zero current but
>reverse cell potential, the cell slowly lost gas.  About 2 cc per hour.  Gas
>was continually provided from the D2 generator, and the supplied gas was
>measured by the gas system since closing up the cell.  It looks to me (now)
>that the D2 diffused through the electrolyte into the Pd.  We have a reference
>which says that Pd will soak up D2 to 0.6 D/Pd ratio.
>
>After a good calorimeter balance was achieved (< 50 joules over 10 hours), a
>very slow current ramp was started.  The catalyst briefly got hot (0.2 C)
>indicating some oxygen was released from somewhere - the cathode??  Then for
>the next 5 or so hours, there was a gradual increase in cell gas volume.  It
>now looks like the catalyst simply did not convert the released O2 at the very
>low current.  After a while the cell temperature started increasing
>exponentially.  Since I could compute that there was about 500 joules
>accumulated I was debating whether to run for the hills when the system came
>to a balance, but always, I think, a little behind in oxygen conversion.
>
>After a little over 40 hours of loading the cell was up to 120 ma per sq cm,
>and the gas deficit was 121 cc.  During this time the system accumulated a
>loss of 1600 joules.  Now I thought that loading under these conditions i.e.
>Deuterium atmosphere, would be exothermic.  Can anyone explain?  I really
>think the energy balance is good to +/- 200 joules during this loading time.
>
>This 121 cc loss indicated an increase in loading of 0.95 D/Pd from an unknown
>pre-load.  The absorbed gas then started to decrease.  Since we had previously
>noticed that 120 ma per sq cm was some sort of "magic" limit for gas
>absorption, I did not want to lose the gas load by continuing the slow ramp.
>So I switched to the 40 ma to 800 ma saw tooth over 1/2 hour.  Stay tuned for
>the results.
>
>Tod Green, suggestions are appreciated.  We only find the problems when we try
>things.  My proposal for the next run is to start with an Oxygen fill, then
>burn it off by loading with D2 after a good D/Pd charge is measured.
>
>Again, I hope that talking about the problems in this experiment will help
>others to avoid costly mistakes.  I am confident enough to realize that I am
>not the only one who might make such errors in judgement.
>
>It's beginning to look like grinding a mirror finish on a cathode is a good
>thing to do.  It should form a Beilby layer.  An amorphous surface layer.
>Note that this might have the same effect as McKubre's implantation with
>helium, which is presumed to also break up the surface crystal structure.
>Moore says that this makes a one way window on the surface, but one of you out
>there disagreed.  Comments please.  To date three ground surfaces that have
>been run have outloaded other cathodes.  Very early cathodes that seemed to
>give heat were turned with a dull tool on a small lathe (not by design but by
>availability).  This might also have broken up the surface crystal structure.
>
>Tom Droege
Dick Forman says: you can't burn off the oxide layer.  You may later break
through pinholes.  Possibly there are specific electrolytic conditions that
would strip the oxide but you should contact lashmore on that. You (Tom)
have his number.  Why can't you simply backfill with a purge of helium gas
during the initial phases? As long as it is only heat that you are looking for
it should not matter except for the "salt effect" that chemists worry about.
It would be very interesting if there was a salt effect here.  Also, from
other experiments I have done I believe that the thermal conduction, not conduc
tivity, of the liquid will increase when the water becomes saturated with
helium.  I have used this trick, due to Fred Reif, to stop bubbling in liquid
nitrogen in NMR experiments.
Good luck but please be very careful.  We need you on the Long Island Project.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Fusion Digest 278
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 278
Date: 6 May 92 12:47:39 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199205060322.AA16385@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
ames!ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU!ASDAV writes:
>
>The cold fusion situation  Excess heat, with Neutron counts too low
>for fusion, and electrostatic forces too low to expect fusion.
>
>The electrostatic forces can be accounted for by resonant harmonics
>where a low level steady force creates oscillations that build up
>to forces high enough for fusion.  ie soldiers marching across the
>bridge causing it to collapse or the Tacoma Narrows bridge being torn
>apart by a strong steady breeze
Dick Forman comments: This is exactly the case.  The best reference for this
type of problem is F. Hund in Zeits. fur Physik 1927 where he discusses the
"Paradox of the Optical Isomers" and concludes that when a system has two
forms that have different configurations (in modern terms opposite sense
of a spiral molecule like sugars) the energy you have to put in to get over
the barrier (corresponding to stretching the coil out until it is straight)
is returned when it re-coils in the opposite sense.  Thus all that
is needed is a catalyst to make it happen without any external work at all.
 
>Excess heat without the production of neutrons is more difficult. to explain
>because fusion is the expected process, but what about this.
>Duetrium has a proton and a nuetron.  Turn the neutron into a proton
>and the ion would tear itself apart.  There would be no neutron radiation
>and the energy released ould be mechanical (To protons moving aay from
>a near zero seperation would have a lot of energy)
>
Who knows what reaction(s) actually are occurring and with what branching ratio
s.  As the Shadow said: Who knows what evil lurks?
 
>My first check of the math has convinced me to put the idea out to
>let a few experts che it up and spit it back at me.
>
>is this plausible orway off base?
 
Dick Forman's quote for the day: In the land of the blind the one-eyed
man is king.  (Sorry if this offends any sight impaired individuals, that
is not my intent).
 
>Doug Van Belle
 
Dick Forman
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Martyr myth
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Martyr myth
Date: 6 May 92 17:44:33 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <5D56E23CAEFF206B34@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman) writes:
>
>>as it also corresponded to the expulsion of certain heretical individuals
>>from Spain.  The other name for the event is the Inquisition.  By the way
>>that was EXACTLY what occurred at the Baltimre Meeting of the American
 Physical
>>Society in April 1989 when the P&F work was "discussed."   The methods of
>>extracting the truth from heretics have changed a little, the heretics were
>>merely expelled from their "home" at the University of Utah.  They chose
>>to become expatriates.  Still there is hope in the World if we learn the
>
>Dick, this is just hype, to cast P&F into the martyr mold. Sure, at Baltimore,
>the physicists were skeptical, apparently to the point of derision. I ask, so
>what? At the time, all they had to go on was a press conference, a lot of
>poorly supported hype from P&F and their physics sense told these physicists
>that this had to be an error. Since then, there have been quite a number of
>more or less distinguished physicists who do not laugh at cold fusion.
 
Well, I was one of those people at the Baltimore meeting, and I was there
because I was eager to know what worked and what did not.  My initial
reaction to the announcement was surprise and semi-belief, based on the
assumption that these people were honest and forthright in their presentation
at the news conference.  (I have no problem with the press conference, since
they had a paper accepted in a journal at that time.)  When I got a copy of
the papers, I went to work on the literature and saw that there was enough
slop in the theory work from the 50's to make some things possible.  But
we did know the radiation and heat did not add up.
 
Many of us discussed different ways it could or might work and how one might
test these ideas.  The experiment here at FSU that established that there
were no K-shell X-rays from protons in Palladium (expected from the He-3+P
channel) came out of those discussions.  We sincerely wanted to know how
to do the experiment, since by then it was clear that the paper did not
tell you how _they_ had done the experiment.
 
Instead, Pons decided it was more important to go out for dinner in DC after
asking Congress for money than to have dinner in Baltimore and present the
details of his experiment to us -- and answer questions about it.  Any
derision was well deserved: it was an excuse like "the dog ate my notes".
 
Steve Jones, on the other hand, was there.  He answered his critics and
even brought along his lab books to the main talk and the later invited
talk for any interested party to review.  He got respect because he came,
answered questions, and even took his cells to another lab for someone to
study the neutrons with different equipment.  Yes, he faced a public
inquiry (not an inquisition), as must anyone presenting a new result that
is difficult or impossible to replicate -- or even one that is expected!
 
I know the organizer of the session at Baltimore, and he is a fair man.  He
went to extraordinary lengths to get Pons there.  The two special sessions
were open and the discussions there, and at the later invited session where
Jones spoke, were not controlled in any way.  I know I got to ask Jones the
question that had bothered me, and I got to hear his answer.  Forman writes
as if he was shouted off the stage.  He was not.  The fact that some chose
not to present their positive results in a public forum is not our fault.
It is theirs, and P&F lost my respect when they did not show up.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 708 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 708 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 17:05:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I'll get these four commentaries off my chest and desk; they do not change
the numbers in the SUBJECT line. Tomorrow, my library day, I expect to find
more cnf papers (and patents) in the new issue of Chem. Abstracts but our
computer will be down so I won't be posting anything more until next week.
 Here, we have Frank Close defending himself against an onslaught from Eugene
Mallove in CE&N. Frank maintains that there is no evidence that makes sense
for cold fusion, only signals incommensurate with each other, so the effect is
likely to be a chemical one. In the Freedman commentary, reporting on the
Takahashi work, Petrasso says something similar. Denis Rousseau had, in an
earlier article in the American Scientist (see an earlier posting of mine)
used cold fusion as an example of pathological science - echoing Douglas
Morrison. We have a strong response from the Jones group (Czirr et al), who
on the whole have behaved in a much more low-key manner throughout the last
three years, and who point out once more that there is some distance between
their work and that of FPH. Rousseau responds to their response.
 By the way, this journal (American Scientist) is quite impressive. I read the
whole issue when I finished with the Letters, and it's full of good stuff.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 7-May. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 708
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close FE;                             C&EN 70(15) (1992), 13-Apr, 2 (Letters).
"Cold fusion research".
** A reply to Eugene Mallove's letter, criticising the reviews of his book on
cold fusion, by Trevor Pinch and then by Frank Close. EM accused both of
arrogant misunderstanding. Close replies that his dismissal of cold fusion is
not due to arrogance, but to many analyses of the available evidence. Close goes
on to argue that where excess heat is found, it must be due to an unknown
chemical effect, as no nuclear products are found commensurate with the heat.
Evidence of tritium, neutrons and charged particles are not, as EM claims,
impressive but sporadic and too low in intensity. The few quality results are
at variance with each other, and the simplest explanation, feels Close, is an
error. EM invokes the test of history and FC is willing to wait for it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czirr JB, Harrison BK, Jensen GL, Jones SE, Palmer EP;
American Scientist 80 (1992) (Mar-Apr), 107   (Letters to the Editor).
(no title)
** Polemic response to Rousseau's article in a previous issue of this journal,
in which he names cold fusion as an example of pathological science, and
mistakenly associates the Jones group with the FPH group. The present writers
point out that they have repeatedly distanced themselves from the claims of
FPH and do not subscribe to measurable amounts of excess heat. Also, all of
their work has been properly peer-reviewed and they have not engaged lawyers
to threaten others. Some of Rousseau's chronology is also in error (to do with
the Jones/FPH collaboration ideas). The writers then describe the history of
their involvement with cold fusion, as evidence that the work is standard
science and not pathological. Nascent fields of science, they write, should
not be branded as pathological purely because they produce unexpected results,
inevitable for a nascent field. There are many contemporary examples of such
fields and they are not commonly called pathological.
See Rousseau, ibid Jan-Feb 1992, p. 54, and a response in this issue, p.108.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedman DH;                                  Science 246 (1992), 24-Apr, 438.
"A Japanese claim generates new heat".
** A report of the results of Takahashi, who has caused a stir "even in a
field where eyebrows have become permanently raised". DHF reports that the
claim is for 100 W for months at a time, or up to 40 times the erergy put into
the cells, and more power than is generated in an equal volume of fuel rod in
a nuclear reactor. Takahashi used small sheets of palladium, and a varying
electrolysis current. Neutron emissions were not only very low but inversely
proportional to the heat emissions; this "closes the door" to a nuclear
explanation of this, according to Petrasso, who was asked for comment. But
Takahashi favours an exotic four-body reaction.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rousseau D;
American Scientist 80 (1992) (Mar-Apr), 108   (Letters to the Editor).
(no title)
** Response to the polemic response of Czirr et al in this issue of the
journal, p.107, to the earlier article (Jan-Feb 1992, p.54) by Rousseau.
R here thanks Czirr et al for the correction of his chronology of the early
events in the cold fusion affair, and produces a quote which appears to
indicate that the Jones group, at least initially, had energy production in
mind. He points out that both the Jones and FPH groups claimed that they had
detected cold fusion, while many other groups have failed to reproduce it. He
does not wish to stifle nascent field research.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 /  /  Catalysts
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Catalysts
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 20:43:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Alex Orenshteyn writes "Can someone suggest other catalyst manufacturers?"
 
I just need a dare or two, and I will stop by the auto parts store next to
where I eat lunch and buy a catalytic converter.  I once saw a TV special
where they were being reclaimed and I know they are full of coated about
1" diameter ceramic balls.  One manufacturer, I think Chrisler, makes them
with Palladium.  If any one knows for sure the maker of the Palladium ones
I will buy one and cut it apart on my band saw, and ship one to any one
who sends a pr-stamped box.  I will first test to see if they work.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: The Martyr myth
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Martyr myth
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 20:29:54 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <5D56E23CAEFF206B34@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
On Martyrs.
Dick Forman never called them martyrs.  He said they were heretics.
Dick Forman has a lot of experience as a heretic and knows how they FELT.
Dick Forman knows in his heart of hearts that what they want is RECOGNITION.
Dick Forman believes they are not in it for the money.
Dick Forman believes the water heater is just one way of "rubbing someones
    nose in it."
Dieter: I've been there myself: 1st time I resigned from NBS when one person
stopped the submission of a manuscript of mine to Physical Review Letters
after the technical review internal to NBS had been completed and release to
the journal was approved; he tried to hold the resignation over my head as
a Damocletian Soard; I fought that with the aid of some of his subordinates
and stayed at NBS; his problem HE could not understand my work.  The work is un
published to this day, but I resubmit to Phys. Rev. Letters every ten years
or so and each time get totally different reasons for rejection.  I should
resubit it again soon.  2) I was in a much kinder environment when I did my
first work that directly involved nuclear reactions; my then boss was convinced
by her learned associates that I had or was having a nervous breakdown and sinc
e the field I was writing in was alien to any of her own knowledge, she believe
d them--they were accomplished nuclear theorists; since she was a very nice
person and a wonderful human being I was allowed to do whatever I wanted during
the remainder of my stay under her tuteldge (sp?), and then she appeared
satisfied that I was OK by the time my "tour" was up and I went back to NBS.
No problems over that also still unpublished work that resides in a safe as it
represents valuable backgorund material for a future patent application.  There
's more about more recent events, but I think that entitles me to tell you
(Dieter, that is) shut up about this until you've been there yourself.  As an
arbiter of taste who refuses to abstract my work in Fusion Facts, I think
you're on very shaky ground.  Would you also have refused to abstract the
publications of J. Willard Gibbs because he published in a small local
journal called the Journal of the Connecticut Academy?  Or would you have
been swayed to do the abstracting because he was a senior member of the
faculty of Yale University?   I contend that when you take on the title of
abstracter of the literature you do not have the right to also take on the
role of editor.  Abstract my piece as Commentary or tell me and the rest of the
 people who read this bulletin board why?
Bonus Quote of the Day: A clash of doctrines is not a calamity it is an opportu
nity.
The author: ???? (Hint-Continental European)
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: The Martyr myth
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Martyr myth
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 21:34:31 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <8677@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>It is theirs, and P&F lost my respect when they did not show up.
Dick Forman heartily agrees with almost every word of the above comment that
J. A. Carr has provided.  The only word he does not agree with are: &F.
 
Since F apparently could not attend I do not put him in the same boat.
I vaguely remember rumors of ill health among some members of F's family
at that time.  Can anyone add comments about F's non-appearance?
 
From my viewpoint, and I have said so not only in earlier posts but in Fusion
Facts, in an interview by Michael Skolar broadcast by National Public Radio,
and in other newspaper reports: P&F were pioneers.  Was everthing they both
did perfect: WHO CARES???  I'm not perfect so why should I expect it in
others.
 
On F: when Ugo Bertocci told me about F and his work, I knew the electrochemist
ry had to be correct.  That's why I never gave up on this path to nuclear
energy.  I would have gone back to other paths had I believed that the
electrochemistry was wrong.  The history of science is filled with the mistake
s that people make in trying to do experiments and theory in fields that they
do not know, just to confirm the work that they do know is right.
 
The only solution is the open interchange of information and collaborative
research projects.
 
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.06 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Delay in shipping tapes.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Delay in shipping tapes.
Date: 6 May 92 22:24:17 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
	I was told today (May 6) that tapes would definitely be
shipped before or on Friday this week. I am still very curious why
would MIT Prof. Smullens would want to delay their shipment?
Dick Forman has a suspicion that MIT is feverishly applying for
patents and therefore wanted some time to have this done before
they allow others, who did not the fortune to attend (were not invited,
perhaps) to the talk, to get their hands on new information. If this is
true (I do not have any idea if it is, the only thing I know for
sure that a delay was asked for by Mr. Smullens) then I have to say
this MIT demeanor looks very unethical to me, am I right? Anyways,
people who do experiments in their garages or basements should draw
appropriate conclusions and perhaps be very carefull when they share
their data with the establishment, I would not be the least surprised
if it turned out that MIT (the most ardent trasher of CNF) has been
filing patent applications for the past 2-3 years. Anyways, could be
just paranoia!
 
Cheers.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: 7 May 92 11:04:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com> daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim
 Bowery) writes:
>DICK FORMAN writes:
>Is that slime-ball Hagelstein STILL at it?
>
>I think all those cold-fusion patents of his stand a greater chance of
>firing up the ovens of Auschwitz than they do of contributing to the
>progress of civilization.
	Mr. Bowery, I am sorry to tell you but your sense of humour is
at best stupid and at worst malicious. Your statement here makes you look
like an anal orifice. I do not care how slimy Mr. Hagelstein is ( I do not
know him) but it does not give any right to spout your bovine exrement in
a public forum.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 13:15:24 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May07.110409.55271@cs.cmu.edu>
alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
 
>
>In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com> daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim
 Bowery) writes:
>>DICK FORMAN writes:
>>Is that slime-ball Hagelstein STILL at it?
>>
>>I think all those cold-fusion patents of his stand a greater chance of
>>firing up the ovens of Auschwitz than they do of contributing to the
>>progress of civilization.
>	Mr. Bowery, I am sorry to tell you but your sense of humour is
>at best stupid and at worst malicious. Your statement here makes you look
>like an anal orifice. I do not care how slimy Mr. Hagelstein is ( I do not
>know him) but it does not give any right to spout your bovine exrement in
>a public forum.
DICK FORMAN SAYS: I DID NOT WRITE THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME IN THE ABOVE
MESSAGE.  PLEASE CHECK THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM FUSION@ZORCH.
The problem that occurred is related to the difficulty of deleting things
from messages for replies.  I have received complaints about an earlier reply
of mine in which I failed to delete "enough" material so as to make the message
efficient to transmit and read. I have e-mailed to the responsible sysop and
he says he will fix it.  My preference until I received the complaint was to
quote in its entirety any message that I commented on the substance of; had fus
ion@zorch's replier done so I would not have been writing this note.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 13:23:27 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com>
fusion@zorch writes:
 
>
>DICK FORMAN writes:
>>When I offered him a copy of my article on the theory of cold fusion
>>associated with the palladium deuterium system, received by Science
>>on 2 May 1989, rejected without review by the "priority" process used
>>by Science to make the job of the editors easier, I requested that he keep
>>the contents confidential.  He said it would be better if I did not send it
>>to him as he was working with Hagelstein and felt it would be necessary
>>to communicate the contents to him.
>
>Is that slime-ball Hagelstein STILL at it?
>
>I think all those cold-fusion patents of his stand a greater chance of
 
Tom and Alex: Could you please elaborate on your remarks for those of us who
really don't worry about the trash others put out.  The scientific literature i
s filled with trash, but no one seems to care.  What has Hagelstein done?
 
I think I know what the MIT crowd is about to do: that is to try to appropriate
someone else's intellectual property by the sole expedient of having greater re
sources.  But Hagelstein is a theorist, or so I am told. I saw clear evidence
of the type of supposed theorist that he is when he did not understand my
suggestion to Dr. Takahashi of a "next" useful experiment.  Theorists
that don't understand experiments are a dime a dozen and expensive (in terms of
 e.
their value) even at that price, but maybe the MIT experimentalists
are trying to do some original research by following up on my recommendation
to Takahashi before he has the opportunity to do so himself?
 
 People who choose Athena, the Godess of Wisdom, as the name for their campus
netserver would never steal other's wisdom (now called intellectual property).
 
Gee, maybe they don't know who that unnamed individual was who probably, but
not necessarily, since we have not yet seen the EDITED videotape that will
(hopefully soon) be distributed.  The question period might be edited
 out since one of the questioners carelessly failed to leave his name and
 affiliation
with the proper authorities.  Then there could be the rationalization
that they did not want to distribute "his" segment without his permission
or some such legalistic jargon.
To all videotapers: I hereby give irrevocably my permission to tape and use
any information that I present publicly.
 
Time will tell.
 
 
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: 7 May 92 15:34:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <167E08234.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <1992May07.110409.55271@cs.cmu.edu>
>alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com> daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim
 Bowery) writes:
>>>DICK FORMAN writes:
>>>
>>>I think all those cold-fusion patents of his stand a greater chance of
>>>firing up the ovens of Auschwitz than they do of contributing to the
>>>progress of civilization.
>>	Mr. Bowery, I am sorry to tell you but your sense of humour is
>>at best stupid and at worst malicious. Your statement here makes you look
>>like an anal orifice. I do not care how slimy Mr. Hagelstein is ( I do not
>>know him) but it does not give any right to spout your bovine exrement in
>>a public forum.
>DICK FORMAN SAYS: I DID NOT WRITE THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME IN THE ABOVE
>MESSAGE.  PLEASE CHECK THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM FUSION@ZORCH.
 
	I am sorry if my previous post inadvertantly associated
Dick Forman's name with the original, disgusting message by Mr.
James Bowery. Mr. Forman had nothing to do with it, my editor simply
failed to delete all the lines I wanted deleted. If the moderator can
fix this, please, do so.
 
On another note:
 
Mr. Takahashi seems to interpret lack of Tritium and Neutrons as an
argument for postulating new types of reactions (4D, 3D fusions, etc...)
and explains the process as competition between aneutronic fusions and
"regular" reactions. I think one does not necessarily have to invoke
new reactions since the lack of tritium may have to do more with the
fact tritium itself undergoes a further reaction once produced. What
one has to look for is the possible "stable" result like 4HE, or possibly
even light metals.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.007 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: Thu, 07 May 92 16:30:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <167E08417.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com>
>fusion@zorch writes:
 
>
>Tom and Alex: Could you please elaborate on your remarks for those of us who
>really don't worry about the trash others put out.  The scientific literature i
>s filled with trash, but no one seems to care.  What has Hagelstein done?
 
If by Alex you mean me (Alex Orenshteyn) then I have to say I know absolutely
nothing about who Hagelstein is or what he does.
 
>
>I think I know what the MIT crowd is about to do: that is to try to appropriate
>someone else's intellectual property by the sole expedient of having greater re
>sources.  But Hagelstein is a theorist, or so I am told. I saw clear evidence
>of the type of supposed theorist that he is when he did not understand my
>suggestion to Dr. Takahashi of a "next" useful experiment.  Theorists
>that don't understand experiments are a dime a dozen and expensive (in terms of
 e.
>their value) even at that price, but maybe the MIT experimentalists
>are trying to do some original research by following up on my recommendation
>to Takahashi before he has the opportunity to do so himself?
>
As far as this goes as I said before, I would not be surprised if some MIT
characters who shouted the loudest about fraud and self-delusion of P&F's
work would end up trying to patent incremental improvements and of course
since the prestigous universities have virtually shutdown any financial
support, which may have been, from the government by coming out so strongly
against CNF the situation now presents a unique opportunity for self-employed
researchers to do some good in CNF without being overtaken by big-money,
tenure-fattened, comfortable, self-important university inhabitants.
 
As far as tape-delays, I think they have absolutely no valid reason to delay
these shipments, MIT charged my credit-card almost 2 weeks ago and the tapes
were ready beginning of this week. So, I think the only reason the tapes were
not shipped last week is for some unsavoury reason.
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: 7 May 92 18:01:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992May07.153425.196161@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
 
> "regular" reactions. I think one does not necessarily have to invoke
> new reactions since the lack of tritium may have to do more with the
> fact tritium itself undergoes a further reaction once produced. What
> one has to look for is the possible "stable" result like 4HE, or possibly
> even light metals.
 
The problem with any scheme invoking tritium production is that the
tritium would have to be produced with very little kinetic energy.
Otherwise, recoiling tritium ions will occasionally react with
deuterium nuclei, making neutrons.
 
The reaction d+d->T+p produces tritium nuclei with an energy of about
1 MeV.  Slowing down in PdD, about 3e-5 neutrons will be produced per
tritium nucleus.  One watt of d+d reactions of this kind would produce
40 million secondary neutrons per second.
 
To avoid too many second neutrons, the tritium nuclei have to be
quite slow, less than 50 keV at least.  Waiter -- another miracle,
please!
 
The absence of the requisite number of secondary neutrons was
one significant reason why the tritium claims at Texas A&M were
viewed with such skepticism.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.07 / MIKE JAMISON /  Terry Bollinger's Compuserve Address
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry Bollinger's Compuserve Address
Date:  7 May 1992 16:32 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Terry,
 
Thanks for the observations/encouragement.  Unfortunately, I lost your
Compuserve e-mail address.  The next time you post to s.p.f I'll copy it
down, and will let you know how the project progresses.  Thanks.
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.08 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delay in shipping Takahashi tapes.
Date: 8 May 92 07:20:10 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Alex Orenshteyn writes:
>>alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>>>In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com> daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim
(Jim Bowery) writes:
>>>>I think all those cold-fusion patents of his stand a greater chance of
>>>>firing up the ovens of Auschwitz than they do of contributing to the
>>>>progress of civilization.
 
>>>      Mr. Bowery, I am sorry to tell you but your sense of humour is
>>>at best stupid and at worst malicious. Your statement here makes you look
>>>like an anal orifice. I do not care how slimy Mr. Hagelstein is ( I do
not
>>>know him) but it does not give any right to spout your bovine exrement in
>>>a public forum.
 
>        I am sorry if my previous post inadvertantly associated
>Dick Forman's name with the original, disgusting message by Mr.
>James Bowery.
 
Trust me, Alex.  The stuff that Hagelstien has been up to for the past
few years will be judged by history to be on the moral order of
participation in the Holocaust.  That's no joke.  It is a very serious
and very ugly fact.  I make no apology for stating it in this forum and
in terms commensurate with its character.
 
Since I am morally constrained against killing except in immediate self-
defense, I can only pray that Hagelstein, MIT and their financial backers
will sue a genuine inventor on the basis of one of Hagelstein's patents,
be counter-sued and end with MIT closing down, Hagelstein becoming a
homeless bum and his financial backers seeking bankruptcy protection.
 
PS: I am refusing to return your volley of calling me an "anal orifice"
and my "disgusting" message "bovine exrement", in case you didn't notice.
However, I will gladly expand on my opinions about Hagelstein if pressed.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.008 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Catalysts
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Catalysts
Date: Fri, 08 May 92 14:16:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <920507125302.2080290b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>I will buy one and cut it apart on my band saw, and ship one to any one
>who sends a pr-stamped box.  I will first test to see if they work.
	I would be willing to give you some money, if this stuff works and
is effective. BTW how much are Crysler converters?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.008 / Jon Noring /  "Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Claims in Science"
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups:
 alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.archaeology,sci.astro,sci.bio,s
 ci.chem,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.psychol
 ogy,sci.skeptic,sci.space
Subject: "Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Claims in Science"
Date: Fri, 08 May 92 16:16:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

 
[The following article originally appeared in "Frontier Perspectives" (vol. 1
number 2, Fall/Winter 1990), the newsletter of The Center for Frontier
Sciences at Temple University, Dr. Beverly Rubik, Director.  The address of
the Center is:  Ritter Hall 003-00, Philadelphia, PA 19122.  The e-mail
address is v2058a@templevm (Bitnet) and v2058a@vm.temple.edu (Internet).
 
This article is posted here with the permission of the Center.]
 
 
 
 
REFLECTIONS ON THE RECEPTION OF UNCONVENTIONAL CLAIMS IN SCIENCE
 
November 29, 1989 Colloquium presented by Marcello Truzzi, Ph.D., Professor
of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University at Ypsilanti, Michigan, and
Director, Center for Scientific Anomalies Research, Ann Arbor, MI
 
Reported by Simona Solovey
 
 
 
As a sociologist of science I remain outside of the controversies surrounding
unconventional claims in science.  My committment is to the judicial process
within the scientific community rather than the resolution of specific debates.
 
My general concern is to try to foster an interdisciplinary program, best
called anomalistics, on the study of facts that seem unexplained by our
current models.  In order to study anomalies in science we have to be
interdisciplinary because we don't know ultimately where an anomaly will fit.
For example, if it is a UFO, we don't know if it will contribute to astronomy,
sociology, psychology, or meteorology in the end.  An interdisciplinary
approach to anomalies is absolutely necessary.
 
There are three broad approaches to anomaly studies.  The first approach is
usually called the Fortean approach.  It is generally characterized by what
critics would call mystery mongering.  The main problem with it is that if
you give an explanation to a phenomenon, even if you agree with the existence
of the anomaly, the representatives of this approach are unhappy because they
prefer the idea of mystery.
 
The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers'
approach.  This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community
towards anomaly claims.  It is characterized by the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).  "Whatever is
claimed is nothing but ... something else."  Seemingly anomalous phenomena
are denied first and sometimes investigated only second.  Like the Fortean
the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation.  Whereas the
Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they
believe they have already them.
 
The third approach, which I've tried to empower and legitimate, is the
zetetic.  Zetetic is an old word coming from the Greek followers of the
skeptical philosopher, Pyrrho.  The main feature of this approach is to
emphasize the communal norm of skepticism present in the scientific
community.  By skepticism I would like to strongly distinguish between doubt
and denial.  Doubt is the skeptical approach; the debunker's approach is
denial.  True skepticism which is a part of  science consists of doubt
proceeding inquiry, and that essentially takes the position of non-belief
rather than of disbelief.  The main elements of the zetetic approach are:
firstly, ignorance; secondly, some doubt; thirdly, an emphasis upon inquiry.
Charles Sanders Peirce required that the first and primary obligation of any
philosopher or scientist is to do nothing that would block inquiry.  This
approach involves a general acceptance of what Mario Bunge calls methodism,
on science as method, not science as some established absolute body of
knowledge.
 
The most important thing here is that maverick ideas, unconventional claims,
and anomalies must be viewed not as crises but as opportunities.  Some of
these claims, probably a small minority, will in fact turn out to have some
substance because after all that is what drives science forward.  Without
anomalies and their validation, later incorporation, and explanation, we
would not have any progress in science.  We have a fundamental problem in
science of somehow trying to balance openness with conservatism, and
imagination and creativity with criticism.  How can we keep science an open
system?  From the history of science it is clear that radical conceptional
innovations are not accepted until all the orthodox interpretations have
failed.  There are different viewpoints on this.  Michael Polanyi defends
the conservative side.  He said, "There must be at all times a predominantly
accepted scientific view of the nature of things, in the light of which,
research is jointly conducted by members of the scientific community.  Any
evidence which contradicts this view has to be disregarded, even if it cannot
be accounted for, in the hope that it will eventually turn out to be false
and irrelevant."  I don't agree with Polanyi.  The good scientist is one who
is unprejudiced with an open mind, ready to embrace any new idea supported by
facts.  The history of science shows, however, that this is not usually the
case.  The burden of proof is not only on the claimant, but he is faced with
denial rather than simply doubt.
 
As one looks at the history of science, a number of other interesting concepts
have been put forward.  Gunther Stent argued that there have been premature
ideas ahead of their time which the culture then was not ready to accept.  The
same is true for 'postmature' sciences.  There are cases where the knowledge
was available for some time, but new developments were slow to come.  An
example is the laser.
 
The history of science is full of some very notable rejections.  Some of them
are now even silly sounding.  Lord Kelvin said that x-rays would prove to be
a hoax.  Thomas Watson, once chairman of the board of IBM, said in 1943, "I
think there is a world market for about five computers".  This got so bad
that in 1889, Charles Duell, who was then the commissioner of the US Office of
Patents, wrote a letter to president McKinley asking him to abolish the
Patents Office since "everything that can be invented has been invented".
[See note at end of this post for a later clarification of this fact.]  Ernst
Mach said he could not accept the theory of relativity any more than he could
accept the existence of atoms and other such dogmas, as he put it.  Edison
supposedly said that he saw no commercial future for the light bulb.  When
the phonograph was first demonstrated at the French Academy of Science, one
scientist leaped up, grabbed the exhibitor, started shaking him, and said, "I
won't be taken in by your ventriloquist!"  Rutherford called atomic power
"moonshine".  The history of science is full of such crazy stories.
 
The best interpretation of this can be given by what is called "type one" and
"type two" error.  "Type one" error is thinking that something special is
happening when nothing special really is happening.  "Type two" error is
thinking that nothing special is happening, when in fact something rare or
infrequent is happening.  Obviously these are at opposite poles, and you
increase your probability of avoiding one kind of error by increasing the
probability of making the other kind.
 
When an unconventional claim is made, we must decide whether it is a discovery
or some kind of mistake.  There are fundamentally three kinds of errors:  it
can be a mistake or accident, an artifact, or an impropriety.  These three
have different degrees of moral stigma attached to them.  Everybody makes
mistakes, but fraud is something else.  Most interesting for the sociology of
science is the relationship between the scientist making the claim and the
scientific community  and how the claim gets labeled by them.  In general we
can distinguish between what Isaac Asimov called "endoheretics" and
"exoheretics".  Endoheretics are appropriately credentialed scientists.  If
the person is outside the scientific community or at least outside of his
specialty, he is an exoheretic.  If a person is an endoheretic, he will be
considered as eccentric and incompetent, whereas if the person is an
exoheretic, he will be regarded as a crackpot, charlatan, or fraud.
 
In general, most people, especially within the anomalies communities, tend to
accept the idea that there are three basic ways in which the general
scientific community will probably come around to accepting their claim.  The
first is if they can produce a replicable phenomenon, especially one
replicable by skeptics.  The second is the hope that an acceptable theory
will develop a set of mechanisms that will predict the phenomenon.  The third
is a successful application which will bypass the scientific community
altogether.
 
We must remember that an anomaly is essentially an extraordinary claim, but
'extraordinary' is always something that's a matter of degree.  An anomaly
can only be spoken of sensibly in relationship to a certain theory that it
seems to violate.  But theory changes.  If the theoretical framework changes
and is made more hospitable to the previously outlandish claim, that claim
may no longer be anomalous.  Also, science is hardly unified.  The theory in
one science may not be exactly compatible with theory in another science, so
that what may be accepted as an anomaly in one science may be much less of an
anomaly in another.  For example, Lord Kelvin said that the age of the sun
was much too young to allow the earth to be old enough to support Darwin's
theory of evolution.  If the biologists had listened to the leading
physicists of that day, they would have given up evolutionary theory, since
what violates physics violates biology.  Luckily, physics came around to
changing its point of view when fusion was discovered and the sun was seen to
be much older, making evolutionary theory possible.  Only time will tell what
is premature and what is postmature in science.
 
In recent years within the history, philosophy, and psychology of science
there are now strong voices such as those of constructivism and relativism
speaking out against the older, classical positivist view.  Max Planck once
said that a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new
generation grows up that's familiar with it.  In the sociology of science,
one viewpoint represented by David Bloor is that what is considered as
bedrock consensual science is socially negotiated.  Some of the basics
central to the scientific method like replication are extremely problematic.
What is considered to be a true replication is something very much negotiable.
When parapsychologists claim to have replicated an experiment, critics do
their best to point out, even 'nit-pick' how different the experiments are.
Thus it is difficult sometimes to tell exactly what a true replication is.
If someone like James Randi, a magician, accomplishes in a stage show what
appears to be what a psychic does in the laboratory under controlled
conditions, then most critics say that Randi has replicated what the psychic
has achieved.  This is an unfair comparison.
 
Scientism, the mistaken dogmatic acceptance of current paradigms, is another
significant problem.  Freud was the first to note the mistaken belief that
science consists in nothing but proved propositions, and felt that this was
a demand made only by those who crave authority and need to replace religious
catechism with a scientific one.
 
We must distinguish between anti-scientific and non-scientific ideas. There
are those who are willing to play by the scientific rules of the game but who
are not accepted for some reason or another.  I call them protoscientists.
Some protosciences are widely accepted.  Parapsychology is perhaps one of the
most sophisticated and accepted since the Parapsychological Association is
affiliated with the AAAS.  Then there are the quasi-scientific belief systems.
Astrology is the best example of this. People claim that it is compatible
with science, fitting proper scientific rules, but there is no experimental
verification.  Astrologers are not anti-scientific, but simply practitioners.
Then there are pragmatic or esoteric thinkers.  They claim to have discovered
the secret of the universe.  They are anti-scientific.  If they cannot explain
it, they hope that later on scientists will explain it and if not, to them it
doesn't matter much.  Though it sounds outlandish, throughout the history of
science many breakthroughs occurred that way.  Anesthesia is a good example.
There are no proper mechanisms even today to explain it fundamentally, but it
works.  Then we have the mystical approaches, purely subjective, of two types:
(1) consensual mystical occultism, which is intersubjective; and (2) solitary
mysticism.
 
Obviously there is a large spectrum of approaches.  We can differentiate
extraordinary claims first in terms of mainstream acceptance or rejection,
and whether they are methodologically acceptable or not.  There are also
things which are institutionally unacceptable despite good methodology.
Protoscientific efforts, in my opinion, such as parapsychology at its best
always meets certain hostility, animosity, and accusations of pseudoscience.
Finally there are things which are unacceptable both methodologically and
institutionally.  This is pseudoscience.
 
One must consider distinctions between anomalies or extraordinary events that
have been examined scientifically vs.  non-scientifically, such as via
metaphysics or theology.  Here we can distinguish between the abnormal, the
paranormal and the supernatural.  If something is rare or extraordinary in
science but it is explanable, we call it abnormal.  The term paranormal
refers to something that science can explain some day but at the present
moment cannot.  These are the scientific frontiers.  However, there are
things that are fundamentally inexplicable by science, the supernatural.
Critics often confuse the paranormal and the supernatural and turn it into a
political fight.  One should distinguish also between variables or facts and
relationships or processes.  (See figure,  p.   )  If we have ordinary facts
in an ordinary relationship, we may call it normal, orthodox science.  If
we have ordinary facts in an extraordinary relationship, such as two people
who have the same thought being linked by ESP, this is parascience.  We
usually see facts but infer processes.  All kinds of ordinary facts can be
considered from extraordinary relationships. If we have an extraordinary fact
in an ordinary relationship, for example, a dinosaur in Loch Ness, that would
be a cryptoscientific claim.  The worst combination is paracryptoscience,
where we have an extraordinary set of facts and claim an extraordinary
relationship between them.  Velikovsky, for example, claims strange things in
the sky, apparently violating conventional astronomy.
 
What is required to bring an anomalous claim into scientific acceptance?  In
cryptoscience, no replication is needed.  One Big Foot, captured, would
suffice.  For parascience, replication is required, and an anomalous claim
has to topple over every other normal explanation of the results.  Whereas
in cryptoscience it is easy to prove but difficult to falsify hypotheses, in
parascience it is easy to falsify and hard to validate.
 
People often confuse parasciences and cryptosciences.  For example, a white
crow is a cryptozoological phenomenon.  All too often in parapsychology
people talk as though cryptoscientific claims were being made, as if a single
critical experiment could prove it.  That is ridiculous from the scientific
viewpoint.  The history and philosophy of science has shown that there is no
such thing as a critical experiment.  A single experiment doesn't change the
body of science.  Replications and changes in theory must follow, and perhaps
the whole worldview must change.
 
There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled.
Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method.  Scientists are
regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity.
Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists
are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical
as everybody else, including when they do science.  In one study on
falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the
participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the
participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis".  The results
indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their
hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence!  Strangely,
clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were
false.
 
Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz.  I
helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal.  I found myself attacked
by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the
paranormalists.  My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries,
but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific
evidence.  I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking
the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer".  The
major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy
body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy.  The Committee has
made many mistakes.  My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I
chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it
represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick
claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury
when they were simply lawyers.
 
Despite serious philosophical and sociological questions about how well the
system works, I believe in the process of science and scientific progress.
Science is a self-correcting system.  Encouragement of fair play and due
process in the scientific arena will allow that self-correction to work best.
A diversity of opinions and dialogue is extremely important.  We cannot close
the door on maverick claims.
_______________________________________
 
References
M. Truzzi, "On the Extraordinary:  An Attempt at Clarification", Zetetic
Scholar  1 (1978), p. 11-22.
 
R. Westrum and M. Truzzi, "Anomalies:  A Bibliographic Introduction with Some
Cautionary Remarks", Zetetic Scholar  2 (1978), p. 69-90.
 
M. Truzzi, "Zetetic Ruminations on Skepticism and Anomalies in Science",
Zetetic Scholar  12 & 13 (1987), p. 7-20.
 
 
[In the article above, Dr. Truzzi brought up the example of the commissioner
of Patents.  Following is a letter submitted to the Spring/Summer 1991 issue
of "Frontier Perspectives", clarifying this statement:
 
In "Frontier Perspectives" of Fall/Winter 1990, the report on my talk
included a quotation frequently attributed to Charles Duell, a past
commissioner of the U.S. Office of Patents, in which he purportedly wrote
President McKinley that "everything that can be invented has been invented."
Kendrick Frazier has since called my attention to a persuasive article by
Samuel Sass ["A Patently Fals Patent Myth," The Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 13,
Spring 1989, pp. 310-312] arguing that Duell probably never really wrote such
a statement.  I made the error of relying on secondary sources for what is
probably a misquotation.
 
Marcello Truzzi, Ph.D.
Center for Scientific Anomalies Research
P.O. Box 1052
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 ]
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.09 /  /  News from the front.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News from the front.
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 01:56:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 20 to 400 ma per sq cm saw tooth over 1/2 hour
Duration: Now at 489790 seconds into run.
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 3 v to 4.1 v on Takahashi 1/2 hour saw tooth.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C
 
We started to see "anomalous heat" pulses two days ago.  Shortly after turning
on the Takahashi style saw tooth.
 
We have been gaining gas in the system at the rate of 10 cc per hour.  Note
this is 5% of the average rate of electrolysis (D) gas production.  We think
that this is caused by the formation of some compound that contains a higher
O/D ratio than LiOH, thus causing an excess of D.  The idea is that bubbles
containing Li+ and OH-- pop through the surface, and somehow form some other
compound than LiOD when the liquid condenses on the walls and structure of the
cell.  The last cell contained stalagtites of a white crystaline substance.  I
proposed Li2O to Dieter Britz, but he says no.  Anyone else want to take a
flier at what this might be?  Can send samples of the white gunk to anyone who
can do chemical analysis.  Sorry, there does not seem to be a chemical sample
input to a PC or a Mac, so most of you out there are eliminated!  Note this
gas gain is very steady.  There is a steady 10 cc per hour gain trend with a
superimposed saw tooth which follows the current, cogging back 5 cc when the
current drops to the low value.  There is no hint of any gas change when the
heat pulses come.
 
Because previous cells would give up (cell voltage very high so that current
density could not be maintained, pH down) after a few hundred hours of
operation, this cell is operated with very saturated electrolyte, about a cm
of precipitate in the bottom.  There is enough LiOH to feed a chemical
operation for a long time.  We must be successful at this because the cell
voltage has been very steady compared to previous runs, and has actually gone
down a tenth volt over the last 24 hours. (One of P&F signatures of impending
excess heat.)
 
We continue to compute an energy balance from the start of the run.  About
1600 joules were lost during charging, we have gained this back, plus another
200 joules or so since the pulses started.  We are thus at a net of + 200
joules with an estimated error of +/- 200 joules.  Previous calibration runs
indicated that the calibration was maintained for all combinations of saw
tooth, Hi-Lo, and slow ramp that we plan to use.  And Dick Garwin will be
pleased to hear that my oscilloscope is turned on and looking for
oscillations.  So you skeptics will have to find more exotic errors to search
for than simple errors in instrumentation.
 
The saw tooth ramp makes it very difficult to study the character of the heat
pulses.  It's effect is to create an energy balance which looks like
abs(sinwt), with a period of 1/2 hour and an amplitude of 600 joules.  The
appearance of a plot is to see a row of these half sine waves who's peak value
is all the same, then the curve takes a step up to another row with a higher
peak value.  The step value varies from 50 to 200 joules, but it is more often
200 joules.  To the best of my long term calibration, 5 joules per hour, the
peak values during the steady time match.  There is a small variation
consistent with the 15 mw rms system noise.
 
I have seen this type of pulsing on previous runs, but then the calibration
was not good enough to distinguish slow energy storage followed by a fast
energy release from an occasional energy release.  I can now state with some
confidence, say 3 sigma, that this appears to be an occasional energy release.
 
So all you skeptics out there get busy and dream up a chemical reaction that
puts out 200 joule pulses.  Seems to me that even the 1800 joules seen so far
should leave behind some chemical evidence.  So you skeptics, if "cold fusion"
has to leave behind some radiation, then "chemistry" has to leave behind some
chemical ashes.  Fair is fair!!
 
We are near Takahashi's canonical 5 days, so my inclination is to switch to the
High-Low operation this weekend so that I can examine the nature of the pulses
if they are still there.  Comments please.
 
While I have mentioned Takahashi a lot, he is only one who has contributed to
this general style of running.  Mark Hugo proposed symmetrical loading to me
before I heard of Takahashi (and had some success with it but he is very
conservative), and I had used (and published) slow and fast ramps and Hi-Lo
operation.  Mike Danos first proposed very slow Hi-Lo cycles to me over two
years ago.  So if there is ever any credit to be had in this work, my vote
goes to those who work ***and talk about their results so that others may
build on their ideas***.
 
While I hate to let the Japanese get away with our ideas, it is our fault if
we don't follow up our own work.  (Sorry, my upbringing shows.  Growing up in
Kentucky during the depression, I used to receive and read an "America First"
publication - but it is not PC to think these thoughts today and I don't think
them.)  Takahashi certainly deserves credit for openly talking about his work
when it is in very early stages.  Fastest development will take place if we
can distribute early results without too much loss of face when we later have
to retract them.  We are all adults here and can cope with hand written
documents that have been faxed several times around the world.  And stuff in
this medium.  I still don't seem to understand why I need peers to tell me
what is worth reading.  All I need is a chance at the information.  Then
maybe I can reassemble the facts to point to a better approach.  This medium,
the fax, and the telephone seem to work fine.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.008 / Jon Noring /  New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environmen
 t,sci.med.physics,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
Date: Fri, 08 May 92 18:00:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

 
[The following article originally appeared in "Frontier Perspectives" (vol. 2
number 2, Fall/Winter 1991), the newsletter of The Center for Frontier
Sciences at Temple University, Dr. Beverly Rubik, Director.  The address of
the Center is:  Ritter Hall 003-00, Philadelphia, PA 19122.  The e-mail
address is v2058a@templevm (Bitnet) and v2058a@vm.temple.edu (Internet).
 
This article is posted here with the permission of the Center.]
 
 
 
QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE:  A NEW ROSETTA STONE OF PHYSICS?
 
October 23, 1990 Colloquium Presentation
 
Harold E. Puthoff
Senior Fellow in Physics
Institute for Advanced Studies
Austin, Texas
 
 
My topic is about something called nothing, the vacuum.  In fact, the
so-called vacuum is not quite empty.  Democritus was apparently the first
known philosopher who proposed that matter was ultimately constructed of
indivisible atoms suspended in the void, capable ofmotion by pushing aside
other atoms and moving intovoids.  On the other hand, Aristotle reasoned that
nothing would affect a body in a complete void, and therefore space must be
filled with a substance.  In the 19th century this ancient philosophical
discussion was raised to the level of a scientific debate that could be
experimentally investigated in the problem of the propagation of
electromagnetic waves.  Scientists had invented the concept of the ether
which pervaded all of space.  A series of experiments was devised to detect
the properties of the ether, the most well known of which is the Michelson-
Morley experiment.  The ether was never detected experimentally, so it was
abandoned, and we were back to the notion of a true void.  However, soon
quantum theory came into being and revised this notion.  Today the vacuum is
not regarded as empty, but as full of energy.  It is a sea of dynamical
energy where virtual particles are continually being created and then
dropping back into an unobservable state, like the spray of foam near a
turbulent waterfall.
 
The vacuum acts as a dynamical background determining the states of matter
and their interaction.  The most fundamental quantum concept is that the
vacuum is fluctuating at a zero-point energy level, the ground state for
vibration of an harmonic oscillator.  The main characteristic of quantum
theory is that everything is in this state of at least low level agitation.
The amount of energy associated with that fluctuation is very small, on the
order of half a photon's worth for each vibrational mode.  If we consider
the universe as a whole, it is like a giant cavity with many modes, with all
directions of propagation, and having all possible frequencies.  According to
quantum theory each of those modes and frequencies has a tiny amount of
zero-point energy associated with it.  The sum total of all of the energy
associated with all these possible modes is enormous, and can be shown to
derive from the quantum fluctuation motion of charged particles distributed
throughout cosmological space.[1]
 
Since quantum theory predicts an awesome amount of this energy, why don't we
observe many effects associated with it?  The answer to this is analogous to
the following.  If there is a door standing in a complete void, it would not
fall over, but just stand there.  Similarly if you had two elephants come up
and push on each side of the door with equal strength, it also would just
stand there.  If the elephants were invisible, you might not notice that
anything had changed.  Thus, the zero-point energy is so completely in
balance that under ordinary circumstances its effects are unobservable.
 
However, the Lamb shift offers physical evidence for the zero-point energy.
Nobel laureate Willis Lamb showed a departure from theory of the actual
frequencies of light emitted from the electron of an excited hydrogen atom.
The naive calculation assumes that the atom is located in a void, but in fact
it isn't.  If the effects of the electromagnetic zero-point energy on the
electron are taken into account, then there is a good match between theory
and experiment.
 
In 1948, Casimir, a Dutch physicist, predicted an effect that arises because
of the fact that zero-point energy exists.  The Casimir effect is considered
to be the best demonstration of the zero-point energy.  A metal slab is a
boundary condition for electromagnetic wave propagation, including zero-point-
energy electromagnetic waves.  However, if a second slab is placed close to
it, i.e., within a millionth of a meter, "empty" space pushes them together.
All the zero-point modes can bounce off the plates and impart momentum to
them.  The effect of the pair of metal plates is to exclude modes from
between them.  Therefore, the radiation pressure tending to push the plates
apart is overcome by much greater radiation pressure on the outside pushing
them together.[2]  This is no small effect, approaching a million newtons
per square meter at small spacings.  This phenomenon is observed in certain
applications such as the scanning electron microscope where the emission tip
for electrons is brought very close to the surface of a crystal.
 
In a fluorescent lamp, the atoms are put into excited states by means of an
electrical discharge.  Originally it was thought that spontaneous emission of
electromagnetic radiation was simply a property of atoms, but later it was
realized that this so-called spontaneous emission is really not so
spontaneous.  It is actually stimulated by the background fluctuations that
are continually agitating the atoms.  If those vacuum modes that are causing
the atom to emit spontaneously are missing, then the atom will stay in its
excited state.  It has been observed that the spontaneous emission time for
an atom in a specially constructed cavity can be much greater than for one in
free space, up to a factor of 42.  Similarly, in a properly constructed
cavity one can reduce the spontaneous emission time by a factor of 500 and
speed atomic transitions.  Spontaneous emission occurs only because the
background, the vacuum, is always fluctuating.  Vision, which depends upon
spontaneous emission, is possible only because the background vacuum
fluctuations are jiggling the atoms all the time.  If someone could "pull the
plug" on vacuum fluctuations, we would not see anything.
 
Vacuum fluctuations also play a role in atomic stability.  Consider the
simplest atom, atomic hydrogen, a stable atom.  A critical question has been,
why doesn't the electron radiate its energy away and the atom collapse?  The
electrons in atomic ground states are in agitated states of motion, but not
many have thought about why they don't radiate their energy away.  As in the
case with the Lamb shift, those working with atomic models usually do not
take into account the fact that the atom is not in a void but amidst quantum
fluctuations, with the opportunity to absorb energy from this background.
There is one orbit for which the absorption just matches the emission, and
that is the stable ground state orbit.  Because of the presence of the zero-
point fluctuations, the electron will continuously move around in response to
them.  The amount of energy radiated by an electron is equal to that which it
absorbs when in the ground state.  Thus, the atom is actually in a continuous
interactive mode with the vacuum fluctuations continually being absorbed and
re-emitted.  Consequently atomic structure is actually sustained by
background fluctuations.[3]  Again, if one could "pull the plug" on the
vacuum, all atoms would collapse. Vacuum fluctuations thus underlie some of
the rules of quantum theory.
 
Another area associated with vacuum fluctuations is gravity.  Gravitational
theory is still under development, whether we are talking about classical
theory or general relativity.  It is generally recognized that if we have a
certain amount of mass it will warp space, and if we have warped space,
particles will follow certain orbits.  However, gravity is still at a
descriptive level and needs further development.  Attempts are being made to
derive Einstein's equations from a more fundamental level.  Consider, for
example, Newton's law of gravity.  Questions remain as to the particular
value of the coupling constant G, where gravitational mass comes from, and
why masses always attract each other.  Why is the law of gravitation an
inverse square law?  Why can't gravity be shielded like electromagnetic
fields?  A fundamental theory of gravity should address these questions.
In 1968 the famous Soviet physicist, Andrei Sakharov, made the then
outrageous proposal that perhaps gravity was not a fundamental force, but
rather was due to unbalanced zero-point fluctuation forces which arise in
the vacuum in the presence of matter.  Unfortunately he did not develop this
idea further.  I decided to examine it since I was doing vacuum fluctuation
physics.
 
Basically gravitational attraction between two bodies is primarily an
attraction between the nucleons--protons, and neutrons, i.e., the heavy part
of matter.  We now know by modern theory that neutrons and protons are
composed of quarks, charged particles that reside within them.  The quarks
themselves are moved around by the zero-point background fluctuations.
Furthermore, since they are charged, as they are so jiggled, they emit
radiation fields which other quarks also see.  So an individual quark sees
both the bare background zero-point fluctuation fields as well as fields
associated with nearby fluctuating quarks.  It is well known that if you have
fluctuating charged particles, there is a certain interaction potential, the
van der Waals forces, responsible for much of chemical binding.  Following
the Sakharov model, it occurred to me to take a look at the leading term of
this potential to see whether that might not account for gravity as he
suggested.  The average force is found to be proportional to the square of
the mass, for two identical particles, and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between them.  The value of the proportionality
constant turns out to be G, where G is related to the cut-off frequency of
the background zero-point fluctuations.  This is an already unified
gravitational theory.  This description of the gravitational force tells us
why the gravitational constant is so weak; it depends inversely on the square
of the cutoff frequency, which is very high.  It also tells us why gravity is
only attractive, because van der Waals forces in general are only attractive.
The reason gravity cannot be shielded is that high frequency zero-point
fluctuation quantum noise in general cannot be shielded.  Hence, the
application of zero-point fluctuations actually provides a deeper
understanding of gravity.[4]
 
These are essentially theoretical concerns, but there are also potential
applications.  There is a phenomenon associated with the Casimir effect that
leads to the condensation of charge.  Ordinarily, electrically charged
particles of the same sign repel each other.  To understand why the Casimir
effect predicts charge condensation under certain conditions, consider the
two metal plates in a vacuum which are attracted together by an inverse
fourth law Casimir force.  If two metal plates, both strongly charged, are
put somewhat near each other, the electrical repulsion force would make them
fly apart.  However, at very small distances this inverse fourth law
attractive force can overcome that repulsion force, no matter how much charge
is on the plates.  Casimir believed that this same attractive force might
also be involved in holding the electron together.[5]  However, the
applicability of this goes beyond the elementary particle level; it could be
applied for clustering larger amounts of charge in macroscopic phenomena.
Under certain conditions when Casimir forces might overcome Coulomb
repulsion, laboratory phenomena would reveal the sudden condensation of
charge, a Casimir pinch effect, as it were.
 
Condensed charge technology, pioneered in the corporate domain, may be
explained in this way.  Much laboratory evidence has already been collected
on this condensed charge phenomenon.  Present-day electronic devices have
limitations due to difficulties in forcing charge carriers up to very high
densities.  However, with charge condensation phenomena these limitations
are overcome.  Charge condensation occurs in micro-discharges, similar to
static electrical discharges, and involves kilovolt pulses of a billionth of
a second and amps of current.  Upon further examination, charge, rather than
repelling, is seen to form into charge clusters.  The parameters under which
that occurs matches very closely with what the Casimir charge condensation
effect predicts.  Typical environments in which this occurs are certain field
emission conditions, i.e., a metal tip in a strong electric field such that
electrons are drawn out of the metal and cluster together.  Theory predicts
the possibility of charge clustering.  If one blasts high-density electron
currents having millions of volts of energy at a titanium foil target, the
result is not Coulomb repulsion of the current elements with consequent
diffusion of the elecrons.  Instead, all the charge arrives at discrete
points and the areas in between are undamaged.  Such vacuum witness-plate
marks are also observed in welding where instead of million volt beams there
are 10 to 50 volt differences between electrodes spaced very closely
together, and the voltage is raised until they spark.  Again, one observes
hot spots where most of the current comes out at very discrete sites, of the
order of a million amps per square cm.  It is considered anomalous.  As the
technology is improving, the current densities are still increasing which are
harder to explain without a model like charge condensation.
 
At the Institute for Advanced Studies we have generators designed to
investigate this phenomenon.  If one raises the voltage between two metal
plates separated by a dielectric material until a spark discharge runs across
it, under certain conditions one observes a small lightning stroke that is
very rigidly confined.  If one slowly applies low voltages, one sees more
diffuse manifestations, but if one applies a high voltage very rapidly,
instantaneous arcing is observed.  Witness plates struck by these arc
discharges show evidence for individual small craters with spaces between
them.  This phenomenon appears to be fundamental.  Upon examining a propeller
that was struck by lightning, we found it covered by the same small
micron-size spots.
 
Applications of this technology are presently being negotiated with various
corporations and are in various stages of development.
 
For example, it turns out that the highly condensed charge can propagate
through a small device such as a hypodermic needle and create x-rays when it
impacts on a metal.  It turns out that the amount of energy involved in
these tiny clusters is enormous.  Rather than having a large x-ray machine
that kills a patient on its way to treating a tumor, the whole x-ray
generator inside of a hypodermic needle penetrates the skin, goes to the
tumor site, and then irradiates the tumor directly with lower voltage x-rays.
We gave a medical x-ray company the blueprints for one of these devices, and
they now have a hand-held device using condensed charge technology which is
as effective as a large x-ray machine.  Also, unlike many new electronic
technologies such as semiconductors which are very expensive, this phenomenon
is quite simple and economical.
 
One can also use condensed charge technology to generate radio frequencies
for use in radar devices.  A prototype is being developed for an aerospace
corporation for testing.  Another development is a TV set that is a flat
panel display.  Such a TV set would work by means of a whole series of
channels down which the charge clusters travel, emitting their electrons,
which then pass through control plates to produce the appropriate colors and
intensities.  This concept of flat panel display technology is well
understood, but has not yet become available because there have not
heretofore been intense enough electron sources that could be used as power
sources.
 
By understanding the role that quantum fluctuations play in condensing
charge, we see that many new applications are possible, several of which have
been patented.[6]  One remaining important question is whether there is any
way to actually obtain energy from the zero-point fluctuations.  A decade ago
that would have been thought of as very controversial.  Many have expressed
doubts or considerations that this would violate the laws of physics.
However, a method for extracting electrical energy from the vacuum by
cohesion of charged conductors is presently in the literature.  How can that
possibly work?  Consider the simple case of two metal plates in outer space.
As they begin to move together, they eliminate more of the modes in between.
The zero-point energy that starts dropping out of those modes is converted to
kinetic energy as the plates move together.  They get closer, and when the
plates hit, they create heat.  In the Casimir effect we thus already have the
conversion of vacuum energy to actual measurable useful energy.  There is no
violation of energy conservation.
 
R.L. Forward, at Hughes Research Laboratories, proposed a similar device
involving a spring form which would be compressed together by the vacuum
forces.[7]  The spring is under stress with charge distributed over its
volume with an associated electric field around it, and the vacuum pushes it
together via the Casimir force.  As this occurs, the fields around the device
increase which can be used as useful energy, e.g., to drive current through a
battery.  This output represents one cycle of the device, but one needs to do
work on it for the next cycle.  If the devices are cheap and disposable, then
we could use them sequentially and discard them.  However, if it takes more
energy to make those devices, then it is impractical to discard them.  On the
other hand, condensed charge technology may offer another possibility.
Electronic charge is brought close together in some form of plasma, and then
the Casimir pinch effect condenses it even more.  There are stores of energy
in that condensed charge, which can be liberated by a number of techniques.
 
Various laboratories have reported anomalous energy gains associated with
such charge condensation phenomena.  However, these are very rare and very
hard to reproduce, so at this point they remain anomalies.  Only a decade ago
research of this type was unthinkable, but today more is known about quantum
fluctuations of vacuum, and people are seriously looking at this kind of
work.[8]
 
When one utilizes solar energy, it is not free in the sense of violating
physics, but it is free in the sense that you pay only a small price for it.
The condensed charge cycle appears to be similar.  A certain amount of energy
is put in to excite a plasma, making a very dense plasma to reach the Casimir
charge condensation point.  The source is not the sun but the vacuum zero-
point fluctuations.  If one satisfies the conditions that the energy used to
make the plasma is less than what the vacuum put in to make condensed charge
clusters, then one gains.  This is quite similar to ordinary fusion.  There a
dense plasma is made, which takes a lot of energy, but at a certain point,
the nuclear force then provides more energy than one put in.  In the
condensed charge process the Casimir force plays the role of the nuclear
force.  Furthermore, in the condensed charge device there is the possibility
of a direct electrical output.  The condensed charge cycle zero-point energy
device, if workable, will be pollution free as far as we can tell.  Should
this source prove utilizable, the vacuum zero-point fluctuations are
available everywhere, rendering the notion of the central power plant
obsolete.
 
This would be the most positive possible outcome that could be expected of
vacuum energy physics leading to dramatically new technology.  With cautious
optimism, the most appropriate statement concerning this possibility was
perhaps made by a Soviet science historian, Podolny, who said, "It would be
just as presumptuous to deny the ability of useful application as it would be
irresponsible to guarantee such application".  Only the future will reveal to
what use humanity will eventually put this remaining fire of the gods, the
quantum fluctuations of empty space.
 
 
References
**********
 
1. Puthoff, H.E. "Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy",
Physical Review A 40 (9), 4857-4862, (1989).
 
2. Milonni, P.W., R.J. Cook, et al.  "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum:
Physical Interpretation of the Casimir Force",  Physical Review  A 38,
1621 (1988).
 
3. Puthoff, H.E. "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation
Determined State", Physical. Review. D 35, 3266 (1987).
 
4. Puthoff, H.E. "Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force", Physical Review
A. 39, 2333 (1989).
 
5. Casimir, H.B.G. "Introductory Remarks on Quantum Electrodynamics".
Physica 19, 846 (1953).
 
6. U.S. Patent Nos. 5,018,180; 5,054,046; 5,054,047.
 
7. Forward, R.L. "Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of
Charge Foliated Conductors", Physical. Review B 30, 1700, (1984).
 
8. Puthoff, H.E. "The Energetic Vacuum:  Implications for Energy Research".
Speculations in Science and Technology,  13(3), 247 (1990).
 
 
***************************************
 
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.09 /  Harrison /  Hot catalyst
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot catalyst
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 13:34:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Consider a heated wire (Pt or Pd) as a catalyst.  A servo'd current
controller maintains constant temperature based on the resistance of
the wire (similar to a hotwire anemometer).  Thus
  1.  hi temp contributes to effective operation at all
       gas mixtures
  2.  hotwire current gives real-time info on gases.
In a constant-total-power calorimeter (Tom - am I right that's how
yours works?), you probably want feedforward control from hotwire
power to the balance heater.
 -chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.08 / Lauren Bricker /  Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
     
Originally-From: bricker@milton.u.washington.edu (Lauren Bricker)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environmen
 t,sci.med.physics,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
Date: 8 May 92 22:24:18 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <t0gk10p.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE:  A NEW ROSETTA STONE OF PHYSICS?
>
>October 23, 1990 Colloquium Presentation
>
>Harold E. Puthoff
>Senior Fellow in Physics
>Institute for Advanced Studies
>Austin, Texas
>
 
[A rather lengthy, fascinating, and plausible (to me, not an expert in the
 field of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum) article follows, which I will
 not include here for bandwidth reasons - read it yerself]
 
The stuff about gravity seemed questionable - I've seen a somewhat similar
argument on the nature of gravity presented and shot down in a freshman
Physics course. I don't know if the same arguments would apply to this
variation of the hypothesis.
 
What strikes me most though is the stuff about condensation of charge
(somehow the vacuum fluctuations can overcome repulsion of like charges
at short distances). If this works for electrons it should work just as
well for protons. If it's cheap and simple, then why are so many governments
spending so much money researching hot fusion? All you have to do is
"condense" a couple of protons together, and BANG you have fusion. No
need even for anything as expensive as deuterium. From the implications of
this article, it is inconceivable to me that someone wouldn't already have
done this.
 
Is this for real, or what?
 
Kevin Mounts (via bricker)
 --------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security
 lose both and deserve neither." -- Thomas Jefferson
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbricker cudfnLauren cudlnBricker cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.08 / Steve Carlip /  Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
     
Originally-From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environmen
 t,sci.med.physics,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
Date: 8 May 92 23:44:33 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <t0gk10p.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
>[The following article originally appeared in "Frontier Perspectives" (vol. 2
>number 2, Fall/Winter 1991), the newsletter of The Center for Frontier
>Sciences at Temple University, Dr. Beverly Rubik, Director.
>[...]
>
>QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE:  A NEW ROSETTA STONE OF PHYSICS?
>
>October 23, 1990 Colloquium Presentation
>
>Harold E. Puthoff
>Senior Fellow in Physics
>Institute for Advanced Studies
>Austin, Texas
>
>[a bunch deleted...]
>
>Basically gravitational attraction between two bodies is primarily an
>attraction between the nucleons--protons, and neutrons, i.e., the heavy part
>of matter.  We now know by modern theory that neutrons and protons are
>composed of quarks, charged particles that reside within them.  The quarks
>themselves are moved around by the zero-point background fluctuations.
>Furthermore, since they are charged, as they are so jiggled, they emit
>radiation fields which other quarks also see.  So an individual quark sees
>both the bare background zero-point fluctuation fields as well as fields
>associated with nearby fluctuating quarks.  It is well known that if you have
>fluctuating charged particles, there is a certain interaction potential, the
>van der Waals forces, responsible for much of chemical binding.  Following
>the Sakharov model, it occurred to me to take a look at the leading term of
>this potential to see whether that might not account for gravity as he
>suggested.  The average force is found to be proportional to the square of
>the mass, for two identical particles, and inversely proportional to the
>square of the distance between them.  The value of the proportionality
>constant turns out to be G, where G is related to the cut-off frequency of
>the background zero-point fluctuations.
>[...]
 
This is based on an article in Physical Review A39 (1989), p.2333,
which is simply wrong.  The calculation of the averaged interaction
potential in appendix B contains a bad approximation (a polynomial
is approximated by the first two terms in its binomial expansion),
which neglects terms that are of the same order as other terms that
are kept.  When the integral (eqn. B5 in this paper) is done carefully,
the "gravitational" effect that Puthoff sees cancels completely; one is
left with an inverse fourth power interaction with an extremely small
coefficient, completely unobservable on the scales for which gravity
is important.
 
I have submitted a Comment to Phys. Rev. addressing this issue,
which will probably be published sooner or later.  In the meantime,
two exercises for the interested reader:
First obtain the journal in question.  Then
 
1) Using the fact that 0<= 1 - cos x <= 2, obtain an upper and lower
bound on the integral in equation (B5).  Compare these bounds to
Puthoff's result (B7).  What is the largest distance for which the
result claimed by this paper is inside these bounds?  (Hint ---
Planck length.)
 
2) Evaluate the integral (B5) exactly in terms of the sine integral
Si(x).  Using the standard asymptotic expansion of Si, compare the
exact result to the result reported in this paper in the limit that
the distance is large compared to the Planck length.  Show that the
difference includes a term that exactly cancels Puthoff's inverse
square force.
 
The basic idea of induced gravity --- gravity as a result of vacuum
fluctuations --- is an interesting one, and some good work has been
done in the area.  But I'm afraid this ain't it.
 
Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencarlip cudfnSteve cudlnCarlip cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.10 / D Morrison /  APS meeting Report. (repost)
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch (Douglas R. O. Morrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: APS meeting Report. (repost)
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 04:50:39 GMT
Organization: CERN

[This is a repost of Douglas Morrison's 1989 APS meeting report, post in
response to the recent network discussion of the events of that meeting.
      \scott ]
 
    Dear E632 and WA84 Collaborators and Friends,                 7 May 1989.
 
                    COLD FUSION NEWS    No. 12.
 
         REPORT ON AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY SESSIONS.
 
1. INTRODUCTION
            The APS planned to hold a special session on Cold Fusion on the
Monday evening, 1st May, but as there were many papers, this was extended to
Tuesday evening as well. The Monday evening session started at 19.30 with
some 1800 people and finished at 00.30 with fewer but still hundreds.
Tuesday evening started with several hundred and finished at 23.30 with a
few dozens. I tried to attend all talks, but after my survey talk at the start
on Tuesday, I left for a while to hear the talk of Randi who was receiving a
prize for "Promoting Public Understanding of the Relation of Physics to
Society".
  Here will concentrate on three talks, by M. Gai of Yale-BNL, Nathan Lewis
of Cal. Tech, and W. Meyerhof of Stanford, which explain most of the problems
in evaluating the claims of positive results. Other results, comments on theory
and some summaries will be given.
 
2.  YALE - BNL RESULTS.
                      M. Gai described an experiment to measure neutrons and
gammas. A pentagon containing 4 cells was surrounded by 5 pentagonal neutron
detectors containing NE213 scintillator and there were two sodium iodide
counters outside to count gammas. The whole was enclosed in a large box
of borated paraffin inside which was another box of borated concrete and
two veto counters were placed above the detectors.  The efficiency of the
neutron counters was 1% and of the gamma detectors 0.1% at 5.5 MeV. The
neutron counters were calibrated with 252Cf and 239Pu-9Be sources and the
curves shown gave sharp peaks unlike the curves shown by Jones et al. for 2.9
and 5.2 MeV neutrons.
  Nine different electrodes were used made of Palladium or of Titanium and
prepared in a variety of ways, e.g. Pd annealed in flowing Argon at 1000
degrees, or titanium powder. Also nine different electrolytes were employed,
5 covering LiOD with different % of D2O and 4 were a soup of salts which
seemed to me to be very close to the "soup" of Jones et al. (and adjusted
to a pH < 3).
  The gamma spectrum showed no peak at the d + d  or at the  p + d  fusion
to helium values of 23.77 or 5.49 MeV resp.
  As a result of cuts from the veto and software, they were left with only
two neutron events (which they named appropiately) after 10 hours running.
Their background counting rate was only 2 counts per hour.
This gave the following limits at 3 sigma;
  p + d  gammas     < 1 E-22 fusions per atom pair per sec.
  d + d  neutrons   < 1 E-25 fusions per atom pair per sec.
This means that their neutron counting rate is one hundredth of that of
Jones et al. and is one millionth of that of Fleischmann and Pons.
  It had been suggested that alphas might initiate fusion so they attached
a 5 MeV alpha source to an electrode, but no extra counts were recorded.
 
3. CAL. TECH. RESULTS.
                      Nathan Lewis gave a brilliant talk. He is a chemist and
leads a team of chemists and physicists. They did experiments with palladium
electrodes and with LiOD electrolytes. They looked for gammas over the range
20 KeV to 30 MeV and found no signal. They studied neutrons, tritium, helium
and calorimetry and most importantly they reconstructed the calorimetric
analysis of Fleischmann and Pons. They asked for detailed descriptions of the
Utah cell but were not able to obtain them by asking, and so did some detective
work to reconstruct it (e.g. from photos of the lengths of people's arms to the
elbow they derived the cell dimensions!).
   In the neutron and photon experiments, they used 7 different forms of
palladium electrodes (e.g. cast, heated to 300 degrees under vacuum).
Fleischmann and Pons calculated their flux of neutrons per hour per cm3 of Pd
as 1.2 E8 whereas Cal Tech found less than 10 per hour that is more
than ten million times less.
   For tritium they tried a variety of electrolytes and also normal H2O. They
found a maximum of 6400 tritium atoms per cm3 per sec. and this was mainly
due to subtle chemical interference that generates chemiluminescence that gives
tritium signals.
   For helium they found less than 1 E-7 but noted that there was a very large
amount of helium in the air which accounted for their value. (comment - Paneth
and Peters in 1928 finally got down to a much lower 1 E-10 cm3).
   When Cal Tech did their calorimetric experiments, they found that they
could derive both positive and negative excess power depending on the details
of the experiment and the method of calculating used! To try and understand
this, they did some more detective work to try and reproduce the calculations
of Fleischmann and Pons.
   They showed a new version of the table 1 of F & P. For example taking the
first rod of 0.1 cm diameter, they calculate;
 
        Input power   =  0.0714  watts
       Output power   =  0.0402  watts
      -------------     ---------------
       Excess power   =  0.0312  watts  =  -44%
 
Calculated Excess power                 =  -56%
 
Effective excess power                  =  +10%
 
To put this into words, the cell was consuming energy, but the F & P
calculated it should have consumed still more energy, and therefore there
must be some new source of power! Or as Nate Lewis said, it is a refrigerator
which cools less than expected!
  This can be understood when it is remembered that there is power consumption
when the water is electrolised into deuterium and oxygen.
  In the above example, the excess heat produced is 0.0075 watts as in table 1
of F & P. In the published paper, the claims of heat excesses of greater than
10 watts per cm3, depend on some extrapolations.
  But Cal. Tech did observe some positive excess heat. This they investigated
and found that F & P did not stir their electrolyte as they said it was not
necessary as the bubbles did the stirring for them. However this problem has
already been studied by Shirley and Brenner, J. El. Chem. Soc. 105 (1958) 665
where it is shown that there are temperature gradients if one does not stir,
as the cathode is hotter than the anode. Cal Tech then moved their thermometer
around and found that according to the position of the thermometer, they could
obtain positive or negative excess heats (comment - think this is because one
uses Newtons Law of cooling to evaluate the heat produced).
  Lewis et al. also found a fault in the calculation. F & P do not give a
certain voltage difference (comment - think it is at the face of the rod), but
appear to assume a value of 0.5 Volts. However the electrolysis cannot procede
unless this voltage is at least 0.8 Volts, and Lewis believes the true value
was 3 1/2 to 4 Volts.
 
4. Prof. W. E. MEYERHOF
                     Prof Meyerhof is at Stanford and visited Prof. Huggins's
lab where he had claimed to confirm Fleischmann's and Pons work by observing
excess power. He studied the apparatus carefully and then with D. L. Huestis
and D. C. Lorents of SRI, they made calculations with a theoretical model of
the temperature gradients and heat flows in Huggins' cell. They found that
since the palladium rod was off to one side, there were serious temperature
differences in the thermometer readings according to its height in the cell so
that you could get different power excesses according to the position of the
thermometer. He gave a delightful gentle but forceful lecture showing a number
of graphs explaining the calculations. He then tried to show his calculations
to Prof Huggins to avoid problems, but although he left messages everywhere,
he was not able to contact him before he went to Washington.
 
  5. OTHER RESULTS
                   There were a number of other results, two of which were
confirmations of neutron production;
  Dr. D Seeliger of the Technische Universitat of Dresden DDR, reported "an
indication for a weak fast neutron production of 0.1 per sec. around 2.5 MeV
which could be caused by DD fusion". Reading the paper he gave me, table 1
shows that they had six runs of one hour and overall found an excess of
neutron events of 20 +/- 5 per hour. The only unusual thing I noted in their
paper was that the "blind experiment" showed an abnormal variation of counting
rates of between 34 and 194 neutron events per hour. They used an electrolytic
cell witha palladium cathode. They state that "within the very crude limit of
temperature control, no big 'extraheat' was observed. No melting of the
palladium electrodes was observed".
  Two Argentine groups reported, one confirming the original results and the
other not finding any effect. Dr. Granada of Rio Negro said that they had a
high efficiency (22%) neutron detection system. They used a cell with a
palladium cathode and LiH as salt. "The dynamic response to low frequency
current pulses was measured. Characteristic patterns showing one or two bumps
B[Bwere obtained in a repeatable fashion". In his talk, Dr. Granada preferred to
call his result an "indication" Dr. A. O. Macchiavelli of Buenos Aires
reported measurements of neutrons, but observed no effect and gave an upper
limit of 13 neutrons/sec which is three orders of magnitude less than
Fleishmann and Pons.
  Dr Brooks of Ohio State had a good neutron counter with 1% efficiency and
pulse shape discrimination. They find a limit considerably smaller than
Fleischmann and Pons but do not feel their results can be compared with
Jones et al. They also had muon anti-coincidence counters and observed no
evidence of muon-induced catalysis of fusion. They did not observe any 4He or
tritium production.
  Dr. Hirosky of Rochester found a limit for neutrons which was 40 000 times
less than Fleischmann and Pons. Their neutron counter had an efficiency of
2.5% and the counting rate was < 0.5 per sec.
  Dr. Dickens et al. of Oak Ridge also used a shielded neutron counter with a
cell with several palladium electrodes of from 0.3 to 15 grams. The efficiency
of their detector was 13% and the background counting rate was 3 per min. They
found upper limits many orders of magnitude less that Fleischmann and Pons and
also one tenth of Jones et al.
  Dr. Sur of Berkeley reported measurements of gammas and neutrons. The
neutron counter had an efficiency of 0.4% and they found < 0.75 neutrons per
sec corresonding to a limit of < or = 5.4 E-23 fusions per dd pair per sec.
>From the absence of the 5.5 and 23.8 MeV gamma lines they found limits of
 for p-d fusion,  < or = 1.8 E-23 fusions per pair per sec.
 for d-d fusion,  < or = 2.9 E-23
  As I was talking with Prof. Jones, I did not hear the talk of Drs Cantrell
and Wells of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, but their abstract is entitled
"Electrochemically induced Excess Heat in a "cold fusion cell with a Zr2Pd
electrode" In the text it is said "The temperature dependence of the process
is positive", but there are not enough details in the abstract to comment.
  M. R. Deakin et al. of Florida State University had a thin window in their
cell with Pd cathode, to allow the measurement of K X-rays from the Pd excited
possibly by charged fusion products (mostly protons). The background was 3
counts per hour corresponding to fewer than 50 fusions per sec or a fusion
energy release rate of less than 1 E-10 watts in the Pd cathode.
  S. C. Luckhardt et al. of MIT had an Abstract stating that neutron and gamma
ray emission and calorimetry were measured. The only result given in their
abstract was that the neutron rate was less than 160 counts per hour, that is
substantially below the level of 40 000 per sec of Fleischmann and Pons.
  In his survey, Morrison discussed the results from the Institute for
Alternative Energy at Frascati in particular as they are not well known in
the States. They had produced two graphs which appeared to show
significant neutron counts and which they attributed to "dynamic" or
"non-equilibrium effects", that is when they changed the conditions
appreciably, there were neutrons produced. There were three problems with the
first graph. (a) there seemed no logical correlation between the adding and
removal of liquid nitrogen, (b) the counts seemed to be quantised, being
either about 20 or about 40, (c) among the groups of counts of 20 or 40, there
were many 10 minute bins with no counts or only 1 or 2. The authors postulated
that this was in connection with the dead time of 5 microseconds and the
neutrons were possibly emitted in very short bursts which produced the
observed effect. However someone calculated that this would imply that the
neutrons were emitted in bursts of a million at a time and then nothing which
would be hard to reconcile with the few changes made. The second graph showed
an impressive number of neutrons starting to be counted 3 hours after the cell
was removed from a liquid nitrogen bath, and this counting rate rose to some
300 counts per 10 minutes, then declined smoothly to the background rate of a
few per 10 minutes at 11 hours after time zero. There are two problems with
this, (a) The time zero is not the start of the experiment - the experiment
began a day earlier when pressure and low temperature were applied, this
raises the question as to why this change of conditions at -24 hours did not
cause a comparable emission of neutrons, (b) if the zero counts observed in the
middle of the "dynamic" conditions in the first experiment were true, then why
did no similar effect be observed in the second experiment? the suggestion of
Dr.Williams of Harwell is that removing the cell from the liquid nitrogen bath
could have affected the BF3 counter which are known to be very temperature and
humidity sensitive (comment - normally there is lots of noise so the
discriminator level is set just above this, but if the temperature and
humidity conditions change, the noise level can change and appear to cause
counts).
   This survey gave disturbing statistical evidence that of the results
reported, there was a significant correlation of the results with the region
of the world. Further this effect seemed to be related to the climate of
information available - thus if there was general expectation that the initial
reports on cold fusion were true, then all the results reported were
confirmations (except one - Buenos Aires, and the results were announced to
the press). On the other hand, in those regions of the world where concerned
scientists and responsible science reporters had been in close contact,
then all the results reported were negative (except one - Stanford). (One is
trying to improve this situation by disseminating information freely). Thus
it appears that if one wishes to understand the cold fusion phenomenon,
pure science alone is not enough.
   Dr. Genet of the Institute of Nuclear Physics of Orsay in France told me
privately that a group of radio-chemists and physicists had been looking for
neutrons and gammas from a cell with a palladium rod, but could find no
effect, their limit for neutrons being about 3 per sec.
 
  6. THEORY
           Steve Koonin of UC Santa Barbara gave the first theoretical talk,
though he started by pointing out that in a pre-preprint, Fleishmann and Pons
had shown a graph of the gamma spectrum which was different from that in their
paper, the first having a low energy tail and the second a high energy tail.
He criticised the Fleischmann and Pons experiment and noted that no one had
been able to find the secondary effects of the large energy release that they
had claimed. He roundly condemned them and was strongly applauded and later
quoted, but at the Tuesday press conference did not repeat this although the
panel was invited to do so by a reporter. He also reported that the claims of
Dr. Hagelstein of MIT which appeared to "understand" cold fusion had been
withdrawn.
  Prof Rafelski wrote in his abstract that the fusion rates observed by their
BYU experiment "could readily be explained by combination of standard nuclear
physics data and WKB penetration integrals in the metal lattice environment".
  There were a number of theory talks starting from the basis that
experimemental results must be correct and therefore need explaining. Having
reported this, details can be obtained from the book of 40 Abstracts.
  Ming Li of Maryland examined more closely the suggestion of Koonin that
fluctuations could enhance the fusion rate. He examined the cases of heat
generation in Jupiter and of the results of Jones et al. and found that the
fluctuations are of such a magnitude that they are unlikely.
 
  7 CONCLUSION ON FLEISCHMANN AND PONS REPORTS.
                                               In view of the results
presented at this APS meeting it was generally considered that all 4 results
(calorimetry, neutrons, gammas, and tritium) of Fleischmann and Pons are
mistaken. An exception to this view is held by Prof Rafelski. At the
Tuesday press conference Prof. Jones asked the panel to vote if they believed
in the Fleischmann and Pons results. The vote was eight to one, the one being
Prof Rafelski who said it was too soon and there might still be something in
it. This unique viewpoint gained him some media attention and he was featured
on the CBS news saying this, unfortunately they subtitled his statement with
my name - do not know which of us was the most annoyed by this mistake!
 
  8 CONCLUSION ON JONES ET AL. RESULT
                                     Prof. Jones also asked the panel to
express an opinion as to whether we believed in his result. Only a few of us
said they did not believe this result. In view of the fact that on Friday
after my talk at Fermilab, a member of the audience said that he had been at
Prof. Jones's lecture at Argonne that morning and he had said that there were
no experimental results in contradiction with his BYU result, would like to
list the relevent experimental results;
 
  Yale - BNL found less than one hundredth of BYU neutron rate. They used
             titanium and a "soup" of electrolytes similar to that of BYU
  Cal. Tech. found less than one thousandth of the BYU number. They used
             palladium and LiOD, but it is hard to believe that this change
             could vary the result by a factor of 1000
  Bugey (Fr) found less than one hundredth of the BYU result. They used
             a Palladium electrode. Again it is hard to believe that this
             could change the result significantly.
  AT&T       found less than one tenth of BYU using palladium rods and LiOD
  Oak Ridge  found less than one tenth of BYU using palladium rods.
 
  Note that prof. Jones has said that there was no special magical factor that
was missing from their description.
  To sum up there is no experiment that has been carefully performed and has
controls and blind runs, which has given a positive identification of
production of neutrons. Note the statistical evidence presented in the paper
of Jones et al. needs correction for the scaling of the background (result of
conversations with Prof. Jones).
  In the 27 April issue of Nature there is a strong condemnation in an
article of the papers of Fleischmann and Pons saying that they had not
"carried out the rudimentary control experiment of running their electrolytic
cells with ordinary water rather than heavy water". Prof. Jones was very
unhappy with this as their preprint and published paper both said they had
done so. He has received an apology from the person who had worked on his
paper. Although Nature stumbled on this one point, it has been one of the very
few sources of information available that has responded quickly and
responsibly to the spate of media reports announcing cold fusion which had
raised popular expectations too high. So despite this aberration, I think
I will start ordering Nature.
 
  8. FUTURE MEETINGS
           At the press conference, Steve Koonin said that there was a
conference of electrochemists starting in a few days time in California that
was unusual as it invited only those who had positive results or confirmation
of Fleischmann and Pons results to attend. He protested strongly. Prof Jones
said he had been invited although his results were in disagreement with
Fleischmann and Pons. Later heard that Dr. Lewis had been invited to attend.
  Prof. Rafelski has said there is a meeting on cold fusion at Santa Fe but
have not seen any announcement.
 
  9. FUTURE
            For almost all those who attended the APS meeting, the subject is
closed in urgent scientific terms. There are a number of interesting
scientific questions that have been raised that it may be interesting to clear
up. However there are other problems. It is important for the chemists and
physicists to work together. The public image of Science and scientists has
suffered (e.g someone told me that he used to believe that doctors never made
mistakes, now he thinks he should feel the same about scientists). Some say
that the public has seen Science in action, repeating and correcting
experiments quickly - partly true. A major lesson is that we should not hold
press conferences before doing all checks and controls.  But maybe the great
lesson is that we all make mistakes sometimes and therefore should be tolerant
and sympathetic.
                                                  Douglas R. O. Morrison.
 
PS There are certainly some mistakes in these notes though I have tried to
have them checked - my apologies.
 
                 Copyright (C) Douglas R. O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmorrison cudfnDouglas cudlnMorrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Paging Paul Koloc,...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Paging Paul Koloc,...
Date: 9 May 92 06:52:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <pgf.704503882@srl01.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G.
 Fraering) writes:
>I just tried to e-mail you, using pmk@prometheus.uucp and
>many variations, and the message bounced repeatedly. Do you
>have a stable address?
 
I'd be interested where the bounce is taking place.
 
 
Phil, according to my paths output (inverted), the path from your machine
to here is as follows:
                  rouge!rex!ames!rutgers!mimsy!prometheus!pmk
 
 
  Note: the name prometheus can be truncated to "promethe"
 
if that fails and you have uunet access then try , then try:
 
                   uunet!mimsy!prometheus!pmk
 
addressing such as "pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu" also worked from uunet.
 
 
>Also: how is Plasmak coming along (the question in my original
>message)?
 
We have suspended work, pending the completion of a block house in the
fall.  Then we will begin doing making seversl interesting first
diagnostics measurements, and perhaps more importantly, we will have
an operation device that can generate the beasties on a regular basis.
This will be shaded requiring highly restricted and selected access
until we know how much and who will be funding the development and
engineering demonstration fusion burns.  Even then it may remain so
do to the technology's potential misuse as a plutonium breeder.  It's
funding and development future looks bright now that we will have the
balls to drive it.
 
>Phil
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President,  Prometheus II, Ltd.          +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222,  College Park, MD 20740-0222  ***FUSION***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk;      pmk%prometheus@mimsy         ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075             promethe=prometheus          **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.09 / Raul Baragiola /  Baltimore
     
Originally-From: rb9a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul  Baragiola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Baltimore
Date: 9 May 92 13:13:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

 
>Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman) writes:
>
>>as it also corresponded to the expulsion of certain heretical individuals
>>from Spain.  The other name for the event is the Inquisition.  By the way
>>that was EXACTLY what occurred at the Baltimre Meeting of the American
Physical
>Society in April 1989 when the P&F work was "discussed."   The methods of
>>extracting the truth from heretics have changed a little, the heretics were
>>merely expelled from their "home" at the University of Utah.  They chose
>>to become expatriates.  Still there is hope in the World if we learn the
 
I was there, and that was NOT what occurred. The Caltech people really
discussed the possible errors in the P&F experiments and it was apparent
that they had been much more careful. Other people pointed out the error
in the interpretation of the gamma spectra. Everything was very professional
expect for one instance where one of the chemists (Lewis, I believe) referred
to the "incompetence" of P&F.
 
In summary, very far from the inquisition, and light-years from being "EXACTLY"
like the inquisition.
 
-- Raul Baragiola
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrb9a cudfnRaul cudlnBaragiola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.10 / Roger Nelson /  Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
     
Originally-From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environmen
 t,sci.med.physics,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
Date: 10 May 92 01:33:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1992May8.222418.22523@u.washington.edu>
 bricker@milton.u.washington.edu (Lauren Bricker) writes:
 
re the article on Hal Puthoff
>
>What strikes me most though is the stuff about condensation of charge
>(somehow the vacuum fluctuations can overcome repulsion of like charges
>at short distances). If this works for electrons it should work just as
>well for protons. If it's cheap and simple, then why are so many governments
>spending so much money researching hot fusion? All you have to do is
>"condense" a couple of protons together, and BANG you have fusion. No
>need even for anything as expensive as deuterium. From the implications of
>this article, it is inconceivable to me that someone wouldn't already have
>done this.
>
>Is this for real, or what?
 
It is for real, alright, but young.  An application to miniaturized
x-ray technology is now well developed, and may be in use within the
next year or two.  It will allow pinpoint application via catheters.
The general answer to your question is that there is hard work between
concept and product, and when the fundamental principles are outside the
standard line of scientific development, as the condensed charge
work is, it is to be expected that gearing up will be slower.  Think how
long it took to get from a Model T to a Lexus.  And that was all on the
straight line.
 
Roger N
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrdnelson cudfnRoger cudlnNelson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.10 / Ted Dunning /  Re: Catalysts
     
Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Catalysts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 17:49:39 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab

In article <1992May08.141655.256541@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
 
 
   In article <920507125302.2080290b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
   >I will buy one and cut it apart on my band saw, and ship one to any one
   >who sends a pr-stamped box.  I will first test to see if they work.
	   I would be willing to give you some money, if this stuff works and
   is effective. BTW how much are Crysler converters?
 
 
i though it was ford that used a pd catalyst.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 /  Britz /  Re: The Martyr myth
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Martyr myth
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 13:31:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman) writes:
 
>In article <5D56E23CAEFF206B34@vms2.uni-c.dk>
 
>(Dieter, that is) shut up about this until you've been there yourself.  As an
>arbiter of taste who refuses to abstract my work in Fusion Facts, I think
>you're on very shaky ground.  Would you also have refused to abstract the
>publications of J. Willard Gibbs because he published in a small local
>journal called the Journal of the Connecticut Academy?  Or would you have
>been swayed to do the abstracting because he was a senior member of the
>faculty of Yale University?   I contend that when you take on the title of
>abstracter of the literature you do not have the right to also take on the
>role of editor.  Abstract my piece as Commentary or tell me and the rest of the
> people who read this bulletin board why?
 
I presume that the J Conn. Acad. used referees? No problem! Dick, I have a
solution for you. I will not start abstracting from FF, and I do believe I
have a right to decide what to use and what not to use. Similarly, you have a
right to disagree with my choice. If I took on questionable propaganda sheets,
conference notes and preprints, the bibliography would, in my opinion, not be
worth as much as it is now. So I'll continue in this way. If you think your
article is interesting (and I have never said anything about it, one way or
the other), send it to a friendly but (I think) refereed journal, such as
Fusion Technology.
 Let me also say that I have no monopoly here on this news group; there is
nothing to prevent anyone else from posting abstracts. Why not post one of
this paper of yours, Dick? People could then add it to the bibliography or
not, as they see fit.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 /  Britz /  Re: Slime-balling
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Slime-balling
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 13:32:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
 
>In article <m0linkT-0000nyC@crash.cts.com> daver!sun!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim
> Bowery) writes:
>>DICK FORMAN writes:
>>Is that slime-ball Hagelstein STILL at it?
>>
>	Mr. Bowery, I am sorry to tell you but your sense of humour is
>at best stupid and at worst malicious. Your statement here makes you look
>like an anal orifice. I do not care how slimy Mr. Hagelstein is ( I do not
>know him) but it does not give any right to spout your bovine exrement in
>a public forum.
 
This news group is one of the most civil groups I know of, and I think most of
us like it that way; I know I do. I myself have slipped into a snide tone, and
apologised for it. The group encourages what Terry calls "group think", which
I think is a valuable function. You will not encourage this personal insults.
  I am not advocating mutual back slapping; the phrase scientific hard-ball
comes to mind again. Hard-ball is OK, when it involves the SUBJECT, rather
than people. As I said some time ago, let's play that hard-ball, but be civil
to each other.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  /  Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Experiment
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 00:41:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 20 to 400 ma per sq cm saw tooth over 1/2 hour
Duration: Now at 720000+ seconds into run.
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 3 v to 4.05 v on 24 hour saw tooth.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C
 
To all who said that I must have a gas leak, you were right.  We had run 12
hours with no change of gas before starting this run.  Looks like when I
worked on the gas system, I broke something loose.  It took two errors,
though, because I thought that I had adjusted the system for a small positive
pressure.  I guess after the glue dried, there was a small negative pressure.
Eventually I replaced all the tubing in the system with new Tygon and greased
up all the fittings with fresh silicon grease and the drift went away.
 
As advertised, I switched to Hi-Lo operation.  Through an error in number
entry, I set the low current negative, and operated with the cell reversed
for 2 1/2 hours before I noticed it.  There was no net energy low reversed, no
net energy Lo, and no net energy high.  But one thing salvaged was that there
was a good zero for the calorimeter.  At least there was a change from
occasional net pulses to no net energy which I find just as strange as the
other way around.  I went back to the 1/2 hour ramp and there still seemed to
be a small net energy.  Then back to Hi - Lo with none.  Note that the reason
that I want to run at Hi-Lo is that after a couple hours the transient settles
down and any energy pulse could be seen.
 
Grasping at straws, it could be that the reverse operation "killed" the pulse
reaction.
 
Out of all this came some useful information:
 
1) When switching from Hi to Lo, there is a large reduction of gas in the
system, of order 15 cc for the .1 cc sample.  This occurs very quickly 2-5
minutes.  This is either because the Pd absorbs more D2 at the lower current
or because the catalyst catches up.  After 15-20 minutes the reduction ceases
and the gas content is stable within the accuracy of the system over 8 hours.
 
2) When switching form Lo to Hi, there is a large gain of gas in the system.
The above process is reversed.  But now the system continues to gain gas over
the 8 hour Hi - Lo period.  Again, either the catalyst eventually gets
everything or there is a real loss of gas from the Pd.
 
3) Running the Takahashi saw tooth, starting from the Hi condition, the gas
level followed the saw tooth indicating increased absorbtion (or more
efficient catalyst operation) at low current and the opposite at high current.
There was a general trend over time favoring increased load of the Pd (or more
efficient catalyst operation.)
 
I conclude that it is possible that the saw tooth operation pumps up the D/Pd
loading.  When running Hi-Lo loading is lost during Hi operation, and gained
back during the Lo operation.  This would explain what Takahashi comment in
his letter to Celani where he wrote "...may be telling us the mechanism
controlling overall power variation; something like lattice condition dies
when excess power goes up, but it recovers in the next sweep."  But then my
observations could just be peculiarities of the catalyst.
 
I have gone back to a very slow (24 hour) saw tooth operation.  This gave very
interesting results when tried in early 1990.  The advantage over the fast saw
tooth of Takahashi is that if there is any sudden energy release, it could be
seen, where with the Takahashi ramp, the calorimeter balance changes are so
large that any bumps are invisible.
 
>From the nice discussion by Prof. Truzzi, I conclude that I am a non-believer.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /   /   Takahashi's Neutrons(?)
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Takahashi's Neutrons(?)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 00:44:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following comments (negative as usual) are based on my scanning of
copies of the viewgraphs Takahashi used for his MIT talk, and will deal
only with the neutron results for one of his most recent experiments,
Experiment 115.  First with reference to the block diagram for his
detection electronics, one can deduce the method employed for the
reduction of the gamma response for his neutron detector.  He is using
NE213 liquid scintillator and measures the zero crossing time of  a
double-delay-line shaped pulse - technique that was state of the art
about 20 years ago.  Using this method the rejection for gamma rays
will be in the 95-99% range at best.  The same viewgraph in a small insert
graph shows the rejection pulse-height spectrum with two peaks.  The
one one the left is cross hatched and marked ROI (region of interest)
because that's neutrons.  Oops! Got that reversed. Neutrons on the right,
gammas on the left.  Now look a the region where the peaks run together.
The little tail on the gamma peak that extends into the ROI is the 1%
or so of the gammas that don't get rejected.
 
Now obviously this little graph is made using a radiation source that has
about equal numbers of gammas and neutrons as you can see from the size of
the two peaks.  But in the experiment the ratio of gammas to neutrons is
very likely pushing toward 10^4 give or take a few.  We know that because
other people have made measurements with much better gamma rejection.
See papers by M. Gai, for example.  From the numbers given one can
quickly conclude that Takahashi's "neutron" spectra are, in fact, dominated
by gamma rays from the usual background sources, including the concrete floor
upon which the experiment sits and the Pd sample itself and cosmic rays.
Under these conditions the experiment lives or dies on how well the background
subtraction is done.  Those of you who receive tapes should listen carefully
for any information about the background subtraction.
 
Now there is a very good view graph showing the neutron spectrum for Exp
115 with the background.  Guess what!  In the energy region where one
might expect to find 2.45 MeV neutrons there are no net counts.  That
is the foreground and background spectra are in very close agreement.
Takahashi's own data shows one more time that there are no neutrons from
the d + d reaction!  So why do we still here about mysterious neutron
correlations or anticorrelations?  Because like the true believer he
professes to be, Takahashi ignores his own data and takes off on a flight
of fancy.  It happens that the background subtraction does leave some
net counts at the upper end of the pulse height spectrum which Dr. T
says are due to neutrons 4-7 MeV in energy, but I will suggest they are
due to gamma rays.  He then proposes that three and four deuterons get
together under conditions that are expected to keep pairs of deuterons
well separated and react in mysterious ways that only rarely result in
neutron emmission, and that explains the 4-7 MeV neutrons.  One would
hope that anyone hearing this talk would realize that this man has
gone very far out on a limb in proposing this theory to explain his
results.  Common sense should tell you that multibody reactions just
aren't the usual thing that occurs in nuclear physics or even in chemistry,
at least as far as I know.
 
Dick Blue               "No radiation means no reaction."
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: News from the front.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: News from the front.
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 16:52:45 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920508140446.20803027@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>We started to see "anomalous heat" pulses two days ago.  Shortly after turning
>on the Takahashi style saw tooth.
>               So you skeptics will have to find more exotic errors to search
>for than simple errors in instrumentation.
>
>While I have mentioned Takahashi a lot, he is only one who has contributed to
>this general style of running.  Mark Hugo proposed symmetrical loading to me
>before I heard of Takahashi (and had some success with it but he is very
>conservative), and I had used (and published) slow and fast ramps and Hi-Lo
>operation.  Mike Danos first proposed very slow Hi-Lo cycles to me over two
>years ago.  So if there is ever any credit to be had in this work, my vote
>goes to those who work ***and talk about their results so that others may
>build on their ideas***.
>
>Tom Droege
>
Dick Forman comments: What did you do to Mike Danos to get his attention.
In 1978 I tried to get him to help me to figure out how to do Raman spectroscop
y on nuclei so that I could locate the resonace levels.  I discussed with
him in detail my theory of Cold Nuclear Reactions as well as with his roommate
Evans Hayward.  Evans told me to see her husband, Ray, who I never have been
able to have a conversation with, but Mike said I don't know.  The first Raman
spectra seem to be in "Tunable Sub-Angstrom Radiation Generated by Anti-Stokes
Scattering from Nuclear Levels" by C. B. Collins and B. D. DePaola.
Tom Lucatorto found the paper for me. It is in an AIP conference
proceeding from 1984 BUT I DO NOT HAVE AND I DESPERATELY NEED THE
FULL CITATION.
For those of you who do not understand the Raman spectra relevance it is the
method used to locate levels not seen in absorption.  Since almost all of the
nuclear excited levels are known from absorption spectra ONLY, a few are known
from metastable states, etc.  I needed the Raman spectra. P&F have obviated tha
t need temporarily, by their experiments.  I still need the Raman results this
time for the solar neutrino problems.
Right on Tom.  Let's get it out there so everyone can work on it. I feel badly
that both the Japanese and the guys at MIT get benefit, but the alternative is
living their way.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Finally have seen THE tape.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Finally have seen THE tape.
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 18:33:02 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

	Over this weekend I had the pleasure to view the
Takahashi tape. I must say it was somewhat difficult to
understand what Takahashi was saying due to his sizeable
accent and perhaps not the best quality of taping. None-
theless, after watching it twice I got most of information
out of it. Those of you have the viewgraphs basically have
almost all the information that is to be had, so spending
$30 for tape is probably not that usefull unless you want
to preserve for posterity a piece of history (that is of
course if you think it is history and it is worth preserving).
 
These are couple of questions which begged to be answered.
 
1) First is that his experiment D did not seem to be set up for
carefull calorimetry, there was no recombiner for instance.
So I am not sure if numbers for excess heat are to be trusted.
 
2) D + D + D  --> d    +      4He + 23.8MeV
                 (15.9MeV)    (7.9MeV)
   D + D + D  --> t    +      3He + 9.5MeV
		 (4.75MeV)    (4.75MeV)
Although I have no problem with total energy released, I do
have a problem with the way he breaks it down between d and 4He,
t and 3He. He seems to be using conservation of momentum to
break down the total energy between the product, which is absolutely
fine if the reaction occurs in vacuum but within solid state matter
I am afraid the presence of Pd lattice and other D's will change
how the energy is distributed.
 
3) Experiment D, Large Heat excursion.
Takahashi quenches the heat production, by first lowering the current.
After the current is lowered somewhat he also adds "fresh" D2O.
The question is was the new D2O added at the same temperature as the
electrolyte. If D2O was at the same temperature then the question is
why did it cause the heat event to terminate? If D2O was at a different
temperature than the electrolyte then did the resulting temperature
correspond to the EXPECTED temperature when one mixes two amounts
of liquid at diffrent temperatures? I do not think any of this was checked.
 
If adding fresh D2O dropped the T below the expected T then diluting
the electrolyte did something more than just make the cell colder.
 
I have a strong feeling that to get large heat excesses it is not
just enough to load Pd with Pd/D => 1 it is also needed to run for
a while to enrich the electrode with Tritium, either by electrolytic
enrichment (which means closed cells with recombiners which recycle
D2O are out of luck) or by very slow enrichment by D+D --> t + p.
 
Therefore it might make sense to start a cell with high concentration
of Tritium, of course then counting t is shut to hell.
 
BTW the most clear part of the tape is when Dick Forman suggests
his time time-resolved IR photography, so I think he is well
protected there.
 
Regards.
 
PS Takahashi shows that his electrolyte has the same profile as
tritium enriched water so this is something to think about.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
Date: 11 May 92 19:32:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992May11.183302.109831@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
 
 > 1) First is that his experiment D did not seem to be set up for
 > carefull calorimetry, there was no recombiner for instance.
 > So I am not sure if numbers for excess heat are to be trusted.
 >
 > 2) D + D + D  --> d    +      4He + 23.8MeV
 >                 (15.9MeV)    (7.9MeV)
 >    D + D + D  --> t    +      3He + 9.5MeV
 >		 (4.75MeV)    (4.75MeV)
 > Although I have no problem with total energy released, I do
 > have a problem with the way he breaks it down between d and 4He,
 > t and 3He. He seems to be using conservation of momentum to
 > break down the total energy between the product, which is absolutely
 > fine if the reaction occurs in vacuum but within solid state matter
 > I am afraid the presence of Pd lattice and other D's will change
 > how the energy is distributed.
 
 
If he really is producing tens of watts with these reactions producing
end products with these particular energies, he should be seeing
millions of neutrons per second from the secondary reactions as the
recoiling deuterium and tritium nuclei slow down in the loaded
electrode.  But he's not, so his (2) seems ruled out.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: The Martyr myth
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Martyr myth
Date: 11 May 92 19:46:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <59665794AFDF20D055@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>M21742@mwvm.mitre.org (Dick Forman) writes:
 
>>In article <5D56E23CAEFF206B34@vms2.uni-c.dk>
 
>>...                           Would you also have refused to abstract the
>>publications of J. Willard Gibbs because he published in a small local
>>journal called the Journal of the Connecticut Academy?
 
>...                           If I took on questionable propaganda sheets,
>conference notes and preprints, the bibliography would, in my opinion, not be
>worth as much as it is now. So I'll continue in this way.
 
I must agree with Dieter here.  In my opinion he has provided a
great free service to the net.  I suspect he has put in *many* long
hours so others won't have to wade through all those publications to
find what they think is worthwhile.  Has he made decisions some will
disagree with?  Almost certainly, that's an inevitible part of the
selection process.  If you can't stand the thought that he missed
something, read it all yourself.  He has to use some criterion and
refereed publications seems as good as any.  Might something
important be rejected by these publications?  Of course, that's the
chance we take by the refereeing process.  You want it abstracted
here (or even published in toto)?  You have a terminal, do it
yourself.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  Britz /  Ribbon twisting
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ribbon twisting
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 14:57:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Terry Bollinger posted, about a year ago, his longish piece "A Twist of
Ribbon". I thought that I had put it into section 5 of my bibliography, i.e.
the archived file cnf-unp; but checking, I find that all I archived was the
list of references at the end. Anyhow, Twisted Terry has just sent me a new
version of it, and I have now put it into that archived file. One of the
changes he has made is to the copyrighting. Y'all are now free to make any
number of copies and print them out for yourselves, as long as you don't take
away Terry's name or don't excerpt sections without saying where you got them
from. The message is - as far as I can see - the same, heel-rocking conclusion
reluctantly drawn but on a level with (or above) the Mills/Farrell "theory" in
terms of surprise value or significance - if true.
 For those of you who have forgotten what Section 5 is all about, it is stuff
that has not been published or never may be. It started with Vince Cate's
preprints, in the days when cnf was practically all in that form and fax
machines were running hot all over the world. I then added Terry's list of
references, and now the article itself. Others are invited to get stuffed into
this file {:] if they have writings that are appropriate there. E.g., Dick
Forman, your piece in FF could find a home there, so that people who can't
afford FF can read your piece, too. That's even better than a measly abstract
from me.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 713 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 713 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 15:38:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
five more here, two not quite so up to date (the Russians, it takes a while
for me to get hold of them). Lipson et al are still finding neutrons from
fractofusion, initiated by various means, here (once again) by a vibrator.
The other Russian uses a TiFe alloy and D2 gas charging, and also finds
neutrons, though noone will be impressed with their dosimeter detector and
integration of its readings. One event doth a bursty neutron emission make, it
seems. Douglas Morrison's talk at Honolulu has been published in Uspekhy and
is now out in the English version of that journal. I half expected to see it
back-translated from the Russian, but they had their act together and used
Douglas's original. DROM is of course the arch-skeptic in the field and I
don't know why he is feted by the TB's, but he is. With Schwinger, this is a
bit easier to understand, he seems to have to joined them. Here he is, telling
the Japanese that cold fusion's future is in Japan. He reiterates the argument
that there is something special about the metal deuteride lattice, that it
might allow close d-d approach (he does not mention his favoured d-p
alternative). He must have pleased his Japanese hosts with his knowledge of
their culture, referring time to Japanese history and quoting Sumo lore to
make a particular point.
With the Mellican (thanks, HH Bauer, for sending me this one), I once again
had the dilemma whether or not to include it in the main section. Maybe, I
should start a new section, of articles like this one, i.e. sociological/
philosophical. They are more than commentaries, I feel, but certainly not
technical in the usual sense. I'll hold off making any decisions until the
problem gets bigger. What do you, both of my readers, say?
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 12-May. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 713
 
1. Books
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Published articles, letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Lyakhov BF, Deryagin BV, Kudryavtsev VN, Toporov YuP, Klyuev VA,
Kolobov MA, Sakov DM;      Pis'ma Zh. Teor. Fiz. 17(21)(1991) 33 (in Russian).
"Reproducible neutron emission by the combined effect of cavitation and
electrolysis at the surface of a titanium cathode in electrolyte based on
heavy water".
** The Ti cathode was vibrated strongly at a frequency of 15 kHz and amplitude
of 15 micrometres; cathodes and anodes were separated by a glass frit
membrane. Both alkaline (1M NAOD) and acid (0.2M D2SO4) electrolytes were
tried, as well as the use of Ti powder in suspension. Electrolysis currents
were in the range 1-100 mA/cm**2. A neutron detector as described previously,
was used. Many cycles of electrolysis-vibration-electrolysis, were alternated.
In alkaline solution, neutrons were observed at about 20-25 times the
background during cavitation (vibration), and a post-effect of 30 times
background during electrolysis subsequent to vibration. In acid solution,
during vibration: 25 times with a post-effect of 5 times background. With the
Ti dispersion present, resp. 30 and 15 times the background (alkaline) and
25 and 5 (acid).                                                 Oct-91/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lobanov VV, Zetkin AS, Kagan GE, Demin VE, Mil'man II, Syurdo AI;
Pis'ma Zh. Teor. Fiz. 17(23) (1991) 22 (in Russian).
** Studies of neutron emission from TiFe alloy loaded with deuterium at room
temperature".
** The alloy (46.14 at% Fe) was loaded preliminarily by exposure to D2 gas to
a mass% of 0.41 D2 (I make that a loading of close to 0.1 D/metal). The
temperature was cycled up to 882 degC under 600 Torr of D2; at 600 degC, the
alloy went into the alpha phase, and between 600-882, into the mixed alpha-
and beta phase. Many cycles of charging and vacuum degassing were carried out.
After thermocycling, the sample was cooled in a D2 atmosphere to room temp.
and kept for some hours. Neutrons were measured by a scintillation radiometric
dosimeter, type MKS-01R, the detector block was of 155 mm diameter and could
detect integrated neutrons in the energy range 1E-03 to 14 MeV.
Differentiation produced instantaneous neutron fluxes, and were seen to be
125 and 760 times the known background for two runs respectively, arriving in
bursts. This shows that neutron bursts are given off by TiFe alloy treated in
this way.                                                        Jun-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mellican RE;                                Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 12 (1992) 1.
"From fusion frenzy to fraud: Reflections on science and its cultural norms".
** The philosopher author here associates cold fusion and science fraud in one
article. Again, science-by-press conference is mentioned. Merton's conception
of modern science is discussed. One of the features of "science" is that of
"organised skepticism", or self-doubt, mentioned also by CP Snow. Peer review
acts as a social control. Cold fusion researchers have been charged with a lack
of this self-doubt, and criticised for their press conferences. However, this
is not unusual for exciting new fields; what is more, the critics themselves
engaged in the same activity. However, Mellican points out that one feature of
the cold fusion affair is that money plays a large role, and that this is an
increasingly important aspect of research. The author concludes that society
may need to reconsider, in the light of "scientific misconduct and the cold
fusion episode", the relationship between science and the public.     ?/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morrison DRM;                                  Sov. Phys. Usp. 34 (1991) 1055.
Russian original: Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 161 (1991) 129.
"Review of cold fusion".
** DROM reviews cold fusion for this Russian journal. This is taken from an
address given by him at a meeting in Honolulu on July 1990. He recites the
short history of the field, shows the usual three d-d fusion branches and then
a chronology of cold fusion events, up to June 1990. This is followed by a
summary of experimental results, reporting steady neutron production, the
Frascati-type results, neutron bursts, x-rays, tritium, charged particles and
calorimetry. The balance of all this is that nothing can be reproduced, and
the evidence is against cold fusion. DROM then states three experiments that
should be critical for believers: the Williams et al experiment, the GE report
and the Salamon team's monitoring of nuclear products under Pons' experiment.
All three were negative and should give pause to a believer. Pathological
science is invoked; cold fusion is an error.                     Jul-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwinger J;  Springer Procs. in Physics 57 (1991) (Evolutionary Trends in the
Physical Sciences; Eds: M. Suzuki, R. Kubo), 171.
"Cold fusion: Does it have a future?".
** This is the publication of an address given by Nobelist Schwinger, in
Japan. Cold fusion, says S, could have significant implications for mankind,
especially for the Japanese. S mentions the prehistory of cold fusion, i.e.
the work of Paneth et al during the Showa era (1926). We then move forward to
P&F in 1989. Schwinger makes the point that neither intermittency of the
emissions (heat, neutrons etc) nor the irreproducibility of the results prove
that there is no effect. Nor is it fair to level the charge that the effect is
not theoretically understood; other phenomena (such as high temperature
superconductivity) have this problem. Cold fusion is not the same as hot
fusion, and cannot be measured by that yard stick; metal lattice effects make
this a quite different phenomenon. At high loading, for example, there may
appear d-d separations much smaller than those known for normal loadings, and
lattice fluctuations might also help. S suggests that lower temperature might
enhance the process, by providing a better environment for such close
approaches. Schwinger concludes that pressure of scientific conformity
precludes a future for cold fusion in Europe and the USA, but in Japan, there
is some hope.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
3. Patents
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4. Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
5. Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
6. Unpublished material
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the posting on the new edition of Terry Bollinger's "A Twist of Ribbon",
now archived in the file CNF-UNP.
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.11 / Barry Wise /  Takahashi and thin plates
     
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi and thin plates
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 21:07:07 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

Please forgive the intrusion if this is off base.  Since my physics is way out
of date I can't support the idea with theory, but this has been running through
my mind.  One of the assumptions that has been proposed is that CF is a surface
effect. What if it's not?  Takahashi achieved his results with a thin plate
(1mm?). Could the effect be due to the thinness of the plate and the fact that
you have two surfaces?  What I'm suggesting is some sort of quantum tunneling
that may cause two D's to wind up closer than they would from just the loading
on the surface. Maybe an even thinner plate than Takahashi used would be
better.
 
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 02:07:33 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

In article <1992May11.193256.10835@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
>end products with these particular energies, he should be seeing
>millions of neutrons per second from the secondary reactions as the
>recoiling deuterium and tritium nuclei slow down in the loaded
>electrode.  But he's not, so his (2) seems ruled out.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
I do not think any reaction is ruled out. One possible
explanation (as I mentioned before) is that component
products do not come out with as high momentum as they
might have  if the reaction occured in vacuum. You might
ask what happens to the additional energy, well it gets
absorbed by the lattice directly. So reactions might be
described more exactly like (just a wild conjecture) as
Pd + D + D + D --> Pd (9.5 MeV) + t (0MeV) + 3He(0Mev).
I am obviously exagerating here, but the gist is that
the resulting products might be more or less thermalized.
The same holds for neutrons, anyone care to estimate the
probability that a thermal neutron will get out "alive"
to be detected?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
Date: 12 May 92 13:01:13 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992May12.020733.65631@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>             ....                 So reactions might be
>described more exactly like (just a wild conjecture) as
>Pd + D + D + D --> Pd (9.5 MeV) + t (0MeV) + 3He(0Mev).
>I am obviously exagerating here, but the gist is that
>the resulting products might be more or less thermalized.
 
This is worse than the other situation.  Having a 9.5 MeV Pd running around
is like having a bull loose in a china shop.   Only a Hagelstein-like model
where the entire lattice takes takes up the energy in a coherent fashion
through some long-range interaction can do what you desire.  Anything that
involves only the local nuclei will result in large momenta in that locality
that will result in a variety of easily measurable radiation products, some
of which are also health hazards.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Finally have seen THE tape.
Date: 12 May 92 13:40:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992May12.020733.65631@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
 
> absorbed by the lattice directly. So reactions might be
> described more exactly like (just a wild conjecture) as
> Pd + D + D + D --> Pd (9.5 MeV) + t (0MeV) + 3He(0Mev).
> I am obviously exagerating here, but the gist is that
> the resulting products might be more or less thermalized.
 
 
The reaction as you describe there is not just an exaggeration; it
violates conservation of momentum.  In any reaction of particles at
rest in which the energy is taken off as kinetic energy of the
products, at least two must have nonzero momentum.
 
Are you imagining some scheme where the energy is mysteriously
partitioned among thousands of Pd atoms, a la Hagelstein?  BTW, has
Hagelstein's paper ever appeared in a refereed journal?
 
Note that to avoid too much neutron production from tritium, the
tritium nuclei must be produced at very low energy, less than 50 keV,
perhaps much less.  This is because the DT reaction has a resonance at
moderately low energy.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Ryk Spoor /  Can you give me a simple explanation?
     
Originally-From: seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can you give me a simple explanation?
Date: 12 May 92 14:22:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

 
	I've been reading about the CNF field off and on for quite a while,
seeing the fanatical adherence of the True Believers and the acid retorts
of the more levelheaded. However, there is one thing that still puzzles me
(since I am not a physicist), and I hope that someone can give me a simple
explanation.
 
	One of the apparently most telling criticisms of CNF is that it
does not put out any radiation, in particular, no neutrons. What I don't
understand is why this is taken to be a requirement.
 
	I am aware that in the usual hot fusion process there is a complex
series of steps that eventually lead to the formation of helium from
hydrogen, but I don't understand why a new and unusual process (assuming it
DID exist) would be assumed to follow the same stages.
 
	In short, why couldn't the CNF process take 2 deuterons and smash
them together into helium-4 in one shot? Or, if you insist on regular
hydrogen as the reactant, why not 4 hydrogen smashed together to produce
1 helium and a couple positive-charged particles... positrons? (I haven't
the faintest idea what kind of particles would result from such a reaction,
but obviously not neutrons!) If positrons, then one would expect them to
react quickly with local electrons and go to gammas (which I noticed a prior
article mentioned).
 
                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnRyk cudlnSpoor cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Larry Wall /  Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environmen
 t,sci.med.physics,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: New Puthoff Article:  "QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS OF EMPTY SPACE..."
Date: 12 May 92 17:54:37 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

Allow me to paraphrase what I thought I just heard M. Puthoff say:
    "You can condense charges by inducing a small-scale gravitational
    collapse in a bunch of charge carriers."
 
Hmm.  I suppose that's vaguely possible, if the electromagnetic force
is shielded, and the gravitational "force" isn't.  I can buy the
argument that this collapse will add additional energy to a clump of
condensed charge over and above that necessary to bind the charges, but
I have questions about how one could go about extracting that energy
usefully.  It seems to me that all we potentially have (apart from
enhanced possibilities for fusion) is your basic everyday heat pump,
with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities pertaining
thereto.  You only get useful energy to the extent that you can
transport the condensed state to a different location.  Otherwise it
soaks up just as much energy unscrunching as it gave up scrunching
in the first place.
 
What am I not seeing?  Or are we just proposing a fancy refrigerator?
 
I suppose somebody is now gonna claim that the lattice of a palladium
crystal is somehow conducive to the formation of charge condensates.
After all, it's got a lot of thin metal plates spaced close together,
just like with the Casimir effect...  :-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Ribbon twisting
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ribbon twisting
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 17:32:41 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <586E0F8C475F20E6CF@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
..Dick Forman's piece can go here. Fine. Do I have to get it scanned, OCR
processed and sent as a file or are you willing to work from the FAX that you a
lready have. The original is no longer available as a computer file having
been done on a strange computer. Please let me know.
The same is true of the abstract I sent to the 2nd CNF conf. It was accepted
for various reasons I did not go.  That is on a secretary's computer at Arizona
State University where I was visiting as a Distinguished Visitor. Can you post
from a Fax of that. Or rather will you type it in. I'm a poor typist and rather
pressed for time at the moment.  Let me know on that "historical " piece also.
It is titled Apocropha of Unusual Nuclear Events; I am the sole author.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / MH100 ph /  Takahashi's tape
     
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi's tape
Date: 12 May 92 17:10:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

Where can I order a Takahashi's tape? Thanks in advance.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhliu cudfnMH100 cudlnph cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Frank Smith /  Re: Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Experiment
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 19:20:31 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

Tom, I am not surprised that you have a gas leak with the numbers you were
quoting.
 
I would like to share with you some experiences of mine with regard to hydrogen
leaking from plastic tubing. This goes back to my Ph. D. work in 1956-60. We
found that hydrogen leaked from PVC tubing (what you call tygon) quite fast
compared with higher molecular weight gases like nitrogen or oxygen. Hydrogen
also made the PVC sticky, I assume by reacting with double bonds in the
polymer, whereas other gases didn't do this. We tried Teflon because we thought
that inert as indeed it is, but hydrogen escapes from Teflon even faster then
from tygon, whereas nitrogen did not escape that fast. If you stopped the flow
of hydrogen you could see the water level rise as the H2 escaped and created a
partial vacuum.
 
Since that time I have tried always to work with Pyrex glass and metal fittings
when it was necessary to exclude oxygen, for example. It is very hard going
but there are on the market flexible stainless steel couplings and these,
together with Swagelok fittings having Teflon and Zytel to mate with the Pyrex
at least allow some flexibilty. In my opinion, if you are hoping to work with a
"closed system" as I believe you are, you should dispense with tygon - even
rubber may be better when you are trying to keep in hydrogen, I think (no real
experience with this, but I believe it to be true). However, it strikes me that
to minimise leaks when using tygon, you would do better to have excess O2
rather than excess H2 because of what I have said above.
 
Also, if you do fill with hydrogen first, you should not reverse the current at
the palladium for reasons of oxide and O2 formation as was mentioned in my last
posting. Furthermore, I still would like to persuade you not to use too low
cathodic currents at the palladium.
 
Regarding the white precipitate that you reported earlier seeing in your D2O +
LiOD, I think this may be Li2CO3 because LiOD reacts with CO2 from the air to
form this which has a very low solubility, but if you excluded contact with air
I don't understand it!
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  Britz /  Section 5?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 5?
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 14:59:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Digest 289, I wrote yesterday,
 
> For those of you who have forgotten what Section 5 is all about, it is stuff
>that has not been published or never may be. It started with Vince Cate's
 
and then looked into my files and found that Section 5 is peripheral stuff;
unpublished stuff is Section 6. Sorry about that. This made me think about the
numbering. Originally, before this monster got so big, all abstracts etc were
in a single file, sectioned by number (I started, I think, with 3). Then it
got so big that I went over to separate files. So there is no longer a reason
to number them at all; the name is enough. I will, over the next few days,
remove the numbering on all the files and update the archives accordingly.
Then I can't make the above sort of mistake again. And I can add a new lot
without thinking up a number for it, e.g. if I decide to start the socio/
philosphico/librarian section.
This change will not affect the contents of course, so you don't need to GET
the files for your own update.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  Close /         Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:        Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 15:00:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD 289, 290 Dick Blue, Paul Dietz and Jim Carr all make contributions
that show that Takahashi's claims are likely false. Dick points out how
careful one has to be in interpreting neutron "signals": Dick has posted
similar cogent advice several times over the last three years and if
budding experimentalists would take note of his suggestions we might have
fewer inconsistent claims of the Takahashi sort. Paul reminds us of the
fact that SECONDARY neutrons are produced by energetic primaries independent
of the nature of those primaries (Jim Carr also makes this point) - it astounds
me that three years into this saga so many TBs have a blind spot to this fact
Please read what Paul, Jim and Dick write even if it is often difficult
to find their pearls among some of the extensive dross that has been polluting
the net recently. (I support Dieter's recent posting in this regard; if this
is to be a worthwhile scientific discussion group it is up to us to maintain
some standard and shout when we feel it is being abused).
 
Alex suggests we invoke a high order miracle that the products are thermalised:
well suppose we buy that - if the products dont get out then they must
still be in the palladium. Now memories on this net seem to be short, but
among the set of REPRODUCIBLE phenomena in CNF is that NO helium-3 has ever
been found, and no He-4 commensurate with heat either.(BTW, I recommend
John Huizenga's book for anyone who wants to learn what became of
some of the outlandish claims made on behalf of CNF. The story of B Stanley
Pons, C Gary Triggs and the double-blind test for He-4 in the Utah rods is
itself worth the investment. I might comment on this in a review of his
 book for Nature). Julian Schwinger seems to be unaware of this essential
datum unless his theory includes baryon decay.
 
A final comment about the remnants of nuclear/chemical reactions. Tom Droege
asks what chemical process gives 200 joules - my reading of your numbers Tom
was 200+-200 joules (I dont have the original posting here to check, sorry).
If so, then what significance is there? I am sure that your CDF crowd will not
claim a top-quark discovery on a one-sigma effect! But if there is 200 joules,
and if it is chemical then there is presumably some 10(21) eV's worth
of PdH or PdD (or something) around. I am not a chemist and havent a clue
on how to find evidence for such CHEMICAL "ash" but on this net one can
learn a lot from others, so hope my ignorance will soon be less. I expect it
is possible; e.g. Ray Davis detects a few hundred atoms of change in his
solar neutrino expt, but that may be comparing chalk and cheese. In the
multijoules scenario of palladium-hydrogen we are talking perhaps milligrams.
 
I do know that if it is a NUCLEAR process that it is possible to detect
remnants at the level required to explain joules of heat. This is independent
of whatever miracle you choose to invoke as the heat producing mechanism.
Whether it is dd fusion, ddd miracles, d+Pd reactions, p+d,
d+Li6 or whatever you choose; there is an order of magnitude argument that
gives roughly 10(12) or more reactions (and hence products) per joule.
This is simply that the energy ultimately comes from the release of nuclear
binding energy; the order of magnitude of this B.E. is typically on the MeV.
scale. So there are fewer transmutations per joule for nuclear than chemical
but, even so,the numbers are easily detectable. People have looked and not
found; please TB's tell me - what have we overlooked?  To my knowledge
n,p,t,He3,He4, changes in Li6 (the farcical story of the great Li6 explanation
of CNF is a must in JH's book), changes in Pd isotopic abundances have all
been examined. Tom - when you have rod(s) that give significant net output,
will you be arranging for an assay to be done for this "ash"?
 
I will now leave the airwaves clear for Dick Forman.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenUK cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  jbatka@desire. /  Which Reaction in CNF?
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Which Reaction in CNF?
Date: 12 May 92 17:49:35 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

I am not a physicist by profession (or education), but I do have a questions
concerning CNF.
 
My primary question is during these CNF experiments are researchers observing
_any_ neutrons, protons, or photons?  If so, have they measured the flux
and energy levels?  If all of this has happened, why can't they match known
(leave the last 'known' out) these particle energies to known nuclear
reactions?
 
Please no flames, my questions have been asked in good faith and are not
meant as criticism on anyones experimental methods.
 
Jim Batka
Aeronautical Engineer
 
P.S.  What I was getting at, is could it be an O + O, O + Pd, D + O, D + Pd
or other nuclear reaction going on instead of the D + D, D + D + D, of other
hydrogen isotope reaction going on?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjbatka cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Which Reaction in CNF?
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Which Reaction in CNF?
Date: 12 May 92 17:58:39 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992May12.124935.1459@desire.wright.edu>, jbatka@desire.wright.edu
 writes:
> I am not a physicist by profession (or education), but I do have a questions
> concerning CNF.
>
> My primary question is during these CNF experiments are researchers observing
> _any_ neutrons, protons, or photons?  If so, have they measured the flux
> and energy levels?  If all of this has happened, why can't they match known
> (leave the last 'known' out) these particle energies to known nuclear
> reactions?
>
> Please no flames, my questions have been asked in good faith and are not
> meant as criticism on anyones experimental methods.
>
> Jim Batka
> Aeronautical Engineer
>
> P.S.  What I was getting at, is could it be an O + O, O + Pd, D + O, D + Pd
> or other nuclear reaction going on instead of the D + D, D + D + D, of other
> hydrogen isotope reaction going on?
>
I should probably add the Li + D, Li + O, etc.
 
What I really want to know is rather than making a theory about the reaction
and then looking for positive results, has anyone taken the results and
looked for a theory that matches them.  As one person stated no 3.5MeV
neutrons have been found.  Well what gamma rays and neutrons where observed?
Do these match any know nuclear reactions from above (or others likely from
the elements in the experiment)?
 
Jim Batka
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjbatka cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: CNF bibliography Re:TBs and TDisbelievers (TDBs)
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography Re:TBs and TDisbelievers (TDBs)
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 19:49:30 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <5861303A49FF210816@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>The other Russian uses a TiFe alloy and D2 gas charging, and also finds
>neutrons, though noone will be impressed with their dosimeter detector and
>integration of its readings. One event doth a bursty neutron emission make, it
>seems.
It was a TiFeMn alloy hydride that destroyed a Varian NMR probe in the
experiments they did at Brookhaven in 1976 and discussed in my (unpublished)
abstract sent to the 2nd CNF conference.  Work is by G.C. (Cynthia) Carter
then of NBS.  (I will shortly come to agreement with Dieter on getting this
abstract into his section 5. That is quite a step up from the Section 8
that I am normally relegated to (American joke: Section 8 is the term used
for a discharge from the American military based upon mental problems).
>                                                                         d
>Douglas's original. DROM is of course the arch-skeptic in the field and I
>don't know why he is feted by the TB's, but he is. With Schwinger, this is a
>bit easier to understand, he seems to have to joined them. Here he is, telling
>the Japanese that cold fusion's future is in Japan. He reiterates the argument
>that there is something special about the metal deuteride lattice, that it
>might allow close d-d approach (he does not mention his favoured d-p
>alternative). He must have pleased his Japanese hosts with his knowledge of
>their culture, referring time to Japanese history and quoting Sumo lore to
>make a particular point.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lobanov VV, Zetkin AS, Kagan GE, Demin VE, Mil'man II, Syurdo AI;
>Pis'ma Zh. Teor. Fiz. 17(23) (1991) 22 (in Russian).
>** Studies of neutron emission from TiFe alloy loaded with deuterium at room
>temperature".
>** The alloy (46.14 at% Fe) was loaded preliminarily by exposure to D2 gas to
>a mass% of 0.41 D2 (I make that a loading of close to 0.1 D/metal). The
>temperature was cycled up to 882 degC under 600 Torr of D2; at 600 degC, the
>alloy went into the alpha phase, and between 600-882, into the mixed alpha-
>and beta phase. Many cycles of charging and vacuum degassing were carried out.
>After thermocycling, the sample was cooled in a D2 atmosphere to room temp.
>and kept for some hours. Neutrons were measured by a scintillation radiometric
>dosimeter, type MKS-01R, the detector block was of 155 mm diameter and could
>detect integrated neutrons in the energy range 1E-03 to 14 MeV.
>Differentiation produced instantaneous neutron fluxes, and were seen to be
>125 and 760 times the known background for two runs respectively, arriving in
>bursts. This shows that neutron bursts are given off by TiFe alloy treated in
>this way.                                                        Jun-91/Dec-91
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Morrison DRM;                                  Sov. Phys. Usp. 34 (1991) 1055.
>Russian original: Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 161 (1991) 129.
>"Review of cold fusion".
>** DROM reviews cold fusion for this Russian journal. This is taken from an
>address given by him at a meeting in Honolulu on July 1990. He recites the
>short history of the field, shows the usual three d-d fusion branches and then
>a chronology of cold fusion events, up to June 1990. This is followed by a
>summary of experimental results, reporting steady neutron production, the
>Frascati-type results, neutron bursts, x-rays, tritium, charged particles and
>calorimetry. The balance of all this is that nothing can be reproduced, and
>the evidence is against cold fusion. DROM then states three experiments that
>should be critical for believers: the Williams et al experiment, the GE report
>and the Salamon team's monitoring of nuclear products under Pons' experiment.
>All three were negative and should give pause to a believer. Pathological
>science is invoked; cold fusion is an error.                     Jul-91/Dec-91
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Schwinger J;  Springer Procs. in Physics 57 (1991) (Evolutionary Trends in the
>Physical Sciences; Eds: M. Suzuki, R. Kubo), 171.
>"Cold fusion: Does it have a future?".
>** This is the publication of an address given by Nobelist Schwinger, in
>Japan. Cold fusion, says S, could have significant implications for mankind,
>especially for the Japanese. S mentions the prehistory of cold fusion, i.e.
>the work of Paneth et al during the Showa era (1926). We then move forward to
>P&F in 1989. Schwinger makes the point that neither intermittency of the
>emissions (heat, neutrons etc) nor the irreproducibility of the results prove
>that there is no effect. Nor is it fair to level the charge that the effect is
>not theoretically understood; other phenomena (such as high temperature
>superconductivity) have this problem. Cold fusion is not the same as hot
>fusion, and cannot be measured by that yard stick; metal lattice effects make
>this a quite different phenomenon. At high loading, for example, there may
>appear d-d separations much smaller than those known for normal loadings, and
>lattice fluctuations might also help. S suggests that lower temperature might
>enhance the process, by providing a better environment for such close
>approaches. Schwinger concludes that pressure of scientific conformity
>precludes a future for cold fusion in Europe and the USA, but in Japan, there
>is some hope.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>See the posting on the new edition of Terry Bollinger's "A Twist of Ribbon",
>now archived in the file CNF-UNP.
>==============================================================================
>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
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Forman says: The absolute best way to find errors in your work is to have
a true disbeliever as a critical reader.  Morrison said to me on Saturday
but " I (he) have to read it all", refering to every paper Dieter abstracts,
the mark of a true disbeliever.  As I have said before he (Morrison)
is of the agnostic variety.  He is willing to be convinced when
the evidence is overwhelming.  And when he is convinced he will be an ally and
a powerful one at that.  If he is not ever convinced, then those of us on the
pro-CNR side will probably also have changed our minds and will join him.  The
problem is those people who are true Theist Believers in the status quo.  They
don't take the trouble to read this stuff.  They might have the key insights ne
eded to resolve efficiently some of the issues that are being raised.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Takahashi's tape
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi's tape
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 20:49:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992May12.171032.23843@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
 hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph) writes:
>Where can I order a Takahashi's tape? Thanks in advance.
 
 
Call (617)253-7408 or (617)253-7444
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.12 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Experiment
Date: 12 May 92 23:59:24 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Frank Smith writes:
>
> Tom, I am not surprised that you have a gas leak with the numbers you were
> quoting.
>
> ...
>
> We found that hydrogen leaked from PVC tubing (what you call tygon) quite
> fast compared with higher molecular weight gases like nitrogen or oxygen.
>
> ...
>
>  We tried Teflon because we thought that inert as indeed it is, but hydrogen
> escapes from Teflon even faster then from tygon, whereas nitrogen did not
> escape that fast.
>
> ...
>
>  In my opinion, if you are hoping to work with a "closed system" as I believe
> you are, you should dispense with tygon - even rubber may be better when you
> are trying to keep in hydrogen.
 
 
        Also perhaps worth considering are:
 
1) Polyethylene tubing (chemically related to teflon tubing, which is
polytetrafluoroethylene), but perhaps with different permeability properties.
This tubing is available in very fine diameters (capable of being terminated by
an inserted hypodermic needle) in is often sold as "catheter" tubing.  The fine
diameter will lower the surface area through which gas can pass.  Gluing is
difficult, so mechanical joints are needed for connections.
 
2) Fluorinated rubber tubing (black, different than teflon).
 
3) "PEEK" tubing.  I can't remember the proper name of the plastic, but is is a
very rigid plastic which is highly chemically resistant.  It is sold by
companies who handle supplies for high pressure liquid chromatography.  The
standard tubing is 1/16 inch in diameter, with a bore of 0.01 inch.  It can be
attached to the same swagelock fittings as stainless steel 1/16 inch tubing,
and offers a reasonably flexible alternative to stainless steel.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Experiment
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 00:42:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <11943@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
 
> 3) "PEEK" tubing.  I can't remember the proper name of the plastic,
> but is is a very rigid plastic which is highly chemically resistant.
> It is sold by companies who handle supplies for high pressure liquid
> chromatography.  The standard tubing is 1/16 inch in diameter, with a
> bore of 0.01 inch.  It can be attached to the same swagelock fittings
> as stainless steel 1/16 inch tubing, and offers a reasonably flexible
> alternative to stainless steel.
 
Poly-ether-ether-ketone, I believe.  This stuff was proposed for the
material comprising the liquid hydrogen tank in the British HOTOL
launcher concept, which tells me it must not be too permeable to
hydrogen.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 / R Butte /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 713 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: raymond@locus.com (R.R. Butte)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 713 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 00:54:58 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <5861303A49FF210816@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
> technical in the usual sense. I'll hold off making any decisions until the
> problem gets bigger. What do you, both of my readers, say?
>                                                                         Dieter
I I ssaayy isntculfufd eiitt!!
-rb
--
`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-
Raymond Rashid Butte               Locus Computing Corporation
raymond@locus.com          		less heat... more light
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenraymond cudfnR cudlnButte cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  /  Safety
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Safety
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 21:34:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a private message, Douglas Morrison writes to me about these postings, "Am
enjoying your series of messages on the net.  As you know I prefer for myself
to try and check things very carefully before publishing, but in the present
situation have noticed that careful papers tend to get easily ignored (for
example the very carefully written and much corrected paper by Fritz Will and
the GE people is a very important - saying F&P's original paper is no proof of
Cold Fusion, but there has been absolutely no response).  So it may well turn
out that your way of continuous communication is more effective."
 
This message is friendly and just expresses a different viewpoint.  So do I,
(prefer to publish well worked material) Douglas.  I do not consider this
publication, but rather the interchange that would go on in my "college"
(American College Dictionary definition #8) if I had one.  Unfortunately, my
Fermilab colleagues walk away, or excuse themselves to get a cookie at the
colloquium (as the director did last week) if I bring up the (anomalous heat)
subject.
 
So I must go where I can to exchange ideas.  I feel very strongly about open
disclosure of mistakes and errors.  I would rather hear about 5 minutes of
disaster than read 100 pages of perfectly crafted experimental technique.
Andrew Riley's death reminds us all that any sealed container is a potential
bomb (nuclear or chemical - it makes no difference.  The way to make a bomb
is to put some energy in a strong container, a weak one just goes poof).
 
But a discussion of the dangers of strong, sealed, containers is unlikely to
find publication in a "cold fusion" paper to those who most need to read it.
In your "college", if you have one, the mistakes are seen.  You pass the
laboratory and hear your associate cursing, or see the associate cleaning up
the broken glass.  Normal practice is to write papers as if nothing ever went
wrong.  I always try to include something where a reasonable, thinking,
experimenter was led into error by what appeared at the time to be sound logic
(the definition of tragedy, I believe).  I hope that others save time on their
experiments by guarding against my errors.  That is why I describe them.
 
I would like to hear what others think about the publication of mistakes,
disasters, and other errors.  Most do not do it.
 
In case some of you glossed over the above message:
*****************************************************************************
DO NOT PERFORM ANY KIND OF EXPERIMENT IN A STRONG CONTAINER UNLESS YOU KNOW
        WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND LIVE BEHIND A BARRIER OF SAND BAGS.
*****************************************************************************
For reference, I recommend a viewing of "The Man in the White Suit". Starring
Alec Guiness and the most wonderful machine sound in movie history.
 
Perhaps my viewpoint is colored by my early engineering work in naval aviation
safety.  One of my jobs was to read accident reports and to try to think up
better ways to instrument aircraft to make them safer.  Most improvements had
a few dead pilots behind them.  So I think of error as a path to improvement.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  /  Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Measurement
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 21:36:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been carying on a private discussion with Jorge Stolfi where he
wonders if I am measuring the power correctly when a cell is driven by a
Takahashi style saw tooth.  He is particularly worried that the 200 joule
pulses could be an artifact of the measurement.
 
I too worry.  My measurement scheme is to take 100 samples of the E and I
of all leads to the calorimeter enclosure each minute.  The mean E and
mean I are multiplied to generate a "Kirchoff" power for each lead.  The
sum of these powers is compared to the refrigerator power and the net, if
any, is "anomalous heat" or "anomalous cooling".  As a check, from time to
time, we compute the power by taking the product of the instantaneous E*I
products and compare them to the MeanE*MeanI product.  Generally they
agree to 1E-6 watts but have been found higher for very noisy cells.
 
Jorge worries that the large error that can ocurr when the saw tooth
suddenly drops at the end of a period will somehow cause an error accumulation.
I have measured a variety of test situations, and do not find any error
accumulation, though there is a small + or - error that can occur on any
one cycle.  There is clearly a "beating" effect due to the interaction of
the sample period with the ramp period.  My scheme for generating the ramp is
to command a current increment at each 10 second interval.  Measurements are
made at each 1 minute interval.  The ramp is reset by measuring the actual
current, which purposefully introduces "noise" into the ramp length.  So no
two ramps are exactly the same number of 10 second intervals long - or rather
there is a statistical distribution of ramp lengths which is broader than
zero.  The ramp is mostly run at rates which are not close to an even number
of minutes long.  This "forces" the beat effect.  Which seems to be similar
in size to the minute to minute noise of the system which is 15 mw rms.  Note
that the long term drift is much smaller than this 15 mw rms single measurement
error.
 
I will leave it to Jorge to present his case for possible error.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /   /   Simple explaination for expecting neutrons
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Simple explaination for expecting neutrons
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 23:36:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to Ryk E Spoor's request for a simple explaination I will
attempt a brief review for what should be old hat to most readers by now.
 
 
For roughly 50 years the reaction of deuterons with deuterons has been
investigated over a broad energy range and in a variety of contexts.  This
has resulted in an "orthodox" understanding as to how this reaction takes
place and what reaction products will be formed.  There are a number of
conservation laws which come into play and several less rigid rules of
thumb which govern our expectations.  Within the current context of the
cold fusion controversy nothing is particularly obvious about putting
the deuterium into a palladium lattice that would lead one to expect
the nuclear reaction to be altered in any significant way.  The reason
for that, roughly speaking, is that the nuclear reaction takes place
in a dramatically different domain with respect to size and energy
scale from the interactions that govern the crystal latice and the
atomic electrons.  To be blunt about it, if the d + d reaction results
in the emission of neutrons roughly 50% of the time under every situation
that has ever been investigated, then that is the expectation for this
case also.  Some perturbation of the rate of neutron emission is conceiv-
able, but an absolute cut-off or a reduction by a factor of 10^10 is
too far out on a limb to be considered further.
 
Of course, if you insist the possible total supression of neutron
emission can be "accepted", and we can move on to consider the remaining
possible outcomes of the d + d reaction.  You suggest the direct formation
of 4He.  Normally the "orthodox" view would be that the probability
for that outcome is reduced because it involves the electromagnetic
interaction, but when it occurs it will produce gamma radiation, a
whopping 23 MeV gamma ray to be precise.  Very little of the reaction
energy will be absorbed because 23 MeV gammas are very penetrating.
This is another signal that has been looked for, and very stringent
limits have been set on how often this occurs in "cold fusion".
Other possibilities have been considered, but they all share one common
feature - the whole reason for nuclear reactions being considered in
the first place.  Reaction amoung light nuclei all involve energy releases
in the MeV range, and it is very difficult to find a way to conceal that
energy release.  Some fragment from the reaction products will have enough
kinetic energy to make it detectable directly or indirectly outside
the sample.  Neutrons just happen to be the first thing that most
experiments tried to detect, and unfortunately neutron detectors in the
hands of the uncritical user can generate lots of confusion.  Of course
the original screw-up involved an attempt to detect gamma rays, and it
is well documented that that didn't go very well either.
 
Dick Blue         "No radiation means no reaction!!!"
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 /  /  Reply to Jim Batka
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jim Batka
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 04:01:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Batka wants to know "What I really want to know ... has anyone taken the
results and looked for a theory that matches them."
 
Sorry, Jim, there are ***no*** results.  At least not that everyone will
agree to.  But that does not keep some of us from looking!  If anyone had
bullet proof measurements of protons or neutrons or photons or neutrinos (ha)
they would also be on their way to Stockholm.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Takahashi AND Frank Close message
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi AND Frank Close message
Date: 13 May 92 18:29:18 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199205131342.AA23826@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (Frank Close) writes:
>     ---much deleted---
>A final comment about the remnants of nuclear/chemical reactions. Tom Droege
>asks what chemical process gives 200 joules - my reading of your numbers Tom
>was 200+-200 joules (I dont have the original posting here to check, sorry).
>If so, then what significance is there? I am sure that your CDF crowd will not
>claim a top-quark discovery on a one-sigma effect! But if there is 200 joules,
>and if it is chemical then there is presumably some 10(21) eV's worth
>of PdH or PdD (or something) around. I am not a chemist and havent a clue
>on how to find evidence for such CHEMICAL "ash" but on this net one can
>learn a lot from others, so hope my ignorance will soon be less. I expect it
>is possible; e.g. Ray Davis detects a few hundred atoms of change in his
>solar neutrino expt, but that may be comparing chalk and cheese. In the
>multijoules scenario of palladium-hydrogen we are talking perhaps milligrams.
>
********************************************************
Dick Forman comments: I've always been bad at math so I hope that Frank Close
carefully checks my higher mathematics.
1 eV =1.6 x 10 ** -12  ergs according to my copy of Evans- Nuclear Physics.
1 Joule = 10 ** 7 ergs, as I remember.
then 1 Mev (as a mass difference) = 1.6 x 10 ** -13 Joules.
then 200 Joules (in MeV) =  200 Joules / 1.6 x 10 **-13 Joules per Mev
       or 126 x 10 ** 13 MeV.
If we take a big fusion reaction of say 20 or so MeV per pair (e.g. 6Li + d)
Then we should require 126/20 x 10 ** 13 pairs or about 10 ** 14 atoms
Avogadro's number is 6.623 x 10 ** 23 atoms/mole
Thus 200 Joules requires about 1 nanomole
If we take a mass of 100 for the reacting products (Pd + d, as Close suggests)
then 100 nanograms are required. Or 0.1 micrograms or .00001 milligrams.
Frank, we disagree on the math. Please help me to find my error(s).
*********************************************
>I do know that if it is a NUCLEAR process that it is possible to detect
>remnants at the level required to explain joules of heat. This is independent
>of whatever miracle you choose to invoke as the heat producing mechanism.
>Whether it is dd fusion, ddd miracles, d+Pd reactions, p+d,
>d+Li6 or whatever you choose; there is an order of magnitude argument that
>gives roughly 10(12) or more reactions (and hence products) per joule.
>This is simply that the energy ultimately comes from the release of nuclear
>binding energy; the order of magnitude of this B.E. is typically on the MeV.
>scale. So there are fewer transmutations per joule for nuclear than chemical
>but, even so,the numbers are easily detectable. People have looked and not
>found; please TB's tell me - what have we overlooked?  To my knowledge
>n,p,t,He3,He4, changes in Li6 (the farcical story of the great Li6 explanation
>of CNF is a must in JH's book), changes in Pd isotopic abundances have all
>been examined. Tom - when you have rod(s) that give significant net output,
>will you be arranging for an assay to be done for this "ash"?
>
>I will now leave the airwaves clear for Dick Forman.
*************************
Dick Forman says: thank you, Frank.
There are approximately 10 x ** 15 atoms per square centimeter in the surface
layer of a material. The 200 joules is 10% of that surface layer. Since every
2 Angstroms or so we have another layer and an Angstrom is 10 ** -8 cm.
It's simple to say we could find these atoms if we could just peel the surface
like a potato.
Then you dissolve the peel and look for the products at the nanogram level.
You're right Frank, it is conceptually easy.
Having spent 23 years as a solid state physicist specializing in the detection
of impurities in solids and their effects, I can assure you this is not easy in
practice. I will say the best ways are indirect and are tried and true having
been invented over 50 years ago.
Dick Forman philosophizes:
Those of us who grew up as militant atheists and then mellowed into cynical
agnostics are always glad to engage in debates with True Believers of the
Theist (Aquinas) type. It sharpens our wit.
***********
Dick Forman is done for today. He has to work for a living and lunch hour is
over.  Can't stay late as Measure for Measure is at 8 pm at the Shakespeare
Theatre and we have tickets. More Friday--day off for vacation tommorrow.  That
should allow plenty of time for commentary.  Enjoy.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Resonant Isomeric Reaction between 10 B and 1 H??
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Resonant Isomeric Reaction between 10 B and 1 H??
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 19:19:37 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

Even though I said I was through for the day one of the other members of
the Long Island Project came to me with his latest results. The results
suggest that an allowed parity and spin nuclear reaction between 10 B
and 1 H yielding 11 C should exist in the Sun.  Since John Bachall told
me on Friday last that he was too busy to even read Dr. Morrison's masterful
summary of solar neutrino physics, being a Theist or above, I am hoping
there is someone out there in NetLand who can help me. What does this
reaction that I claim to be a resonant one, do to the flux of neutrinos?
Neutrino emission energy from this reaction should be very low.
Friday we'll keep looking for other reactions in the sun.
That's all for today, folks.
Dick Forman
 
***** A theory that predicts something is fundamentally different from a theory
 that fits existing experimental data to a model----Dick Forman (1972)
**********************************
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 /  Bollinger /  Misc.
     
Originally-From: Terry Bollinger <71033.536@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc.
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 13:29:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: internet:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Hi folks,
 
> Anyhow, Twisted Terry has just sent me a new version of it, and I have
> now put it into that archived file.
 
..and just think, folks, this is a guy I exchange Christmas presents for
our kids with, and for whom am trying to figure out how to Americanize his
name to use as a middle name for our next son, who is due ANY day/hour now!
 
Anywho, thanks sincerely for putting it on file, Dieter.  This compuserve
is nice but lousy (and a bit expensive) for sending out multiple copies
of large files.
 
....
 
Speaking of cost:  Mr. Forman, could you PLEASE try restrict the length
of those quotes?  It costs a few of us some real money, and adds absolutely
nothing to whatever it is you are trying to say.  My guess is that you
are using a Macintosh or something that makes editing of quotes a bit
difficult, but surely you can get some help in how to do that at MITRE?
I have several good friends there whom I'd be glad to send over to help
out if it is just a computer usage problem.
 
Feel free to read T.O.R. if you have a burning desire to do so -- it's
available now, as Dieter has mentioned -- but if you do I would please
ask you not to quote anything more than a sentence or two or perhaps a
paragraph from it on the net, preferably as part of some specific point
or criticism you wish to make.
 
....
 
Regarding Dieter's comments on T.O.R.:  T.O.R remains for me a rather
embarassing result of my attempt to apply some heuristic reasoning ideas
of mine to a difficult physical problem that at least appears to violate
known physical laws.  Despite a very interesting recent T.O.R. success in
predicting heavy particle band phenomena in metal lattices, I remain at a
loss at what to make of my own final inference:  If trans-chemical heat
anomolies in Pd/D systems are real, then it must necessarily imply total
annihilation (E=mc^2) of entire deuterium atoms.
 
Embarassing or not, has everybody got what I'm saying?  I'm saying that if
truly inexplicable heat in palladium hydride systems is real, then atomic
deuterium and/or hydrogen is being converted directly into pure heat energy
-- and it's being done in systems small enough to hold your hand.  No fusion,
no dangerous byproducts, and no exotic transmutations of elements.  Without
any exaggeration, a real-to-life system that could convert deuterium into
heat energy in that fashion would make the matter-antimatter engines of the
Starship Enterprise look as obsolete as steam powered automobiles.
 
It would also mean that unification of the strong and electroweak forces
-- a seemingly impossible goal not even remotely hoped for in the planned
superconducing supercollider -- can be achieved with a chunk of palladium,
some deuterium, and a battery (and apparently a  *whole lot* of luck!).
Not exactly standard solid state QM, hmm?
 
And, lastly, it would mean that some highly novel mechanism for distributing
energy from a local annihilation into the crystal lattice as heat must
exist.  Actually, that part of that may be a bit more plausible, since the
well-known Mossbauer effect already does something uncomfortably similar --
it differentiates between the momentum and energy of a gamma ray in a most
curious fashion, spreading the momentum component throughout the structure
of an entire crystal while depositing (or removing) the energy component of
the gamma photon in a single very localized nucleus.  A very odd effect,
that, despite that fact that it is well quantified mathematically and has
been very extensively studied.  Once sort of wonders what the answers are
to questions such as how quickly the momentum is distributed throughout
the entire crystal when the crystal is, say, a light-second in length...)
 
I'm supposed to take all of THAT seriously?
 
....
 
My own discouragement at my own conclusions aside, I am nonetheless quite
adamant (and totally urepentent) about the central point of T.O.R.:  If you
are one of those who sincerely believes in the existence of trans-chemical
heat anomolies in palladium hydride system, you are PULLING YOUR OWN LEGS
big time if you think you are going to do any better than T.O.R (or some-
thing every bit as outrageous).
 
E.g., if I read even one more logical equivalent of "Gee... maybe the
nuclear products are just... HARD TO FIND!!" on this net, I do believe I
will barf on my Amiga.  It's been over three years now -- has it ever
occurred to some of you that you are NEVER going to find your blasted
"fusion" byproducts, even if your trans-chemical Pd/D heat IS real?  Ditto
for any more "proofs" that heat production is not real because "no nuclear
byproducts are produced."  That's a tad like saying that I cannot possibly
have burned by hand on my stove, because many very thorough, expensive, and
highly detailed experiments have proved beyond any doubt that there are not
sufficient levels of radioactive isotopes in my stove to account for such
high heat levels.  Gee, how insightful...
 
Frank Close is (are you still speaking to me Frank?) has a much more
plausible outlook in his latest item, which appears from Dieter's abstract
to be that maybe there IS odd heat production, but really just ordinary
chemical heat disguised as something novel by the peculiarities of palladium
hydride systems.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time -- e.g., for a
quite interesting example take a peek at the 30 year old Nature article that
I included in its entirety in my T.O.R. references.  That one extensively
discusses "heat drifts" in powdered-Pd and hydrogen systems, and some of
the descriptions sound suspiciously familiar.  (That article may also be
a good counter to my H band ideas, since powdered Pd would be a crummy
medium for such effects.)
 
....
 
A question, which I would implore that whoever answers it answers it
politely:  What in the world is behind the recent animosity towards MIT's
Hagelstein?  Is he banging on the coherency drum again?  Coherency of
WHAT?  (Ref: "A Pox on Virtual Neutrons!" -- anyone remember that missive?)
 
....
 
A parting problem:  What (if anything) is wrong with the argument given
below?  (Posting to the group is preferred over emailing directly to me.)
 
Please note that an argument is not the same thing as a conclusion -- it
is simply a way of stating my assertions as to the implied consequences
should the premise clearly and undeniably be proved true.  I think at this
point that at-will reproducibility at any location around the globe would
serve as a good minimum for proving this sort of premise, wouldn't you?
 
   If    trans-chemical energy production without directly comparable levels
         of nuclear byproducts is a real physical effect
 
   Then {
                   a. Energy is being produced out of nothing, or
          Or {
 
                   b. Sufficiently large units of mass (e.g., entire nuclei
                      or entire atoms) are being converted into heat energy
                      to make the byproducts issue irrelevant
              And
                   c. An extraordinarily efficient (and possibly self-
                      contradictory) mechanism must exist for transforming
                      the high-level energy produced by local destruction
                      of such mass units into low-level heat distributed
                      over a much larger macroscopic region.
             }
         }
 
Puthoff appears to addressing (a), and I personlly have no further comments
on that one.  (There was some excellent commentary here a few days ago
on Puthoff's article, I might note.)
 
Well now, does it look logical?  Or illogical?  Why?  How?  (Please post
any comments to this group, rather than emailing them to me.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger  (71033.536@compuserve.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden536 cudfn cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 / Shoshana Billik /  Philosophies of Physicists
     
Originally-From: billiksh@milton.u.washington.edu (Shoshana Billik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 13 May 92 11:07:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

 
 
     Hello everyone! I'm new to Internet and to this newsgroup, so please
bear with me here. My name is Shoshana Billik, and I am a first - year
student at The Evergreen State College, a public alternative liberal
arts institution in Olympia, Washington. I have a temporary academic
Internet account through the University of Washington.
     For a class independent study project winter quarter, I studied
quantum physics and some of its philosophical implications. One of the
books I read was The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra, which details
the holistic, Eastern outlook on reality toward which quantum physics
points. I found myself wondering how many physicists subscribed to
these spiritual ideas, and in general, what are the philosophical views
of physicists today.
     My independent study project for spring quarter, entitled
" Philosophies of Physicists, " is an attempt to answer these questions.
For the project, I have made up the following questionnaire, which I
would greatly appreciate your taking the time to complete. I will be
using the information from the questionnaires to make some
conclusions about how the physicists surveyed view reality and what
kind of work done in physics has influenced these beliefs.
     I will be giving a final oral presentation to the class at the end of
the quarter. I will also have a written report. If you choose to fill out
the questionnaire, I will e-mail you a copy of this report. Responses to
the questions will be treated with respect and confidentiality. I will
not use names in my final report. I may perhaps refer to, for example,
"  A physicist at such - and - such institution, " but I will
state no names.
     It would be helpful for me if the surveys could be returned to me as
soon as possible, so I can have time to think about the answers and to
draw conclusions from them. I would like to get the surveys in if
possible, by no later than the end of May.
     I have also included a waiver statement, which is required by my
school for any kind of research involving human subjects. Your response
to the survey will be treated as evidence of your having read and
understood the paragraph and consented to the conditions of the
project.
      The time and energy you put into filling out this survey is greatly
appreciated. If you know of any other physicists who would be
interested in filling out this questionnaire, please let them know about
it.
 
 
 
                                                    Thank you,
                                                    Shoshana Billik
 
 
 
Please email completed questionnaires to:    billiksh@u.washington.edu.
 
 
 
 
                     PHILOSOPHIES OF PHYSICISTS
 
Please answer these questions in as much as you detail as you can.
 
1. Where are you currently employed, and what is your position there?
 
2. What other physics-related positions have you held in the past?
When and where were these jobs?
 
3. Have you done any work in the field of quantum physics? If so, what?
 
4. Have you read The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra and / or seen his
movie, " Mindwalk " ? If so, do you find validity in his ideas? Please
explain.
 
5. Are you familiar with the holistic implications of quantum
physics? These implications include such ideas as how the universe is
interconnected on a subatomic level and the way in which you cannot
observe something without changing it. Do you find any validity in
these ideas? Please explain.
 
6. Do you see anything spiritual or mystical about the implications of
quantum physics? Please explain.
 
7. Do you follow any religious or spiritual path or practice? If so,
please describe it.
 
8. Do you consider yourself to be more of a scientific
realist / objectivist or a relativist / subjectivist? Why? I'm defining
scientific realist / objectivist as someone who believes reality has an
absolute structure independent of thought. A relativist / subjectivist
would mean someone who believes the nature of reality is relative or
subject to the observer's influence or thought.
 
9. What were your views on the nature of reality before you became a
physicist? What are your beliefs now?
 
10. Has your work in physics affected your views on the nature of
reality? If so, how?
 
11. From your work in physics, have you discovered any philosophical or
spiritual ideas which have been helpful to you in your everyday life? If
so, please explain what these are, how you discovered them, and what
effect they have had on your life.
 
 
 
 
                        WAIVER STATEMENT
 
 
 
     I agree to complete the survey on my personal philosophies for
Shoshana Billik's independent study project, entitled " Philosophies of
Physicists. " I understand that my responses to the questions on the
questionnaire will be included in the final presentation given to the
class. I may be referred to as " A physicist at such - and - such
institution, " but my actual name will not be used in this final
presentation.
     I realize I will receive a copy of the final, written report on the
project. Should I experience any grievances as a result of my
participation in this project, the person to contact is Les Wong,
academic dean at The Evergreen State College, Library 2211, Olympia,
WA 98505; phone number: (206) 866-6000, extension 6742.
     I understand that the purpose of this project is to contribute to
personal learning. I understand my participation in this project is
voluntary, and I am under no obligation to fill out the survey. I have
read and understood the preceding statement and voluntarily agree to
participate in the project.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbilliksh cudfnShoshana cudlnBillik cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Experiment
Date: 13 May 92 12:23:19 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <11943@mindlink.bc.ca>
Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
 
>> Frank Smith writes:
>>
>> Tom, I am not surprised that you have a gas leak with the numbers you were
>> quoting.
>>
>> We found that hydrogen leaked from PVC tubing (what you call tygon) quite
>> fast compared with higher molecular weight gases like nitrogen or oxygen.
>> ...
>>  We tried Teflon because we thought that inert as indeed it is, but hydrogen
>> escapes from Teflon even faster then from tygon, whereas nitrogen did not
>> escape that fast.
>> ...
>> you are, you should dispense with tygon - even rubber may be better when you
>> are trying to keep in hydrogen.
>        Also perhaps worth considering are:
>
>1) Polyethylene tubing (chemically related to teflon tubing, which is
>polytetrafluoroethylene), but perhaps with different permeability properties.
>diameter will lower the surface area through which gas can pass.  Gluing is
>difficult, so mechanical joints are needed for connections.
>2) Fluorinated rubber tubing (black, different than teflon).
>very rigid plastic which is highly chemically resistant.  It is sold by
>companies who handle supplies for high pressure liquid chromatography.  The
>standard tubing is 1/16 inch in diameter, with a bore of 0.01 inch.  It can be
>attached to the same swagelock fittings as stainless steel 1/16 inch tubing,
>and offers a reasonably flexible alternative to stainless steel.
>--
>Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Dick Forman says: My own recommendation would be silicone rubber tubing.  Many
of the others put plasticizers or oxygen into the system.  As I remember
Dick Keller, now at LANL, but then at NBS, used my Cary 14R to check on the
killer effects of singlet oxygen in laser dyes where the compounds introduced
into the dye stream came from the pump hoses. Sulfur comes out of any natural
vulcanized rubber product and it shows up in any gas that goes through the tube
.  For ultimate purity use x-rings made by ???? that are teflon covered. They r
eplace o-rings.  Use Kel-F grease (teflon).
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Which Reaction in CNF?
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Which Reaction in CNF?
Date: 13 May 92 12:15:04 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May12.124935.1459@desire.wright.edu>
jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>My primary question is during these CNF experiments are researchers observing
>_any_ neutrons, protons, or photons?  If so, have they measured the flux
>and energy levels?  If all of this has happened, why can't they match known
>(leave the last 'known' out) these particle energies to known nuclear
>reactions?
>
>Please no flames, my questions have been asked in good faith and are not
>meant as criticism on anyones experimental methods.
>
>Jim Batka
>Aeronautical Engineer
>
>P.S.  What I was getting at, is could it be an O + O, O + Pd, D + O, D + Pd
>or other nuclear reaction going on instead of the D + D, D + D + D, of other
>hydrogen isotope reaction going on?
>
Dick Forman says: Yes.  But he's been saying that for three years.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Which Reaction in CNF?
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Which Reaction in CNF?
Date: 13 May 92 12:18:07 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May12.125839.1460@desire.wright.edu>
jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
 
>> If all of this has happened, why can't they match known
>> (leave the last 'known' out) these particle energies to known nuclear
>> reactions?
>>
>I should probably add the Li + D, Li + O, etc.
>
>What I really want to know is rather than making a theory about the reaction
>and then looking for positive results, has anyone taken the results and
>looked for a theory that matches them.  As one person stated no 3.5MeV
>neutrons have been found.  Well what gamma rays and neutrons where observed?
>Do these match any know nuclear reactions from above (or others likely from
>the elements in the experiment)?
>
>Jim Batka
>
>
Dick Forman says: Thats what I said in my article in Fusion Facts in
January 1990.  Check the older mail for details of posting of its contents.
Until I heard Takahashi's talk at MIT I did not have the data to do what
you note above.
Dick Forman 13 May 1992
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 / Jon Webb /  Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: 13 May 92 18:09:10 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <199205131342.AA23826@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> writes:
 
   I do know that if it is a NUCLEAR process that it is possible to detect
   remnants at the level required to explain joules of heat. This is independent
   of whatever miracle you choose to invoke as the heat producing mechanism.
 
Actually, not.  Bollinger's mechanism doesn't produce any ash, so far
as I can tell.  In Bollinger's theory the deuterium atoms get
delocalized in the palladium, just as electrons get delocalized in
metals.  They get stretched so far apart that, in fact, the strong
force can't extend over them.  They then collapse into electrons,
positrons, a neutrino or so, and a photon or two.  No ash.  I don't
know if this theory should be taken seriously or not, but Bollinger
seems to have taken it seriously enough to find evidence that the
required delocalization could take place. -- J
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Neutron Amplifier.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron Amplifier.
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 18:37:09 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

Anyone care to stick a piece of Uranium next to the operational
Pd electrode, it might be easier to see correlations, if any, between
current and Neutron flux.
 
As far as high-order miracles, this is the only kind I like.
 
I understand those obdurate TBs are giving everybody a headache. I
wonder what DisTBs would have people like Tom Droege do, stop what
he is doing? I mean really! He is not using anybody's money but his
own. Fusion aside, I am myself an agnostic in this, we need people
who believe that this CNF works. If noone believed then noone would
be investigating this phenomenon. Even if it turns out that this is
just a battery with high energy density storage, it is still worth-
while investigating. We cannot possibly expect Frank to spend two
years of his life tinkering with stuff that he does not believe works.
So, I think the current situation is perfectly acceptable, those who
believe play with the stuff, those who do not try to find reasons
why it does not and cannot work. In the end if there is nothing then
TBs will have spent money and years of their lifes after a futile
pursuit, if there is something then DisTBs will be unhappy that they
lost an oppotunity and look foolish. Seems to me it is like a stock
market; choose correctly and win, choose incorrectly and loose, and
then there are those who never play.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 /  Britz /  CLOSE NOT A CLOSED CHAPTER
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CLOSE NOT A CLOSED CHAPTER
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 13:35:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello (breathlessly) all,
 
I have it from a Usually Reliable Source that Frank Close's book is to be
out soon
 
>in paperback with
>new revelations and is really excitingly fantastic and a must etc etc
 
(I am quoting the URS); so while you thought you had spent enough money on the
first edition, if you really care about cold fusion and future generations
etc, you'll have to spend some more money soon. If I have phrased this really
well, I myself might score a free copy, ho ho.
 
As you know, Frank delved quite deeply into the "gamma spectrum affair" and
expected (got?) legal action as a result. I know that he has spent a lot of
energy getting to the bottom of this story, and I am guessing (no more) that
he will tell us a lot more about this in the new book. Among other things, I
expect. So order your copy today.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Neutron Amplifier.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Amplifier.
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 20:37:12 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May13.183709.160111@cs.cmu.edu>
alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>As far as high-order miracles, this is the only kind I like.
>
>I understand those obdurate TBs are giving everybody a headache. I
>wonder what DisTBs would have people like Tom Droege do, stop what
>he is doing? I mean really! He is not using anybody's money but his
>own. Fusion aside, I am myself an agnostic in this, we need people
>who believe that this CNF works. If noone believed then noone would
>be investigating this phenomenon. Even if it turns out that this is
>just a battery with high energy density storage, it is still worth-
>while investigating. We cannot possibly expect Frank to spend two
>years of his life tinkering with stuff that he does not believe works.
>So, I think the current situation is perfectly acceptable, those who
>believe play with the stuff, those who do not try to find reasons
>why it does not and cannot work. In the end if there is nothing then
>TBs will have spent money and years of their lifes after a futile
>pursuit, if there is something then DisTBs will be unhappy that they
>lost an oppotunity and look foolish. Seems to me it is like a stock
>market; choose correctly and win, choose incorrectly and loose, and
>then there are those who never play.
Waiting for the phoe to ring after office hours Dick Forman encounters
this message.
Although ethnic jokes are out of style, to me the following joke seems
better in Patois.
When talking about the Papal Encyciclical on Birth Control for Catholics
an older Italian lady was overheard to say:  If you no playa the game you no
makea da rules.
Apologies to my many Italian friends.
If only that were the way things were in life.
Dick Forman
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 /  /  Adventure
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Adventure
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 18:32:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I note from the news yesterday that there is a traffic jam atop Mt. Everest.
At least four different groups climed to the summit.  Apparently they had
to schedule time on the Mt.
 
All those people spending all that money for "Adventure" when it is available
in their basements for less than the price of a mountain tent.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: Neutron Amplifier.
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Amplifier.
Date: 14 May 92 01:54:15 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1992May13.183709.160111@cs.cmu.edu>, by alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn):
 
 
> So, I think the current situation is perfectly acceptable, those who
> believe play with the stuff, those who do not try to find reasons
> why it does not and cannot work.
 
At the risk of being redundant, what you describe is a generate and
test algorithm. Much of what is interesting to me, things like life
for example, seem to operate on a generate and test principle.  One
process generates candidates, another process test them. Add in feed
back of the characteristics of the survivers into the generating
process and you get an even more powerful process.
 
All in all it works pretty well. Let's keep it up.
 
			Bob P.
 
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Pendleton              | As an engineer I hate to hear:            |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.13 / R Butte /  Re: Neutron Amplifier.
     
Originally-From: raymond@locus.com (R.R. Butte)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Amplifier.
Date: 13 May 92 23:40:44 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

Sorry, but i just can't let this sort of drivel slide by...
In article <1992May13.183709.160111@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>
> own. Fusion aside, I am myself an agnostic in this, we need people
> who believe that this CNF works. If noone believed then noone would
> be investigating this phenomenon. Even if it turns out that this is
Belief?  What happened to scientific curiosity?
 
> just a battery with high energy density storage, it is still worth-
> while investigating. We cannot possibly expect Frank to spend two
Why do you think there needs to be some device at the end of this rainbow?
Science has to make money, fast, to be worth pursuing?
 
> years of his life tinkering with stuff that he does not believe works.
> So, I think the current situation is perfectly acceptable, those who
> believe play with the stuff, those who do not try to find reasons
> why it does not and cannot work. In the end if there is nothing then
Then what?  Who knows what will come out of good science?  LOTS of stuff
gets discovered when good scientists are busy looking for something else.
 
> TBs will have spent money and years of their lifes after a futile
> pursuit, if there is something then DisTBs will be unhappy that they
Science is futile?  Science is supposed to make someone "happy" ??
 
> lost an oppotunity and look foolish. Seems to me it is like a stock
> market; choose correctly and win, choose incorrectly and loose, and
WRONG!  Choose to play, and you will almost always LEARN something.
If you want to make money, go play the market...
 
What does BELIEF really have to do with FACTS or real science?
Objective reality seems to exist quite independent of our belief structures.
Good science requires critical thinking, objectivity, and an open mind.
Blind prejudice, either for or against, is a sure sign of ignorance.
-rb
 
--
`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-`*=-
Raymond Rashid Butte               Locus Computing Corporation
raymond@locus.com          		less heat... more light
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenraymond cudfnR cudlnButte cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / Frank Smith /  Re: Takahashi AND Frank Close message
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi AND Frank Close message
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 13:39:21 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <167E6CBC8.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <199205131342.AA23826@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
>FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (Frank Close) writes:
>>A final comment about the remnants of nuclear/chemical reactions. Tom Droege
>>asks what chemical process gives 200 joules - my reading of your numbers Tom
>>was 200+-200 joules (I dont have the original posting here to check, sorry).
>>
>********************************************************
>Dick Forman comments: I've always been bad at math so I hope that Frank Close
>carefully checks my higher mathematics.
>1 eV =1.6 x 10 ** -12  ergs according to my copy of Evans- Nuclear Physics.
>1 Joule = 10 ** 7 ergs, as I remember.
>then 1 Mev (as a mass difference) = 1.6 x 10 ** -13 Joules.
>then 200 Joules (in MeV) =  200 Joules / 1.6 x 10 **-13 Joules per Mev
>       or 126 x 10 ** 13 MeV.
>If we take a big fusion reaction of say 20 or so MeV per pair (e.g. 6Li + d)
>Then we should require 126/20 x 10 ** 13 pairs or about 10 ** 14 atoms
>Avogadro's number is 6.623 x 10 ** 23 atoms/mole
>Thus 200 Joules requires about 1 nanomole
>If we take a mass of 100 for the reacting products (Pd + d, as Close suggests)
>then 100 nanograms are required. Or 0.1 micrograms or .00001 milligrams.
>Frank, we disagree on the math. Please help me to find my error(s).
>*********************************************
Dick, I've checked your maths and find that your 20 MeV fusion requires 6 x
10**13 atoms, which is 0.1 nanomole by my reckoning, i.e. 10 nanograms,
rather than your result of 1 nanomole or 100 ng.
This means that for 200 J of heat one would be looking for 0.01 micrograms
or 0.000 000 01 grams of ash as Frank Close calls it.
 
However, Frank makes a good point that I am sure Tom Droege agrees with that
200 J +/- 200 J is not a significant support for the occurrence of anything
and certainly not cold nuclear fusion. The measurements have to reveal
something that is significantly larger than the std deviation of them.
 
Frank R. Smith
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / Frank Smith /  Re: Safety
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Safety
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 14:40:40 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <920513125415.20a03d03@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>In a private message, Douglas Morrison writes to me about these postings, "Am
>enjoying your series of messages on the net.  As you know I prefer for myself
>to try and check things very carefully before publishing, but in the present
>situation have noticed that careful papers tend to get easily ignored (for
>example the very carefully written and much corrected paper by Fritz Will and
>the GE people is a very important - saying F&P's original paper is no proof of
>Cold Fusion, but there has been absolutely no response).  So it may well turn
>out that your way of continuous communication is more effective."
>
Tom or Doug Morrison: can you give me an address, telephone or FAX number
where I can reach Fritz Will to see a copy of this paper, which has not yet
been published but seems to be circulated privately? I have written to one of
the authors at GE but got no response so far. I too found problems with F&P's
second, longer, paper, which is why I favour investigations in closed
systems.
>
>I would like to hear what others think about the publication of mistakes,
>disasters, and other errors.  Most do not do it.
>
Tom, I think this is the right way to go, with an open mind. That is why I hope
that our comments are helpful to you in your attempt to clarify this issue once
and for all. The comments of others about various types of tubing are useful:
if I may comment further, I think that polyethylene is inert as Bruce Dunn  and
Paul Dietz suggest and that it contains no plasticizer. But it certainly is
stiff. Fluorinated rubber sounds good and preferable to vulcanized rubber, from
which sulfur is likely to come out. I wouldn't use natural rubber myself and I
wonder whether silicone rubber tubing is a good idea because silicones can flow
over other surfaces, like your electrodes and partially block them off. Dick
Forman is right to worry about plasticizers being introduced which certainly
can occur with tygon but is unlikely with polyethylene of poly tetrafluoro
ethylene (Teflon).
Frank R. Smith
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / William Johnson /  Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 14:59:03 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <WEBB+.92May13130910@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon
 Webb) writes:
>In article <199205131342.AA23826@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> writes:
>
>   I do know that if it is a NUCLEAR process that it is possible to detect
>   remnants at the level required to explain joules of heat. This is
 independent
>   of whatever miracle you choose to invoke as the heat producing mechanism.
>
>Actually, not.  Bollinger's mechanism doesn't produce any ash, so far
>as I can tell.  In Bollinger's theory the deuterium atoms get
>delocalized in the palladium, just as electrons get delocalized in
>metals.  They get stretched so far apart that, in fact, the strong
>force can't extend over them.  They then collapse into electrons,
>positrons, a neutrino or so, and a photon or two.  No ash.
 
I think Terry, who has a healthy sense of amusement at himself and cold fusion,
will be quite entertained at the notion of his thoughts being promoted to the
status of a "theory."  [BTW, Terry, sorry I missed you on my trip to your neck
of the woods last month; only had time for one dinner engagement, and already
was committed to a different one ...]  In any event, Jon, you're missing
something.
 
Positron production results in *extremely* easily-detected "ash" in the form
of a pair of 511-keV gamma rays, produced when the positron annihilates with an
electron.  These are a cinch for gamma-ray spectroscopy to pick up, and they
are absolutely diagnostic of positron production (assuming the spectrometer
has good enough energy resolution to distinguish between them and a nearby
background line).  It goes without saying that no surplus of 511-keV photons
has ever been observed in a cold-fusion experiment, at least any that I know
of.  (We certainly didn't see any in ours, and I spent a *lot* of time looking
for oddities in the gamma spectra ...)
 
Incidentally, exactly the same phenomenon -- positron annihilation -- can be
used as a diagnostic for the 23.5-MeV photons currently being discussed in a
parallel thread.  Photons with energies above 1.022 MeV interact with matter
partly by calling electron/positron pairs into being.  Subsequent annihilation
of the positron produces the familiar 511-keV photons, which are detectable
even by gamma-ray detectors that wouldn't recognize the 23.5-MeV photon itself.
 
All told, I will vigorously defend Frank Close's statement regarding "ashes,"
as long as one includes neutrons and gammas as "ashes" and makes the
appropriate real-time measurements -- which the most careful (and negative)
experiments have all done.
 
--
Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / Jon Webb /  Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: 14 May 92 17:53:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992May14.145903.14936@newshost.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William
 Johnson) writes:
 
   I think Terry, who has a healthy sense of amusement at himself and cold
 fusion,
   will be quite entertained at the notion of his thoughts being promoted to the
   status of a "theory."
 
I didn't mean to anoint Terry Bollinger as the next Nobel Prize winner
by calling his musings a theory.  It's a perfectly convenient and
meaningful term.
 
   Positron production results in *extremely* easily-detected "ash" in the form
   of a pair of 511-keV gamma rays, produced when the positron annihilates with
 an
   electron.  These are a cinch for gamma-ray spectroscopy to pick up, and they
   are absolutely diagnostic of positron production (assuming the spectrometer
   has good enough energy resolution to distinguish between them and a nearby
   background line).  It goes without saying that no surplus of 511-keV photons
   has ever been observed in a cold-fusion experiment, at least any that I know
   of.  (We certainly didn't see any in ours, and I spent a *lot* of time
 looking
   for oddities in the gamma spectra ...)
 
This is a very good response.  I wonder if any of the "successful" cold
fusion experiments have looked for 511 keV gamma rays?  I understand
that your experiment didn't find excess heat either, so perhaps you simply
didn't achieve the magic conditions for cold fusion to work, whatever
they are -- assuming they exist at all.
 
I also wonder about the number of 511 keV gamma rays that would be
produced according to Terry's theory, and how detectable they would
be.  If only one positron is produced/deuterium atom, the rest of the
energy going into low energy photons distributed over the lattice,
would the gamma rays still be detectable?
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 /  Close /   Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 13:27:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Forman questioned the amounts of ash in my calculation: Dick, your
 numbers and mine essentially agree but you have applied them to a NUCLEAR
process, where MILLIONS of eV (MeV) are released per atomic nucleus, whereas
I applied them to a CHEMICAL process with O(eV) per atom. So for the same
net number of joules a chemical process will use up about a million times MORE
stuff - hence your nanomoles versus my millimoles. (I am only concerned about
 orders of magnitudes; the precise numbers will depend on particular reactions,
but the qualitative point is confirmed by you - that nuclear and chemical are
around a factor of a million apart in the number of atoms involved and in the
amount of residue).
 
For hundreds of joules chemical is 10**20 and nuclear 10**14 atoms (+/-1 in
the exponent). For kilojoules (as claimed by some heat measurements) we are
talking correspondingly larger amounts. Now, 3He searches in rods that were
reported to produce 14kJ limited the 3He to less than 3 x 10**5 (yes, five)
atoms (material submitted to ERAB). 4He and other searches are similarly
damning for the nuclear thesis. Not only does this show that pd or dd fusion
are nugatory but it also illustrates how sensitive searches for NUCLEAR
remnants can be. They are sensitive to amounts much less than nanograms.
Is chemical sensitivity so much worse (millimoles here not nano Dick)?
 
I would like to hear from an expert as to what are the realistic possibilities
for quantifying amounts of "ash" from chemical reactions in the PdH or PdD
system. If we have a reliable answer to this, then we know for how long
Tom et al need to run a heat producing cell in order to "generate" enough
waste products that CHEMICAL assays are feasible (I believe that meaningful
NUCLEAR assays should be feasible even after rather low heat excursions; and
please note that here I am referring to searches for the ash as we already
know that there is no significant radiation).
 
 (BTW, to avoid con-fusion, note that D or H refer to the atoms
whereras d or p refer to their nuclei. H Bauer's review of THTH seemed to
think that switching between these was due to misprints whereas in the
page that he cited I was specifically referring to the ATOMIC-MOLECULAR
resonances in the muon catalysed fusion of the nuclei in DT MOLECULES. In
this present posting PdD would be chemical whereas Pd+d would be referring
to nuclear. When talking simultaneously about nuclear and chemical it
is important to maintain this convention or confusion will abound).
 
Now that everyone knows this convention it will be apparent that in my
posting where I asked TBs to answer  "what have we missed" I was referring to
NUCLEAR pathways given that every pathway involving d, p, He,  Li and Pd has
been eliminated. All of the incantations about "hiding the radiation"are
irrelevant in this regard. (And Jon Webb in FD294 - does Terry REALLY
assert that the d go into e-, e+ etc.? Whatever happened to baryon number
and electric charge conservation or are these further pieces of established
 physics you are willing to give up? Why not give up energy conservation
from the outset, it seems much more direct as an "explanation".
If we conveniently overlook these awkward impediments and believe that
d+Pd produces energy by turning baryons into positrons, what do you think
 becomes of those positrons? They annihilate with electrons and produce
 two  gamma rays at 0.5MeV - or is antimatter stable in palladium now?
With the possible exception of Stan Pons who has a rare ability to
find peaks at interesting energy values, and does not share his data widely,
there are none seen. Read my account of Salamon's experiments where he showed
that Pons' own experiment produced no gamma rays of this sort and received
legal threats when he dared to publish this).
 
Terry: nice to hear from you. Send me a direct mail and I will try the
reply mode; I had trouble reaching your new I.D. To amplify your posting
about me and heat: I keep an open mind about electrochemistry because I am
not expert enough to make a competent judgement between genuine chemical
heat bursts (energy storage battery) or miscalibration (no real effect).
However, my local advisers have always expressed concerns about the FP(H)
calibration arguments, so my first reaction to Douglas' posting of the GE
news was deja-vu.That is why I hope to see some worthwhile discussion
 and explanation of the GE paper when it is published. In the meantime
 I ask again - why do people ignore the experimental limits on nuclear
 "ash" and why are people with cells that they believe to be producing
 heat, so reluctant to look for the proof in the form of the nuclear ash?
 
Dick; if you reply to this please simply refer to the FD number and dont
repost it all. I will be flattered to read it all again but most others wont.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenUK cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 /  /  Reply to Frank Close
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Frank Close
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 20:22:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A New Reply to Frank Close
 
Frank again points out that it is hard to be believed when you measure
neutrons.  In my view the true neutron expert is so good at rejection (of
background) that he **never** measures a neutron.  So I give Frank the
neutrons.
 
Frank points out that my observed 200 joule pulses come with a +/- 200 joule
error limit and are therefore not significant.  The +/-200 joule error was the
total estimated energy balance error from the start of the run.  The "local"
(in time) error is more like 20 (one sigma) joules in an hour.  So I still
have to explain what goes "pop".  I have been looking at these "pops" for
three years.  The +/- 200 joule limit is significant to sort out a slow
chemical storage followed by a fast chemical release.  But I will live with
the +/- 200 error limit until I can make more sense of things than I presently
can.  If I ever measure the 20 watt per cc level that others have reported it
will be a 100 sigma measurement.  That will be significant to some of us.
 
If I ever get a cathode that I think shows heat, I promise to auction it here
to the highest bidder - whoever can make the best measurement.  I notice that
Takahashi has cut his up into 9 pieces and is passing them out.  Good for
Takahashi!  He is running an open experiment and telling us what is going on.
Until I have one that shows heat, there are lots of interesting cathodes that
I will be pleased to make available to anyone who wants to examine them.  I
have a number of cathodes that have been split like a sausage from loading
with D2.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / John Cobb /  Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
Date: 14 May 92 18:56:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992May13.183709.160111@cs.cmu.edu>, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
Orenshteyn) writes:
|>I understand those obdurate TBs are giving everybody a headache. I
|>wonder what DisTBs would have people like Tom Droege do, stop what
|>he is doing? I mean really! He is not using anybody's money but his
|>own. Fusion aside, I am myself an agnostic in this, we need people
|>who believe that this CNF works. If noone believed then noone would
|>be investigating this phenomenon. Even if it turns out that this is
|>just a battery with high energy density storage, it is still worth-
|>while investigating. We cannot possibly expect Frank to spend two
|>years of his life tinkering with stuff that he does not believe works.
|>So, I think the current situation is perfectly acceptable, those who
|>believe play with the stuff, those who do not try to find reasons
|>why it does not and cannot work. In the end if there is nothing then
|>TBs will have spent money and years of their lifes after a futile
|>pursuit, if there is something then DisTBs will be unhappy that they
|>lost an oppotunity and look foolish. Seems to me it is like a stock
|>market; choose correctly and win, choose incorrectly and loose, and
|>then there are those who never play.
I disagree. If you sell a stock and I buy it and it goes up in price, then
I made money and you lost it (or rather the opportunity to gain it). The
situation with "TBs and DisTbs", as you phrase it, is different. If I
believe, and work on it, then I gain if I find the holy grail. If I fail
then I only pay the costs of my time and equipment (which seems not so many
$$$ here). However, if I pooh-pooh the idea, then I look really dumb if I'm
wrong. I go down in history as an obstructor of progress, etc. If I'm right,
I gain nothing. Nobody gives Nobel prizes for debunking. In fact I
probably won't even be able to sell many books. I have no motivation to put
in my two cents worth if I think it is a fiasco, whether I base that on hard
science, gut feelings or rampant prejudice. I get no recognition or credit.
I often am the subject of ad hominem attack and character assainination. Thus
in normal science there is the peer review process where the community
has gotten together and said as a whole that referres will be drafted to
critically and objectively examine each others results with a skeptics
reserved judgement, but without obstinence.
 
Well, with cold fusion the process has gotten really FUBAR'ed. I lay the
blame straight at the feet of P&F (or whoever had the fool idea to call
the March press conference with WSJ and Financial Times of London). When
their particular results were shown to be sloppy and probably wrong, they
brought disrepute to the entire effort. Thyeir motives were questioned, and
with good reason. To the laymen and expert alike it appeared more like a
snake oil sales pitch then a scientific result. Now cold fusion is lumped in
with crop circles, polywater, and UFO's. Those who want to do legitimate
science (so I have heard) feel that journal editors are by in large reluctant
to accept for publication, anything that smells of cold fusion, just as they
are reluctant to accept papers explaining a derivation of reincarnation and
channelling from Supersymmetric Lagrangians. So when P&F opened Pandora's box
looking for Premetheus' gift, it seems their egos instead gave birth to a
stigma that continues to this day. I'm sure Sophocles could have written a
classic about it --- arrogance and hubris.
 
Aesop did, --- the boy who cried wolf.
 
So by circumventing peer review initially, this discipline has rendered
peer review, in this area, ineffective, perhaps forever. Much of the
discussion has polarized into such polemic phrases as "True Believer"
and skeptic. Most have dismissed CF out of hand and don't even follow
it anymore. Some of the few who do have circled the wagons in a paranoid
fashion, convinced that there is a conspiriacy of those with "budgets to
protect" to squash this result, just like the oil companies supposedly
squashed the mythical carbureutor that got 500 mpg. The calvary that has come
to the rescue has been in the form of Larouchies and other fringe elements
(with friends like these who needs enemies). So what about those few who
want to do legitimate honest science in this maelstorm? It is no wonder
that they canot be heard?
 
If I were a "DisTB" what would I have Tom Droege do? Well spending his
own time and money is fine and worthy. The DisTB has a justified prejudice
to discard CF results. It is the same as with UFO's. Just because the last
1000 times were hoaxes, does not imply the next one will be, but I'm
going to dismiss number 1001 out of hand without investigating, because
it is probably not worth my time. So how does Tom Droege (or the generalized
CF experimenter) get consideration? Well if the person sounding the alarm
about UFO #1001 brings ET to shake my hand, then I'll reconsider my
prejudices. In the same manner, when a CF experiment lights a light
bulb or turn a steam turbine, then the DisTB will probably reconsider.
So now because of a bad track record CF has to not only do the science, but
has to do more to be believed.
 
Heaven help poor Tom if he requires a big budget to light that light bulb.
 
John W. Cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / William Johnson /  Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 20:01:35 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <WEBB+.92May14125347@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon
 Webb) writes:
>In article <1992May14.145903.14936@newshost.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov
 (William Johnson) writes:
>
>   Positron production results in *extremely* easily-detected "ash" in the form
>   of a pair of 511-keV gamma rays, produced when the positron annihilates with
 an
>   electron.  These are a cinch for gamma-ray spectroscopy to pick up, and they
>   are absolutely diagnostic of positron production (assuming the spectrometer
>   has good enough energy resolution to distinguish between them and a nearby
>   background line). [...]
>I also wonder about the number of 511 keV gamma rays that would be
>produced according to Terry's theory, and how detectable they would
>be.  If only one positron is produced/deuterium atom, the rest of the
>energy going into low energy photons distributed over the lattice,
>would the gamma rays still be detectable?
 
Well, this can be explored in a back-of-the-envelope way.
 
Assume provisionally that each mystery reaction produces 20 MeV of energy,
which is decently near the 24 MeV for d+d = He-4.  (As will be seen, there
is nothing magic about this number, and it could be some orders of magnitude
higher [allowing for *real* magic] without affecting the overall result.)
At 1 MeV = 1.6x10^-6 ergs, it then follows that it takes about 3x10^4
mystery reactions to make an erg of energy.  (Note here *erg*, not *joule*.)
Under the assumed conditions of one positron per mystery reaction, we get
6x10^4 511-keV photons, since each positron annihilation produces precisely
two such photons.  A decent gamma-ray spectrometer will have an efficiency
for seeing 511-keV photons of something like 1x10^-3 at a distance of 25 cm
from the source, which is a reasonable distance for experimental setups
achievable in the lab.  It then follows that roughly 50 511-keV photons will
be observed per erg of energy produced by the mystery reaction, allowing for
a bit of shielding by the apparatus.
 
From here things get complicated, as the significance of a signal of this
magnitude is strongly dependent on how carefully one shields the gamma-ray
detector.  However, going back and rummaging through some old background
spectra from an unrelated project, I find that roughly 6000 511-keV photons
were seen (above the background produced by down-scattering of higher energy
photons) in a period of 12 *hours*.  These result from various things in the
detector's environment and constitute a "pedestal" upon which the mystery
reaction's photons would be superposed.  Note that this signal was seen with
*extremely* high statistical accuracy -- the uncertainty in the number seen
is about 4% -- and represents a near worst case, as on that experiment we
took no unusual precautions to reduce the background.  A truly careful
experiment (particularly one at sea level) could probably knock this down by
most of an order of magnitude.
 
So the bottom line is: to produce a signal sufficient to double the count
rate at 511 keV -- a signal that would be *enormously* statistically
significant -- it would suffice that the mystery reaction produce 120 ergs of
energy in *12 HOURS*.
 
In terms of energy release, that's about the equivalent of a dozen large flies
landing on the cold-fusion cell.
 
Beginning to get the picture?  These signals would be *easy* to see for any
cell producing measurable excess heat.  It is precisely this shoal upon which
all the heat claims thus far have foundered: no matter what nuclear "ash" you
are willing to accept -- no matter how improbable the reaction that produces
it -- the ash CAN be seen.  And it is the resolute failure of careful
experiments to see the ashes that has caused most nuclear physicists to lose
interest in cold fusion.
 
--
Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.14 / Alex Orentshyn /  Re: Adventure
     
Originally-From: alexo@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU (Alex Orentshyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Adventure
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 22:00:55 GMT
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <920514125427.2060327a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>I note from the news yesterday that there is a traffic jam atop Mt. Everest.
>At least four different groups climed to the summit.  Apparently they had
>to schedule time on the Mt.
>
>All those people spending all that money for "Adventure" when it is available
>in their basements for less than the price of a mountain tent.
>
>Tom Droege
 
You are right of course, but climbing the mountain is a socially acceptable
form of insanity while basement fusioneers are earning a ticket to Bellview.
 
Hopefully the federal government will decay and fall off before DoE
will clamp down on efforts to put oil companies out of business, our
friend George Bush won't like it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenalexo cudfnAlex cudlnOrentshyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 / John Cobb /  Re: Neutron Amplifier.
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Amplifier.
Date: 15 May 92 15:34:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992May13.234044.437444@locus.com>, raymond@locus.com (R.R.
Butte) writes:
|>Sorry, but i just can't let this sort of drivel slide by...
|>In article <1992May13.183709.160111@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu
(Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
|>>
|>> own. Fusion aside, I am myself an agnostic in this, we need people
|>> who believe that this CNF works. If noone believed then noone would
|>> be investigating this phenomenon. Even if it turns out that this is
|>Belief?  What happened to scientific curiosity?
|>
|>What does BELIEF really have to do with FACTS or real science?
|>Objective reality seems to exist quite independent of our belief structures.
|>Good science requires critical thinking, objectivity, and an open mind.
|>Blind prejudice, either for or against, is a sure sign of ignorance.
|>-rb
|>
Sorry, I can't let this sort of drivel slide by either. BELIEF does ooze
into science at every level. You may not like it, you may try to sweep
as much of it away as you can and you might even be virtous in doing so,
but don't EVER delude yourself by thinking science is some dispaasionate
expository process about the tru natural of reality. It just ain't.
 
The example Alex uses is right on target. WE need people who either
believe CNF works, or at least believe there is something there worth
looking at. If not it will never be studied. So belief enters into
science here right off the bat in how scientists choose what to study.
I don't believe a whit about any perpetual motion machine so I haven't
ever really examined them. I don't waste my time because I believe it
is impossible. Now I feel justified doing this, but if there is a
pertual motion machine, I'm gonna miss it (or I'll have to change my
attitude). Now if everyone believed the way I do and a perpetual
motion machine did exist in the "external reality" then we all would
miss it, so someone has to believe, at least a little, or even never
find what we look for. Now substitute CNF for pertual motion and you
will see why CNF needs believers, or at least agnostics willing to
investigate in order to go any further. Now one answer is that CNF has
already got a fair shake and was generally proved to be a hoax and is
no longer worthy of investigation. And that may be a valid opinion, but
there is no universal "external reality" justification of that. It is
also just a belief. So I think Alex is right.
 
If you want to talk about the inherent subjectivity of science, then
look at some Phil. of Science books for better explanations than I can
give ( Chalmer's <What is this thing called science> is a good start).
This subjectivity enters in when you look at your apparatus and decide
whether to believe you are measuring the effect you seek or not. When
you look at your scope, do you really believe that the signal represents
a gamma with energy 3.45 MeV? etc. It enters when you choose your experiment,
it enters when you decide to lump some anomaly into a generalized
"unexplained experimental error" category. It enters when you choose
your ansatz in the theory. What to leave in and what to leave out is not
an objective choice usually, at least not a priori. The best example I
can think of here is that when theoretical mechanics was being capped
off with some wonderful foundational work at the end of the last century
and early in this century, they found some really tough problems and
some interesting behaviour. However, the physics community turned in
another direction and started examining the beautiful science in
quantum and relativistic physics. It has really only been fairly recently
that people have begun to remove that prejudice against non-integrable
systems, eventhough Poincare knew about a century ago. Science is by no
means objective. In my opinion, what does separate it from pseudo-science,
etc. is that it has set up a process whereby the statements it proclaims
to be true are by in large very reliable but the standard is not so high
that it is overly restrictive and only has a handful of true statements.
 
 
John W. Cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
 
% External reality cannot exist.
% If it existed, there would be no way to have any knowledge about it.
% If one did have knowledge about reality, there is no way to communicate
%    that knowledge to anyone else.
%
%			Georgias' three propositions about reality.
%
% Man is the measure of all things
%			Protagorus
%
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 / Jon Webb /  Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 17:10:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

It turns out I misread Terry's theory.  For deuterium atoms, which are
electrically neutral of course, he has only an electron neutrino and
some low energy photons coming out:
 
  In the case of neutral deuterium, the only fundamental quantities that
  would need to be conserved in such a fraying process would be spin and
  mass.  The simplest particle for carrying off the spin would be an electron
  neutrino, while the simplest particles for carrying off the mass would be
  spin-cancelling pairs of photons.  If one assumes that photon pairs would
  be generated along the length of the original delocalized state, the result
  would be a remarkably low average energy that would closely resemble
  ordinary heat.
 
So even the positrons aren't being produced.  There is really, really
no ash -- unless you have a way of detecting electron neutrinos (10^10
of them per Joule of heat). -- J
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re:  Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 20:14:50 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <199205150854.AA12727@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> writes:
 
>Now that everyone knows this convention it will be apparent that in my
>posting where I asked TBs to answer  "what have we missed" I was referring to
>NUCLEAR pathways given that every pathway involving d, p, He,  Li and Pd has
>been eliminated. All of the incantations about "hiding the radiation"are
>irrelevant in this regard. (And Jon Webb in FD294 - does Terry REALLY
>assert that the d go into e-, e+ etc.? Whatever happened to baryon number
>and electric charge conservation or are these further pieces of established
> physics you are willing to give up? Why not give up energy conservation
>from the outset, it seems much more direct as an "explanation".
 
While neither charge or energy conservation has been challenged recently
in the standard models of physics (both are connected to well studied
local symmetries mediated by well studied gauge bosons and
non-conservation would tell us interesting and extraordinary things
about light and/or gravity) baryon conservation is on much less firm
ground.  In fact I would expect that dogma would tend more to be that
baryon number can not be conserved than that it is.  I remark on the
well funded search for baryon decay by the IMB collaboration and the
Kamakide (sp) detector, theories which suggest that the current baryon
number density of the universe can be explained by baryon
non-conservation and time reversal non-invariance.
 
This is not to imply that I think that baryon number non-conservation is
important in Cold Fusion as I could not think of reasonable mechanisms
about which we would not already know from other experiments.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Misc.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misc.
Date: 15 May 92 18:45:39 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920514055238_71033.536_CHJ22-1@CompuServe.COM>
Terry Bollinger <71033.536@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Speaking of cost:  Mr. Forman, could you PLEASE try restrict the length
>of those quotes?  It costs a few of us some real money, and adds absolutely
>nothing to whatever it is you are trying to say.  My guess is that you
>are using a Macintosh or something that makes editing of quotes a bit
>difficult, but surely you can get some help in how to do that at MITRE?
>I have several good friends there whom I'd be glad to send over to help
>out if it is just a computer usage problem.
>
>                                Terry Bollinger  (71033.536@compuserve.com)
>
Dick Forman replies: I try to leave nough on the screen so that I do not
have the problem that a later Re:RE:Re: message does not get mis-attributed to
me.  Sorry if you have to pay dues to be a member of the college. Most schools
are like that.  Do you have any idea how long it took me to delete the
not-worth-quoting parts of your very long tutorial (above-but deleted) using
all that is available to me on my mainframe screen editor--a line delete at
a time?  There is some sort of proverb about glass houses that comes to mind.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Takahashi and products and Message from Bill Johnson
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi and products and Message from Bill Johnson
Date: 15 May 92 18:56:27 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May14.145903.14936@newshost.lanl.gov>
mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
 
>>   I do know that if it is a NUCLEAR process that it is possible to detect
>>   of whatever miracle you choose to invoke as the heat producing mechanism.
>>Actually, not.  Bollinger's mechanism doesn't produce any ash, so far
>>as I can tell.  In Bollinger's theory the deuterium atoms get
>>delocalized in the palladium, just as electrons get delocalized in
>>metals.  They get stretched so far apart that, in fact, the strong
>>force can't extend over them.  They then collapse into electrons,
>>positrons, a neutrino or so, and a photon or two.  No ash.
>
>Positron production results in *extremely* easily-detected "ash" in the form
>electron.  These are a cinch for gamma-ray spectroscopy to pick up, and they
>are absolutely diagnostic of positron production (assuming the spectrometer
>has good enough energy resolution to distinguish between them and a nearby
>background line).  It goes without saying that no surplus of 511-keV photons
>has ever been observed in a cold-fusion experiment, at least any that I know
>of.  (We certainly didn't see any in ours, and I spent a *lot* of time looking
>for oddities in the gamma spectra ...)
>Incidentally, exactly the same phenomenon -- positron annihilation -- can be
>used as a diagnostic for the 23.5-MeV photons currently being discussed in a
>parallel thread.  Photons with energies above 1.022 MeV interact with matter
>partly by calling electron/positron pairs into being.  Subsequent annihilation
>of the positron produces the familiar 511-keV photons, which are detectable
>Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
>Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
>Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
>!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
Welcome back to the net, Bill.  Your namesake Bill Johnson of MITRE told
me of the time at MSU when he was mistaken for you when some visitors from over
seas were coming.  I completely agree with you the methods used for chemical an
alysis more than 50 years ago still work today.  The trick is knowing what it i
s you should set up to look for and what the detector actually is and is not
sensitive to.  Pleease read some of my older recent postings to the net and giv
e me comments.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi miracles and nuclear-chemical waste. Msg from Frank
Date: 15 May 92 19:23:56 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <WEBB+.92May15121008@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon
 Webb) writes:
>It turns out I misread Terry's theory.  For deuterium atoms, which are
>electrically neutral of course, he has only an electron neutrino and
>some low energy photons coming out:
>
>  In the case of neutral deuterium, the only fundamental quantities that
>  would need to be conserved in such a fraying process would be spin and
>  mass.  The simplest particle for carrying off the spin would be an electron
>  neutrino, while the simplest particles for carrying off the mass would be
>  spin-cancelling pairs of photons.  If one assumes that photon pairs would
>  be generated along the length of the original delocalized state, the result
>  would be a remarkably low average energy that would closely resemble
>  ordinary heat.
>
>So even the positrons aren't being produced.  There is really, really
>no ash -- unless you have a way of detecting electron neutrinos (10^10
>of them per Joule of heat). -- J
 
This violates lepton number conservation, which has been tested to fairly
stringent limits.  If such a model were correct, it would be a Nobel for
the person who proved it whether the fusion was energetically interesting
or not.  Evidence is that it is not correct.  The neutrino will be
produced with a positron, or an electron will disappear and we can look
for the X-rays when its orbit is filled.
 
Further, whether a "low average energy" is associated with production of
photon pairs "along the length of the delocalized state" is not relevant.
What is relevant is the energy of each of the photons produced since we
detect the individual photons.  The average energy density of the photons
has no effect except on backgrounds and how one would go about making sure
that the detectors see the entire source region efficiently.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Banding.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Banding.
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 19:59:07 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

	This is a questions for Terry Bollinger.
Assuming for a second that your musings/theory has merit in
explaining Pd/H/D systems, how do you take into account that
heat was nearly always reported with D as opposed to with H?
In light water system like Mills', there "was" result with po-
tassium carbonate but other ions(sodium for instance) just
did not work as well. As far I can see there should not be
any dependence on specific eletrolyte, am I right?
 
Do you have any suggestions about how amplify D or H decay?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.15 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Safety
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Safety
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 21:58:05 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <920513125415.20a03d03@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   DO NOT PERFORM ANY KIND OF EXPERIMENT IN A STRONG CONTAINER UNLESS YOU KNOW
	   WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND LIVE BEHIND A BARRIER OF SAND BAGS.
			      ^^^
 
     Amen.  One of my colleagues asked me many years ago if all the
precautions we were taking were necessary.  I stepped back took off my
gloves held up my hands, flipped them over to show both sides, and
said:
 
     "No scars, but if I didn't practice belt and suspenders technique,
it would be no skin...I still have the gloves I was wearing that time
as a reminder."
 
     About a week later we stepped around the barrier, turned on the
power and disassembled the power supply--rapidly.  (Vaporized the oil
in a 24 mFd 2500 volt capacitor.)  Frank turned to me and said, "I
thought you believed in belt and suspenders engineering," as ceiling
tiles and miscellanous debris continued to rain down.  In reponse I
took him over to see the cage formerly containing the capacitors and
now still holding most of the debris...
 
     So whether you are a skeptic or a TB, always calculate the energy
stored in your apparatus, and ALWAYS be ready for it to let go all at
once.  (In this arena that probably means all the deuterium rushing
out of the palladium and burning to form heavy water...serious belt
and suspenders would put these cells on an uninhabited island miles
from anywhere... :-)
 
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.16 /  Harrison /  gas plumbing
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: gas plumbing
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 23:32:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re: Tom Droege's H2 & O2 tubing; a few reference points from the
semiconductor fab biz:
1.  For transporting high purity reactive gases, type 316L VAR (vacuum
arc remelted), electropolished, stainless steel tubing is the only
widely used material.  Some people believe in nickel plating.
Stainless steel bellows (preferably hydroformed, not welded) are used
where flex is required, but are generally regarded with suspicion by
hi-purity system designers.
2.  VCR (TM Cajon) fittings are standard.  A variety of materials
(metal and plastic) are used for the face-seal gasket (it looks like a
flat washer).
3.  Lowest reactivity in elastomer (O-ring) seals: Kalrez (TM DuPont)
or Chemraz (TM Greene, Tweed).
4.  Lowest reactivity in vacuum grease:  Krytox (TM DuPont?).
5.  Low permeability O-rings: butyl rubber (but not superb chemically).
 
All of these (except butyl O-rings) are quite expensive.
 
Cheers   -chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.16 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 10:47:43 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> writes:
[Much later on]
 
>Now that everyone knows this convention it will be apparent that in my
>posting where I asked TBs to answer  "what have we missed" I was referring to
>NUCLEAR pathways given that every pathway involving d, p, He,  Li and Pd has
>been eliminated. All of the incantations about "hiding the radiation"are
>irrelevant in this regard. (And Jon Webb in FD294 - does Terry REALLY
>assert that the d go into e-, e+ etc.? Whatever happened to baryon number
>and electric charge conservation or are these further pieces of established
> physics you are willing to give up? Why not give up energy conservation
>from the outset, it seems much more direct as an "explanation".
 
One of the interesting thing I see being missed is the potential for new
physics being overlooked in the appication for conventional explinations
of CF and perhaps conventional experiments trying to demonstrate a
mundane effect.  One of the questions Terry and I've discussed in the
hydrogen banding is this,  If the hydrogens delocalizes what happens to
the nuclear force?  There is definately not a simple answer to the
question. Does the delocalization of hydrogen/deterium imply a larger
cross-section?  Are resonace states changed?  Who knows what the
ramification of the Astaldi et. al. discovery will be to nuclear
physics, but given the speculations by Terry, or the Chubb brothers
with thier LINC theory, I wouldn't rule out the posibility for new
physics to found.
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \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 \   Klein bottle for sale.  Inquire within.    |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.16 / Jim Bowery /  X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
Date: 16 May 92 16:58:23 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

This appeared in sci.physics.
>WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 15 May 1992                    Washington, DC
>
>1. SDI OFFICIALS QUIETLY LAY THE "STAR WARS" X-RAY LASER TO REST.
>The promise of a nuclear-pumped x-ray laser lay behind President
>Reagan's call for the Strategic Defense Initiative in March 1983.
>Two years later on the eve of the Reykjavik summit, Edward Teller
>wrote to Paul Nitze, chief US arms negotiator, advising him that
>"Excalibur," named after another mythical weapon, was ready for
>"engineering development." The message was clear:  Don't make any
>deals; we have the upper hand. Teller's optimism, alas, was based
>on a spurious experimental result.  In 1990 Congress eliminated
>directed energy weapons as a line in the SDI budget, but research
>went on at Livermore at a low level using general research funds.
>Recent top secret "leaks" have claimed progress in an apparent
>effort to save the program, but SDI officials informed Congress
>that no further investment in the x-ray laser is planned.  RIP.
 
Hagelstien made his name in supposedly showing that an X-Ray laser
was within our grasp.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.16 / Pierre Hilaire /  Re:  Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
     
Originally-From: pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
Date: 16 May 92 17:52:43 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

 
>While neither charge or energy conservation has been challenged recently
>in the standard models of physics (both are connected to well studied
>local symmetries mediated by well studied gauge bosons and
>non-conservation would tell us interesting and extraordinary things
>about light and/or gravity) baryon conservation is on much less firm
>ground.  In fact I would expect that dogma would tend more to be that
>baryon number can not be conserved than that it is.
 
	The simplest grand unified theories based on the SU(5) model
were predicting baryon non conservation and a 10**30 s lifetime for
the proton. The latest proton decay experiments give a lower bound
lifetime of two or three orders of magnitude longer, however, so the
SU(5) model is not as popular as it used to be (in its simplest form,
at least). Too bad, the same model was also predicting proton decay
catalysis by magnetic monopoles, which would have been a nifty source
of energy (provided you can get hold of one of those beasts).
 
						Pierre St Hilaire
						MIT Media Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpierre cudfnPierre cudlnHilaire cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
Date: 16 May 92 20:51:51 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1BmVkB3w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
>This appeared in sci.physics.
>>WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 15 May 1992                    Washington, DC
>>
>>1. SDI OFFICIALS QUIETLY LAY THE "STAR WARS" X-RAY LASER TO REST.
>>The promise of a nuclear-pumped x-ray laser ...
>>                 ...           Teller's optimism, alas, was based
>>on a spurious experimental result.   ....
>
>Hagelstien made his name in supposedly showing that an X-Ray laser
>was within our grasp.
 
Nothing "supposedly" about it.  He did show this.
 
Hagelstein made his name by doing the calculations upon which the
successful demonstration of an optical-laser-pumped X-ray laser was
based.  This work, both theory and experiment, appears in Phys. Rev.
Lett. some years back but you should be able to track it via citation
index or the Phys. Rev. Index.  Probably other papers, too, but those
are the ones I remember seeing.
 
His work was (according to "Star Warriors") at the foundation of the
attempts to demonstrate nuclear-explosive-pumped X-ray lasers, but we
may never know if the experiments saw lasing but not enough amplification
for "practical" use or if they saw nothing at all.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.17 / Jon Webb /  Re: Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 04:17:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

I like Terry's theory because it provides a mechanism to get heat with
no ash, but I have problems with the physics -- even though I'm no
physicist.  The idea is, the deuterium atoms develop this extended
state, and then collapse into heat plus a neutrino when a soliton
moves them into the band gap.  I wonder why they don't just collapse
back into normal deuterium atoms instead.  Of course, this would
probably require supraluminal speeds, but quantum mechanics seems to
have no problem with that in other situations.  Or if they're going to
collapse, why do they give off low energy photons?  I don't see where
there's any particular constraint that would cause the atom to form
one kind of particle instead of another.  And the neutrino bothers me
-- it's produced at some particular point in the extended wave
function; why one point and not another?
 
Is there any evidence of a similar process that is known -- particle
-> extended wave function -> some other particle or group of
particles?  I know for sure Helium II doesn't collapse into energy,
because we'd have a lot fewer physics labs if it did (since it would
presumably all have to collapse at once, being in a single quantum
state).
 
I guess the point is, even if deuterium atoms in palladium do form the
band structure that Terry proposes, it's still a very long leap from
there to ash-free cold fusion.
 
-- J
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.17 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear versus chemical ash: Frank Close replies
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 04:30:41 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Just a comment about my previous message, it had so many grammatical errors
I'm afraid that may have detracted from the point I was trying to make.
That is, there is the potential for new physics coming out of this when
one looks at the problem of a delocalized nuclear force.
 
Second, with regard to the nuclear ash that you require as proof of fusion,
it seems to me that there are few hundred folks that have placed a neutron
counter next to a CF cell and have reported an anomalous peak or two.
Dido for helium and tritium.  So you sight one unpublished GE paper as a
absolute demonstration that there is no fusion.  What is this insider
information, mis-information or what?  Or is this just a grand continuation
of P&F bashing?  Should one believe detailed evidence confirming Cf or,
should one believe detailed experiments showing no effect?  What direction
does theory point us to?  I can't sight one specific theory paper, but the
impression I get from the bulk of the work is that CF should be a feasible
effect.  Why GE isn't seeing anything, I don't understand. Perhaps this
is the same GE report that was rumored to be in the works two years ago?
 
The way I see it is the heat effects and the anomalous nuclear effects are
two separate manifications of an underlying precursor phenomenon.  One is
the D+D+Pd in the chemical domain, and the other is d+d+Pd nuclear domain.
The later of the two is rare of course, but just as quantum mechanics
predicts first, so it does for the later in the fringes of quantum
probability.  So total rejection of the proposition of CNF in metals
is not justified.  However, good criticism of the experiments are, and
perhaps it may lead to adjusting the experimental parameters to tweak
the dragon's tail.
 
Have fun,
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 \   If mC*C=E then what does it sound like?    |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.17 / Alex Orenshteyn /  P&F Bashing.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Bashing.
Date: 17 May 92 13:27:16 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

 
	Recently someone blamed P&F for the dismal way PdD effect is
being investigated, I want to make a comment in defense of P&F and show
why they hands were forced in holding a press conference.
 
I wonder if Frank Close knows about this or remembers what happened
before the conference or why it was held.
 
About 5 years before the conference Pons and Fleishmann were throwing
ideas about and came up with a conjecture that possible CNF effect was
possible in PdD systems. Not being nuclear physicists (just mere mortal
electrochemists) they went about investigating the phenomenon to the best
of their electrochemist's ability. After several years, thinking they had
enough stuff to show, they sent a grant proposal to DoE. Who do you was
the reviewer for this grant? Nobody but our friend Dr. Jones, yes the same
Dr. Jones who after the conference released "his" results. After Dr.
Jones read P&F proposals he contacted them and asked to join the group,
the smell of money was obviously too strong to resist. P&F had refused
to accept any "new" inventors into their twosome, and why should they?
Dr. Jones though could not stand to stay out of this potentially
lucrative endevour, so he starts his own group to study CNF. Being a nuclear
physicist  by trade, Dr. Jones worked with great alacrity detecting
neutrons and other nuclear byproducts and in this respect he overtook
P&F work since they had to learn a lot of nuclear physics and they were
mostly working on CNF in their spare time.
 
The reason P&F held a press-conference is because they became aware of
Dr. Jones pursuit of a study in CNF and that Dr. Jones was about to
release his results to the public, therefore stealing their original
idea and beating them to the punch.
 
Now, I do not know about everyone else here, but I find that Dr. Jones'
behaviour was reprehensible. After reviewing someone else's work on
behalf of DoE and attempting to "join" the development and failing to
do so he decided to use someone else's idea to pursue his own ends.
 
DoE chooses their reviewers on the basis that they are not working on
competive technologies and would not then turn around and "utilize"
the information received for their own work.
 
So I blame Dr. Jones, not P&F, for the dismal state of affairs in CNF.
 
Note by the way how quickly Dr. Jones hid befind the bushes once some
prestigous places came up with negative results and how quickly he
became "invisible" and downgraded his results to insignificant. A sure
sign of a person who "believes" in his work.
 
I do not know if I got all the facts exactly straight here but this is
what I remember happened at the time of that press-conference.
 
The moral of this story, if you think you have a money-maker then do not
send proposal to DoE, for your ideas may be "taken" by the reviewers for
their own use. Since by definition people working for DoE have more
resources than you they can beat you to the publication.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.17 / Jim Bowery /  Re: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
Date: 17 May 92 15:19:01 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jim Carr writes:
>In article <1BmVkB3w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
>>This appeared in sci.physics.
>>>WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 15 May 1992                    Washington, DC
>>>
>>>1. SDI OFFICIALS QUIETLY LAY THE "STAR WARS" X-RAY LASER TO REST.
>>>The promise of a nuclear-pumped x-ray laser ...
>>>                 ...           Teller's optimism, alas, was based
>>>on a spurious experimental result.   ....
>>
>>Hagelstien made his name in supposedly showing that an X-Ray laser
>>was within our grasp.
>
>Nothing "supposedly" about it.  He did show this.
>
>Hagelstein made his name by doing the calculations upon which the
>successful demonstration of an optical-laser-pumped X-ray laser was
>based.  This work, both theory and experiment, appears in Phys. Rev.
>Lett. some years back but you should be able to track it via citation
>index or the Phys. Rev. Index.  Probably other papers, too, but those
>are the ones I remember seeing.
>
>His work was (according to "Star Warriors") at the foundation of the
>attempts to demonstrate nuclear-explosive-pumped X-ray lasers, but we
>may never know if the experiments saw lasing but not enough amplification
>for "practical" use or if they saw nothing at all.
 
I see, so Hagelstein can maintain deniability about his contribution
to Teller's optimistic representations before Congress.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.18 /  stevo%URSINUS. /  Electrolyte Soup
     
Originally-From: stevo%URSINUS.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrolyte Soup
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 03:38:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi all!
 
I saw somewhere on the net recently a reference to an experiment using
and electrolyte soup.  I am very interested in any and all experiments
using a mixture of various electrolytes, so I would very much appreciate
any references that anyone could provide me with.  (I have looked through
the recent postings, and I've seemed to have misplaced even the above
mentioned reference.)
 
Also, being a new addition to the net, if anyone here is working on a
replication of the MKF experiment I'd like to hear from you.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Steve Kneizys                             Stevo@URSINUS (BITNET)       |
|     Director                                  P.O. Box 1000                |
|     Academic Computing                        Collegeville, PA 19426       |
|                                               Phone (215) 489 4111 x 2244  |
|     Ursinus College                           FAX   (215) 489 0634         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBITNET cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.17 / Jim Carr /  Jones bashing (was Re: P&F Bashing.)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones bashing (was Re: P&F Bashing.)
Date: 17 May 92 17:39:41 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992May17.132716.24671@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>  ...               I want to make a comment in defense of P&F and show
>why they hands were forced in holding a press conference.
>
>I wonder if Frank Close knows about this or remembers what happened
>before the conference or why it was held.
 
If you had read his book, you would know that *he* does and *you* do not.
 
>About 5 years before the conference Pons and Fleishmann were throwing
>ideas about and came up with a conjecture that possible CNF effect was
>possible in PdD systems.
 
It would be nice if any physical evidence (lab notebooks) of this claim
(that they were looking for CNF as opposed to tracking a puzzle during a
time that they published many papers -- Pons published 36 papers in 1988
according to Close's book -- on other subjects) were available.  In
particular, there is apparently no clear indication of when, between
their start of work in 1985 and the Fall of 1988 when Hawkins was brought
in, that the "meltdown" occured.  The "meltdown" is (according to Close)
not mentioned in their DOE proposal from earlier in 1988.
 
>      ...                          After several years, thinking they had
>enough stuff to show, they sent a grant proposal to DoE. Who do you was
>the reviewer for this grant? Nobody but our friend Dr. Jones, yes the same
>Dr. Jones who after the conference released "his" results. After Dr.
>Jones read P&F proposals he contacted them and asked to join the group,
>the smell of money was obviously too strong to resist. P&F had refused
>to accept any "new" inventors into their twosome, and why should they?
 
Perhaps to use his nuclear expertise on their apparatus, as Jones
suggested.  The crudity of the P&F measurements for neutrons suggests
to me that they had not even thought of looking for them until they
got Jones' comments on the proposal.
 
>Dr. Jones though could not stand to stay out of this potentially
>lucrative endevour, so he starts his own group to study CNF. Being a nuclear
>physicist  by trade, Dr. Jones worked with great alacrity detecting
>neutrons and other nuclear byproducts and in this respect he overtook
>P&F work since they had to learn a lot of nuclear physics and they were
>mostly working on CNF in their spare time.
 
Jones had also been working on CNF for an extended period of time, and
has a notarized lab notebook to prove it.  His ideas on catalyzing fusion
in an electrochemical cell were formulated, recorded, explained, and
notarized prior to 7 April 1986.  This is 2 years before the P&F proposal.
 
>The reason P&F held a press-conference is because they became aware of
>Dr. Jones pursuit of a study in CNF and that Dr. Jones was about to
>release his results to the public, therefore stealing their original
>idea and beating them to the punch.
 
Hardly.  They held the conference one day before the date they had
agreed to submit a paper to Nature simultaneously with Jones.  The
submission was precipitated by Jones' invitation to talk on CNF at
the Baltimore APS meeting (that he accepted in February or so if my
memory of APS deadlines is correct).  Jones submitted his paper to
Nature before that agreedupon date, but only after he heard of the
press conference.  P&F sent their paper to Nature the next day, as
originally agreed.  I think it is clear that the U of Utah put the
pressure on them to hold the conference.  Certainly the stories I
have heard here at FSU about the pressures during the superheavy
nuclei excitement would lend credence to such a theory.
 
>Now, I do not know about everyone else here, but I find that Dr. Jones'
>behaviour was reprehensible. After reviewing someone else's work on
>behalf of DoE and attempting to "join" the development and failing to
>do so he decided to use someone else's idea to pursue his own ends.
 
There is no evidence he did this.  If he had wanted to do this, he
could have just stolen the idea and kept his anonymity as a referee.
Or, since he was already working on such an experiment, delayed the
proposal and pushed his own work in secret and sent a paper off first.
The evidence suggests that the paper sent to the Electrochemistry
journal was written hastily, hence probably after they learned of
Jone's invited talk.  If he had not told them of this, he could
have sent the paper off to Nature in March and they would not even
know of the invited talk until the abstracts came out in April -- and
then only if they read the Bulletin.  Unlikely.
 
>DoE chooses their reviewers on the basis that they are not working on
>competive technologies and would not then turn around and "utilize"
>the information received for their own work.
 
News to me.  They usually choose people expert in the field, which
means they are working and competing in it.  They must swear not to
make any use of the material in the proposals.  Note that Jones
informed the DOE of the possible conflict and had their approval
to tell P&F what he was working on.
 
>Note by the way how quickly Dr. Jones hid befind the bushes once some
>prestigous places came up with negative results and how quickly he
>became "invisible" and downgraded his results to insignificant. A sure
>sign of a person who "believes" in his work.
 
I do not know what you are talking about here.  Jones presented data on
CNF taken in a mine near Leadville Colorado in a contributed session at
the APS Division of Nuclear Physics meeting at the U of Illinois in the
Fall of 1990, a year after the failure to see any neutrons in the
experiment he mounted in Moshe Gai's lab at Yale.  I saw the talk.
He still believes in his work.
 
>I do not know if I got all the facts exactly straight here but this is
>what I remember happened at the time of that press-conference.
 
You got that part correct.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-Ray Lasers and Hagelstien
Date: 17 May 92 17:50:15 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <eecXkB3w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
>
>I see, so Hagelstein can maintain deniability about his contribution
>to Teller's optimistic representations before Congress.
 
If you had ever met Teller, as I have, you would know that he does not need
any encouragement to be optimistic about anything he believes in.
 
In any case, the issue that Teller presented to Congress concerned the
success of an experiment and not the predictions of a theory, although
the theory may have been the basis for extrapolating from the data.
It was arguments over the validity of the data and Teller's use of same
in public (since the data were classified) that led to Woodruff's firing
according to the press reports I read.  We shall have to read William J.
Broad's latest book (on this very subject!) to see if he places any blame
on Hagelstein.  This book was just advertised in Science News.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.18 /  Britz /  RE: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:31:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
 
>Now cold fusion is lumped in
>with crop circles, polywater, and UFO's. Those who want to do legitimate
>science (so I have heard) feel that journal editors are by in large reluctant
>to accept for publication, anything that smells of cold fusion, just as they
>are reluctant to accept papers explaining a derivation of reincarnation and
..
>So by circumventing peer review initially, this discipline has rendered
>peer review, in this area, ineffective, perhaps forever.
 
(Note my skilled use of selection, to cut down the volume of the quotation
here, Dick F!)
 
I suppose a lot of people wander in and out of this news group, and I
shouldn't feel so tired of saying the same things many times; anyway, John, my
bibliography of proper cnf papers has over 700 entries now, all of papers in
refereed scientific journals. You will not find a single entry from such rags
as Fusion Facts or 21 Secolo - only refereed journals, I repeat. The myth of
evilly cackling editors barring cnf papers is indeed a myth. True, Nature and
Science won't touch cnf papers with a 40' pole and maybe Maddox and Koshland
cackle evilly, but as I said before, so what? Go somewhere else. So you don't
have to circumvent referees (how would you do that anyway, except by going for
the rags?), and the referee system is not by any means going down the gurgler.
We can at times fume at the obviously stupid referee who doesn't immediately
accept our paper and asks us to write more of the same - but mostly, they are
right when they reject something, and I have benefitted from the revision
forced upon me by these obviously stupid people who etc etc.
 If you have something to write, write it, and send it to a reputable journal.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.18 /  /  Takahashi Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi Experiment Status
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:32:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 20 to 600 ma per sq cm saw tooth over 4 hours
                  Simultaneous temperature saw tooth 12.5 C to 21.5 C
Duration: Now charging for 1286160 seconds (357 hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 2.87v to 4.35 v on 4 hour saw tooth.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.  It will be improved off
line, but the present balance is 2800 joules.  This works out to +0.0022 watts
since cathode charging started.  This should be compared to Takahashi's 150
watts of excess heat for a cathode 6.45 times larger.  So at his level we
should see 23.25 watts.
 
The 0.0022 watts is not far from 1 sigma.  Only off line analysis will tell.
We were able to get to 0.0001 watts for some runs.  A very conservative error
is 0.01 watts.  We have achieved 0.01 watts under a wide variety of currents
and temperatures and can maintain this level from experiment to experiment
including opening the calorimeter.
 
The point of all this is that our one sigma error is of order 0.002 watts, and
the measurement has not deviated much from this over these 15 days of running.
So I would be excited but not convinced at 200 mw (100 sigma!), as we have
seen this kind of heat level before.  Above this, I would start "counting
calories" to eliminate chemistry.  Further, any sort of change now from this
very steady performance would be a "kink" that would have to be explained by
something in the 60 odd measured cell parameters.
 
Skeptics will note that this is an "upper limit" of 1/10000 of the Takahashi
claim.
 
True believers will want us to run a while longer.  As usual, the cell will be
run until something breaks.  My prediction is that the refrigerator fan will
seize up.
 
My position is that one "Big Foot" in tow negates zillions of failed
expeditions.
 
We are now running with a simultaneous temperature and current ramp.  We think
that Takahashi's set up produced such a variation.  Without commanding a
change, our calorimeter holds the cell temperature too constant.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.18 /  /  Reply to John W. Cobb (and others)
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John W. Cobb (and others)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:33:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John W. Cobb writes "Heaven help poor Tom if he requires a big budget to
light that light bulb"
 
In 40 years of doing engineering with other peoples money, I have ***never***
been stopped from executing a good idea for lack of money.  Lots of times I
have had to spend money in a stupid way so we would get more money next year.
 
I think that when someone has a really good idea, that this generates an
"inner glow" that good money managers can read!  That is what differentiates
a "good" from a "bad" money person.
 
Several people have already told me to call them when I needed money.  Now I
need good ideas, or results, or both.
 
Now I do not "believe" in CNF.  I believe that it is a new area of work, and
that it is hard to do the experiments.  My experience is that when you try to
do something "new" and "hard", that something good happens.  In my case this
is already two patents in a completely unrelated field.  You see the husband
of my wife's swimming partner sells chemicals to improve the operation of
heat exchangers, and my device measures heat exchange, and the attempt to
adapt it did not work, but this lead to an unrelated device which did work!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 /  Bollinger /  Interesting points...
     
Originally-From: Terry Bollinger <71033.536@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Interesting points...
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 13:32:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: internet:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Hi y'all (well, I *am* in Texas nowadays),
 
Sorry so slow in responding -- I come back to my PC after a couple of days
and wowsers, I have some catching up to do:
 
Jon Webb -- Thanks for actually daring to say "hey -- what about *this*?"
Whatever anyone wishes to call it, I did put a lot of serious work into it
and very much appreciate someone else sticking their necks out a tad to get
people to look at it.
 
Dick Forman -- My apologies, really -- I probably should have been dinging
Douglas Morrison far more than you for redundancy, since he seems to have
aquired a curious itch to keep resending his "CNF" summary lately...  :-)
 
But my surprise about resources was genuine -- my view of MITRE in McLean
has always been of a quite computer and tool-rich environmment.  I can
sympathize from a PC perspective -- I *really* miss my vi/grep/sed tools,
especially when I'm trying to respond to emails.
 
Bill Johnson -- Sorry I missed you, but keep it in mind for some other time.
Very nice to hear some of your solid physics input again, which I think
we've all missed.  And yes, folks should heed your caution -- as I've stated
more than once, I'm in this more as a game of deduction, and am not covering
the usual paths of a "theory."  People may call it as they wish, I guess.
 
(Misc. -- No baby yet!)
 
....
 
Now as to "delocalization evaporation" of deuterium atoms:
 
  1) It is atoms (D), not nuclei (d).  Net charge is zero in that case.
 
  2) I assure all of you that there are some HUMDINGER larger miracles
     involved that must be covered before you need to worry to much about
     the details of such an "evaporation."  For example, it requires a
     rather horrible violation of the usual (Born) expectation/probability
     interpretation of the wavefunction.  I DO hope that bothers some of you
     folks out there a bit??  Also, it introduces the idea that there is a
     finite propagation limit for the effects of wavefunction observation
     ("collapse", although Dr. Feynman despised that term).  Also, that whole
     bit about micro and macro time implies a much better understanding of
     the classic Schroedinger's Cat problem than we really seem to have,
     since I most definitely am assuming a world in which objective reality
     flows in one sort of time (macro) and does NOT allow such paradoxes,
     while the world of the very tiny does permit such things.  That's not
     exactly good or bad, just unquantified.  As a contrasting example,
     Dr. John Bell has very eloquently pointed out in some of his work that
     the boundary between such worlds is a most ill-defined thing, one which
     we simply do not understand how to piece together.
 
  3) Farfetch or not, I was genuinely baffled by some of the electron /
     positron annihilation discussion.  I mean hey, this is MY magic wand,
     OK??  To quantify that  a bit, if you assume that an entire atom can
     go blooey in this fashion, why SHOULD electrons / positrons be more
     sacred and be the first to pop out?
 
     If you assume that the mass is simply "not there" one instant and
     "there" the next (over say 1 to 10 cm), it's far from obvious how a
     comparatively massive particle such as an electron would manage to pull
     together the total spatially distributed energy needed to pop into
     existence.  The point is that *once you assume the very substantial
     mircle of "stretched" instantiation of an atom*, suppositions such as
     "most of it turns into photons" start looking more reasonable than they
     have any decent right to.  E.g., if you assumed that a particle was
     only permitted to "grab" energy from about one of its own wavelengths,
     the optimum photon energy for D distended over 10 cm turns out to be
     about in the middle of the UV range -- which would be very quickly
     absorbed by a metal/D lattice.  (Calculation of this result is left
     as an exercise to the reader...)
 
  4) Regarding Frank's excellent point about "why not just assume energy
     from nothing?"  Global symmetry a la Hawkings, actually -- anything
     that falls off with a 1/r^2 equation has this nasty habit of being
     rather firmly entrenched in the fabric of the universe.  If it appears
     or disappears, you can always take an integral of a very large sphere
     around it and still "see" exactly the same quantity as before -- a
     rather curiously situation that causes a lot of problems in keeping
     the universe on even keel.
 
     Hawkings of course relied heavily on this principle in his construction
     of quantum (Hawkings) black holes -- they violate baryon conservation
     flagrantly, but NOT mass, charge, or spin conservation, all of which
     are "linked into" 1/r^2 field equations.  The idea of an evaporation
     is a very different idea physically, but IF it was real I suspect that
     very much the same conservation principles would apply.
 
  5) Which reminds me of the observation that I found the most intriguing
     and pointed, Jim Carr's observation about lepton violation.  To
     conserve spin (see above) I invoked the creation of a single lonely
     neutrino to carry off the odd half-spin left over by annihilation of
     of three fermions (a proton, neutron, and electron).  But in doing so
     I introduced lepton number violation!
 
     (For those of you who have never heard of this:  It turns out that both
     the electron and electron neutrino share a certain "electronish"
     property that is quite independent of charge.  To destroy an electron,
     you must also destroy or carry off this property, either by bashing it
     against an antiparticle with the anti-electronish property, or by
     sending it off in an electron neutrino.  This is a tough cookie -- I
     know of no experiment that has ever shown a violation of it.)
 
     I can't resist though, Jim -- I've got to answer your question with a
     question.  Assuming that the mathematics of black holes permit such
     such constructions (I am not so assuming -- you tell me), what would
     be the decay path of a Hawkings black hole with a mass of a deuterium
     atom, a spin of one-half, and no charge?
 
     Whatever's left, I'll order up one 'o them instead of a neutrino... :-)
 
....
 
For those of you looking into some of the above seriously, please do not
forget the density of states issue.  Some of you seem to be assuming that
delocalization is all you need.  Baloney.  All that will give you is nice
little highly conventional wavefunctions, except that they will be for
atoms instead of electrons.
 
Something must drive non-linear behavior of the wavefunctions for anything
interesting to happen.  Extraordinary high density of states are at least
interesting candidates -- they are already known to produce such curious
phenomena as "charge fracturing" in electron wavefunctions.  Maybe not
profound, but certainly interesting.
 
....
 
Alex O.:  I am not about to advice anyone on how to "make D evaporate",
mainly because I have seen no proof that any such thing is possible.
I'm serious -- about the last thing I'd want to see is a buch of half-cocked
experiments being done at great expense for no good reason.
 
But I will go this far.  If you are a decent Pd/D experimentalist -- by
which I mean that you have access to the kind of equipment and expertise
described in many of the Pd/D articles in the appendix to T.O.R. -- then
an attempt to induce soliton-style phase shifts in delocalized D or H is
perhaps not totally outlandish.  My advice is plan for nothing more than an
interesting and highly specialized solid-state physics paper, though --
you're a lot less apt to be disappointed if nothing interesting happens!
 
Best D loadings of Pd are obtained with thin films under pressure, not bulk.
Perhaps far more importantly if you are interested in band behavior of D or
H, thin films have a significantly higher chance of maintaining long-term
crystal order.  (An asside:  Did you ever think that all that twisting and
turning of fully loaded Pd could be precisely why they bum out on you?
There's nothing more irritating that mutually contradictory requirements --
e.g., you need high loading for band behavior, BUT high loading of Pd also
tends to destroy the orderliness that is the other requirement for banding.
Would make experiments annoyingly hard to reproduce, wouldn't it?)
 
Crystal order might also be increased if the Pd could be sputtered onto a
"pre-stressed" lattice that's about 3% (or is it 10%?  I forget...) larger
than the unloaded Pd film, since physical expansion is the main bugaboo of
heavily loaded Pd.  A lot harder to do, though -- I guess is would depend
on how serious (and experienced) you are about the experiment.
 
Once you've got your film, you really should start with a series of trials
to see if anything interesting is going on in the first place -- e.g., load
it up and see if you can verify D banding, possibly using some of the same
methods as the Astaldi work.  Then perhaps see if a voltage gradient has
any kind of effect on its properties.
 
The soliton-style phase shift should actually be pretty simple, though.  Try
pre-cracking the substrate very carefully, then applying the Pd film.  Keep
it together until a definite length-wise band has formed.  Then apply a
*very* tiny upwards pressure, such that you induce about a one-atom gap at
the Pd film.  The resulting phase shift should be equivalent to a locked-in-
place solition, which is really nothing more than a transition region
between two out-of-sync field (band) structures.
 
And again, PLEASE don't go running off doing this sort of thing unless you
have some real scientific reason to do so.  I am appalled at the though of a
whole bunch of people running off and doing something like this and then
saying "HEY, WHERE'S ALL THE HEAT YOU PROMISED??"  For the record right
here, I don't promise any such bloomin' thing -- all I'm saying is that the
above may at least be a half-way decent start to exploring whether a
phenomenon parallel to polyacetylene band solitons could exist for heavy
band particles.
 
....
 
As for Alex O.'s questions on electrolytes, 'aven't the foggiest.
 
....
 
Incidentally, is this new game of Bonk-A-Week something I missed out on?
You know, Hagelstein as Daemon Researcher of MIT last week (gasp!) and now
Jones as The Great Thief of Ideas (sob!)?
 
So who's on queue for next week, anywho?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden536 cudfn cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 /  Close /   Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 15:11:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Proton Decay: There is no direct evidence that protons decay. The only
reason to think that they might is theoretical. Now, as one of the axioms
of CNF supporters has been to ignore established theory it seems a bit
rich to appeal to proton decay as a way of avoiding my arguments about
the lack of residual "ash".
 
Even if proton decay were established, its lifetime is greater than 10**32
YEARS (not secs) so in 10**24 (say) protons of loaded Pd one might hope
for one joule in 100,000,000,000,000years; this might explain Bockris' claim
that people who fail to see heat havent run long enough.
 
If you examine the theories (eg GUTS) that might lead to proton decay you will
see why they give no succour in the present case. I am prepared to discuss
this but a precondition is that we agree that my  arguments about nuclear ash
are essentially correct and that all baryon conserving channels are eliminated
by data. And, in consequence, that theories that claim to eliminate
radiation but are left with ash (such as Schwinger, Hagelstein et al)
 are eliminated.(These guys need 3He and/or t e.g.)
 
Chuck (FD301) addresses the nuclear ash that "I" require. No Chuck - it is
ash that established science would require if any NUCLEAR process is
responsible for joules of heat. If you can fault the logic of my arguments
please do so; if not, read on. You cite "an anomalous neutron peak or
 two---ditto for 3He, t". Read my posting again and consider its QUANTITATIVE
arguments. If one assumes that every neutron ever claimed in CNF is real
signal and adds them all together you will still be orders of magnitude short
of even a single joule; ditto for 3He and t. THAT is the problem. If you have
a single reference to neutrons, 3He or tritium being produced commensurate
with 10**12 per joule please post it. I have no record of such and doubt
that you do either.
 
Alex (FD301): "I wonder if Frank Close knows about (FP and Jones) before
the press conference". Yes Alex; I wrote several thousands of words on this
in my book and dont want to repeat them all here. Get it from your local
library and check; but as you make serious and unsubstantiated accusations
against SJ I should comment a little. Your paragraphs 3 to 5 paint a much
distorted and factually inaccurate (and potentially libellous) version of
events. The claim that JONES was "stealing (FP) original idea" is quite
reckless; if you have some evidence to support this or other reasons to
support your belief I would like to discuss it with you. I should add that
I have interviewed Martin Fleischmann, and Steve Jones and other members
of the Jones collaboration as well as read the BYU logbooks. I have also
read the DOE application of FP (how I will not reveal other than to say
that it was not via Jones who, to the best of my knowledge, has not
shown his copy publicly). While the proof that FP were working on CNF
intensively for 5 years is tenuous at best, there is ready documentation
to support several of the BYU claims.
 
It is clear that SJ had decided to go ahead with his final push BEFORE
receiving the FP DOE application on 9/12/89. SJ has published, and I have
read his original logbooks, statement to the effect that the decision
to make the final push was taken on 8/24/89._IF_ this is the whole story then
your accusation is baseless.
 
Tom: I'm glad you intend to have your rods assayed if youget heat, but
 please set up a proper double blind test including control samples. The
same goes for Takahashi. JH's book tells about the 4He fiasco and gives
guide on how not to do this!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.18 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: Jones bashing (was Re: P&F Bashing.)
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones bashing (was Re: P&F Bashing.)
Date: 18 May 92 19:22:09 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <8921@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, by jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr):
> In article <1992May17.132716.24671@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
 
Sadly, you've both ignored the environment that this all happened in.
This happened in Utah. It involved the rivalry between the University
of Utah and Brigham Young University. The "rivalry" could be better
described as a blood fued. Or, perhaps as a nuclear war waiting to
erupt. :-)
 
You can't understand what went on without looking at the sociology of
where it took place.
 
 
				Bob P.
 
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Pendleton              | As an engineer I hate to hear:            |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 / Timothy Wilson /  current state of fusion??
     
Originally-From: wilsont@prism.cs.orst.edu (Timothy E. Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: current state of fusion??
Date: 19 May 92 06:07:26 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept

Would any of you s.p.f people like to inform me on the general state
of fusion today?
such as: how many reactors are " on -line".
has _any_ reactor produced breakeven yet?
which shape or design is popular? (torus, ying-yang magnets, laser compression)
any outstanding fusion breakthroughs lately?
 
what journal do i go to get this info instead of buggin you guys? :)
is there a FAQ that has all this? :)
 
thanks!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenwilsont cudfnTimothy cudlnWilson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 /  /  Huizenga's Book
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Huizenga's Book
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 04:04:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First, an apology for such a long message.
 
Executive summary:  This note allows comparison of some text from
Huizenga's book to the source, my letters to him.
 
To give the complete picture of the style of Huizenga's book, I feel
obliged to supply comparative text.  I therefore include Huizenga's
text and my two letters to him.  Much of the material Huizenga used
was from my first letter, under the heading "not for publication".
 
My letters were written as a DOE employee, trying to guide my agency
to a proper conclusion.  I am a loyal worker for DOE and think that
they have mostly done a pretty good job of efficient (for a government
agency) support of science.  I think Huizenga mis-read their content,
and made me look like a "True Believer" rather than an insider
agnostic counseling caution.  What do you think?  My dear John, what
did I ever say to you that led you to classify me as a "strong
proponent"?  The material critical of the "establishment" was
carefully labeled "not for publication" and would have remained secret
forever except for your use of it in your book.
 
Here is what Huizenga wrote:
*********************************************************************
     "One of the more fascinating stories on cold fusion research is
that of L.J. Droege and T.F. Droege, metallurgical and electrical
engineers, respectively.  On learning about the Fleischmann-Pons
excess heat from the MacNiel-Lehrer News Hour, the two brothers
immediately started to build a calorimeter in T.F. Droege's basement.
T.F. Droege's employer, the Fermi National Laboratory near Chicago,
had forbidden him to work on cold fusion during regular working hours,
but the two brothers were nonetheless sufficiently convinced of the
accuracy of Fleischmann and Pons' cold fusion claims that they devoted
long hours of their own time and their own finances in an effort to
verify them.  At one point, while working on our final report, a story
circulated in the Department of Energy in Washington that cold fusion
had been confirmed at the Fermi National Laboratory.  While the
Droeges were constructing their apparatus, they were severely critical
of the many respected groups that had carried out calorimetric
experiments under a a wide variety of conditions and had found no
excess heat.  In addition, they accused high energy physicist
colleagues not accepting the validity of 'anomalous heat'
measurements, which comprised a large majority, of having their minds
closed to new ideas.  They leveled the same accusations against our
panel's members.  These accusations were born of conclusions T.F.
Droege had made after his discussions with several high-energy
physicists during a 1989 summer study in Breckenridge, Colorado.
Droege believed that the physicists had arrived at negative positions
on cold fusion without having read the appropriate papers on cold
fusion.  Based on this experience with the high-energy physicists, he
assumed that the DOE/ERAB panel members would behave in a similar way
and remarked to me after our panel hearings" "So the conclusion of
your Committee is not surprising.  Collect twenty-two 'scientists' off
the street ant twenty of them will have minds closed to new ideas.
The twenty quickly beat up the two and a report is produced like you
sent."   This evaluation of our panel's six months of investigation
illustrates the depth of feeling of the believers in the Fleischmann-
Pons phenomenon.  More than once, such believers have been intoxicated
and misled by a grand illusion.  Laetrile for cancer and Lysenko's
inheritance of acquired characteristics are recent examples.  Usually
the illusion centers on some much-to-be-desired wish, like the cure of
cancer.  Cold fusion is certainly no less grand a dream, limitless
energy for mankind.
 
     To the Droege's credit, the completed the construction of a
sensitive calorimeter and reported on their measurements during the
First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion (March 28-31, 1990) in Salt
Lake City.  On of their goals was "to be the first to hold the land
speed record for a cold-fusion-powered car."  They admitted their bias
and enthusiasm for cold fusion by stating "We consciously allow our
excitement to show while attempting to report objectively." (Note by
T. Droege - this is quite out of context, so we will reproduce the
complete paragraph below.)  The Droeges reported a small anomalous
excess heat at the 4% level for palladium electrodes, a result well
below that reported by several proponents of cold fusion.  They added,
however, "there are enough calibration runs which show too much heat
and D2O runs which show little or not heat that the whole process
could be noise." (Note by T. Droege - Huizenga really likes this quote
and uses it three places in his book)  Here is an example of very
strong proponents of cold fusion concluding, after their measurement
showed only small positive values of excess heat, that they may have
observed nothing more than background!  Hence, in spite of their early
criticism of out panel's report, the Droeges' ran enough control
experiments to conclude that they had no hard evidence for excess
heat.  This conclusion was in sharp contrast to that of a number of
cold fusion proponents who were not nearly so careful in assessing
their systematic errors.  (rest of paragraph deleted)
*********************************************************************
 
Here is the paragraph where Huizenga says "They admitted their bias
and enthusiasm for cold fusion by stating"...  Does the following
paragraph justify that conclusion?
 
"We believe that it is often very helpful to
hear of others's mistakes and disasters.  We
report a few of ours here.  We believe that
the dry impartial style of technical papers
prevents young people from discovering the
joy of research.  We consciously allow our
excitement to show while attempting to
report objectively."
 
The following is the complete text of my two letters to Huizenga.  The
first letter was generated in response to either a letter or a phone
call.  There was one brief conversation with Huizinga at the Utah
ACCF1, but it was limited to something like "that was a strong letter"
by Huizenga and "I really feel strongly" by me.  The  22 scientists
quote was apparently from the "not for publication" part of my
letter, and not "remarked to me after our panel hearings."
 
                                        Thomas F. Droege
                                        2 S. 942 Thornecrest Lane
                                        Batavia, IL  60510
                                        6 September, 1989
 
John R. Huizenga
Co-Chairman
Cold Fusion Panel
Energy Research Advisory Board
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D.C.  20585
 
Dear Mr. Huizenga
 
Thank you for allowing me to comment on anomalous heat a.k.a.
"Cold Fusion".
 
The following is in response to your request for a short summary
of our work:
 
Researchers:  Lee John Droege, Metallurgical Engineer
              Thomas F. Droege, Electrical Engineer
              About 10 other advisors and part time helpers
 
Sponsor:      Gentlemen Scientists All, financed in part by
              wicked speculation in "Three Mile Island Stock"
              bought at 4 1/2, sold at 32.  We had faith in the
              need for nuclear power.
 
Apparatus:    Closed Integrating Electronic Calorimeter of our
              design.  Catalyst in cell completely recombines
              electrolysis products.  Any unbalance, as caused by
              absorption of deuterium into the palladium, is
              measured in a gas burette.  A four terminal
              impedance connection monitors the phase change of
              the palladium while in the cell.  Safety is
              monitored by a 1" NaI(Tl) Scintillation Counter
              connected to the data acquisition system.  A twelve
              bit high speed data acquisition system monitors 17
              parameters, including self test features.  System
              records the average of 500 samples of each variable
              each minute.
 
Calibration:  Calorimeter stability has been measured to +/- 1
              milliwatt.  The calorimeter has a capacity of 7
              watts.  We have not yet had time to achieve
              ultimate calibration since a suitable experiment
              will take about one month.  Present calibration
              good to +/- 15 mw.
 
Results:      Approximately the right amount of (presumed) oxygen
              appears in our burette to match the D which has
              gone into the palladium.  This is confirmed by
              impedance change.  Excess heat appears when gas
              is absorbed to near the .7 D/Pd ratio.  We have
              runs where excess heat (we measure Joules) has
              accumulated to the extent of 20 ev per palladium
              atom.  A typical run accumulated 10,000 J of excess
              heat over 50 hours.  The detailed structure of the
              high speed measurements is very convincing that
              something other than calorimeter drift is
              occurring.  We are about six months of careful
              calibration away from publication.
 
Comments:     We think that any conclusion in this field is
              premature.  These experiments are very difficult.
              Our calorimeter takes about 10 hours to settle to
              0.1%.  The slightest mistake causes the loss of
              many time constants (read days) work.  We have made
              many mistakes.
 
 
The following is not for publication:
 
We wish we were perfect like Dr. Lewis and could come to a
conclusion after a few days work.  We fear that we will have to
grub on for many months before we can state our results with
certainty.  We started building a calorimeter as soon as we saw
the McNiel - Lehrer report.  We put the first Pt-Pd-D sample in
it on July 22.  Every run since has been less than perfect.
Something always goes wrong, like we tried nickel wire for the
anode to save money, and the cell turned green (but we got a good
measurement on what a chemical reaction looks like).
 
Now I believe that I have a certain objectivity in that I am not
asking for money.  I have sympathy for Pons and Fleischmann since
I believe their cover was blown prematurely.  Now that I have
been trying to do the experiment I can easily believe that it
took them five years to get to where they are.  People who
express horror that Pons and Fleischmann didn't do such and such
just don't know what they are talking about.  I have a list that
could take years to work through of things that are obvious to
try.  I don't need Dr. Lewis to come around and ask sneeringly
why I have not done Pt on Pt with D2O or some such other obvious
experiment, and then look knowingly wink-wink at the crowd.
 
So what you are doing is driving the work elsewhere.  This
means that in the end, you will not know what is going on.  If it
proves to be an important discovery,  then the DOE will look like
fools, and will not have any of the stars in their stable.
Believe me, some are taking a chance and putting the good workers
under contract.
 
Many years ago when I worked at the Princeton-Penn Accelerator I
occasionally had contact with the Princeton Plasma Fusion group
with which we shared the site.  They were turkeys then, and I
presume they have not changed.  So it looks a lot to me like they
are trying to protect their turf by putting down the "anomalous
heat" work.  OK, they have had their billions and 20 years to do
something.  I see zero chance that any of their schemes will
work.  Why not encourage new ideas?  Some places like Stanford
and Texas A&M look like they are doing good work.  Why not
support a few students?  I am doing just fine on my own, though I
am offended by having to pay $1.50 per inch for #30 platinum
wire.
 
I recently participated in a summer study at Breckenridge CO
where over 350 high energy physicists from all over the world
participated.  I made it a point to talk to as many as I could
about "anomalous heat".  You would think I was ringing a bell and
crying "leper, leper".  Still I managed to corner about 40 and
made them talk to me.  About 35 had completely closed minds, and
quoted to me second and third hand hearsay that they claimed
proved that "cold fusion" was wrong.  Since I had copies of the
papers they were claiming to quote it was easy to detect their
errors.  When called on their errors they always quoted someone
else that they trusted.  I found very few nay sayers that had
read the papers.
 
So the conclusion of your committee is not surprising.  Collect
22 "scientists" off the street and 20 of them will have minds
closed to new ideas.  The 20 quickly beat up the two and a report
is produced like you sent.
 
Still I found a few open minds, even a famous theorist who was
ready to think about a new field (other than e&m).  Page 3 of
your report states "Since deuterium fusion necessarily yields
fusion products ...".  Not so necessary my friends say (when only
slightly drunk).  Unless you extend gamma rays into the infra
red.  If you have read the Texas A&M preprints you get very
excited when an old medium energy physicist friend says that
6Li+D > 2 alpha + heat is possible.  The branching ratios often
quoted are taken under very special circumstances.  There is no
reason to believe that they apply in the palladium lattice.
 
You are setting the DOE up for a neutral-lose game when you could
have a neutral-win game by keeping an open mind and delaying the
taking of a position until there is sufficient time for those
who are doing careful experiments to publish.  While Admiral
Watkins may want a quick answer, it is going to take years to
sort this out.  It may be another poly water, but I am betting
the rest of my productive life that it is not.
 
 
 
 
     very truly yours,
 
 
     Thomas F. Droege
 
 
                                        Thomas F. Droege
                                        2 S. 942 Thornecrest Lane
                                        Batavia, IL  60510
                                        14 September, 1989
 
John R. Huizenga
Co-Chairman
Cold Fusion Panel
Energy Research Advisory Board
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D.C.  20585
 
Dear Mr. Huizenga
 
Since the last letter I have completed yet another round of
calibration and now estimate that the error in my calorimeter is
within +/- 5 mw.
 
The present run is very convincing.  I am seeing 100-150 mw of
excess heat and this amount is presently increasing.  The excess
heat is now beyond any error than I can imagine.  Further, the
structure of the heat, which comes in bursts is most convincing.
Since I am taking data with a high speed ADC under computer
control, correlations can be made between the parameters measured
which rule out most types of noise and drift.
 
It seems as though we are talking to two different groups of
experimenters.  When I call those with whom I am in contact, and
describe the structure of the data that I am observing, their
response indicates that they see the same phenomena.  For
example, one structure can be described as "get cold fast then
warm up slowly with extra heat".  It is hard to imagine
disparate workers making up the same funny structures.
 
There appears to be a rather large group of workers sponsored by
EPRI whose results do not seem to be reflected in your draft
report.
 
I repeat that I believe it would be a mistake to come out with
such a negative report until more careful experiments have been
completed.  The DOE review has been so aggressively hostile that
I will make no attempt justify my work to your reviewers.  It
would simply be a waste of time.
 
 
     very truly yours,
 
 
     Thomas F. Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 / MH100 ph /  Japanese CNF
     
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese CNF
Date: 19 May 92 06:07:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

Hi,
Can anyone provide information about the CNF research situation in Japan,
including the institutions involving such works and the funding situation?
Thanks in advance! Since this inquiry is for information, no discussions
and comments should be welcome.
**************************************************************************
We know what we are doing!
Low profile but serious!
**************************************************************************
H.Liu. Physics Department, Colorado School of Mines
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhliu cudfnMH100 cudlnph cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: ash: Frank Close; Dick Forman replies
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ash: Frank Close; Dick Forman replies
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 13:04:07 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

I spoke to Dale Newbury, a metallurgist and world class chemical analysis
friend at NIST, the putative replacement for NBS.  I posed to him the problem
of detecting and identifying 1% of a foreign metal in a one micron diameter
spot where the foreign metal was in the surface layer. He said this could be
done using an Auger probe on a mass spec.  Still many questions before attempts
would be useful.  What do "craters" seen by some in used electrodes look like?
What metal should you look for?  How much is in the surface and how deep is the
melted zone? My own best guess is to try to thickness section a crater in an
STEM as the first step. That might tell if there is hope to find 10 ** 13 atoms
in that field.  Better yet is to identy the reactants. My proposal to Dale
N. is that it could be silver.  Recommended reading: Microanalysis to
Nanoanalysis: Measuring Composition at High Spatial Resolution in the
initial volume of Nanotechnology.  Author: Dale Newbury.  Dale won the
E. U. Condon Award for the technical writing in this article.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 /  Bollinger /  Lepton non-violation...
     
Originally-From: Terry Bollinger <71033.536@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lepton non-violation...
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 13:42:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: internet:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Hi folks,
 
I've GOT to stop answering these things after midnight -- I'm afraid I was
a bit foggy by 1:00 AM last night.
 
Jim Carr:  WHAT lepton violation?  It's a deuterium atom, not a deuteron --
it already includes exactly one lepton (the electron), and produces exactly
one lepton (the postulated electron neutrino).  I maybe a baryon basher, but
at least I don't think I qualify as a lepton leper.
 
While I'm at it, let point something out about this whole "evaporation"
issue.  I've mentioned several times that I've been using a technique I call
"farfetching" to help explore novel explanations that might otherwise be
overlooked.  The idea simply is to postulate some reasonably well-defined
(and *singular*) "miracle", develop its consequences, and then try very hard
to beat the thing to death -- that is, to totally disprove it.  Sometimes
that's very easy -- and sometimes it isn't.
 
There's a bit more to it, though.  You also want to use such farfetches to
help "steer" the direction of your search path by seeing if there are any
unexpected strengths or consistencies that should not exist in a purely
random guess or extrapolation.  If you find such features, that branch of
the search path gets assigned a higher weight, and you start trying related
farfetches to see if something "locks" and forms a truly consistent pattern.
 
This is not just a hypothetical procedure -- it's how I arrived at the D in
metal banding hypothesis, which I guess I can now call a result.  You see,
to say that I came at that one from a backdoor route is an understatement --
I had no idea whatsoever that such effects might exist when I started with
my initial farfetch.
 
That initial farfetch was that the effect called "charge fracturing" in
polyacetylene was somehow relevant to Pd heat anomolies.  Why?  Because on
this net, shortly before I disappeared for about a year, we had had a rather
animated discussion about the difficulty of finding an appropriate "wave"
with which to communicate from the atomic and large scale domain into the
very much smaller and far more intense domain of the nuclear.  John White
(what ever happened to him?) pointed out that wavefunctions themselves could
in principle fit such a role.  It was an intriguing point, but one that was
not easily made meaningful -- wavefunctions are just not normally thought
as being subject to complex manipulation in the same fashion as, say, an
electromagnetic field.
 
Thus when I came across Roman Jackiw's article on charge fracturing about a
week after I dropped out of this group, I was absolutely fascinated -- it
seemed to represent a well-defined example of how wavefunctions could in
fact be manipulated in unusual and at least somewhat controllable fashions.
I immediately "farfetched" that if Pd heat anomolies were real, they would
somehow prove to be related in a non-trivial way to polyacetylene effects
such as charge fracturing by band solitons.
 
That much of a stretch -- it was a looooooong farfetch -- should have fallen
apart almost immediately.  Many far simpler ones that I had previously
done, such as self-growing capacitors, had done just that.  When you
farfetch wrong, you usually get noise -- and no amount of manipulation can
easily "fix it up".
 
But it did not.  Not at all.  Kept getting bigger and deeper, in fact.
Forced me to learn all about aspects of band theory that I had not even
realized were relevant to charge fracturing.  Required me to postulate the
silly idea of atomic banding in metal lattices in order to produce a medium
in which solitons could form.  *That* one in particlar should have died an
immediate death, because it really was based on nothing stronger than a very
stretched presumption of commonality with a totally different medium of
electrons in polyacetylene.
 
In trying to analyze such items, I try to use a "trapdoor" verification --
if I put myself in a corner from which I should not be able to escape, yet
am somehow able to find a "way out" that allows the idea to be elaborated
further and in more detail, I weight that path as having a high probability
of containing some kind of significant insight into resolving the problem.
That is what happened with atomic banding in metal lattices -- a weak idea
kept looking not worse, but better as I continued to read up on it.
 
Now for whatever it's worth, the "stretched instantiation" idea also
originated in a farfetch.  What bothers me about it is that the consequences
are a bit too easy to make consistent with a number of the most curious
aspects of Pd anomoly claims.  It thus ranks higher in my weighting scheme
than such a peculiar idea has any right to.  By way of contrast, a few
attempts to take the premise of atomic band solitons down the "fusion" route
just didn't seem to go anywhere with any significant consistency, and thus
ended up with quite low rankings.
 
Also not helping is the fact that the whole idea falls smack in the middle
of an array of issues not well understood in quantum mechanics.  E.g., what
is the relativistic implications of Bell's theorem, since in relativity you
can never be sure WHICH of the two observers collapsed a wavefunction first?
People have played with such ideas, but I don't believe that any consistent
theoretical interpretation has ever been developed.
 
....
 
At any rate, there's some background for you.  I predicted atomic banding
in a metal substrate based on the assumption that trans-chemical heat
production in palladium is real, that it is based on novel quantum wave-
functions, and that polyacetylene provides the equivalent model for
electrons.  And guess what?  A major step critical to the resolution of
this farfetch proves to be  a) real, and b) not previously predicted.
 
That means I have had to increase the weight of the farfetch argument,
despite some unusual implications.  I honestly cannot that I'm either
happy (or unhappy) with that result, but for the time being that is
pretty much where it sits.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger (71033.536@compuserve.com)
 
P.S. -- Frank [Close], I've tried to get through to you via compuserve but
        don't think I'm succeeding.  I very much like some of your recent
        postings, by the way -- good material & points.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden536 cudfn cudlnBollinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: 19 May 92 17:15:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <199205191248.AA08794@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
 
> I am prepared to discuss this but a precondition is that we agree that
> my arguments about nuclear ash are essentially correct and that all
> baryon conserving channels are eliminated by data. And, in
> consequence, that theories that claim to eliminate radiation but are
> left with ash (such as Schwinger, Hagelstein et al) are
> eliminated.(These guys need 3He and/or t e.g.)
 
I'm not sure that all such channels have been absolutely eliminated.
Consider the "PEP" reaction:
 
	p + p + e-  --> d  + nu_e   (Q = 3 MeV)
 
The deuterium nucleus recoils with an energy of 2.4 KeV, which might
(?) be low enough to avoid excess secondary neutron production.  If
this reaction produces 1 watt of heat (from the deuterons) it must
produce 4 nanomoles of deuterium per second, which would be swamped in
the deuterium already present.  Similarly, the loss of protium would
be dominated by the separation that occurs during electrolysis.
 
I don't suggest this is actually happening (why would it not be
observed in light water, for example?), but rather that, logically,
not all possibilities are excluded by non-observations of nuclear ash.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 / Cary Jamison /  Re: P&F Bashing.
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Bashing.
Date: 19 May 92 21:38:31 GMT
Organization: esl

In article <1992May17.132716.24671@cs.cmu.edu>, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
> 	Recently someone blamed P&F for the dismal way PdD effect is
> being investigated, I want to make a comment in defense of P&F and show
> why they hands were forced in holding a press conference.
>
> [ many misconceptions deleted. . .]
>
> The reason P&F held a press-conference is because they became aware of
> Dr. Jones pursuit of a study in CNF and that Dr. Jones was about to
> release his results to the public, therefore stealing their original
> idea and beating them to the punch.
 
You really have your story mixed up.  Jones was working mainly on muon-
catalyzed fusion.  Another professor at BYU (I forget his name now) had
an idea about fusion happening in the earth's center, caused by hydrogen
from seawater being dragged down with the earth's plates and fusing under
the tremendous pressures.  Jones was working with this other professor,
also, on his fusion ideas.
 
(I may have not have all this 100% correct, I'm trying to remember a
meeting held at BYU 3 years ago).
 
When he found out about P&F's ideas, they sounded similar to the earth-
fusion theories.  Ideas were exchanged and it was agreed that both
groups would publish papers at the same time.  P&F, perhaps under pressure
from the UofU, decided not to wait for the papers to be published and held
a press conference.  They did this without notifying the BYU group.
 
This is all history now.  Like I said, I'm telling all this from memory,
but if you want the facts you can go back to all the old articles from
three years ago and find out what really happened.
 
> The moral of this story, if you think you have a money-maker then do not
> send proposal to DoE, for your ideas may be "taken" by the reviewers for
> their own use. Since by definition people working for DoE have more
> resources than you they can beat you to the publication.
 
The moral of the story is know your facts before you post.
 
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 / MH100 ph /  Information requested
     
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information requested
Date: 19 May 92 21:19:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

I know there is group in Stanford U or just in Polo Alto doing gas loading
to measure possible nuclear products (They had a accident not long ago).
What is the name of the group leader and do they get funding from EPRI?
Thank you for your information.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhliu cudfnMH100 cudlnph cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 / John Cobb /  Re: P&F Bashing.
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Bashing.
Date: 19 May 92 23:22:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992May17.132716.24671@cs.cmu.edu>, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
Orenshteyn) writes:
|>
|>	Recently someone blamed P&F for the dismal way PdD effect is
|>being investigated, I want to make a comment in defense of P&F and show
|>why they hands were forced in holding a press conference.
|>
Alex, I think that you may be referring to me (or perhaps others who have
made myriad comments). If you remarks are aimed at me, I would like to take
a moment to respond.
 
First, I never "blamed" P&F but what I did say was that the result of
their press conference and the subsequent discrediting of their
(preliminary) results has resulted in a situation where the credibility
of all CNF work has been besmirched. Whether P&F bear culpable blame or
were merely plasyers in a greek tragedy, I do not know.
 
 
|>About 5 years before the conference Pons and Fleishmann were throwing
|>ideas about and came up with a conjecture that possible CNF effect was
|>possible in PdD systems. Not being nuclear physicists (just mere mortal
|>electrochemists) they went about investigating the phenomenon to the best
|>of their electrochemist's ability. After several years, thinking they had
|>enough stuff to show, they sent a grant proposal to DoE. Who do you was
|>the reviewer for this grant? Nobody but our friend Dr. Jones, yes the same
|>Dr. Jones who after the conference released "his" results. After Dr.
|>Jones read P&F proposals he contacted them and asked to join the group,
|>the smell of money was obviously too strong to resist.
 
Well, the way I heard it was that the grant review was referred to Jones
because he had been doing similar or identical work. Asking reviewers to
have experience in the subject they are reviewing is reasonable. Would you
rather DOE have had it reviewed by by a botanist? Likewise Jones, As I
understand has had a long time interest in this area. He has worked on
muon cataclysed fusion, pressurized fusion, and other processes that might
be responsible for heat generation in the earth's core, so the notion of
hydrogen diffused into solids was not new to him, nor was its genesis in
his mind causally linked to any of P&F's work before he received the
review request. This is the "story" as told to me. What actually was Jones'
state of mind and sources of thoughts is not known by me firsthand.
 
|>P&F had refused
|>to accept any "new" inventors into their twosome, and why should they?
A perfectly acceptabls position --- granted.
 
|>Dr. Jones though could not stand to stay out of this potentially
|>lucrative endevour, so he starts his own group to study CNF.
How can you divine Jones state of mental affairs? How do you know?
 
Moreover, my understanding is that what was happening is that both groups
had been doing identical work separately and contemporaneously. They both
agreed to meet and simultaneously submit manuscripts to "Nature" as a
resolution to this prickly situation. scuttlebutt has it that P&F were
not nearly as far along in their research as Jones' group and so felt
pressured and wanted to submit later. The trick happened when a press
conference was called the day before they had AGREED to submit the
manuscripts and P&F publicized their results to WSJ and the London
financial times. Notice I didn't say P&F called the press conference.
It's not clear to me why it was called. It might have been P&F's doing
or it may have been their bowing to university administration who wanted
to lay stake to prior intellectual property rights (which I think, are
would be owned by the university).
 
|>Being a nuclear
|>physicist  by trade, Dr. Jones worked with great alacrity detecting
|>neutrons and other nuclear byproducts and in this respect he overtook
|>P&F work since they had to learn a lot of nuclear physics and they were
|>mostly working on CNF in their spare time.
So if Jones "great aclarity" allowed him to see that the neutron fluence
was much too low for commercial applications, why do you accuse him of
greed in trying to run some scam on this "lucrative endeavour"?
Here's an alternate explanation. Perhaps Jones looked up the same
dead-end that P&F did, saw it as such and figured it was no big deal,
only to be sideswiped by an avalanche of publicity from the press conference.
 
|>The reason P&F held a press-conference is because they became aware of
|>Dr. Jones pursuit of a study in CNF and that Dr. Jones was about to
|>release his results to the public, therefore stealing their original
|>idea and beating them to the punch.
Or, P&F wanted to beat Jones to the punch b/c they thought their simultaneous
submission stood less of a chance making it through the peer-review process
than Jones' paper. Thus a press conference could ensure a prior claim by
simple the decibel level of the din caused by the press conference.
 
|>Now, I do not know about everyone else here, but I find that Dr. Jones'
|>behaviour was reprehensible.
I have had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Jones give a seminar. I have
seen nothing in his demeanor or scientific integrity that leads me to
such an inclination, let alone a conclusion. Granted, I do not know this
man well and certainly have no beacon-light into his heart, but I just don't
see the justification for branding him "reprehensible". Likewise, I
reserve judgment on P&F's character. I just can't make that conclusion, even
in light of the their apparent "thresten to sue them if their results don't
confirm" attitude. Usually the nice things about science is that I don't
have to invoke human ethics to evaluate results. Attila the Hun may make
a valid scientific conclusion while Saint Peter may make a sign error, this
doesn't change who is the Saint and who isn't.
 
|>After reviewing someone else's work on
|>behalf of DoE and attempting to "join" the development and failing to
|>do so he decided to use someone else's idea to pursue his own ends.
|>
|>DoE chooses their reviewers on the basis that they are not working on
|>competive technologies and would not then turn around and "utilize"
|>the information received for their own work.
|>
Granted there is a potential for abuse here, and granted there is a need,
in general for more oversight to prevent abuse, what you've presented is
an unsupported conclusion about Jones, when in fact my understanding is
the opposite of your supposition.
 
|>So I blame Dr. Jones, not P&F, for the dismal state of affairs in CNF.
Well their's pletny of blame to go around, and I'm not sure any one
individual is culpable enough to be labeled as responsible for any of it,
not even P&F. You've heard the phrase s*** happens. Well sometimes it does.
 
|>Note by the way how quickly Dr. Jones hid befind the bushes once some
|>prestigous places came up with negative results and how quickly he
|>became "invisible" and downgraded his results to insignificant. A sure
|>sign of a person who "believes" in his work.
I was not aware the Jones ever claimed the types of energy outputs that
P&F claimed. What do you base your statement on? My understanding was that
his result always claimed very low output, not that he "reduced" it after
seeing non-confirmations of P&F results. Perhaps Jones hid in the bushes
all along because he thought all of the fantastic claims and subsequent
hubba-baloo was wrong and the revelation of that would taint those
associated with it. For whatever reason P&F didn't lie low, and now many
do consider them tainted. So even if they now presented fully disclosed,
referreed solid positive results, they would have credibility problems.
 
|>I do not know if I got all the facts exactly straight here but this is
|>what I remember happened at the time of that press-conference.
Well, noone can claim all the facts. In fact, I don't either. Most of the
spiel I gave above is an aglomeration of TV, newspaper, periodical, and
personal information integrated over this episode. So in that sense it
should be regarded as secondhand at best. I apologize for not having at
my fingertips my personal source for each statement, and I expect you to
discount my statements because of it. However, I would like to point out
that your post seems similarly devoid of "facts" and relies on similar
impressions and integrated understandings. So we both suffer are obliged
to leave solid conclusions to the principles who have firsthand information.
 
|>The moral of this story, if you think you have a money-maker then do not
|>send proposal to DoE, for your ideas may be "taken" by the reviewers for
|>their own use. Since by definition people working for DoE have more
|>resources than you they can beat you to the publication.
Darn-Tootin'.
If you've got a money-maker you shouldn't be going to DOE in the first
place. DOE/OER funds research not product development. If DOE funds your
project, then uncle Sam owns the patent, at least that's the way it usually
works with me.
 
Perhaps this is not so approriate to this newsgroup. It seems the objective
here is to provide a forum where those who wish to share technical
information on experiments can exchange ideas. Such information
exchange is tougher in CNF than elsewhere because of its quasi-banished
status. If this is your opinion, then my apologies. I felt the need to
respond at least once (although why escapes me). Perhaps personal e-mail is
a better venue for soapboxes.
 
 
john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
 
%
% If you tell a lie, tell a big one and repeat it often. Then
% it has the best chance of being believed.
%					- Josef Goebels (para.)
%
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.19 /  Cyberman /  Nano memory?
     
Originally-From: cyberman@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Cyberman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nano memory?
Date: 19 May 92 22:36:12 GMT

I can't remember what was the proposed methode for nanomemory for
nano bots?  Rods or something???
 
Or was it DNA? :)
 
        STEPHEN CYBERMAN@TOZ.BUFFALO.NY.US
        commiserated at Tue  05-19-1992  00:42:50
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I was left to my own devices.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencyberman cudlnCyberman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Matt Kennel /  Cold Fusion Lecture
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Lecture
Date: 20 May 1992 01:52:30 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

I have no opinion on the following, I just happened to see a seminar
announcement put outside my office:
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SPECIAL GUEST LECTURE
Thursday May 28, 1992, WLH 2204  3:00 PM--4:30 PM
 
"Correlation of Excess Enthalpy and Helium Production in
 Cold Fusion Experiments"
 
Dr. Melvin H Miles, Fellow, Chemistry Division, NAWC, China Lake, CA
 
Abstract
 
    A critical issue in determining whether or not the cold fusion process
exists is the measurement of nuclear products in amounts sufficient to
match the excess heat effects.  Calorimetric evidence of excess heat up
to 27% was measured during the electrolysis of heavy water using
palladium cathodes.  Maximum excess power was 0.52 W (1.5 W/cm^3) at
250 mA/cm^2. Effluent gas samples collected during episodes of excess heat
production in two identical cells and sent to the University of Texas for
analysis by mass spectrometry showed the presence of 4He.  Furthermore
the amount of helium detected correlated approximately with the amount
of excess heat and was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical
estimate of helium production based upon fusion of deuterium to form 4He.
Any production of 3He or neutrons in these experiments was below our
detection limits.  Control experiments performed exactly the same but
using H20 + LiOH in place of D20 + LiOD gave no evidence for helium.
Our calorimetric results will be compared with those of other research groups.
Recent related experiments in Japan and elsewhere will also be reviewed.
 
 
--------
 
Dr Miles received his PhD at the University of Utah.  He was a NATO
postdoctoral Fellow, Munich, German in 1965-1966, and a Visiting Scientist
at Brookhaven National Lab in 1974 and 1975.  He has been a research chemist
at the NWC Chemistry Division since 1978, following an academic career at
Middle Tenessee State Univeristy from 1969 to 1978.  He has published over
100 papers and received Sigma Xi awards.
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: 20 May 92 02:40:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992May19.171538.16046@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
>Consider the "PEP" reaction:
>
>	p + p + e-  --> d  + nu_e   (Q = 3 MeV)
>
>The deuterium nucleus recoils with an energy of 2.4 KeV, which might
>(?) be low enough to avoid excess secondary neutron production.  If
>this reaction produces 1 watt of heat (from the deuterons) it must
>produce 4 nanomoles of deuterium per second, which would be swamped in
>the deuterium already present.
 
That's in error.
 
Q = 1.44 MeV, so the recoil energy of the deuterium nucleus would be
about .5 keV.  This is low enough to evade limits set by secondary
radiation.  The deuterium production is ~ 20 nanomoles/joule, still
not terribly significant.
 
A miracle would still be needed to make this reaction happen at all,
but at least no further miracles need be invented to hide radiation,
skew branching ratios, or whisk away the reaction products (unless
you count the absence of the PP reaction, with its positrons,
as another miracle).
 
Just for grins, consider
 
	p + d + e- --> t + nu_e   (Q = 5.38 MeV)
 
The recoil energy of the tritium nucleus is about 5 keV, so some
secondary radiation would be produced, but much less than if the
tritium nucleus were recoiling at 1 MeV as in the dd reaction.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: Lepton non-violation...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lepton non-violation...
Date: 20 May 92 18:37:14 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920520050341_71033.536_CHJ61-1@CompuServe.COM> Terry Bollinger
 <71033.536@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>
>Jim Carr:  WHAT lepton violation?  It's a deuterium atom, not a deuteron --
>it already includes exactly one lepton (the electron), and produces exactly
>one lepton (the postulated electron neutrino).  I maybe a baryon basher, but
>at least I don't think I qualify as a lepton leper.
 
The original post said d, which is the nucleus, and seemed to imply a
that that was all that mattered.  To grab an atomic electron requires
an overlap with a wavefunction that is pretty tiny, which raises
different issues.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: 20 May 92 11:51:11 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992May19.171538.16046@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <199205191248.AA08794@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
 
>I'm not sure that all such channels have been absolutely eliminated.
>Consider the "PEP" reaction:
>
>	p + p + e-  --> d  + nu_e   (Q = 3 MeV)
 
>I don't suggest this is actually happening (why would it not be
>observed in light water, for example?), but rather that, logically,
>not all possibilities are excluded by non-observations of nuclear ash.
 
Well now this is interesting. Suppose there is a heavy, catalytic hydrogen
d' which somehow catalyzes the weak interactions [otherwise this
reaction is slow indeed] (no, I don't know how but if
such a thing were to exist ?non-trivial topology of the vacuum [I believe
that the standard guage group for weak interactions SU(2)xU(1)
allows for such a particle like topology] ? it would
likely be heavy).  Now what "really" :-} happens is
 
p+d'+e --> d + nu_e + c
and
c + p --> d'
 
"c" is a bare catalytic particle (neutral) which quickly reacts with any
proton to form d'.  (Problem: why doesn't it react with other nuclei?
Problem:  Masses and binding energies in this system are tight, tight,
tight if both reactions are to be exothermal but this may not be such a
problem if c does not have strong interactions.)
 
The reason it does not work with light hydrogen is that the processes which
enrich D in H also enrich D' in H.  It does not work well in water because
the hydrogens are too far apart (D' is chemically hydrogen) and it does
not work well in hydrogen because eventually you get a dd' molecule
which does not react.  Hence the need to put the hydrogen in palladium
so that the hydrogens can re-arrange and get close - possibly best at
the surface?  This would imply that it would work very well indeed in
a high enough pressure and/or temperature deuterium/hydrogen mixture.
(Look, a testible prediction: finding D' might be too hard as it is "so
rare").
 
I remark that I don't believe this, but it is one heck of a lot
more plausible than any notion for making cold fusion work which I
have heard in a long, long, time.  Only 1.5 miracles, good, good.
 
A major problem with baryon number non-conservation schemes is that
there is lots and lots of energy to get rid of and this is hard to
conceal, even if you allow miracles such as catalytic particles.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: P&F Bashing-BYU Professor?
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Bashing-BYU Professor?
Date: 20 May 92 12:17:09 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1044@esl.ESL.COM>
cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison) writes:
>
>You really have your story mixed up.  Jones was working mainly on muon-
>catalyzed fusion.  Another professor at BYU (I forget his name now) had
>an idea about fusion happening in the earth's center, caused by hydrogen
>from seawater being dragged down with the earth's plates and fusing under
>the tremendous pressures.  Jones was working with this other professor,
>also, on his fusion ideas.
>
>(I may have not have all this 100% correct, I'm trying to remember a
>meeting held at BYU 3 years ago).
>
>When he found out about P&F's ideas, they sounded similar to the earth-
>fusion theories.  Ideas were exchanged and it was agreed that both
>groups would publish papers at the same time.  P&F, perhaps under pressure
>from the UofU, decided not to wait for the papers to be published and held
>a press conference.  They did this without notifying the BYU group.
>
>This is all history now.  Like I said, I'm telling all this from memory,
>but if you want the facts you can go back to all the old articles from
>three years ago and find out what really happened.
>
>> The moral of this story, if you think you have a money-maker then do not
>> send proposal to DoE, for your ideas may be "taken" by the reviewers for
>> their own use. Since by definition people working for DoE have more
>> resources than you they can beat you to the publication.
>
>The moral of the story is know your facts before you post.
>
>Cary Jamison
>cary@esl.com
Was the professor my old co-worker at NBS J. Dean Barnett?  We worked together
on the ruby pressure standard. I spoke to him briefly in January or February
1990 when I though I'd attend 2nd CNF conf., but he sounded to me to be a true
disbeliever.  Other name that occurs to me is Tracy Hall who worked with the
massive tetrahedral anvil press, I think at BYU.  I do not know him. Dean and
I are diamond anvil fans.  Should I check with Dean or is this one of those
chapters best not reopened?
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: 20 May 92 13:13:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992May20.115111.4908@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
 
 > Well now this is interesting. Suppose there is a heavy, catalytic hydrogen
 > d' which somehow catalyzes the weak interactions [otherwise this
 ...
 > The reason it does not work with light hydrogen is that the processes which
 > enrich D in H also enrich D' in H.  It does not work well in water because
 > the hydrogens are too far apart (D' is chemically hydrogen) and it does
 > not work well in hydrogen because eventually you get a dd' molecule
 > which does not react.
 
I understand the limits on the abundance of exotic hydrogen isotopes
are pretty severe, at least for moderately heavy isotopes (< 1000 (?)
AMU?).
 
Some observations: (1) different supplies of heavy water with nearly
the same deuterium concentration could have radically different D'
concentrations.  If D' is superheavy, the separation ratio of D'
should be much greater than of D.  (2) If protons are reacting, this
idea suggests taking this highly enriched heavy water and diluting it
with (say) 50% normal water.  This would yield different behavior than
just using moderately enriched water, as the latter would have much
less of the exotic contaminant.  (3) Use heavy water derived from
seawater, not from rainwater, as the latter might be depleted in D'.
(4) Try centrifuging heavy water: if the D' is sufficiently massive,
it would get concentrated in the bottom of the test tube.
 
The D/H ratio on Jupiter (about 3 x 10^-5) puts a constraint on this
mechanism as a heat source for that planet.  If the excess heat there
is entirely due to pep reactions, and had been going on at the current
rate since the planet's formation, the ratio would be some 100 times
higher.  But perhaps the interior and the outer parts of the planet
are not well mixed.
 
I also remark I don't believe this.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: replies to replies-Dick Forman this time
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: replies to replies-Dick Forman this time
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 15:25:19 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May20.131308.11530@cs.rochester.edu>
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
> > Well now this is interesting. Suppose there is a heavy, catalytic hydrogen
> > d' which somehow catalyzes the weak interactions [otherwise this
>
>The D/H ratio on Jupiter (about 3 x 10^-5) puts a constraint on this
>mechanism as a heat source for that planet.  If the excess heat there
>is entirely due to pep reactions, and had been going on at the current
>rate since the planet's formation, the ratio would be some 100 times
>higher.  But perhaps the interior and the outer parts of the planet
>are not well mixed.
>
>I also remark I don't believe this.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Belief is for people who go to houses of worship.  Science is not a house of
worship.  We are discussing TESTABLE hypotheses.
Speaking of Jupiter do not forget that liquid ammonia is the strongest
electolyte that exists, much stronger than water.  So if electrolyte
caltalyzed reactions occur....  Comments please.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Huizenga's Book
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Huizenga's Book
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 15:30:51 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

Tom: As I told you in a private e-mail, you may be a pariah at Fermilab,
and hopefully that will change soon, but you are still there and still
getting paid.  I am, thank G-d,(one way to write the name of Yahweh), no
longer at NIST, but I was unemployed from Dec 1989 through April 1990.
Also, I am now a computer scientist.  Mike Danos is in the SES, otherwise
(according to my sources) he too would be retired from NIST. Governments
and government laboratories are like religions and churches.
That is there are not hospitable to heretics or their words or actions or...
For an interesting early commentary on heresies (sp?) see E.F.Gross's
review paper in the Fifth All_Union Conference on Excitons.  Gross's
heresy was to experimentally measure the exciton spectra in cuprous oxide
and then to attempt to get the paper out of the Ioffe Institute and sent
to JETP.  His commentary on these events is in Doklady somewhere.
Thank G-d for small favors--Science magazine's triage process prevented
review of my submission to them in 1989.  Since the data I was trying
to analyze was flawed, my conclusions were probably not correct.
I still stand by the theory, now modified a little. Someday we will
all get some data woth analyzing.  Till then an open chapter.
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Paul Dietz /  Re: replies to replies-Dick Forman this time
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: replies to replies-Dick Forman this time
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 17:21:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <167EDA0A6.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
 > Belief is for people who go to houses of worship.  Science is not a house of
 > worship.  We are discussing TESTABLE hypotheses.
 
Um, so was I.  But to pretend that scientists do not "believe", in the
sense of having a default model of the world, is naive.  They just have
to be aware of how well validated their beliefs are, and be willing to
revise them if necessary.
 
 > Speaking of Jupiter do not forget that liquid ammonia is the strongest
 > electolyte that exists, much stronger than water.  So if electrolyte
 > caltalyzed reactions occur....  Comments please.
 
Well, the N/H ratio on Juputer is about 10^-4, so the planet might be
described as a ball of hydrogen and helium in which are dissolved
impurities like ammonia, around a rocky core.  At the temperatures and
pressures inside Jupiter, information about the strength of
electrolytes under more mundane conditions isn't too relevant.  How
good an electrolyte is liquid metallic hydrogen at 19,000 C and 36
megabars?
 
Disk: it's easier to read messages if you indent the quoted
text, and if paragraphs are separated by blank lines.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 / Larry Wall /  Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: 20 May 92 17:28:35 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992May19.171538.16046@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
: Consider the "PEP" reaction:
:
: 	p + p + e-  --> d  + nu_e   (Q = 3 MeV)
:
: I don't suggest this is actually happening (why would it not be
: observed in light water, for example?), but rather that, logically,
: not all possibilities are excluded by non-observations of nuclear ash.
 
The obvious answer to that would be that the D (or d) is somehow
catalyzing the PEP reaction.  How that might work is left as an
exercise for the competent.  How 'bout delocalized neutron "holes"
with a soliton Twist, or something equally blissful...  :-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.20 /  jrobbins@ohstp /  Re: replies to replies-Dick Forman this time
     
Originally-From: jrobbins@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: replies to replies-Dick Forman this time
Date: 20 May 92 18:54:04 GMT

> Belief is for people who go to houses of worship.  Science is not a house of
> worship.....
>
> Dick Forman
>
> E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
> DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
> DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
 
. and if you believe that... ;-)
--
 
 /*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\
<                       The Ohio State University                        >
<  James A. Robbins                "... as full of life                  >
<  Senior Design Engineer           as an old cheese on a hot day,       >
<  Chemistry Instrumentation        as loud as a curse in a cathedral,   >
<  Support Group                    as bright as an oil slick,           >
<  120 W. 18th Ave.                 as colourful as a bruise,            >
<  Columbus, OH 43210, USA          and as full of activity, industry,   >
<  Phone: (614) 292-8172            bustle and sheer exuberant busyness  >
<   Local Time = GMT - 5            as a dead dog on a termite mound."   >
<  E-Mail:                               from "MORT" by Terry Pratchett  >
<   BITNET:  jrobbins@ohstpy                                             >
<   INTERNET:jrobbins@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (jrobbins@128.146.37.10) >
 /*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\/*\
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjrobbins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.21 /  Britz /  RE: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 13:31:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: cyberman@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Cyberman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
RE: Cold Fusion Lecture
 
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) reports:
 
>I have no opinion on the following, I just happened to see a seminar
>announcement put outside my office:
 
>SPECIAL GUEST LECTURE
>Thursday May 28, 1992, WLH 2204  3:00 PM--4:30 PM
>"Correlation of Excess Enthalpy and Helium Production in
> Cold Fusion Experiments"
>Dr. Melvin H Miles, Fellow, Chemistry Division, NAWC, China Lake, CA
>Abstract
>    A critical issue in determining whether or not the cold fusion process
>exists is the measurement of nuclear products in amounts sufficient to
>match the excess heat effects.  Calorimetric evidence of excess heat up
>to 27% was measured during the electrolysis of heavy water using
>palladium cathodes.  Maximum excess power was 0.52 W (1.5 W/cm^3) at
>250 mA/cm^2. Effluent gas samples collected during episodes of excess heat
>production in two identical cells and sent to the University of Texas for
>analysis by mass spectrometry showed the presence of 4He.  Furthermore
>the amount of helium detected correlated approximately with the amount
>of excess heat and was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical
>estimate of helium production based upon fusion of deuterium to form 4He.
..
 
One of the features of cold fusion is that the labs that have had positive
results get a lot of milage out of them. Checking back to the paper by Bush,
Lagowski, Miles and Ostrom, J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271 (the famous
"China Lake" paper), submitted Feb-91, i.e. 15 months ago, I find that the
above figures are contained in that paper; i.e. in Table 2. This tells me that
the team has not had any new results, or in any case nothing that beat these
old ones. Once again, we have lack of reproducibility of a cold fusion result.
  Having said that, let me add that this is not TOO unusual in "normal"
science; every conference goer has been put to sleep by some oldish guru who
some decades ago discovered something and has been talking about much the same
thing ever since.
  It would be nice, though, if the labs that got positive cold fusion results
would come across with new, positive results that might make us think that
they have more than a one-off fluke. I could be wrong, and Miles will dazzle
the crowd at UCSD (what- or whereever that is) with brand-new stuff. Keep us
posted, Matt, and thanks.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  Reddy /  Mallove Conference
     
Originally-From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove Conference
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 00:31:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

All:
 
I've been following this group for some time and have been echoing
Dieter's bibliography entries to the Science area on GEnie, a
commercial service similar to Compuserve for which I'm a sysop.  In
late June we will be having Eugene Mallove and Jed Rothwell, two
unabashedly pro CF workers, as guests for a live conference.  As you
know, Mallove has been a vocal proponent of Takahashi's work lately.
 
I have not read any of the CF books now out -- including Mallove's --
(sorry, Frank Close -- it's on my "to do" list), but in comments he
and his colleagues have made of late he seems to be charging that
there is an "establishment" mentality that is resisting/suppressing
CF work.  They note, for example, that neither Science nor Nature
seems interested in CF reports (no news to readers here).  They also
note the Scientific American shows no interest in the subject --
despite the fact that Nikkei Science (the Japanese edition) has
printed many column-inches on news of the Takahashi work.  This seems
to speak in some way to the questions of "belief" others have raised
here.  (To me, these charges of establishment resistance seem just
as likely to apply to other frontier fields as well, as H. H. Bauer
notes in his book _Scientifc Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific
Method_. The burden of proof is rightly always on the guy who claims
"new physics.")
 
Anyone have any questions they would like to see these researchers
answer? If so, post here or e-mail to me and I'll make an effort to
ask. If anyone is interested I'll be happy to make the conference
transcript available either by posting to this newsgroup or placing
it at an ftp site, whichever would be pr Associates
 
FR
0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden0004847546 cudfn cudlnReddy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  Close /   Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 13:37:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul Dietz (FD306) suggests that pep -> d+nu could evade my arguments
about "ash". As Paul himself notes, this channel is irrelevant if you
believe that heavy water, with its d, is important (FP certainly did, but
the goalposts shift so fast in this game that its hard to keep track of
exactly what the phenomena are that we are supposed to address).
Concerning pde->t+nu: yes, you avoid large amounts of secondary RADIATION
but you are still left with tritium ASH.
 
(In case there is confusion about definition; radiation = what comes out
and "ash" = what is left behind. The radiation and ash together = the reaction
product. So in Tom's letter to John Huizenga - FD305 - where he claims that
d+6Li -> 2(alpha) + heat "doesnt yield fusion products", I say: yes it does;
it makes alphas, 4He, in the "ash" which can be assayed).
 
Before people start invoking pep->d+nu or similar three body processes -beware!
Three body interactions have essentially zero chance of happening.In the entire
history of bubble chamber physics through to modern electronic detectors which
have accumulated a googalplex of recordings of particle collisions the number
of three body simultaneous collisions recorded probably approximates to
Douglas Morrison's third initial. (DROM please confirm. If I am wrong, please
tell me in private and I will change this posting,backdate it and deny I ever
said it).
 
But Paul has also noted the other flaw for pep->d+nu. This is a weak
interaction governed by the same quantum mechanical matrix element as the
"crossed" process, pp->d + (e+) + nu. The phase space (final state) is smaller
 for this but the initial state factors more than make up for it. Unless you
give up quantum mechanics inside Palladium then you will have positrons produced
by this latter process and we are back with the 0.5MeV gammas. Bill Johnson has
explained succinctly how easily such things have been eliminated.
 
Terry: got your private msg. Still trying to reply.
N other people who wrote me privately: thanks. Hope this general posting
suffices.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.21 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture
Date: 21 May 92 20:36:37 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

Those of us who are too far away to attend would love to get news or what
was presented at this talk.  Will you attend or do you know someone who will
attend?  Will copies of the viewgraphs be available and if so from whom? do the
y usually videotape these presentations including questions and how could I
get a copy? I can send a blank tape now, if someone will duplicate it?
Many possible questions from me but I am representative of the fact starved
community that thinks maybe htere is something there.  Thanks in advance for
any help you can give.
Dick  Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 716 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 716 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 15:54:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Prosze Panstwa,
you see below my latest meager harvest, only three papers. I now have The
Book, i.e. by Huizenga, and am reading it as fast as my family lets me. Next
week, I'll post my impressions of it. Today, we have a Chinese effort, using
yet another physical measurement technique, new to me (I admit), shooting
positrons into the samples (I think) and measuring their decay - they commit
mutual suicide with any electrons they meet. This might have thrown some light
on PdD properties but didn't seem to me to have yielded much that we didn't
know before, and I doubt their conclusion that not many cracks are formed. The
English is delightful, straight out of a dictionary I believe and some very
pretty words result. The Russian paper is another in the large group that
ignores self targeting; glow discharge is another way to realise this, and you
should get fusion but it is not COLD fusion, that's all. Oh well. Zywocinski
et al did many many calorimetry measurements and found no excess heat at all,
whether long-term or short-term bursty. The same team has also submitted a
paper, to be out soon, of a search for helium and tritium and they tell us
here that they found nothing there, either.
 Finally, a little boxed item out of Scientific American, telling us at last
whom F&P now work for, and some surprising news about my Queen. We are not
amused.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 22-May. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 716
 
Books
^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none - but soon...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Published articles, Letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qiu W, Dong Q, Gan F;                  Nucl. Sci. Techniques 2 (3) (1991) 157.
"Positron lifetime studies on systems of palladium filled galvanostatically
with hydrogen or deuterium".
** There are two types of theories to explain cold fusion. One of them does so
by invoking high d-d pressures (piezofusion) in the Pd lattice, the other by
electric fields in cracks (micro-hot fusion). In either case, positron
annihilation spectroscopy (PAS) can throw light on the theory, by defects in
the crystal structure. So PAS should be useful. Sheets of 2 mm thick Pd were
cleaned and annealed (550 degC, 8 h) and electrolysed in H2O and D2O resp. at
about 200 mA/cm**2 for 5 h, thereby galvanostatically compressing d or p into
the metal. After a 2-week period of stabilation, the samples were analysed by
the PAS spectrometer, with 1E06 counts for each spectrum. Differences in the
positron annihilation between before- and after electrolysis point to lattice
expansion upon hydriding/deuteriding (decreased electron density). Also, no
cracks seemed to be be formed during loading, although large pressures must
be generated during the expansion. H and D have very similar properties but
"most people pay more attention to deuterium as precious fusionable material,
but elbow hydrogen out..", even though it would be the cleanest energy source
if we could get it to fuse.                                      Jan-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romodanov VA, Savin VI, Shakhurin MV, Chernyavskii VT, Pustovit AE;
Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 36(5) (1991) 572.
Russian original: Zh. Tekh. Fiz 61 (1991) 122.
"Nuclear fusion in the solid state".
** Pd and a range of other metals were made the cathode in a glow discharge
cell, with D2 gas at a range of pressures og the discharge gas. The metals
were also heated. A "carpet" neutron detector, consisting of 60 type SNM-12
elements was used to measure neutron emissions, in combination with a
calibrated dosimeter; the efficiency was 6%. A mass spectrometer also
monitored particles in the cell. All metals (Pd, Cs, Ti, B, Be, Li and more)
emitted neutrons, The table of results is for a 600-1000 V discharge and a gas
pressure of 80-450 Pa, and the neutron flux is about twice the background at
about 10 pulses/h for most metals. Shielding made a lot of difference. There
was an attempt to analyse for tritium, and a small increase from the
background level in the D2 gas was found. The authors do not relate these
results to self targeting.                                       Sep-89/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zywocinski A, Li H-L, Campbell P, Chambers JQ, Van Hook WA;
Thermochim. Acta 197 (1992) 277.
"Calorimetric measurements during long-term electrolysis of some LiOD
solutions".
** This team has also measured (4)He and tritium production under electrolysis
in heavy water (in press), and supplements that here with calorimetry. A
simple diathermal calorimeter, able to operate for long times without
attendance, was used. Thermal power is exchanged with the bath at a constant
rate (at equilibrium), the bath being held constant; if the temperature
difference (bath/cell) is not large, then heat transfer is first order with
the difference. Then the time-function of cell temperature changes is simple
and parameters can be extracted by simple least-squares analysis. The accuracy
appears to be a few%. Electrodes (Pd) were a rod, 6.35 mm dia. * 25 mm, and Ti
of the same dia and 60 mm length, in 0.25 M LiOD in D2O, and 0.25 M LiOH in
H2O as a control. The thermal relaxation of the system is long compared with
the sampling interval, so heat bursts would be seen. Runs lasted from 2 days
to 2 weeks. During 18 months of such operation, no bursts were seen and there
was no excess heat at any time. Pulsed operation also showed good heat
balance.                                                             Jul-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horgan J;                                        Sci. American May 1992, p.17.
"Japan, cold fusion and Lyndon LaRouche".
** Horgan writes that cold fusion is dismissed by the vast majority of
scientists as pathological, but it is receiving support in Japan. Now this
fact is being used to promote US funding; Fleischmann made some veiled hints
to that effect. On paper, it does seem as if there are 100 Japanese
researchers working on cnf but the subject is nevertheless not respectable in
that country. Ikegami's employer, the Nat. Inst. of Fusion Sci., does not
provide funds for it. The surprising claims of Takahashi are unconfirmed by
others. Pons and Fleischmann are sponsored not by Toyota, as some believe, but
by Technova, Inc., a Tokyo-based think tank. Finally, Fleischmann quotes
21st Century as a good source of information. LLR, who own this magazine,
believes that the British Queen heads an international drug cartel.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Unpublished material
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the posting on the new edition of Terry Bollinger's "A Twist of Ribbon",
now archived in the file CNF-UNP.
==============================================================================
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 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  Britz /  Unpublished's: An update
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Unpublished's: An update
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 16:10:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I am about to add an item to the archived file cnf-unp, containing - as y'all
know - unpublished stuff. What I am adding is an abstract of a talk that Dick
Forman was going to give at a meeting, but then didn't. It is titled
"Apocrypha of unusual nuclear events" and mentions some (published) 1977 work
by deGeer (must look this up), a newspaper story of transmutation to gold and
the Sanchez et al paper in my bibliography. Retrieve it and read it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /   /   Questions for Miles at San Diego
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Questions for Miles at San Diego
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 16:38:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Based on a recent post, Miles will be repeating his claims for helium
detection from CNF in a talk next week.  Should anyone from here be
in attendence I would suggest that they ask some hard questions about
the standard samples run to establish the reliability and sensitivity
for helium detection at the level claimed.  Questions to be asked might
include the following:
 
1) Transport of standards versus experimental samples from China Lake
   to Texas.  Were any standard samples transported simultaneously with
   the experimental samples taking equal time and involving similar
   thermal histories?
 
2) Analysis of standards that were equivalent in composition to the
   experimental samples.  Were any standards analyzed that involved
   helium in the same deuterium - oxygen mixture as the experimental
   samples?
 
3) Resolution of the mass spectra.  Does Miles have any graphs showing
   the presence of both a D2 and a 4He peak in the same run, and in
   general what does the spectrum showing 4He "look like" with regard to
   noise and background level?
 
4) History of the cryogenic charcoal filter.  What was the ordering of
   various sample runs put through the filter system, and what possibilities
   exist for "memory" in which the filter releases atoms adsorbed during
   previous runs?
 
These are a few of the things that occurred to me when I read the paper
on these experiments.  As has been noted here recently, the detection of
"ash" at the level of 10^13 atoms is not a piece of cake.  Add to that
the possible sources of helium contamination and the use of a mass
spectrograph that was remote from the experiment for a higher degree of
difficulty.  I was particularly "concerned" about the fact all standard
samples mentioned in the paper seemed to involve helium in nitrogen, and
they were air-expressed to Texas.  The experimental samples were, of course
oxygen and deuterium, and they were shipped by ground transportation of
an unspecified sort.  Needless to say, the calorimetry and all that great
either, and the graphed results on "surplus heat" look pretty noisey.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  Rothwell /  Submission To Fusion Digest
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission To Fusion Digest
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 20:23:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
To Frank Reddy & All,
 
I have been meaning to post a note here for weeks, but I have been
swamped with work since April 15 when Takahashi was here.  Just briefly:
 
I have been handing out copies of Takahashi's viewgraphs plus press
clippings, including the Nikkei Saiensu article that I translated into
English. It comes to 80 pages, and a lot of people have asked for it, so
I have been asking for $10 bucks to cover copying and mailing expenses.
Takahashi also sent me a set of 4 snapshots of the device which I blew up
into 8" X 10" photographs. This cost me an arm and a leg, so I am asking
for $15 for the photos. These are not professional photos, just
snapshots.
 
If you would like either the viewgraphs or the photos, please E-Mail me
your address and I will put the material in the mail. A video of the MIT
talk is available from MIT. The Texas A&M seminar and lecture were not
recorded, but a discussion of them appears in this month's Fusion Facts.
 
Our experiment is going well, but we are not sure of the results yet, it
is going to take a few more weeks. Let me emphasize that the following is
entirely preliminary and subject to complete revision. If I post a
message in two weeks saying "it was all a mistake," I do not want to hear
any nonsense, I do not want any flack for posting half cooked results. If
you don't want to read about experiments in progress that might turn out
to be screwy, then please do not read this. I agree with Tom Droege's
attitude 100%.
 
We have 6 thermocouples; 5 of them show excess heat, and 1 does not, so
we have to work that out. Our preliminary reading is as follows: we got
five weeks of nothing, balanced input and output to within a few watts.
Last week we began seeing an excess during the low phases. We are
inputting 0.8 watts and getting out 3 watts on some runs, and as much as
12 watts on other runs. Generally we see about 5 watts. We are seeing the
same general pattern that Takahashi reported; ups and downs with
relatively stable output during each low run. We may have an excess
during the high phase, but it is too noisy to be sure. I will post
details in a few weeks, please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
 
Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Phone: 404-451-9890 * Fax: 404-458-2404 * CompuServe 72240,1256
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  /  Reply to Frank Close
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Frank Close
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 20:23:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Yet Another Reply to Frank Close
 
This reply to Frank is being written instead of posting a summary of the
current result which is beginning to look positive.  It's more fun to argue
with skeptics, who bend the rules to try to reduce the credibility of workers
who even hint of having a positive outlook on "anomalous heat".  Besides,
prudence requires that I age the result a couple more days before discussing
it in even this informal medium.
 
The whole point of the long exerpt from Huizenga's book and the source of the
material in my letters to him, was to show how skeptics have distorted the
facts to serve their own purpose (whatever that is - I do not understand
their purpose).  Now Frank has done the same thing in non-quoting my letter.
Frank, I was taught the when you use these little do jiggers "", that the
material between them is an exact copy of what you are quoting.  So I will
attempt to use them below properly as I type in your paragraph from FD309.
 
"(In case there is confusion about definition; radiation = what comes out
and "ash" = what is left behind.  The radiation and ash together = the reaction
product.  So in Tom's letter to John Huizenga - FD305 - where he claims that
d+6Li -> 2(alpha) + heat "doesnt yield fusion products", I say: yes it does;
it makes alphas, 4He, in the "ash" which can be assayed)."
 
Notice that since it was between quotes, I copied the statement exactly, even
when my spell checker "beeped" on "doesnt" which needs a '.  Not that I care
about the misspelling, but the rules of quotes require that one copies the
material exactly, or the copier must state that it has been "corrected" and
how the correction was done.
 
Here is the exact quoted paragraph copied by word processor to reduce the
possibility of error:
 
"Still I found a few open minds, even a famous theorist who was
ready to think about a new field (other than e&m).  Page 3 of
your report states "Since deuterium fusion necessarily yields
fusion products ...".  Not so necessary my friends say (when only
slightly drunk).  Unless you extend gamma rays into the infra
red.  If you have read the Texas A&M preprints you get very
excited when an old medium energy physicist friend says that
6Li+D > 2 alpha + heat is possible.  The branching ratios often
quoted are taken under very special circumstances.  There is no
reason to believe that they apply in the palladium lattice."
 
I fail to find "doesnt yield fusion products" in it.  Frank has taken the
something plus infra red radiation idea from the first half of the paragraph
and combined it with the 6Li+D > 2 alpha + heat idea in the second half of the
paragraph.  Then he made up a quote to say what he wanted me to appear to say.
I ain't got much learn'n 'bout physics, but I would recognize alphas as fusion
products.  My "gamma rays into the infra red" comment shows some concept of
worrying about a dividing line.  But Frank has me in that I put two different
ideas in the same paragraph, and I am not supposed to do that.  This allows
him to argue that he did not understand what I wrote.
 
Writing for skeptics is like writing theatre reviews.  You have to examine
each word sequence else  "This picture is the worst example of taking an
otherwise interesting story and using bad casting, poor lighting, sloppy
directing and disjointed editing to create an event so dull that only a moron
could really enjoy it." becomes "This picture (is an) example
of...an...interesting story...casting...lighting...directing...editing
(that)...create(s) an event (you) could really enjoy."  But note that even
newspaper copy writers follow the rules and put in marks to show that they
have not used complete quotations.
 
It is great to live in a time when it is unlikely that one will be burned at
the stake for just considering new ideas.  You skeptics live a boring life,
following all the old rules, and thinking that they somehow give a meaning to
life.  No wonder you are so petulant.  Adventure in life is daring new ideas.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: 22 May 92 00:49:45 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

 
	I did not want to continue this train of post, but Dr. Jones
asked me to explain myself in his e-mail about why I arrived at the
opinion of mine, posted a little while back.
 
After reading all the posts about the state of affairs between BYU and
UtahSU I think I may have lacked some details. BUT somethings seem to
be confirmed, noone seems to say that BYU people ever were working
on Pd based effect(not necessarily fusion) before P&F DoE report.
 
It may be true(I have no reason to disbelieve) that BYU people were working
on some muon-catalysed fusion, or some idea that Earth's core is being heated
by H2O being subducted in the subduction zones. I have absolutely no
problem believing that they have notorized labbooks going back to 85,
BUT do these books have anything to do with PdD effect? Can someone
tell me?
 
The main problem with all the approaches to dd fusion which BYU people
were exploring is THEY are useless for energy production. If someone
can tell me BYU were already working on PdD systems when Dr. Jones
received P&F proposal, I am prepared to retract completely my previous
statement and forward my apology to Dr. Jones.
 
As far as, being a reviewer of P&F proposal, noone should accept the
job of reviewing competitor's proposals even if DoE has "no problem" with it.
 
SO, can someone tell me if Dr. Jones already was working on PdD system
(not some rare muon-catalysed fusion or Earth-core fusion) when he obtained
access to P&F proposal? If he already had the idea that one can obtain
energy from PdD system(not I am not saying fusion, for it may not be) then
Dr. Jones is blameless and I was simply ill-informed. If the genesis of
the idea was with P&F then I still have a problem with the way BYU
obtained information intended exlusively for a federal agency.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  Rothwell /  Translation Error
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Translation Error
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 23:45:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Deiter,
 
     Your statement, "Ikegami's employer, the Nat. Inst. of Fusion Sci.,
does not provide funds for it" is a misinterpretation of a statement made
by Ikegami, which was translated by me, and misinterpreted by Horgan.
 
     Getting back to original sources, Ikegami meant that some of the
other top scientists at NIFS do not 'support' his work, meaning they do
not think it is a good idea. I believe that NIFS does support cold fusion
in the monetary sense, since Ikegami has given grants to various other
workers, notably Mizuno (see, for example, "Diffusion of Hydrogen and
Deuterium in Zirconium under Cathodic Polarization," J. Journal Inst.
Metal, Vol 55. No. 5 pp. 553-557.) Mizuno says that part of the research
came from "Ministry of Education Grant No. 022305015, for cold fusion"
(p. 557), which I believe is administered by Ikegami.
 
     Ikegami's employer, by the way, is the Japanese Government, which
most assuredly supports cold fusion research, to the tune of about $65
million per year by my estimate. Ikegami does not exactly "work for"
NIFS. He is a professor at Nagoya National University. NIFS is a research
institute on campus, apparently it is part of the university, but it is
supported by industry as well; I am not sure, I hope to find out the
details soon.
 
     Getting back to Horgan, he made mincemeat out of the facts, as I
knew he would. I supplied him with most of the information that he
included in the article, so if anyone would like to see the facts, please
feel free to contact me, or better yet read the original material from
Takahashi. As I said to Horgan, in a letter:
 
          Your May 1992 article "Japan, Cold Fusion, and Lyndon LaRouche"
     was a masterpiece. You have outdone yourself again.
 
          I attach some press coverage of the Takahashi visit, but this
     material pales beside your article. If you had actually attended the
     lecture, the way these reporters did, it might have let you round
     out your material, it might have given you greater understanding,
     but I fear it might also have dampened the imaginative flights of
     fancy, and cramped your free association: Japan - Fusion -
     LaRouche - the Queen of England. James Joyce could not have done it
     better. Your's is not science journalism, it is poetry! It would be
     a shame to mix it with the tedious dross of mere facts; what it is a
     watt, a megajoule, what are redundant neutron detectors, recoil
     proton energies or pion exchange forces, compared to this? Each
     individual statement in your article was true; but since only a few
     statements had anything to do with science, the totality of these
     remarks creates an imaginary impression of cold fusion worthy of any
     screenwriter.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  RE: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Neutron Amp. Science Process
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 02:51:35 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <5176429121BF604BCA@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
> Originally-From: cyberman@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Cyberman)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> RE: Cold Fusion Lecture
>
> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) reports:
>
>>I have no opinion on the following, I just happened to see a seminar
>>announcement put outside my office:
>
>>SPECIAL GUEST LECTURE
>>Thursday May 28, 1992, WLH 2204  3:00 PM--4:30 PM
>>"Correlation of Excess Enthalpy and Helium Production in
>> Cold Fusion Experiments"
>>Dr. Melvin H Miles, Fellow, Chemistry Division, NAWC, China Lake, CA
>>Abstract
 
>
> One of the features of cold fusion is that the labs that have had positive
> results get a lot of milage out of them. Checking back to the paper by Bush,
> Lagowski, Miles and Ostrom, J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271 (the famous
> "China Lake" paper), submitted Feb-91, i.e. 15 months ago, I find that the
> above figures are contained in that paper; i.e. in Table 2. This tells me that
> the team has not had any new results, or in any case nothing that beat these
> old ones. Once again, we have lack of reproducibility of a cold fusion result.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ==============================================================================
 
Yeah, what are these guys doing? Obviously they don't have any substantial
follow up results or they would be presenting them too. Practically every
year there is a big new result that momentarily gets attention and then
fizzles out. In 1990 we had Liebert's molten salt experiment which gave
1500% XS but there have been no further positive results since then. Then
in 1991 we had Bush et al. with their claim of XS heat + 4He which seems to
have an identical problem. This year we have Takahashi, and I'll bet that
by 1993 there won't be any additional results from that one either. And
what about Mills et al. who claimed 4000% XS heat? I know  a TB who had
someone from the Mill's group demonstrate the experiment in his (the TB's)
lab. At best, 2-3% excess was observed which is a long way short of the
original claim.
 
---
 
Todd Green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentiq cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: 22 May 92 03:34:13 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992May22.004945.216491@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>	I did not want to continue this train of post, but Dr. Jones
>asked me to explain myself in his e-mail about why I arrived at the
>opinion of mine, posted a little while back.
>
>After reading all the posts about the state of affairs between BYU and
>UtahSU I think I may have lacked some details. BUT somethings seem to
>be confirmed, noone seems to say that BYU people ever were working
>on Pd based effect(not necessarily fusion) before P&F DoE report.
 
Then maybe it is time to read the journal articles and the history books.
 
It is the University of Utah, not Utah State.  The BYU people were working
on fusion driven by electrolysis.  They used a different "soup" than P&F
because they chose it to resemble what they expected in the earth's mantle.
Of course, this would be obvious to you if you had ever read the Jones
paper on this subject in Nature.  It was the idea of Palmer that the
rocks catalyzed d+d fusion, and they had considered many metals including
palladium in the spring before the fall arrival of the P&F proposal.
The lab books specifically focus on palladium because of its affinity
for hydrogen and its presence in the earth's crust.  (They were looking
for the source for excesses of He-3 in volcanic rock, as explained in
the intro to the Nature article.)
 
This history was presented in Jones' talks (because it explains the
otherwise inexplicable choice of electrolyte) and is documented in his
lab books.  This history is also presented in Close's book and has
never, to my knowledge, been challenged by any of the participants.
 
>It may be true(I have no reason to disbelieve) that BYU people were working
>on some muon-catalysed fusion, or some idea that Earth's core is being heated
>by H2O being subducted in the subduction zones. I have absolutely no
>problem believing that they have notorized labbooks going back to 85,
>BUT do these books have anything to do with PdD effect? Can someone
>tell me?
 
Actually, they had pretty much given up on muon catalyzed fusion after
Jones did the definitive experiment that shows the muon "sticks" and
cannot be recycled enough before it decays for the process to be
cost effective.  They *were* looking for catalyzed d+d fusion.
 
>As far as, being a reviewer of P&F proposal, noone should accept the
>job of reviewing competitor's proposals even if DoE has "no problem" with it.
 
All proposals are reviewed by competitors.  No one else knows enough
about the subject to evaluate them properly.  And remember, the reviewee
gets to read our comments, ideas and suggestions and profit from them.
One of my colleagues has seen his comments on a proposal turned into
a research project and several papers ... and was glad because he did
not have enough time to pursue the idea himself and wanted to give
them some helpful direction.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.21 / John Moore /  Re: Cold Fusion Lecture
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Lecture
Date: 21 May 92 15:02:05 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords:
 
In article <vcbcuINNoad@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
]palladium cathodes.  Maximum excess power was 0.52 W (1.5 W/cm^3) at
]250 mA/cm^2. Effluent gas samples collected during episodes of excess heat
I wonder why folks are still quoting W/cm^3? If there is any effect at
all, it is probably W/cm^2.
 
]Dr Miles received his PhD at the University of Utah.  He was a NATO
                                                ^^^^--- Odd, eh?
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john 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:
cuddy21 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 13:33:26 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1992May22.004945.216491@cs.cmu.edu>, by alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn):
>
> After reading all the posts about the state of affairs between BYU and
> UtahSU I think I may have lacked some details.
  ^^^^^^
 
Ah, just to be picky, Utah State University is about 50 miles north of
the University of Utah, where P&F&H did their work, and the U of U is
about 50 miles north of BYU where Jones et. al. did their work.
 
USU had very little to do with the whole mess.
 
					Bob P.
 
P.S.
 
I'd have to describe myself as a True Hoper. I don't believe in cold
fusion, but I sure hope it's real.
 
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Pendleton              | As an engineer I hate to hear:            |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Mallove Conference
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove Conference
Date: 22 May 92 14:14:09 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Frank Reddy writes:
>here.  (To me, these charges of establishment resistance seem just
>as likely to apply to other frontier fields as well, as H. H. Bauer
>notes in his book _Scientifc Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific
>Method_. The burden of proof is rightly always on the guy who claims
>"new physics.")
 
These "rules of thumb" do more damage than good.  They are bromides.
Sound bites.  They spread like viruses and contaminate rational thought.
 
For a start, there is no such thing as "proof" in the natural sciences --
only a "preponderance of the evidence" to varying degrees.  The level
of certainty that one requires before one will invest a few spare
minutes thinking about something is far less than the level of certainty
one SHOULD require before one starts up a $500,000,000/yr government
effort.
 
The spectrum of circumstance between is, uh, rather substantial.
 
So, I do not agree with the statement that "The burden of proof is rightly
always on the guy who claims 'new physics.'"  The level of investment one
makes in a purported new paradigm is the responsibility of the investor.
 
Physics is not a relgion just because some people want to turn it into one.
 
>Anyone have any questions they would like to see these researchers
>answer? If so, post here or e-mail to me and I'll make an effort to
>ask. If anyone is interested I'll be happy to make the conference
>transcript available either by posting to this newsgroup or placing
>it at an ftp site, whichever would be pr Associates
 
When is this conference going to be held?
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 15:38:35 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199205220804.AA01291@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (Frank Close) writes:
>     ***Dick Forman has deleted some*******
>(In case there is confusion about definition; radiation = what comes out
>and "ash" = what is left behind. The radiation and ash together = the reaction
>product. So in Tom's letter to John Huizenga - FD305 - where he claims that
>d+6Li -> 2(alpha) + heat "doesnt yield fusion products", I say: yes it does;
>it makes alphas, 4He, in the "ash" which can be assayed).
*****After more deletions  Dick Forman comments (again?)*********
Consider the reaction 238U (n,n'gamma).  We start with 238U, end with
238U, and the neutron loses some energy, and some gammas come out.
Maybe the gammas can't get out if we construct the system-detector
geometry incorrectly. Gee, then all we get is heat.  I know that if
we are really good at this and can set up our neutron spectrometer inside
the pile we could see their inelastic scattering,but that's a tough experiment.
N.B.: in the November 1989 issue of Japan. J. of Appl. Phys. there were two
articles on CF; one talked about a system designed to see charged particle
emissions. As I remember they saw protons. Anyone following this work?
Dick Forman 22 May 1992 11;45 am EDT.
***Sometimes I wonder: There is some expression about preaching to the choir**
While I believed for many years that I had mellowed from a militant atheist to
a voluble agnostic, my friend Bandy Bujorjee (sp?) insists I am really a Hindu.
Since Hindus don't have choirs, I have never learned the proper usage of
the above expression. Can someone help out?
Richard A. Forman  a/k/a Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: Dick@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / rodney price /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: rprice@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rodney.price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 18:30:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T

 
Alex Orenshteyn writes:
 
>Now, I do not know about everyone else here, but I find
>that Dr. Jones' behaviour was reprehensible. After
>reviewing someone else's work on behalf of DoE and
>attempting to "join" the development and failing to do so
>he decided to use someone else's idea to pursue his own
>ends.
>  ...
>So I blame Dr. Jones, not P&F, for the dismal state of
>affairs in CNF.
 
and he later replies to posts about his first article:
 
>The main problem with all the approaches to dd fusion
>which BYU people were exploring is THEY are useless for
>energy production. If someone can tell me BYU were already
>working on PdD systems when Dr. Jones received P&F
>proposal, I am prepared to retract completely my previous
>statement and forward my apology to Dr. Jones.
 
You should do so immediately and publicly.  I was Paul
Palmer's graduate student in the summer of 1986 at BYU, and
built an electrolytic cell that summer, as well as a
gas-charging system, for the purpose of loading various
metals with deuterium and searching for neutrons from any
nuclear reactions that might be occurring.  Our work (in
collaboration with Dr Jones) was driven by Dr Palmer's idea
that heat in the subduction zones beneath the continental
plates might be generated by dd fusion.  We didn't look for
excess heat for two reasons: (1) the amount of excess heat we
thought we might see was exceedingly small, and (2) looking
for neutrons produced by a dd fusion reaction is a far more
sensitive probe than measuring excess heat.
 
The possibilities for energy production were very much
apparent to us (why else would Dr Jones have his lab book
notarized?) but our measurements that summer showed very few
neutrons.  No one had any idea then that any work along
similar lines was proceeding at U of Utah (if indeed there
was).  All the ideas given in the BYU group's Nature paper
were in place that summer; only the evidence of dd fusion in
metals was missing, and Dr Jones supplied that later with his
statistical analysis.
 
I left BYU after getting my master's in August to pursue a
doctorate in condensed matter physics at UC San Diego, and I
had no contact with the group until I saw P&F on the
MacNeil-Lehrer show.  Perhaps, Alex, you should accept my
account of events rather than some wild conspiracy theory,
since I was an eyewitness and have nothing to gain.  You
would be hard pressed to find two more ethical and
intellectually honest men than either Dr Jones or Dr Palmer.
 
I was glad to see that the responses to Alex's post were very
much on the mark, except for Bob Pendleton's remark about the
rivalry between BYU and UofU.  Yes, there is a rivalry there.
Football games and basketball games between the two are often
a bit out of control, and, yes, UofU students have been known
to splash red paint on things owned by BYU and BYU students
have done the same (blue paint this time), but to suggest
that the rivalry determined the course of scientific research
at the two schools is simply ludicrous.
 
Rod Price
rprice@physics.att.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrprice cudfnrodney cudlnprice cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 21:13:03 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1992May22.183033.25008@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by
 rprice@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rodney.price):
>
 
> I was glad to see that the responses to Alex's post were very
> much on the mark, except for Bob Pendleton's remark about the
> rivalry between BYU and UofU.  Yes, there is a rivalry there.
> Football games and basketball games between the two are often
> a bit out of control, and, yes, UofU students have been known
> to splash red paint on things owned by BYU and BYU students
> have done the same (blue paint this time), but to suggest
> that the rivalry determined the course of scientific research
> at the two schools is simply ludicrous.
 
Suddenly I feel the need to expand on my comment. I wasn't talking
about the way the research was conducted, but the politics that made
the UofU president pressure P&F into the press conference.
 
The rivalry between the two schools extends to the state house where
it isn't uncommon for state representatives to ask why the state of
Utah continues to fund the University of Utah when there is a
perfectly good University just 50 miles south that doesn't cost the
state a dime...
 
At the time the president of the University was doing anything at all
to raise funding for the University. The state had been cutting
funding for years and had started taking tuition from the University
and using it to subsidize tuition at other state schools.
 
At nearly the same time there was a faculty revolt over the proposed
renaming of the medical school at the UofU. Basically, the president
offered to name anything for anyone with a big enough check.
 
The rivalry is much deeper than just the occasional can a paint being
thrown around. It extends to the funding given the University of Utah
by the state of Utah. And it doesn't help that the UofU hasn't beaten
the Y at football for a long time either.
 
Being a 3rd generation ex-employee and graduate of the University of
Utah, with several relatives still employed by the U (from faculty to
secretary), I do admit to being very biased on the subject.
 
				Bob P.
 
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Pendleton              | As an engineer I hate to hear:            |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: 22 May 92 22:42:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie

In article <1992May22.183033.25008@cbfsb.cb.att.com> rprice@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
 (rodney.price) writes:
>Rodney Price writes:
>You should do so immediately and publicly.  I was Paul
>Palmer's graduate student in the summer of 1986 at BYU, and
>built an electrolytic cell that summer, as well as a
>gas-charging system, for the purpose of loading various
 
Various metals? Were you not sure that Pd is the way to go?
Then narrowing the field down from P&F proposal could be of great
help, could it not?
 
>metals with deuterium and searching for neutrons from any
>nuclear reactions that might be occurring.
 
What if it is not nuclear reaction at all? You were looking for
dd fusion, what if it is Bollinger's twist?
 
>Our work (in
>collaboration with Dr Jones) was driven by Dr Palmer's idea
>that heat in the subduction zones beneath the continental
>plates might be generated by dd fusion.
 
But how does subduction zone dd fusion (which is hot fusion) lead
you to electrolyticly catalyzed fusion?
 
>We didn't look for
>excess heat for two reasons: (1) the amount of excess heat we
>thought we might see was exceedingly small, and (2) looking
>for neutrons produced by a dd fusion reaction is a far more
>sensitive probe than measuring excess heat.
>
>The possibilities for energy production were very much
>apparent to us (why else would Dr Jones have his lab book
>notarized?)
I have no idea why Dr. Jones would have notarized his labbooks
but in my mind it does not mean that your group was thinking about
usefull energy production. You yourself say:
"
We didn't look for
excess heat for two reasons: (1) the amount of excess heat we
thought we might see was exceedingly small, and (2) looking
for neutrons produced by a dd fusion reaction is a far more
sensitive probe than measuring excess heat.
"
Some people notarize everything, just in case. I guess some people
are just nervous about the possibility that their results may get
into the wrong hands, why else would anyone notarize anything? So,
you guys were thinking that your results may be misused, heh?
 
>but our measurements that summer showed very few
 
>neutrons.  No one had any idea then that any work along
Rod Price writes:
>similar lines was proceeding at U of Utah (if indeed there
>was).
 
Are you implying P&F defrauded everybody? Are you not jumping to
conclusions like I did.
 
>All the ideas given in the BYU group's Nature paper
>were in place that summer; only the evidence of dd fusion in
>metals was missing, and Dr Jones supplied that later with his
>statistical analysis.
>
Maybe it is not fusion, lets call it PdD heat effect, then your
group had NOTHING.
 
>MacNeil-Lehrer show.  Perhaps, Alex, you should accept my
>account of events rather than some wild conspiracy theory,
>since I was an eyewitness and have nothing to gain.  You
>would be hard pressed to find two more ethical and
>intellectually honest men than either Dr Jones or Dr Palmer.
 
Although I still harbour some doubts, I will accept your version
of the events. In my zeal to defend P&F (who got THE raw deal in
 
this affair) I had overstepped the bounds of propriety. I should
have directed my ire in the direction of DoE policies which allow
competing reseachers to review others' work.
 
Mr. Carr writes that it is two-way street; the reviewer gets the info
from the proposals and the reviewee gets back the advice and opinions
from the reviewer. I beg to differ, the DoE applicant has obsolutely
no choice who sees his work, the reviewer has the OPTION of giving
back as much info as he desires, the reviewer does NOT have to share
any information about his own research and does NOT have to give helpfull
information. Whatever the reviewer chooses to share is under his control.
In fact, there is nothing to prevent the reviewer to provide misleading
information or can the proposal if it is a threat to his own work.
THERE NEEDS TO BE OVERSIGHT FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS.
 
 
All said and done, I want to offer my full apology to Dr. Jones for I had
implied things that Dr. Jones did things for which I have absolutely
no information. I had projected my grave concerns about how DoE operates
onto Dr. Jones character, which was a wrong thing to do. Just like in the
"fog of war" facts or second-hand information may lead one's mind astray
to believe things which have no bearing on reality. So once again, I apologise
to Dr. Jones and his coworkers for thinking the worst of them, but then
again they themselves are not a trusting bunch(notarized labbooks).
 
I also retract my previous statement, it was my suspicions rather
than facts which constituted that message.
 
 
This is the last post about this subject, I am sorry to have wasted
the bandwidth. I would like to think that with this statement I have
owned up to my responsibilities, so please, do not send any more flame
e-mail.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.23 / Jim Carr /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: 23 May 92 19:49:10 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992May22.224231.116761@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>In article <1992May22.183033.25008@cbfsb.cb.att.com> rprice@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
 (rodney.price) writes:
>>Rodney Price writes:
>>You should do so immediately and publicly.  I was Paul
>>Palmer's graduate student in the summer of 1986 at BYU, and
>>built an electrolytic cell that summer, as well as a
>>gas-charging system, for the purpose of loading various
>
>Various metals? Were you not sure that Pd is the way to go?
>Then narrowing the field down from P&F proposal could be of great
>help, could it not?
 
I guess you write more than you read.  If you had read my post on the
history, *or* the Jones paper, *or* the histories published on this
event, you would know that they considered several metals as candidates
for use in electrolysis and singled out palladium because of its well
known affinity for hydrogen.  You would also know that this is not
speculation or heresay, but that the specific interest in palladium is
recorded in the lab books prior to the proposal arriving at BYU and
is included in the material covered by the notarized statement.
 
>>metals with deuterium and searching for neutrons from any
>>nuclear reactions that might be occurring.
>
>What if it is not nuclear reaction at all? You were looking for
>dd fusion, what if it is Bollinger's twist?
 
That is not the point.  You were claiming that they stole the nuclear
fusion idea from P&F, and now you evasively change the subject.  I do
not think you are interested in the truth.  If you were, you would be
just as agressive in questioning whether P&F stole the idea for detecting
neutrons from Jones and Palmer.  You must have a hidden agenda.
 
>>Our work (in
>>collaboration with Dr Jones) was driven by Dr Palmer's idea
>>that heat in the subduction zones beneath the continental
>>plates might be generated by dd fusion.
>
>But how does subduction zone dd fusion (which is hot fusion) lead
>you to electrolyticly catalyzed fusion?
 
Because they wanted to simulate the high pressure via electrolysis.  This
is all explained in their paper.
 
>>We didn't look for
>>excess heat for two reasons: (1) the amount of excess heat we
>>thought we might see was exceedingly small, and (2) looking
>>for neutrons produced by a dd fusion reaction is a far more
>>sensitive probe than measuring excess heat.
>>
>>The possibilities for energy production were very much
>>apparent to us (why else would Dr Jones have his lab book
>>notarized?)
>I have no idea why Dr. Jones would have notarized his labbooks
>but in my mind it does not mean that your group was thinking about
>usefull energy production. You yourself say:
 
An inrelevant issue.  This particular set of notes was notarized because
they were notarizing other notes related to an independent patent application
on (I think) muon-catalyzed fusion and some suggested doing those too.  The
fact that they were looking at fusion is enough.  Useful energy production
is an engineering issue after the physics is proven.  Jones was probably
more aware of this than others because of his experience with muon-catalyzed
fusion -- where the physics was proven but the final details indicate that
it will not be a cost-effective means of commercial energy production.
 
>>All the ideas given in the BYU group's Nature paper
>>were in place that summer; only the evidence of dd fusion in
>>metals was missing, and Dr Jones supplied that later with his
>>statistical analysis.
>>
>Maybe it is not fusion, lets call it PdD heat effect, then your
>group had NOTHING.
 
Now you are talking silliness in the extreme.  You asked for information
about this time in history.  You appear to be ignorant of the content of
the papers or the history books.  You then get an answer from someone who
was involved in the various electrolysis experiments done at BYU before
the P&F proposal arrives and procede to dismiss it on irrelevant grounds.
 
Who has NOTHING is still an open question.  Jones still claims to see
neutrons, albeit at a very low rate.  He never claimed to see heat.
P&F said they had neutrons and heat, but the neutron data have been
effectively retracted.  They claimed that they had a CNF hot water heater
and would demonstrate it before *last* summer.  We are still waiting.
 
>Although I still harbour some doubts, I will accept your version
>of the events. In my zeal to defend P&F (who got THE raw deal in
>this affair) I had overstepped the bounds of propriety. I should
 
I fail to see where P&F got a raw deal.  Hawkins, maybe.
 
>have directed my ire in the direction of DoE policies which allow
>competing reseachers to review others' work.
>
>Mr. Carr writes that it is two-way street; the reviewer gets the info
>from the proposals and the reviewee gets back the advice and opinions
>from the reviewer. I beg to differ, the DoE applicant has obsolutely
>no choice who sees his work, the reviewer has the OPTION of giving
>back as much info as he desires, the reviewer does NOT have to share
>any information about his own research and does NOT have to give helpfull
>information. Whatever the reviewer chooses to share is under his control.
 
Oh but he does.  The reviewer also writes proposals, remember, and the
reviewee may be one of the readers.  All approved proposals are also in
the public domain and can be read by anyone.
 
>In fact, there is nothing to prevent the reviewer to provide misleading
>information or can the proposal if it is a threat to his own work.
>THERE NEEDS TO BE OVERSIGHT FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS.
 
Oversight is provided by the scientists who monitor the contracts.  There
is a well-defined process to appeal misconduct.  No misconduct was ever
alleged in the case you are discussing.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.24 /  Reddy /  Mallove Conference
     
Originally-From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove Conference
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 16:19:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Bowery writes:
 
>>When is this conference [with Mallove] going to be held?
 
It's the monthly on-line science conference on GEnie, usually held
the last Sunday of every month at 9:00 p.m.  Eugene and Jed have
agreed to appear June 28.
 
>>For a start, there is no such thing as "proof" in the natural
>>sciences -- only a "preponderance of the evidence" to varying
>>degrees.
 
Okay, so the burden of preponderence of evidence rightly lies with
the guy who claims "new physics."
 
>>Physics is not a relgion [sic] just because some people want to
>>turn it into one.
 
When did I suggest it was?
 
FR
0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden0004847546 cudfn cudlnReddy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.22 /  bvm /  nuclear reactor
     
Originally-From: bvm@pccentre.msk.su (bvm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nuclear reactor
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 08:04:23 GMT
Organization: AviaExport

 
	NUCLEAR REACTOR OF A NEW TYPE
A scetching project of a large ecologically clean thermal-
neutron reactor of a new type is worked out. Its maximum
security and high economy are ensured by the peculiarity of
the construction of an active zone and the main and breeding
fuel elements and by the system of elements quick mounting
and dismounting.
	The main parameters:
1.The efficient factor 			-43 -45%;
2.The burning factor per campain 	-43 -46%;
3.The breeding factor 			-95-105%;
4.Permisible helium worked temperature range
"at the outlet"				-400-800 C.
(optimum -750 C)
 
	In accordance with another variant of the project it is
possible for the nuclear power station to be based on the special
pantoons near the shore.
	A group of independent associated scientists ana engineeres
offers to foreign firms to complete the project with joint efforts.
The work should have the introduction by bilding , using and
testing reactor(25 MW) with the aim of the researching and
publicity. Its parameters correspond to the parameters of full
scale reactors.Besides the work foresees a serial production of
reactors with power 550 -3000MW.
	We offer the complexes and units of the reactor to be
patented with taking part of all the parners.
	The decision about the place of prototype
and nuclear power station installing should be taken with
an account of the potential customers'opinion.
 
	A scetching project including:
1.Sketching project with discriptions,all-round calculatins and
drafts(500 pages);
2.Inventions(7);
3.New atempting technologys(in 10 accounts).
 
	Please inform us about one's interest in this project and
further mutual- beneficial cooperation at it as soon as possible.
All the questions should be settled at the negotiations in Moscow.
 
INTECHSERVICE
RUSSIA,Moscow,111123,2-nd Vladimirskaja str,13-73.
I.Kuleshova
Telephone in Moscow:(095)134- 4110.
 
 ""
,.a*" ,111123,2- o + $(,(`a* o c+.,$. 13,*" 73.
 
b%+%d.- " .a*"%:(095)134- 4110.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbvm cudlnbvm cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.25 /  Britz /  RE: Translation Error
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Translation Error
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 16:29:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
 
>Deiter,
>
>     Your statement, "Ikegami's employer, the Nat. Inst. of Fusion Sci.,
>does not provide funds for it" is a misinterpretation of a statement made
>by Ikegami, which was translated by me, and misinterpreted by Horgan.
etc.
 
I could hide behind what I have said before, that I simply report these things
as I read them; but it did strike me as a bit odd that Ikegami, who is said to
be the boss of hot fusion in Japan and to be wielding megayens (or is that
giga?), is now said to be on a short purse string - and I should have said so,
even in my abstract. Sorry about that.
Your later statement, though, in your letter to Horgan,
 
>     Each individual statement in your article was true;
 
is interesting; do you mean that it is NOT a  joke, that LLR believes that
the Queen of England is part of a drug gang?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 /  Harrison /  Palladium, Hydrogen, & all that jazz
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium, Hydrogen, & all that jazz
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 00:37:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Having been bitten by the CF experimental bug, I've now become
curious about the Pd:H system.  My reading material is several
years old, so I'd appreciate comments on whether the following
items represent (a) current knowledge; (b) obsolete analysis; or
(c) my misconception...
(1) although band behavior of H, p, D, and d in Pd has been
     considered by several theorists, no clear experimental
     evidence of it at any temperature has been found.
(2) The zero-point energy of H (etc) in Pd is << kT so that
     degenerate quantum fluid phenomena are not expected at room
     temperature.
(3) Bonding models of PdH (1:1) reveal an electron state which
     looks very much like a 1s electron orbiting the proton.  This
     is compatible with H or D (rather than p or d) being a mobile
     species.
(4) PdH(x) behavior changes significantly between low H
     concentration (x<<1, alpha phase) and high concentration
     (x>0.6, beta phase).  In beta phase, H mobility is higher.  In
     beta phase, lattice expansion per H atom added is smaller.
(5) This last item suggests that the H potential well is shallower
     in beta phase.
(6) Only the octohedrally-coordinated locations (o-sites) are
     occupied in Pd:H compounds, even at large values of loading.
(7) The mode of H diffusion through Pd is not well understood
     (tunnelling, thermal hopping, and free-gas mechanisms are all
     plausible candidates).
(8) A substitution alloy PdAg(0.4) obtains a lattice spacing and
     electron configuration similar to beta PdH, with no
     interstitials.  H and D are easily absorbed and are quite
     mobile in this alloy.
 
CF or no, metal hydrides look like remarkably interesting physical
systems.
 -chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.25 / stacy mogren /  Novel (?) hot fusion idea
     
Originally-From: smogren@uceng.UC.EDU (stacy allen mogren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Novel (?) hot fusion idea
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 17:55:35 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati

Novel (?) hot fusion idea.
 
     Conventional hot fusion schemes use various methods to confine an
energetic plasma, producing a large number of ion - ion interactions.
A few of these interactions will be nearly head on collisions, which
allow the ions to get close enough to each other to have a significant
probability of fusing.  If the close approaches could be generated by
some other method other than random encounters in a plasma, and if the
reaction probability is large enough, It would be possible to produce a
net gain in energy without the plasma and its associated confinement
problems.  The purpose of this note is to present such a method for
general comment, and to ask for help in answering some questions.
 
     I am a solid state physicist, recently involved in ion
implantation in solids.  In one of the effects observed in crystalline
materials, channeling, ions projected along preferred crystalline
directions travel with minimal interaction with the atoms of the
crystal.  My attempt to picture the path of an ion along one of
these preferred directions is shown below.
 
 
         a         a         a         a         a         a         a
--------___
           ---__                 ____----____             _________
                ---___     ___---            -----___-----
                      -----
         a         a         a         a         a         a         a
 
 
a = nucleus of an atom of the crystal.
 
 
     This effect is the basis of the ion collision method I will
present, so I will describe it in some detail.  A channeled ion
travels down a hole in the solid formed by the crystalline arrangement
of the atoms.  When the ion gets close to a nucleus, the increasing
electron density tends to bump it back towards the center of the
hole.[1]  The first assumption I will make is that the ion's rattling
around as it travels down the shaft will dampen out , eventually
leaving the ion travelling in a straight line down the exact center of
the shaft.
 
     Now to the point.  If a deuterium atom were placed in the center of
the shaft, say by a previous low energy implant, then a second deuterium
atom could be injected with a higher energy.  The two nuclei will then
have a direct collision, no chance of a near miss because the
channeling effect will confine the ions to the center of the shaft as
shown below.
 
 
         a         a         a         a         a         a         a
--------___
           ---__                 ____----____             ____
                ---___     ___---            -----___-----    -D1-> D2
                      -----
         a         a         a         a         a         a         a
 
 
D1 = Incoming deuterium ion with high kinetic energy.
 
D2 = Stationary deuterium nucleus from previous low energy implant.
 
 
     The number of things that may be wrong with this scheme is large,
so I'll confine myself to what I think are the real killer questions.
 
1.   How rapidly will the ion oscillation die out?  Will it die out at
all?  If the ion oscillates for too long, a large amount of energy
will be used simply to get to the depth needed to assure a head on
collision.  I have been unsuccessful in answering this question by
looking at the literature.  If anyone has a clue, please fill me in.
 
2.   Will the effect be quenched at high temperature?  In a working
device, the temperature would be quite high.  So the atoms of the
crystal will be moving vigorously, and some of this motion will be
transferred to the implanted nuclei.  A simple back of the envelope
calculation indicates  the "stationary" deuterium nucleus D2 will have
a thermal motion on the order of 0.01 Angstroms at 1000K.  Will this
amount of positional uncertainty cause the collisions to be more
random than head on?  To answer this question, I need the answer to
the next question.
 
3.   What is the probability per unit time that two deuterium nuclei
separated by a given distance will fuse?  I hope this is a simple
question for someone steeped in the lore of particle physics.  With
this information in hand, I could create a simple minded simulation
that would indicate how many orders of magnitude this scheme is from
break-even.  If anyone out there has an answer to this one (in MKS
units would be appreciated) please send me a note.
 
4.   What will happen to the crystal structure if a significant
reaction can be sustained?  With a large flux of high energy particles
tearing through the crystal, the precise arrangement of atoms necessary
for channeling to occur may not last long.  However, in some materials
(GaAs for example) the damage from an incoming ion will anneal out
fast enough that subsequent ions continue to be channeled.  The ease
with which damage anneals out of a crystal is strongly dependent on
the material involved, which brings us to the next question.
 
5.   What crystal material and implant direction will yield good
results?  The damage should be reduced by using a high Z material,
there should be no crystallographic phase transitions in the operating
temperature range, the byproducts from exposure to various forms of
irradiation should not be too pathological, and the preferred resting
place for a deuterium atom should be in the middle of the channel (as
opposed to in the channel wall).  A much longer list of material
properties could be written, but you get the idea.  Tungsten is a
refractory, high Z material that, if I remember correctly, has a
preferred crystalline orientation after being cold rolled into a foil
and annealed.  Does anyone know what that orientation is?  Hydrogen,
and therefore deuterium, is rapidly expelled from hot tungsten, what's
the diffusion constant at various temperatures?  What  lattice sites
do the deuterium atoms occupy as they diffuse?
 
6.   Has all this been thought through before?  Many of the various
experimental forms this idea might take look like the self targeting
work that has already been done.  Has anyone reported unusually large
reaction rates that would not be predicted by an amorphous target model
(such as what the simulation program TRIM is based on)?  I don't know
if anyone has done self targeting with single crystals, but a
polycrystalline electrode should have a small fraction of the
crystallites oriented in the right direction.  If the reaction rate
enhancement of this channeling process is sufficiently large, it may be
detected even with a polycrystalline target.
 
7.   Do the people on this newsgroup know what I am saying when I talk
about sending a drawing in a .GIF format?  I found the drawings above
to be painful to create, and obscure to view.  If most people in this
newsgroup access the net through a P.C., Mac, or Sun system then it
would be much easier to generate drawings using a favorite CAD program,
uuencode them, and append them to the end of an article.  The
interested reader would then separate the image from the article,
uudecode it, and display it in its original form.  While this process
is fairly simple once you get used to it, I haven't seen it happen in
this news group, and this makes me hesitate to try it for fear the
audience won't know what I am doing.  If response warrants, I will post
a summary.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
[1] "Channeling in Crystals", Werner Brandt, Sci. Am.,
     March 1968, pp91-98
 
To contact me, try the following
 
email:
smogren@uceng.uc.edu  - most likely
mogren@ucunix.san.uc.edu  - checked less frequently
sam@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu  - checked once a month
 
U.S. mail:
Dr. Stacy Mogren
Nanoelectronics Laboratory
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH  45221-0030
 
Disclaimer: I am solely responsible for the content of this article,
except for spelling errors, which are probably the result of a
computer glitch.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensmogren cudfnstacy cudlnmogren cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 /  Close /   Apology to Tom
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Apology to Tom
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 13:25:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom criticises me for having used "" and thereby given the impression that
I have quoted directly from him. My publisher's house style is to use
`xx' for abstracted quotes and "xx" for spoken or author's invention.
However, this is by no means a universal practice,so I'm sorry for any confusion
that may have resulted by my posting. As I cannot cut and post on this facility
I cited the FD number so that anyone could check the original: I used
the "" in the sense of a signpost or headline-summary, as in a newspaper
for example. News headlines are infamous for distorting the full story and I
am sorry if Tom feels that I have deliberately set out to distort his words. I
certainly did not do so deliberately and if I did so at all then I apologise.
 
However, I am not exactly clear what Tom is saying in his letter to JH. Tom,you
claimed that deuteron fusion need not produce visible fusion products (I am
writing from memory here so PLEASE check the original!) and mention the
gamma rays into the infra-red. Then you mention d+6Li producing alphas + heat.
Now, as this is mentioned almost immediately following the previous remark,
and, moreover, is a deuteron fusion process I assumed that you were using
this as an example of "deuteron fusion without radiation" (these are "" used
in the sense of an invented label, like "skeptic" or "True Believer" and not
a quote from Tom). From your reply it seems that you were not and I was
mistaken. So why was this particular process invoked?
 
People attending the talk on the China Lake helium might also care to
ask if measurements were taken of other elements that are known to occur in
the air in order to eliminate the possibility of the helium entering as
contaminant. This was one of the problems raised by Lewis et al in 1989 at
the time that Walling and Simons were claiming that FP(H) had found helium;
according to JH book, FP(H) withdrew their helium claims before the Walling-
Simon "theory" was published. However, Walling and Simons chose not to withdraw
their theory paper nor mention that the claim no longer existed. Assays for
helium in Pons' rods were then arranged in a double blind experiment involving
several cooperating labs. No significant helium was found; Pons' attorney
brought pressure on the DOE panel in an attempt to prevent these results being
made public (according to JH book). Then fifteen months ago came a claim that
helium had been found in China Lake expts. Even if this expt were correct, it
would leave at least 90 per cent of the heat unaccounted for; however,the
miracle of generating even 10 percent of the heat this way would be truly great
and have to be taken on board. But before one does, take note of the questions
that have already been raised in recent FDs and which need answering by the
experimentalists concerned. And also wonder why it is that this group, alone,
have found some helium out of all the "hundreds of confirmations of cold fusion"
(again "" but I am sure that I have seen such claims in Fusion "Facts" more
than once).
 
If you are finally convinced that the expt is correctly done and the results are
to be considered seriously, then everyone shold be assaying for helium, and
also measuring the radiation with decent equipment (I recall that the original
paper - which was accepted without refereeing BTW - mentioned fogging of dental
X-ray plates. IF you want to be taken seriously then make measurements that have
a chance of being taken seriously: nuclear measurements which appear to be
Mickey Mouse affairs are unlikely to be taken seriously by people like
Dick Blue et al. We are now 3+ years into this saga and the days of dental
plates are long past, if, indeed, they should ever have been. The only place
that dentistry has a role in this business is in palladium fillings)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 /   /   Petulant Skeptics
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Petulant Skeptics
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 16:20:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In case Tom Droege needs another message from a certified skeptic to
spur him on to new experiments, I'll try to point out one continuing
problem with any rational discussion of the cold fusion issue.  It seems
to be impossible to arrive at any definition of what "facts" are at
issue with regard to any given experiment or set of experiments.  Tom
has concentraited on the issue of "surplus heat" and has done, I believe,
exceptional experimental work in making a set of very accurate measurements
directed to that question.  I would simply ask that armed with what he
has learned from these experiments, which of the earlier experiments
would he now cite as having given results that were credible and consistant
with his own work.
 
The other issue, which I think should long since have been laid to rest,
deals with the evidence for a nuclear reaction as the source of the
heat which may or may not be evolved.  We have long heard the arguement
that there really, really must be a nuclear reaction because chemistry
can't possibly account for the heat.  This arguement is weak on two
counts.  Absolutely no experiment has ever found any "radiation" or
"ash" at levels commensurate with surplus heat!  Secondly, the vast
majority of the positive surplus heat results came from experiments
where the true accuracy of the calorimetry made a definitive result
very doubtful.
 
Now Tom asks us to return to an old suggestion that the reaction
6Li + d -> 2He provides an exception to the rule that there must
be some easily observible external radiation.  If he is seriously
proposing this reaction as the source of whatever heat he has observed,
the next experimental course is obvious.  However, we may also pause
to ask wether this reaction could, in fact, have escaped detection.
Although the two alphas will be rapidly degraded they have sufficient
initial energy to be quite disruptive and can be expected to produce
a variety of secondary reactions.  I would speculate that this reaction
is a reasonable candidate only if the reactions occur in the surface of
the sample, and possible some of the experiments that looked for charged
particles could have detected alpha production if it were present.
 
As an aside, someone suggested inelastic neutron scattering as another
example of a "no ash, no radiation" reaction.  In this case the only
energy source is the neutrons, and I assure you that neutrons at the
intensity level required would surely have been detected.
 
Petulant as always,
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 /  VROMERO@itesmv /  Plasma phisics information
     
Originally-From: VROMERO@itesmvf1.rzs.itesm.mx
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma phisics information
Date: 26 May 92 00:23:16 GMT
Organization: ITESM Mexico State Campus

 
    Hello, there:
    I am working in a development projet related to plasma phisics applied to
metals nitruration, but I need more information about it. I know there are
international editions about this, but it takes many weeks for me to get them.
So I hope someone can tell me if there exist the posibility to get this type
of information using the ftp system, so if this is possible, could you tell me
the ftp sites to get the info I require?
 
You can send the information to my e-mail: vromero@132.254.1.8
 
Thank you very much.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenVROMERO cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  Rothwell /  Translation Error
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Translation Error
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 01:12:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter,
 
      Your reading of the Horgan article was perfectly reasonable. I am
sure Horgan meant to give the impression that there is no funding in
Japan. I am also sure he knows the truth, since I told it to him and gave
him plenty of written evidence to back it up.
 
      Several people bit me on my statement: "Each individual statement in
your article was true..." Well, I *thought* all the statements were true
in the narrow, legal sense; that is, I thought that LLR said the Queen
deals in dope, but his people deny it (see Fusion Facts May 1992, p. 13).
This is really getting off the track, but the Q. of E. business was
supposedly explained in 1983 in an interview with Mark Nykanen of NBC. It
is something about a book called "Dope Inc." which discusses the role of
the English monarchy in the China Opium Wars. I suppose that since the
British Navy was fighting to secure an open market for opium, one could
blame the Queen. It is kind of like blaming Hirohito for the attack on
Pearl Harbor, except that I suppose the British government may not have
heard about the Opium War until after it happened.
 
      Anyway, I don't want to get involved in a discussion about LaRouche
or his people because I think they are a bunch of flakes -- some of them
are charming, gracious and intelligent flakes. It consoles me to remember
that the LaRouche people also support hot fusion reactors, fission
reactors, breeder reactors, space travel, food irradiation, maglev
transportation, tax cuts, evolution (not creationism), and many other
things. I encourage them to get back to work promoting tokamaks or maybe
SDI; I feel that the hot fusion community needs their help more than we
do.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Mallove Conference
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove Conference
Date: 26 May 92 05:22:44 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Frank Reddy writes:
>Okay, so the burden of preponderence of evidence rightly lies with
>the guy who claims "new physics."
 
And the burden of lost credibility rightly lies with the guy who
falsely claims that a given phenomenon requires "new physics" or
simply denies the reality of the phenomenon because he doesn't know
how to explain it.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Metal Hydrides, Inc.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Metal Hydrides, Inc.
Date: 26 May 92 12:33:29 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920525222213_73770.1337_EHA54-2@CompuServe.COM>
Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>CF or no, metal hydrides look like remarkably interesting physical
>systems.
> -chuck
>
Dick Forman comments: I found it very interesting in going through the copy I
have of the Smyth report on the Manhattan District Project of the Army
Engineer's Corp. that Metal Hydrides Inc. was involved in that project also.
****Does anyone have the citation to the book I listed on the net earlier:
Springer-Verlag book on Transition Metal Hydrides. I spoke to a Springer rep. l
ast week and together we could not locate the title. I need to know so that
I can see if it is still in print.  Thanks.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: Dick@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  /  Miles talk.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles talk.
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 03:14:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reply to Dieter Britz, Dick Blue, and Tod Green on Miles talk.
 
First, I support Dick Blue's hard questions.  But be fair, if support is so
restricted that experimenters must hide their work, then don't criticize that
they have not exercised elaborate controls, or used expensive machines.  Air
freight is cheaper than installing an expensive machine.  Rules must be
followed when shipping explosive gasses.  If skilled experimenters go on the
line with positive results in spite of derision from their colleagues, then
it's time to support proper work, or accept the results obtained under
primitive conditions.
 
Second, I endorse the proposal by Dieter Britz and Todd Green (See, I too know
how to put words in other peoples mouths.) that researchers be limited to one
talk on new material and that that be required to be within six months of the
discovery.  We could get on with our work if we did not have to listen to and
read so much junk.  But many thanks to people like Dieter and Douglas Morrison
and others who read the junk so I don't have to.
 
I further agree, that there should be a three year limit on the time allowed
to make a major new discovery.  A positive result a year is far too few to
keep up work.  Just look how many "substantial follow up results" (Tod Green's
words) on the "Top" we have gotten each year for the last 15 or so years that
my group has been working.  That is the way to justify support.  My sub group
(CDF/PIG) alone costs about 2 million dollars a year in labor and materials.
Each year we improve the apparatus because it has been so successful the
previous year.  We do have repeatable results.  Nothing=nothing=nothing...
But the "Hot Fusion" workers far excel the CDF group when it comes to yearly
successes and their cost of achievement.
 
(The above paragraph is of course a trap.  It is waiting for someone to say
.. but the Top search and "Hot Fusion" is real science, while "cold fusion"
is pseudo science.  How do you know?  I will ask.)
 
Dick Blue complains that the Miles "results on "surplus heat" look pretty
noisey."  I wish mine were as noisy.  You all seem to think this work is
easy.  Well, it isn't.  We further have to contend with the possibility that
we are performing unpopular work on nothing.  This sometimes makes us grumpy.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  /  Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Experiment
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 03:15:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm Hi - Lo 8 hour switch interval
Duration: Now charging for 2032930 seconds (565 hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 4.1 v to 3.3 v on 8 hour Hi - Lo.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.  One sigma is about 0.002
watts.  Only off line analysis will tell.  We were able to get to 0.0001 watts
for some calibration runs.  A very conservative error is 0.01 watts.  We have
achieved 0.01 watts under a wide variety of currents and temperatures and can
maintain this level from experiment to experiment including opening the
calorimeter.
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
 
Somewhat beyond 2 mega-seconds, the trend continues to increase.  So the
result appears provocative, but not proven.  That is the history of this work
for me, lots of provocation, but no proof.
 
I continue to look for 200 mw, about 20 (conservative) to 100 sigma as my
level for declaring a "positive" experiment.  Of course, if high heat flow is
seen, then there will be a requirement on total energy released to eliminate
chemistry.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
Date: 26 May 92 13:10:27 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <199205220804.AA01291@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
 
>Before people start invoking pep->d+nu or similar three body processes -beware!
>Three body interactions have essentially zero chance of happening.In the entire
>history of bubble chamber physics through to modern electronic detectors which
>have accumulated a googalplex of recordings of particle collisions the number
>of three body simultaneous collisions recorded probably approximates to
>Douglas Morrison's third initial. (DROM please confirm. If I am wrong, please
>tell me in private and I will change this posting,backdate it and deny I ever
>said it).
 
I expect that the base ten logarythm of the number of particle
collisions which have been recorded is of the order of 12-14, not 10^100.
 
Have three-particle collisions been observed?  Well, what about
N(pi+,pi-)N' (changing two protons in a nucleus to two neutrons and a
pi+ to a pi -).  It would surprise me if there were not nuclei and pion
energies for which this has to be a concerted process and if it had not
been observed in such.  Good candidates would be nuclei with even
numbers of neutrons and protons in both initial and final states.
 
I remark that reactions in which many particles are important are common
in chemistry.  A fine example are Diels-Alder type reactions which
involve in important ways 6 nuclei and as many electrons.  As you point
out what matters is the initial state phase space, small for three
particle reactions in particle colliders.
 
>But Paul has also noted the other flaw for pep->d+nu. This is a weak
>interaction governed by the same quantum mechanical matrix element as the
>"crossed" process, pp->d + (e+) + nu. The phase space (final state) is smaller
> for this but the initial state factors more than make up for it. Unless you
>give up quantum mechanics inside Palladium then you will have positrons
 produced
>by this latter process and we are back with the 0.5MeV gammas. Bill Johnson has
>explained succinctly how easily such things have been eliminated.
 
However this requires understanding a lot about quantum mechanics and I can
get around it by appropriate miracles and so this argument is much, much
less strong than what I understood your original argument to be, which
depended only on energy conservation and experiment.  In fact the whole
argument is disingenuous as we *know* that pp->d+(e+)+nu  and pep->d+nu
is too slow to go by the process you suggest.  Your argument does not
work for
 
p+e+c -> n'
n'+p -> d+nu+c
 
were c is a neutral (or possibly with a negative charge between 0 and
-1) catalytic particle (in which I do not believe) which
binds to a proton and then, with an electron forms a neutral particle
which, without coulomb barrier problems, reacts with a proton to form
deuterium.
 
I am not *really* putting forth this as a possibility as I expect that
if I thought about it for a few hours I would think of why it does not
work.  However such possiblities might exist and would require a
somewhat long and detailed refutation and hence are less convincing
than "energy and known final states of matter" type arguments.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 / Peter Wayner /  fyi
     
Originally-From: wayner@cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fyi
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 16:54:52 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

I noted an interesting fact in an article in Saturday's NYT. The
government routinely "classifies" patents that contain information it
does not want to leave the country. This includes cryptographic stuff,
but it also included "cold fusion." According to the article the
government tried to stop (and may have succeeded) the publication of
some of the patents surrounding cold fusion. The article didn't go
into more details because it was just a general article.
 
-Peter
 
--
Peter Wayner   Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850
EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu    Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008
Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850  Phone: 607-277-6678
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwayner cudfnPeter cudlnWayner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear ash avoidance in pep: (FD 306)
Date: 26 May 92 17:31:59 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992May26.131027.12465@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>In article <199205220804.AA01291@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
>
>>    < question about 3-body reactions deleted >
>
>Have three-particle collisions been observed?  Well, what about
>N(pi+,pi-)N' (changing two protons in a nucleus to two neutrons and a
>pi+ to a pi -).  It would surprise me if there were not nuclei and pion
>energies for which this has to be a concerted process and if it had not
>been observed in such.  Good candidates would be nuclei with even
>numbers of neutrons and protons in both initial and final states.
 
There is still much (interesting) discussion about the nature of this
reaction -- but activity centers around various two-step processes with
either a pi-0 or Delta as an intermediate state.  Given the present state
of knowledge of the 2-particle correlation function in nuclei and the
3-body force in nuclei, such questions cannot be settled right now.
 
However, this situation (particle fired at relativistic energies at a
target of correletated nucleons) is quite different than that of an
atomic electron reacting with the proton in each of a pair of hydrogen
atoms.  It was this kind of reaction that Close was talking about.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flames from Dr. Jones. (used to be P&F bashing)
Date: 26 May 92 14:16:59 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <9017@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, by jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr):
 
> I fail to see where P&F got a raw deal.  Hawkins, maybe.
 
Anyone know the whole Hawkins story? Where does he fit into the cold
fusion story. What kind of a raw deal did he get?
 
There were lots of rumors about him back when this first started, but
I've never heard anything I trust about his role in the story.
 
				Bob P.
 
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Pendleton              | As an engineer I hate to hear:            |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  Britz /  RE: Palladium, Hydrogen, & all that jazz
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Palladium, Hydrogen, & all that jazz
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 13:32:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM> writes:
 
>(3) Bonding models of PdH (1:1) reveal an electron state which
>     looks very much like a 1s electron orbiting the proton.  This
>     is compatible with H or D (rather than p or d) being a mobile
>     species.
 
This struck a chord with me; I remembered being surprised a long time ago,
reading in a paper that it is D, not d, that is present in PdD. So I did a
search on "deuteron" in the big file, and found these two papers (I include
some of the commentary):
 
Boya LJ;                                              An. Fis. B86 (1990) 221.
"Possible mechanisms for cold fusion in deuterated palladium".
** Some speculation about cold fusion in the Pd lattice. The stationary state
is first discussed. Deuterium is thought to be present as the neutral D most
of the time, and as d (i.e. deuterons, D+) only a small part of the time; and
to be colliding frequently ("because of the repulsive and big Pd ions").
 
Jorne J;                                        Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 519.
"Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium: the existence of
negatively charged deuteride ions".
** Contrary to almost everyone else, Jorne states that deuterium in PdD(x) is
largely in the form of D- anions and that a minute fraction exists as
deuterons, assumed to be dominant by others.
 
So, at least two writers agree with you; Jorne goes even further and makes it
D- anions. He goes on to say that these can easily fuse with the few deuterons
also present.
 If I were you, I'd borrow all the books on metal hydrides your library can
get for you, there is a wealth of information there. Also, the archived file
CNF-UNPB contains Terry's extensive bibliography of metal hydride papers and
will help you, I am sure.
 
>CF or no, metal hydrides look like remarkably interesting physical systems.
 
Almost a century of research on this, many text books etc, says that you are
right.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  Britz /  Re: Metal Hydrides, Inc.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Metal Hydrides, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 13:49:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Forman alias M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>In article <920525222213_73770.1337_EHA54-2@CompuServe.COM>
>Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>>CF or no, metal hydrides look like remarkably interesting physical
>>systems.
>> -chuck
>>
>Dick Forman comments: I found it very interesting in going through the copy I
>have of the Smyth report on the Manhattan District Project of the Army
>Engineer's Corp. that Metal Hydrides Inc. was involved in that project also.
>****Does anyone have the citation to the book I listed on the net earlier:
>Springer-Verlag book on Transition Metal Hydrides. I spoke to a Springer rep. l
>ast week and together we could not locate the title. I need to know so that
>I can see if it is still in print.  Thanks.
 
If you mean "Hydrogen in Metals" Vols I & II, Eds. G. Alefeld and J. Voelkl,
Springer, Berlin etc, 1978, then this is what you are looking for. If not,
not. But IF it is indeed in print, go to any library and look it up in Books
in Print.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  Close /   8 billion lira's worth of helium?
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  8 billion lira's worth of helium?
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 19:56:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I received a copy of an article in Corriere della Sera of 17 March which
refers to the Republica articles of 20 Oct and 6 June 91 (FP and 3 Italian
CNF supporters are reported to be suing Repub. for a sum that should keep
CNF research going for a long time). According to my Italian translator one
of the items that caused offence was the claim that CNF had not been reproduced
in other laboratories. I have not yet seen the original articles and would
like anyone who has access to them to send me copies; in particular I would
be interested to know if the articles, or the 5 scientists, state anywhere
exactly what the CNF phenomenon is as without this knowledge it is moot
whether other labs have or have not reproduced "it".
 
In a side article (CdS 3/17/92) Pons claims that his expt is up to 1 kilowatt
per cc, and approaches 100 percent reproducibility. He also states that we have
to discard traditional fusion pathways and cites d+d=4He as a possible
alternative reaction. This is very similar to the claims of April 1989 but
now more quantitatively impressive both in power output and reproducibility.
Does this imply that the claims of 4He have, after all, NOT been withdrawn?
Does this mean that all of Terry's theory is torn to ribbons and that we can
forget pep, baryon decay and that we should all have concentrated on 4He all
along?
 
If this statement of Pons is to guide us, then I urge Tom and anyone who finds
heat to look for 4He. I urge Pons to look for 4He; with 1 kilowatt per cc of
power there should be a lot of it (unless someone has a theory that enables
each fusion to produce more than the usual MeV's of energy - but even if you
released the GeV of the nucleon's E=mc**2 you would still produce some 10**9
alphas per second per watt). The China Lake people are, I believe, the
 only ones yet with any claim for helium. I urge people to ask searching
 questions of the China Lake talk, such as those already raised by Dick Blue, in
order to help evaluate its significance and to guide future experimental
strategy in this field. It will be good news for the plaintiffs if, fifteen
months after the original China Lake paper, there are new data to support their
claims. Who knows, you might even get the possibility of appearing as a witness.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  /  Thoughts About Gas Loading
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thoughts About Gas Loading
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 20:04:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am starting to collect gas loading measurements that make sense, see below
"What's good about Takahashi."  If "anomalous heat" is somehow related to D/Pd
loading then everyone doing this experiment should want to do the best possible
job of measuring it.  Some ways:
 
1) Excess Oxygen
 
Process: Back fill with oxygen or some inert gas with a cell containing a
recombiner.  Measure the excess when deuterium is absorbed.
Problems: The system ends up full of oxygen unless it is constantly measured
and removed.  Oxygen finds something to tie up over long experiment times and
the long term measurement is lost.  Seems to work well over a few hours.
 
2) Loss of Deuterium
 
Process: Back fill with deuterium with a cell containing a recombiner.
Measure loss of deuterium as it is absorbed.
Problems: The system is full of deuterium which wants to leak out unless the
whole apparatus is made from glass or ss or something hard to do in your
basement.  Still, it works pretty good over the few hour charging time.
 
3) Mechanical Deformation
 
Process:  Measure mechanical expansion after loading either by removal
(Storms) or in place by LVDT (Gozzi).
Problems: Removal risks loss of gas.  In place requires heroic efforts to seal
the LVDT and to attach it in a way to measure (one only) dimensional change.
Still no good basis to tie mechanical deformation to loading at the high D/Pd
loadings of interest.
 
4) Impedance
 
Process: Use 4 terminal impedance measurement, AC or DC, or frequency plot.
Problems: It is a royal pain to get all those leads in place.  The DC
measurement is affected by the cell current as there is a component of the
cell current in the sample.  The AC measurement is at least a complex
impedance and is still affected by the cell current, which can't be turned off
or the cathode will unload.  If Moore [1] is to be believed, then there may be
more than one loading for a given impedance measurement.  I do not know of a
reference that ties impedance to loading at high Deuterium loadings, but
hearsay says McKubre has confirmed that the Deuterium curve follows the
published Hydrogen curve.  McKubre does a first class job of this measurement.
 
5) Weighing
 
Process: Remove cathode, dry and weigh.  Or weigh in place
Problems: We observe fast loss of gas.  No time to weigh unless done in place.
Weighing in place requires balancing of current lead.  Bubbles will introduce
noise if current is left on, or outgassing will result if current is turned
off.
 
General observations on D/Pd loading.
 
The literature indicates that Pd "wants" to collect D up to a loading of about
.6 D/Pd.  The following observations are for loadings above this level.
Optimum loading would seem to be at around 60 ma per sq cm.  Above this the
loading rate decreases, and seems to quit at around 120 ma per sq cm.  The
electrochemists seem to know this as most of them load at about 60 ma per sq
cm.  Some of the gas is likely stored in pours, cracks, etc..[1]  As much as
.2 D/Pd has been observed to unload in as short a time as one minute under
favorable conditions, i.e. reverse operation at high current.  This gas exits
much too fast to be diffusion controlled.  This is spectacular since .2 D/Pd
is 25 cc for a (present size) 0.1 cc sample.
 
What's good about Takahashi
 
We observe that the Takahashi saw tooth ramp builds up the D/Pd loading over
time.  It also tops out after a while which makes me pretty sure that the
loading has changed in spite of gas measurement drift.  It is hard to unravel
what exactly is going on because the catalyst volume is hotter during the
higher current part of the ramp which accounts for at least part of the
observed loading volume saw tooth.  But it looks like there is a loading and
unloading process.  This would tend to change the absorbed gas content over
time and might get rid of an initial H loading.
 
During Hi-Lo operation, gas loading appears to slowly build up during the Lo
phase, and gas appears to be slowly lost during the Hi phase.  Because of long
term drift problems in our experiment, the Hi - Lo operation can only be
stated relatively,  it may be that the Lo level is flat and the Hi level
looses loading, etc..
 
We have further observed that the loss accelerates during Hi operation after
about seven hours.  Can it be that Takahashi observed this also and thus
established the six hour loading (half) period?  We also observe that the
"anomalous heat" tends to drop off at this same time.  These are very
tentative observations. (Before you have me hauled off to the funny farm>)
 
[1] G.A. Moore (Thesis), Princeton, 1939
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Petulant Skeptics
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Petulant Skeptics
Date: 26 May 92 21:00:35 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199205261427.AA27804@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>
>As an aside, someone suggested inelastic neutron scattering as another
>example of a "no ash, no radiation" reaction.  In this case the only
>energy source is the neutrons, and I assure you that neutrons at the
>intensity level required would surely have been detected.
>
>Petulant as always,
>Dick Blue
>NSCL @ MSU
Dick Forman comments: I can't really tell whether you are referring to my post
or not. I was not proposing a reaction for the palladium cathode case. I was
discussing another case of a nuclear reaction that had no "ash" in the sense th
at I understand Frank Close to mean. I have said many times and will say again.
MANY REACTIONS are possible especially considering the number of elements in th
e electrolyte soup and the impurities in the metal electrodes. That does not
mean that the REACTION RATES will be high enough to produce the observed (?)
effects.  Thermodynamics tells us which reactions are possible, models may help
to guesstimate reaction rates. To use guesstimates to show that a reaction
cannot occur is bad science.  Then again it is apparently hard enough to get th
e soup made well enough to work, so to ask for what happens as you change the
soup, and demand reproducibility is a big task.  Well I guess if Jed Rothwell
is correct that might be what the $65Meg/year is going for in Japan. You have
to do a lot of experiments to sort out this stuff. Takahashi showed 120 expts.
some running for three years.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Novel (?) hot fusion idea
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Novel (?) hot fusion idea
Date: 26 May 92 20:59:58 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992May25.175535.27594@uceng.UC.EDU> smogren@uceng.UC.EDU (stacy
allen mogren) writes:
> Novel (?) hot fusion idea.
 
> In one of the effects observed in crystalline
> materials, channeling, ions projected along preferred crystalline
> directions
 
> If a deuterium atom were placed in the center of
> the shaft, say by a previous low energy implant, then a second deuterium
> atom could be injected with a higher energy.  The two nuclei will then
> have a direct collision--
 
This won't work.
 
(At least without the introduction of some novel physical effect).
 
The basic problem is that in order to fuse as the result
of a collison* , the D nuclei need a very high
kinetic energy---certainly on the order of 1keV. But
that much energy would destroy the channels in the crystal lattice.
(And even if not, once the fusion occurred the ~10MeV particles produced
would really rip apart the lattice channels)
 
 
So, I'd say that the basic problem with this scheme is that you can't
confine a sufficiently hi energy D in your material
channels. A natural second attempt would be to use magnetic
channels, and that is exactly what is done in magnetic confinement
(since the ions are "channeled" along the field lines).
 
 
 
* an alternative is fusing as a result of being in close proximity
for a long time, as in muon catalyzed fusion. But that is not a collisonal
process.
 ---------------------
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.27 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Quantum tunneling for the masses
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum tunneling for the masses
Date: 27 May 92 14:41:13 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

While it is not my practice to reference derivative works, especially those
that do not cite the original papers, the incessant chatter from people
who think that they know about tunneling has become too much for me. A well
written paper that discusses quantum tunneling in solid state systems with
high barriers and intermediate wells, etc., is: The Quantum Transistor
by Mark Reed, Ph.D. (Physics) in Byte May 1989 pp. 275-281.  While this does
not have the information on the change of tunnelling transition rate as a
function of deviation from resonance (found only in Hund's work, in German)
it is a good exposition.  For those people who believe that resonance is
not possible in nuclear reactions, as in electronics, I do not have either
"lay" references for them or hope for their re-education.
Dick Forman 27 May 1992 10:55 am EDT
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.28 /  Rothwell /  Apology to Anglophiles
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apology to Anglophiles
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 16:00:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Anglophiles,
 
     This is completely off the track from fusion, but I owe an apology.
One of your readers was very upset by a comment I made regarding the
Queen Victoria's role in the Opium Wars. I said, "I suppose that since
the British Navy was fighting to secure an open market for opium, one
could blame the Queen. It is kind of like blaming Hirohito for the attack
on Pearl Harbor..."
 
     This is the result of a Former Asian Studies Major thinking aloud.
Let me explain: most historians, both western and Japanese, do *not*
blame Emperor Hirohito for the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was considered
a mere puppet, he had no say in the matter. What I meant was that it is
very farfetched to blame either Q.V. for the Opium Wars or E.H. for WWII.
 
     Let me add that during the Occupation, the U.S. government did not
hang Hirohito, or in any way blame him for the war. It was the clear,
official, pronounced policy of the U.S. Gov't that he had nothing to do
with the decision. In the '60s and '70s some revisionist historians have
called this policy and Hirohito's innocence into question, but in the
late '40s I am not aware that anyone blamed him. However, some people,
including some of my ex-kamikaze pilot friends, say that he should have
resigned and committed hara-kiri anyway, puppet or not. Finally, let me
add that I have read a lot about the Opium Wars, including an official
history from the Communist Chinese Gov't which is as rabidly anti-western
and uncompromising as you could imagine, but I have never heard of anyone
personally blaming Q.V. for the tragedy. It was the kind of thing Western
Nations did in those days, and I suppose the Eastern Nations would have
been equally barbaric if they had owned the gunboats.
 
     In future posting I shall avoid Asian History and stick to current
events in Japanese cold fusion research, and to a description of our
experiment, which has been greatly improved thanks to Tom Droege.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.28 /  /  Reply to Frank Close and Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Frank Close and Dick Blue
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 23:39:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Frank Close says "...and I am sorry if Tom feels that I have deliberately set
out to distort his words..."
 
First, I accept the apology.  It was not really necessary, and I am aware that
his arguments are reasonable.  I don't feel the distortion is deliberate.
More like "how can we get the message across to this poor fool that he is
involved in an impossible quest."  Then over reacting in the effort.  Some of
us trying to settle the "cold fusion" question by the experimental method feel
like we are involved in a Catch 22.  A) You can't have expensive machines or a
big scale experiment.  B) We won't accept experiments unless done with
expensive machines and run on a large scale.  So we are grumpy.  I for one do
not think large scale and expensive experiments are desirable or fun.  But we
may be in a race for our economic lives and then they would be necessary.
 
So Frank, don't criticize dental plates as bad experimental technique per se,
criticize how they are used and the measurement taken.  Remind us that heat or
mechanical distortion can produce dental plate images, then look for such
effects in the experiment.  "decent equipment" could well be dental plates.
You probably wear a film badge.  It works just fine for the purpose intended.
 
The challenge for me is to make good heat measurements at low cost.  I could
actually find more money than the $20,000 or so that I have spent, but choose
to try to be clever to save money.  Thus my water chiller consists of an old
dehumidifier with its coil stuck in a picnic cooler.  Cole Parmer has a nice
unit for $2500, but mine cost about $100.  As I have posted several times, the
effort has paid off in new knowledge, and even in money.
 
I have tried to make it clear that I know nothing about physics.  What I do is
to poll my physicist friends that will talk on the subject and search for
reactions that are not absolutely forbidden.  That is the source of the
???+gamma (i.e. heat) and 6Li + d.  Then I use these possibilities as a guide
for the experimental program.  Some at least tell me that d+d > alpha + heat
is not forbidden.  Is this wrong?
 
Dick Blue has asked for a list of experiments that I think credible and
which agree with my work.  Can't do that Dick.  I still think of my work as a
non-confirming but provocative experiment.  Most of the experiments below
include a thing or two that would only be known if they had actually done the
work.  Thus I can at least confirm that the work was likely done as reported.
I have not studied the non-confirming experiments, but in my view most of them
did not run long enough.  I agree with Dick that most of the calorimetry is
not very good yet.  Measuring heat is a humbling experience.  It takes a few
years of trying.  The A and B below are good enough in my opinion.
 
Here is a list of my favorite confirming (but I am only looking at the excess
heat claims) experiments with my rating.  Most are from "The Science of Cold
Fusion" and some are listed from memory.  My apologies to the good experiments
that I have forgotten to include:
 
A
 
The McKubre et. al. experiment as reported in "The Science of Cold Fusion".
Very good calorimetry.  Very nice experiments.  Excellent instrumentation.
Closed calorimetry with a catalyst.  There are plenty of checks and balances
in the experimental design.  Error limits are included.  Modest results that
would require gross errors in very excellent instrumentation to be wrong.
 
B
 
The Gozzi et al. experiment as reported in "The Science of Cold Fusion".
Good Calorimetry.  Nice experiments.  Good Instrumentation.  Modest results
would require gross errors in good instrumentation to be wrong.
 
Takahashi experiment as "reported" in fax and Jed Rothwell translations.
Fair Calorimetry.  Nice experiments.  Fair Instrumentation.  Fantastic results
that require gross error to be wrong.
 
Scott et al. as reported at Salt Lake.  From memory.  A nice start.  Too bad
that they quit working.  Good instrumentation.  Good Calorimetry.  Closed
system with a catalyst.  Error limits are indicated.  Heat not large enough to
be convincing.
 
The Pons and Fleischmann data as reported in their patent application.
 
The Pons and Fleischmann experiment reported at the end of the "The Science of
Cold Fusion Paper".  After wasting a lot of journal space on their obscure
calorimetry, they show in Figures 9, 10, and 11 a cell that boils away in a
rather convincing fashion whatever instrumentation is used.  Either a real and
interesting result or fake data.  In spite of all the calculation, I cannot
figure out what their error limits are.
 
The Hansen report in the "The Science of Cold Fusion".  The Appendix.  Hidden
away in all the flute music are some fairly convincing figures.  Again, either
a real and interesting result or fake data.
 
Appleby et al experiments reported at Santa Fe and Salt Lake.  From memory.
Nice results, reasonable instrumentation, but why did the work stop if there
was not some problem?  No funding, I believe.
 
C
 
Miles, Bush, et. al. experiment as reported in "The Science of Cold Fusion".
Fair Calorimetry.  Not enough information on Instrumentation.
 
Bockris et al in "The Science of Cold Fusion".  One more positive heat report.
Not enough information on calorimetry for criticism.
 
Huggins et al experiments as reported at Santa Fe and Salt Lake.  From memory.
I was not impressed by the calibration technique.
 
Bertalot et al in "The Science of Cold Fusion".  Minor excess heat report.
Done in the Appleby calorimeter?
 
XXX
 
Special Mention.  Pons and Fleischmann get the "turkey" award for wasting so
much journal space on justifications of their obscure calorimetry when they
apparently had much more interesting things to report.
 
Not a very big list.  Only McKubre is known to have good support, and he has
achieved a very nice result.  The rest of us work as we can so it will take
time.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.28 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Quantum tunneling for the masses
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantum tunneling for the masses
Date: 28 May 92 08:17:26 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>While it is not my practice to reference derivative works, especially those
>that do not cite the original papers, the incessant chatter from people
>who think that they know about tunneling has become too much for me. A well
>written paper that discusses quantum tunneling in solid state systems with
>high barriers and intermediate wells, etc., is: The Quantum Transistor
>by Mark Reed, Ph.D. (Physics) in Byte May 1989 pp. 275-281.  While this does
>not have the information on the change of tunnelling transition rate as a
>function of deviation from resonance (found only in Hund's work, in German)
>it is a good exposition.  For those people who believe that resonance is
>not possible in nuclear reactions, as in electronics, I do not have either
>"lay" references for them or hope for their re-education.
>Dick Forman 27 May 1992 10:55 am EDT
 
Well, Just to add to Dick's post, one of the most interesting books I've
ever lay my hand on was one called "Molecular Electronic Devices", by
Forrest Carter (ISBN 0-8247-1676-0) editing the proceeding from a workshop
on molecular electronics devices held in 1981.  It's filled with soliton
theory as an information transport across molecular chains and all.  It's
funny how circumstances get one involved, but I was reading this just today
while I was contemplating how to create a soliton on an atomic band
if this is even possible.  Solitons in the molecular electronic sense
are kind of like a very mobile holes that move across a long molecular
chain of alternating single and double bonds. Only at the point where the
soliton is located, the bond is more like 2 single bonds, and 2 half
bonds or 3 bonds where 4 or 2 should be. (ie the wave equation that
describes two half bonds is the soliton). In the case of band theory
for metals, this would be kind of like a small point in between the
conduction band and valence band.  By QM arguments, this particle
should not have that energy (It's in the forbiden zone) and therefore
should not exist.  With electron band solitons the concept is acceptable
(after all there is only one electron ;-) err that is the force on an
electron in this state are the electromagnetic and weak forces.  If
however, a larger particle (none lepton) can be place in a similar state
and the band forces acting on it are atomic, (banded pion exchange
forces? gluon force?) might seperate it or fission the particle
(al la. James White's pep QM argument from years ago.)  Well, that's a
Twist isn't it.   What I wonder about is whether there is a pion exchance
force between atomic bands. After all we are talking about delocalized
band systems here.
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \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 \   Klein bottle for sale.  Inquire within.    |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.28 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Quantum tunneling for the masses
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantum tunneling for the masses
Date: 28 May 92 17:35:48 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992May28.081726.25737@coplex.com>
chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>
>Well, Just to add to Dick's post, one of the most interesting books I've
>ever lay my hand on was one called "Molecular Electronic Devices", by
>Forrest Carter (ISBN 0-8247-1676-0) editing the proceeding from a workshop
>on molecular electronics devices held in 1981.  It's filled with soliton
>theory as an information transport across molecular chains and all.  It's
Dick Forman comments: The late Forrest Carter was a brilliant theoretician.
His wife, Cynthia Carter (G.C. Carter), is the person I credit with the
probable first observation of catalyzed fusion in a transition metal in 1976.
when I spoke to her the other day she reminded me that the samples were interch
anged between NBS, Brookhaven and the Mound Laboratories but that the NMR
paper reporting the explosion did not have a Brookhaven author. The first autho
r was Bob Bowman of Mound Labs. Full cite is in my "Apochropha" listing
in or to be in Dieter's compendium as unpublished.  The cite on Forrest Carter'
s paper on transition metal hydrides will be in the theory paper on these
hydride reactions that I will complete when the experimental data is IN.
Still having trouble reaching Ikegami for some of the Japanese data.  Jed and
I agree that there must be some data for them to release.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.28 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Apology to Anglophiles
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Apology to Anglophiles
Date: 28 May 92 18:00:02 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920528141626_72240.1256_EHL20-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>                                                 However, some people,
>including some of my ex-kamikaze pilot friends, say that he should have
>resigned and committed hara-kiri anyway, puppet or not.
>- Jed
Ex-kamikase pilots! Clearly an indication that Japanese incremental
engineering wasn't perfect even in those days.
I think we did do bad things to Warlord Tojo and his friends, however.
When the news of the atrocities really reached the American public
someone had to pay.  Too many soldiers and sailors had seen things with
their own eyes. I remember the descriptions given by my cousin in the Navy
even though I was only six years old.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.29 /  Britz /  More archived Forman
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More archived Forman
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 13:31:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Forman has sent me another short item for the archives, and I have put it
into the file CNF-UNPB, even though (I think) this has been published in FF.
But presumably none of you can afford that rag, so here is your chance to read
Dick's piece for nothing.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.29 /  Close /   China Lake helium - some questions and comments.
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  China Lake helium - some questions and comments.
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:35:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In view of Miles impending talk on helium I looked at my copy of their
preprint again; I do not have access to their final publication and my copy
is not totally legible so please, someone, check if my reading of it is right.
 
They claim a correlation between power and 4He. However, my paper contains no
quantitative details, merely He at limit of detection, medium peak and large
peak. Their detection limit seems to be 8*10**11 atoms of 4He. Their power
excesses of 0.14 and 0.17W have 4He at the limit, which presumably means
"not more than 10**12" (if this is not already answered in their published
paper, perhaps it might be worth clarifying at the talk). Now this seems to
me to be at most 1 percent in that some 10**14 atoms would be expected if this
were a fusion production of helium with the accumulation times (4440secs)
cited by them. Yet, if I am reading their paper right, they seem to claim
that the He is within an order of magnitude of that expected (from dd)?
I presume that this claim must refer to their "large" 4He signal
and associated with the 0.5W power data. If so, are they
claiming that less than a threefold increase in power (`less than' because
there are 0.46, 0.36 and 0.22W included as large peaks) correlates with an
order of magnitude increase in helium? Could we have some numbers so that
the actual correlations and heat/helium can be compared?
 
Also I note their power claim is 1.3W/cc for their highest power data. Now
Bockris once claimed that chemistry could not explain power greater than
2W/cc. IF my memory and interpretation is right, why does this heat need one
to invoke nuclear anyway? I raise this question because I notice that the
China Lake paper emntions that their light water expts gave some unexplained
heat too but no 4He nor 3He.
 
One of their control samples contained much 4He but they say that this was
probably due to an air leak during flight. Why do they say this for the
control and not admit the possibility for the "active" samples? Even though
the latter went by road, is it obvious that one can dismiss this (see also
Dick Blue's questions).
 
Finally, there is a remark that some preparatory work `likely' removed any
preexisting helium. What does `likely' mean?
 
What work have they done since the JEC paper of last year and what are they
planning to do? Will they be taking radiation measurements in collaboration
with nuclear professionals in order to establish what, if anything, may
have been responsible for their fogged dental plates.
 
As a general comment. Whether one is investigating the d-Pd system for
pure science or for industrial development, it would seem to me that a
serious effort to assay the "ash" is the best way to identify precisely
which process is responsible for the heat (if there is any). When one knows
that one might be in a better position to control and develop the device.
Thus anyone funding CNF e.g EPRI, Japanese, ought to be requiring or budgeting
for such tests. This suggestion is not new nor original; it was essentially
present in the ERAB-DOE report which, for some reason, many CNF supporters
seem to abhore. Nonetheless, it would seem to me a sensible use of money
in order to minimise waste and/or maximise opportunity.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.29 /   /   Lots of experiments
     
Originally-From: <BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Lots of experiments
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:41:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Forman says,
<<  "You have to do a lot of experiments to sort this stuff out."  >>
 
To this I would add that it takes more than just a lot of experiments.  In
fact many of the cold fusion experiments we have seen over the course of
3 years do little or nothing for any clarification of 'this stuff'.
 
Continuing on the issue of nuclear "ash" and "radiation",  if you consider
the entire span of nuclear reactions it is probably not possible to make
a totally general statement about the ease with which the process could be
detected, but so what.  The issue makes sense only within the specific
context of what is possible or "interesting" for cold fusion.  For example,
what practical interest would there be in this process if the essential
fuel were the Palladium rather than Deuterium?  Nuclear alchemy can indeed
turn base metal into gold, but there is little commercial interest in the
process.  The dollars that have been funding cold fusion research are
often justified by tha notion that the fuel is a cheap and abundant light
isotope.  For that reason I think the sorting out process should restrict
consideration to only those nuclear processes involving a hydrogen isotope
and one or more of the other ingredients common to "working" cells.  Now
can we, on the basis of completed experiments, arrive at a list of key
ingredients?  Is it agreed that deuterium is the essential hydrogen isotope?
Is there any information regarding the nuclear role of 6Li and/or 7Li?
Can we rule out all reactions that produce energetic neutrons?
 
I suggest that if the questions posed above cannot be answered, the cold
fusion experimental effort has been largely a hopeless thrashing about.
Spending more scientific resources on repeating more experiments that will
be equally inconclusive is folly.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.29 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 16:21:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Prosze Panstwa,
I'll quickly post these two lone items before going off for the weekend. The
Bressani is just a correction to an earlier paper and does not count; the
other certainly does, and might fuel the recent debate about nuclear ash on
this news group. It provides a possible explanation of the famous China Lake
paper, in terms of contamination.
Still have not got to the review of The Book, being too busy this week. Next
week, I promise.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-May. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 717
 
Books
^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none - but soon...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Published articles, Letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bressani T, Calvo D, Feliciello A, Lamberti C, Iazzi F, Minetti B, Cherubini R,
Haque AMI, Ricci RA;        Il Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. 104A (1991) 1587.
ERRATA: "Observation of 2.5 MeV neutrons emitted froma  titanium-deuterium
system".
** In the paper referred to here, same journal  104A (1991) 1413, some of the
corrections requested by the authors were not carried out in the final
version. On p.1417, line 19, there should appear (4.0 +- 1.5) n/s, and in the
following row, (1.3 +- 0.5) n/s/g.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zywocinski A, Li H-L, Tuinman AA, Campbell P, Chambers JQ, Van Hook WA;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 319 (1991) 195.
"Analysis for light atoms produced in the bulk phase of a tubular palladium/
silver alloy cathode working electrode".
** This is the counterpart of the calorimetric paper by the same team. Here,
the cathode was a 81:19 atom-fraction Pd-Ag alloy tube of 85 microns wall
thickness, 1.6 mm outside diameter and 75 mm length; the outside of the tube
acted as a cathode in D2O + LiOD, and the inside was connected to a vacuum
system to withdraw gases from it. During electrolysis, tritium is expected to
go through, while helium is not; He was pulled through into the vacuum system
after electrolysis by heating to 870 K and pulling hydrogen through for
several hours. Mass spectroscopy was used to detect the species searched for;
any (4)He+ ions were distinguished from D2+, present in large excess, by
removing all hydrogen species by oxidation and cold-trapping. During
electrolysis, species with masses 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 were found and assigned to
various HnDm+ species by the high-resolution MS used. At this stage, some
(4)He was found, peaking when the current was on - but was found due to
contamination of the electrode from the laboratory atmosphere. Similar results
were obtained from electrolysis in H2O and LiOH. The final results for (4)He
were all at about the level expected from atmospheric levels, i.e around
(1-3)E12 atoms. Tritium levels, too, were not above contamination levels, being
the same for controls, and initial solutions without electrolysis. The authors
comment that the results of Bush et al (same journal 304 (1991) 271) are
likely to be due to their not pretreating their electrodes to remove occluded
helium. Such helium is degassed electrolytically.                Mar-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
none
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.28 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Experiment
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 19:02:55 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <920526144044.23a019c4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.  One sigma is about
>0.002 watts.  Only off line analysis will tell.  We were able to get to
>0.0001 watts for some calibration runs.  A very conservative error is
>0.01 watts.
 ...
>Here is the energy balance to date:
>
>Period                Energy for        Watts for
>                      Period (Joules)   Period
>0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
>0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
>1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
>1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
 
Just to see if I understand such things:
 
You have a negative energy balance of about 1 sigma over a period of
.5 Msec.  I assume this period is long enough for many ramps and that
the system is in the same state (point on the ramp, etc) at the
beginning and end of the period.  I ignore the possibility of some
non-chemical process absorbing energy.  (Producing energy is bad
enough... :-)
 
Then that means that either a chemical process has stored 1 KJ during
the course of 5 Ms, or your error is at least 0.0021 watts, right?
(Or some combination of both.)  Shouldn't negative energy balances,
over such a long period of time, serve as a flag for errors?
 
Disclaimer on this idea: I have no idea how big a KJ is relative to
the chemicals in your calorimeter.
--
"I did not walk into the wall!  OK, I did walk into the wall, but it wasn't
my fault!!"
			Chris Phoenix -- chrisp@efi.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Lots of experiments
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lots of experiments
Date: 29 May 92 17:31:58 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199205291452.AA18682@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
BLUE%MSUNSCL.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
 
>
>Dick Forman says,
><<  "You have to do a lot of experiments to sort this stuff out."  >>
>
>To this I would add that it takes more than just a lot of experiments.  In
>fact many of the cold fusion experiments we have seen over the course of
>3 years do little or nothing for any clarification of 'this stuff'.
>
>Continuing on the issue of nuclear "ash" and "radiation",  if you consider
>the entire span of nuclear reactions it is probably not possible to make
>a totally general statement about the ease with which the process could be
>detected, but so what.  The issue makes sense only within the specific
>context of what is possible or "interesting" for cold fusion.  For example,
>what practical interest would there be in this process if the essential
>fuel were the Palladium rather than Deuterium?  Nuclear alchemy can indeed
>turn base metal into gold, but there is little commercial interest in the
>process.  The dollars that have been funding cold fusion research are
>often justified by tha notion that the fuel is a cheap and abundant light
>isotope.  For that reason I think the sorting out process should restrict
>consideration to only those nuclear processes involving a hydrogen isotope
>and one or more of the other ingredients common to "working" cells.  Now
>can we, on the basis of completed experiments, arrive at a list of key
>ingredients?  Is it agreed that deuterium is the essential hydrogen isotope?
>Is there any information regarding the nuclear role of 6Li and/or 7Li?
>Can we rule out all reactions that produce energetic neutrons?
>
>I suggest that if the questions posed above cannot be answered, the cold
>fusion experimental effort has been largely a hopeless thrashing about.
>Spending more scientific resources on repeating more experiments that will
>be equally inconclusive is folly.
>
>Dick Blue
>NSCL @ MSU
Dick Forman says: Amen.
We should be out of the "cookbook" phase by now.
*******
Other people in other countries are: (selected titles)
An approach to the cold fusion through hydrogen isotopes analysis by the heavy
ion Rutherford analysis.
Cold Nuclear Fusion in Pressurized Liquid Metals.
********
The first title appears to be badly translated into English from the original.
I'll try to improve on it next week when I get the abstract.
Dick Forman 29 May 1992 2:10 pm EDT.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: Miles talk.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miles talk.
Date: 29 May 92 22:14:25 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920526170424.23a019c4foo@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>
>First, I support Dick Blue's hard questions.  But be fair, if support is so
>restricted that experimenters must hide their work, then don't criticize that
>they have not exercised elaborate controls, or used expensive machines.  Air
>freight is cheaper than installing an expensive machine.  Rules must be
>followed when shipping explosive gasses.   ....
 
You miss the point.  The issue concerned the treatment of controls in a
way different from the non-controls, which makes one ask if there *were*
true controls on the experiment.
 
Some (long) time ago I posted remarks about the common use of double-blind
experiments (in fields other than physics) to test hypotheses where it
could plausibly be feared that the experimenter might, knowingly or
unknowingly, be affecting the outcome of the experiment.  The best example
of this in recent time was the protocol that James Randi set up to test
the claims of Benveniste and company, but I must say the history of N-rays
suggests the importance of such precautions.
 
I think it is very important to handle control experiments in this way
for CNF.  The case of the experiment under discussion is one where, not
only do we know which were controls and which not, but the controls were
handled differently than the non-controls.  This is not very good when
one is looking for signals that are not much above the noise.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.30 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  RE: Reply to Frank Close and Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reply to Frank Close and Dick Blue
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 07:22:27 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

Tom Droege says:
 
>Here is a list of my favorite confirming (but I am only looking at the excess
>heat claims) experiments with my rating.  Most are from "The Science of Cold
>Fusion" and some are listed from memory.  My apologies to the good experiments
>that I have forgotten to include:
 
Well, I'll go along with  McKubre having very  solid result, but some of the
others I'm not so sure of. One thing I would like to know about Takahashi is
whether or not he has done any blanks with H2O. From what I've read it doesn't
appear that he has, and certainly his earlier papers on neutron detection
didn't show any light water runs. Maybe Tom or Jed Rothwell can clarify the
situation.
 
>The Pons and Fleischmann experiment reported at the end of the "The Science of
>Cold Fusion Paper".  After wasting a lot of journal space on their obscure
>calorimetry, they show in Figures 9, 10, and 11 a cell that boils away in a
>rather convincing fashion whatever instrumentation is used.  Either a real and
>interesting result or fake data.  In spite of all the calculation, I cannot
>figure out what their error limits are.
 
Well, if you believe follow-up paper - FPAHL(90)- their error is  0.1% or
10 mW whichever is largest. But to put this into perspective, you should take
a look at the error limits obtained by Williams et al. at Harwell and Walling
and Hawkins at NCFI using very similar calorimeters to F&P. Both of these groups
arrived at an error of around 5% - i.e. approximately 50 x higher than the
errors reported in FPAHL(90)! The latter result is particularly convincing
because they used the same calorimeters and electronics as F&P, and a data
analysis procedure which is equivalent to that described in FPAHL(90). Also,
Hawkins as you will no doubt remember was a co-author on the first two
calorimetery papers by F&P and you would think that he would be very familiar
with the original procedures. So what are F&P doing to get such amazing
accuracy that these other two groups have missed? I mean, there are two blank
experiments in FPAHL(90) in which the input powers is > 15 watts but the energy
balance is within 1 mW (< 0.007% error).  This is pretty amazing for an
isoperibolic calorimeter which is neither closed, nor isothermal and which has
a calibration curve that is highly non-linear. For even more perspective, read
the papers by McKubre and Droege where, with highly sophisticated calorimeters,
the error level was still about 10mW - i.e. 10 x F&P error. IMHO the error
limits in FPAHL(90) are grossly underestimated and this casts some suspicion
on the validity of the blank experiments performed.
 
As for these 'boil off' episodes, are they really that suprising? The cell is
after all a dewar and has a heating coeffecient of 0.1 W/K, so it is fairly
easy to boil the cell with less than 10 watts of electrolysis power. P&F often
show these graphs of the cell temp rising continuously but so is the input power
in most cases due to the loss of electrolyte and the corresponding increase in
cell impedance. One graph (for run #6) shows the cell going to boiling
point but in same time the cell voltage has climbed from 8V to 24 V! Note that
the compliance of the potentiosat F&P use is 100V and 1A so they could dump
up to 100 watts of power. To me it just looks like a thermal runaway, but I
know that F&P claim that they take this rising input power into consideration
when doing the energy balance etc. I would argue that it would be extremely
difficult to do proper calorimetry when the cell is operating in such a non
steady state regime (i.e. close to boiling).
 
Some support for the themal runaway hypothesis, though, comes from some other
experiments done at the NCFI. The metallurgy group ran two cells (one with
D2O and a H2O control) which had been supplied by F&P. At an input of 0.5 Amps
the light water cell temp rose to 60 deg C and stabilised, but the D2O
cell got hotter and hotter and eventually boiled. Sounds like XS heat but alas
no. When the energy balance was done, no heat was found to within 2% so boil
out results while dramatic can have mundane causes. This doesn't necessarily
invalidate the  F&P results but I notice that at Como they put great creedence
on the fact that boil out wasn't occuring in light water cells. Maybe this is
significant but I suspect that the reason for this is that the D2O cells
always run at a  slightly higher input power than H2O cells (at the same
current) and are therefore more likely to reach a temperature where thermal
run away will occur.
 
---
Todd Green
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentiq cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.30 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Nuclear Ash and Difficulty finding enough.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Ash and Difficulty finding enough.
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 16:41:14 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

        Who says that 4He is last product one has to look for?
What about 4He + D -> 6Li? It would be a bit difficult to find
in the "sea" of Li coming from electrolyte, heh? And most people
are running with LiOD! It also possibly complicates measurement
since then heat is produced by two different reactions and by-
products of one are further consumed, one has to be very carefull
trying to correlate heat and 4He ash. It might be interesting to
run an experiment with an electrolyte other than LiOD(something
with no Li and try to find Li after a run).
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.01 /  Britz /  M & F?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: M & F?
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 13:26:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
It is some time since we have heard anything from the Mills & Farrell "theory"
or its experimental verification. Initially, there was a rush to the lab, and
one or two confirmations. Since than, silencio. Now, I myself never did go for
it, but a lot of people apparently did; such highly exciting results would
surely be followed up? Professor Farrell, if you are still reading this group,
please bring us up to date. On the other hand, if you have found a fatal flaw,
don't just let it fizzle out - come out and retract publically. The public
would think more highly of you, egg on your face or not. The cluster impact
fusion people have done just that, I believe.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.05.31 /  merlin /  Thermonuclear device design (Was: Nuclear weapon construction)
     
Originally-From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermonuclear device design (Was: Nuclear weapon construction)
Date: 31 May 1992 22:04:35 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

>>The best published guess -- [ . . . ] -- is that fusion bombs use the
>>X-ray emissions from the fission explosion to get the job done before
>>the blast wave arrives:  the X rays are reflected into an absorber
>>material, heating it to extremely high temperatures, and the thermal
>>explosion of the absorber implodes the fusion assembly.
 
Hogwash.  Result of an opportunistic government disinformation campaign.
Anyone know when styrofoam (or exploding styrofoam :-) was developed?
 
>>Detailed design of fusion bombs is known to be complex.
 
Double hogwash.  Thermonuclear weapons design/construction is extremely
simple given you have means to manufacture one low yield fission device.
 
>What's wrong with putting the fusion mechanism inside the fission
>mechanism, i.e. using fission implosion to set the fusion off same way as
>conventional implosion is used to set the fission off.
 
Well, in the first place there isn't much room inside a traditional atom
bomb.  In the second place it would increase the amount of fissionable
material required to achieve critical mass.  In the third place even if
you wanted to construct such a device it would provide only a moderately
boosted yield.  In the forth place, we all know the fundamental hydrogen
bomb design is essentially scalable from a few kilotons of nuclear yield
(in the neutron bomb) to several hundred megatons -- work it out for
yourself, how much Li6-D or T-D fuel would you need to fuse in order to
achieve a few hundred megaton yield -- forget the fission trigger (it's
yield can be neglected) -- concentrate on designing the second stage --
with the assumption anyone can construct an adequate fission trigger.
 
Enough already!  Any high school physics student with a little thought
could build a decent proof of principal computer simulation of something
along the lines of the following generic thermonuclear device model:
 
 
 
 
        + + +                  =======================================
      +  . . .+                |          U-238                      |
    +.- - - - -.+              |   ===============================   |
  +.-  - - - - - .+            |   |                             |   |
 +.-  - - - - - -  .+          |   |                             |   |
 +.- - - === - - - - .+        |   |                             |   |
  +.- - =====  - - - - .+      |   |                             |   |
    + .|Pu239|- - - DETONATOR  |   |      Li6-D + n ==> T-D      |   |
  +. -  =====  - - - - .+      |   |                             |   |
 +. - -  ===  - - - -. +       |   |                             |   |
 +.- - - - - - - - . +         |   |                             |   |
  +. - - - - - - . +           |   |                             |   |
   + .  - - - -. +             |   ===============================   |
     +  . . .  +               |          U-238                      |
       + + + +                 =======================================
 
Take Pu-239 sphere (let's leave out the neutron reflector/tamper for
simplicity's sake for now), wrap it in a low velocity of detonation
high explosive (say 10 mm/usec) in the shape of a heart (in the region
indicated by the "-" signs in the figure).  Then slather some high
velocity of detonation (say 15 mm/usec) high explosive over the surface
(in the region indivated by the "+" signs in the figure).  Insert the
detonator at the base of the heart shaped device to complete the first
stage fission trigger.  Basically, when the detonator is set off the
shock wave will propagate through the high velocity high explosive to
the far side of the Pu-239 core in the same time the shock wave takes
to arrive through the low velocity high explosive to the near side of
the Pu-239 core.  Indeed, with an appropriately shaped heart (a simple
calculus problem) one can make the shock wave arrive simultaneously on
all surfaces of the Pu-239 core.  More efficient triggers can of course
be designed -- but this one is pretty reliable and simple to machine --
and it provides adequate yield to drive the second stage of our design.
 
Now, take some Li6-D -- put it in a thick walled U-238 container --
set off the fission first stage -- neutrons escaping from the trigger
will cause the Li6-D to convert to T-D (tritium and deuterium -- heavy
isotopes of hydrogen -- hence the name "hydrogen bomb") -- and induce
fission events in the U-238 wrapper of the second stage.  The fissions
in the U-238 will cause shock compression and heating of the (now) T-D
core of the second stage yielding fusion reactions when the appropriate
pressures and temperatures are attained.  The fusion events will yield
fast neutrons -- some of the fast neutrons will indice additional fast
fission events in the U-238 -- causing additional shock compression and
heating of the fusion fuel.  Basically, the U-238 wrapper is used to
generate high enough temperatures and pressures to start the fusion
reaction -- then a recursive reaction takes place with (1) fast neutrons
from the fusion reactions generating energy in the U-238 wrapper, which
(2) causes additional shock compression and heating of the fusion fuel.
About half of the energy yeild of the second stage of this device is
generated by fusion events and the other half is generated by U-238 fast
fissions.  So far, everything we've done is in the open literature -- it
is up to you to keep anything you discover which is not already in the
open literature secret -- remember basic atomic physics is "born secret."
 
>Of course you could have a deuteride based ferro-electric neutron gun
>as well to add more neutrons. Not knowing enough about H bomb technology I
>am assuming here that you do actually use hydrogen gas in H bombs as the
>fusionable material ("fusion fuel") - correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Well, at least you're on the right track toward a thermonuclear device
without using "special nuclear materials" -- wrong technology -- but a
step in the right direction -- unfortunately not enough of this material
is in the open literature to document exactly how to build such a device.
 
>As always the problem with terrorist construction of this kind of thing
>is obtaining the nuclear material - this requires terrorist seizure or
>a reprocessing plant in a freindly country... (unless you're really
>lucky and live in the world of Mr. T. Clancy ;-).
 
Anyone know the spot market price for U235/Pu239 and/or Li6D in the CIS
outliers (the nonsignatory states controlling their own weapons and/or
special nuclear materials)?  What about Iran (or Iraq for that matter)?
 
Personally, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time (and not much time at
that) until we have either a government sponsored or nongovernment group
attempting credible nuclear blackmail with one device in the desert and
another in a big city.  The technology to fabricate a deliverable device
given a willingness to acquire the necessary materials -- particularly in
a country where life is cheap -- and some martyr is willing to machine a
plutonium core -- is all too easy to acquire.  I certainly am not at all
interested in participating in such a project, but I think it's high time
we stop pretending there is any special brain expertise required to make
a high yield thermonuclear weapon -- it doesn't take special styrofoam --
it doesn't require reflected xrays -- it does require some knowledge of
high explosives, compressed matter physics, fast reactor theory, computer
modeling, elementary inertial confinement fusion physics, and viola - you
have a multiple megaton bomb on your hands.
 
Right now we threaten state level organizations with sanctions and maybe
even invasion (Iraq) to slow new members from entering the thermonuclear
club -- how are we going to stop sub- (or non-) national organizations?
 
Merlin
The Magician
King Arthur's Court
Camelot
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmerlin cudlnmerlin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 /  /  Reply to Tod Green
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Tod Green
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 03:30:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Todd Green seems to agree with me that the one worthwhile paper is that by
Mckubre, the only one I rated "A".  I note that the McKubre group is the only
one with continuous consistent funding over the last three years.  Does good
funding force a quality positive result, or enable one?  How do we test this
hypothesis "double blind"?
 
I once sent my brother after Hawkins to ask him what all those calculations
really meant in terms of accuracy, Hawkins said 5%.
 
I appreciate Todd's analysis of the "boiling" events.  My first reaction is to
assume that P&F took "normal" precautions in evaluating the boiling events.
But this can not be assumed when these experimenters somehow arrive at 0.1%
accuracy for situations where the rest of us find 5%.
 
This prompted examination again of Figures 9, 10, and 11 of the F&P paper in
"The Science of Cold Fusion".  My conclusion is that they look nice, and P&F
say that "...the cell contents themselves are evaporated from the cell at a
rate that cannot be explained by consideration of the values of the total
enthalpy input, even if the heat transfer coefficient is considered to be
zero.", but there is not enough information presented to substantiate their
claim.  In particular, cell voltage is given, but not current so I cannot
check the power input.  It is essential that they give the cell voltage and
current and the rate of evaporation, then anyone can figure it out.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 /  /  Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experiment Status
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 03:32:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm Hi - Lo 6 hour switch interval
Duration: Now charging for 2502250 seconds (695 hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 4.1 v to 3.3 v on 6 hour Hi - Lo.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.  One sigma is about 0.002
watts.  There will be no off line analysis of the first part of the run.
Good technique would be to analyze the data as taken.  But I am only one.  Now
I discover that disk writes were patched out, so there will be only the eight
printed items at six minute intervals.  I have this big pile of disks that I
was faithfully changing.  Now when I look at them they all have 0 length
files.
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
2.0 -  2.5 M sec       7628              +0.0152
 
Somewhat beyond 2.5 mega-seconds, the trend continues to increase.  But
remember it takes 100 sigma for me to declare a "positive" experiment.  So
skeptics don't worry too much about that 7+ sigma.
 
Chris Phoenix worries about the negative interval.  That's what statistics is
all about, Chris.  One sigma does not mean very much in this business.
Possibly you have taken too many psychology courses.  I am actually bragging
about the precision and stability of my calorimeter in the first three lines.
Yes, I do attempt to take the energy balance point at the same Hi-Lo
conditions.  Chris further states "I have no idea how big a KJ is relative to
the chemicals in your calorimeter."  All the information is there for you (and
anyone else) to compute any chemical processes that you can dream up.  I just
added that there is 40 cc of electrolyte.
 
The next two lines are more worrysome.  These send me searching for a drift
cause.  There is the problem that my house has switched from winter to summer
conditions.  There are a number of servo loops that attempt to remove
environmental effects, and they seem to do a good job.  My normal approach is
to search the 60 odd variables for one which seems to match the "anomalous
heat" trend.  Then I attempt to use this variable to remove the trend.  If I
can find a way to do it, I assume no "anomalous heat" until I can do an
experiment where I control the variable in question.  So far I have found no
likely cause for the "change in balance".
 
Dick Blue writes "...what practical interest would there be in this process if
the essential fuel were the Palladium..."  This would be really new science,
Dick, and would bring the finder all the rewards science has to offer.  What
practical interest is there in the "Top", in another field?  But we have
funded a lot of "Top" searches, proton decay searches, etc..
 
I ask Dick Blue - If you really thought that the source of heat was the
conversion of Palladium to something else, would you advocate funding to
understand the process?
 
What do you mean Dick "...the dollars that have been funding cold fusion..."?
You and Frank Close, and others like you are responsible for there being
essentially **no funding** for "cold fusion" research.  In other comments in
FD319, you and Frank are trying to tell us how we should conduct the research
in CNF.  I say, advocate funding, or shut up!  But remember, personally, I do
not want the field to be funded as I could not compete.
 
Dick ends with a statement that essentially says, if we don't know what we are
doing by now, we should quit.  It's OK with me, Dick, that you have quit, if
you ever started.  I will carefully read your advice, and it is appreciated.
I say all new science is, in your words "...largely a hopeless thrashing
about.".  I would not have it any other way.
 
J.A. Carr advocates the use of double blind experiments.  Almost nothing in
Physics is done double blind.  Let's examine the "double blind" procedure for
the discovery of the "W" and "Z" at CERN.  Ha!  Note that almost all bubble
chamber work used the ***same*** computer codes (once called thresh and
grind).  If some devious programmer had planted some construct in those
zillion lines of code, he could have produced any particle he desired.  So
with the same rules that you would apply to CNF I would throw out most of the
last thirty years work in physics.
 
But that is not the way it will be done.  If I (or anyone else) generates an
experiment that others can repeat, then everyone will forget about "double
blind" procedures.  If we cannot, then forget it.
 
Meanwhile, I have taken Bockris's words at Santa Fe to heart.  First get a
repeatable heat producing experiment.  No nead to waste time on ***any***
controls until repeatable excess heat is thought to be seen with a good
measurement tool.  Once that is accomplished, then bring on the H2O, the
Amazing! Randi, and the neutron counters and we will find the source.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.01 / Chuck Sites /  Takahashi's Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi's Calorimetry
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 08:00:27 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
     When I first looked at Dr. Takahashi's data, I was very excited.
In Exp 115 there was clearly a power excess coming from that experiment,
or so it seemed.  After looking closer at the data, I started to see some
problems.  To determine the power excess, a calibration run was made where
the power input was correlated to a temperature change in the cell.  Because
there is a cooling coil in the cell, it was assumed  "zero power level" is
the temp of the coil.  For Exp 115, this relation was determined to be a
Delta_T of 7C for 100 Watts in.  Based on temp change from a 20C mark, the
power out from various sweeps could be determined.  From this you get some
very impressive numbers.  Sweep 34 for example, has a power in of 92 Watts
and a power out of 242 Watts. See calibration.  However, the closer I looked
at the data, the more things didn't make sense. The cell was a cylinder, 11cm
high, by 12cm in diameter with internal dimensions of 10.5cm by 11cm diam =
998cc.  The volume of solution was 500cc's of D2O.  To one side there is a
cooling coil, with a constant temp of 20C and circulating water at a rate
of 10 l/min.  On the other side the cathode anode CF devices was placed.
Some where between these two is a single thermocouple.  The cell was not
stirred and relied on electrolysis bubbling to mix the cell to thermal
balance.  Basically there are some complicated thermodynamics with the
geometry of the cell.  However, the macro properties of the cell should
mask most of the subtulties of the calorimeter problems, and thus using
some basic physics it should be possible to see how much heat is created.
What follows is my analysis,
 
[Note: I'm using calories because conceptually it's easy to understand.]
[That is, a 1 degree C change in temp for 1 cubic centimeter of water. ]
 
Takahashi's            +------------  To TRL-108 cooling system.
Calorimeter design.    | +----------  Flow 10l/min H2O. 20C constant in.
                       | |
         +-------------------( Amp-meter ) -----+---------------( + )
         |    T1       | |                      |
         |       o     | |                      | (Volt-meter)
         | +---- o -----------------------------+---------------( - )
         | |     o     | |
+-----------------------------------+     500cc solution of D2O +0.3M LiOD
|   +---------------------------+   | --    refill rate 150cc/week.
+---|    | |     o     | |      |---+  ^
|   |~~~~|~|~~~~~o~~~~~| |~~~~~~|   |  |    m = mass of the D20 Bath (gm)
|   | . .|.|. . .o .+--| |--+ . |   |  |    c = specific heat D2O  (Cal/gm C)
|   |. . | | . . o. | Cool- |. .|   |  |    T = Temperature (degrees C)
|   | . .| |. . .o .| ing   | . |   |  |    V = Voltage (Volts)
|   |. . |.| . . o. |       |. .|   |  |    I = Current (Amps)
|   | .+-|-|--+ .o .| Coil  | . |   |  |    J = IT calories to Joules Constant
|   |. | | |  |. o. |       |. .|   |  |    t = Time (seconds)
|   | .| Cell | .o .|       | . |   |  |
|   |. +------+. o. +-------+. .|   |  110mm   Container material: Acrylite.
|   | . . .D2O. . . . 500cc's . |   |  |
|   +---------------------------+   |  v     ---- 5mm
+-----------------------------------+ ----    ---
|<------------ 120 mm ------------->|
 
 
The calibration graph below shows a 7 degree C change from the zero power
level for a 100 watt input.  For 500cc of solution, this amounts to an
addition of Q = m c (delta T) calories. (Here Q = calories, m = mass,
c = heat capacity or specific heat, and delta T is the change in temp.)
The mass (m) of a (99.9%) D2O solution is 500cc * 1.110449 gm/cc
@ 25.5C = = 555.2gm.  The heat capacity (c) of 99.977% D2O is 84.663
Joules/K/mole at 298.15 K.  Converting to calories/C/gram using a molecular
weight of 20.0284 and using the international table calorie of 4.1860 Joules
per calorie gives a specific heat of c = 1.00983 cal/gm C at 25.05C.
With solids, solutions and gases heat capacity can change wildly near
phase transitions, however with D2O temp between the range of 20C to 40C
the change is linear and small.  I'm going to use 1.0098 cal/gm C for the
calculations that follow.
 
CALIBRATION:
 
      +
30C  -|             P_in = 100W                             Takahashi's
      +                                                     Calibration
      |        -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oo
      +                ^         o    P_in = 50W            Delta T_Cal = 7C
25C  -|                |         o                          Power in = 100W
      +                |         oo-o-o-o-o-o-o-oo
      |            Delta T_cal                   o
      +                |                         o  P_in=0W
      |                v                         o
20C   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+oo-o-o-o-o-o Zero Power Level
                    ( Time ) ---->
 
The calories gained by a change in temp (T) from 20C to 27C is given by
Q = m c (Delta T) = 555.2gm * 1.00983 cal/gm C * 7C = 3935 calories.  The
electrical heating by Joules law is Q = V I t / J where V=voltage in Volts,
I=current in Amps, t=time in seconds, and J is a conversion constant =
4.186 J/calorie. From this we can calculate the time required for 100 Watts
of power to raise the temp by 7C.  Equating Q=m c (delta T) = V I t / J,
then t = Q J / V I = 3935 cal * 4.186 J/cal / 100 W = 164 sec or about 3min.
 
Note this calculation completely ignores heat removed by the cooling coil,
in which case, the time to heat the solution to 7C above zero power should
be much...much longer, as we will see below.  For each experimental sweep
presented, the time required to make the Low to Hi transition between
temp equilibriums is approximately 35 minutes.  By assuming the same
time of transition for the calibration run, it's possible to calculate
the equivalent volume being heated to the position of the thermometer.
 
   The quantity of heat released by Joule heating is Q = V I t / J, so
for 100W, Q = (100W * (35min * 60sec/min)) / 4.186 Joules/cal = 50167 cal.
Since Q = m c (delta T), m = Q / c (Delta T) = 50167 / (1.0098 * 7) = 7097gm.
At a density of 1.11gm/cc, the equivalent volume heated is 7097gm/1.11gm/cc
= 6394cc. Since the volume of D2O heated is 500cc, this implies the cooling
coil removed the equivlant of (6394cc-500cc)*1.11gm/cc*(1.0098cal/gm C*7C)=
46244 cal.  For a period of 35min, the heat removed by the coil is
1321 cal/min or 92 Watts.  At a flow rate of 10 l/min of H2O through the
coil implies a gain of 132.1 cal/l of H2O circulated.  The cooling system
was a MAS TRL-108 and has a cooling capacity of 120Kcal/Hr. The calibration
run gives, 79.275Kcal/Hr implying an efficiency of 66%. At higher temperature
gradients, this efficiency should improve, and at lower temp gradients, it
should be less.  In terms of wattage the cooling capacity is 140W. With this
in mind lets look at the data.
 
40C  -|
      +            (H)                     (L)             Exp. 115
      |  |                       |                       | Sweep 1
      +  |<---- I = 4.20A ------>|<---- I = 0.25A ------>|
      |  |                       |                      || PL_in  = 1.25W
      + ||                       |                      || PL_out = 51W
      | ||                      ||                      || Excess = 50W
      + o|o o o o o o o o       ||                      ||
30C  -|-o| - - - - - - - -o o o || - - - - - - - - - -  || PH_in  = 111W
      + o|                     o||                      || PH_out = 181W
      | o|                     o||                      || Excess = 70W
      +o||                     o||                      || +- 0.2C
      |o|                      o|                       o  Low temp  = 23.3
      o |                       o                     o |  High temp = 31.2
      | |                       |oo o o o o o o o o o   |
      + |<----- V = 27.0V ----->|<----- V = 05.0V ----->|
      | |                       |                       |
20C  -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  "Zero Power Level"
                 <--- (time)    |<------ 6Hr -----------|
 
The temperature change in sweep one goes from a low of 23.3C to 31.2C
in a period of 35, for delta T=7.9C.  The power difference between the low
to high equilibriums is 109.75W.  The Joule heating from this power would
resulting in (109.75W * (35min * 60sec/min))/4.186Joules/cal = 55058cal.
From the calibration run the equivilant of 7097gm D2O are heated. Using
Q = m c (delta T) gives 7097gm * 1.0098 * 7.9 = 56615cals.  The difference
is 1557 cal of excess, or about 3 Watts. That amounts to about 3% excess
heat.
 
                  (H)                      (L)
40C  -|
      +  |<----- I = 4.2A ------>|<---- I = 0.25A ------>| Exp. 115
      |  |                       |                       | Sweep 34
      + o o o o o o o o o o o    |                     oo|
      | o|                    o ||                     o|| PL_in  = 1.2W
      + o|                     o||                     o|| PL_out = 71W
      | o|                     o||                     o|| Excess = 70W
      + o|                     o||                     o||
30C  -|-o| - - - - - - - - - - o|| - - - - - - - - - - o|| PH_in  = 92W
      + o|                     o||                     o|| PH_out = 242W
      |o |                     o||                     o|  Excess = 150W
      + ||                     o||                    o |
      | ||                     o||                    o |  Low temp  = 25.3
      + |                       o o o o o o o o o o o   |  High temp = 36.2
      | |                       |                       |
      + |<------ V = 22.0V ---->|<----- V = 4.8V ------>|
      | |                       |                       |
20C  -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Zero Power Level"
                 <--- (time)    |<------ 6Hr -----------|
 
Repeating the calculations we get an electrical heating =
90.8W * (35min*60sec/min) / 4.186J/cal = 45551 calories for the change
in power. The temp change gives, delta T of 10.9C. So computing Q again,
based on the calibration equivalent mass gives, (7079gm * 1.0098cal/gmC *
10.9C) = 77917cals.  This amounts to a difference of 32366cals or about
64W or about 71% excess heat.  Now for 77917cal over a 35 min period gives
an output of 155W total.  Obviously at this point we've exceeded 140W
capacity of the cooling coil, so the values here are pretty much suspect.
This also brings up the question of whether a substantial amount of 500cc
has evaporated during this sweep.  This would have the effect of reducing
the thermal transfer from the water bath to the cooling coil as more of
the coil is exposed to air.  In effect reducing the efficiency of the coil.
The change in voltage from a normal 26.5-27V range to a 22V range indicates
a higher conductivity and implies a concentration of electrolytes, so for
this sweep it looks like a good portion of the D2O bath has evaporated.
 
  Just for the sake of argument let's assume 1/4 of the D2O bath has
been removed by evaporation.  By a nieve argument, this would remove
1/4 of the cooling power of the coil and remove roughly, 1/4 of the
mass heated.  Then by joule heating Q would be (5309gm * 1.0098cal/gm C
* 10.9C) = 58437 coals.  Still there is an excess of 28%. Chances are
though, that cooling efficiency is far worse falling off as a log of
D2O water bath volume, so it's a tough call.
 
 
40C  -|
      +           (H)                     (L)              Exp. 115
      |  |                       |                       | Sweep 42
      +  |<---- I = 4.20A ------>|<---- I = 0.25A ------>|
      |  |                       |                      || PL_in  = 1.2W
      + ||        o o o o o o    |                      || PL_out = 71W
      | o o o o o             o ||                     oo| Excess = 70W
      + o|                     o||                     o||
30C  -|-o| - - - - - - - - - - o|| - - - - - - - - - - o|| PH_in  = 111W
      + o|                     o||                     o|| PH_out = 200W
      | o|                     o||                     o|| Excess = 89W
      +o||                     o||                    o ||
      |o|                      o|                     o |  Low temp  = 25.5
      o |                       o o o o o o o o o o o   |  High temp = 33.5
      | |                       |                       |
      + |<----- V = 26.5V ----->|<----- V = 04.9V ----->|
      | |                       |                       |
20C  -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  "Zero Power level"
                 <--- (time)    |<------ 6Hr -----------|
 
 
For this sweep, the Delta T is 8C. Using the calibration run gives a Q of
Q = (7079gm * 1.0098C/gm C * 8C) = 57187cal.  The power input during the
change is 109.8W so the Joule heating gives Q = (109.8W * (35min * 60sec/min))
4.186 = 55084 cal. The difference gives 2103 cal. This time about 4.2W or
about a 4% excess heat.
 
CONCLUSIONS:
 
   Based on the calibration info I have, the data suggests a small amount
of excess heat. The critical item missing in the calibration is data on
the time to heat the solution to that 7C differential.  From the data, my
best guess on the time is 35 min, and as you can see I get values of 3-4%
excess heat in sweeps 1 and 42, so it can't be too far off the mark. Sweep
34 is problamtic in that it exceeds the cooling capacity of the coil. Also
there are questions to be answered about the location of thermocouple,
amd how the system was stirred and most important, how much the volume has
changed by evaporation of the D2O.  Still, based on the calibration I
think these calculations are conservative.  For example, I ignore the
power correction due to electrolysis. For sweep 42, the power difference
would be ((26.5V - 1.54V) * 4.2A) - ((4.9 - 1.54) * 0.25A) = 104W.
So we get 52169cal by joule heating, compared to 55084cal ignoring the
electrolysis factor.  The result would be going from 2104cal, 4%
excess heat to a 5017cal, 9.6% excess heat.
 
   Is this proof of cold fusion? No, of course not. But it is one more hint
that something is going on.  Chalk up one more oddity measurement in the
heat of electrolysis of Pd/D2O.
 
Have fun,
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . \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 \   Klein bottle for sale.  Inquire within.    |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.01 / William Johnson /  cmsg cancel <1992Jun1.155456.7427@newshost.lanl.gov>
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1992Jun1.155456.7427@newshost.lanl.gov>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 16:13:49 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

<1992Jun1.155456.7427@newshost.lanl.gov> was cancelled from within rn.
--
Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:20:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
 here is my abstract of John R. Huizenga's book, and here is my review. Cold
fusion has divided most people into two main groups, the true believers, and
the skeptics. The first term has a slightly offensive connotation, I am told,
but is a result of the fervour with which some people believe in cold fusion,
and get angry at skeptics. Huizenga makes it clear again and again, that there
is large-scale "suspension of disbelief" (my words, out of science fiction) in
the field. He himself might be called an ultra-hard reactionary, rather than a
skeptic. Huizenga KNOWS cold fusion is a "scientific abberation" and a
delusion. He will not accept the merest chance of an exotic nuclear process;
if cold fusion were to be true, it must conform with known fusion reactions
and if you do not show evidence of ash or radiation, then you have nothing.
This ultra-hard stance leads at times to cyclic or evasive arguments in the
book. If it suggested that cnf is a reaction producing only (4)He, for
example, Huizenga says that this is wrong because there must be neutrons and
tritium.
 He does, however, do the skeptics (and the true believers, too, if they want
to remain scientists) a great service by pointing out all the weaknesses in
cold fusion claims. Nobelist Julian Schwinger has repeatedly suggested a p-d
fusion reaction; Huizenga points out that this produces (3)He, which has never
been found. Claims of, for example, tritium without neutrons cannot be
correct, since the energetic tritium will produce secondary neutrons. There
are many such eye-opening examples, showing that cold fusion researchers know
very little about nuclear physics.
 The highlight and focus of Frank Close's book was the gamma spectrum affair;
in this book, it is the helium study affair. This, too, is an eye-opener. A
few palladium rods, some implanted with helium, some used as supplied, some
used in a cold fusion electrolysis, were dispersed to 6 labs and analysed for
He in a double-blind study, since published. Pons supplied some of the rods
and his double dealing makes very interesting reading. Huizenga does not spell
it out but it is clear to me that Pons has lied on several occasions, fiddled
with data and has generally been most obstructive, even when it seems to have
been in his own interest to be helpful, as when giving (or, in his case,
withholding) information to (from) the DOE/ERAB panel. After reading this
book, I see no reason for believing any of Pons' claims. Nor is he the only
one who acted unethically. Brophy lied; Walling and Simons published a paper
based on the helium findings of Pons and Fleischmann, even after P&F retracted
them, knowing about the retraction.
 Huizenga's stance softens a little where Jones is concerned. Jones is often
mentioned in conjunction with the word "scientific" and clearly is in favour,
despite - as Huizenga himself points out - the fact that his group's claims,
while being 13 orders of magnitude smaller than FPH's, are still
astronomically out of line with orthodoxy, by 40 orders of magnitude. In a
way, Jones is lucky: they claimed only neutrons, so there was no discrepancy
of the relation between these neutrons and anything else. Fleischmann and Pons
(and Hawkins) claimed both heat and radiation, out of proportion by 6 orders
of magnitude, so they are not "scientific" but deluded.
 In a few places, the author shows that he is not an electrochemist and he
should perhaps have checked with Prof. A.J. Bard, also on that panel. His
remarks on the famous fugacity are essentially correct but his terminology
shows some ineptness here; also, he does not seem to know that Bockris and
Will are very high in the electrochemical Who's Who. I agree that it is
evidence that counts and most electrochemists know that Bockris is indeed an
eccentric, but it is possible that when these men say something, some of their
vast experience does lie behind what they are saying. I myself am willing,
only after considerable thought, to reject Bockris' dendrite theory and his
tritium results. Will's claims of excess heat I would not simply dismiss
outright as poor technique, he knows too much for it to be that simple.
 Huizenga, unlike Mallove, sees a lot of parallels between the cold fusion and
polywater affairs. A curious one, that I have mentioned before, is that the
same man, B.V. Deryagin, who was the prime mover of polywater, is also the man
behind the Russian contribution to cold fusion, called fractofusion.
Fractofusion is thought by some (including myself) to be the strongest
contender for a rational explanation for radiation from cold fusion
experiments, and Huizenga, too, seems to be willing at least to consider it,
although he is not convinced by the evidence (nor should he be).
 Whether cold fusion is THE scientific fiasco of the century remains to be
seen. The title claim is echoed again at the end of the book: "The idea of
producing energy from room temperature fusion is destined to join N rays and
polywater as another example of a scientific abberation".
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 2-Jun. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 717
 
Books (6 entries now including the Soederberg)
^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huizenga JR;                Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century.
University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, 1992. ISBN 1 878822 07 1.
** JRH was, during 1989, a member of a DOE/ERAB panel to examine whether cold
fusion should be financed, and focussed intensely on the field during the
course of six months. His conclusion is obvious from the title of this book;
there is, and never was, such a thing as cold fusion.
 The book leans heavily on the Panel's findings and the problems it had. The
history of cold fusion is given, its development to "a frenzy" in 1989, and
some of the background the author was privy to. The helium study in chapter
VIII may be the highlight of the book. Huizenga repeatedly asks: Where are the
products of these nuclear reactions? He will not accept an exotic nuclear
process without either ash or radiation or both. So finally, cold fusion is
lumped, along with polywater and N rays as pathological science.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 / Jim Bowery /  Cyclic Voltage Sweep Paper
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cyclic Voltage Sweep Paper
Date: 2 Jun 92 01:09:01 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Since the Li+D angle seems to be a hot topic in Frank Close's and
Tom Droege's messages of late, I went down to the library and did
a little research.  Among the (very few) papers focusing on lithium's
role in cold fusion, there was one of potential significance with
respect to Takahashi's varying voltage method:
 
"Electrochemical incorporation of lithium into palladium from
 aprotic electrolytes", J. Electroanal. Chem., 270 (1989) 445-450
 
Quoting:
 
"Among numerous questions raised by the recent paper of Fleischmann et al.
[1], describing their heavy water electrolysis experiments, an important
one concerns the specific influence of the cation of LiOD electrolyte on the
 
behavior of a palladium cathode.  In fact, the reported observations of
an excess heat generation in the latter experiments seem to be closely
associated with the presence of Li+ cations in the electrolyte [2].  One
of the typical features of the prolonged electrolysis of a 0.1 M LiOD+D2O
solution between palladium cathodes and platinum anodes, mentioned by
Fleischmann et al, [1], was the build-up of high cathodic overvoltages.
This leads to an important question:  WHAT IS THE CRITICAL VALUE OF
THE ELECTRODE POTENTIAL WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE INCORPORATION OF LITHIUM
INTO THE PdDx CATHODE [3]?"
 
They then described a "CYCLIC VOLTAMMOGRAM" in which they electrolyzed
Li+ cations over a SWEEP OF VOLTAGES and measured the voltages at
which Li+ incorporation appeared to be maximized.  They found a few
such peaks.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 /   /   Reply to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Reply to Tom Droege
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 20:53:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege's reply to my comments indicates that I should clarify or
perhaps rephrase some of my remarks.
 
  << " 'If the essential fuel were Palladium...'... This would really
  << be new science.... Would you ( That is I) advocate funding to
  << understand the process?"
 
Here I should have emphasized that I was reacting negatively to the way
in which calls for "cold fusion" funding were based on a claim that the
research had obvious and immediate significance because it promised a
cheap and clean energy source.  If we are talking just about "new science"
then I think Tom and I are closer to being on the same side of the
fence than it may seem at times.
 
  <<  You and Frank Close, and others like you are responsible for there
  <<  being ** no funding** for "cold fusion" research. ...
  <<  Advocate funding or shut up!
 
I think Frank and I have been wrongly charged.  The reason funding dried
up is because advocates of cold fusion research oversold what they had
to offer, and then delivered a real mess as far as the quality of their
research.  I'll advocate funding (Not that I make any difference at all!)
for quality investigations with an honest interest in an investigation
of PdD system.
 
  <<  Dick ends with a statement that essentially says, if we don't
  <<  know what we are doing by now we should quit.
 
I think I would ammend that slightly to read that the quality of the
research should be upgraded as various problems are uncovered.  It
should be clear that more 5% calorimetry is not going to answer many
questions.
 
More to be said later about Tom's evaluation of other experiments and
Chuck Sites good look at Takahashi's calorimeter.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL at MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 / David SQUIRE /  Looking for FAQ
     
Originally-From: dms@krang.vis.citri.edu.au (David Mcgregor SQUIRE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for FAQ
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 08:20:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

My previous post on this topic seems not to have made it. (Maybe I'm just
being impatient :)) Anyway....
 
		Could someone please mail me the FAQ for this group?
 
also, if not the FAQ, any (non-technical, I want it for a non-physics major
student) articles on recent issues that you might have - JET result, cold
fusion debate, safety of reaction products, saftey of reactor components
after neutron irradiation etc...)
									Thanks in advance,
													 Squizz
--
| David McG. Squire (Squizz),           |  A physicist doing Computer Science. |
| Vision Group, CITRI, 723 Swanston St.,|  For a while. He claims.             |
| Melbourne,                 AUSTRALIA. |       haven't sold my soul......     |
| Net:       dms@due.vis.citri.EDU.AU   |                 I've pawned it."     |
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendms cudfnDavid cudlnSQUIRE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.02 / Jon Webb /  Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close replies to replies(FD299-301)
Date: 2 Jun 92 16:45:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <199205191248.AA08794@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
 
   Proton Decay: There is no direct evidence that protons decay. The only
   reason to think that they might is theoretical. Now, as one of the axioms
   of CNF supporters has been to ignore established theory it seems a bit
   rich to appeal to proton decay as a way of avoiding my arguments about
   the lack of residual "ash".
 
As I read Terry Bollinger's musings in "A Twist of Ribbon", he's
saying that under certain conditions, it might be possible to make an
end run around the forces holding the proton (actually, the deuterium
atom in Terry's case) together.  Now, for all I know this may make no
sense whatsoever -- but I'd like to hear your reaction to his thoughts
on this point.  In some sense, what you're doing in rejecting this out
of hand is like rejecting the possibility of Helium II acting in the
odd ways it does based on the behavior of isolated alpha particles.
 
I'm not saying the theory makes any sense whatsoever.  But so far all
we've had on this point are Terry's musings, and some outright
rejection of the ideas that don't seem based on anything Terry's
actually said.  It would be great if a real physicist would take a
look at the ideas and point out the most obvious critical flaw in his
argument.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 /  Rothwell /  Takahashi's Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi's Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 13:28:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Chuck,
 
Thank you for the detailed analysis. I will fax or mail it Dr. Takahashi
when I get a chance.
 
Let me be honest: I do not begin to understand your analysis. However, I
believe that in getting back to basics, you have lost track of common
sense, and forgotten what any kitchen cook understands implicitly. Look
at it this way:
 
Takahashi calibrated on 9 points. That means that he input 15 watts, and
got out about 1 degree; he input 52 watts and got out 3.5 degrees; he
input 110 and got out 7 degrees; he input 140, and got out 9 deg... and
so on. This is shown in Fig 27-1.
 
Okay. On sweep 42, the input was 1.2 watts, and the temperature in his
cell was up to up to around 25 deg C. He found out later that the
instrument had drifted up about 1.8 degrees, he checked everything
carefully, pulled out the thermocouple and retested it, and subtracted
out 2 degrees (overcompensating), leaving 2 deg above normal, which is
what you get when you input 30 watts. That is what you get; there is no
other way (barring instrument error.) The temperature does not go up for
any other reason. As I understand it, you are saying that the 2 degree
temperature rise means he is inputting 1 watt and getting out 1.3 watts
of heat (an "8 percent excess.") If it takes 30 watts in December to push
the temperature up 2 degrees, why do the rules change in January to allow
1.3 watts to do the same trick?
 
I have built and run a Takahashi style box, and I assure you there is no
way to input one watt and make the temperature go up 2 degrees, except by
stopping the cooling water, which will make it go up about 5 degrees
above ambient (after which additional heat starts to leak out.) With any
flow of cooling water at all, 1 watt will only push the temperature in
the box up a tiny fraction of a degree.
 
At Texas A&M, Takahashi stated, with his usual direct honesty, that this
is "rather sloppy calorimetry." He explained that he was not expecting
heat, and he had a thermocouple to measure it only because he wanted to
avoid overheating the box during the 100 watts high phase input. You
might say he was doing retroactive calorimetry. My calorimetry is much,
much better than his, but alas, I have only gotten 9 watts out for 0.5
in. Maybe next time I will get his levels.
 
Your analysis is sophisticated and interesting, but I believe you have
lost sight of something (I don't know what). Perhaps you are missing the
forest for the trees.
 
Remember that the rules do not change from month to month, or from day to
day. Given the same general conditions of flow and cooling water
temperature, 10 watts cause the temperature in the box to go up a certain
amount, 20 watts makes it go up roughly the same amount again, and 30
watts makes it go up the same amount again. With an ambient temperature
of around 20, and a plastic box, this works fine between 5 and 80 deg C.
It *always* *has* worked. This is a very ancient, tried and true method
of measuring heat. I have done it, and Takahashi did it, and you can see
that our calibration curves are reasonably straight.
 
I will grant, of course, that this does not allow you to measure heat to
the nearest 0.0001 watt; to measure that amount, call Tom Droege.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 16:04:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Signore e Signori!
a bit of a mish-mash this time but not without interest. The Russians continue
with exotic, fracto-oriented papers, and here once again tie up cnf with
superconductivity. They claim real results. I have my doubts that mere dunking
of the ceramic disks in heavy water, or electrolyte, will put deuterium into
the material but these workers seem to operate like that; they have previously
deuterided Ti in the same way. Maybe they don't have a potentiostat. Their
neutron gear, too, seems a bit basic but they do get not only 5 sigma above
background, but the emissions have a different nature, so maybe the results
mean something.
 As you are all aware, the cnf affair has had a parallel cif affair, that of
cluster impact fusion. The idea was that beams of heavy water clusters of a
certain range of energies, impinging on a deuterated target, caused the
emission of neutrons. The mystery was that the nominal energies, averaged out
per D2O molecule, were far too low to account for the emissions; this stuff is
well understood from self targeting work of the 1950's. The problem was one of
about 15-20 orders of magnitude, I believe. Also, the emissions were
independent of cluster size over a largish size range; strange because as the
clusters get bigger at constant accelerator voltage (energy of cluster), each
D2O molecule in the cluster has less and less energy and the emissions should
go down. Just as in cnf, theories have sprouted (notably by Kim, who also has
cnf theories) to explain the phenomenon, such as the icicle theory: the
clusters are pointed icicles, hitting the target point-on, and cooperative
effects give the whole cluster's energy to the point, etc. One is tempted to
say that physicists can explain anything... {:]. However, the obvious
explanation all along has been that the beam was not so homogeneous after all,
being contaminated with smaller fragments, which would give higher energies to
their D2O molecules. Beuhler et al have, until now, vigorously denied this
possibility, claiming to have eliminated it by checks; well, now they admit
it. They are not properly daunted, though, they only admit 2 orders of
magnitude of problem, and will go on with the work. My guess is it will now
fizzle anyway.
 CIF has had some effect on CNF, because it also apparently showed wrong
branching ratios (i.e. the neutron/tritium/He distribution, n/t should, from
hot fusion, be about unity). This support for claimants of "anomalous
branching ratio" in cnf has now been pulled out from under. It might be worth
collecting all the CIF papers now, since this affair is almost certainly dead,
and a nice study for science historians and philosophers, with not so many
papers to wade through... my guess is, it's about 20-30. Go for it, Bruce.
 Our heroes F & P, along with a few Italians, stand to get rich, if they win
their court case against the paper La Repubblica, as you see below. I don't
know what moved that paper to use such abusive language but the amounts seem
rather large. If they win, cold fusion will be well funded for some time, I
suppose. We also have confirmation that F & P work for Technova, and that they
claim 100% reproducibility and 1kW/cm**3. I look forward to their prototype;
hope it doesn't quietly disappear like that thermos-lookalike Pons was
photographed with in Utah in 1989 (or was it 1990?), looking as proud as Terry
undoubtedly looks right now at his new baby Christopher. Congratulations,
Terry, in public!
 Finally, the numbers game: note that despite the addition of the Lipson item,
the total number is still 717, not 718. Last time, inserting the erratum
of Bressani et al and realising that it should not count, I remembered the FPH
erratum and that it has been falsely counted. I have changed the file so
that my counting algorithm does not, as it were. A bit of fussy pedantry from
your humble bibliographer.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 3-Jun. 1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 717
 
Published articles, Letters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Sakov DM, Toporov YuP, Gromov VV, Deryagin BV;
Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 321(5) (1991) 958  (in Russian).
"The possibility of 'cold nuclear fusion' in deuterated ceramic YBa2Cu3O(7-x)
in the superconducting state".
** Solid state mechanisms proposed for cold fusion might be illuminated by an
experiment using the recently discovered high temperature superconducting
(HTSC) ceramic materials such as the title material, for 0.1 <= x <= 0.4. For
x = 0.1, the transition temp is 91K, comfortably above 77K, the boiling point
of liquid nitrogen. The material was made up into small disks, 6.5 mm dia and
1 mm thickness, and placed variously into D2O or H2O, as such, and also
containing 1M NaOD or NaOH, resp. The disks were verified to be without
defects and to have the proper transition temp. Pure Cu disks were also used
as controls. After a 10-min exposure to the solution, the samples were frozen
to 77K and neutron emissions measured by a block of 7 boron neutron detectors
of nominal efficiency 1.5%; subsequently they were warmed up again. A 2-week
period established the neutron background, which consisted mainly of single
neutron events and a total of only 10 double events, none higher. The
superconducting disks, and only these, emitted neutrons at 5 sigma above the
background, if frozen below 91K. There were 3-, 4- and even 5-neutron events.
At higher temperatures, emissions were as for the background; all controls
were like this. The authors speculate on crack formation due to deuteriding,
causing oxygen vacancies near the disk surface and the formation of polarons
or excitons and the penetration of the Coulomb barrier. An alternative is the
charge separation in fresh cracks, i.e. fractofusion.                 Oct-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin FF;                    Corriere della Sera 17-Mar-92 p.28 (in Italian).
"Pons confirms cold fusion"
** A seminar titled "Cold fusion, three years later" was organised in Torino
this year, and Pons was interviewed there. He confirmed that he and
Fleischmann are working in Nice, financed by the Japanese firm Technova. He
claims that they are using a Pd alloy and with it, obtain 1 kW/cm**3, with
100% reproducibility. He cites the d+d--> (4)He reaction as a possible
explanation and points to Prof. Preparata's theory of superradiance for
support. The object of the work is a prototype of an energy source to be
presented to the public. Prof. Bressani confirms that his group, too, has
positive results and that cold fusion is, without doubt, a real phenomenon.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin FF;                    Corriere della Sera 17-Mar-92 p.28 (in Italian).
"Defamation and denunciation"
(Orig.: "E in attesa piovono diffamazioni e denunce")
** FFM reports the legal defamation charge of the Italian newspaper La
Repubblica which, in Oct and Nov 1991, called cold fusion "scientific fraud"
and then went on to compare a fraudulent scientist with a fornicating priest,
or a pedophile schoolmaster. The scientists named by the paper: Fleischmann,
Pons, Preparata, Bressani and Giudice, are claiming damages of, respectively,
2, 2, 1, 1 and 1 billion lire for defamation.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Papers peripheral to cold fusion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beuhler RJ, Friedlander G, Friedman L;        Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 2108.
Erratum: "Cluster-impact fusion".
** This erratum retracts the authors' 1989 claim of cluster impact fusion. A
number of others have pointed out that the results are likely due to
contamination with smaller clusters and therefore higher energies, but until
this erratum the present authors have claimed to have excluded such
contamination. They did however, check this possibility and now find it true.
Therefore, they revise the CIF rate downward by at least 2 orders of
magnitude. Further work is in progress.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lo DH, Petrasso RD, Wenzel KW;                Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 2107.
"Comment on 'Cluster-impact fusion'".
** Another broadside on the CIF claims of Beuhler et al. The authors point out
- as it turns out, correctly, see Beuhler et al's retraction, ibid p.2108 -
that the results are likely to be due to contamination of the cluster beam
with small clusters of high energy.
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 /  Rothwell /  Takahashi Viewgraphs
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi Viewgraphs
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 16:06:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
If anyone out there in the cybernetic continuum has asked me for a set of
viewgraphs and not gotten them (after about a week), please ask again. I
have been at sixes and sevens lately, and I might have forgotten to mail
out a set. I ran out yesterday and printed 30 more.
 
Jed Rothwell
CFRA
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Phone: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 /  /  Re: Fusion Digest 320
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 320
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 16:07:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> comments:
 
>It is some time since we have heard anything from the Mills & Farrell "theory"
>or its experimental verification. Initially, there was a rush to the lab, and
>one or two confirmations. Since than, silencio. Now, I myself never did go for
>it, but a lot of people apparently did; such highly exciting results would
>surely be followed up? Professor Farrell, if you are still reading this group,
>please bring us up to date. On the other hand, if you have found a fatal flaw,
>don't just let it fizzle out - come out and retract publically. The public
>would think more highly of you, egg on your face or not. The cluster impact
>fusion people have done just that, I believe.
 
1.  I read every issue of Fusion Digest.
 
2.  Mills et al. (HydroCatalysis Power Compamy) are working 'round the
clock.
 
3.  I can assure you that if I find *anything* in contradiction to my
previous postings I will let it be known on the net.  If I find a fatal
error you will immediately hear from me.  I can tell you that we have
analyzed the electrolyte from some cells (large and small) and have found
no increase in calcium (a la Bush).
 
4.  Things have been going extremely well on both the experimental front
(most important) and the theoretical front (less important).  Mills is
currently writing a paper on the lastest experimental work.
 
5.  Hopefully, when Droege and others see the new protocol they will try it
out.
 
6.  Speaking of Tom Droege.  I still am not sure why he gave up on our
system.  He was getting excess heat in the open system but he attributed it
to (a) recombination or (b) some chemical reaction.  We have *never* gotten
any significant recombination with Ni.  People in the business tell us that
Ni is not a good catalyst for recombination.  We have tried to encourage
recombination with Ni and have been unsuccessful.  If Droege is getting
recombination with Ni he ought to patent it (he also might want to replace
his Pd or Pt catalyst with Ni!).  As for an *unspecified* chemical
reaction, we have been running cells for months-some of the cells are quite
large (hundreds of watts).  We have analyzed for potassium (no change,)
carbonate (very little loss), Ni (no change), Pt (no change).  We find no
evidence for any chemical reaction.
 
7.  I believe the scientific community is closing in on the truth: (a) the
amount of nuclear ash necessary to account for the heat is off by a factor
of a million or so; (b) the amount of heat is too large for a chemical
process.  Think about it.
 
John J. Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 / Daniel Fischer /  The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
     
Originally-From: dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 09:53:19 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie

Yesterday it finally happened: the GALLEX collaboration published the first
result obtained by the Gallium neutrino detector in Italy: 83 +/- 21 Solar
Neutrino Units have been measured, compared to 124-132 predicted by the
'standard model' of the sun's core. This is a) much more than the Soviet-
American Gallium Experiment SAGE sees (which is not working properly, ob=
viously, see also Science for 8 May), but b) still significantly short of
the predictions. Thus it is absolutely wrong to claim (as did all the German
newspapers today) that 'there is no neutrino problem' - in fact it seems to
be greater and more mysterious than ever before.
 
As discussed here before, the data as at hand by 1990 could be explained
beautifully by the Bethe-Bahcall-M-S-W mechanism: the neutrinos have a tiny
mass, oscillate into another species in the presence of matter, and thus
there are less high-energy neutrinos seen (by Davis' Cl-detector as well as
Kamiokande) and almost no low-energy-(p-p-)neutrinos (as seeminly proven by
the zero result from SAGE). Of course, this model also predicted a very low
flux for GALLEX - and failed completely. So: no neutrino oscillations, no
neutrino mass, no new physics - so say the GALLEX people. In a way they're
right: the low-energy neutrinos from the dominant p-p-fusion do indeed make
it to earth, the _basic_ assumptions about why the sun shines are true.
 
But what then is causing the loss of 35% as seen by GALLEX, 60% as seen by
Kamiokande and 70% as seen by Davis? All these losses occur in the hi-energy
range and thus are attributed to an reduced emmission of neutrinos from the
Boron-8-fusion process (which is of little importance for the overall energy
production). Now the jubilant GALLEXologists say, well, just reduce the sun's
core temperature by some 6%: as the Boron-8-neutrino-flux scales with the
15...18th power of T, this will bring their flux down by 2/3s, everything fits.
 
But are you allowed to simply take away one million Kelvins from the 15.6 MK
the standard model needs for the sun's core? I've looked up some references
from 1990 and also talked to a famous solar theorist, Prof. Stix of Freiburg -
and the overwhelming conclusion is: THOU SHALT NOT cool off the sun's core.
The so-called standard model has proven to be stable and *the* solution over
the past years - and if you want to change something with T, everything starts
to flow. You need more p to keep the sun from exploding then, requiring another
density, requiring other He/H mixing and so on. And this again seems to be
excluded by helioseismology which nowadays can even probe the sun's interior
and says: the standard model is the best fit.
 
So this - according to my investigations yesterday - is what the solar
neutrino problem looks like today: > You can't solve it with new properties
for the neutrino (because GALLEX *sees* the p-p-neutrinos). > And you can't
solve it with a new solar model either (because helioseismology doesn't want
it). So, in a nutshell, the situation is as inconclusive as it could be -
and in fact one of GALLEX's researchers told me on the phone that a flux of
80 SNU was indeed just the kind of result that would leave open most of the
questions. Thus, DO NOT BELIEVE THE NEWSPAPERS when they tell you that there
is no neutrino problem (if they report about the developments at all - did
they do so outside Germany?).
 
Solutions & references welcome! In particular I'd love to see references for
- the latest observational data from Davis + Kamiokande, - the standard model
for the sun's interior, - and the helioseismological evidence for the latter.
 
+ dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de - Daniel  Fischer - p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de +
| Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, W-5300 Bonn 1,FRG |
+----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience -----+
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendfi cudfnDaniel cudlnFischer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 / MIKE JAMISON /  nano-cyclotron
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nano-cyclotron
Date:  3 Jun 1992 09:37 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I've been pondering an idea for "lukewarm" fusion, using D loaded Pd.  The
subject heading should give it away, but if it doesn't, the idea goes like
this:
 
a)  Procure a Pd cylinder, add two "Dees" externally as shown:
 
           Pd
           |
          (O)
          | |
          Dees
 
The Dees could be copper plated directly onto the Pd (I know, Pd conducts,
but copper conducts much *better*).
 
b)  Wrap the length of the cylinder with insulated wire, as if you were
constructing a solenoid.  The end result should look like a standard
cyclotron:
 
         B Field in Pd cylinder
           |
        /::::\
       |::::::|     Hey, not bad for ASCII!
       -\::::/-
       |      |
      Dee    Dee
 
c)  Load the Pd cylinder with your favorite elements (D, Li, T, etc.).
This can be done by applying a common mode voltage to both Dees, if they
are plated to the Pd cylinder.  If they are insulated from the cylinder, a
separate connection will be required to provide the loading potential
voltage.
 
d)  Once satisfied that the loading is sufficient, energize the magnetic
field windings, apply an RF field to the Dees, and watch.
 
BTW: the B field/RF frequency should be chosen to give a particle radius of
gyration of a few angstroms.
 
I know there are lots of things I neglected in this simple first iteration,
including, but not limited to:  mobility of D in Pd, losses, electron
shielding of d ions, etc, etc.
 
If the idea has any merit, I'd think Tom Droege or one of his collaborators
would be able to set it up for a few $K (sorry Tom, I don't have a few $K
to offer :( - if I did, I would).
 
Comments or flames, anyone?
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
Date: 3 Jun 92 13:57:10 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Thanks for that post.  No, I have not seen it in the NYTimes or other
papers here, but may have missed it.
 
Perhaps my memory fails me, but the number you quote, 83 +/- 21 SNU,
does not seem at odds with the 70-ish upper limit that was given as
the reliable value by SAGE.  Time to dig into the files....
 
Great to hear that GALLEX has an answer.  Should be some interesting
talks and discussions at the Fall meeting of the Div. of Nuclear Physics.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 / Jim Horne /  Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
     
Originally-From: jhh@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (Jim Horne)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
Date: 3 Jun 92 16:06:17 GMT
Organization: UCSB Physics Department

In article <1992Jun3.095319.13581@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>,
 dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>
>Yesterday it finally happened: the GALLEX collaboration published the first
>result obtained by the Gallium neutrino detector in Italy: 83 +/- 21 Solar
>Neutrino Units have been measured, compared to 124-132 predicted by the
>'standard model' of the sun's core. This is a) much more than the Soviet-
>American Gallium Experiment SAGE sees (which is not working properly, ob=
>viously, see also Science for 8 May), but b) still significantly short of
>the predictions. Thus it is absolutely wrong to claim (as did all the German
>newspapers today) that 'there is no neutrino problem' - in fact it seems to
>be greater and more mysterious than ever before.
>
 
What do you mean "significantly short of predictions"? Though you
didn't specify in your article, I assume that 83 +/- 21 SNU is a one
sigma result. That puts the standard model predition at the two sigma
level, which is certainly NOT significantly far from the result.
Furthermore, the Davis results would say around 41 SNU, which is also
at about two sigma. Thus if the error bars you reported are one sigma,
the new GALLEX result tell us very little.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Horne
jhh@cosmic.physics.ucsb.edu
 
	     "Mars is somewhat the same distance from the sun, which is
	     very important.  We have seen pictures where there are
	     canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there
	     is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
                                             Dan Quayle, August 11, 1989
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjhh cudfnJim cudlnHorne cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: Takahashi's Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi's Calorimetry
Date: 3 Jun 92 16:06:52 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920602213846_72240.1256_EHL31-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>                                  .....
>
>Remember that the rules do not change from month to month, or from day to
>day. Given the same general conditions of flow and cooling water
>temperature, 10 watts cause the temperature in the box to go up a certain
>amount, 20 watts makes it go up roughly the same amount again,  ...
 
The rules may not change, but other things can change.  Many prudent
experimentalists repeat their calibration runs after the experiment as
a check on stability.  It would be great if a series of blind runs were
made (with or without some crucial ingredient) with calibrations before
and after each run and after any change is made.  Then if we saw signals
in runs 3, 7, 8, and 11 and it turned out that only these runs had the
crucial ingredient, and none of the others did, it would be easier to
convince persons doubtful of the reliability of the procedures.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.04 / D Danforth /  Buckyball trap for gases
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Buckyball trap for gases
Date: 4 Jun 92 21:46:57 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

 
SCIENCE NEWS May 30, 1992
 
		 SERENDIPITY YIELDS BUCKYBALL TRAP FOR GASES
 
The word serendipity often pops up when scientists talk about buckyballs. In
fact, chance has proven almost as important as planning in many recent
experiments involving these soccerball-shaped, 60-carbon molecules of the
fullerene family.
 
For example, chemist Douglas A. Loy at the Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque, N.M. says he and his co-workers were inspired to make the first
buckyball polymer (SN:12/14/91, p.391) only after Loy happened to catch a
remark made at a conference.
 
Now a diffferent group at Sandia reports another lucky bucky discovery.
Chemist Roger A. Assink and collegues were studying a pure, buckyball crystal
with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy when they saw something
odd: two lines in the spectrum. Since one spectral line normally indicates a
pure buckyball crystal, two lines baffled Assink and his team at first. "We
were quite concerned about what we really had," he says.
 
Later, however, the researchers found their sample wasn't pure after all. The
extra line showed up in the crystal's spectrum because oxygen molecules had
sneaked into gaps between the buckyballs in the crystal. Moreover, when
Assink's team exposed another buckyball crystal to pressured oxygen, they
found that the crystal's NMR spectrum showed not one, but six lines,
indicating that as many as six oxygen molecules had squeezed into the spaces
around individual buckyballs. The group's findings will appear in an upcoming
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS RESEARCH.
 
Interestingly, when the researchers exposed the buckyball crystal to gases
other than oxygen, they discovered that the sample absorbed only certain
ones. "Getting in and out of these crystals seems to depend on how big the
gas molecule is," Assink says. For example, the sample could absorb molecular
								    =========
hydrogen but not methane, a much larger molecule.
========
 
A discriminating crystal could prove useful to industry, the scientists say.
For instance, commercial natual gass, or methane, often contains impurities,
such as nitrogen, which must be removed before the gas can be used as a fuel,
Assink notes. A thin film containing buckyball crystals might act to filter
out any contaminating gas, he adds.
 
Assink's group also found that soon after entering the crystal, the gas
molecules begin to vacate it, although at a much slower pace. "If you put in
a lot of oxygen, even after 25 days approximately half of the oxygen is
left," Assink reports. The crysta's ability to release trapped gas over time
might also lend itself to industrial applications, the researchers assert.
 
The scientists believe that manipulating either the buckyball molecule or its
crystal geometry might also allow them to vary how many and what kinds of gas
molecules a crystal will hold, as well as the release rate of those gases.
 
The sandia team's findings have implications for future buckyball research as
well, Assink says. Some supposedly pure buckyball crystals might actually
contain enough gas molecules to throw an experiment off. "No matter how tight
you pack the buckyballs, there are going to be vacancies -- holes -- within
the crystals," he notes.
 
Both Assink and Loy assert that for chemists and materials scientist, the
buckyball bonanza is going strong. "In the fullerene business, it's pretty
much open season," Loy says. Moreover, "a lot of the serendipitous stuff
that's been falling out may surprise the devil out of you."
						-M. Stroh
 
--
Douglas G. Danforth   		    (danforth@riacs.edu)
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS)
M/S T041-5, NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.04 /  Rothwell /  Water Level Changes
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water Level Changes
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 23:42:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Chuck,
 
     I re-read your analysis, and I gather what you are saying is that
the amount of water in the box has a profound effect on the temperature
as measured by the thermocouple in the bottom center of the box. Let me
know if that is _not_ what you mean.
 
     I have been looking through our data, and I do not see the kind of
effect you describe. I did find a change in the calibration constant at
the high end, but it is nowhere near as big as you say (or as I think you
are saying - I do not quite follow.)
 
     We were concerned about the D2O level and the effect of the cooling
loop being exposed, so we deliberately let our cell run way low, about
half empty (5.7cm). When we filled it up again to 7.2, the box
calibration clearly changed, by about 24% on the high end. Takahashi told
me he did not let the water go down that low. Our temperature shift is
much greater than Takahashi's because our cooling water flow is much
lower, for a variety of reasons: 1. We have an El' Cheapo pump; 2 We use
a smaller gauge cooling loop and hoses; 3. We are measuring the Delta T,
so we prefer a lower flow rate. Takahashi's box calibration was 14
watts/degree C; ours went from 2.6 to 3.2 watts/deg C.
 
     I think maybe I see where you made a mistake. I think Takahashi's
box holds more water than you think. First of all, it is box, not a
cylinder, you must have been looking at the wrong viewgraph. It is 75mm X
120mm X 110mm, so it holds about 990 cc when empty. Judging by our box,
it holds about 800 cc when you cram the equipment into it, and fill it
almost to the top (as shown in the photos.) We used most of a liter
filling up ours. Takahashi reported that he added about 250 ml per week
(viewgraph 36). We need to add roughly the same amount. Even if he only
added once a week, a 250 ml change out of 800 is not such a big deal. It
would not make 110 watts look like 242, or 1.2 watts look like 30, which
is what I gather you are saying. (Honestly, I am not sure what you are
saying; I cannot find your "bottom line" as we say in the business biz.)
 
     Another possible error; you say, "Also for this sweep it looks like
a good portion of the D2O bath has evaporated." I don't think so. How
much did you have in mind? As I said, he kept track of the amount of D2O
he had to add, and not much escaped by evaporation or any other means.
Maybe some D2O evaporates, goes part way up the hose, cools off and comes
right back down again. We are investigating that possibility. That would
cause some heat loss, which would make him underestimate the total power
out.
 
     I don't know how heat transfer works, but I know how to crunch data.
I will check this out carefully, and report back in couple of days. I
will check the other large changes in D2O levels. For that matter, I can
zap you some raw data and you can noodle around with it yourself, if you
really want to find out what's watt.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.04 / RING WAYNE /  Re: The solar neutrino problem
     
Originally-From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The solar neutrino problem
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 23:52:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services

dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) writes...
>But are you allowed to simply take away one million Kelvins from the 15.6 MK
>the standard model needs for the sun's core? I've looked up some references
>from 1990 and also talked to a famous solar theorist, Prof. Stix of Freiburg -
>and the overwhelming conclusion is: THOU SHALT NOT cool off the sun's core.
 
Hmmm... Their precious SSM can tell us with certainty what's going on
where we can't see. But they can't figure out why the corona is 350 times
as hot as the surface (sound waves my butt!). I'm really not impressed.
 
Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendwr2560 cudfnRING cudlnWAYNE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.05 / Fritz Lehmann /  Squeezing the Palladium
     
Originally-From: fritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Squeezing the Palladium
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 09:48:31 GMT
Organization: Center for Optimization and Semantic Control, Washington
 University

	I've read that, unlike other metals, Palladium absorbs Hydrogen
(or Deuterium) and expands considerably (about 11%) before a shift in the
crystal structure, i.e. without any phase change.  My question is: what
happens if you try to squeeze the Palladium when it is charged with H or D
just up to the phase change level.  How vigorously does it resist compression
to its "normal" size?  Same question, both with and without a gas-leak-proof
container?  Would a diamond anvil be needed, or would a modest conventional
"thumbscrew" cylinder do it?
 
	Would this have a significant effect on the HIP (that's what I
call it -- the "hitherto unknown process" in Pons & Fleishmann's first
FAXed paper -- no need to call it fusion -- wish they hadn't) if it exists,
or would this 11% squeeze be merely trivial in comparison with the so-called
"fulgation pressure"?
 
	I'm new; perhaps this is a F.A.Q.
 
				Yours truly,  Fritz Lehmann
124 Parsons, Webster Groves, MO 63119 USA  (314)968-8337  fritz@rodin.wustl.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenfritz cudfnFritz cudlnLehmann cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.05 /  Britz /  M & F; and chemical explanations.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: M & F; and chemical explanations.
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 15:24:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Prof. Farrell, alias ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL answers me:
 
>3.  I can assure you that if I find *anything* in contradiction to my
>previous postings I will let it be known on the net.  If I find a fatal
>error you will immediately hear from me.  I can tell you that we have
>analyzed the electrolyte from some cells (large and small) and have found
>no increase in calcium (a la Bush).
 
>4.  Things have been going extremely well on both the experimental front
>(most important) and the theoretical front (less important).  Mills is
>currently writing a paper on the lastest experimental work.
 
>7.  I believe the scientific community is closing in on the truth: (a) the
>amount of nuclear ash necessary to account for the heat is off by a factor
>of a million or so; (b) the amount of heat is too large for a chemical
>process.  Think about it.
 
(I have cut out some bits). Thank you, Prof. Farrell, for your reply. I agree
with your priorities - the experiment comes first. I happen not to believe
your theory but if you really find anomalous heat it doesn't matter that your
theory to explain it, is wrong; the heat would still be there. However, some
of your theory is, I think, affecting your experimental choice and here we are
in trouble. I refer to your insistence on an open cell. If I understand you
correctly, you propose the sub-basement electronic levels as the mechanism for
the heat. That is, under certain chemical conditions which you have found,
energy can be transferred from a hydrogen atom to the potassium system; that
energy comes from the electron in orbit around the hydrogen dropping down to
this new low level. I guess that it cannot spontaneously come up again,
requiring, I suppose, an exact quantum for doing so (?). OK, so the source of
the heat, or maybe a part of it, is this energy level drop. Further, the thus
shrunken hydrogen atoms can then fuse with each other more easily (i.e. at a
rate enhanced over the negligible normal rate of around 1E-80 fus/pair/s),
due to the screening by the electrons, being much closer to the proton. It's
a lot like muon catalysis.
 
Your reason for not using a closed system is that the tight hydrogen atoms
(or would that be dihydrogen molecules?) get trapped by the recombination
catalyst. I have never followed this line. The only way for them to get
trapped there is for them to get there first; the catalyst is in the cell's
head space, so you must be talking gas phase. In an open cell, this would
still happen, and the hydrogens would leave the cell, which amounts to the
same as being trapped. Please explain this point, which I have made before
without getting a response.
 
My feeling is that no matter which process is responsible for the heat:
1: electrons dropping to lower levels; 2: fusion of shrunken hydrogens - or
both of them - this must happen near the Ni cathode shortly after the adsorbed
hydrogen atoms produced by electrolysis do their stuff. After this, let them
escape or get trapped, so what? They've done their bit, move over for others.
 
Let me now change tack, and for once give support to the TB's. The skeptics
say that there is a chemical explanation for the socalled excess heat. If you
come out and say this, you really need to make some suggestion as to what
sorts of chemical reactions might come into question. As I wrote to Frank
Close, if a cup of tea explodes in your face with the energy of that amount of
dynamite, you'd be hard put to claim a chemical reaction - where are the
chemicals, in "commensurate amounts", a phrase that has become beloved by the
ultras. My point about the Belzner et al paper (the "Huggins" work) has always
been that the excess heat measured by them was comparable with the heat of
water electrolysis, and this is one of the most energetic reactions one can
imagine taking place in such a cell. In their case, however, you can't jump up
and shout "Aha! Recombination!" - because they never did subtract that from
the input power, playing it safe. Had they done so, they could have claimed
much more excess heat, but they didn't. So what other chemical reaction might
there be in that cell, producing such an amount of energy? I certainly cannot
think of one. Li deposition, no, not enough, we know roughly how much you can
get, and anyway, the heat was measured during, not after, electrolysis.
Decomposition of PdD? This has been discussed here, it is likely to be
endothermic, but if (at high loading) it should be exo- anyway, that enthalpy
is much smaller than recombination, and so can't account for the excess. So we
have a genuine puzzle here. I have no problem, as I do not claim IT'S A
CHEMICAL REACTION, I don't claim anything in fact.
 
The point is this: if make a claim, you have to back it up with something like
proof, or at least something plausible, that might work. If you find tritium
and claim that this shows d-d fusion, THEN you must also show evidence of
neutrons, which have to be there. As Huizenga shows so nicely, even if you
reckon that the branching ratio is not 50:50, the tritium itself would still
produce secondary neutrons. If you claim a process producing He, you must
demonstrate its presence. On the other hand, if you claim faulty calorimetry,
point to the fault; if a chemical reaction, tell us which one(s). As I have
also said before, we do not need to be ardent TB's or ultras; take the
evidence as it comes (e.g. from Tom Droege's basement) and wait how it looks.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.05 /  /  Why I gave up on MKF
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why I gave up on MKF
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 20:22:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Farrell wonders in FD326 why I gave up on MKF.
 
First, when done as described in MK, a heat imbalance is seen when the 1.48*I
correction is taken.  Farrell calls this "...getting excess heat in the open
system...".  I am not so sure.  In a telephone conversation 31 March, 1992,
Randy Mills seemed to say that there were very long term chemicsl processes
going on.  My notes of the conversation say "Takes 25 days for Ni to be
completely hydrided - slightly exothermic".
 
At that point, it seemed to me that the assumptions of MK, i.e. that one could
use the 1.48*I correction were not completely correct.  I knew from my
experiments that the closed cell showed no excess heat, while the open cell
appeared to show excess heat if the correction were taken.  Conversations
with others who had performed slightly different experiments and found by a
different path that the 1.48*I correction did not hold up convinced me that
it was time to do something else.
 
I am waiting for a corrected version of MK that justifies the 1.48*I
correction.
 
I do also not believe the MK calorimetry enough to accept the runs which show
excess heat without the 1.48*I correction.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.05 /  /  Jim Carr and blind runs.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jim Carr and blind runs.
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 20:23:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jim Carr advocates blind runs.  So do I Jim, but they are just not practical
at this time.  You mention runs 3,7,8, and 11.  You have just mapped out
*** 3 years *** work!  These runs take 3 months.  So we either have a dozen
calorimeters running simultaneous experiments, or we run one and instrument
the heck out of it, as I am doing.  Not many groups have enough funds to
support multiple simultaneous experiments, but the ones that do (McKubre)
are doing just what you ask. (but not double blind).
 
But I think you are focusing on the wrong problem.  The problem is not to
determine if some noisy experiment has a three sigma result that can be
believed, but rather how to define an experiment that has a 100 sigma
result that anyone can repeat.  If there is anything at all to the claims of
P&F, then a 100 sigma experiment should be possible.  That is the only thing
that will satisfy me.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion Digest 320
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 320
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 01:53:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL () says:
 
>6.  Speaking of Tom Droege.  I still am not sure why he gave up on our
>system.  He was getting excess heat in the open system but he attributed it
>to (a) recombination or (b) some chemical reaction.  We have *never* gotten
>any significant recombination with Ni.  People in the business tell us that
>Ni is not a good catalyst for recombination.  We have tried to encourage
>recombination with Ni and have been unsuccessful.  If Droege is getting
>recombination with Ni he ought to patent it (he also might want to replace
>his Pd or Pt catalyst with Ni!).  As for an *unspecified* chemical
>reaction, we have been running cells for months-some of the cells are quite
>large (hundreds of watts).  We have analyzed for potassium (no change,)
>carbonate (very little loss), Ni (no change), Pt (no change).  We find no
>evidence for any chemical reaction.
 
There certainly is no visible chemical changes in the cell I ran for two
months.  I had to add water due to evaportation and electrolysis.  And
a white substance would form on the walls of the cell from the splashing
of the electrolyte caused by the bubbling.  This white substance would
quickly re-disolve when pushed back into the liquid.  No corrosion of
the electrodes was ever apparent -- though the nickle electrode did
take on a slightly darker color almost immediately.  The electrolyte
remained as clear as glass, nothing floating and nothing on the bottom
or sides.
 
Then again, I have no idea of whether excess heat occurred.
 
So I believe the "chemical reaction" explanation is highly unlikely given
the claimed amount of excess heat.  However, the 1.48*I "assumption" of
the open cell is highly suspect.  I'd look there first for an explanation
before I'd resort to new chemistry/physics.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.06 /  /  The Mike Jamison Nano-cyclotron
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Mike Jamison Nano-cyclotron
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 03:40:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Jamison has proposed a nano-cyclotron.  The magnetic field is easy.  Just
put the whole apparatus in a wide gap superconducting magnet.  There are lots
around here at Fermilab and a determined experimenter could find one under
test and sneak in an experiment.  So it is not necessary to wind a coil around
the Pd cylinder.
 
The electric field is not so easy. One could get to possibly a few hundred
cycles, beyond that the skin depth.  There is a small possibility that a
heavily loaded Pd cylinder will become an insulator, or close to it.  Then
an electric field might be able to penetrate.  But I do not give it much of
a chance.
 
But I do recall something called a Betatron.  Here the magnetic field is
cycled, producing as we all know from our E&M an electric field.  So try that.
>From memory look up "Cyclic Particle Accelerators", Livingston.  I am pretty
sure you will a write up on the betatron there.  There is also a brief write
up in "Reference Data for Radio Engineers" 6th edition, Howard w. Sams & Co.
 
But even in a Betatron, the Pd cylinder will produce a shorted turn, so there
is likely to jus be a high circumfrental current.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.06 /  /  Calibration
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibration
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 04:41:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Carr says: "Many prudent experimentalists repeat their calibration runs
after the experiment as a check on stability."
 
All "prudent" experimentalists do!!!  Calibrate before the run, after the
run, from run to run, from season to season, against ambiant temperature,
against solar flairs, against the stock market... etc..
 
When making measurements you need to be a non-stop worrier.  At least at the
0.01% level.  You cannot even relax at the 1% level.
 
One of the things that I look for in reading a paper is how much of this worry
shows.  How many different ways is a measurement checked.  Is more care taken
on the critical parameters?  It can't all be done with fancy analysis after
the experiment.  There needs to be lots of redundant measurements and a way
to check them on line.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.06 / Jorge Stolfi /  Power measurement
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power measurement
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 11:57:04 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

Tom Droege writes:
 
    I have been carrying on a private discussion with Jorge Stolfi where
    he wonders if I am measuring the power correctly when a cell is
    driven by a Takahashi style saw tooth.  ... I will leave it to Jorge
    to present his case for possible error.
 
OK.
 
I can think of at least four *numerical* mistakes one can make when
computing the energy input to an electrolytic cell.
 
  (1) not sampling the power input often enough.  This mistake is
      particularly bad when the power has sharp spikes or steps
      synchronized with the sampling frequency.
 
  (2) introducing some small but systematic bias
      in the measured samples, e.g. by truncating instead of rounding.
      If the average measurement bias is x% of the average sample value, the
      computed energy input will also be wrong by x%.
 
  (3) assuming that any random plus or minus errors made at each
      sampling step will cancel out over a long integration.  In fact,
      such errors add up to a random drift that tends to *grow* with
      time.
 
  (4) computing the average power during an interval as average voltage
      times average current.  This mistake consistently underestimates
      the actual input power, and therefore would give the illusion
      of excess heat.
 
As far as I know, Tom avoided traps (1) and (3), but he may have
stumbled on (2), and he appears to have fallen into (4).
 
In any case, I will discuss all four errors in boring detail below,
for the sake of any prospective CNF experimenters out there.
 
 
The canonical example
 --------------------
 
For concreteness, in the discussion below I will often assume an
hypothetical "Droege-style" experiment with the following parameters:
 
   sampling interval H = 0.5 sec
 
   sawtooth period = 20,000 sec = ~6 hours
 
   cell current I = sawtooth between 0 and 0.5 ampere
 
   cell voltage V = approximately a sawtooth between 0 and 2 volts
 
   small-scale fluctuations in V and I = about +/- 1%
 
These numbers imply
 
   average power input =     ~ 0.5 watt
                       =  ~ 10,000 Joules/sawtooth-cycle
                       = ~ 500,000 Joules/mega-second
 
Tom's actual numbers may differ from these by an order of magnitude,
but the *relative* error estimates derived below should be relatively
independent of these assumptions.
 
 
Error (1): insufficient sampling
 -------------------------------
 
Suppose that every H seconds we measure the electrical power P(t) fed
to the cell.  The total input energy E --- i.e., the integral of P(t)
--- can be computed by the standard "trapezoidal" formula
 
   E' =  H * ( p[1]/2  + p[2] + p[3] + ... p[N-1] + p[N]/2 )
 
where p[1], .. p[N] are sample measurements.
 
This formula assumes that the graph of P(t) is a polygonal line whose
vertices are the sample points.  Of course, if the actual graph of
P(t) is not like that, the computed energy input may be wrong.
 
In particular, if the graph of P(t) deviates from the ideal polygonal
line by spikes of height D lasting less than H seconds, the integration
error can be as large as D*H for each such spike.  Also, if the graph
contains isolated sharp steps of height D, the integration error
at each step can be as much as D*H/2, either way.
 
For example, suppose P(t) is a 10-second sawtooth with a 1 watt/sec
up-slope and a 10 watt down-step.  Suppose we got the following samples:
 
  time =  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32 ...
          --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
  P(t) =   8   9  10   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10   1   2
 
The integration error will be zero for all sample intervals along the
slope, where P(t) is indeed interpolating between samples in a straight
line.  However, consider what happens in the interval that straddles
a down-step, e.g. t = 20--21:
 
  If the down-step happens immediately after t=20, then the actual
  energy input in that interval is only (0 + 1)/2 = 0.5 joules.
 
  If the step happens just before t=21, the actual energy input is
  (10 + 11)/2 = 10.5 joules.
 
So, the integration error for the interval 20--21 can be anywhere
between -5 and +5 joules, or +/- 9% of the total energy input in one
sawtooth period.
 
If the sawtooth is synchronized with the sampling frequency, then these
errors will add without cancellation, and the final result will also
be wrong by +/- 9%.
 
Moral of the story: in order to integrate a sawtooth-like
waveform of unknown phase with relative error less than epsilon, you
should take at least 1/epsilon samples per sawtooth cycle.
 
As I said, Tom's sampling interval (~ 0.5 seconds) is small enough to
make this kind of error negligible.  In our hypothetical setup, the
integration error at the end of a sawtooth would be at most
(0.5 sec * 1 watt)/2 = 0.25 Joule.  That adds up to at most
12.5 joules per mega-second, i.e. 0.0025% relative error.
 
 
Error (2): systematic measurement errors
 ---------------------------------------
 
Another potential source of error is small but consistent biases in
the sample measurements.  If the average measured sample value is x%
lower than the true average power, then the total energy computed by
the formula above will also be x% lower than the true energy.
 
For example, consider the "Droege-style" setup described before.  Suppose
that the input power is sampled with a digital meter that is accurate
to 0.001 watt, but consistently rounds "down" instead of "to nearest".
Then each sample will be off by between 0 and -0.001 watt from the true
value, and the average integration error per step will be (-0.0005
watt * 0.5 sec) = -0.00025 joule.  These errors are microscopic; but,
being consistently negative, after a million seconds they will have
added up to 500 joules of apparent "excess heat".
 
It may be possible to compensate for this kind of error by measuring
the "excess heat" of a control experiment, and subtracting it from
the real one.  However, this will only work if the measurement bias
is basically the same in both runs.
 
 
Error (3): random drift
 ----------------------
 
As Tom pointed out, the power P(t) is usually rather "noisy" --- i.e.,
it fluctuates randomly on a time scale that is small compared to the
sampling interval.  As before, if the power changes by +/- D during
a sample interval, the integration error in that step may be as large
as D*H, in either direction.
 
Considering that these errors are both positive and negative, one might
expect that they would tend to cancel in a long integration But that
is not true: the cancellation is not perfect, and results in a
random-walk type of drift *away* from the correct value.
 
More precisely, after N samples the absolute error of the integral
is likely to be on the order of sqrt(N)*D*H.  Note that the error still
tends to *increase* with time, although not as fast as when the errors
all have the same sign.  On the other hand, the *relative* error will
tend to decrease with N, and is likely to be on the order of 1/sqrt(N)
of the single-sample relative error.
 
In the hypothetical" Droege-style" example above, the actual power
P(t) fluctuates by +/- 2% during each sample interval. Therefore, after
a million seconds the relative integration error due to random drift
is likely to be only (2% / sqrt(2000000)) = 0.0014%, or about 7 joules.
 
 
Error (4): improper averaging
 ----------------------------
 
Tom writes that he is averaging the voltage samples V[i] and
current I[i] separately, over 1-minute intervals, before multiplying
the two to get the power.  This is definitely a bad idea: in general,
the average of the products is *not* the product of the averages.  In
fact, if neither V nor I are constant over the averaging interval, the
product (average V)*(average I) is almost certain to be *less* than
the average of the product; and the more V and I vary in that interval,
the bigger the error will be.
 
To illustrate this point,suppose V = 1, I = 1 for the first 30 seconds,
and V = -1, I = -1 for the last 30 seconds.  Then the average V and
average I are both zero, but the average power is actually 1 watt!
 
For a more realistic example, suppose V=2, I=0.5 for the first 30
seconds, V=0 and I=0 for the last 30 seconds (Note that these numbers
could happen in our canonical example, at the end of a sawtooth cycle).
The power is then 1 watt for 30 seconds, and 0 watts for 30 seconds,
which averages to 0.5 watts.  But Tom's formula (average V)*(average
I) gives 1 volt * 0.25 ampere = 0.25 watts.  So, in this case Tom's
energy integral is missing 0.25 watts for 60 seconds, i.e. 15 joules.
 
The -15 joule error computed above is practically the worst case.  If
the down-step happens after or before the 30-second mark, the error
will be smaller, but still negative; in fact, the average error will
be about -10 joules per sawtooth cycle.  These errors will accumulate
linearly, like any other systematic error: that is, after K sawtooth
cycles, Tom's balance sheet should show an apparent excess heat of
10*K joules (plus a random drift on the order of +/- 5 * sqrt(K)
joules), just from this cause.  This turns out to be another 500 joules
per million seconds.
 
Moreover, if the function P(t) is noisy, averaging V and I separately
will also fail to account for that part of input power that is carried
by the noise component.  To see why, write
 
    V(t) = (V_a + V_n(t)),
    I(t) = (I_a + I_n(t))
 
where V_a, I_a are the 1-minute averages, and V_n(t) I_n(t) are the
"noise" components for that interval.  The instantaneous power will
be
 
    P(t) = V(t)*I(t) = (V_a + V_n(t))*(I_a + I_n(t))
         = V_a * I_a + V_n(t)*I_a + V_a*I_n(t) + V_n(t)*I_n(t)
 
Tom's formula implicitly assumes that the average power in the 1-minute
interval is given by the first term V_a * I_a alone.  Indeed, V_n(t)
and I_n(t) have zero average during that 1-minute interval, so the
two middle terms can be ignored.  The last term, however, need not
average to zero; in fact, if the V and I "noise" is due to changes
in the cell's resistance, the last term will be strictly positive.
 
In the standard example above, if the rms amplitudes of the noise
components V_n and I_n are 0.02 volts and 0.005 ampere, the last term
V_n(t)*I_n(t) will average out to 0.0001 watt.  Since this error is
systematic, it will accumulate at the rate of -100 joules per
mega-second, or 0.02 %.  On the other hand, if the noise amplitudes
are 0.06 volts and 0.017 ampere, then the error will be -1000
joules/mega-second, or 0.2 %.
 
 
Summary
-------
 
In summary, I believe that Tom's integration procedure, if applied
to my hypothetical "Droege-style" experiment, would underestimate the
total electrical energy input by at least 0.1%, just because of improper
averaging of the input power at the end of each sawtooth cycle.  In
addition, Tom appears to be ignoring the power contained in the noise
component of V and I, and the possibility of systematic errors in the
sample values.  These errors seem to have the right sign and the right
order of magnitude to explain the amount apparent "excess heat" he
has seen.
 
Tom, does this make sense?
 
--jorge
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.06 / Jorge Stolfi /  Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 13:22:58 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

 
 
Tom Droege reports that the electrical input to his CNF cells is "very
noisy", i.e. shows rapid fluctuations added to the basic sawtooth
pattern.  I wonder what is the source of that noise.
 
The obvious guess is that the bubbling gases cause the the cell's
electrical resistance to change.  I conjecture that at any given time
the surface of each electrode is almost entirely covered by a layer of
densely packed bubbles; and that most of the cell's resistance is
concentrated in those layers, where the current must squeeze through
the gaps betwen the bubbles.  Therefore, the resistance must go through
hundreds of bumps and dips per second, as bubbles grow and detach from
the electrode's surface.
 
A more intriguing possibility is that some CNF cells may be working as
electrical oscillators.  For one thing, I imagine that most DC power
sources have big capacitors connected internally to their output
terminals.  On the other hand, CNF cells often have a long coil of Pt
wire as the anode.  (At least, that was Pons & Fleischmann's original
design; and Mills & Farrell apparently use a long Ni coil also for the
cathode.) When the cell is in operation, those coils should be at least
partially insulated from the electrolyte by the gas layer, and
therefore should have a non-negligible inductance.  That is, the whole
setup is basically an LRC series circuit.
 
I wonder whether this circuit can spontaneously oscillate.  The
bubble-modulated resistance of the cell could provide the necessary
amplification: more current generates more gas (presumably, after a
short delay), which increases the resistance, which reduces the
current, which ...
 
If oscillation is possible (say, with a frequency of a few kHz), then
we may have Yet Another Crazy Explanation (K.V.  418) for all those
anomalous heat claims out there.  It seems that at least some CNF
workers are mistakenly averaging V and I separately, before multiplying
them to get the power.  As I mentioned in my previous posting, this
procedure underestimates the true electrical power input to the cell,
because it does not include the power contained in the noise component.
(In fact, I bet that the motivation for this averaging is precisely
to get rid of what looks like "measurement noise"!)
 
Could it be that Pons and Fleishmann and Takahashi and Mills and
Farrell have spent all these years perfecting the most exotic RF
oscillator ever invented?
 
Only half joking,
 
  Jorge Stolfi
  stolfi@src.dec.com
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: As far as I know, my employer is neither pro nor con fusion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.03 / Jim Bowery /  Educational Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Educational Cold Fusion
Date: 3 Jun 92 18:28:47 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Since the expense of setting up a cold fusion experiment is so low
relative to most projects, there is no reason it couldn't be written
off as an educational exercise in many environments.  Given this fact,
it may be possible to explore most of the P&F type experimental space
via the education system.
 
The P&F space (ignoring Takahashi for the moment) is approximately:
 
Cation          Li, Li7, Li6, H, D, Na          6 states
Solvent         H20, D20                        2 states
Currents        Choose 5 values                 5 states
Voltages        Choose 5 values                 5 states
Cathode         Pd, T, Pt, Au                   4 states
 
This experimental space breaks down into 1200 experiments.
 
There are far more educational institutions in the U.S. alone than this,
so if someone would simply agree to act as an experimental configuration
allocator, any high school or college chemistry teacher could call in,
get a unique experimental configuration and let his students try out one
of the experiments as a class project.
 
There would have to be a standard calorimeter design that has been
thoroughly tested and debugged (Tom, are you listening?) and which
might have to be mass-produced in kit form if the components aren't
widely available or if the set up is too tricky.  Also, the basic
experimental apparatus setup should be standardized to match the P&F.
 
There could be a self-supporting business in writing and publishing a
newsletter to all the schools about the results that the others are
getting with their experiments, as well as sharing their lessons
learned in running their P&F experiments.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.06 /  gsteckel@vergi /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel - Sun BOS Hardware
 CONTRACTOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: 6 Jun 92 21:45:41 GMT
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)332-9252

In article <1992Jun6.132258.28070@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
 writes:
>
>Tom Droege reports that the electrical input to his CNF cells is "very
>noisy", i.e. shows rapid fluctuations added to the basic sawtooth
>pattern.  I wonder what is the source of that noise.
>
>The obvious guess is that the bubbling gases cause the the cell's
>electrical resistance to change.  I conjecture that at any given time
>the surface of each electrode is almost entirely covered by a layer of
>densely packed bubbles; and that most of the cell's resistance is
Sounds more than plausible & correlates with my play electrochemical
experience.
>
>A more intriguing possibility is that some CNF cells may be working as
>electrical oscillators.
 
This is unlikely.  An oscillating power supply usually self-destructs
(empirical observation) and the big name makers of lab power supplies
have done a lot in their circuits to prevent this.
 
Also, given f=1/(2*pi*sqrt(L*C), even with 20,000 uF on the output,
your Pt coil will have at most a few nanohenries of inductance, which
gives a 30Khz +- resonance, BUT: the Q will be very low due to series
resistance in the wires.
 
I'd be much more inclined to believe a chemical-mechanical oscillation
involving bubbles, local electrolyte currents, heating, etc.
 
In any case, given the long time constants of the sawtooth, an electrical
low pass filter can be constructed to remove signals above (say) 10 Hz,
or even lower, with (once calibrated) accuracy and repeatability under
.1 %, which would eliminate that part of the noise-in-measurements
argument.  You would need to use appropriate op amps, metal film or
other high stability resistors, high stability capacitors (though
you don't really have to worry too much here; even mylar should work).
 
	good luck,
 
	geoff steckel (gwes@trilobyte.com, gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line.
This posting is entirely the author's responsibility.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengsteckel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.07 /  merlin /  Re: Thermonuclear device design (Was: Nuclear weapon construction)
     
Originally-From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear device design (Was: Nuclear weapon construction)
Date: 7 Jun 1992 03:18:03 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

>From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>
>I seem to recall I've asked for references on this before, and had no reply.
 
Look, I did most of my computer modeling work to verify this design over the
period of several years whenever I was really bored with other current work.
The initial design discussed in this newsgroup was developed in 1976 -- but,
it wasn't released for public consumption until every element was discussed
in other open publications.
 
I don't have copies or complete bibliographic references for many of the old
articles (particularly microfiches of LLL/LASL annual reports & declassified
technical reports).  However, I can give you a quick dump of some references
which are still in my office from the last time I took a whack at the fusion
device problem,  Perhaps this will give you some feeling for the materials I
consulted in developing and testing various alternative physical designs.
 
Please note the model I proposed does not purport to represent the complexity
of current operational thermonuclear devices -- it only represents a highly
simplified generic device which is very easy to model and simple to construct.
 
Every aspect described in the design is available in "open" public literature.
 
Unfortunately, the best proof would be to release source codes and data which
demonstrate the efficacy of the underlaying device design -- but much of the
source codes rely on independently developed modeling methods which are not
available in the public literature -- they might be considered by some people
to be classified under the "born secret" thermonuclear technology doctrine --
they might also be prohibited from export under the military munitions list
of the commerce department.  None of us would want to deal with that problem.
 
In any case, here's a sampling of documents from my office.  Some of this
material relates to my more recent analysis of a chemically driven fusion
device (T-D core surrounded by U-238 wrapper surrounded by high explosive
multiple front imploding shock wave generator) -- but it should provide a
"taste" of the range of reference materials consulted in the development
of the generic traditional thermonuclear device design.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles
--------
 
Qingdong-D, Jichang-Z, Zuo-LG, Hongzhi-J.  Fusion produced by implosion of
  spherical explosive.  Shock Compression of Condensed Matter.  1989.
 
Glass-II, Sagie-D.  Application of explosive driven implosions to fusion.
  Phys Fluids 25(2)269-270 (1982).
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics and Computer Modeling
 --------------------------------
 
Brueckner-KA, Jorna-S.  Laser driven fusion.  Reviews of Modern Physics,
  46(2):325-367 (1974).
 
Cole-RK, Renken-JH.  Analysis of the microfission reactor concept.  Nuclear
  Science and Engineering 58:345-353 (1975).
 
Conger-RL.  Model for converging detonations in solid explosives.  Journal
  of Mathematical Physics 9(7):1036-1040 (1968).
 
Fraley-GS, Linnebur-EJ, Mason-RJ, Morse-RL.  Thermonuclear burn
  characteristics of compressed deuterium-tritium microspheres.
  Physics of Fluids 17(2):474-489 (1974).
 
Gac-K, Jach-K.  The influence of radiation transport and heat conduction
  on the efficacy of the reaction of synthesis in rapid liner D-T core
  explosive systems for plasma compression.  J Tech Phys 25(2)241-255 1984.
 
Galkowski-A, Kaliski-S, Swierczynski-R.  Numerical analysis of the profiled
  explosion induced D-T compression for obtaining critical fusion
  parameters -- Part 1.  Cylindrical Systems.  Arch Therm Comb
  8(3):313-326 (1977).
 
Galkowski-A, Kaliski-S, Swierczynski-R.  Numerical analysis of the profiled
  explosion induced D-T compression for obtaining critical fusion
  parameters -- Part 2.  Spherical Systems.  Arch Therm Comb
  8(3):327-334 (1977).
 
Galkowski-A, Swierczynski-R, Wlodarczyk-E.  Theoretical analysis of a
  cylindrical layered, explosion driven system compressing deuterium plasma.
  J Tech Phys 22(3) (1981).
 
Galkowski-A, Gac-K, Jach-K, Wlodarczyk.  On possibility of initiating an
  avalanch reaction of the thermonuclear in spherical explosion systems
  Part 1 -- One liner systems / Part 2 -- Two liner systems.
  J Tech Phys 25(3-4) and 26(2) (1985).
 
Harris-DB, Miley-GH.  Burn performance inertial confinement fusion targets.
  Nuclear Fusion 28(1):25-41 (1988).
 
Jarvis-ON.  Calculations of the thermonuclear yields from compressed DT
  pellets.  J Phys G 2(8):603-612 (1976).
 
Kaliski-S.  Explosion compression of plasma up to critical values of
  thermonuclear microfusion P.1.  J Tech Phys 18(1):3-10 (1977).
 
Kaliski-S.  Explosion compression of plasma up to critical values of
  thermonuclear microfusion P.2.  J Tech Phys 18(1):11-16 (1977).
 
Kaliski-S.  Thermonuclear avalanche reaction by explosion-induced D-T
  compression.  J Tech Phys 18(2):131-137 (1977).
 
Kaliski-S.  The concept of explosion compression profiled via a
  nonhomogeneous extrernal layer.  Bull Acad Polon Sci Serie Sci
  Tech 25(6):447 (1977).
 
Kaliski-S.  Rendering explosion compression isentropic by means of an
  outer layer of comparable susceptibility.  J Tech Phys 17:349-358
  (1976).
 
Kaplan-FM.  Enhanced radiation weapons.  Sci Am 238(5):44-51 (1978).
 
Taylor-TB.  Third generation nuclear weapons.  Sci Am 256(4):30-39 (1987).
 
Tyl-J, Wlodarczyk-E.  Propagation of concentric detonation waves in
  condensed explosives.  J Tech Phys 28(4):487-498 (1987).
 
Tyl-J, Wlodarczyk-E.  Analysis of concentric shock waves.  J Tech Phys
  25(1):35-52 (1984).
 
Winterberg-F.  Comments on "Analysis of the microfission reactor concept."
  Nuclear Science and Engineering 59:68-70 (1976).
 
Winterberg-F.  Chemically ignited thermonuclear reactions.  Acta Astronomica
  10(5-6)443-452 (1983).
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monographs
----------
 
Becker-EW.  Uranium Enrichment.  1979.
 
Bell-GI, Glasstone-S.  Nuclear Reactor Theory.  1970.
 
Bhatia-S.  India's Nuclear Bomb.  1979.
 
Bond-JW.  Atomic Theory of Gas Dynamics.  1965.
 
Brown-AC, MacDonald-CB.  The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb.  1977.
 
Brueckner-KA.  Laser Driven Fusion.  1973.
 
Caldirola-P, Knoeppel-H.  Physics of High Energy Density.  1971
 
Cameron-IR.  Nuclear Fission Reactors.  1982.
 
Cohen-ST.  The Neutron Bomb.  1978.
 
Cohen-ST.  The Truth About the Neutron Bomb.  1983.
 
Cook-MA.  The Science of High Explosives.  1959.
 
Davey-WG.  Techniques in Fast Reactor Critical Experiments.  1970.
 
Davis-NP.  Lawrence and Oppenheimer.  1968.
 
DeVolpi-A.  Born Secret:  the H-Bomb, the Progressive Case, and
  National Security.  1981.
 
Fickett-W.  Intro to Detonation Theory.  1985.
 
Fickett-W.  Detonation.  1979.
 
Gibson-JN.  The History of the US Nuclear Arsenel.  1989.
 
Glasstone-S, Dolan-PJ.  The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.  1977.
 
Greenspan-H.  Computing Methods in Reactor Physics.  1968.
 
Groueff-S.  Manhattan Project:  The Untold Story of the Making of the
  Atomic Bomb.  1968.
 
Hansen-C.  The Secret History:  US Nuclear Weapons.   1988.
 
Harper-WR.  Basic Principles of Fission Reactors.  1961.
 
Hogerton-JF et al.  Reactor Handbook.  1955.
 
Irving-DJC.  The German Atomic Bomb.  1968.
 
Jacobs-SF.  Laser Induced Fusion and X-Ray Laser Studies.  1976.
 
Jones-VC.  Manhattan, the Army, and the Atomic Bomb.  1985.
 
Kammash-T.  Fusion Reactor Physics.  1975.
 
Kesaris-P.  Manhattan Project:  Official History and Documents.  1977.
 
Knoepfel-H.  Pulsed high magnetic fields.  1970.
 
Lamont-L.  Day of Trinity.  1965.
 
Laurence-WL.  Dawn Over Zero:  The Story of the Atomic Bomb.  1946.
 
Mader-CL.  Numerical Modeling of Detonation.  1979.
 
McPhee.  The Curve of Binding Energy.  1974.
 
Morland-H.  The Secret That Exploded.  1981.
 
Moss-N.  Men Who Play God:  the Story of the H-Bomb and How the World
  Came to Live With It.  1968.
 
Motz-H.  The Physics of Laser Fusion.  1979.
 
Nichols-KD.  The Road to Trinity.  1987.
 
Nizer-L.  The Implosion Conspiracy.  1973.
 
Palit-DK.  Pakistan's Islamic Bomb.  1979.
 
Rhodes-R.  The Making of the Atomic Bomb.  1986.
 
Seshagiri-N.  The Bomb!  Fallout of India's Nuclear Explosion.  1975.
 
Smyth-HDW.  Atomic Energy for Military Purposes:  The Official Report
  on the Development of the Atomic Bomb Under the Auspices of the
  United States Government, 1940-1945.  1947.
 
Snow-CP.  The Physicists.  1981.
 
Szasz-FM.  The Day the Sun Rose Twice:  The Story of the Trinity Site
  Nuclear Explosion.  1984.
 
Ulam-S.  Adventures of a Mathematician.  1991.
 
Weaver-LE.  Education for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosives.  1970.
 
Winterberg-F.  The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive
  Devices.  1981.
 
York-HF.  The Advisors:  Oppenheimer, Teller & The Superbomb.  1976.
 
Zeldovich & Raizer.  Physics of Shock Waves and High Temperature
  Hydrodynamics.  1968.
 
Zinn-WH.  Reactor Handbook.  1960.
 
Zukas-JA.  High Velocity Impact Dynamics.  1990.
 
?????????-?.  Fast Reactor Physics.  [didn't xerox the full bib info]
 
USAEC.  Naval Reactor Physics Handbook.  1959.
 
USAEC.  Engineering with Nuclear Explosives.  1964.
 
USAEC/DOE.  Annual Reports (+ some detailed supporting documents) reviewing
  Activities at LLL & LASL 1940 something-1977.  UC Berkeley -- LBL Library.
 
  Note:  All documents and microfiche reviewed at LBL Library were
         marked UNCLASSIFIED -- most declassified from previous TOP
         SECRET - RESTRICTED DATA - NO FOREIGN DISSEMINATION items.
 
IAEA.  Peacefull Nuclear Explosions.  1970.
 
USAEC & IAEA Fission and Fusion Cross Section & Equation of State
  Data Handbooks.
 
Vanunu Newspaper Photographs of Disassembled Israeli Thermonuclear Weapons.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
>In the absence of detailed backup for this assertion, I am
>inclined to believe Ted Taylor (ex bomb designer, who spent considerable
>time and effort trying to alert people to how easy it would be to build
>a clandestine *fission* bomb):
>
>	...my opinion is that a homemade H-bomb is essentially an
>	impossibility... to make an H-bomb is not a basement operation.
>	The project would take a large, well-organized group of people
>	a great deal of time.  The secret, incidentally, is not a
>	matter of materials.  It is a matter of design.
 
This may have been true at one time.  To some extent it is still true --
one must have a bunch of ultracentrifuges running for a long time etc to
construct the fission trigger device.  One must also do some work to make
Li6D core -- and to put the whole thing together.  However, GIVEN YOU HAVE
A FISSION DEVICE -- constructing a thermonuclear weapon is trivial effort:
 
>>Now, take some Li6-D -- put it in a thick walled U-238 container --
>>set off the fission first stage -- neutrons escaping from the trigger
>>will cause the Li6-D to convert to T-D ... the U-238 wrapper is used to
>>generate high enough temperatures and pressures to start the fusion
>>reaction -- then a recursive reaction takes place with (1) fast neutrons
>>from the fusion reactions generating energy in the U-238 wrapper, which
>>(2) causes additional shock compression and heating of the fusion fuel.
>
>That would indeed be very simple and straightforward.  Can you comment
>on why it took men like Ulam and Teller several years to hit on it?
 
Teller & Ulam didn't have access to the wide range of published data or
the computational facilities necessary to utilize that data to "try out"
various design alternatives.  As graduate students at any major academic
institution, we have access to literally tons of basic data on nuclear
physics, explosives, shock waves, compressed matter physics, etc.  But,
even more importent, we have access (on our desktop) to networks of many
computer systems which we can program to operate in parallel yielding a
truely massive data mangement and number crunching environment.  At USC
a single student workstation can acquire the combined computing services
of a pair of Alliant fx/80 & fx/2800 multiprocessor systems, dozens of
SUN SPARC systems, an Intel iPSC, dozens of unix based i386/486 systems,
and at least one UNICOS Cray X/MP system.  Moreover, because the nuclear
security people apparently don't care about telling us what doesn't work
we can tentatively eliminate many potentually blind alleys.  Finally, we
are greatly aided by visits to nuclear weapons museums and examination of
photographs and data sheets on operational nuclear weapons in knowing the
physical limitations (approx 11 inch diameter external bomb casing and
capability to compress at least 10 to 40  megatons yield of Li6D) within
which our design must scale in order to capture the key design concepts.
 
The fundamental point (discussed in Ulam's bio) which everyone missed for
several years was the "recursive" nature of the generation of the fast
neutrons in the fusion core and their consumption in the U-238 jacket --
this recursive reaction vastly extends the confinement (burn) time of the
T-D fusion fuel.  The precise timing of the energy budget and disassembly
of the second stage fusion device was extremely difficult to predict in
the era before massively parallel computing facilities were available --
this is why we can readily verify the operation of a proposed design in
the absence of actual testing today -- a feat which would have been quite
impossible given the best computing facilities available in Teller/Ulam's
original conception of the generic traditional thermonuclear device.  The
availablity of these facilities also makes it possible to design and test
a long series of refinements to the design -- refinements which serve to
enhance efficiency -- but which are unnecessary to achieve a significant
fusion yield in the range of tens of megatons of high explosive yield.
 
Merlin
The Magician
King Arthur's Court
Camelot
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmerlin cudlnmerlin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 17:31:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM Geoff Steckel says:
>stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>>A more intriguing possibility is that some CNF cells may be working as
>>electrical oscillators.
 
>This is unlikely.  An oscillating power supply usually self-destructs
>(empirical observation) and the big name makers of lab power supplies
>have done a lot in their circuits to prevent this.
 
While I agree with Geoff that you can build a filter to prevent this, I don't
agree that power supply oscillation is unlikely.
 
Power supplies that are designed to switch voltages and currents rapidly (say
under computer control) do *not* have large capacitors in the output for
filtering.  Those capacitors would only serve to slow the change to the new
desired conditions.  So such power supplies dispense with "dumb" components
such as capacitors and use dynamic feedback almost exclusively.
 
Oscillation in such a system is very difficult to design out.  I'm not sure
what all design steps they take to isolate the load's effects on the PS
internals, but I don't think it is a sure thing.
 
For the record, my analog friend showed me the oscilloscope view of just such
a power supply oscillating at over 300 Mhz.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.07 /  gsteckel@vergi /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel - Sun BOS Hardware
 CONTRACTOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: 7 Jun 92 21:04:55 GMT
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)332-9252

In article <1992Jun7.173142.17993@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>
>In a previous article, gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM Geoff Steckel says:
>>This is unlikely.  ...
>
>While I agree with Geoff that you can build a filter to prevent this, I don't
>agree that power supply oscillation is unlikely.
> [...]
>Oscillation in such a system is very difficult to design out.  I'm not sure
>what all design steps they take to isolate the load's effects on the PS
>internals, but I don't think it is a sure thing.
>
>For the record, my analog friend showed me the oscilloscope view of just such
>a power supply oscillating at over 300 Mhz.
 
Criticism accepted; I was assuming a relatively low slew rate supply.
The amazing thing would be that the 300 MHz oscillation wouldn't cause so much
dissipation in the supply pass stages that they would fry.
 
However, one _can_ do a few things to isolate the load from the supply.
The manufacturer would probably have an application note for this.
As a quickie suggestion, a 10 ohm 2 watt carbon composition (not wirewound)
resistor with a coil (close wound, as many turns as will fit in 1 layer)
wound around it in parallel, placed in series with the output of the supply.
 
Also, if filtering (averaging) over the < 1 second range raises accuracy
questions, there are a number of techniques for getting root-mean-square
(RMS) values for voltage and current.  These range from the simple to
the extremely obscure and complex, depending on the waveform and desired
accuracy... (:-).
 
I would suggest to anyone doing electrolysis that he/she connect an oscilloscope
(both for voltage and with a current probe) just to check.  This should slow
the speculation down.
	regards,
 
	geoff steckel (gwes@trilobyte.com, gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line.
This posting is entirely the author's responsibility.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengsteckel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 05:49:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) says:
>John Logajan writes:
>>For the record, my analog friend showed me the oscilloscope view of just such
>>a power supply oscillating at over 300 Mhz.
>
>The amazing thing would be that the 300 MHz oscillation wouldn't cause so much
>dissipation in the supply pass stages that they would fry.
 
I should have pointed out this power supply was designed to be super fast
at voltage switching.  It was to be used in the pin electronics of a IC
chip tester.  It's job would have been to provide that pin with whatever
voltage conditions the chip under test needed and then quickly get on to
the next chip.  Underscore the word "quickly."
 
I don't, however, see why it would internally dissipate more than, say, a half
on class A amplifier.  To avoid burn up, you just insure the components can
handle class A at those levels.  You can always cut corners if you assume
other than class A.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Takahashi's Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Takahashi's Calorimetry
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 07:28:47 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Dear Jed,
 
   I agree with many of your comments and if I was to be really
critical of my own analysis, the one point I would focus on is that
I am assuming the time between thermal equilibriums for the calibration
run is the same 35 min as seen in the sweep graphs.  Really this is
pulling a value out of the air.  For example, if the time between thermal
equilibriums for the calibrations are significantly longer, say an hour,
the excess heat values would be much larger. Of course a smaller value would
give the opposite result.  This keep piece of information is something
I'm missing, so my calculations are just estimates right now.  If I can get
a hold of the graphs for Dr. Takahashi's calibration runs I would love to
redo the calculations right. Still, I don't think 35 mins is a bad guess
for an initial test calculation since all the graphs show a similar time
to rise between equilibriums. This has the crude effect of removing time
dependence from the comparison, and so without further data on the
calibration, it seems like a good middle ground to base a calculation.
 
   As far as the method, I'm not really satisfied with the power to temp
relation.  The 2C above 20C for the 1-watt power-in was what bothered me.
If the cooling system's capacity was exceeded then the latent heat above
what the cooling coil removed could supplement Joule heating at 1-watt.
I wanted to eliminate that possibility by looking at what would be expected
by Joule heating during the L to H power transitions. The other problem
I have with using the cookbook power calculations is the amount of detail
you can get out of the data. It one thing to say, I put x-watts in and
got y-watts out. It's another to be able to say, I put x-watts in,
and created y-watts out with this much caused by Joule heating, this
much is estimated chemical heat, and this much is from an unknown source
without worrying about potential latent heat problems.
 
   Ok, so that's my skeptical side talking, on the flip side there is
the somewhat odd situation during the last 2 passes of Exp 115 before
Dr. Takahashi reports stopping the system.  He claims the area around
the CF device started boiling even though the thermocouple only recorded
a near constant temp of 39C during the 6Hr H-sweep. This indicates to me
that a sizable thermal gradient has been created by poor mixing and thus
the power output may actually be under-estimated. Here is a bit of
constructive criticism on calibrating the system.  Try running the
calibration past the Max cooling capacity of the chiller for an extended
period. I know that would give you a non-linear power to temp ratio once
exceeded, but that piece of data could really help during situations like
this.  It shouldn't take to much to curve fit a temp to power ratio should
the cooling capacity of the chiller be exceeded.  Also, knowing the volume
of the D2O bath during each sweep would be good information, just so there
is no mis-interpretation of the data. For example why is there a significant
voltage drop in sweep 34-H to 22V compared to the other H sweeps where the
voltage is 26.5 - 27V?
 
   Anyway, I would be honored if Dr. Takahashi was able to review my
calculations and would be most interested to hear his comments. I'm sure
he will correct anything I've missed or over-stated.  Well, good luck
with your experimental work.
 
Have fun,
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 Klein bottle is full |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Power measurement
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power measurement
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 10:11:12 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

 
Oops, I made a mistake.  I wrote
 
    Moreover, if the function P(t) is noisy, averaging V and I separately
    will also fail to account for that part of input power that is carried
    by the noise component. [...]  If the V and I "noise" is due to changes
    in the cell's resistance, the [power carried by the noise] will be
    strictly positive.
 
First, I should point out that Tom's averaging procedure is harmless
as long as only *one* of the two variables (V and I) is noisy.  In
particular, if his current source is working as it was supposed to,
then the current should be noise-free and practically constant during
most of the ramp; in which case the average power (in each 1-minute
interval) *will* be practically equal to average-V times average-I.
 
Second, if V and I are both noisy, but the noise is due to rapid
changes in the cell's resistance R (as I assumed above), then the
fluctuations of V and I will show *negative* correlation --- when
R drops, V decreases but I increases.  In that case, the noise component
actually carries "negative power"; i.e. Tom's averaging procedure
will *over*estimate the input power, not underestimate it as I assumed.
 
On the other hand, if the noise is indeed due to electrical oscillations
in the power supply, as in my half-serious conjecture, then the V-noise
and the I-noise should have positive correlation; in which case Tom's
averaging method will underestimate the input power.
 
I don't think we can properly resolve this noise issue with the data
we have. Tom, you say you have looked at the noise with an oscilloscope;
can you tell us more?  What is the amplitude (rms, peak-to-peak,
whatever) of the noise?  Are V and I both noisy, or just  V?
If both, can you tell whether the correlation of the two "noise" signals
is positive or negative?
 
In any case, I still stand by the rest of my analysis.  In particular,
I believe that Tom's 1-minute averaging still underestimates the
power input at the end of each sawtooth cycle, where both V and I
drop at the same time.  As I showed in my original posting, this
error alone would underestimate the sawtooth's integral by about
0.1%. (In general, if the sawtooth's period is M minutes, the relative
error in the integral will be about -1/(2M); according to Tom's previous
postings, he has typically used M = 360.)
 
Is this significant?  Well, I don't know how what is the number that
I should take 0.1% of.  Tom gives the cell current and voltage as
60--400 mA and 3.3--4.1 V, which I take as being 1.2 watt average
power; 0.1% of that is 1.2 milliwatts, or only 3000 joules over 2.5
M sec. On the other hand, Tom also gives the "total heater+cell power"
as ~10 watts; assuming the heater power computation too is affected
by the averaging error in a similar way, 0.1% of that is 10 milliwatts,
or 25,000 joules over 2.5 M sec.  By comparison, Tom's latest balance
sheet shows 7628 joules of "excess heat".  Tom, what do you say?
 
--jorge
 
  Jorge Stolfi
  stolfi@src.dec.com
  DEC Systems Research Center
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: As far as I know, my employer has yet to detect any excess
heat, neutrons, gamma rays, tritium, helium-four, or sub-basement-level
hydrogen in any of its carefully and expertly designed software products.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / kenneth becker /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kenneth.a.becker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 12:44:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jun8.054930.7148@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
 al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>
> In a previous article, gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) says:
> >John Logajan writes:
> >>For the record, my analog friend showed me the oscilloscope view of just
 such
> >>a power supply oscillating at over 300 Mhz.
> >
 
The more I think about this, the more intriguing it is.  Once one gets
above 10 MHz or so, wires don't look like wires any more - they look
like transmission lines.  As readers to this group know, transmission
lines can look like inductors, caps, delays, resonant circuits,
attenuators, you name it.  Lets have a little fun with this and
look up two extremes.
 
1)  The power supply is generating some high frequency noise (> 10 MHz,
could even be up in the Ghz!) that is getting coupled into the cell
through the wires.  At the frequencies in question, the capacitors
in the power supply would be unlikely to be anything but
capacitors - the inductive reactance of the leads and the losses in
the dielectric material would assure that.  In any case, make a rash
assumption that there is something resonant about the whole system,
but especially with the cell.  If it is resonanting, V and I at
the frequency of resonance will be out of phase by something less
than 90 degrees, the amount less greater with greater damping.
Now, there's no question that real power is still being applied to
the cell; however, there >>is<< a question about the accuracy of
both the voltage and current measuring devices with any kind of really
high frequency stuff present.  Do the metering circuits measure high,
low, or somewhere in between?
 
2)  The cell itself is oscillating on its own.  In good old
semiconductors, we have the beautiful example of the tunneling
diode.  Bias it right, and this two terminal device is capable of
amplification!  Remember that the tunneling diode works by having
a depletion (non conducting) region that is thinner than the
quantum location of an electron; therefore, there is some finite
and useable probability that the electron is on the other side of
the region. Well, here we are talking about microfractures in the
palladium, strange chemistry at the boundaries of the electrolyte
and palladium and such.  Depending upon the absorbtion at Ghz
frequencies of the electrolyte, it looks possible that it could be
oscillating.  Most of the courses and such that I've taken
indicate that water with ions in it conducts well enough to
attenuate (in this context, damp the oscillations) over a wide
range of frequencies; however, a nickle bet says that there might
be some "frequencies of interest" where the absorbtion drops off
dramatically.  If so: gain plus no damping equals oscillations.
 
The way to tell?  Get a really good GHz spectrum analyzer, a GPIB
controller, and start looking for unexplained spikes in the local
spectrum, 10 MHz and up.
 
 
	Ken Becker  kab@hotstone.att.com
 
 
The opinions expressed above are my own, and not those of any I may
hack for.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkab cudfnkenneth cudlnbecker cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / John Moore /  Re: M & F; and chemical explanations.
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: M & F; and chemical explanations.
Date: 8 Jun 92 15:29:41 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.

In article <458EA0DFDD9F8098BC@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
]ultras. My point about the Belzner et al paper (the "Huggins" work) has always
]been that the excess heat measured by them was comparable with the heat of
]water electrolysis, and this is one of the most energetic reactions one can
]imagine taking place in such a cell. In their case, however, you can't jump up
 
What IS the status of the Huggins work? I have heard nothing about it since
the Sante Fe conference. Did they fade away, retract, or what?
 
Comment: if a nuclear reaction requires nuclear ash, a chemical reaction
requires chemical ash!
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326         Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: New protest song:All we are say...ing.... is... Give BOMBS a chance!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / John Moore /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: 8 Jun 92 15:33:50 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.

In article <1992Jun6.132258.28070@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
 writes:
]Tom Droege reports that the electrical input to his CNF cells is "very
]noisy", i.e. shows rapid fluctuations added to the basic sawtooth
]pattern.  I wonder what is the source of that noise.
]
]The obvious guess is that the bubbling gases cause the the cell's
]electrical resistance to change.  I conjecture that at any given time
]the surface of each electrode is almost entirely covered by a layer of
]densely packed bubbles; and that most of the cell's resistance is
]concentrated in those layers, where the current must squeeze through
]the gaps betwen the bubbles.  Therefore, the resistance must go through
]hundreds of bumps and dips per second, as bubbles grow and detach from
]the electrode's surface.
 
I observed this effect in an ordinary electrolysis cell and hypothesized
that it was bubbles. I would suspect (Dieter, am I all wet?) that
tinkering with surface poisons would change the bubbling, which should
in some way change the noise. This should be a simple experiment - anyone
have time to play with it? Or is this all well understood by the electrochemists
already? In any case, the noise amplitude seems low enough to not effect the
energy balance conclusions.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326         Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: New protest song:All we are say...ing.... is... Give BOMBS a chance!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 18:11:49 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <6369@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Jun6.132258.28070@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
 
>]Tom Droege reports that the electrical input to his CNF cells is "very
>]noisy", i.e. shows rapid fluctuations added to the basic sawtooth
>]pattern.  I wonder what is the source of that noise.
the surface of each electrode is almost entirely covered by a layer of
>]densely packed bubbles; and that most of the cell's resistance is
>]concentrated in those layers, where the current must squeeze through
>]the gaps betwen the bubbles.  Therefore, the resistance must go through
>
>I observed this effect in an ordinary electrolysis cell and hypothesized
>that it was bubbles. I would suspect (Dieter, am I all wet?) that
>tinkering with surface poisons would change the bubbling, which should
>in some way change the noise.
 
Much better is just to increase the length of wire.  Assuming that that
noise in the system is independent on different parts of the wire the
noise will go as the square root of the length.  This would allow
relatively controled tests of the effects of noise.
 
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 /  /  Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 20:49:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm Hi - Lo 6 hour switch interval
Duration: Now charging for 3002420 seconds (834 hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 4.1 v to 3.3 v on 6 hour Hi - Lo.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.  One sigma is about 0.002
watts.  (This from the calibration period at the start of the run, but see
below.)
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
2.0 -  2.5 M sec       7628              +0.0152
2.5 -  3.0 M sec      10286              +0.0206
 
Beginning to look like a trend here?  Not!
 
Excitement picked up as the trend began to look exponential.  I was beginning
to have visions of a process that was exponential from the **start** of the
run.  At the end of the 3 M sec period, the level was up to 50+ mw.  So I
started to look seriously at all that data.
 
Mostly the mid-west has been suffering from a drought.  But the last few days
a non rain producing front has moved over increasing the relative humidity.
This changed the load on my chiller coils which stick up out of the cooler.
The de-humidifier started doing what it was supposed to do and removed water
from the air.  This caused the temperature of the chilled water to go up.  It
turns out that I am more sensitive to this than I thought.  Looks like 20 mw
per degree C.  Easily taken out in the off like analysis, but I try to run
without corrections in the on line monitor.  So while the weather here is
beautiful, the house air conditioner is on and the anomalous heat is now down
below 10 mw.  No doubt the net heat will be of order 1 mw when I do the
appropriate corrections off line.
 
Even with the accumulated error, the net heat since the start of the run is a
little less than 8 mw.  We have an energy balance of +24010 Joules in 3002420
seconds.  I call this no "anomalous heat".
 
Calibration experiments seem endless.  It takes forever to do all the right
experiments.  So one just has to be alert and notice when a variable that has
not been calibrated changes.  I make no excuses.  This is hard work.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 /  Henry /       Re: Fusion Digest 329
     
Originally-From: Henry <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 329
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 20:52:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Stolfi's query, whether such a circuit might oscillate, reminds me that long
ago we reported evidence that certain electrochemical cells can act as
negative impedances; see
Henry H. Bauer, Electrochemical behavior of cadmium, Journal of Electro-
analytical Chemistry, 12 (1966) 64-67
B.Breyer and H. H. Bauer, Electrochemical cells as electrical circuit
elements, ibid., 12 (1966) 411-415
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfn cudlnHenry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 /  /  Re: Fusion Digest 328
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 328
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 20:50:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Reply to questions and comments raised by Dieter Britz in Fusion Digest
328:
 
>If I understand you
>correctly, you propose the sub-basement electronic levels as the mechanism for
>the heat. That is, under certain chemical conditions which you have found,
>energy can be transferred from a hydrogen atom to the potassium system; that
>energy comes from the electron in orbit around the hydrogen dropping down to
>this new low level. I guess that it cannot spontaneously come up again,
>requiring, I suppose, an exact quantum for doing so (?).
 
Correct.
 
>Your reason for not using a closed system is that the tight hydrogen atoms
>(or would that be dihydrogen molecules?) get trapped by the recombination
>catalyst. I have never followed this line. The only way for them to get
>trapped there is for them to get there first; the catalyst is in the cell's
>head space, so you must be talking gas phase. In an open cell, this would
>still happen, and the hydrogens would leave the cell, which amounts to the
>same as being trapped. Please explain this point, which I have made before
>without getting a response.
 
Not Correct.  It is true that closed systems are harder to do.  We had many
difficulties with closed systems.  They leak.  The catalysts do not work
uniformly as a function of time and the calorimetry difficulties multiply.
There was always the potential that a working catalyst would act as a
sponge and deplete the hydrogen atoms at the electrode surface.  This may
not be a factor, but to be on the conservative side I recommend that closed
systems begin with an excess pressure of dihydrogen gas. More
fundamentally, I am a chicken when it comes to closing up a system that
contains dihydrogen and dioxygen gas with catalytic materials. I continue
to advise against it. Furthermore, the open cells are working just fine.
In principle, however, I must agree that a working, closed cell would be
best.
 
 
In response to Tom Droege in Fusion Digest 328
 
>John Farrell wonders in FD326 why I gave up on MKF.
>
>First, when done as described in MK, a heat imbalance is seen when the 1.48*I
>correction is taken.  Farrell calls this "...getting excess heat in the open
>system...".  I am not so sure.  In a telephone conversation 31 March, 1992,
>Randy Mills seemed to say that there were very long term chemicsl processes
>going on.  My notes of the conversation say "Takes 25 days for Ni to be
>completely hydrided - slightly exothermic".
 
Well, I am sure.  Even if all of the hydrogen were going to loading the
factor would be 1.35*I and we still get plenty of excess heat.  It is true
that it takes days for the nickel hydride to form (to saturation) and that
this loading is an exothermic process.  On the other hand, the heat
released during this loading is quite small in comparison to the excess
heat (using the 1.48*I or 1.35*I). And, the longer it takes to load the
smaller the power from this effect.
 
Furthermore, I cannot overemphasize the need for control cells.  If you
don't use a control cell how can you tell if your calorimetry is OK?  [I
understand the need for electrical calibration, but this is not sufficient
regardless of how accurate the calibration is.  You have to convince
yourself that there is no chemical reaction by using a control that should
be chemically similar.  Then, if you get excess heat with the target cell
but not with the control cell, the target cell must be analysed for any
chemimal reaction.]  In our case, using 0.6 M Na2CO3 instead of 0.6 M K2CO3
is a good control.  Everything works according to accepted theory with 0.6
M Na2CO3.  My point is this--you didn't know if the *apparent or claimed*
excess heat was from recombination, from some other chemical reaction, or
whatever. You didn't know if the 1.48*I was correct or not. Why assume that
it was recombination or some other chemical process rather than running the
control cell (0.6 M Na2CO3)?  If you get more heat from the 0.6 M K2CO3
than from the 0.6 M Na2CO3, then it's up to the chemists to find an
explanation.
 
The next paper by Mills et al. will make both of these points
(recombination and the 1.48*I) moot.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / kenneth becker /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kenneth.a.becker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 20:31:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jun8.181149.11037@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu
 (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
> In article <6369@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
> >In article <1992Jun6.132258.28070@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
>
> >]Tom Droege reports that the electrical input to his CNF cells is "very
> >]noisy", i.e. shows rapid fluctuations added to the basic sawtooth
> >]pattern.  I wonder what is the source of that noise.
 
>
> Much better is just to increase the length of wire.  Assuming that that
> noise in the system is independent on different parts of the wire the
> noise will go as the square root of the length.  This would allow
> relatively controled tests of the effects of noise.
>
 
Ummm - the wire attached to such a shell is a >>transmission line<<
at high frequencies.  Changing the length just changes the (multiple)
resonant frequencies that can be supported on such a line.  If you're
luckly, the change in reactance might kill the effect of such
oscillations; it's just as likely to shift them to some other
frequency.  The other effect could be the losses in such a line at
high frequencies.  If the losses in the line are enough to kill
the oscillations, then the losses are absorbing the high frequency
stuff.  I.E., instead of getting just pure copper losses of the DC
current flowing through the wires from the power supply, now you
get dielectric/inductive heating due to the losses involved in the
lossly lines.  In wonder what this effect would have on net power
balance calculations?
 
 
		Ken Becker  kab@hotstone.att.com
 
opinions?  We don't want no steeking opinions!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkab cudfnkenneth cudlnbecker cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.08 / John Robinson /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: jr@ksr.com (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: 8 Jun 92 16:39:05 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham, MA

In article <1992Jun8.124440.14460@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com
 (kenneth.a.becker) writes:
 
   In article <1992Jun8.054930.7148@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
 al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
   >
   > In a previous article, gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) says:
   > >John Logajan writes:
   > >>For the record, my analog friend showed me the oscilloscope view of just
 such
   > >>a power supply oscillating at over 300 Mhz.
   > >
 
   The more I think about this, the more intriguing it is.  Once one gets
   above 10 MHz or so, wires don't look like wires any more - they look
   like transmission lines.
..
			    Depending upon the absorbtion at Ghz
   frequencies of the electrolyte, it looks possible that it could be
   oscillating.  Most of the courses and such that I've taken
   indicate that water with ions in it conducts well enough to
   attenuate (in this context, damp the oscillations) over a wide
   range of frequencies; however, a nickle bet says that there might
   be some "frequencies of interest" where the absorbtion drops off
   dramatically.
 
How about the frequency of the OH bond?  Can you say microwave oven?
--
/jr, aka John Robinson                       Place stamps here
jr@ksr.com                              Post Office will not deliver
if troubles: ksr!jr@world.std.com       mail without correct postage
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /  /  Measuring Power
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measuring Power
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 03:34:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jorge Stolfi has put up a nice discussion of possible errors in computing
power in CNF experiments.  This is all good stuff, if you don't know what we
are worrying about, then you may be making wrong measurements.  But Jorge, I
don't think I am in trap 4.  In fact, I was there second (after Dick Garwin)
warning about this error.
 
At the Sante Fe meeting, Dick Garwin said that he thought that the neutrons
had been disposed of and that the gammas had been discounted, and that he
expected that the heat would soon disappear.  He then put up a view graph
which pointed out the problems in measuring power by V*I.  As Dick Garwin, Tom
Droege, and Jorge Stolfi agree, the product average is not necessarily the
product of the averages.
 
I asked Dick for a copy of that view graph, and displayed it at the Salt Lake
City meeting.  Jorge is correct, it is not easy to measure power, and Dick
knows that I keep an oscilloscope on the critical leads to look for
oscillations.  I will write more about oscillations another time.  But while I
am humble (and humbled) about(by) most things, oscillation detection is not
one of them.  I am quite used to detecting oscillations well above the
bandwidth of the oscilloscope one is using (or even a DC meter).  Ask, and I
will tell you how.  If I make a wrong measurement because my machine is
oscillating, you can take me out and shoot me.
 
We have done a number of experiments to study how well this power measurement
is done.  Some of these are written up in the Salt Lake City paper (ACCF1).
First, note that we run at constant current.  We observe that when either
En or In is a constant then:
 
1)  Mean (En*In)= Mean(En)*Mean(In)
 
With a constant current source (but of course there is no such thing), the
product average is same as the product of the averages.  With a constant
current supply the possible error is reduced to measuring the effect of system
noise for production of a non constant current.  We have done this, and found
that the error is of order 1 microwatt at normal operating conditions.  The
ACCF1 paper quotes a number of as high as 10 mw with our old current source
design and under unusual conditions.  But the error is in the direction that
Mean(En)*Mean(In) understates the anomalous heat.  From a later (today) note
in FD332, I see that Jorge has predicted the above measurement.
 
There is yet another way that we have checked for Jorge Stolfi's trap 4.  We
calibrate a lot.  One way is to run a cell backwards, and at the expected
operating point.  This produces similar noise to forward operation and gives a
check on later (or earlier) forward operation.  If the cell has not died or
exploded, we always run it backwards at the end at the run operating points.
 
We should note that the first calorimeter was operated for a year or so making
the computation both ways.  There was very little difference, and we found
that the Mean(En)*Mean(In) computation understates the anomalous heat.  So
Mean(En)*Mean(In) was used in the new design.  We might yet change the
computation.  It is historical, and is in well checked and tested code that
works.  Further it takes a little more space to do both calculations and we
are short of code space.
 
But note the way we actually take this measurement. (below)  It is more a
once a minute sample which is spread out to reduce the noise.  So many of
Jorgi's arguments in (4) do not apply.
 
For Jorge's other traps, we also think we are OK.  For his (1) we have taken
some pain to insure that the electronics are a linear system.  We hope (again
calibration tests this) that superposition applies.  Under this condition,
(some expert check me on this) I think that sampling faster than the time
constant of the particular channel guarantees a proper measurement.  We take
100 interleaved measurements of the 64 channels over seven seconds of the one
minute sampling interval.  Most of the channels are limited to a fraction of a
cycle per second 3 db bandwidth.  But note the peculiar sample scheme, we
measure only 7 out of 60 seconds.  I think of this as a single measurement
that is mushed out in time and among all the channels to reduce the noise
content of a single measurement.  I realize this is a possible problem, but
there is no evidence that it is a real one.  We have to do other things, like
display all those variables.  Note that real heat spikes come under the
influence of the calorimeter time constant which is 14.5 minutes, and so are
properly measured by even 1 minute samples.
 
With respect to the saw tooth analyzed by Jorge, we typically get two
measurements on the down sweep because of the servo response time.  Not as
many as one would like, but the error should calibrate out, and we get the
same zero with a saw tooth, a Hi-Lo, and a steady current during calibration,
at least within 2 mw.
 
But the cell is ***not*** a linear system and we do not think that we care.
 
We worry that the cell somehow influences the computer and vise versa.  There
are big spikes, and sometimes they are at a measurement point, and sometimes
they are not.  We again think this is OK and that it is checked by calibration
runs.  We have looked for any evidence of a lock in between the cell and the
computer and have found none.  Of course, the Hi-Lo and saw tooth operation
forces a very low frequency lock.  But calibration runs indicate that it does
not produce any net error.
 
By the way, we think that a real heat spike would look like a sudden step up
followed by the 14.5 minute calorimeter relaxation time.  But the up spike
should be tempered by the time constant between the cell and the calorimeter
which is about a minute.  We have seen a few things that look like this.  One
of the reasons I am still working.
 
For Jorge's (2 - introducing some small but systematic bias) we operate a 16
bit converter into the system noise level.  This seems to work just fine.  A
very slowly moving variable is tracked to about 1 part in 200000.  There are
no steps or jumps.  Averaging many samples in the presence of noise does
increase the precision of the system for us.  Accuracy is another matter, and
we do not claim high absolute accuracy.  We claim low drift by measurement,
and thus good relative accuracy for comparison of a test experiment to a
control.
 
For control of long term drift, we measure ground at five points, and have
three precision references in the system and measure all power supply
voltages.  We also have 13 thermometers.  All the electronics is in a box held
to 0.03 C.  If something changes, we know it.
 
As near as I can tell, [Jorge's (3)] the errors due to any random walk or
round off error are well below those due to uncontrolled temperature
variations, which are the largest source of error.
 
Jorge, as you can see by my other posting today, all that "anomalous heat" is
due to quite a more mundane source, the weather.
 
There was a lot of stuff to try to answer today, so I have probably missed
some things.  If I don't follow up your item, bug me in a few days.
 
There is a lot to discuss about "cell oscillations".  The curious should look
at Figure 7. of our ACCF1 (Salt Lake) paper.  I still don't think those are
bubbles.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /  Harrison /  Takahashi calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi calorimetry
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 13:23:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD332 chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>If I can get a hold of the graphs for Dr. Takahashi's
>calibration runs...
 
You're looking at one of them (sweep 1).  I think AT looked at the same
chart you did, read slightly different temperatures and did slightly
different computations, and came out with a result that differed from
yours by 3%.  That is, after correcting for electrolysis, the deltaP on
sweep 1 was ~106 W, deltaT was 7 C, and that's one of the points on his
calibration chart.  (Call it 100W/7C within experimental accuracy.)  AT
assumed any anomolous heat was stable during the 35 min (or so)
settling time so temp rise from joule heating was an online calibration
under operating conditions.
 
The large excess heat numbers come from using that dP/dT number with
the _total_ temperature rise over coolant T.
 
At least that's what I think AT was saying; but wait for confirmation
from more authoritative sources.
 
Chuck Sites continues later
>why is there a significant voltage drop in sweep 34-H to 22V
>compared to the other H sweeps where the voltage is 26.5 - 27V?
 
The main reason is probably change in conductivity of the
electrolyte.  As D2O leaves, Li+ & OD- concentration increase,
conductivity improves, cell voltage decreases, (and, incidentally,
input power goes down).  At each refill with D2O, concentration drops
and voltage rises; AT refilled about once per week, so voltage is
cyclical.  In simple open cells, some LiOD may be carried out with gas
& vapor, leading to long term loss of ionic strength & voltage
increase.  I have no idea whether this happened in AT exp 115.  Also,
ionic conductivity often has a linear tempco of about 2%/C (but is this
true in _strong_ solutions of LiOD?  Help, electrochemists;  OD- isn't
even on my table of ionic conductances!)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /  Close /   Miles talk; helium andDIR/NEWthium
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Miles talk; helium andDIR/NEWthium
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 13:24:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After all the hype about Miles talk on the helium and heat, did anyone
actually go to it? Ask any questions about helium? Get any answers?
 
Is there anyone who is prepared still to defend any d induced nuclear
reaction (with p, d or even Li which seems to have worked its way back
into the element of the month) as capable of giving watts of power and
consistent with the measured amounts (or lack of) of products? Fusion "Facts"
castigates John Huizenga for having failed to list d+6Li->4He + energy. FF
fails to mention to its subscribers, who are paying over a dollar a page
for this paper, that no 4He has ever been found commensurate with that
required.
 
Alex O says 'Who says that 4He is [the] last product [that] one
has to look for? What about 4He + d->6Li? It would be a bit difficult
to find in the "sea" of Li coming from the electrolyte, heh?' Not if
the electrolyte contains 7Li Alex. Measure the isotopic content
before and after; people have BTW.
 
The whole lithium saga goes back to desire to avoid neutrons in the early
days. It received much popularity following Teller's apparent endorsement
of an expt which "discovered" excess 6Li after electrolysis. However, JH
in his book tells the full sorry story of this episode. In short, if you
run for 5  or 6 times as long when measuring 6Li than when measuring 7Li,
one is likely to find "more" 6Li! Teller was, by report, unaware of this
important fact when he announced the news at a CNF conference; when he
learned of the full history he retracted but, it seems, many people are
still unaware of this. Indeed, several months later, Martin Fleischmann
claimed to me (during an interview in early 1990) that 6Li anomalies were
being seen; unfortunately I did not at that time know of the true origins
of Teller's report and so could not then challenge the statement.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 / w Davidsen /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: 9 Jun 92 13:37:48 GMT
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Jun8.124440.14460@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com
 (kenneth.a.becker) writes:
 
|> but especially with the cell.  If it is resonanting, V and I at
|> the frequency of resonance will be out of phase by something less
|> than 90 degrees, the amount less greater with greater damping.
|> Now, there's no question that real power is still being applied to
|> the cell; however, there >>is<< a question about the accuracy of
|> both the voltage and current measuring devices with any kind of really
|> high frequency stuff present.  Do the metering circuits measure high,
|> low, or somewhere in between?
 
  I have stayed out of this group and just read the digest, but I have
to get in on this one! If the voltage and current are out of phase, the
product of volts and amps is called volt-amps (did they run out of
people to name units for?) and the in phase product is the actual watts.
Since watts contribute to heating rather than volt-amps, if the
measurements are incorrect, I would expect them to be on the high side,
and indicating that excess heat is actually greater then previously
believed because actual input wattage is lower.
 
  It's a good point to check the frequency spectrum, but I don't see how
phase shift could explain excess heat.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	Recession: your friend loses his job
	Depression: you lose your job
	Recovery: Bush loses his job
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendavidsen cudfnwilliam cudlnDavidsen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /   /   Do CF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Do CF cells oscillate?
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:04:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I believe Jorge Stolfi gets the credit for raising the issues related to
electrical measurements in cold fusion processes.  I have long felt that
there is plenty of room for significant experimental errors here, and yet
very few of the published experiments include any discussion of this
possibility.  One thing that has been evident in all the published data
I have seen is that the cells are "noisey" and some assumptions made
about averaging the data may not be valid.  One point that I think gets
overlooked is that if the power supply involves an active circuit to
regulate the current, that circuit has a finite response time.  If, as
Henry Bauer now reminds us, "certain electrochemical cells can act as
a negative impedence" the possibility for some unexpected behavior
would seem to exist.  I don't think one needs to look for problems at
high frequencies, however.  It is what happens on a time scale just
a below the sampling interval by a decade or so that I wonder about.
 
On a related matter, I had ask Tom Droege to list the experiments to
which he attached some significance in light of what he has learned
about precision calorimetry.  I was surprised to see that he included
a number of experiments that clearly were subject to many of the
sources of error he has described here with regard to his work.  In
particular, I would interpret Tom's results as pretty well contradicting
those of Takahashi.  I think Chuck Sites is on the right track when
he reexamines the calibrations upon which Takahashi's calorimetry
is based.  The Takahashi cell seems to me to be a poor design with
regard to thermal equilibration so calibrations made at one power
level probably have no bearing on what happens at some other power
level.
 
In summary, I think the number of calorimetric measurements on the
PdD system that are worth anything as proof of cold fusion is very
small, and has not been growing.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /  Britz /  M & F; and chemical explanations II
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: M & F; and chemical explanations II
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:30:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I asked Prof. Farrell, alias ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
 
>Your reason for not using a closed system is that the tight hydrogen atoms
>(or would that be dihydrogen molecules?) get trapped by the recombination
>catalyst. I have never followed this line. The only way for them to get
>trapped there is for them to get there first; the catalyst is in the cell's
>head space, so you must be talking gas phase. In an open cell, this would
>still happen, and the hydrogens would leave the cell, which amounts to the
>same as being trapped. Please explain this point, which I have made before
>without getting a response.
 
and he answers me, in Fusion Digest 334 (referring to a closed system with a
recombination catalyst):
 
>There was always the potential that a working catalyst would act as a
>sponge and deplete the hydrogen atoms at the electrode surface.  This may
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
This is exactly where you lose me. HOW can the catalyst "sponge" up shrunken
hydrogens (previously the word was "scavenge")?? The catalyst is up in the
head space, as I say, the electrode surface is in the electrolyte, and the
little hydrogen atoms have already given off the heat as they went to a lower
electron orbit state, and some of these maybe have fused; all this happening
down in solution. I repeat: please explain, if you care to. As I also said,
even if we disprove your explanation, if you do demonstrate reproducible
excess heat, you have something.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /  Britz /  Refereeing of the China Lake paper
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Refereeing of the China Lake paper
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:32:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have forgotten who it was, but someone suggested that the China Lake paper,
that is, by Bush, Lagowski, Miles and Ostrom in the J. Electroanal. Chem.
304 (1991) 271, was not properly refereed. This paper has, until recently,
(see below) been regarded as strong evidence for nuclear ash, here (4)He, as
it claims not only the helium, but helium in amounts roughly correlated with
excess heat also detected at the same electrodes, and commensurate with it.
 I know the Chief Editor of that journal, Professor Roger Parsons; he is a
very competent electrochemist (I say this looking up, not down) and has kept
the journal as about THE electrochemical journal, by keeping up its standard.
The China Lake paper was a Preliminary Note, and these are often refereed by
Professor Parsons himself, for speed. I have asked him about the paper and
this was the procedure in this case. The fact that Professor Parsons himself
refereed the paper does not detract in any way from the perceived quality of
the paper - rather the reverse, as Professor Parsons is at least as critical
and competent as any of the referees in his stable.
 Having said this, I will add that Professor Parsons, or any referee, would
not have known of the point made by Huizenga in his book, about helium
becoming mobile in a metal being loaded with deuterium. This finding now
provides a plausible and non-anomalous explanation for both the helium found,
and presumably the correlation, since the apparently measured excess heat is
also correlated with current density. In other words, the helium was present
in the Pd samples as an impurity, and was released during electrolysis.
  It is amusing to note that exactly this sort of thing happened to Paneth and
Peters in 1926. The difference is that they themselves found the error.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 /  Britz /  RE: Re: M & F; and chemical explanations.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: M & F; and chemical explanations.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:32:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes
 
>What IS the status of the Huggins work? I have heard nothing about it since
>the Sante Fe conference. Did they fade away, retract, or what?
 
Well, about the middle of June 1990, the Huggins work was published in two
different journals (essentially the same paper both times):
 
Belzner A, Bischler U, Crouch-Baker S, Guer TM, Lucier G, Schreiber M,
Huggins RA;                                     J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 219.
"Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and hydrogen in palladium -
thermal measurements and experimental considerations".
 
Belzner A, Bischler U, Crouch-Baker S, Guer TM, Lucier G, Schreiber M,
Huggins RA;                               Solid State Ionics 40/41 (1990) 519.
"Recent results on mixed conductors containing hydrogen or deuterium".
 
.. so it did survive the referee stage. Since then, nothing much has happened
and I believe that Huggins is retired.
 
 
John further writes:
 
>I observed this effect in an ordinary electrolysis cell and hypothesized
>that it was bubbles. I would suspect (Dieter, am I all wet?) that
>tinkering with surface poisons would change the bubbling, which should
>in some way change the noise. This should be a simple experiment - anyone
>have time to play with it? Or is this all well understood by the
 electrochemists
>already? In any case, the noise amplitude seems low enough to not effect the
>energy balance conclusions.
 
No, you are not all wet. The way bubbles dislodge is a strong function of the
state of the surface, and surfactants (poisons) will affect the process. Tom
Droege uses controlled current, and as bubbles form at the interface, they
begin to cover some of the electrode surface; in effect, this gives a higher
current density, so the overpotential increases. I think Jorge Stolfi was
thinking of ohmic resistance increases due to the bubbles (I might be wrong)
but the major effect would be on overpotential. As a bubble is large enough
to come off, it frees a bit of surface, and there would be a sudden dip in the
cell voltage by a small amount. This interesting process has in fact been
quantified by some corrosion theorists who reckon they can infer corrosion
rates from the power spectrum of the fluctuating overpotential (most corrosion
is the dissolution of metal, forming hydrogen along with it).
  It might be interesting for someone to look at a short-time record of
overpotential vs. time, to see whether the signal conforms to this bubble
idea, and in general to assess the charge of incorrect power integration by
Jorge. You'd need to sample a lot faster than usual for cnf experiments - but
of course for a shorter time. The fluctuating part of the signal should be a
succession of small ramps (bubbles growing) ending with sharp dips, i.e. a
very skewed probability distribution for the voltage. What do you see on your
oscilloscope, Tom?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 / MIKE JAMISON /  Theta-Pinch (was nano-cyclotron)
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theta-Pinch (was nano-cyclotron)
Date:  9 Jun 1992 12:06 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Tom Droege's comments/my subsequent investigation of the Betatron got me to
thinking more about what I proposed.
 
Tom,
 
Well, MOST of us remember the skin depth stuff.  My M.S. is in optics, and
skin depth at optical frequencies is quite small, for metals.  However,
that gave me an idea for another experiment, but I don't think you'd be
able to "sneak it in" with other experiments, due to the need for a high-
powered laser :).
 
To counteract the skin-depth difficulties, you'd have to make lots of very
small cyclotrons of Pd sandwiched between copper, or something similar.
Sounds like a job for an IC wafer plant - nano-fusion for nano-robotics?
 
A theta-pinch reactor sounds more plausible than a betatron (See "Fusion
Reactor Physics" by Terry Kammash for a description of the theta pinch
reactor).
 
Unfortunately, if the theta-pinch reactor worked, the Pd cylinder would
likely become part of the wall of the containment vessel...
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 / kenneth becker /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kenneth.a.becker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:08:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jun9.133748.23196@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM
 (william E Davidsen) writes:
> In article <1992Jun8.124440.14460@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, kab@cbnewsh.cb.att.com
 (kenneth.a.becker) writes:
>
> |> but especially with the cell.  If it is resonanting, V and I at
> |> the frequency of resonance will be out of phase by something less
> |> than 90 degrees, the amount less greater with greater damping.
> |> Now, there's no question that real power is still being applied to
> |> the cell; however, there >>is<< a question about the accuracy of
> |> both the voltage and current measuring devices with any kind of really
> |> high frequency stuff present.  Do the metering circuits measure high,
> |> low, or somewhere in between?
>
 
> If the voltage and current are out of phase, the
> product of volts and amps is called volt-amps (did they run out of
> people to name units for?) and the in phase product is the actual watts.
> Since watts contribute to heating rather than volt-amps, if the
> measurements are incorrect, I would expect them to be on the high side,
> and indicating that excess heat is actually greater then previously
> believed because actual input wattage is lower.
>
>   It's a good point to check the frequency spectrum, but I don't see how
> phase shift could explain excess heat.
> --
Basic trick with transmissions lines: suppose that V and I are out of
phase by 90 degrees at some point.  If (big if) the transmission line
is lossless, as you move along it, you will find points where V is
max, I is min, and they are in phase; points where I is max and V is
min and in phase; and other points where it appears that you have
either a capacitor or an inductor present.
 
You're right about the phase product; however, I wouldn't give a plugged
nickle for the accuracy of any analog I or V meter that's meant to
work from 1 MHz down when 10 MHz up stuff is present.  If (another big
if) the cell happens to be resonating, it's pretty likely that, measured
at the power supply, most of the microwave stuff is probably attenuated
by the lossy line.  However, any stuff that does get in there is
probably going to cause shifts in the levels measured by the V and I
meters.  Given the small amounts of excess heat attempting to be
measured, any shifts are going to be fatal to the overall success of
the experiment.
 
Now for a slightly funny, but true, parable.  Years ago I used to help
run an amateur radio station on an aircraft carrier, U.S.S. America.
Our vertical antenna happened to be right on top of the island, a
structure that stuck up some six stories or so on one side of the ship.
You wouldn't believe what the analog meters on the radio gear
would do every time the ship fired up it's long range search
radar.  The antenna for the radar was some 60 feet away (!).
It took a low pass filter (fc around 50 MHz) and 60 dB of attenuation
at 2 GHz or so before the gear would work halfway well, and we
still had problems with the meters being offset.  Moral:
microwaves do strange things to analog meters.  Secondary moral:
it's amazing how good a filter one can make out of metal waterless
soap dish and an inductor or three wound around a pencil for a
form.
 
 
		Ken Becker kab@hotstone.att.com
 
 
Opinions?  We don't need no steeking opinions!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkab cudfnkenneth cudlnbecker cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  stevo@URSINUS. /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: stevo@URSINUS.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 00:10:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Doege writes:
 
>John Farrell wonders in FD326 why I gave up on MKF.
>
>First, when done as described in MK, a heat imbalance is seen when the 1.48*I
>correction is taken.  Farrell calls this "...getting excess heat in the open
>system...".  I am not so sure.  In a telephone conversation 31 March, 1992,
>Randy Mills seemed to say that there were very long term chemicsl processes
>going on.  My notes of the conversation say "Takes 25 days for Ni to be
>completely hydrided - slightly exothermic".
>
>At that point, it seemed to me that the assumptions of MK, i.e. that one could
>use the 1.48*I correction were not completely correct.  I knew from my
>experiments that the closed cell showed no excess heat, while the open cell
>appeared to show excess heat if the correction were taken.  Conversations
>with others who had performed slightly different experiments and found by a
>different path that the 1.48*I correction did not hold up convinced me that
>it was time to do something else.
>
>I am waiting for a corrected version of MK that justifies the 1.48*I
>correction.
>
>I do also not believe the MK calorimetry enough to accept the runs which show
>excess heat without the 1.48*I correction.
>
 
First, as to the time it takes to completely form the hydride and the heat
associated with that process, we controlled for that by running the Na2CO3
cells.  Even though the amount of hydride formed is expected to be a function
of temperature, we found that our Na2CO3 cells gave very linear temperature
vs power curves, while the K2CO3 cells did not.  Since the observed heat
should have been more effected by sweeping of temperature ranges than by
hydrogen loading after the cells had been running for 12 hours or so, and
since heat from loading in the Na2CO3 cells could not be observed down to
the limits of the calorimetry (~ 5%), this did not appear to be an important
consideration.
 
Second, as to the validity of the 1.48*I correction, it worked beautifully
for the Na2CO3 cells giving us intercepts of *almost exactly zero* on our
delta temperature vs corrected input power curves.  The only thing we
we did differently in the K2CO3 cells was substitute K for NA.  Our belief
was that this change would not alter the 1.48*I correction.  I am not sure
what it is about the K vs Na cells that has given you cause to think that
the 1.48*I correction would be valid for one and not the other.
 
Third, I am not sure to what limitation in the calorimetry you are refering
to with respect to not believing the runs showing excess heat.  I did note
that in your writing above you also found excess heat in open cells if the
correction was taken, so I'd think that whatever limitation you might
believe affected our observation would not be present in your runs ?.?.
 
Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenstevo cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  /  Noise
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Noise
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 00:11:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Noise in P&F Cells
 
My noise comment generated a lot of mail from all those frustrated computer
programmers with EE degrees.  You can't even build Heath Kits anymore as they
have gone out of business.  Not meant to be a nasty slam, just my wish that
more of this countries talents would be expended building stuff rather than
manipulating data.
 
 
                             *
 
                            *
                          **
                       ***
                   ****
*******************           **********************************************
 
Above is the general appearance of the cell voltage with time.  Recall that
we operate with a pretty good constant current source.  The pulses
have presently an amplitude of order 50 mv with the cell voltage varying from
3.3 v at low current to 4.1 volts at high current.  Curiously the voltage
pulses are accompanied by a heat pulse in the cell as indicated by the
thermometer above the cathode.  However integrating the cell voltage change
over time indicates a possible cell E*I*t during the pulse of one joule.  The
cell temperature rise computed by Cell Water cc*delta t*4.1 joules/cal gives
an energy of 10 joules.  So it looks like the pulses generate of order 9
joules from somewhere.  There also may be a net calorimeter balance change
associated with these pulses.
 
I would like to emphasize that I am only describing today's funny cell pulses.
I have a lot of data, and there is a big variety of things to be seen in it.
Too bad that I don't have a student.
 
As we switch to low current, the cell voltage first drops below 3.1 volts,
then stabilizes at 3.1 volts in 2 to 3 hours.  Note that this makes sense as
this is close to the thermal settling time.  i.e. when suddenly switched to
low current, the cell is hotter than it will eventually be so the voltage drop
is initially lower.  The pulses start at about one per hour, and are up to 5
per hour at the end of the 6 hour low current phase.  The ramp up time is
presently about 3 to 4 minutes, though a megasecond or so ago they took 15
minutes or so to ramp up.  So something is changing over time.
 
At high current, the pulses have a similar rise time and similar shape, but
they are all run together.  Pulse rate seems to be roughly proportional to
cell current.
 
The first assumption (before every one of you posts a message that says they
are due to bubbles) is that this performance is caused by bubbles.  I think
not.  I could be talked into a surface film that forms over the whole surface
then is shed, much like a traveling nerve impulse.
 
H. Bauer suggests that there might be a negative resistance phenomena going
on.  Looks like one to me too.  I do not have a good measure on the fall time.
It could be quite fast.  Very hard to imagine it generating any microwave
power, or any other band for that matter.  But there could be a very fast
changing electric field associated with the hypothesized collapse of a surface
film that might provide local ion acceleration.
 
To all of you that have proposed radio waves, micro waves, etc., forget it.
My scope is on.  Old electronicers like me can detect microwave oscillations
in our circuits even if they are well above the bandwidth of our oscilloscopes
because they betray there presence by little shifts in bias voltages.  I have
long been programmed to notice such things.  I don't think they are there.
 
I have a lot of stuff like this to show.  Will post another write up of
somewhat different type of pulse occurrence.  I spend many hours looking at my
60 variables trying to tie them together.  Something is going on but I'll be
darned if I know what.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  /  Just Looking at Data
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just Looking at Data
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 00:13:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some observations between 2 and 4 AM.
 
I measure a lot of varables, and sometimes sit and watch 10 or so simultaneous
plots (color monitor) to try to make sense of it all.  One phenominum that
puzzled me for a long time was the "get cold, then slowly get hot" events
mentioned in the Huizenga letter previously posted.  Now there is the nice
posting of Roger Dutton to help with the explanation.
 
I observe that the Pd suddenly decides to admit some deuterium.  This cools
the cathode (assuming we are above 0.9 loading) and generates the cold spike I
see.  It is confirmed by the gas change and a decrease in the temperature of
the catalyst which now misses some gas to recombine.  (This observation when
running with excess oxygen.)  Later, the cathode (cell thermometer) gets hot.
The spool (metal block containing the cell) thermometer gets hot.  The puck
(metal block in mouth of the dewar) gets hot.  The inner - outer shell servo
works to balance a hotter calorimeter insides.  Some gas is "blown" out.  The
catalyst gets hot as it now has more gas to recombine. (Note the catalyst
operation described assumes an oxygen fill, with a deuterium fill the catalyst
does nothing unusual.)  Things slowly come back to equilibrium with a nice
damped exponential.  Some net energy is accumulated.
 
These events could be chemistry, where D absorption triggers some chemical
event which is slowly stored up between events.  I still do not have enough
long term stability to see the storage of chemistry that could explain this,
but it is close.  Sorry, skeptics, this is what I look at in the wee hours.
The idea is to tie as many variables as possible together to force some
explanation.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.09 / Mike Pelt /  Re: M & F; and chemical explanations.
     
Originally-From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: M & F; and chemical explanations.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 18:27:26 GMT
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <6368@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>What IS the status of the Huggins work? I have heard nothing about it since
>the Sante Fe conference. Did they fade away, retract, or what?
 
Also, what is the status of AbuTaha's theory, that the excess heat
that's appearing is the heat of crystallization of the palladium rod?
Supposedly this explained a lot (cast rods work, drawn rods don't, rods
work for a while then quit, but work again if you melt and re-cast
them) and the heat of crystallization was of about the magnitude of the
heat being seen.
--
Mike Van Pelt                  An oxymoron, I think. The reality of Usenet."
Headland Technology/Video 7             --  Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  Bollinger /  Nice group think...
     
Originally-From: Terry Bollinger <71033.536@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nice group think...
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 06:35:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: internet:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Hi folks,
 
First item: Christopher Aaron Bollinger (CAB??), born May 22, big fellow,
Mom & boy doing well.  Aaron is NOT Dieter's middle name, but Christopher
was most definitely inspired by those very nice Winnie the Pooh books
Dieter sent for my kids.  Thanks Dieter!
 
Second item to Frank [Close]: Replied to you twice by different mail
routes, but have never heard back from you.  Did you get either of them?
 
....
 
I've been very positively impressed with some of the interaction on the net,
and especially with some of Tom Droege's no-nonsense work and analysis on
useen "gotchas" in his results.  It's about the first discussion I've seen
that really impacts my impression of papers such as the Oak Ridge Scott work
-- which incidentally, I'd love to hear Tom Droege make a couple of more
specific comments regarding how his work could indicate unrecognized flaws
in that work (you're busy I know, so it's just a background request).
 
I was also impressed by comments and critiques by folks like Frank Close and
Jorge Stolfi, both of whom are asking the kinds of hard but specific
questions that are needed to get some kind of decent termination (read: not
just "hooray for my side!") to this thing.
 
I'm disappointed that Pons and Fleischmann, who I'd wager pretty good odds
are following this group closely, haven't made an appearance to argue their
case.  I note that this is in sharp contrast to Dr. Steve Jones, who has
been typically straightforward by dropping in an occassional message to let
us know he has listened to it.  Come on, Messrs. Pons and Fleischman (and
Dr. Preparata too, I suspect), how about trying that approach too?  Do you
dare come right out and defend your work with kind of forthright approach
that both Tom Droege and Dr. Farrell have used, or will you continue acting
as if you don't give a hoot about what is said on this group?  Or have your
"lawyers" got you so hog-tied that you don't dare move a muscle without them
telling you it's OK to flinch?
 
....
 
Listened in on sci.physics for a change -- wow, was THAT a disappointment.
You folks think we get onto weird topics in this group?  They've got us beat
by a BIG margin, at least these days.  Might as well call it sci.magic from
some of the topics being discussed.  I won't even mention them, because most
of them were just too plain silly for me to imagine people sending in email
after email on them.  Compared to this group, sci.physics is looking pretty
shabby -- at least people here are trying to work for answers of SOME sort.
 
(Important exceptions:  There are still some folks on sci.physics talking
about some really good physics questions -- e.g., J. Carr from our own
group, and others who clearly know what they are talking about.  I was very
impressed by some of the QM discussions, for example.  Alas, those folks
appear to be in the minority on sci.physics these days.)
 
I also could not help but notice that a fellow whom I believe was named
Bass was apparently playing some pivotal role in Weird Science at Temple
University.  For those of you who don't recall, someone who signed himself
Bass was the author of one of the most crude and sophomorish email attacks
(against Frank Close as it happens) that I've ever had the misfortune to
witness on this Net.  Frank, you might want to take note if you are still
pursuing that one -- I think the group that Temple is funding is called the
Frontiers of Science (heh) or some such.  You might ask J. Carr -- he
appears to be a regular reader of the group, and could fill you in better
than I could, and you'd definitely need to verify the name, since I'm only
going by memory after a casual scan of that group.
 
....
 
Best farfetch, I'm pleased to say, has been by a fellow computer type (one
of some note for his work on a language called Perl) named Larry Wall.  He
dropped it in quick & made is so succint that I didn't even catch it, which
leads me to suspect most other's did not either.  It was a curious analogy
of how the well-known "hole" mechanism of solid state mechanics might have
some kind of analogy in atomic banding in which the ABSENCE of a particle in
the continuum (closely spaced) band states could delocalize in much the same
way as an electron.  Given the rather extraordinary similarity of the overt
behavior of electrons and holes in semiconductors, I'd say that the idea of
hole delocalization is very likely quantified somewhere (Dr. Petschek, would
you happen to have any familiarity with the issue of how the wavefunction of
a hole quasiparticle changes with time?)
 
Now whether that leads to Novel Physics is of course an entirely different
question (as it is for my own Twist), but at the very least it could be an
interesting exploration path for atomic banding effects.   At the very least
I'd be willing to bet that some exploration of the analogy of electron holes
will eventually lead to at least a bit of quite interesting Real Physics,
as in some papers or perhaps even some significant effects of some sort.
 
Mike Jamison has also mentioned not a farfetch, but a very decent little
idea for an interesting QM experiment quite independent of "cnf".  Good luck on
Mike -- let me know how it goes, and sorry I've been so slow in my latest
reply to you (and also to Chuck Harrison, who asked some questions that I
hope you've been able to resolve at least in part by looking at Dieter's
archives.)
 
....
 
John Webb asked a pretty good question, in my somewhat biased opinion --
regardless of whether you buy the "conclusion" in Twist, how come nobody
seems to be willing to take on the REAL premise -- that wavefunctions may in
fact NOT always be linear in behavior, that the speed of light is NOT always
irrelevant in the "collapse" of a wavefunction, that the behavior of atoms
located more in momentum space than coordinate space may NOT always be
trivially the same as for the same atoms located mostly in coordinate space?
 
Apabistia, I guess I'll have to answer that one myself.  John, I seriously
doubt if there is any active participant in this group who CAN answer some
of those questions, because they all pretty much belong the the classic
group of Unanswered Questions of QM.  I would be absolutely delighted to
hear a non-trivial answer on this net to the contrary on this group, and
will grovel in deepest humility (oldtimers know I'm joking }=-)> ) should
such information be forthcoming.
 
To get some idea of what I mean, you might try looking at some of the
marvelous thinking that the late Dr. Bell applied to some of these issues,
and at some of his summaries of the history of such ideas, in his excellent
book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics."  His pointed and at
times somewhat tongue-in-cheek of the Many Worlds Interpretation is a good
example, since it shows just how full of holes some of the Popular Ideas
around QM can be at times.  Unlike all too many physicists who just take the
equations and run (yes, that's nearly all of you, and you KNOW it), Dr. Bell
had an uncanny gift for repeatedly asking the same "silly" questions again
and again and again until Lo! -- the silly questions turned into the quite
testable and profoundly disturbing Bell's Inequality!  (If you don't think
of it as "disturbing," you have not tried to play it properly against the
absolute time line framework that appears to be a nearly unavoidable
consequence of temporal relativity.  That was what truly disturbed Einstein
about the EPR experiment, not some miscellaneous philosophical ideas about
determinism being better than randomness.)
 
How about it?  Dr. Carr, would you or any of your collegues who are strong
in QM math and concepts be able provide some insights about why momentum
space should be trivial for particle interactions, while coordinate space
is clearly not?
 
 
[P.S. to Dr. Carr -- Overlapping wavefunctions?  Binding energy of one
electron is to p or d i MUCH larger than the energy lost by delocalization.
It's still going to be "attached" quite nicely, thank you, even if it's a
bit hard to represent in solvable equations.  Also, the abundant evidence
for p charge carriers in Pd and other transition metals by no means proves
*exclusive* p species, as evident from minority/majority charge carriers in
semiconductor physics.  Finally, there's the experimental bottom line (and
thanks for pointing it out so nicely, Dieter!) that such neutral species
more than likely DO exist.  There are a couple of papers on the topic in
my appendix, if I recall, both from an analytical and experimental view (I
think -- it's been a while since I last went through them in detail).]
 
....
 
Later 'gators.  Email welcome, but be warned that replies may be slow.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger   71033.536@compuserve.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden536 cudfn cudlnBollinger cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  Britz /  Electrical troubles
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrical troubles
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 16:26:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been a lot of stuff in the last few Digests about calorimetry errors
due perhaps to electrical oscillations in Tom Droege's set-up. It was pointed
out correctly that if two signals are both fluctuating, then their average
product does not equal the average of their product, etc.
 It has become clear to both TB's and skeptics that Tom knows what he is
doing. He is open to suggestions but I get the impression that any errors he
is making have to be pretty subtle by now. He himself is aware of the above
problem, and knows it to be negligible. I am willing to take his word for
that. In any case, these effects are extremely unlikely to be gross; if they
are relevant at all, they might be micro- or at most milliwatt effects. Tom
has already given his best answer to all this. He will not crow about a three-
sigma effect, as others have done, he sets the level at 100 sigmas. At this
level, an error would have to be really gross, and we can rule out such errors
in his experiment.
 In any case, so far, he is finding pretty close to heat balance, so if you
think he is overestimating the output power, you are suggesting anomalous
heat deficit. Got any theories for that? Call a press conference, Tom, for
your Anomalous Physics Refrigerator.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 717 papers, 104 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 16:28:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
just to get 'em off my desk, here the latest, and last, Braun papers. I am not
quite sure why, but he has decided to stop collecting cnf papers and expanding
his bibliography. These are in the cnf-cmnt archive file.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 10-Jun-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 717
 
 
Commentary; file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braun T;                      J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 155 (1991) 141.
"World flash on cold fusion. No. 12".
** No. 12 in the series.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braun T;                      J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Lett. 164 (1992) 137.
"World flash on cold fusion. No. 13 (the final one in the series)".
** No. 13 in the series, and THE END. Prof. Braun comments on the number 13
and its appropriateness to the cold fusion situation. He refers the reader to
Prof. Bruce Lewenstein's chronology for more information.
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  Britz /  China Lake news??
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: China Lake news??
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 16:28:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Well, you lot who went to Miles' lecture - was it last week? - how about a
report? Did he say anything that was not in the famous China Lake paper? I.e.
do they have new results? Have they refined their correlations, quantified
their He analyses? Please tell us. Results as exciting as these simply must be
followed up. I will assume silence to mean failure to reproduce.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  /  Re: Fusion Digest 336
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 336
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 16:29:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In response to Dieter Britz, Fusion Digest 336
 
>>There was always the potential that a working catalyst would act as a
>>sponge and deplete the hydrogen atoms at the electrode surface.  This may
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This is exactly where you lose me. HOW can the catalyst "sponge" up shrunken
>hydrogens (previously the word was "scavenge")?? The catalyst is up in the
>head space, as I say, the electrode surface is in the electrolyte, and the
>little hydrogen atoms have already given off the heat as they went to a lower
>electron orbit state, and some of these maybe have fused; all this happening
>down in solution. I repeat: please explain, if you care to. As I also said,
>even if we disprove your explanation, if you do demonstrate reproducible
>excess heat, you have something.
 
I can see that I have not made my explanation clear, sorry.  I'll do better
this time. It is not the fractional quantum state hydrogen atoms, H(n =
1/2, 1/3,...), that are affected by the catalyst. It is the H(n = 1)
hydrogen atoms on the Ni surface that are affected.  Consider the following
equilibria:
 
  2 H(n = 1; Ni surface) =  H2(Ni surface)     (1)
 
  H2(Ni surface)  =  H2(electrolyte)           (2)
 
  H2(electrolyte)  =  H2(vapor above electrolyte)     (3)
 
Keep in mind that the excess power depends on the number of hydrogen atoms
that are go to lower fractional quantum states:
 
  H(n = 1)  =  H(n = 1/2)  +  40.8 eV
 
  H(n = 1/2)  =  H(n = 1/3)  +  68.0 eV
 
  ...
 
Now, any catalyst in the vapor above the electrolyte will reduce the
pressure of the H2 in the vapor.  To compenstate, H2 from the electrolyte
will be lost to the vapor.  Stated another way,  For reaction (3) there is
an equilibrium constant, K.
 
        K  = [H2(vapor above electrolyte)]/[H2(electrolyte]
 
If the pressure of the H2 gas in the vapor is lowered then the
concentration of the H2 in the electrolyte will be lowered.  Without a
catalyst the vapor pressure of the H2 will be about 2/3 atm.  With a
catalyst the vapor pressure of H2 will be quite small.  The concentration
of H2 in the electrolyte will have to be lowered accordingly.  The
concentration of H2 in the electrolyte is directly proportional to the H2
pressure in the vapor above the electrolyte.
 
  [H2(electrolyte]  =  [H2(vapor above electrolyte)]/K
 
Similarly, the catalyst will substantially lower the number of H2 atoms at
the Ni surface because it will be drawn into the electrolyte (then into the
vapor, then converted to water).  Similarly, the catalyst will lower the
number of H(n = 1) atoms at the Ni surface.  A really good catalyst would
suck the H atoms out of the electrode.
 
This is an application of LaChatelier's principle:
 
     If a change is imposed on a system at equilibrium, the position
     of the equilibrium will shift in a direction that tends to reduce
     that change.
 
Having said all of this, I am not an electochemist and I do not know to
what extent the addition of a catalyst reduces the number of *H(n = 1)
atoms* at the Ni surface, but the potential is there for a rather drastic
reduction.  This would in turn reduce the number of H(n = 1/2) atoms
produced and the heat liberated.
 
P & F have not been in favor of closed systems from the beginning (remember
that they want a high loading).  This explains why.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Water Level Changes
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water Level Changes
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 08:41:21 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
>Dear Chuck,
 
>     I re-read your analysis, and I gather what you are saying is that
>the amount of water in the box has a profound effect on the temperature
>as measured by the thermocouple in the bottom center of the box. Let me
>know if that is _not_ what you mean.
 
[Later on after some interesting info ...]
 
>                  Takahashi reported that he added about 250 ml per week
>(viewgraph 36). We need to add roughly the same amount. Even if he only
>added once a week, a 250 ml change out of 800 is not such a big deal. It
>would not make 110 watts look like 242, or 1.2 watts look like 30, which
>is what I gather you are saying. (Honestly, I am not sure what you are
>saying; I cannot find your "bottom line" as we say in the business biz.)
 
Well, I think you can see what I'm trying to resolve with my Takahashi
calculations.  It simply is to calculate how much of this heat can be
attributed to Joule heating. The L-H transitions period seems like a
perfect place to apply Joule's law of heating, and allows one to remove
that effect from the quantitative analysis of an excess heat calculations.
The addition of the cooling coil complicates things, but for a long
term heating effect where 50000+ calories (12000+ Joules) are produced
in a 35 min period, this seems like a good method. A cautious
application of Joule's law based on the calibration time to rise,
seems like a pretty good way to sort out excess from ordinary.
 
>     Another possible error; you say, "Also for this sweep it looks like
>a good portion of the D2O bath has evaporated." I don't think so. How
>much did you have in mind? As I said, he kept track of the amount of D2O
>he had to add, and not much escaped by evaporation or any other means.
>Maybe some D2O evaporates, goes part way up the hose, cools off and comes
>right back down again. We are investigating that possibility. That would
>cause some heat loss, which would make him underestimate the total power
>out.
 
The reason for my concern with the D2O levels is that if the capacity of the
cooling system had been exceeded, then the heat above that capacity is
pretty much trapped to the Box (at least to the L phase).  If the surface
area where thermal transfer is made between the coil and liquid is reduced,
then combined effect could cause a mis-interpretation of the power-out to
power-in.  The voltage change is one indicator of a reduced volume of D2O.
 
 
>     I don't know how heat transfer works, but I know how to crunch data.
>I will check this out carefully, and report back in couple of days. I
>will check the other large changes in D2O levels. For that matter, I can
>zap you some raw data and you can noodle around with it yourself, if you
>really want to find out what's watt.
 
Heat transfer (both quantity and rate) seems to be a key calculation problem
without further data.  If there is something there, which is not-anomolous
and is beyond ordinary effects, this needs to be quantified with all possible
errors resolved.  I think the Takahashi data is providing hints that
something is occuring but what?
 
>- Jed
 
E-mail me, I would like to scratch that noodle a bit.
 
Have fun,
Chuck
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Revolving Door Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Revolving Door Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 09:57:06 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

It now seems likely that Droege may continue to see little
excess heat, while Takahashi and others continue to see large
amounts of excess heat.  If we assume that there are no
important differences in the palladium and that none of these
scientists have made gross errors (a novel assumption for CNF
research), then we should consider why they might
legitimately get different results.
 
The main difference, of course, is that Droege uses a closed
cell while others have open cells.  In order to replace the
lost gases in his open cell, Takahashi adds 200-250 ml fresh
D2O about once a week.  It could be that the fresh D2O is
adding fuel or impurities that act as catalysts to the
reaction.  One possibility is that the added D20 has small
amounts of H20, and that H is important in the reaction.
Another wilder theory is that something like the Mills sub-
ground state is the cause of the excess heat, requiring new H
or D to be added to supply the heat.  In any case, it would
be good to have an experiment to determine whether whether
there is a correlation between the amount of added D and the
amount of excess heat.
 
Droege's experiment seems ideal to test this.  Small
modifications might be made to allow new D20 to be exchanged
for some of the old D20 partway through the experiment.  I
like to think of it as a revolving door, in which each turn
of the door adds precisely the same amount that it removes.
But it probably would be done through valves manually
controlled to equalize added and removed volumes.
 
With this type of setup, Droege could first run for a month
or so without any added D20, then begin a phase where the D20
is exchanged at approximately the Takahashi rates.  Two
interesting sets of data would then be produced by the same
experiment.  The setup would also allow experiments such as
adding small amounts of H20.  If the exchanged liquids could
be held to about the same temperature, there should be little
effect on the precision of the calorimetry.  Even without
controlling the temperatures, Droege would certainly know it
if his experiment suddenly began producing 10's of watts of
excess heat.
 
-- Bob Horst
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 / Terry Bollinger /  GASP!!  I DID *NOT* MEAN C.R. (DALE) BASS!!!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GASP!!  I DID *NOT* MEAN C.R. (DALE) BASS!!!
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 23:23:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

MAJOR APOLOGIES!!
 
Under no circumstances did I mean, imply, or even think when I wrote my
last email to this group that C.R. (Dale) Bass (in Virginia) is in any way
connected with the fellow who zinged Frank Close a couple of months ago!!!
 
Working stupidly from memory of what I had seen on the net (I had no print-
outs or electronic copies available), I apparently cross-linked or misread
something and got the impression that there was some entirely different guy
also named Bass at Temple University, working in their Frontiers of Science
thingy.  I think now I was just flat-out 100% wrong, and may even have
confused a short quote in a Frontiers of Science with being something from
another person named Bass at Temple U.
 
Dale Bass is a very knowledgeable and well-informed commentor on the
sci.physics group, and I'm simply horrified that I may have left anyone on
this net with the impression that he was the one who attacked Frank Close.
 
Again, my very sincere apologies to Dale Bass for my confusing (and apparently
confused) email, and would ask that everyone note my mistake clearly.
 
(As for the guy, whoever he was, who DID write the Close blast:  Phffffpppt!)
 
				Horrified,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.10 /  /  Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experiment Status
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 23:24:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of the current P&F experiment.
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm Hi - Lo 6 hour switch interval
Duration: Now charging for over 3002420 seconds (data not here).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 4.4 v to 3.7 v on 6 hour Hi - Lo. (from memory)
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 10 C
 
Last night I switched to 10 C.  Takahashi's positive result could be initiated
by temperature swings caused by the Hi-Lo current.  Even after accounting for
the volume change due to temperature, the cathode gained 24 cc of absorbed
gas.  This represents an increase of 0.2 D/Pd.  But remember, because the gas
system is not too good over the long run, we don't know where we are.  We
started at 0.95 or above, now we have gained 0.2.  But we could have been
losing gas through the run.  Where is a glass blower when I need one?  In any
case, we have gained gas content, and if what we are looking for depends on d
being around, then this should do some good.
 
The temperature change was not without excitement.  I made the change early in
the evening as current switched to Lo.  I stayed up (2 AM) to watch for the
high switch since I wanted to make sure the gas servo would not run out of
space.  Shortly after the switch to high, the cell driver fuse blew.  Much
sweating later, it turns out that as things cooled down a ground short
occured.  Because of the peculiar configuration, the cell kept going at its
commanded current, so there is no discontinuity in the cell operation.  Fast
work tearing things apart (power on and running) kept the uncertainty in the
total energy integral to of order 5 kJ.  This can be compared to the 25 kJ
that appeared just due to moving from 20 C to 10 C.  Note we keep track of the
energy due to temperature changes of the inside of the calorimeter.  Normal
practice would be to end the experiment at the starting temperature, so there
is no net energy.  But integral energy shows the history of temperature
changes.
 
Now about power computation.  I damn well think I am doing it right.  But I
encourage Jorge Stolfi to raise questions and I appreciate his work because
often I am wrong.  Secretly, I think I am using good technique but there are
some out there that are making bad measurements and I am trying to get the
word to them.  Most people will do things right if they are somehow tricked
into thinking about possible problems.
 
The simple answer, Jorge, is that the designed in bandwidth limitations mean
that your sudden discontinuities do not exist.  So the postulated errors are
not there - or are much, much smaller than you think.  I suspect that the
correct answer is also obtained provided there is no synchronization between
the sampler and the waveform (obviously not true in this case).
 
Here are the arguments:
 
1) I have built the power supplies as first order systems, with the sampling
frequency at least 2x the pole (C.E. Shannon told me to do this).  The
computing elements have been made linear. This condition alone I believe is
sufficient to guarantee (sampling theory experts please comment) correct power
computation if E and I are sampled at the exact same time.  The actual
interval between the typical E and I measurement is as small as one
millisecond.  Someone can compute the error with poles at about 1/4 Hz, but I
predict that it will be vanishingly small.  We actually measure E and I 100
times each minute.  We measure E, I, 62 other things, then E, I, again for a
total of 100 times.  This takes 7 seconds of the one minute interval.  The
rest of the time is spent running the display, and the gas measurement system.
Then we take means of the measurements to increase the precision (but not
accuracy) of the result.  I leave it to sampling theory amateurs (there are no
experts on this net - at least none that seem to admit to it) to show that the
saw tooth power is correctly measured, or to prove me wrong.  Note that I have
mentioned that there are several measurements made on the down sweep.  Note to
Dick Blue: I think this scheme gives the correct power measurement no matter
how noisy the cell is.
 
2) The cell is run from a constant current supply.  So:
 
         Mean(En*In)=Mean(En)*Mean(In)
 
The constant current supply is pretty fancy, and uses very high gain 10 MHz ft
op amps which are ***not*** oscillating to control bandwith in the sub Hz
range.  There is a lot of gain bandwidth available to keep things linear.  I
worried some that the simple mean gave the correct result, and the first
calorimeter was run computing the power both ways (Please note this Jorge, I
ran a year and a half the way you suggest, and simplified the computation with
the new calorimeter because it was not necessary).  The ratio of the power
computations was taken as a check on possible error.  I called this the
"Garwin" number at the Salt Lake meeting.
 
3) Not trusting mathematical constructs like sampling theory or QM to always
work in the real world (the model may be wrong), I have tested a lot.  In
particular, when run with a load resistor replacing the cell, we get the same
result within 2 mw running Hi current, Lo current, Hi-Lo current (comparing
same time Hi to Hi, Lo to Lo) and sawtooth (testing the integrated net energy
at the same point on repetitive cycles).  To worry about insertion of a likely
non-linear cell, we have run similar tests to above on a real cell, reversed.
We also have 3 M seconds or so of the current run where part of the time was
spent under all of the above conditions.  Pretty close to zero.
 
We found that the computations in 2) above agreed well within the system
precision.
 
Dick Blue wants to give Jorge Stolfi credit for raising the power measurement
question.  I very much appreciate Jorge raising this  question, but Dick
Garwin was there first at Sante Fe.  Further Dick B, I have tried to explain
that this is a "Big Foot" search.  So if Mike McKubre or Akito Takahashi
stands a "Big Foot" up on stage, you have to show he is a man in a Big Foot
suit by x-ray or something to prove him wrong.  Counting expeditions with
nothing on the stage is meaningless.  I can imagine things wrong with
Takahashi, who does not claim to do good calorimetry.  But McKubre's work
looks to me to be first class.  So Dick, what is wrong with it?  Which
experiments are you surprised that I included in my list of calorimetry
experiments?  In case you did not understand, the A, B, C were quality levels.
There was only one "A".  I don't see that my results contradict Takahashi.  I
went out into the same jungle where Takahashi claims to have found a "Big
Foot" and I have not yet found one.  Possibly he got the only one (Ha!).
 
Dieter Britz discusses bubble formation.  From yesterday's note, you know that
I do not think the cell observations can be explained by simple bubbles.  I
have observations from a wide variety of cell configuration, flat plates,
round vertical rods, square vertical rods, round horizontal rods, etc..
Nothing makes sense to me yet, but the whole surface film idea is the best
that I have.  I normally measure the over all cell voltage, which I know is
not the best thing to do.  There needs to be some bench investigation with a
reference electrode to try to see exactly what is going on.  Remember my goal
is to catch a "Big Foot".  But sometimes it pays to stop direct looking and to
just hone catching skills.
 
By the way Dieter, someone told me that the bubbles ** do not ** obstruct the
surface.  There is always a film beneath the bubble which provides continuous
electrolyte coverage of the surface.  What is the real picture???  I bet it is
very complicated indeed!!
 
Dieter asks what I see on my oscilloscope.  We have done some high speed
measurements.  One is in Figure 7. of the Utah ACCF1 paper.  It looks at cell
voltage and gas volume at about 10 samples per second.  The gas volume is
measured to 1 micro liter.  The particular measurement has a ten second saw
tooth.  Somewhere on all those disks is similar ramp data from various runs
which show everything from a 1 hour period to 10 millisecond period.  Widely
different ramp rates at the same current but at different points in charging
time.  I know more now than I did in 1989, but I still don't know much.  There
is also yesterday's posting.  Am I correct, Dieter, to assume that if I used a
reference electrode that I could remove the temperature dependent part of the
cell voltage noted yesterday?
 
Please, Dieter, don't take my word for anything.  That is how I will get in
big trouble.  Look instead at my thinking process, and check it out.
 
Terry Bollinger asks how my work checks with Scott.  I thought the Scott
experiment was great.  You could feel them thinking and checking from the
content of the paper.  I could understand everything they did, and it made
sense to me.  (Something I cannot say for P&F).  To bad the skeptics got em
and they are not working anymore.  If they were still working we would have
more experiments of the quality of McKubre.  Dick Blue take note!  Sorry
Terry, I think P&F are in the hands of lawyers.  But I will add to your
challenge.  P&F, just get on the net and say Hello, (or Help!).
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 / B Bartholomew /  Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
     
Originally-From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do CNF cells oscillate?
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:50:02 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <6369@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Jun6.132258.28070@src.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
>]Tom Droege reports that the electrical input to his CNF cells is "very
>]noisy", i.e. shows rapid fluctuations added to the basic sawtooth
>]pattern.  I wonder what is the source of that noise.
>]
>]The obvious guess is that the bubbling gases cause the the cell's
>]electrical resistance to change.  I conjecture that at any given time
>]the surface of each electrode is almost entirely covered by a layer of
>]densely packed bubbles; and that most of the cell's resistance is
>]concentrated in those layers, where the current must squeeze through
>]the gaps betwen the bubbles.  Therefore, the resistance must go through
>]hundreds of bumps and dips per second, as bubbles grow and detach from
>]the electrode's surface.
>
>I observed this effect in an ordinary electrolysis cell and hypothesized
>that it was bubbles. I would suspect (Dieter, am I all wet?) that
>tinkering with surface poisons would change the bubbling, which should
>in some way change the noise. This should be a simple experiment - anyone
>have time to play with it? Or is this all well understood by the
 electrochemists
>already? In any case, the noise amplitude seems low enough to not effect the
>energy balance conclusions.
>--
>John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
>USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253
 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>Voice: (602) 951-9326         Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
>Opinion: New protest song:All we are say...ing.... is... Give BOMBS a chance!
 
Copied from {\it SCIENCE NEWS, VOL 141, P374 } without permission.
It looks like it might pertain to discussion of metal hydrides.
Only the typos are mine.
 ----------------------------
Shaping ceramics with electrochemistry
    Taking a cue from how carmakers paint autos, British scientists have
developed a simple way to shape ceramic materials electrochemically.
Car paiting involves lowering the alkalinity of the car surface so that
polymers settle and coat the car, where they are cured to form a
permanent paint.
    "It suddenly struck me that if we can generate a base at an electrode,
then we could precipitate [ceramic] materials from solution," recalls
Phillip J. Mitchel, an electrochemist at Loughborough (England) University
of Technology.  In the June 4 Nature, he and Loughborough University
materials scientist Geoffrey D. Wilcox describe an electrochemical process
that creates such a basic environment.  They report that they have used
this approach to make a variety of ceramic films in different shapes,
including hair-width ceramic tubes.
    "It gives us a very good method of forming a coating on a metal
substrate in situ," says Wilcox.  Moreover, the technique does not require
the high temperatures typically used for ceramic processing, he says.
    Mitchel and Wilcox began by placing electrodes into a water solution
containing metallic salts.  When the researchers set up an electric field
between the electrodes, they cause the water molecules near one electrode
to split into charged hydrogen (H) and hydroxyl (OH) components.  The
hydroxyl components make the electrode basic, so the metallic salts deposit
as metal hydroxides.
    The researchers first tried electrodes made of platinum wire but
found that the ceramic deposited unevenly.  The water's liberated hydrogen
bubbled off the electrode surface, destrying the integrity of the ceramic
film.  So they turned to palladium electrodes, which soak up the hydrogen
as it forms.  The researchers are now experimenting with using steel and
other less expensive materials as electrodes.  They hope that electro-
chemistry will enable them to modify these materials to resist wear and
corrosion better.
    The ceramic forms a gel on the electrode, says Mitchell.  Should
engineers want to coat a part, such as an engine piston, with ceramic,
then they could use that part as the electrode and cure the ceramic as
part of the electrode.
    "But what's novel is you can take it off the sbtstrate," says Mitchell.
For example, he and Wilcox can slide the gel off a wire electrode to make
a hollow ceramic tube potentially useful for a superconductor or
semiconductor.
    The technique also seems versatile.  By using different mixtures
of salts, the scientists can vary the final composition of the ceramic.
In one experiment, they allowed a thin aluminum oxide film to build up
on an electrode, then moved that electrode to a different solution, where
magnesium oxide deposited on top.  In this way, they created a two-layer
ceramic tube.  Strong electric fields speed deposition and yield dense
films, while weak electric fields yield porous material.
    Mitchell and Wilcox suggest that one can make complex shapes by first
putting an insulating mask on the electrode.  "The ceramic only precipitates
on the unmaked parts," Mitchell says.
    "It looks to be a farily novel way to make preshaped ceramic bodies,"
comments James H. Adair, a materials scientist at the University of
Florida in Gainsville.  "It could really have an impact on how we make
complex ceramics."  First, however, scientists need to demonstrate that
this electrochemical pottery yields ceramic materials with the desired
reproducible properties, he notes.
                    -E. Pennisi
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"It's not the thing you fling, the fling's the thing." - Chris Stevens
 If there's one thing I just can't stand, it's intolerance.
*No One* is responsible for my views, I'm a committee. Please do not
infer that which I do not imply.  hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenhcbarth cudfnBart cudlnBartholomew cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 /  Britz /  RE: Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Experiment Status
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 13:23:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE (Tom Droege) writes in Digest 340:
 
>I normally measure the over all cell voltage, which I know is
>not the best thing to do.  There needs to be some bench investigation with a
>reference electrode to try to see exactly what is going on.  Remember my goal
>is to catch a "Big Foot".  But sometimes it pays to stop direct looking and to
>just hone catching skills.
 
My advice (if you want it): don't. Firstly, I see no reason for your breaking
up the overall cell voltage into electrode potential (plus a small iR
component) plus solution resistance plus anode potential. The sum of all of
these, i.e. the overall cell voltage, is what you need to calculate the input
power. Trying to measure cathode potential would open a can or worms for you,
mate. It's always a compromise between getting too close with the Luggin tip
and thus blocking the current, and being too far away and including iR drop in
the measurement. I am sure there are lots of bubbles and so there will in fact
be a large iR drop quite close to the electrode.
 
>By the way Dieter, someone told me that the bubbles ** do not ** obstruct the
>surface.  There is always a film beneath the bubble which provides continuous
>electrolyte coverage of the surface.  What is the real picture???  I bet it is
>very complicated indeed!!
 
Well, I don't think so. Bockris, who does know his electrochemistry, bases
his dendrite theory (which I am sure is wrong) on a gas film insulating the
metal from the electrolyte. This makes SOME sense to me, i.e. the gas film
forming; I happen to think it's just local patches of such films, which grow
to form bubbles. But even if there were thin electrolyte films under the
bubbles, you'd still have large resistances in those narrow regions and
smaller local currents, i.e. a drop in cell voltage.
 
>Am I correct, Dieter, to assume that if I used a
>reference electrode that I could remove the temperature dependent part of the
>cell voltage noted yesterday?
 
No. Both the electrochemical kinetic (I,E) relation and the electrolyte
conductance are temperature dependent, so this wouldn't help at all.
 
>Please, Dieter, don't take my word for anything.  That is how I will get in
>big trouble.  Look instead at my thinking process, and check it out.
 
This attitude of yours is exactly why I trust you! It does not mean, of
course, that I'll read your reports uncritically. Another thing is that you
have chosen a sensible set-up, i.e. constant current. This, in contrast with,
say, a potentiostat (controlled electrode potential) eliminates HH Bauer's
concern; the electrode/electrolyte interface is indeed a nonlinear system
and has profound effects on the control system properties of a potentiostat.
Without blowing my horn, see my review on iR in J. Electroanal. Chem. 88
(1978) 309, where the dynamics are explained, in the context of iR
elimination. With a decent constant current generator (which I also trust
you with, I don't need to check its specs), you ensure the validity of the
power calculation.
 
You ask for help with sampling theory etc. I do know a little bit about that,
too, and can assure you that if you follow the Nyquist criterion as you
clearly are doing, you're OK. That is, you have to sample at at least twice
the frequency of the highest-frequency component of the signal you are
sampling. So if you decide sampling rate first, this sets your low-pass
cut-off frequency; conversely, if you decide on the highest frequency of
interest, lowpass-filter with that as cut-off, and sample at twice it. I think
you are doing just that. It is that simple, you don't have a discrete control
system with feedback etc.
 
You are doing a mighty job, mate.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 /  Britz /  RE: Sponging up the hydrogen
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Sponging up the hydrogen
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 13:29:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Fusion Digest 339, Prof. Farrell, ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL finally
answers my query about how the recombination catalyst can be scavenging the
shrunken hydrogen:
 
>  2 H(n = 1; Ni surface) =  H2(Ni surface)     (1)
 
>  H2(Ni surface)  =  H2(electrolyte)           (2)
 
>  H2(electrolyte)  =  H2(vapor above electrolyte)     (3)
 
>Now, any catalyst in the vapor above the electrolyte will reduce the
>pressure of the H2 in the vapor.  To compenstate, H2 from the electrolyte
>will be lost to the vapor.  Stated another way,  For reaction (3) there is
>an equilibrium constant, K.
..etc.
 
- and I find that he is not talking about the shrinkies but the normals, that
might otherwise become shrinkies. The weakness in the argument is that you
are talking equilibrium states and ignoring kinetics. The constant - albeit
rather small - current at the Ni cathode ensures a steady supply of atomic
hydrogen adsorbed at the electrode. True, its recombination rate to dihydrogen
is a fast process, but the removal of that will take place mostly via bubble
formation, not dissolution into the electrolyte, transport to the head space
and evaporation into it. So the presence of the catalyst will, in my view, not
have much effect on the state of the metal/electrolyte region.
 
But thank you for the explanation, which does make clear to me why you believe
the catalyst to be obstructive.
 
 
>P & F have not been in favor of closed systems from the beginning (remember
>that they want a high loading).  This explains why.
 
No; I believe they write somewhere that the reason is that they must run many
cells and keep it simple for that reason - reasonable enough I suppose, IF you
have confidence in their power calculation. I do not; I cannot believe in that
0.1% accuracy figure, everything points to more like 5%. If it were only Pons
making such claims, I'd have no problem, as I do not accept ANYTHING Pons says
about cold fusion as the truth as he knows it. But Fleischmann? He probably
does believe in the 0.1% figure which I nevertheless, with all my considerable
respect for him, think is wrong.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GASP!!  I DID *NOT* MEAN C.R. (DALE) BASS!!!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GASP!!  I DID *NOT* MEAN C.R. (DALE) BASS!!!
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 12:19:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9206101829.AA25941@aslss01> terry@asl.dl.nec.com	(Terry Bollinger)
 writes:
>MAJOR APOLOGIES!!
>
 
     None necessary, though I must admit that I must not read very
     closely anymore, having completely missed it.
 
>Working stupidly from memory of what I had seen on the net (I had no print-
>outs or electronic copies available), I apparently cross-linked or misread
>something and got the impression that there was some entirely different guy
>also named Bass at Temple University, working in their Frontiers of Science
>thingy.  I think now I was just flat-out 100% wrong, and may even have
>confused a short quote in a Frontiers of Science with being something from
>another person named Bass at Temple U.
 
     I didn't know that there were JOB openings.  Now if there is a job that
     is at stake here, I may change my tune ...
 
>				Horrified,
>				Terry
 
     Amused,
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 /   /   McKubre, Droege, and no others
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  McKubre, Droege, and no others
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:08:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think Tom Droege and I are coming to a common understanding as to the
current state of calorimetry in support of cold fusion.  In my previous
posts about "noisey" cells I was thinking more about previously published
experimental results by others not Tom's current efforts.  I can be
convinced that Tom knows what he is doing and is doing it very well.
It is the contrast between his work and that of the others that I see
as being significant for the assessing of the current state of cold
fusion research.
 
As to Tom's question concerning my evaluation of the McKubre experiments,
I have spotted no particular problems except the one I had mentione earlier
which concerned the first run in which they observed "surplus heat".  In
that case the close correlation between cell current and net power out
seemed a bit strange.  Then one notes that that behavior was not reproduced
in any other of the McKubre runs, nor I suspect, by any other experiments.
 
That leads me to my next question.  If group A does an experiment that
gives a "strange" result, and group B repeats the experiment and also
gets a "strange" result has group B confirmed the work of group A?
>From my point of view Takahashi's results have not been confirmed as yet
by anyone.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 /  /  Bob Horst's Revolving Door Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bob Horst's Revolving Door Calorimetry
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 21:39:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob Horst has suggested various electrolyte changes during operation.
 
Jed Rothwell tells me that Takahashi's relatively fast five day turn on was
done with ***used*** electrolyte.  Certainly one suspects that long open cell
running might generate a little H2O contamination.
 
The present cell was designed with a tube into the bottom and a tube into the
top, so we could do the kind of thing suggested by Bob.  We had something like
this in mind.  Unfortunately, the bottom tube is presently clogged, so changes
are difficult.  But wait till next run.
 
But it is possible to add some H2O by pulling a vacuum on the top tube and
sucking in some additional electrolyte.  I am presently thinking about doing
just that before I end the run, another 1000 hours or so.
 
Bob suggests "In any case, it would be good to have an experiment to determine
whether whether there is a correlation between the amount of added D and the
amount of excess heat."
 
The first problem is to find any place in all that experimental space that
shows ***any*** excess heat.  Then we can optimize it.  But good ideas.  Keep
them coming.
 
What is needed by me is some theory that is at all convincing to me to try to
test.  The only thing I presently have is to try to see if high D/Pd loading
produces heat.  So I do things to try to increase it while looking for heat.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 /  /  Apologies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apologies
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 21:42:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sometimes I get questioned on something, like power computation, and post a
long answer.  This seems to generate a lot of messages that say something
like, "I'm sorry, I didn't know you were and expert>
 
Appologies, while they make me feel good, are not appropriate.  The fact that
the question generated a long answer means usually that I have worried about
it a lot.  Thus the question was a good one and worth asking.  This does not
make me an expert at anything but worrying.  Some of these measurements, like
power, are very difficult.  There is no one good solution.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.11 / G Steinbach /  Re: Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: steinbac@hpl-opus.hpl.hp.com (Guenter Steinbach)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment Status
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 20:06:29 GMT
Organization: HP Labs, High Speed Electronics Dept., Palo Alto, CA

In sci.physics.fusion, Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
> ... That is, you have to sample at at least twice
> the frequency of the highest-frequency component of the signal you are
> sampling. So if you decide sampling rate first, this sets your low-pass
> cut-off frequency; conversely, if you decide on the highest frequency of
> interest, lowpass-filter with that as cut-off, and sample at twice it.
 
Actually, "cut-off" is a bit of a mushy term.  You can *not* just have
your filter's -3dB corner at half the sampling frequency because what
gets through the "tail" of the filter will still give you aliasing
errors.  So unless you have an infinitely steep "brickwall" filter, you
should keep the filter's -3dB corner frequency well below the Nyquist
rate aka 1/2 the sampling frequency.
 
> You are doing a mighty job, mate.
 
I concur.
 
	 Guenter Steinbach		          steinbach@hpl.hp.com
 
	 (An ADC designer)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensteinbac cudfnGuenter cudlnSteinbach cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.12 /  Rothwell /  CF Results Inconclusive
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Results Inconclusive
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 20:14:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
     Our cold fusion experiment yielded 10 MB of binary data, which I have
been carefully examining for the last two weeks. It is remarkable how much you
can learn from these records of temperature and flow rates. I can see the
cooling water hose expand slightly during the high phase, and the water flow
increase, I can see the effect of a one watt input increase show up in the
flow, and then in the box. I can even see a one half watt increase work its
way through the system. As I graph the data, average it, summarize it, and
compare it, a clear picture emerges: three guys with beards having a wonderful
time with their new toy. What does *not* emerge is clear proof, or disproof,
of excess heat. The three guys (Me, Gene & Chuck), kept fooling around with
the equipment and experimental conditions - rearranging things, adding new
gadgets, slowing down the flow rate then speeding it up, changing the cooling
water temperature, and so on. In the last week, we put in a marvelous new
gadget made by Tom Droege.
 
     By the time the run ended, the instrumentation was vastly improved, the
conditions were much more stable, and the pre-run calibration was trashed. We
recalibrated, naturally, but I am hard pressed to find three days in a row
where conditions were similar enough to compare properly. Changing the
conditions and tweaking the equipment is how you learn about things, improve
things, and how you have fun, but not how you find excess heat. I found good
evidence that we saw excess heat, and better evidence that we did not. Mostly,
I found that we should try again, which is what we are doing next week.
 
     The results are too complicated to discuss in detail here, and I find it
very difficult to describe these things without graphs, but to summarize:
 
     The delta T measurement of the cooling water appeared to show excess
heat, the box temperature did not show much. Not enough to satisfy me. The box
temperature was not stable enough, for a long chain of reasons: the water
level in the box was too low, because we could only fill the box 80%, because
it would leak out the top, because of capillary action. Also, as I mentioned,
we wanted to see what would happened when you let the water level change (the
GWB syndrome at work again.) We are going to fix this with a better gasket and
gobs of aquarium glue.
 
     We ran a lot of the time at cold temperatures, which in retrospect was a
big mistake. It appeared to mess up the delta T measurement of heat.
 
     We had an apparent excess of 6 to 9 watts for the period between 5/5 and
5/13. Most of that time, the cooling water was down at 5 deg C. After the cell
appeared to go dead, we did everything we could to recreate the exact
conditions of the experiment between 5/5 and 5/13. We left it in that state
for 2 days: 5/30 - 5/31. The Delta T, which had shown 15 to 20 watts excess
from 5/5 - 5/13, showed only 8 watts. This is about how much we expected; it
was caused by: 1 watt input; 7 watts heat leaking into the box and hose.
During the 5/5 through 5/13 period, the heat ebbed and flowed, but generally
increased. By contrast, during the 5/30 - 5/31 test, the delta T remained
steady as a rock. When we increased the input power by 1 watt, the Delta T
showed almost exactly the right increase in output. When we decreased power by
one half watt, the delta T showed a one half watt decline, and the box
temperature, and Tom's device showed an even clearer one half watt decline.
 
     So far so good. Everything looks even more accurate than I thought it
would be. Hot dog! I can measure one half watt!
 
     Then I went back and reviewed the box temperatures, comparing days during
5/5 - 5/13 when the box was 7cm full, just as it was on 5/31. There was no
significant difference; the box temperature should have been 3 degrees hotter
if there was a nine watt excess. Uh, ohhhhh...
 
     I looked carefully through the flow rate data from around 5/5 - 5/13 and
found a four hour stretch where the flow had been turned down. Normally, when
you decrease the flow, the delta T increases by the exact amount needed to
preserve the energy balance. (Naturally; that is how it is supposed to work.)
The formula is WATTS = Specific Heat of D2O * Flow per Sec * Delta T; so you
cut the flow and Delta T goes up just the right amount to keep WATTS the same.
Or almost the right amount, within a watt. During the run, we changed the flow
from time to time in order to verify that the heat measurement was working.
 
     It didn't work this time, though. On 5/13 when we cut the flow rate from
600 ml to 120 ml, the delta T picked up considerably, by 0.5 C, but not enough
to cover the deficit. The nominal "excess" dropped from 8 to 2 watts - crash -
instantly. That's A Big Problem; I don't know what it is, but I figure it
means that temperature of the water in the hose must not have been uniform;
the cooling water was not getting mixed. The delta T measurement, which worked
fine at 20 to 60 C, apparently does not work at 5 to 10 C, with our equipment.
 
     On Wednesday, Bockris advised me to forget about subtle measurements and
to pay close attention to the cell temperature. Use the Delta T as back up, or
confirmation. Takahashi faxed me exactly the same advice yesterday. This is
common sense; the change in box temperature per watt is much larger than the
change in the flow temperature, so it should be less susceptible to error.
Bockris boomed (he doesn't talk, he booms): "Well! If the cell isn't any
hotter, you don't have any excess heat! It is a simple as that!" Yup.
 
     This first experiment was a learning experience, and as Franklin said,
"experience is a dear teacher, but a fool will learn at no other."
 
     Speaking of Takahashi, he also faxed me a page of equations which he used
to filter out the effect of the water level changes in his box. He apparently
did address the problem raised by Chuck Sites. I will post a note about this
soon. He assures me the cooling loop was never exposed (I had told him ours
had been, as explained above.) He is replicating his Dec - March experiment
with good results. So are three other groups in Japan, but none of them are
ready to Declare Victory yet, so I will not say who they are. Takahashi's
paper will appear in English in a peer reviewed journal soon, I will post the
info as soon as I get it.
 
     While I am 'fessing up about the experiment, let me clarify a
misconception I had regarding the Japanese Gov't funding of CF. I said that
they have appropriated $65 million. This is true, but it turns out that one of
the appropriations is for multiple fiscal years. I am not sure how many years,
but I suppose that it would lower the annual outlays down to $25 to $30
million. Of course, there must be some appropriations that I have not heard
about. My information about present outlays comes from "off the record"
sources, as you might imagine. I asked the Minister of International Trade and
Industry to fax me the minutes of all confidential top-level budget and
appropriations meetings, but he hasn't come through... (ha, ha!).
 
     Getting serious again for a moment, I want to make it clear that cold
fusion research in Japan is *not* secret. The final budget of the Education
Ministry and MITI are both a matter of public record, and all top researchers
in Japan have been completely forthright and open with us. The biggest problem
is that most CF research is done with discretionary funds, which means nobody
keeps track of it. However, at the 2nd Annual Conference, Ikegami described
the Gov't program in enough detail so that anyone with a hand calculator (like
me) could figure out approximately how much it was costing. This fall at the
3rd annual conference I have no doubt they will reveal even more detail.
 
     Arthur C. Clarke and I wrote to Congressman Brown and warned him about
extent of Japanese Govt and private CF research. I have also written to
Polanski and others at DoE and the Executive Office. (I have given up this
effort, by the way, it is a waste of postage.) As I said to Brown:
 
     "In recent months there has been a lot of empty talk in Congress and in
     the media about "competing with Japan." What was the purpose of this? I
     have confronted you with extensive documented proof that Japan is moving
     ahead on cold fusion. The leading Japanese researchers signed the
     petition and offered to come to Washington! They have volunteered to
     spell out the scientific facts that prove the existence of cold fusion
     beyond any reasonable doubt. This openness on the part of Japan is
     totally unprecedented; no nation has ever done such a favor for its
     biggest competitor. Top Japanese researchers and science editors have
     provided letters, scientific papers, news articles, the article from the
     Japanese edition of Scientific American and other material showing that
     this research is underway... I translated this material, and sent it to
     you, to the other members of the Committee, to the DoE, and to President
     Bush. We have a paper trail to prove that our government was warned, but
     it did nothing."
 
     To my knowledge nobody in the DoE or the Congress has ever bothered to
contact Ikegami, MITI, Technova, or anyone else in Japan connected with CF.
They have not made one phone call, or sent one fax. I am certain they know
what is happening, because *I* *personally* have told them and given them
signed faxes from top Japanese Government officials to document what I say.
When this story breaks; when it becomes obvious to the American Public that
our scientific establishment screwed up on a grand scale and handed over cold
fusion to the Japanese - even though the Japanese politely asked us *not* to
do that - heads will roll. The reputations of a great many people are going to
be crushed. All for what? No reason. Just a little more open minded,
scientific examination of the facts, a little less ego and hubris, and we
could have avoided this fiasco.
 
- Jed Rothwell * Tel: 404-451-9890 * Fax: 404-458-2404
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.12 /  /  Present Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Present Status of Experiment
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 22:50:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  (Someone asked if I
was in communication with P&F to report their work.  No, this is my P&F *type*
experiment, sorry for the confusion.)
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm Hi - Lo 6 hour switch interval
Duration: Now charging for 3492670 seconds (970 hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 4.4 v to 3.7 v on 6 hour Hi - Lo.
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 10 C
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
2.0 -  2.5 M sec       7628              +0.0152
2.5 -  3.0 M sec      10286              +0.0206
3.0 -  3.5 M sec      10913              +0.0218
 
The actual measured energy for the period is 25000 joules more than indicated
because it includes the energy gained in switching to 10 C from 20 C.
 
We have now gained 82 cc of gas loading since switching to 10 C operation.
Hard to believe this is correct, but the previous drift, if any was in the
opposite direction.  This is a gain of 0.65 in D/Pd loading from wherever we
were when we switched to 10 C.  It looks real.  There are long periods where
the gas loading stays constant.  Then sudden steps down, or slow ramps down.
(Down in gas volume is increased loading as we are backfilled with D2.)  If
caused by diffusion of D2 from the tubing, or leaks, why can it stay
absolutely constant for hours at a time?
 
At present the drought has come back to Chicago, and the humidity has gone
down.  The chiller is working better and we are actually measuring - 20 mw of
excess heat.  There is every indication that we will get to the 1 or 2 mw area
when we apply off line corrections using the chilled water and ambient
temperature.  We will just need to take a calibration point or two at run end
since the starting calibration points were lost due to the disk write problem.
 
I keep looking at the McKubre run where the heat started at 1300 hours, and
all those runs in the P&F patent that average out to 70 days.  Hope springs
eternal!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.12 /  /  Dick Blue is a Nice Fellow after All
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue is a Nice Fellow after All
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 22:58:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says that we are coming to agreement on calorimetry.  I think so too.
 
My position is that science requires that I be able to tell Dick Blue how to
do an experiment that convinces him.  If I can't then there is nothing.  Of
course, the history of scienc shows that many people went to their graves
without accepting experiments that most of us accept now.  But Dick is not one
of those.  He will do my experiment and say "Wow" when I tell him how.  Don't
hold your breath, Dick.  But don't bet the farm either.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.12 /  /  Silver Alloy
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silver Alloy
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 22:59:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To all, the long range plan is to make the next runs with Palladium/Silver
alloy.  Does anyone out there know the right mix??  And why?  I just go
(got) delivery of 5 shiny one Pd bars and the time is about right to cook one
if I am to have a cathode ready after this run ends.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: CF Results Inconclusive
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Results Inconclusive
Date: 13 Jun 92 00:13:49 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <920612150700_72240.1256_EHL51-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> As I graph the data, average it, summarize it, and
> compare it, a clear picture emerges: three guys with beards having a
> wonderful time with their new toy. What does *not* emerge is clear
> proof, or disproof of excess heat.
 
> When this story breaks; when it becomes obvious to the American Public that
> our scientific establishment screwed up on a grand scale and handed over cold
> fusion to the Japanese - even though the Japanese politely asked us *not* to
> do that - heads will roll.
 
 
Hmmm...on the one hand, your own experiment yields no significant
data. On the other hand, you are not only sure excess heat exists,
but that it is in fact fusion and will have tremendous economic
impact. Is this rational?
 
An alternative scenario: heads will roll in Japan when their
government finds they spent O($100,000,000) to find out how
to avoid small calorimetry errors on complex electrolytic systems.
Back in the USA, the Public smiles in amusement.
 
 
--
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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.13 / Donald Locker /  Re: Fusion Digest 336
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 336
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 22:57:31 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc., Chelsea, MI

In article <01GL1PCGZKBK000SX1@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
 writes:
[rationale for not using catalyst in headspace deleted]
>
>P & F have not been in favor of closed systems from the beginning (remember
>that they want a high loading).  This explains why.
 
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see how one can keep
sufficient partial pressure of H (or D) over the electrolyte without
using a closed system.  Or is it closed to the atmosphere, but with
means to charge it?  I thought P&F were using an OPEN system.
 
>John Farrell
>Franklin & Marshall College
--
Donald.                                            Speaking only for myself.
 
I'm glad to see active research in AI, what with all this natural stupidity.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.15 /  /  Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gas Absorption
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 22:55:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

More "What's Good about Takahashi"
 
After several days running at 10 C, we gained an astounding 102 cc of gas
absorption into our little 0.1 cc cathode.  This is an increase in 0.80
D/Pd ratio.  It was hard to believe so I switched back to 20 C operation and
the cathode started to lose gas.  I believe the measurement.
 
My temperature control refers to the inner shell of the calorimeter.  The cell
is usually about 5 C hotter.  So when running at my 20 C, the cell (cathode)
temperature goes between 25 C at Lo and 30 C at Hi.  At 10 C the range is
about 15 C to 20 C.
 
A brief experiment indicates that the cathode temperature where gas absorption
starts in the present cathode is 23 C.  A better experiment is needed.
Perhaps a slow temperature ramp on top of a Hi-Lo cell current.  Please note
here that I am talking about continued absorption above an already high (but
unknown) level.  If cathodes are hard to unload below 0.6, as some references
state (Sorry not to include them, I have now accumulated so much stuff that I
cannot find anything.  I need a personal Dieter Britz.), then the present
cathode is up around 1.4 - or higher.
 
Whatever the purpose of the high current loading, it does not appear to
promote gas absorption.  Starting with a freshly loaded cathode charged at low
current, I have observed that it is sometimes possible to gain a little in
D/Pd ratio by going to higher current.  But eventually, the result of high
current density seems to be unloading.
 
In his Celani letter Takahashi says:
 
"F-6; shows the later results of Exp. 115 (I think, you have
      got data upto Run-5 from Ikegami).  Up-and-down regularly
      with 24 hr period (1-sweep skip) for heat level may be
      telling us the mechanism controlling overall power
      variation; something like lattice condition dies when
      excess power goes up, but it recovers in the next sweep."
 
The Takahashi material shows that the cell temperature goes down to near 20 C
on the low part of the sweep.  This means that the Takahashi cell gains
loading on the low current cycle, and likely looses it on the high current
cycle.  The net result by my observations is a relatively high loading.
 
************************************************************************
* So it appears that for the Takahashi cell, there is a tie in between *
* temperature, gas loading and "anomalous heat"                        *
************************************************************************
 
This has sent be dashing off to look at other "positive" results.  No
confirmation.  The McKubre results seem to be at 35 C or so, while some of the
P&F material it at 30-40 C cell temperature.
 
But the Hi-Lo operation still makes some sense to me.  Run at low temperature
and build up gas loading, then switch to high current (and thus high
temperature) to increase thermal energy. (Please don't quote me 10E60 energy
barriers, I am grasping at straws.)
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.16 /  /  The Harrison, Mallove, Rothwell Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Harrison, Mallove, Rothwell Experiment
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 02:30:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I note that it is about 5 months since Harrison, Malllove and Rothwell (HMR)
started their experiment.  From FD343 I see that they feel that they have
just started to lean how to run the experiment.  Join the club HMR.
 
Too bad you are not from a famous East or West coast University.  Then you
could have published a negative paper in a few weeks, and gone back to your
big time funded Hot Fusion research.
 
I commend HMR for being cautious about their possible positive result.  They
say they are not sure, so they are going to do it over better.  Bravo!  The
"skeptics" like to imply that "true believers" will grab at the slightest
hint of a positive result to publish.  Well, HMR look like "true believers"
to me, yet they are cautiously repeating their experiment which gave them a
lot of reason to think it was positive.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.16 /  Britz /  Dental film
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dental film
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 13:28:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
To Dick Blue, or anyone who knows about the measurement of radiation: there
are a few cnf papers in which dental films or their equivalent were used to
detect radiation. This has variously been criticised as primitive etc. My
feeling is that especially BECAUSE these films are not very sensitive, if one
does pick something up on them, that is evidence of emissions from the
experiment. Never mind that we don't have the spectrum etc. I was especially
impressed by the paper
 
Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Smith JJ;       J. Electroanal. Chem. 302 (1991) 255.
"On the behavior of Pd deposited in the presence of evolving deuterium".
 
in which there was a nickel grid between the cathode and the dental film, and
it showed shadowing by the grid. I can't think of any other explanation than
that the cathode was emitting energetic particles of some kind.
 Another point in favour of such films is their simplicity. We have been told
on this list that to measure neutrons or gammas is no end of trouble; on the
other hand, it's easy to slip a bit of film into a plastic envelope and put it
next to a cathode in a cold fusion electrolysis.
 How about it, you experts? What is the word?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.16 / MIKE JAMISON /  Pd volume changes
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd volume changes
Date: 16 Jun 92 18:24:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

This is a query to Tom Droege:
 
Tom,
 
Are you able to accurately measure the change in volume of the Pd you are
using with respect to Deuterium loading?  If not, do you have any plans to
do so in future experiments?
 
I'm curious because, as I understand it, the Pd volume changes by quite a
bit as H or D is absorbed/released by/from it.  It seems that by measuring
the volume change of your Pd sample you would be able to get confirmation
of the suspected increase in the Pd loading ratio.
 
Good luck!
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.16 /  /  It's a Gas
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It's a Gas
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 23:27:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

More About Gas Absorption
 
We have now switched to an approximate 16 minute ramp between 60 and 400 ma
per sq cm.  We are running at 10 C cell temperature, which results in a low
cell thermometer temperature of 18 C and a high thermometer temperature of 20
C.  We stress this is the cell thermometer temperature which is in a glass
tube.  The actual electrolyte swing with this relatively fast ramp is likely a
few degrees more.
 
We are gaining an average of 2 cc of loading each ramp.  So far we have
increased the loading of the 0.1 cc sample by 203.4 cc or a delta loading of
1.60 D/Pd from wherever we started.  Hard to believe, but no mistakes found
yet.  But if it does not eventually saturate, then we will know there is some
sort of exotic leak.  We take into account volume changes with temperature
(someone will ask) but these effects are usually within the error.
 
The general form of the loading increase is a stair case.  Flat gas loading
which takes a step increase with the current drop at the end of the ramp.  The
situation is actually much more complicated.  Most of the drop can be
accounted for as a volume change due to the cell gas volume temperature change
around the catalyst as the current drops from the high value to the low value
at the end of the ramp.  So it is hard to tell when the gas is absorbed, but
my bet is that most is absorbed at the low current end of the ramp.  But note
that it is hard to explain a stair case absorption curve with any kind of leak
that I can imagine.  Particularly since the cooling time for the catalyst
thermometer is much less than the stair step width.  Besides there is a 2/1
variation in stair step size.
 
The rate of gas absorption is higher with the saw tooth than with the just
previous Hi-Lo operation.  This confirms Takahashi's recommendation.
 
We tried low temperature operation earlier in the run without the fast gas
loading now observed.  Perhaps the surface is somehow prepared by the long
electrolysis (Now over 1000 hours) to absorb gas.
 
No sign of any anomalous heat.  With all the changes, we can no longer claim
any better than 10 mw one sigma when we return to the primary calibration
point.  Opening the calorimeter destroyed the high precision calibration.  We
estimate that the variable temperature calibration is good to 50 mw one sigma.
So we are not so good as we were, but stick with the 200 mw to claim
something.  That is why we set a "100 sigma" goal.  What one knows about sigma
changes.  We will still be able to greatly improve the calibration off line.
What will really attract attention, is a change in calorimeter balance with no
known cause.  (Yes skeptics, a negative change is just as demanding of our
attention as a positive one!)  The calorimeter is better than a milliwatt if
we don't muck with it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.16 / Nick Szabo /  Re: Energy, pollution, and EV's (UCS reference)
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy, pollution, and EV's (UCS reference)
Date: 16 Jun 92 19:26:57 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Jun10.223357.16004@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ
 Brown) writes:
 
>[good discussion of unlimited/renewable/{your favorite adjective here}
>fission breeders]
 
>Although I am probably biased, almost everything else for the long-term
>(centuries to millenia) seems to be smoke and mirrors.  Maybe fusion
>will become workable; maybe the D/He-3 cycle could be a second or third
>generation system....w/fewer neutrons.
 
The smoke and mirrors come from trying to predict "centuries to
millenia" in the first place.  A century ago, nuclear fission and
fusion were unknown.
 
Even within the next century, I find it increasingly probable that some
sort of fusion will become economical.  Hot fusion experiments have
produced excess heat.  Cold fusion experiments have produced excess (but
unexplained) heat.  There are numerous methods in scale between hot and
cold fusion -- laser-driven fusion, muon catalysed fusion, Paul Koloc's
methods, etc.  We have discovered a raft of new phenonema in
the universe with space telescopes that, when explained, could produce
great advances in our knowledge of high-energy nuclear processes.
 
Can someone provide insight into the main bottlenecks to useful
generators: theory (cold fusion), materials, design, etc.?
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.17 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 719 papers, 106 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 719 papers, 106 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 13:27:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
this may be the last lot I post for a couple of months, because I will be
elsewhere, and probably cut off from the excellent library services I have
here. You will however continue to hear from me, and you can look forward to
a great heap of stuff when I get back here.
 We have one good, and one laughable paper below. The Polish team achieved a
very low neutron background, setting their upper fusion limit to 1/1000 of
that claimed by the Jones team; also, they observe no change of neutron
emission distribution from the background (which has a Poisson character).
This seems like quality work. Not so my impression of the Russian team, who
passed gas discharges between a TiD rod and a steel cup, with and without an
LiD crystal lying in it. What the authors imagined this LiD might do, I can't
imagine, but it turns out it didn't. They did get rewarded by some beautiful
colour effects, so I suppose it was all worth while.
 The two patents, well, there they are. More electrical discharges, and
the customary "adsorbed" deuterium.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 17-Jun-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 719
 
Published articles, Letters; archived file CNF-PAP
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sannikov VI, Gorodetskii VG, Sulimov EM, Polosukhin BG, Kudyakov VYa;
Rasplavy 1991 (4) 86 (in Russian).
"Emission of neutrons and gamma-quanta from a titanium electrode polarised by
a current in the gas phase over LiD".
** Ti metal, D2 gas, solid LiD and electric discharges have all been used in
one way or the other in cold fusion experiments; why not combine them all in
one? A Ti rod is the cathode in low-pressure D2 gas, the anode being a steel
cup, with a LiD crystal lying in its bottom. The system is held at various
temperatures, and various D2 pressure regimes applied to charge the Ti with
the gas. High voltages are then applied between the electrodes, to cause
discharges, and neutrons and gammas monitored. Beautiful violet hues were seen
during the discharges, especially if small amounts of oxygen were present in
the cell. The emission of gammas was dependent both on temperature and voltage
but it was not possible to separate the effects. Both gamma and neutron
emissions were close to the background noise but nevertheless the authors
believe that more neutrons were emitted in the temperature regions (270-380
degC and 530-620 degC) of TiD phase transitions. There were some small
differences in the neutron count distributions between the absence and
presence of the LiD. No explanations or mechanisms can be suggested; the cold
d-d fusion reactions suggested by FPH and Jones+ cannot be the answer. Future
studies must decide which of the low-mass species Li, Be, B and alpha
particles, may be involved.                                           Jan-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmi Z, Szeflinski Z, Tarasiuk J, Turowiecki A, Zlomanczuk J;
Nukleonika 35 (7-9) (1990) 175.
"Search for neutron emission in the deuterium-palladium system".
** This Polish team of physicists carried out an electrolysis experiment at a
10 mm * 50 mm Pd rod, in 0.1M LiOD, while monitoring for neutrons and gammas,
using two  scintillation detectors with pulse shape discrimination. The cell
was replaced with one containing H2O as a control. The authors remark that the
cold fusion phenomenon, if it exists, is  highly capricious, and that the time
structure of any neutron emissions must be looked at; background neutrons
follow a Poisson distribution. In the event, there was no deviation from this
distribution, nor differences between the experiment and the control, over
long periods of electrolysis, setting the upper limit for cold fusion at
about 1E-26 neutrons/deuteron/s, three orders of magnitude lower than the
results of Jones et al.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents; archived file CNF-PAT
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,274,487, 24-Mar-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(22):223521 (1992).
"Cold nuclear fusion reactors".
** "A cold nuclear fusion reactor contains Pd, Ti, or a H-adsorbing alloy
which is covered by a high-strength material such as steel. The fusion reactor
has improved efficiency". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                   Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03,274,488, 24-Mar-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(22):223522 (1992).
"Cold nuclear fusion reactors".
** "A cold nuclear fusion reactor consists of a container of D2, and an anode
and a cathode inserted in the container, and elec. discharge is conducted
between the electrodes". (Direct quote from CA).
==============================================================================
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:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.17 /  /  Film
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Film
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 18:38:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz has asked about the possibility of a positive dental film
experiment.
 
Back a couple of years ago, we wrapped a piece of litho film around a cell
we thought was active.  Between the film and the cell we placed a number of
pieces of shim stock of various thicknesses.  This was near time zero and
experiments were done with whatever was at hand.
 
When the film was developed, there were nice images of the shim pieces with
the thicker ones giving greater effect.  We were very excited for about 8
hours.  My brother Lee then repeated the experiment in Colorado, about 1000
miles away from our "cold fusion" cell, with a pan of warm water.  He got
the same result.
 
Moral:  Film is heat and pressure sensitive.  It is easy to expose film with
pressure or temperature gradients as any kirilian photographer can tell you.
 
But as I have said before here, many of us wear film badges.  Sometimes film
is the "right" radiation detector.  Some very good work has been done with
emulsion stacks.  For example Bill Rey's work on neutrino oscillations.  So
a film experiment is not necessarily weak, but be careful.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.17 /  Rothwell /  CF In Japan
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF In Japan
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 18:41:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Mr. Merriman comments:
 
"... your own experiment yields no significant data. On the other hand, you
are not only sure excess heat exists, but that it is in fact fusion and will
have tremendous economic impact. Is this rational?"
 
"An alternative scenario: heads will roll in Japan when their government finds
they spent O($100,000,000) to find out how to avoid small calorimetry errors
on complex electrolytic systems. Back in the USA, the Public smiles in
amusement."
 
My experiment has nothing to do with it. In fact, excess heat has nothing to
do with it. Japanese Government officials offered to come to Washington last
year before any Government CF program had replicated excess heat. Clarke and I
wrote the letter on April 2, 1992, before my experiment began.
 
I am not sure that CF is "fusion;" it might be some other exotic nuclear
effect. I *am* certain that is not chemical, because of the massive heat, the
low level neutron flux, and massive amounts of tritium.
 
I am not sure that CF will have tremendous economic impact, and I never stated
that I was. My guess is that it will. The leaders of Japanese Gov't and
industry think so too, and they are right far more often than they are wrong.
For every failed "5th Generation Computer" project from MITI, I can point to a
dozen important technological initiatives that have worked. After all, Japan
has the highest standard of living in the world, they have nearly as many
factories as we do (with half the population), and they are beating us in
every major hi-tech industry on the map, except weapons and aerospace. You
have to admit they have a track record of success. It is folly for our
government to ignore their advice, and to refuse to meet with their experts.
 
However, even if CF does not have any technological importance, the fact that
it has been scientifically proven beyond any rational doubt in Japan, and that
fact that almost all serious scientific work is now being done in Japan is an
outrage, and an indictment of our scientific establishment. The U.S. edition
Scientific American poked fun at CF and refused to publish a single
quantitative detail about Takahashi's work, not even a diagram; the Japanese
edition published a factual, scientific, two page description of the
experiment. Perhaps Takahashi is right, perhaps he is wrong; but reading the
U.S. "scientific journals" will not give you even the slightest concrete idea
of what he is doing, how much heat he claims to have measured, or how to go
about replicating his work. The U.S. Scientific American gives you brazen
character assassination, guilt by association, distortion and blatant
nonsense; the Japanese edition gives you the facts and lets you decide for
yourself. In recent months, I talked to six top science editors and writers in
Japan, from the Nikkei Superconductor Newsletter, Nikkei Shimun, Asahi Shimbun
AERA magazine, Bungeishunju and Yomiuri Shimbun. They all told me, without
exception, that there are no more arch-skeptics in the scientific
establishment. "The debate has gone beyond that; everyone now acknowledges the
effect is real."
 
"Small calorimetry errors on complex electrolytic systems..." This is
irrelevant nonsense, for three reasons:
 
1. It would take massive calorimetric errors to disprove the work of Pons and
Fleischmann. Since P&F are working for a elite Japanese company with close
connections to the National Railways and MITI, the officials and decision
makers have complete access to their experimental data and their latest
results. Last year, P&F reported they were getting 16 times more energy out
than they put in, and they boiled away all of the electrolyte. Do you suppose
top Japanese scientists cannot understand the significance of boiling water?
Do you suppose they have committed millions of dollars in funding without
personally going to France to observe the work? Do you think that anyone could
snooker them with fake results?
 
2. The nuclear evidence alone was more than enough to convince the
establishment last year, before anyone replicated P&F's level of sustained
heat.
 
3. One of the most convincing experiments has nothing to do with electrolysis.
The work at by Yamaguchi at NTT Basic Research (the Bell Laboratory of Japan)
is with gas loading, not electrolysis. Back in 1989, Yamaguchi reported a
replicated, repeated experiment. His device output a 2 to 3 second burst of
1.2 to 1.4 million neutrons per second, went over 1064 C, and melted. He now
has the reaction under control, he gets neutrons, charged particles, and heat,
and the device no longer melts.
 
These kinds of experiments constitute proof that some unknown nuclear effect
is occurring. They have been widely reported in the Japanese scientific press;
CF has been an accepted part of advanced physics in Japan since 1989; CF
scientists have funding and attend seminars at every important physics
conference. Meanwhile, in the U.S., our socalled "scientific leaders"
lambasted this work, made fun of scientists; drove our best people into the
arms of our competition; cut funding; interfered with the work; published
outrageous personal attacks on CF scientists in our national newspapers;
threatened to fire scientist who merely wanted to sign my petition; and at MIT
published blatantly fraudulent data to prove that the effect did not exist,
and then tried to cover up the scandal for over a year!
 
Even if nothing ever comes of CF, the fact that our scientists behaved in this
abominable, outrageous fashion will be a blot on our institutions for many
years to come. It is so outrageous, that if I had not experienced it first
hand, I would not believe it happened. Unscientific, irrational behavior that
would not have been acceptable in 1790 has become the norm in 1990. As Nobel
Laureate Julian Schwinger said:
 
"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors'
rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous
referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the
death of science."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.17 / Frank Smith /  Re: Silver Alloy
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silver Alloy
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 19:01:39 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <920612172059.20a0186d@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>To all, the long range plan is to make the next runs with Palladium/Silver
>alloy.  Does anyone out there know the right mix??  And why?  I just go
>(got) delivery of 5 shiny one Pd bars and the time is about right to cook one
>if I am to have a cathode ready after this run ends.
>
>
Tom, the best mix is in the range 20 to 30 atom percent silver, probably the
best of all being 23 percent. Since the atomic masses of silver and palladium
differ by about 1 % only (107.8 vs 106.4) you could work with mass percentages
and that would be quite close. The German scientists Wicke and company at
Munster did much work on the diffusion of hydrogen isotopes and solubility of
the isotopes in palladium alloys. The Pd/Ag alloys take up quite a lot of H or
D and do so without a phase change from alpha to beta as happens with palladium
alone. This should mean that they are less susceptible to cracking as hydrogen
goes in/out. They do however take up less hydrogen than pure palladium at the
same
hydrogen pressure and temperature.
 
Alefeld and Volkl at Munich, edited two books in 1978 entitled Hydrogen in
Metals. Volume II: Application-Oriented Properties, is more appropriate and
contains an article by Wicke and
Brodowsky on the palladium alloy/hydrogen systems. Springer-Verlag, New York
were the publishers.
Good luck with this!
          Frank
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.17 /  /  Latest on Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest on Gas Absorption
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 20:01:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Still More About Gas Absorption
 
When the absorbed gas got to 286 cc last evening, I couldn't stand it anymore.
Note that this means a gain of D/Pd ratio of 2.25 from a starting value that
was likely greater than zero.  I thought there had to be a leak somewhere.
The first check was to raise the temperature to 20 C continuing the saw tooth
current cycle.  Loading appeared to continue, but I only waited a couple of
hours.  Then I set the current at 200 ma per sq cm overnight.  This morning
the gas loading had remained flat for the overnight period of about 8 hours.
So there is no gas leak, or at least if there is, the loading miraculously
tracks it.
 
I then turned the saw tooth back on holding the temperature at 20 C.  For 4 or
5 cycles, the gas loading was a 2 cc amplitude saw tooth with no net gain or
loss.  This indicates that the gas measurement servo was not somehow hung, but
I already knew that from other checks.
 
Now I have gone back to 10 C, and come in to work.  Stay tuned to see if the
gas absorption again increases, and to see what value is achieved.
 
It looks like there is something special going on with respect to the way gas
absorption is attempted.  The saw tooth loading seems to help.  There seems to
be a critical temperature for increasing the loading, which may in itself
depend on the state of loading.
 
All this may or may not be important for the achievement of "anomalous heat".
 
Please observe dear skeptics, how long exploration of this phenomena is going
to take.  A few variables are temperature, ramp rate, sample preparation, and
current density.  Also time after loading started for application of the test
ramp rate.  Each test takes a few months.  But the "experts" were able to say
there is nothing to be found in a few weeks.  Because of them, I have this
wonderful puzzle almost all to myself.
 
But why fund this work over competing projects?  There is no reason other than
the general principle of funding the curious who are willing to work.  My
quarrel is with the "experts" who "know" where new discoveries are to be made.
They were wrong.  There is a lot to be found here for the curious.
 
Takahashi was inspired to try the ramp by Mizuno who used sealed cells and
observed excess oxygen pressure build up due to H/D absorption.    Mizuno ran
at 80 C and above, but his curves indicate that loadings of 2+ may be achieved
at 10 C if the trend holds.
 
Jed Rothwell, please pass this on to Mizuno, and all please note.  Even with a
pressure relief valve, the Mizuno cell is a potential bomb of the type that
killed Andrew Riley.  Everyone, please take care when building sealed cells.
Any sealed cell should be certified by a qualified engineer who is authorized
to inspect and certify pressure vessels in your locality.  If this sounds
bureaucratic then I remind you that we have been killing people with pressure
vessels for a thousand years or so and the authorities have caught on to it
and have made rules.  Authorities don't like to have to clean up blood, so
they pass rules.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 /  /  Heads Will Roll
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heads Will Roll
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 00:41:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re. Rothwell, Merriman -- Heads will roll.
 
Sounds like a win - win situation.  If there is "cold fusion" heads roll in
the US.  If not in Japan.
 
In either case, We are amused.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Heads Will Roll
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heads Will Roll
Date: 18 Jun 92 03:35:56 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <920617174455.20a0343b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
writes:
 
> Sounds like a win - win situation.  If there is "cold fusion" heads roll in
> the US.  If not in Japan.
>
> In either case, We are amused.
 
I agree. Since I have yet to be convinced that "CF is real"
(whatever that may mean), I'm glad the japanese are pouring money
into it. In the unlikely case there is something there, they'll find it and
we'll all benefit. If not, the money drained japan's rather
larger science bank accounts, not the US'.
 
Those who are convinced CF exists should be glad that
someone is vigorously pursuing it.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 / Alex Orenshteyn /  We are amused.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: We are amused.
Date: 18 Jun 92 13:45:56 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

>> In either case, We are amused.
Noone here is going to be amused for long, once it is realized our major
competitor has the patents, up-to-date technology, massive manufacturing
capability and desire to utilize the new technology for making everything
from superconducting, silent sea-liners to fusion toyotas and cameras. If
US has difficulty competing with Japan now, imagine that cost of energy in
Japan dropped to nearly 0. We will be amused for a while but then tribes of
jobless vagabounds will sweep the country and well-to-do Americans will
want emigrate to Mexico and Russia. Of course all of this true if PdD
effect exists. I guess this is a Mad Max scenario.
 
On a more serious note, can someone discuss difficulties associated with
detecting small amounts of "ash". At one point Dick Forman and Frank Close
had a go at it, has someone actually done work(physical) in this field?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 / Jon Webb /  Re: CF In Japan
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF In Japan
Date: 18 Jun 92 14:46:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Jed Rothwell's main argument seems to be that the Japanese must know
what they are doing, hence we'd better watch out and take cold fusion
more seriously.
 
I don't argue in any fundamental sense with Jed; cold fusion has been
subjected to some pretty outrageous attacks, and I think we should be
putting more money, but not a lot more, into it, just in case it turns
out that there is something there.
 
But I would like to point out that the Japanese don't have a very good
nose when it comes to pursuing basic science like cold fusion.  In my
own field, parallel computers and computer vision, the Japanese have
been pursuing some architectural approaches, like dataflow, with a
fervor that is entirely unjustified by the benefits obtained so far,
or likely in the future.  The Fifth Generation project is another
example; they decided that specialized AI machines were the way to go,
and pursued them while the world around them changed.  They built the
machines they wanted to, but no one cares.
 
This is not to put down Japanese science.  They've achieved great
things, and will achieve more in the future.  The point is that Japan
is in a sense a small country, and we should not expect their economic
and technological success to translate directly into success in basic
science.  It's simply a very weak argument.
 
I think we should see the Japanese excitement about cold fusion as a
reflection of their hope of finding an energy source that will free
them from dependence on the outside.
 
On your specific points:
 
   1. It would take massive calorimetric errors to disprove the work of Pons and
   Fleischmann... they boiled away all of the electrolyte.
 
This is simply not true.  Conversations here have suggested that the
margin of error in P&F's experiment is about 5%.  They are getting not
much more heat than that.  And the boiling water is far less
significant when you realize that the experiment is insulated, so that
a slight heat excess will eventually boil the water.
 
   2. The nuclear evidence alone was more than enough to convince the
   establishment last year, before anyone replicated P&F's level of sustained
   heat.
 
I don't think this is true at all.  We've seen a number of
inconsistent nuclear results ranging from neutrons to no neutrons to
Helium-4 to etc.  There is no consistent pattern to convince the establishment.
 
   3. One of the most convincing experiments has nothing to do with
 electrolysis.
   The work at by Yamaguchi at NTT Basic Research (the Bell Laboratory of Japan)
   is with gas loading, not electrolysis. Back in 1989, Yamaguchi reported a
   replicated, repeated experiment. His device output a 2 to 3 second burst of
   1.2 to 1.4 million neutrons per second, went over 1064 C, and melted. He now
   has the reaction under control, he gets neutrons, charged particles, and
 heat,
   and the device no longer melts.
 
I'm not sure if this is the right experiment but does Yamaguchi's
involve an electric arc in the gas?  If so, then the effect is simply
self-targeting, a real and well-understood effect that might produce
the results you describe.
 
   Even if nothing ever comes of CF, the fact that our scientists behaved in
 this
   abominable, outrageous fashion will be a blot on our institutions for many
   years to come.
 
I doubt this.  The attacks on cold fusion are not really that
different from attacks in any controversial area of science.
Scientists really, really, fight for what they believe in, just the
way people do in ordinary life.
 
That said, I still think there's reason to continue investigating cold
fusion.  One or two well-funded groups in the US would be enough, in
my opinion.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Development Risks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Development Risks
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 03:48:39 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <920619152838_72240.1256_EHL52-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> In developing new products, if you wait until everything has been proved,
> there is no risk, and no open questions, then you are certain to be destroyed
> by your competition. He who takes no risks - takes the biggest risk of all.
> As a nation, we are headed for economic disaster partly because of attitudes
> like yours. This is true in many areas besides cold fusion.
 
True, the Japanese have got the jump on us in CF.
But don't dispair---its not too late to resurrect
research on N-rays. Maybe we should petition congress....
 
:-)
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.20 / Tony Warnock /  Leak detectors
     
Originally-From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Leak detectors
Date: 20 Jun 92 16:49:35 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

 
   Most gas stations that service airconditioners have a gas leak detector.
   Some of these are mass spectrometers tuned to a particular molecular
   weight. Perhaps one of these could be used to check for leaks.
   Many years ago I used to use one that was tuned for helium (same
   mass as D2.) If there is not too much D2 around, these are quite useful.
 
                                             Tony Warnock
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenttw cudfnTony cudlnWarnock cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.20 /  Rothwell /  Explaining the 'strident tone'
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Explaining the 'strident tone'
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 17:31:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Some comments I owe a response to:
 
"I'm just not as confident as you seem to be that the Japanese spending money
on an idea means that the idea is a good one..."
 
"So the mere fact the Japanese have invested in cold fusion does not make it
real.  Promising, but not real.  They are following a trail to see where it
leads.  I agree with you that we should be following that trail also, but I
don't feel there's enough evidence to support the strident tone of your post."
 
Right, right, we all agree the Japanese Government makes dumb mistakes. I have
been speaking Japanese and living with Japanese people for 20 years, I know
that Japan has it's share of fools and scoundrels. I am not suggesting the
U.S. government or the State of Utah or anyone else should jump in and start
spending billions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars on CF. I was trying
to get the U.S. government to allow a handful of people to study CF, may 20,
maybe 50. Just a handful of people who are very interested in the subject, who
have published peer-reviewed papers, and are acknowledged experts in the
field.
 
Let me explain the "strident tone" of my message. Nobody, anywhere in the U.S.
government is *allowed* to study CF. At any big East Coast University, if you
suggest you want to do CF work, you are asking to be fired. MIT would not
allow an experiment that I personally offered to pay for -- every penny. Three
scientists who wanted to sign my petition were told they would be summarily
fired if they did so. "Financial tiger team" roam around DoE labs making
people sign affidavits promising that they are not studying CF. People who
want to use equipment for quiet, back-room experiments find that well-know
scientists like Huizenga are interfering behind the scenes to stop them.
 
If you talk about cold fusion, or publicly suggest that some minimum level of
research should be allowed, if you even *suggest* that DoE staff members pick
up the phone and talk to Ikegami - as I have done - you are threatened with
lawsuits, you are harassed, and you are likely to find your personal
reputation savagely attacked in major newspapers. Low-life liars like Taubes
are given free reign to publish absurd libelous nonsense about Bockris and
Miles. Do you know what the Robert Park said The Washington Post?
 
     "If everyone knows it is wrong, why are they doing it? Inept scientists
     whose reputations would be tarnished, greedy administrators..., gullible
     politicians who had squandered the taxpayers' dollars, lazy
     journalists...  -- all had an interest in making it appear that the issue
     had not been settled.  Their easy corruption was one of the most chilling
     aspects of this sad comedy. To be sure, there are true believers among
     the cold-fusion acolytes, just as there are sincere scientists who
     believe in psychokinesis, flying saucers, creationism and the Chicago
     Cubs...  A PhD in science is not inoculation against foolishness -- or
     mendacity."
 
People who suggest that a minimum level of research be allowed have been
savagely attacked by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Scientific
American, Nature Magazine and the rest of the "Scientific Establishment" for
three years, and have not been given one single opportunity to respond, except
in Japan. Nature will not even print three letters pointing out an obvious
error in the Lewis experiments at CalTech. MIT's supposed disproof of cold
fusion is blatant fraud! Anyone who even looks at the curves can see that they
probably got excess heat, and they certainly, deliberately, and ineptly
lowered the data points, and added a bunch of new, extra low points, and
published fraudulent results showing no excess heat. Not one word of this has
appeared in the U.S. press. Fortunately, two large mainstream journals in
Japan have talked about it.
 
When you confront this kind or horror, month after month, and you find
yourself powerless to change it, it grates on you, and it lends your messages
this strident tone. Please forgive me. If you knew one-tenth of what I know
you might be even more strident than me!
 
I realize that in any field there are always arguments and politics, with
vested interests and so on, but the CF "debate" has gone far, far beyond the
normal bounds of civil decency. It has become a pathological nightmare, and in
view of what is happening in Japan, it threatens to become an economic and
social disaster as well. Those of you who pooh-pooh such talk of social
upheaval should open up your eyes and look at what else is happening in the
world. Momentous changes can and do occur, societies and nations do wither and
collapse. In 1985, did you ever imagine that communism would be banned in
Russia in 1991? In 1965 did you think Japan would become richer than the U.S.,
or that the U.S. would lose the Vietnam War, become the world's largest debtor
nation, and become a laughingstock, and an economic and educational basket-
case?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.20 / Brad Sherman /  News item --SRI lab explosion
     
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News item --SRI lab explosion
Date: 20 Jun 92 22:59:00 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase

[All mistakes in the following are faithfully reproduced from the
original --bks]
 
The _San Francisco Chronicle_, 20 June 1992, p.C9, writes:
 
 Hydrogen Caused Blast At Fusion Lab
 
 Menlo Park --A laboratory explosion that took the life of an SRI
 International scientist last January was caused by an "unanticipated
 and undetected" buildup of deuterium , a form of hydrogen and oxygen
 gases that ignited during a cold fusion-related experiment,
 investigators have concluded.
 
 The gas accumulation was attributed to a chemical failure inside the
 electrochemical cell in which the experiment was being conducted,
 according to a team of independent experts retained by SRI to
 investigate the January 2 blast.  Andrew M. Riley, 34, A British-born
 former University of Utah researcher, died in the explosion, which
 also injured three other scientists, none seriously.
 
 While at the University of Utah in the 1980's, Riley was an associate
 or electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, whose
 controversial experiments in cold fusion as a potentially cheap new
 source of energy attracted world-wide attention.
 
-----------
	--Brad Sherman
 
O ye Religious, discountenance every one among you who shall
pretend to despise Art and Science!
    --William Blake
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbsherman cudfnBrad cudlnSherman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.20 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
Date: 20 Jun 92 22:50:38 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jon Webb writes:
>Now the Japanese are trying to back-pedal and say that the outside
>world oversold the project, and at least they educated all these
>people.  Well, sure.  But computer architecture is a pretty hard-nosed
>world, and companies grow fantastically wealthy or go out of business
>all the time based on being right or wrong about the market and
>technology.  There's no doubt whatsoever that the Japanese were wrong
>on this one.
>
>So the argument that because the Japanese are putting money into cold
>fusion, there must be something there, carries no weight with me.
 
For people who really want to sort out the Japanese technology development
issue, they should look at the break down of the performance of technology
investment in the public and private sectors comparing the U.S. and Japan
because that is where the first order variances are to be found.
 
Private technology investments are vastly more cost effective than
government technology investments.
 
Second order variances are found in government funded military vs
civilian technology development.
 
Government military technology investment is vastly more cost effective
than government civilian technology investment.
 
Lester Thurow is presently confusing everyone into believing that
since the Japanese spend most of their technology development money in
the civilian sector and they are more effective than we are in bringing
technologies to market, that therefore we should start spending more
on government funded civilian technology projects.
 
What he ignores is the fact that the vast majority of civilian technology
money in Japan is PRIVATE and that civilian technology programs funded
by the government in Japan, such as the fifth generation computer
project, have been failures of as great a magnitude as our Shuttle
or Tokomak programs have been, and even greater failures than DARPA
technology initiatives, such as VHSIC, have been.
 
The figures are about US: 70:30 and Japan 30:70 public:private R&D.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.21 / Paul Schauble /  Re: CF in Japan, continued
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Japan, continued
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 92 03:12:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> California OSHA has stopped them [EPRI] from doing any work. Indefinately.
 
Could someone please supply details??
 
   ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: IFFC3 Announcement
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: IFFC3 Announcement
Date: 21 Jun 92 18:45:28 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Jed,
 
    I thought I would reply to this message for two reasons. One is to
give you my address for the Takahashi replys.  The second was to see
if anyone was organizing any kind of group travel arrangements to the
conference.  I would love to attend if I can arrange something
relativly inexpensive.  If nothing more than just to listen.
 
The address is:
 
Chuck Sites
2205 Weber Ave.
Louisville, Ky. 40205
 
Thanks in advance.
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 / Chuck Forsberg /  Re: IFFC3 Announcement
     
Originally-From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: IFFC3 Announcement
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 11:50:29 GMT
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest

In article <1992Jun21.184528.17926@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>Jed,
>
>    I thought I would reply to this message for two reasons. One is to
>give you my address for the Takahashi replys.  The second was to see
>if anyone was organizing any kind of group travel arrangements to the
>conference.  I would love to attend if I can arrange something
>relativly inexpensive.  If nothing more than just to listen.
 
Perhaps this conference will be on a satellite.
I saw an earlier CNF on satellite and it was interesting
if not 100% understandable to a non-fizzizzist :-)
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencaf cudfnChuck cudlnForsberg cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF in Japan, continued
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Japan, continued
Date: 22 Jun 92 13:06:37 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <60867@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>> California OSHA has stopped them [EPRI] from doing any work. Indefinately.
>
>Could someone please supply details??
 
Just speculating, since I can't tell what it is you were citing from, but if
this is the EPRI-funded work at SRI ... well you only have to have dealt with
OSHA once to see why they would come down like a ton of bricks on a lab where
an employee *died* in the normal performance of his duty.  Since Cal-OSHA is
supposed to be more responsive then US-OSHA, an indefinite suspension of work
would not surprise me a bit.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 /  Rothwell /  CF in Japan, continued
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF in Japan, continued
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 15:37:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Jon,
 
Your comment: "I think we should be putting more money, but not a lot more,
into it"
 
Do you mean, "we should be putting *some* money" into CF? Right now, "we" are
not putting any money into CF. Not a penny. At least, that is what the DoE
told the White House, the Congress, and me. There may be a little tiny bit of
research going on in the Navy. In private industry, there is EPRI, but
California OSHA has stopped them from doing any work, indefinitely.
 
"One or two well-funded groups in the US would be enough, in my opinion." Who
did you have in mind, Tom Droege and me? We both pay all expenses ourselves. I
just lost my $300 8-year-old IBM XT data collection computer, so my experiment
is terminated until the next paycheck. There is no other open, shared research
anywhere east of the Mississippi, to my knowledge.
 
"[P&F's] experiment is insulated, so that a slight heat excess will eventually
boil the water." In an open test tube? I don't think so.
 
Me: "The nuclear evidence alone was more than enough to convince the
establishment last year...
 
You: "I don't think this is true at all."
 
Sorry, I should have made myself clear; I meant the Japanese establishment. I
certainly did not mean that anyone in U.S. establishment, or you, are
convinced. I meant the people in Japan who have decided to pump millions of
dollars into CF; obviously they must be convinced, or they would be committing
career hara-kiri. Actually, they are not totally convinced; they are like me,
they say it is "likely" to prove useful, and it is definitely real. "They" in
this case are the Minister of Energy at MITI, and Ikegami of NIFS.
 
Yamaguchi's original experiment was simple, he just loaded up the cell,
depressurized and Boom! Now he is using an electric current on the chip to
control the process (it says "DC 5A + AC 2 A"). Not an electric arc, not in
the gas. I'll send you the paper if you want.
 
Your comment "if so, the effect is simply self-targeting, a real and
well-understood effect." Now, I find this a typical example of a daffy
skeptical comment. If it was well-understood, don't you think the Japanese
Phone Company would well understand it? I mean, Yamaguchi has been showing up
at all the big physics conferences in Japan for three years now, talking about
this. Don't you suppose somebody would have noticed by now if there was some
simple, well understood explanation? After all, Japan is teeming with
skeptics, many of whom would love to kill off cold fusion. Also, is this "well
understood" reaction well know to produce a million neutrons per second?
 
While we are on the subject of daffy scenarios, let us take a closer look at
P&F. As I understand it, you claim that: P&F publicly state they are getting
16 times more energy out than they put in, and they are boiling water. But, it
is All A Big Mistake! They cannot even measure to within 5%, and it is a
closed cell which would boil with any input. Their sponsors, back in Tokyo,
who are paying God-Knows-How-Much for their Riviera *rent* alone, just let
P&F spout off like this at International Conferences and press conferences.
The people in Tokyo keep paying the bills, year after year, without checking a
single fact, and without sending a man out there to find out whether P&F know
what they are doing.
 
Riiight. Sure. Anybody can fool MITI and get set up in a laboratory in Nice,
France with 10 assistants and an unlimited equipment budget. Give Me A Break!
Get Real! I have talked to the men from MITI who have been out there, and I
assure you they are *not* idiots would overlook the kind of elementary
blunders that you, and other "skeptics" have put forth to explain away P&F's
work. MITI does not spend millions on wishful thinking. They *do* understand
the fundamentals of calorimetry, and they are not going to miss some
ridiculous elementary mistake. This is real life, not some spy show on TV.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 /  Rothwell /  IFFC3 Announcement
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IFFC3 Announcement
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 15:38:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
The organizers of the IFFC3 have issued a second announcement calling for
papers:
 
"It is our great pleasure to announce that the Third International Conference
on Cold Fusion will be held October 21 (Wed) - 25 (Sun), 1992 in Nagoya Japan.
The conference is supported by the Physical Society of Japan, the Japan
Society of Applied Physics, Atomic Energy Society of Japan, The Institute of
Electrical Engineers of Japan, The Chemical Society of Japan, The
Electrochemical Society of Japan, and the Japan Society of Plasma Science and
Nuclear Fusion Research... We would like to extend our warmest invitation to
all of you to join us in this significant event in Nagoya."
 
Contact: H. Ikegami (Chairman)
ICCF3 Secretariat
c/o National Institute for Fusion Science
Nagoya 464-01, Japan
Fax: 052-789-1037
 
I note with amusement Dr. Morrison's suggestion: "Since [the third annual
conference] it is under the auspices of the very respectable Japanese National
Institute for Fusion Research, it is to be expected that the meeting will be
conducted in a normal scientific manner - that the programme committee will
contain both people who believe in Cold Fusion and those who do not..." This
is rather like expecting the Geographers Convention to invite the Flat Earth
Society to address them, or letting the Creationists arrange a biology
conference. Alas, the Advisory Committee consists entirely of people who have
actually done experiments, and know something about the field, Bockris,
Claytor, Fleischmann, and so on - no skeptics. Perhaps Dr. Morrison will
volunteer to attend. There are no important skeptics left in Japan any more,
even Pres. Arima of Tokyo University has backpeddaled and admitted that he did
not know what he was talking about back in '89. So, this may be our last
chance to redress the balance of trade; let us export a few skeptics, since
the domestic supply has dried up. It will be our last chance to export
anything to Japan for a long time to come.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 /  Rothwell /  Development Risks
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Development Risks
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 20:01:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Mr. Merriman,
 
Your comment: "Since I have yet to be convinced that 'CF is real' (whatever
that may mean), I'm glad the japanese are pouring money into it. In the
unlikely case there is something there, they'll find it and we'll all
benefit."
 
My, my... you have a blase attitude towards your children's future. You are
not the only one. Your business philosophy rules the country right now: "let
the competition take all risks, develop and market all new products, and if
they succeed, we will try to catch up later." This has not worked with
laserdisks, laser printers, televisions, machine tools, automobiles, ships,
RAM chips, consumer electronics or heavy earth moving equipment, and it shows
no sign of working with superconductors or HDTV either. Whatever makes you
think it will work with cold fusion?
 
How will we "all benefit?" The Japanese will make everything, and we will
benefit by buying from them? Where are we going to get the money, or do you
think they will just hand over these things to us for free?
 
In developing new products, if you wait until everything has been proved,
there is no risk, and no open questions, then you are certain to be destroyed
by your competition. He who takes no risks - takes the biggest risk of all. As
a nation, we are headed for economic disaster partly because of attitudes like
yours. This is true in many areas besides cold fusion.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 /  /  Just a reminder
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just a reminder
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 20:03:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear "Fans"
 
Just a reminder that you are passers by to my "laboratory" and your are
hearing my mutterings as I make observations.  Remember that things that
excite you in the laboratory are usually wrong.  Boring things, like
no net energy change for 50 days are usually correct.
 
I am still struggling to try to figure out where all that gas is going.  It
just has to be a leak, but it is not yet located.  Meanwhile, I keep pumping
syringes of D2 into the cell.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 /  Rothwell /  Generalize from a single case
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Generalize from a single case
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 20:05:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jon,
 
Your statements: "There's no doubt whatsoever that the Japanese were wrong on
this one. [5th Generation Project]... So the argument that because the
Japanese are putting money into cold fusion, there must be something there,
carries no weight with me."
 
Japan is wiping our noses in the dirt in practically every field of high-
technology, health care and education. Their Government has a fantastically
good record at predicting and promoting new technology. However, they are
human beings; they make mistakes, and they generally acknowledge that the 5th
Generation Project was a mistake.
 
So, what are you telling us? You are dismissing their entire track record on
the basis of *one* *mistake*? Babe Ruth was a lousy player because he struck
out occasionally? Do you really mean that what they choose to support carries
no weight with you? No weight at all?
 
It is irrational for you to generalize about an entire nation, or a
government, by looking at one, single, oddball case, and ignoring hundreds and
hundreds of counter-examples. It is as if you looked at the PC Jr computer and
declared that IBM is a lousy company, which cannot possibly ever compete with
anyone.
 
A few comments about the 5th generation project: it was misguided, and they
overreached, but at least they had the guts to try. Perhaps it will be like
the IBM Stretch Computer project, which trained a generation of young people,
and bore fruit later on. It is dreadful mistake to dismiss people who try, and
fail, because they are often the ones who go back, try again, and succeed;
they are the experts 'who have made all possible mistakes.'
 
Finally, one of the reasons the project failed might be that large, government
coordinated projects went out of style in Japan a generation ago. This was an
old-fashioned project, administratively obsolete. A vice-president at NTT told
me that nowadays, any of the big companies has a larger R&D budget for a
particular area than MITI. In the old days they were poor, and had to pool
their resources and form consortiums. Now they are rich, they don't want to
cooperate, when MITI asks for people, they sometimes send their second
stringers. Perhaps that happened in this case, I do not know the details.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 / Jon Webb /  Re: CF in Japan, continued
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Japan, continued
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 21:51:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <920619125954_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   Your comment: "I think we should be putting more money, but not a lot more,
   into it"
 
   Do you mean, "we should be putting *some* money" into CF?
 
Yes, of course that's what I meant.  I think the US government should
be funding a group or two to do research in cold fusion.
 
   Yamaguchi's original experiment was simple, he just loaded up the cell,
   depressurized and Boom! Now he is using an electric current on the chip to
   control the process (it says "DC 5A + AC 2 A"). Not an electric arc, not in
   the gas. I'll send you the paper if you want.
 
I'd appreciate that.  Or, you could just provide the reference, if the
paper has been published.
 
   Riiight. Sure. Anybody can fool MITI and get set up in a laboratory in Nice,
   France with 10 assistants and an unlimited equipment budget.
 
Well, the Fifth Generation project *does* show that it is possible
*sometimes* in Japan to get quite a bit of money ($400 million) do
things that maybe aren't such a great idea.
 
You know, you and I aren't really disagreeing as much as you seem to
think.  We both agree the government should support cold fusion
research.  I'm just not as confident as you seem to be that the
Japanese spending money on an idea means that the idea is a good one,
and I've cited examples to support my claim.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.20 / James White /  Re: Go Gas Go!
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Go Gas Go!
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 02:28:17 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
>We have now gained 434.2 cc of gas loading since switching to 10 C operation.
>Hard to believe this is correct.  If all this D went into the cathode this is
>a gain of 3.42 in D/Pd loading from wherever we were when we first switched to
>10 C.
 
I notice you lose backfilled D2 with a sawtooth at 10 C, but not with
constant current or at 20 C.
 
Perhaps the seal in the mechanism that adjusts for gas volume becomes stiff
at low temperatures, and thus doesn't seal as well when the gas volume
changes in response to the sawtooth. (Remember the O-rings of a certain
space shuttle? :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 / nod sivad /  Re: CF In Japan
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF In Japan
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 16:09:53 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>than they put in, and they boiled away all of the electrolyte. Do you suppose
>top Japanese scientists cannot understand the significance of boiling water?
>Do you suppose they have committed millions of dollars in funding without
>personally going to France to observe the work? Do you think that anyone could
>snooker them with fake results?
 
The Japanese committed *billions* to bad real estate deals, proving they can
be "snookered" as well as anyone.  They are successful, yes, but they are
not gods.
 
So the mere fact the Japanese have invested in cold fusion does not
make it real.  Promising, but not real.  They are following a trail
to see where it leads.  I agree with you that we should be following
that trail also, but I don't feel there's enough evidence to support
the strident tone of your post.
 
					me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 /  /  Go Gas Go!
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Go Gas Go!
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 21:19:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  18 June 1992
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm Saw Tooth - 1/2 hour interval
Duration: Now charging for 4001710 seconds (1111 hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 4.6 v to 3.8 v on 1/2 hour Saw Tooth
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 10 C
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
2.0 -  2.5 M sec       7628              +0.0152
2.5 -  3.0 M sec      10286              +0.0206
3.0 -  3.5 M sec      10913              +0.0218
3.5 -  4.0 M sec     -16706              -0.0334
 
The actual measured energy for the period is 25000 joules more than indicated
because it includes the energy gained in switching to 10 C from 20 C.  Net
calorimeter balance since start of the run is 15536 joules or +0.0038 watts.
There are many things that can be straightened out off line, so the drift is
not as bad as it looks.  When the fuse blew, we lost calibration and have
poorly known calorimeter constants.  These will be determined accurately by
the end of run calibration.
 
We have now gained 434.2 cc of gas loading since switching to 10 C operation.
Hard to believe this is correct.  If all this D went into the cathode this is
a gain of 3.42 in D/Pd loading from wherever we were when we first switched to
10 C.
 
Needless to say, I am trying to figure out how to check the loading before you
all drag me off to the funny farm.  But note that this is not some computer
program quirk.  I am pumping real syringes of D2 gas into the calorimeter, and
it is going somewhere.  The servo driven syringe keeps emptying its gas into
the cell, then I reload it periodically from a D2 gas generator.  The whole
process is reliable to 1/2 cc or so per 60 cc fill.
 
Here is the last several days sequence which is intended to test that the cell
is actually taking in gas without taking the drastic step of unloading the
cathode which is presumed to prevent ever seeing heat:
 
1) Run at 20 C, 60 ma per cm sq to 400 ma per cm sq saw tooth.  Observe small
loss of cathode loading.  This tests that the saw tooth operation does not
cause the syringe to somehow pump up the loading.
 
2) Run at 20 C, 200 ma per sq cm constant.  Observe no change of loading.
Therefore, likely no gas leak unless it somehow exactly matches loading
change.
 
3) Run at 10 C, 60 ma per cm sq to 400 ma per cm sq saw tooth.  Saw tooth
period 17 min.  Observe 2 to 4 cc gain per saw tooth cycle.
 
4) Run at 10 C, 400 ma per cm sq constant.  Lose gas at 1/2 cc per hr for 3
hours, then at 2 cc per hour for the next hour.  Stopped test as unloading
appeared to be accelerating.
 
5) Run at 10 C, 60 ma per cm sq constant.  Lose gas at .1 cc per hr.
 
6) Run at 10 C, 60 ma per cm sq to 400 ma per cm sq saw tooth.  Saw tooth
period 17 min.  Observe 2 to 4 cc gain per saw tooth cycle.
 
7) Run at 10 C, 60 ma per cm sq to 400 ma per cm sq saw tooth.  Saw tooth
period 4 min.  Observe 1 cc gain per saw tooth cycle.  Overall slightly faster
gas gain than with 17 min period.
 
8) Run at 10 C, 60 ma per cm sq to 400 ma per cm sq saw tooth.  Saw tooth
period 30 min.  Observe 2 cc gain per saw tooth cycle.
 
The last setting was an effort to get me a full nights sleep as otherwise I
have to get up to reload the servo syringe which only holds 60 cc.  As I came
in to work, there was some evidence that the charging was slowing down.
 
Note that there are several long stretches where the loading did not change.
These were taken at different temperatures and different currents.  I do not
want to take the current to zero or negative at this time due to fear of
destroying the primary heat seeking experiment.  But it does not look like a
leak.  I also do not think the gas change is due to servo syringe motion.
Lots of tests of this.
 
It does look like something wonderful happens when the current density is
slowly increased, then suddenly decreased.  All evidence now points to a
sudden absorption as the current is decreased.  Note also that data taken at
Hi-Lo operation does not pump up loading.  So the slow current rise seems to
be necessary.
 
All you experts out there.  Could we be forming some D compound (Hydride?)
somewhere else in the cell?  There is not much there.  Just D2O, LiOD, Pt, Pd,
Polypropylene, catalyst, glass, and Teflon.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 /   /   Nuclear Radiation from CF
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Nuclear Radiation from CF
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 21:21:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To reply to the question concerning the value of dental X-ray film packs
as radiation detectors let me say that I pay my dentists big bucks for
the use of those things, and I believe the image thus recorded has some
useful information content.  If, however, someone sticks a piece of
film somewhere, and then observes some degree of darkening that fact
alone may leave more questions unanswered than it resolves.
 
First question has to be whether the darkening indicates exposure to
ionizing radiation, and one can not reliably assume that the answer is
'yes'.  Only then should one move on to questions involving the nature
and source of radiation being detected.  If you got to where the film
exposure involved an actually imaging of the source and/or an absorber
rather than just some vague darkening, and a good set of controls were
run maybe you could learn something useful with film packs so I don't
suppose even I should write off every possible experiment that uses them.
However, the only CF experiment I have read about that did anything
like that was some of the Indian experiments where they imaged Pd
electrodes and asserted that the film was responding to X-rays induced
by tritium decays from within the Pd.  That in turn was presented
as evidence for cold fusion.  The problem with that evidence was there
were no control experiments involving exposures before the Pd was
(Sorry, I misspoke.  The experiment I am recalling involved Ti rather
than Pd.) ... no controls before exposure of the Ti.  Then, lo and
behold, the Ti was recycled material from electrodes that had been
used in "hot fusion" experiments.  Well, enough of the fables.  You
get my drift.  It is just so much neater and cleaner to put a NaI
scintillator near your cell, and record a correctly calibrated
pulse-height spectrum.  Heck, before I would resort to film packs,
I think I would build a gold-leaf electroscope and try to measure
ionization rates of the air around my cell.  How's that for some
real junk-box science?  Seriously, the only expensive item that
a good amateur scientist might have trouble building as part of
a good ion chamber for radiation detection would be the high
voltage bias supply.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU    "When you get a good, hot CF cell running detecting the
               radiation will be a piece of cake.  You will be able to
               taste it."
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 /  /  Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:06:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jon Webb says the Japanese built the wrong machine for their 5th generation
project.
 
I happened to be in Japan at a coctail party at the time it was being set up.
There were several Japanese bureaucrats there discussing the project.  It seems
each Japanese computer company was supposed to send their most creative people
to join this joint project.  The bureaucrats were complaining that the
companies were not sending their most creative people, but were rather sending
communicators to bring back the good ideas.  So the whole project was staffed
by people designed to copy good ideas from each other and take them "home".
 
I never fear the creative force behind anything where governments are involved.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.18 / Dave Pierson /  Re: Film
     
Originally-From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Film
Date: 18 JUN 92 17:21:20
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <920617121128.20a0343b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
writes, in part:
 
>Dieter Britz has asked about the possibility of a positive dental film
>experiment.
 
>Moral:  Film is heat and pressure sensitive.  It is easy to expose film with
>pressure or temperature gradients as any kirilian photographer can tell you.
	And ESD sensitive (which i rather suspect also confuses the "Kirlians")
	Its a quasi-obsolete term, now, but a good reference will get started
	into "Lichtenberg Figures".  (All good, conventional, just not well
	known stuff...
 
thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass		01752	pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpierson cudfnDave cudlnPierson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 / Les Earnest /  Re: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
     
Originally-From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
Date: 19 Jun 92 04:06:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

People in English-speaking countries may have been misled about the
importance of so-called 5th generation project in Japan by a "yellow
peril" book written by Feigenbaum and McCorduck that was designed to
stimulate the U.S. government into dropping more money into U.S.
research coffers.
 
Though some think the 5th generation project did not meet its
objectives, it was not nearly as great a fiasco as the much earlier
attempt by their industry to use a Japanese invention called the
"parametron" that they thought would outperform transistor circuits in
computer applications.  That blunder set their computer industry back
several years.
--
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:
cuddy19 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 / Jon Webb /  Re: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jon Webb's comment of Japan's 5th gen comp.
Date: 19 Jun 92 14:30:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992Jun19.040641.19676@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
 
   Though some think the 5th generation project did not meet its
   objectives
 
It certainly did not meet its objectives: it was stated quite clearly
at the beginning of the project that a goal was to build a 1000
processor parallel inference machine in ten years, and the biggest
they built was 256 processors.  This would not be so bad (after all,
things can slip) in itself, if it were not that there is no commercial
interest in the parallel inference machine or in the other products of
ICOT.
 
Now the Japanese are trying to back-pedal and say that the outside
world oversold the project, and at least they educated all these
people.  Well, sure.  But computer architecture is a pretty hard-nosed
world, and companies grow fantastically wealthy or go out of business
all the time based on being right or wrong about the market and
technology.  There's no doubt whatsoever that the Japanese were wrong
on this one.
 
So the argument that because the Japanese are putting money into cold
fusion, there must be something there, carries no weight with me.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.19 / MIKE JAMISON /  Questions to Tom Droege and Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions to Tom Droege and Dick Blue
Date: 19 Jun 92 14:30:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Tom Droege talks about the D/Pd loading on his CF cell - up around 4 to 1
if I understand his posts.  According to Tom, loading increases when the
sawtooth current suddenly drops.  My question is:  Has anyone tried running
a reverse sawtooth?  (begin at 400 mA, and ramp down to 60 mA)?
 
Tom:  Any idea of the maximum amount of potential energy in your cell, just
due to loading?  Sounds like it's pretty high, on a per cc basis...
 
Dick Blue talks about constructing a NaI scintillator for radiation
detection.  He goes on to say that the most difficult part would be
constructing a high voltage bias supply.  My questions:  How high is the
bias voltage?  Is it fixed, or adjustable?  If adjustable, over what range?
How fine must the resolution be?
 
If the bias voltage can be fixed, would a t.v. bias supply (about 20 kV) do
the trick?  (Even new, black and white tv's are pretty cheap, and so are
B&W CRTs, so cannabilizing them for power supplies might work out).
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 / John Moore /  Re: Dental film
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dental film
Date: 22 Jun 92 05:53:57 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords:
 
In article <3D091C71783F203A91@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
]in which there was a nickel grid between the cathode and the dental film, and
]it showed shadowing by the grid. I can't think of any other explanation than
]that the cathode was emitting energetic particles of some kind.
] Another point in favour of such films is their simplicity. We have been told
]on this list that to measure neutrons or gammas is no end of trouble; on the
]other hand, it's easy to slip a bit of film into a plastic envelope and put it
]next to a cathode in a cold fusion electrolysis.
] How about it, you experts? What is the word?
 
Not an expert, but...
Try these three hypotheses:
   -occasional microscopic electric sparks at the surface
   -light flashes from bubbles collapsing (I understand this has been measured
    in liquids excited by a high powered ultrasonic generator). The strange
    characteristics of the surface layer might cause similar conditions.
   -direct electrical action on the film by the solution.
 
Oh well.... any better ideas?
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 /  stevo@URSINUS. /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: stevo@URSINUS.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 18:54:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In FD 326 Prof. Farrell writes:
 
>3.  I can assure you that if I find *anything* in contradiction to my
>previous postings I will let it be known on the net.  If I find a fatal
>error you will immediately hear from me.  I can tell you that we have
>analyzed the electrolyte from some cells (large and small) and have found
>no increase in calcium (a la Bush).
>
>4.  Things have been going extremely well on both the experimental front
>(most important) and the theoretical front (less important).  Mills is
>currently writing a paper on the lastest experimental work.
 
     I have tried to get Dr. Mills to explain several parts of his theory,
but he usually brushed off my questions with a statement to the effect that
the numbers all worked out so that was just the way it was.  Perhaps
Dr. Farrell would be willing to explain some parts of the theory.
 
     My first question is about the orbitsphere itself.  In the book
The Grand Unified Theory, by Mills and Farrell, in the Time Function
section is explained how the orbitsphere is "constructed".  There are
two "great circles", contained in planes oriented at an angle of pi/2
with the two circles having a common center.  Along each of these great
circles is moving a point mass of (Electron Mass)/2 with angular
momentum of h-bar/2.  Then one smears the charge first evenly along the
great circles, then smears the circles themselves by rotating the planes
through their common axis an agle of pi/2 such that the resulting sphere
has uniform charge and mass density.  When I do that, it seems to me that
1) all of the velocity of all the great circles are such that all of the
parts of the various circles are being accelerated through the poles
along the common axis of the original two planes, and
2) the motion on one side of the orbitsphere is roughly "upward" on the
surface of the orbitsphere while on the other side it is "downward".  Is
this correct?  Please explain.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenstevo cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 /  /  Pd Absorption
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd Absorption
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 21:36:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some Conclusions on Controlling Gas Absorption
 
The weekend was spent trying to figure out where all that gas is going.  Now
up to 796 cc that I have pumped into the cell.  This would be 6.27 D/Pd ratio
if it is all actually in the Pd.
 
This weekend we explored the territory.  I covered the range of 10 C to 20 C
with a variety of current profiles.  Fixed currents from 60 to 400 ma per sq
cm, sawtooth currents with various amplitudes from a few ma to 340 ma, and at
a base current of 60, 200 and 400 ma per sq cm.
 
About 40 different experiments were performed since Thursday, each several
hours long since most changes require 2 or so hours for the transient to
settle enough for a measurement.  Not much time for sleeping.
 
I finally found an experiment that convinces me that the gas behavior is not a
leak but that it is going somewhere into the cell.  The calorimeter
temperature was set at 12 C.  The cell drive was set to ramp from 0.12 amps to
0.8 amps in 12 minutes. (.06 to .4 ma per sq cm)  With this setting, the
actual cell temperature cycles between 17 C and 19 C and looks like a negative
half rectified sine wave, with the curves concave up and the cusps pointing
up.  Under this condition, the cell absorbs about 2 cc of D2 per cycle, or 10
cc of gas per hour.  The gas profile is a stair case down.  The gas is quite
flat, then takes an absorption step as the current and temperature take a
sharp decrease at the end of the ramp.
 
Note that the catalyst heating of the gas in the cell would produce an
exponential up ramp followed by a sharp drop as the cell gas volume cools at
the current drop.  This means that the actual gas absorption is an exponential
down ramp with the highest slope at the highest current, and low slope at low
current.
 
A constant current in the range of 60 to 400 ma per sq cm produces little or
no loading with this sample at 12 C.
 
I then reversed the ramp direction and ramped down from the high current, then
jumped back to the high current at the end of the ramp.  There was ****NO****
gas absorption under these conditions.  Under these conditions the cell
temperature also varies between 17 C and 19 C but the cusps point down.  It is
very hard to imagine a leak that would know the difference between the ramp
direction.  The gas system can absorb a large pressure transient without gas
loss, and has been tested for this many times.  There is little or no gas
transient under the negative ramp.  There is a modest sudden gas change with
the positive ramp, but this has been checked by varying the ramp rate.  Gas
absorption is the same over a two to one ramp rate change.
 
I am presently searching for the critical temperature at which absorption
starts.  Of course, only with this sample at its present loading.  It would
appear to be in the vicinity of 20 to 24 C.
 
It appears that the gas loading is determined by a large negative second
derivative of the cell temperature.  This could make sense.  A large second
derivative cools the cathode quickly and squeezes the D or d into some new
lattice position????
 
Ramp profiles which do not produce temperature changes also do not seem to
generate gas loading.  Since the cell liquid acts as a low pass temperature
filter, different ramp rates can be used to separate current change effects
from temperature change effects.  It would appear to be a temperature change
effect.
 
Conclusions:
 
1) A slow increase, fast decrease saw tooth cell current promotes gas loading.
 
2) It appears to be the temperature cycle caused by the current cycle which
promotes gas absorption.
 
3) The second derivative of the temperature appears to be the controlling
factor.
 
4) At the present (unknown) cathode loading, the threshold for loading is
between 20 and 24 C.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 /  Rothwell /  Private CF R&D In Japan
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Private CF R&D In Japan
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 21:38:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jim Bowery correctly points out that "the vast majority of civilian technology
money in Japan is PRIVATE." He goes on to say "civilian technology programs
funded by the government in Japan, such as the fifth generation computer
project, have been failures of as great a magnitude as our Shuttle or Tokomak
programs..." Yes, well, some programs have failed, and some have succeeded. If
you ignore the successes and talk only about the failures, you can make any
large organization look bad. I have never met a Japanese business leader or
professional who thought MITI was hurting the economy, or thought it should be
abolished. The idea is absurd; MITI, and the rest of the Japanese government,
has a vital role to play, and compared to most governments it does a superb
job. I personally think the main reason they succeed is that they hire the
best people from the best universities, they pay them a *lot* of money, and
they give them the power and authority to do the job.
 
Anyway, let me address Mr. Bowery's point. Perhaps I have given a false
impression about the role of the Japanese Government in cold fusion. The bulk
of CF research in Japan is probably done by private corporations. The reason I
dwell on the Government's role is simple and prosaic: it is easy for me to
find out what the Government is doing, but darn near impossible for me to
sleuth out what private industry is up to. The Japanese government is
democratic, and open, like ours; it answers to the taxpayers. Anything you
want to know about it is five phone calls away. The bureaucrats are reasonably
polite and completely reliable. They *have* to tell you what they are doing -
it's their job. All research at the National Universities is in the public
domain. You ask for a paper and they send it to you. So naturally, the bulk of
my information comes from public sources, which gives the impression that most
of the research is public.
 
Let us not lose sight of the fact that private and semi-private organizations
like the IEEE are sponsoring the Third Annual Conference; the largest private
corporations are forming cartels to do crash programs in CF; and that the most
advanced CF research in the world is at Technova, which is very, very private.
I do not know much about Technova. I *do* know that it has tons of money; the
board of directors includes a number of very famous people; the board of
scientific advisors includes the top people in many disciplines, including
professors at MIT and other leading U.S. and European institutions; and that
Technova has connections... lots of connections.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: CF In Japan
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF In Japan
Date: 22 Jun 1992 20:10:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad) writes:
: The Japanese committed *billions* to bad real estate deals, proving they can
: be "snookered" as well as anyone.  They are successful, yes, but they are
: not gods.
:
: So the mere fact the Japanese have invested in cold fusion does not
: make it real.  Promising, but not real.  They are following a trail
: to see where it leads.
 
Considering the experimental evidence at present, I say we let them do the
'fundamental discoveries' and if they find out how to make it really work,
clone and replicate it, and make all the money.
 
Sound familiar?
 
Besides, thanks to the cold war we know how to handle nuclear engineering.
 
 
: 					me
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: We are amused.
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We are amused.
Date: 22 Jun 92 20:19:57 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
: >> In either case, We are amused.
: Noone here is going to be amused for long, once it is realized our major
: competitor has the patents, up-to-date technology, massive manufacturing
: capability and desire to utilize the new technology for making everything
: from superconducting, silent sea-liners to fusion toyotas and cameras. If
: US has difficulty competing with Japan now, imagine that cost of energy in
: Japan dropped to nearly 0. We will be amused for a while but then tribes of
: jobless vagabounds will sweep the country and well-to-do Americans will
: want emigrate to Mexico and Russia. Of course all of this true if PdD
: effect exists. I guess this is a Mad Max scenario.
 
Oh hell, if we're into paranoid scenarios, we'll be allied with Russia and
exort lots of money from the Japanese for Palladium, and we can then
blockade South Africa.
 
Consider fission power plants.  For me, they work just fine, (assuming they
aren't Soviet-designed), the physics is completely known, and there's
unequivocal excess heat.  Why do we need cold fusion?  Even in hot fusion,
they've seen buttloads of neutrons for decades.
 
Perhaps the longer term Japanese threat is their citizens' intelligence and
willingness to put up with well-designed nuclear power plants, in contrast
to the irrational fears here and the (rational) terror in Russia.  (Before
anybody says anything notice I said 'power plants', and not 'weapons
reactors') Oh and also we (and the rest of the western world) managed to
save them a few tens of billions in infrastructure by selling them enough
plutonium to last a very long time.
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Private CF R&D In Japan
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Private CF R&D In Japan
Date: 23 Jun 92 15:08:14 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell writes:
>Jim Bowery correctly points out that "the vast majority of civilian
technology
>money in Japan is PRIVATE." He goes on to say "civilian technology programs
>funded by the government in Japan, such as the fifth generation computer
>project, have been failures of as great a magnitude as our Shuttle or
Tokomak
>programs..." Yes, well, some programs have failed, and some have succeeded.
If
>you ignore the successes and talk only about the failures, you can make any
>large organization look bad. I have never met a Japanese business leader or
>professional who thought MITI was hurting the economy, or thought it should
be
>abolished.
 
Nor do I.  But the valuable service performed by MITI is to guide
the government's tax incentives which is to say, MITI ESTABLISHES
industrial policy and is a positive influence in that role.  It
ceases being productive when it FUNDS industrial policy.
 
In the U.S. proponents of industrial policy such as Lester Thurow,
draw no distinction between tax incentives and direct funding to
profoundly destructive programs like the Tokomak.
 
>The Japanese government is
>democratic, and open, like ours; it answers to the taxpayers. Anything you
>want to know about it is five phone calls away. The bureaucrats are
reasonably
>polite and completely reliable. They *have* to tell you what they are doing
-
>it's their job. All research at the National Universities is in the public
>domain. You ask for a paper and they send it to you. So naturally, the bulk
of
>my information comes from public sources, which gives the impression that
most
>of the research is public.
 
This is more along the lines of the way NACA used to work for the
aeronautics industry.  The problem is it is an unstable state --
the degenerative failure mode can be clearly seen in NASA.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.23 /  Rothwell /  Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fission & The Future
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 21:22:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Matt Kennel asks: "Consider fission power plants.  For me, they work just
fine, (assuming they aren't Soviet-designed), the physics is completely known,
and there's unequivocal excess heat.  Why do we need cold fusion?"
 
Answers:
 
Because it is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper than fission and it does not
produce toxic radioactive pollution.
 
Because if we do not get it, and Japan or Europe does, they will wipe out
every single one of our heavy industries within a generation, leaving our
nation as impoverished and chaotic as the former Soviet Union. I remind you
that the present breakdown in U.S. society, the drugs, the collapse of our
education system, the staggering government debt, are real. This is not
"Mad Max" on TV; you cannot change channels. If we continue to turn our back
on every challenge and to ignore every problem; if we continue to let Japan
develop every promising or risky technology, we will destroy our society.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote:
 
     'Cold fusion' ... was written off as bad science and worse publicity. I
     believed so myself - but recent events have forced me to change my
     mind... Dozens of competent researchers, notably in japan, have now
     reported anomalous production of energy, and have published their
     results. There can be no longer any real doubt that _something_ is
     happening. It may not actually be 'cold fusion' but for the moment, that
     label will do.
 
     Now it is perfectly possible that the phenomenon may be of no practical
     importance, but the implications are so stupendous that it should be
     fully investigated... Even if 'cold fusion' is a very long shot, the
     possibilities are so enormous, (and the implications of ignoring it so
     appalling) that it should be given a fair hearing."
 
Next question, please.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.23 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Explaining the 'strident tone'
     
Originally-From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explaining the 'strident tone'
Date: 23 Jun 92 22:37:24 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>I was trying to get the U.S. government to allow a handful of people to
>study CF, may 20, maybe 50. Just a handful of people who are very
>interested in the subject, who have published peer-reviewed papers, and
>are acknowledged experts in the field.
 
But we did exactly that!  Utah spent $5 million dollars (about 20 people,
right?) to do research into cold fusion.  They were people who were interested
in the subject and who were using scientic methods (like peer review).  The
result was a very nice new building, but no new science.
 
>"Financial tiger team" roam around DoE labs making people sign affidavits
>promising that they are not studying CF.
 
I assume they are actually signing affidavits that the researchers (who
work for the government, after all) are not doing any unauthorized work.
As a tax payer this strikes me as a good thing.  They get paid to do
certain work, they should do it, and not some other random thing.
We have tenured professors for doing other random things. :-)
 
>If you talk about cold fusion, or publicly suggest that some minimum level of
>research should be allowed, if you even *suggest* that DoE staff members pick
>up the phone and talk to Ikegami - as I have done - you are threatened with
>lawsuits, you are harassed, and you are likely to find your personal
>reputation savagely attacked in major newspapers.
 
As a counter example, consider the EPRI funded work done at SRI.  I personally
have never seen them "savagely attacked", "harassed", "threatened with
lausuits" or anything else (even before the explosion).  Why is that?  I
suspect it is for two reasons: they are using their own money, and they are
using good scientific technique.  I suspect that the savage attacks you
refer to are more fueled by the true believer's desire to use taxpayer
money and their aversion to peer review and other important scientific
techniques.
 
Also, the only threatening with a lawsuits that I know of was done by the
lawyer for the UofU and P&F who FAXed a threatening note to researchers
who had worked on a paper which exposed some contradictions in what P&F
had been saying.  Have there been other lawsuit threats associated with CF?
 
>People who suggest that a minimum level of research be allowed have been
>savagely attacked by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Scientific
>American, Nature Magazine and the rest of the "Scientific Establishment" for
>three years, and have not been given one single opportunity to respond, except
>in Japan.
 
This is clearly not true, there have been at least one "believer's only"
meeting in the US, and I think several in Europe.  TB's also publish at
least one journal (called Fusion Facts) as I remember.
 
>Nature will not even print three letters pointing out an obvious
>error in the Lewis experiments at CalTech.
 
It is an age old problem, liers are not believed, even when they tell the
truth.  Perhaps "defrauders" is a better word than "liers".  Both Mallove
and Close clearly describe actions by P&F which were scientific fraud.
Although Mallove doesn't use the term fraud, the actions he describes,
changing raw data to make it more believable and for no other reason, is
clearly fraud.  (I'm refering to the movement of the neutron energy peak
so that it would match the expected peak.)
 
(In the previous paragraph Mallove refers to the author of Fire from Ice,
 not the experimental scientist with a similar name.)
 
>Not one word of this has appeared in the U.S. press. Fortunately, two
>large mainstream journals in Japan have talked about it.
 
mainstream == not peer reviewed and less scientific knowledge on staff
 
The article you (Jed) emailed me contained more quotes from ``Carol White, who
[is] editor of the scientific magazine "21st Centruy Science & Technology"''
than from Takahashi or anyone else!  This is not proof of error, of course,
but when your most quoted source runs a LaRouchian magazine, it does tend
to destroy your credibility.  Describing 21CS&T as a scientific magazine
was funny, if sad....
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.23 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 23:43:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <920623201237_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>Matt Kennel asks: "Consider fission power plants.  For me, they work just
>fine, (assuming they aren't Soviet-designed), the physics is completely known,
>and there's unequivocal excess heat.  Why do we need cold fusion?"
>
>Answers:
>
>Because it is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper than fission and it does not
>produce toxic radioactive pollution.
 
 
The bit about "2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper" is nonsense.  A
substantial, perhaps dominant, fraction of the cost of a nuclear power
plant is in the nonnuclear part -- the turbines, generators, etc.  Any
thermal power plant would require components like these, be it
fission, fusion, hellfire-thermal-energy-conversion, or whatever.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 / T Neustaedter /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 24 Jun 92 01:51:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jun23.234328.11576@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
> A substantial, perhaps dominant, fraction of the cost of a nuclear power
> plant is in the nonnuclear part -- the turbines, generators, etc.
 
Environmental impact reports, lawyers, lobbyists, security teams,
waste management, lawyers, more lawyers, court fees, damage assessments,
interest payments on borrowed capital, penalties for late completion
of projects after court-mandated construction freezes, ...
 
> Any thermal power plant would require components like these, be it
> fission, fusion, hellfire-thermal-energy-conversion, or whatever.
 
Ahyup. But we don't need energy. Conservation is already providing us
with 10-30% of our energy (depending on who you believe). If we work
really hard at it, we can get conservation to provide us with over 110%
of our energy and we'll have a surplus without having to generate any.
 
{For the sarcasm-impaired, let me be clear that conservation does not
produce energy (contrary to environmental group dogma), it reduces your
consumption of energy. Thus even perfect conservation (no usage) could
not provide a surplus}
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  stevo@URSINUS. /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: stevo@URSINUS.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 04:10:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD 326 Dr. Farrell writes:
 
>4.  Things have been going extremely well on both the experimental front
>(most important) and the theoretical front (less important).  Mills is
>currently writing a paper on the lastest experimental work.
>
>5.  Hopefully, when Droege and others see the new protocol they will try it
>out.
 
Dr Farrell:
 
I was wondering if we could get some sort of preliminary description of
the work or the protocol.  If it is not available now, when might we get
a look at it?
 
Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstevo cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 720 papers, 106 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 720 papers, 106 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 13:57:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
thought you'd have some peace from me for a while, didn't you? I got the paper
below just before I left, read it on the plane and here is my abstract. I must
admit that it more or less confirms what my friend HH Bauer writes about
sociologists. It is not McAllister's fault but sociology is not like chemistry
or physics, where a finding is likely to be representative (except when it's
a cold fusion finding {:] ). The author uses good examples of chem-phys strife
but I could come up with even more examples of chem-chem and phys-phys ditto.
Not being a scientist, he also makes a number of mistakes. TB's like to believe
that it was the hot fusion mob that were most against cnf, and I don't believe
that. Also, despite the standing ovation Pons got at that chemists' conference,
most chemists I know have rejected cold fusion outright from the beginning.
They are the silent majority. At a symposium in Brazil early 1990, where there
were several hundred (Brazilian) electrochemists, there was one lone bod who
thought that there might be something in it, and his invocation of solid state
cooperative effects was received with icy disdain. So I don't go for the thesis
that chemists are for, physicists against.
Anyway, this WAS a paper dealing with cold fusion, published in a refereed
journal, so in it goes.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 24-Jun-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 720
 
Published articles, Letters; archived file CNF-PAP
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McAllister JW;                                 Science in Context 5 (1992) 17.
"Competition among scientific disciplines in cold nuclear fusion research".
** Science sociologist and philosopher McAllister looks at the sociological
phenomenon of cold fusion, as rare evidence of competition between different
disciplines (here: chemistry vs. physics), rather than the more usual intra-
discipline strife. He gathers convincing evidence for such inter-discipline
competition; certainly "the chemists" appear at times to have cheered each
other, while "the physicists" have damned the phenomenon of cold fusion. He
also cites some dissent from chemists. The paper concludes that cold fusion
put at stake the corporate interests of parts of the communities of chemists
and physicists; that these challenges evoked corporate responses; and that the
knowledge claims of the participants are molded in part by their disciplines'
roles in the controversy.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  Britz /  Dental film II
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dental film II
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 14:06:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Thank you all for the valuable comments on my question, especially Tom Droege
and John Moore, who have, I think, effectively disposed of these devices as
strong evidence for a nuclear process (I know, this does not rule out such a
process).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  Karol /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 17:16:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell talked about the overwhelming possibilities from cold
fusion justifying the miniscule possibility that it will work.  He then
asked for more questions.  Here's mine.
 
What is infinity times zero?
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  Rothwell /  The Next Question
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Next Question
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 17:17:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
     I finished my last message by asking, "next question, please." A skeptic
sent me the following question by E-Mail:
 
"[You] talked about the overwhelming possibilities from cold fusion justifying
the miniscule possibility that it will work... [and] asked for more questions.
Here is mine:
 
What is infinity times zero?"
 
     Since this arrived by E-Mail, I won't mention who sent it. It hardly
matters who; this is a typical, 'generic' skeptical comment, such as I have
heard from many other people. Here is my response:
 
Dear Skeptic,
 
     Have you performed any experiments in CF? Have you attended any
conferences, or read any papers since 1989?
 
     Professor Heinz Gerischer has. Gerischer is one of the world's leading
electrochemists, and he is well known as a physical chemist of the highest
standing. Until 1988, he was the Director of the Max Planck Institute for
Physical Chemistry in Berlin. He maintained a strong negative opinion of CF
until he attended the Como conference. After that, he wrote the following in a
memo to the German Government:
 
     "In spite of my earlier conclusion, - and that of the majority of
     scientists, - that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989
     depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there
     is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take
     place in the metal alloys."
 
     If you have not taken the time to perform experiments, or read the
literature, then your uninformed opinion means nothing compared to
Gerischer's, or compared to the leaders of Japanese science who have decided
to invest millions of dollars in the field. You are merely parroting
conventional, bigoted nonsense. Are you really so absolutely certain of
yourself, that you are willing to bet that Schwinger, Clarke, Kolm, Ikegami,
Labitt, Rafuse Covert, Hawkins, Mayer, Will, and the 400 other distinguished
scientists and citizens who signed my Petition are absolutely, utterly,
misguided and wrong? Do you really mean "zero?" You have not doubt about your
own divine knowledge and judgment, and you are not willing to allow any
research in the U.S., at any facility? Not one scientist should be allowed to
study CF, because you think it is wrong?
 
     I am not arguing from authority, I am not saying that the opinion of a
distinguished, leading scientist is better than yours. Indeed, if *you* had
attended the meeting, and looked closely at the evidence with an open mind,
and Gerischer had not, then I suppose you would have an edge over him. But all
else being equal, I am much more inclined to give credence to the carefully
stated, detailed opinion of a disguised expert in the field who has actually
taken the time to examine the facts, than I am to pay attention to an
uninformed person from some other field.
 
     I think I understand you. Leo Tolstoy described you and your ilk:
 
     "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
     greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious
     truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
     conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions which
     they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly
     taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the
     fabric of their lives."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  Rothwell /  Japanese Articles
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese Articles
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 20:18:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Joshua,
 
You wrote:
 
"The article you (Jed) emailed me contained more quotes from ``Carol White,
who [is] editor of the scientific magazine "21st Century Science &
Technology"'' than from Takahashi or anyone else!  This is not proof of error,
of course, but when your most quoted source runs a LaRouchian magazine, it
does tend to destroy your credibility.  Describing 21CS&T as a scientific
magazine was funny, if sad...."
 
Yes, and I would dearly love to cut out that part, but since I am the
translator, it would not be ethical for me to amend the text. Just to show how
even-handed I tried to be: the reporter described Carol White's way of talking
as "makushitateru." In spite of all temptation, I translated that as "she
argues vehemently." For the record, the word "makushitateru" is defined in the
Kenkysha Electronic Edition, "talk on and on; talk volubly; argue vehemently;
harangue; declaim; rant; rattle on." Such wonderful, apt, words lose something
in translation, don't they?
 
 
Now then, you have inadvertently introduced confusion and misinformation into
the discussion. Let me clarify what's what:
 
My comment: "Nature will not even print three letters pointing out an obvious
error in the Lewis experiments at CalTech."
 
You: "It is an age old problem, liars are not believed, even when they tell
the  truth.  Perhaps "defrauders" is a better word than "liars".  Both Mallove
and Close clearly describe actions by P&F..."
 
Do you mean that the letters were written by P&F? They were not. You have no
way of knowing this, since the letters have not been published, but to set the
record straight: P&F had nothing to do with them. The letters were written by
Vesco Noninski, Melvin Miles, and one other person who's name escapes me at
the moment.
 
 
My comment: "Not one word of this has appeared in the U.S. press. Fortunately,
two large mainstream journals in Japan have talked about it."
 
Your comment: "mainstream == not peer reviewed and less scientific knowledge
on staff"
 
These are not scientific journals. Sorry I didn't list them before. They are:
 
Bungeishunju ("Literary Chronicle"); the largest, most prestigious monthly
journal in Japan. It is a conservative general interest magazine, with a
circulation of 700,000.
 
Aera, the weekly news magazine of the conservative Asashi Newspaper, one of
Japan's big three. The journalist who you refer to has having "less scientific
knowledge" is Ms. Atsuko Tsuji, who was recently promoted to be the assistant
editor of the magazine. Ms. Tsuji was previously on the staff of the
newspaper. She was awarded a 1989 - 1990 Knight Fellowship to study science
journalism at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I included this
statement in the E-Mail I sent you, so I am surprised you have the chutzpa to
call Ms. Tsuji "less scientifically knowledgeable." Less knowledgeable than
who? You?
 
Peer reviewed Japanese journals also frequently carry detailed articles about
cold fusion. I refer you to the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, the
Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Japanese Journal of
Electrochemistry - that should get you started. Since the Japanese mainstream
physics organizations are all supporting and contributing to the upcoming
Third Annual Conference, and to the research, it stands to reason that they
also print articles about the work in their journals. Or, are you suggesting
that the IEEE and the Nuclear Energy Society are "not mainstream?"
 
 
Leaving behind these inadvertent, minor points of confusion, let me quickly
address this issue of "fraud." P&F made a mistake in their original research,
and as you point out, they have been accused of massaging and misrepresenting
the neutron data. A few months into the controversy, various experts like
Frank Close found out about this, and informed them. Both Pons and Fleischmann
immediately and completely retracted that part of the work. Fleischmann
publicly, on many, many occasions referred to the neutron work as "garbage" -
I heard him say that myself. They apologized for what was clearly an honest
mistake. The worst you can say is they did not know what they were doing in
that area, and they were too enthusiastic.
 
The MIT travesty is a completely different matter. The data was deliberately
forged. You need only at original and the published versions of the graph for
a moment, and you immediately see that someone has ineptly added data points,
and moved others down. The light water results were published exactly as they
were recorded, the heavy water results were deliberately tampered with.
Furthermore, when the researchers have been publicly confronted with the
altered data side by side with the original, they made weak, inconsistent,
absurd claims about "calibrating" or some such thing. They never explained why
they "calibrated" the heavy water and not the light water results. They never
explained why they "calibrated" by manually moving and adding points, rather
than by using a statistical algorithm. They have refused to retract, or even
to admit that there is anything fishy about the data!
 
If you, or any other reader has any doubt about what I say here, E-Mail me
your mailing address and I will send you a copy of the fraudulent data. You
can judge for yourself. I would not be going around saying things like this if
I did not have documented proof. After all, I am not Taubes; I cannot get away
with slander. They have threatened to sue me, naturally, but I don't think
they will follow through, since the data would look pretty silly in court. The
case would be thrown out in five minutes. I also have expert witnesses close
to MIT who will testify that the data must have been forged; but they probably
would not be needed, since anyone can tell it is fake, just by looking.
 
P&F made a mistake. When confronted, they immediately and openly admitted it
was wrong. The MIT workers deliberately published a fraud, in order to destroy
P&F, and they refuse to retract. They also, ineptly, planted outrageous
statements about P&F in the newspaper and then immediately denied they had
made those statements. They are so stupid, they forgot that they had been
speaking into tape recorders. When they started yelling, "we never said that!
We will sue the newspapers!" the reporters called them aside and played back
the tapes, which shut them up for good.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  /  Is D2O2 an Explanation?
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 21:14:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A Not So Ideal Gas Theory
 
Jorge Stolfi and dr._hall have sent notes concerning the possibility that the
gas absorption could be explained by D2O2 formation.  Jorge in particular
wondered if I could have been previously storing D2O2 which is now being
released.
 
Looking back at my postings, I am reminded that there was absorption (fast
loss of cell gas volume which matched current loading) when we first turned on
which agreed with expectations.  Then there was a long period of gas gain,
which I decided had to be a leak, and which was consistent with the negative
servo back pressure.  But it did not entirely make sense since there were
periods of no gas change, which is hard to explain with a leak, and which
seemed to be controlled by cell current.
 
We ran for about 1000 hours slowly gaining gas volume.  Most of this time we
were running at a cell temperature of 30 C or above.  During this time, we
gained a gas volume of over 700 cc.  Note that for gas volume gain we just
dump the excess gas.  For a loss we replace with D2 from the generator.  Now I
see gas volume loss when I run with the cell temperature below about 21 C.
 
All you chemical experts out there.  Is it possible that we form D2O2 when
running at high temperature i.e. above 30 C, then it is decomposed when we run
below 20 C?
 
If so, this would explain almost all observations.  We are presently at about
200 cc minus from the starting volume, but cannot say that the bookkeeping has
been all that good.  If this is the cause, we should eventually use up all the
generated D2O2, and gas loss should stop.  Stay tuned.
 
In 1947 I worked as a co-op at the Appalachian Electric Power Co. Logan West
(by god) Virginia steam plant.  One of my jobs was to sample boiler combustion
chamber gas.  I would draw out a sample with a water cooled pipe and run it
into an "Orsat" analysis set for measurement of O2, CO2, and CO.  It was easy
to use, and gave nice percent measurements.  I suppose such a device is
illegal now as it seemed to have vile chemicals in it that the chem lab mixed
up.  Is there some equally simple device that I can buy that I can use to
measure %O2, %H2, and anything else that might come off my experiment?
 
One way would be to build a catalyst chamber and back fill it with O2 to test
for H2, then back fill with H2 to test for O2.  Does anyone want to suggest
something better, or even better does someone want to build me a test set?
 
Tom Droege, 2S942 Thornecrest La., Batavia, IL 60510    (708) 879-7609
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 /  Rothwell /  Miscellaneous Comments
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miscellaneous Comments
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 21:20:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
It is a good thing I type a mile a minute, because there are some other juicy
comments I would like to address:
 
Joshua Levy comments: "Utah spent $5 million dollars (about 20 people, right?)
to do research into cold fusion.  They were people who were interested in the
subject and who were using scientific methods (like peer review).  The result
was a very nice new building, but no new science."
 
This is incorrect. I don't have the exact numbers but:
 
Utah spent a large chunk of money on science. The result was superb,
definitive research - so I hear from the Japanese industrialists who are
making good use of it. See: "Investigation of Cold Fusion Phenomena in
Deuterated Metals" (four volumes), by the National Cold Fusion Institute (Salt
Lake City), June 1991, available from NTIS PB91175885.
 
Utah spend another huge chunk of money on patent lawyers. I never have the
foggiest idea what lawyers do, or why it costs so much, so I am not competent
to judge whether that money was well spent.
 
A sizeable amount, I believe several hundred thousand, is still left. I am not
sure what they plan to do with it.
 
 
Jim Bowery, who knows a thing or two about MITI, writes: "...the valuable
service performed by MITI is to guide the government's tax incentives which is
to say, MITI ESTABLISHES industrial policy and is a positive influence in that
role.  It ceases being productive when it FUNDS industrial policy."
 
I think that many commentators in Japan agree with that. In the old days,
particularly during the postwar recovery, the big corporations were strapped
and desperate, so MITI used to pump large amounts directly into research, and
to organize cartels and ask companies to send their best people. Some 20 years
ago that became passe, because the big companies themselves have such large
R&D budgets. This has been cited as one of the reasons the Fifth Generation
Project failed. MITI has lost power and prestige lately. Perhaps it would be
more accurate to say that the Nation States of Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Nissho
Iwai and the others have overshadowed MITI.
 
Nowadays, MITI works around the edges, putting seed money into projects, and
cooperating with the big private think tanks like Technova. It also often
forms semi-private corporations, and provides lavish seed money. This practice
is common in Germany as well, but it would not be allowed in the U.S. Given
the skills, moral, and pay levels of our bureaucrats, that is just as well, I
suppose.
 
MITI is spending some money on CF research directly, but the amounts are
peanuts -- I can't quote exact numbers, but I think it is no more than $15
million per year. This is petty cash for them; it is "noise level funding." I
believe your point is that large government investments might "skew" the
economy and disrupt investment patterns. That is true, but you would need an
electron microscope to see the effect of $15 million on the Japanese GDP! I
think the bulk of CF spending is in the private consortium, in Technova, and
in other places I cannot find out about easily. (And if I could, I sure as
heck would not talk about it in detail here!)
 
 
Paul Dietz says that CF would not be 100 or 1000 times cheaper than fission
power. He points out that, "a substantial, perhaps dominant, fraction of the
cost of a nuclear power plant is in the nonnuclear part -- the turbines,
generators, etc."
 
Yes, and another substantial part of the cost is the infrastructure required
to deliver the power to factories and houses. I assume that CF power can be
generated locally, so the massive infrastructure can be abandoned over time. I
also base my numbers on the assumption that CF can be used in automobiles and
batteries and in most other stand alone devices, which eliminates the cost of
the petrochemical and battery industries. Furthermore, I assumed that the
engineers who design CF devices will not care about efficiency, and will
concentrate on low cost and reliability instead. A 20% efficient
thermoelectric device with no moving parts would be far cheaper than a
whirling mass of turbines. It would be cheaper to manufacture and much cheaper
to maintain. It may consume much more fuel than an efficient turbine, but so
what? It would use up 100 grams of heavy water per year instead of 20.
 
If I am correct in my assumptions, then CF would be 100 to 1000 times cheaper.
In fact, I bet the generator needed to power your house will be cheaper than
the street power transformers, poles and meters in your neighborhood, never
mind the central power plant, the massive high voltage wires running
everywhere, and the land used by the right-of-ways. I bet a CF auto engine (if
such a thing can ever be built) would be much cheaper than a gasoline powered
motor, because it will have fewer moving parts, no pollution control, and low
efficiency. It would far cheaper even if you leave out the cost of gasoline
stations and trucks, oil drilling, pollution damage, and the money we squander
fighting wars over oil.
 
Another thing you have left out of the equation is the eventual cost of
"decommissioning;" that is, shutting down, cutting up and burying the fission
reactors, and burying the radioactive waste. Nobody has any idea how much that
will cost, but I have heard that it will be astronomically expensive.
 
Obviously, I am speculating about the cost of CF. On the other hand I did not
make up numbers out of thin air. I have talked to various experts in these
fields, and what I say is not nonsense.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 24 Jun 92 21:28:09 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <YeG8Hea00Uh781n5Y0@andrew.cmu.edu> Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
 writes:
>Jed Rothwell talked about the overwhelming possibilities from cold
>fusion justifying the miniscule possibility that it will work.  He then
>asked for more questions.  Here's mine.
 
>What is infinity times zero?
 
That depends on which infinity and which zero.  The answer can be
most anything.  Check any good calculus book for a description of
L'Hopital's rule.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 24 Jun 92 23:47:07 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

Even granting CNF proponents the still not mainstream assertion
that there's something there, isn't it a bit early to make cost-of-
electricity projections for comparison to existing power sources, cf.
the claim earlier in this thread that it will be "two to three times
cheaper" than fission?
 
Seems to me like CNF is at (optimistically) the Hahn and Meitner
stage.  Given the credibility problems of the field, one might be
best to get it at least to the Fermi stage before talking in terms
of how much it will cost and what kinds of bottles it will come in.
 
The stuff about how we're drowning in crime, drugs, and noncompeti-
tiveness vis-a-vis Japan, I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole,
even on a more appropriate newsgroup.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.23 / Mark North /  Re: Dental film
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dental film
Date: 23 Jun 92 14:34:16 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
 
>Keywords:
 
>In article <3D091C71783F203A91@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>]in which there was a nickel grid between the cathode and the dental film, and
>]it showed shadowing by the grid. I can't think of any other explanation than
>]that the cathode was emitting energetic particles of some kind.
>] Another point in favour of such films is their simplicity. We have been told
>]on this list that to measure neutrons or gammas is no end of trouble; on the
>]other hand, it's easy to slip a bit of film into a plastic envelope and put it
>]next to a cathode in a cold fusion electrolysis.
>] How about it, you experts? What is the word?
 
>Not an expert, but...
>Try these three hypotheses:
>   -occasional microscopic electric sparks at the surface
>   -light flashes from bubbles collapsing (I understand this has been measured
>    in liquids excited by a high powered ultrasonic generator). The strange
>    characteristics of the surface layer might cause similar conditions.
>   -direct electrical action on the film by the solution.
 
>Oh well.... any better ideas?
 
How about:
 
Old film of uncertain orgin.
Contamination of the film by the electrolyte.
Heat from the cathode.
 
And, of course, with lack of controls who knows what.
 
Mark
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 / D Danforth /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 25 Jun 92 00:50:18 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

In <1992Jun23.234328.11576@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
 writes:
 
>In article <920623201237_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>>Matt Kennel asks: "Consider fission power plants.  For me, they work just
>>fine, (assuming they aren't Soviet-designed), the physics is completely known,
>>and there's unequivocal excess heat.  Why do we need cold fusion?"
>>
>>Answers:
>>
>>Because it is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper than fission and it does not
>>produce toxic radioactive pollution.
 
 
>The bit about "2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper" is nonsense.  A
>substantial, perhaps dominant, fraction of the cost of a nuclear power
>plant is in the nonnuclear part -- the turbines, generators, etc.  Any
>thermal power plant would require components like these, be it
>fission, fusion, hellfire-thermal-energy-conversion, or whatever.
 
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
This assumes centralized energy plants as is now the practice.
 
--
Douglas G. Danforth   		    (danforth@riacs.edu)
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS)
M/S T041-5, NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.24 / D Arthur /  Re: Explaining the 'strident tone'
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explaining the 'strident tone'
Date: 24 Jun 92 22:12:41 GMT
Organization: Des Moines, Iowa, Public Access Unix; 515/277-6753

In article <920620155748_72240.1256_EHL44-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Some comments I owe a response to:
>
>"I'm just not as confident as you seem to be that the Japanese spending money
>on an idea means that the idea is a good one..."
>
>Let me explain the "strident tone" of my message. Nobody, anywhere in the U.S.
>government is *allowed* to study CF. At any big East Coast University, if you
>suggest you want to do CF work, you are asking to be fired. MIT would not
>allow an experiment that I personally offered to pay for -- every penny. Three
>scientists who wanted to sign my petition were told they would be summarily
>fired if they did so. "Financial tiger team" roam around DoE labs making
>people sign affidavits promising that they are not studying CF. People who
>want to use equipment for quiet, back-room experiments find that well-know
>scientists like Huizenga are interfering behind the scenes to stop them.
 
 Do you have a copy of one or more of these affidavits?  It would be
 interesting to see the crafty wording used to squelch free thinking
 and get an idea what exactly they wish to prohibit with that document.
>
>If you talk about cold fusion, or publicly suggest that some minimum level of
>research should be allowed, if you even *suggest* that DoE staff members pick
>up the phone and talk to Ikegami - as I have done - you are threatened with
>lawsuits, you are harassed, and you are likely to find your personal
>reputation savagely attacked in major newspapers. Low-life liars like Taubes
>are given free reign to publish absurd libelous nonsense about Bockris and
>Miles. Do you know what the Robert Park said The Washington Post?
>
>     "If everyone knows it is wrong, why are they doing it? Inept scientists
>     whose reputations would be tarnished, greedy administrators..., gullible
>     politicians who had squandered the taxpayers' dollars, lazy
>     journalists...  -- all had an interest in making it appear that the issue
>     had not been settled.  Their easy corruption was one of the most chilling
>     aspects of this sad comedy. To be sure, there are true believers among
>     the cold-fusion acolytes, just as there are sincere scientists who
>     believe in psychokinesis, flying saucers, creationism and the Chicago
>     Cubs...  A PhD in science is not inoculation against foolishness -- or
>     mendacity."
>
>People who suggest that a minimum level of research be allowed have been
>savagely attacked by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Scientific
>American, Nature Magazine and the rest of the "Scientific Establishment" for
>three years, and have not been given one single opportunity to respond, except
>in Japan. Nature will not even print three letters pointing out an obvious
>error in the Lewis experiments at CalTech. MIT's supposed disproof of cold
>fusion is blatant fraud! Anyone who even looks at the curves can see that they
>probably got excess heat, and they certainly, deliberately, and ineptly
>lowered the data points, and added a bunch of new, extra low points, and
>published fraudulent results showing no excess heat. Not one word of this has
>appeared in the U.S. press. Fortunately, two large mainstream journals in
>Japan have talked about it.
 
 It would only seem that this kind of oppressive condition on an area
 of electrochemistry should be considered as a reenactment of 1984 the movie.
 Some spreadsheets with the data points in question ought to be put up
 for ftp so that fraud can be gotten rid of.
>
>collapse. In 1985, did you ever imagine that communism would be banned in
>Russia in 1991? In 1965 did you think Japan would become richer than the U.S.,
>or that the U.S. would lose the Vietnam War, become the world's largest debtor
>nation, and become a laughingstock, and an economic and educational basket-
>case?
 
 Right on!  Lets consider this as burning lab data as opposed to buring books
            but now lawyers are the ss force for the oppression of ideas.
 
 It would only seem to be a smart idea to make a modest coordinated effort
 to study the effects of isotopes in electrochemical cells for the properties
 that could be useful in future industrial processes.  A few teams, like 3 of
 them with $10,000,000 apiece and a bonus for the team that gets results
 on an annual basis for pure electro-isotopic chemistry research would only
 make sense.  Remember too, part of the Japanese 5th gen. project succeeded,
 that is in the production of memory chips and being the dominate player
 by the end of that decade (guess what happened?).  The project had one
 spin off that is making that economy billions and has built an infrastructure
 not being focused on gate-array, sem-custom and the like with similar
 implications (Sparc was built in Japan first by Fujitsu with that
 technology infrastructure after effect of the MITI objective).
 
 What kind of spin off success will Cold Fusion deliver, even if the main
 goal is not attained?  We will not know, but when we find out, it will be
 too late to do much to compete with it.
 
 
 
--
 /----------------------------/
 / Chronocide - Euthanasia    /   siproj@grayhawk.rent.com
 /             for boredom?   /   Is that European or African?
 /----------------------------/
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Miscellaneous Comments
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Comments
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 05:08:18 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920624191041_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM>,
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> It is a good thing I type a mile a minute, because there are some other juicy
> comments I would like to address:
>
> Joshua Levy comments: "Utah spent $5 million dollars (about 20 people, right?)
> to do research into cold fusion.  They were people who were interested in the
> subject and who were using scientific methods (like peer review).  The result
> was a very nice new building, but no new science."
>
> This is incorrect. I don't have the exact numbers but:
>
> Utah spent a large chunk of money on science. The result was superb,
> definitive research - so I hear from the Japanese industrialists who are
> making good use of it. See: "Investigation of Cold Fusion Phenomena in
> Deuterated Metals" (four volumes), by the National Cold Fusion Institute (Salt
> Lake City), June 1991, available from NTIS PB91175885.
 
I agree that these reports are very useful and that they describe carefully
done experiments, but overall I would say that they offer little support for
cold fusion. In that sense they are "definitive". The only report of XS heat
was from the Engineering group who observed 10% excess (=30 joules) for a few
hours in one cell out of dozens. As for nuclear products, only tritium was
found at levels significantly above backgrounds and this was only in 3 cells.
More interesting IMHO is the analysis of F&P style calorimetry, which raises
serious questions about the reliability of their methods.
 
Note that there are only 3 volumes to the final report. Volume 4 was supposed to
be from the Electrochemistry group (Pons, Fleischmann et al.) but this has not
been forthcoming. So even though they spent a sizable chunk of the money
(ca. $1 million) there is still no report on their experiments (this was mainly
the 64 cell array). I hope the TechNova people are aware of such things.
 
----------
todd green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentiq cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 25 Jun 92 07:23:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Jun23.234328.11576@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <920623201237_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>>Because it [CF] is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper than fission and it
>>does not produce toxic radioactive pollution.
>
>
>The bit about "2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper" is nonsense.  A
>substantial, perhaps dominant, fraction of the cost of a nuclear power
>plant is in the nonnuclear part -- the turbines, generators, etc.  Any
>thermal power plant would require components like these, be it
>fission, fusion, hellfire-thermal-energy-conversion, or whatever.
          ^^^^^^
 
It looks likely that a much more compact and far more efficient
conversion technology can be used for one or more forms of compression
driven hot fusion approaches.  Future working CF (FCF) would be most
appreciated in applications where now the use of small engines or
modest to large sized battery power are used today.  FCF power could
be used for station keeping or combined with an integrator or storage
bank could be used to restart hot fusion engines.  This would be
especially valuable in deep space, where solar power isn't very plentiful
and the nights are cold and eons long.
 
Still, I agree with Paul that CF will not produce widespread large power
of the multimega kilowatt level now handled by fission or fossil
technologies.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 /  Rothwell /  A mystifying comment
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A mystifying comment
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 15:35:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
A mystifying comment from Joe Chew: "The stuff about how we're drowning in
crime, drugs, and noncompetitiveness vis-a-vis Japan, I wouldn't touch with a
ten-foot pole, even on a more appropriate newsgroup."
 
What on earth does this mean? Do you think we are *not* drowning in crime and
drugs? Do you think our schools are just as good as the ones in Europe and
Japan? Or do you object to digressions?
 
What is an "appropriate newsgroup" supposed to mean in this context? The
subject is cold fusion, and unfortunately, the issues surrounding cold fusion
are 80% politics, and 20% science. Almost all serious cold fusion research
takes place in Japan. Of all the world's governments, only Japan's has a full-
scale cold fusion development effort underway. When other governments and
scientific establishments attack, harass and ridicule cold fusion workers, and
drive them out the country, Japan hires them, gives them carte blanch funding,
and encourages it's corporations to get involved. While our newspapers and
technical journals publish vicious, slanderous lies about cold fusion workers,
Japan's media praises them.
 
Japan, and this issue of competitiveness, is *center* *stage* in this
controversy; it is one of the key issues. Ignoring the role of Japan in cold
fusion research would be like ignoring Saudi Arabia in a discussion of oil.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 /   /   Too many neutrons in Japan
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Too many neutrons in Japan
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 15:43:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell's assertion that all the Cold Fusion research activity in
Japan proves that there must be something worth investigating doesn't
convince me.  I think the question is still to be resolved by scientific
evidence.  In particular I would like to raise a question about the
experiment that produces "1 million neutrons per second", as the result
of somekind of transient in both pressure and current.  As soon as I
hear about "neutron bursts" a flag goes up because an overwhelming number
of the cold fusion experiments that made such observations have been
garbage.  Here is another candidate for that classification!
 
The reason is simple.  A neutron detector is a sensitive electronic
instrument which responds to very weak  signals.  For example, in a
gas counter it takes 30 eV of energy loss to produce one electron/ion
pair.  So 10^6 eV of energy results in a signal of 3 X 10^4 electrons.
Collect that on a capacitor of say 100 pC and, if I can do the
arithmetic, I think you get about 50 microvolts.  Now do that right
next to some device that is rapidly switching several amps of current
or generating electrical discharges by flowing gas through plastic
tubing or something similar, and suddenly your detector gives a "burst".
Add to that the fact that a detector that will respond correctly to
rates like 1 million counts per second is a very rare beast.  I would
await significant further details about that experiment before putting
it in column of positive results.
 
Continuing on the topic of what a skilled do-it-yourselfer could build
by way of a radiation detection system:  The voltages required lie more
in the 1-5 kV range, depending on specifically you are going to attempt.
The difficulty is that very good stability and low noise are needed.
One approach that does work is to use batteries, if you can find a source
of 300 V B batteries a stack of 10 will do quite nicely.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 17:58:15 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

 
Tom, Thanks for your reply. You write:
 
    All you chemical experts out there.  Is it possible that we form
    D2O2 when running at high temperature i.e. above 30 C, then it
    is decomposed when we run below 20 C?
 
I am no chemist, but I will try.  First, H2O2 unstable, and there
are many catalysts that decompose it.  So it is at least conceivable
that minute amounts of such a catalyst are momentarily formed when
current switches from Hi to Lo at a certain temperature, but not
at other electrical regimes and temperatures.
 
Here is another possible explanation for the temperature dependence:
your electrolyte is a saturated LiOD solution.  When you lower the
temperature, some LiOD should crystallize out.  I bet that the crystals
are hydrated, so they remove some D2O from the electrolyte. Assuming
that the crystals include no D2O2, it follows that the concentration
of D2O2 in the electrolyte increases.  Presumably, concentrated D2O2
solutions are less stable than dilute solutions. Hence, the mechanism
that decomposes D2O2 at the Hi-Lo switch gets more efficient.
(Yes, I know, too many "ifs"...)
 
In fact, the D2O2 decomposition may have been happening all the time,
at both high and low temperature. In this variant of the theory,
D2O2 gets continuously formed during electrolysis,  then some of
it decomposes at the Hi-Lo switch; this happens at any temperature.
The amount that decomposes is primarily determined by the concentration
of D2O2 in the electrolyte. Eventually things reach an equilibrium,
at a given concentration of D2O2.  When you lower the temperature,
the concentration rises above the equilibrium value due to D2O sequestration,
so for a while you get extra decomposition at the Hi-Lo switch, until
the concentration of D2O2 falls back to the equilibrium value.
 
A weak check on this theory is to compute the amount of water that
must have been sequestered in the solid LiOD as you switched from
20C to 10C, and hence the actual amount of liquid electrolyte at
the two temperatures. (Unfortunately I don't have the data to do this).
By my arithmetic we need the decomposition of about 2g of D2O2 to
explain the observed gas change.  From these numbers we can compute
a rough lower bound for the concentration of D2O2 in the electrolyte,
by the formula (conc D2O2) ~ 2g/((liq vol @ 20C) - (liq vol @ 10C)).
If the computed concentration is absurdly high, then we'll know we
need a better theory....
 
Another idea is to add to the cell some catalyst to ensure that all
D2O2 gets decomposed.  Of course this is a delicate proposition,
since a soluble catalyst could interfere with the Pd/D reactions
at the cathode and invalidate your experiment. But Perhaps the chemists
in the audience can suggest an insoluble catalyst?
 
Best luck, and thanks for your postings
 
  Jorge Stolfi
  stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: As far as I know, my employer is neither pro nor con fusion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 08:23:46 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1992Jun25.175815.16348@src.dec.com>, stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
>
> Tom, Thanks for your reply. You write:
>
>     All you chemical experts out there.  Is it possible that we form
>     D2O2 when running at high temperature i.e. above 30 C, then it
>     is decomposed when we run below 20 C?
>
> I am no chemist, but I will try.  First, H2O2 unstable, and there
> are many catalysts that decompose it.  So it is at least conceivable
> that minute amounts of such a catalyst are momentarily formed when
> current switches from Hi to Lo at a certain temperature, but not
> at other electrical regimes and temperatures.
 
I seriously doubt whether much D2O2 would accumulate in the electrolyte
even in the absence of any chemical decomposition. The reason is that the
that the palladium electrode is highly cathodic and would tend to reduce any
that is formed via:
 
                       D2O2 + 2D+ + 2e- <==>  2D2O
 
Incidentally, somebody else had the idea that the XS heat was due to the
formation and decomposition of peroxides in the electrolyte but discounted
it for the above reason.
 
 
todd green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentiq cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.25 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 25 Jun 92 19:54:38 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Paul F. Dietz writes:
 
>The bit about "2 or 3 orders of magnitude cheaper" is nonsense.  A
>substantial, perhaps dominant, fraction of the cost of a nuclear power
>plant is in the nonnuclear part -- the turbines, generators, etc.  Any
>thermal power plant would require components like these, be it
>fission, fusion, hellfire-thermal-energy-conversion, or whatever.
 
The only two hot fusion technologies I know of that look like they
have a chance of succeeding commercially both burn totally aneutronic
and yield all their energy in high energy charged nucleons+electrons that
can be convert directly to electrical current with relatively high
efficiency (50%-60%).  The thermal components would be limited to cooling
the particles to sub-ionic levels after having their kinetic energy
extracted.  Of course, as replacements in coal and fission plants
the remaining heat would probably drive the existing thermal conversion
equipment.
 
Further, they are both inherently "small" devices (at least compared
to the huge reactors and monstrous Tokomaks that have been
envisioned in the past.
 
2 or 3 orders of magnitude may be optimistic but 1-2 orders of
magnitude appears possible.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 / Eliot Moss /  Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
Date: 26 Jun 92 13:28:16 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

If you're looking for an insoluble catalyst for decomposing D2O2, then, since
D2O2's chemical properties are similar enough H2O2, platinum should work. A
thin coating of platinum is used to decompose H2O2 that has been used to
disinfect and clean contact lenses, a procedure I follow every week at home.
I don't know if Pd is a catalyst for H2O2/D2O2 ...
--
 
		J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 /  Rothwell /  Awaiting Details
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Awaiting Details
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 17:10:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Richard,
 
Your comment: "I would await significant further details about that experiment
before putting it in column of positive results."
 
Await no more! Get thee to a library and check out all the details you want:
 
E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishoka, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 29, L666 (1990)
 
E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishoka, Proceedings of International Progress Review
"Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid/Deuterium Systems", Provo, 1990, p. 354
 
E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishoka, Proc. ISEM 1992, "New method for inducing
anomalous nuclear effects in deuterated palladium system."
 
If you have any further questions after reading the above, I suggest you
contact Dr. Yamaguchi at NTT Basic Research Laboratories, Musashino-shi, Tokyo
180, Japan.
 
 
You also say, "Jed Rothwell's assertion that all the Cold Fusion research
activity in Japan proves that there must be something worth investigating
doesn't convince me."
 
Please state exactly how unconvinced you are. Are you so unconvinced that you
support the present policy of the Federal Government? Do you think that all
research at all locations should be banned because CF is pathological nonsense
and a waste of money? Do you think CF is so silly and so farfetched that the
researchers should be fair game for the vicious, slanderous, personal attacks
they have been subjected to?
 
I am "convinced," of course. Let me put a number on it: I think we should
spend around $10 million, and let 20 or 30 people work on CF. I do not think
we should spend $100 million or $1 billion. That would be a disastrous waste
of money at this stage.
 
You skeptics keep saying "I am not convinced." I say: spell it out. Put a
dollar amount on it. Exactly how unconvinced are you?
 
Let us get back to Japan for just a moment (always a nice place to visit for a
moment; I hope to see you there in October). I do not expect you to be
convinced that "activity in Japan" somehow "proves" or "disproves" scientific
fact. That is absurd and ridiculous. Suppose these were German, Russian,
British or American scientists. Would that "prove" anything? You can only look
at specific work, from specific scientists, be they Japanese, American or
Mongolian, and judge their work on its merits.
 
On the other hand, Japan is where the money is, and where almost all the
serious CF research is done. It is the world center for CF research, so you
certainly cannot ignore it. If you were trying to judge the state of the art
in massively parallel computers, would you arbitrarily and deliberately leave
out all work done by IBM and Intel? Of course not! If you are going to
evaluate CF, you have to look at what is being done in Japan. The Mass. Inst.
Of Technology does not allow any CF experiments, so you must go to the Tokyo
Inst. Of Technology to learn anything about the subject.
 
I assume you respect your Japanese colleagues and take their work seriously.
Unfortunately, many Americans do not. As one prominent science journalist told
me, "we know those Nips don't understand anything about science... all they
know how to do is copy us." Racist comments like this are common both here and
in Japan, but this one is particularly mind boggling, because the Japanese
have taken the lead in nearly every important area of science and technology,
and for the last 20 years they have been selling us far more technology than
we sell them. They caught up and surpassed us a generation ago. Even people
who hate, say, Germans, do not ordinarily accuse them of being "wimps" or
"slovenly" or "not punctual." People who think that "the Japanese" do
understand science, or are incapable of developing CF, are lame-brained
idiots.
 
Incidentally, Huizenga wrote an entire book about CF, and managed to avoid all
references to NIFS, NTT, the Tokyo Inst. of Technology, or any of the other
leading research institutes in Japan. There is not one word about Ikegami, or
any other Japanese worker except a footnote about Mizuno, but then Huizenga
also managed to overlook the work of Mike McKubre. In fact he somehow
overlooked *all* positive work after 1989. This book is a remarkable
accomplishment, a milestone in science journalism. If he writes about the U.S.
space program, I expect Huizenga will cut the story short right after the
Vanguard missile blew up, and never mention Shepard, Glen, the Apollo Program
or the space shuttle.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 / Frank Smith /  Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
Date: 26 Jun 92 19:43:52 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <1992Jun26.162346.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
 writes:
>In article <1992Jun25.175815.16348@src.dec.com>, stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
 Stolfi) writes:
>>
>>
>>     All you chemical experts out there.  Is it possible that we form
>>     D2O2 when running at high temperature i.e. above 30 C, then it
>>     is decomposed when we run below 20 C?
>>
>
>I seriously doubt whether much D2O2 would accumulate in the electrolyte
>even in the absence of any chemical decomposition. The reason is that the
>that the palladium electrode is highly cathodic and would tend to reduce any
>that is formed via:
>
>                       D2O2 + 2D+ + 2e- <==>  2D2O
>
Todd, I disagree with your proposed mechanism of reduction of D2O2, because
one might expect D from the Pd electrode to be involved:
 
                        D2O2 + 2D    <==>   2D2O
Besides, Tom's experiment began with excess O2 and goes from quite low
cathodic currents at Pd to much larger ones. It could be argued, as I have
 
 
                          Frank R. Smith
                        Frank R. Smith
 
privately communicated to Tom, that in high O2 atmosphere and at low negative
potentials D2O2 could result. However, it is also true that this product
should be further reduced to D2O upon raising the cathodic potential when
the current becomes much larger. I would expect the cathodic reaction then to
be:
                        D2O2 + 2e-  <==>   2OD-
 
Later, after addition of much D2 as gas, it is likely that D2 is in excess.
Under these reducing conditions D+ reduction
at the cathode and D2 oxidation at the anode could occur. The test is whether
the potential difference fell greatly in the reducing environment.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 / Robert Munck /  Re: The Next Question
     
Originally-From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Next Question
Date: 26 Jun 92 19:42:40 GMT
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

Why do I get the feeling that you could take a typical article
from sci.physics.fusion, substitute "Perot" for "cold fusion,"
and publish it in alt.politics.elections?  And vice-versa?
 
--
Bob Munck
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmunck cudfnRobert cudlnMunck cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 / Richard Long /  Cold Fusion in Orlando (Bogus?)
     
Originally-From: long@next3.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion in Orlando (Bogus?)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 21:12:04 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

I've just heard on the local Radio (580 WDBO), less than 15 minutes ago,
that Charles Schultz and coworkers at the Orlando Science Center have
produced a repeatable cold fusion reaction.  They say that they are
awaiting confirmation from the rest of the academic community.  Has anyone
heard of this or communicated with them?  Is this bogus or for real?  I'll
post again when I find out more.
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 /  /  It ain't garbage until you smell it!
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It ain't garbage until you smell it!
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 23:28:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says: "Now do that right next to some device that is rapidly
switching several amps of current or generating electrical discharges by
flowing gas through plastic tubing or something similar, and suddenly your
detector gives a 'burst'."
 
It depends on who is doing the instrumentation, Dick.
 
For E-594 (its a long time ago, I may have the number wrong) my group built
about 5000 channels of the type of amplifier you describe.  About one
femto-coulomb least count on the ADC.  With about 10 nanosecond wide signals
and 100 ohm amplifier input impedance, this works out to a signal power level
of about a pico-watt.
 
Sandwiched between our proportional counter arrays, were flash tube detectors.
There were about 1000 flash tube arrays driven by 50 killo-volt pulses, into
chambers each of which had an impedance of about 1 ohm.  Thus each one
operated at a peak power of 250 mega-watts, and there were a 1000 of them for
250 giga-watt peak power.  That's 50 mega-amperes, Dick.  When the chambers
operated sparks would jump between cable braids on our sensitive read out
system.  Note this is over 23 orders of magnitude between the signals we
detected and the "noise" in the environment.
 
Yet we achieved pedestals which were a few channels wide, and the experiment
was generally a success.  We did use a few tricks, and a lot of knowledge on
how to really shield electronics.
 
We also have to cope with data rates of 50 mega-hertz at Fermilab.  That is
the machine clock here.  So one mega-hertz sounds easy.
 
But Dick is right.  There is plenty of room for error.  But don't damn the
experiment until it is carefully examined, and I know that is what Dick is
advocating.
 
By the way, I recently designed (and patented) a high voltage module system
at Fermilab.  About 2000  5 killo-volt, one milli-ampere modules were built
for the D0 collaboration.  Output noise level was of the order of a millivolt.
But you can't do this kind of design with a micro-processor and a program, you
have to know about grounding, and common mode rejection, and shielding, and a
lot of things no one is interested in these days.  So I don't offer much hope
that you computer programmer amateurs out there will have much luck building
radiation detectors.  But I will offer to help anyone who wants to try.
 
Dick, you can't be serious about batteries.  Just put your noisy HV oscillator
in a ****completely enclosed**** box, and take advantage of the low current to
make a filter out of a big R and small C.
 
If you have lots of time and little money, then proportional chambers may be
the way to go for a simple radiation detector.  All you need is a very low
current high voltage supply, some fine wire, tubing, gas, and amplifiers.
Commercial IC's originally designed as core sense amplifiers will do.  I think
that plain old propane will work, but I will check if anyone wants to try.  I
like an Argon CO2 mixture.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 /  /  All That Gas
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: All That Gas
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 23:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Frank Smith, Jorge Stolfi, and Dr. Hall have all made various suggestions
about the possibility that my gas measurements can be explained by formation
and decomposition of D2O2.  I think they are probably right.  Now to think
up an experiment to prove it.
 
Jorge Stolfi says that cobolt carbonate will catalyze O2 out of D2O2.  Were
you making rockets or pipe bombs, Jorge?
 
So how about mixing in a little otherwise harmless gunk into the electrolyte
to prevent D2O2 formation?  Who can suggest something that will decompose
D2O2 without depositing on the cathode, or otherwise messing up the cell
operation?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.26 /   /  Ball Lightning or Dense Plasma Focus
     
Originally-From: matas@utkux1.utk.edu (04464PMS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Lightning or Dense Plasma Focus
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 22:37:31 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

 
    Ball lightning is depicted as a doughnut; (SCIENCE OF BALL LIGHTNING
pages 297, 272, 147 ). Very high currents are also associated with the
effect, as is neutron production. I'm suggesting that the "high-current
"pinch effect" produced at the end of the center conductor of a plasma
coaxial accelerator, or dense plasma focus...
  ( DYNAMICS OF IONIZED GASES 1971  pg.375
Formation and Decay of Vortex Filaments in a Plasma Current Sheath by
Bostick, Nardi and Prior )
.....is one form of ball lightning. The article by
Bostick, Nardi and Prior provides a wealth of knowledge. Detailed
pictures and brillant deductions (I've been watching too much TV) They
show that the neutron production does not occur at the instant of max.
magnetic pinch, BUT when the plasma is in a somewhat stable
configuration pg.387. The pictures clearly show a half piece of 'Ball
Lightning' 383 384 ,gives a ratio for spacing between vortex filaments,
specifies that the neutron production is coming from the intersection of
the field lines, etc.
     The magnetic field lines are configured in such a way as to hold
each other in place, or a gridlock.     All intersections of the field
lines occur at 90 degrees, which is the correct configuration for
noninteraction between two magnetic fields.  The dense plasma focus decays
very rapidly because of the way it was produced. Accellerated.
 
           If anyone knows why neutrons should be produced at two (very
intense) field lines situated at 90 degrees, let me know. One suggestion
was that the path of the particle would wiggle between the X and Y field
line. Would this wiggle be intense enough for neutron production?
 
    Aaron     matas@utkux1.utk.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmatas cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.27 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: All That Gas
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All That Gas
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 92 13:16:09 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

Tom Droege writes:
 
    Jorge Stolfi says that cobalt carbonate will catalyze O2 out of
    D2O2.  Were you making rockets or pipe bombs, Jorge?
 
Of course not! Well, at least not in *that* experiment... 8-)
 
(Actually, the cobalt carbonate recipe comes from the handbook of my
kids' Chemlab set.  I also remember doing that experiment when *I* was
a kid, although I can't swear that the catalyst was the same.
But it probably was; it is amazing how little those chemistry sets have
changed in 30 years...)
 
Eliot Moss writes:
 
    If you're looking for an insoluble catalyst for decomposing D2O2,
    then, since D2O2's chemical properties are similar enough H2O2,
    platinum should work.
 
Oh well, things aren't looking good for theory #423, are they?
But that is not going to stop me from pushing it further on...
 
Theory #423, patch #1: Although there is Pt in the cell, it doesn't
work as a catalyst for D2O2 decomposition because it is being used
as the anode.
 
Theory #423, patch #2: The D2O2 is stabilized by the LiOD,
perhaps by the formation of Li2O2 (assuming such thing exists and
is stable enough in water).
 
Theory #423-a: The hypothetical "anomalous oxygen" isn't coming from
D2O2 in the electrolyte, but rather from Li2O2 in the semidry crust
that was deposited at the top of the cell by the bubble spray.
Specifically, O2-- formed at the anode carried upwards by the bubble
current, and some of it gets lifted in the spray before it has a chance
to reach thereducing cathode.
 
Theory #423, enhanced: The original theory #423 said that
crystallization of LiOD + N D2O was removing D2O from the cell, thus
raising the concentration of D2O2 and shifting the equilibrium towards
D2O + O2.  But perhaps it is not even necessary that the LiOD actually
crystallizes: at lower temperatures, I suppose that a larger fraction
of the D2O should be tied up in the hydration layers around the Li+ and
HO- ions.  In that case, at the molecular scale, the effective
concentration of D2O2 should be higher at lower temperatures, even if
the liquid volume remains the same.
 
O physical chemists out there, does any of this make sense?
 
One nice thing about these theories is that they should be very easy
to test: all you need is a cheap DC source, some Pt wire, a thermometer,
and a few buck's worth of common chemicals...
 
  Jorge Stolfi
  stolfi@src.dec.com
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: As far as I know, DEC is not in the deuterium peroxide business.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.27 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The Next Question
     
Originally-From: barry@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Next Question
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 92 03:39:22 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1648@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
 writes:
>Why do I get the feeling that you could take a typical article
>from sci.physics.fusion, substitute "Perot" for "cold fusion,"
>and publish it in alt.politics.elections?  And vice-versa?
 
Hmmmm...lets see:
 ----------------------------
Why do I get the feeling that you could take a typical article
from sci.physics.fusion, substitute "cold fusion" for "Perot,"
and publish it in alt.politics.elections?  And vice-versa?
_____________________________
 
Nah, I don't think it works :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.28 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion in Orlando
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Orlando
Date: 28 Jun 92 14:43:38 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

An AP news story by Ike Flores out of Orlando reports on a cold fusion
experiment that was demonstrated at the Orlando Science Center.  This
story ran on page 4-D of the Tallahassee Democrat -- buried literally
in the middle of the middle section (Local/State) of the Sunday paper.
 
The discovery was announced by Nelson Ying, a nuclear physicist who is an
adjunct professor (read - hired to teach introductory classes) at the
University of Central Florida (UCF) and president of "Quantum Nucleonics
Corp." in Orlando.  I do not know this person, but I have also not had
a chance to ask my colleagues if they know of him.
 
I now quote from the article, which does not carry a copyright notice,
omitting some of the usual press background information....
 
                           - - - - -
 
An Orlando scientist awaits the reaction of his colleagues worldwide
to an announcement that he has developed a laboratory cold-fusion
process that can be repeated on demand.
 
Nelson Ying, a nuclear physicist, announced Friday [that would be 6/26]
that he was getting 100,000 times more energy from a tabletop apparatus
than he applied to it, and that he could repeat the procedure at will.
 
"We are sure that we have obtained cold fusion which we can initiate on
demand", Ying said at a news conference after a demonstration at the
Orlando Science Center.  "This is subject, of course, to the rigorous
review of my peers", added Ying.  Ying said he would soon make available
a detailed patent disclosure and a scientific paper on the process so
that other scientists could replicate the experiment.  "We will all work
together on it" to develop cheap power commercially, said Ying.
 
He began his work in November 1989 after two University of Utah chemists
and others claimed to have discovered cold fusion.  However, scientists
worldwide had spotty results in trying to duplicate the work of chemists
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.  Even those that did obtain positive
results had difficulty repeating the process.
 
                           - - - - -
 
That is all.  No indication of what kind of calorimetry was used (it seems
clear he did some sort of calorimetry) or if any nuclear products were seen
(and he would seem to possess the capability of measuring the latter).  We
shall have to wait for more details.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is D2O2 an Explanation?
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 01:42:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss) says:
 
>If you're looking for an insoluble catalyst for decomposing D2O2, then, since
>D2O2's chemical properties are similar enough H2O2, platinum should work. A
>thin coating of platinum is used to decompose H2O2 that has been used to
>disinfect and clean contact lenses, a procedure I follow every week at home.
 
This is repost of a reply I sent but that got "lost."
 
I just tried this at home by putting Pt wire in some store bought peroxide
(H2O2) with  .001% Boric Acid as a stabilizer.  It immediately began bubbling
along the entire wire surface and it continued to bubble for several hours
until I got bored with the experiment.
 
It isn't terribly energetic, but it does seem to keep plugging on.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 /  Rothwell /  No Anti-CF Conspiracy
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 15:45:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I would like to make one more political statement, then I promise I will lay
off; having said my piece, I will hold my peace. First though, for those who
can't bear to read my messages, some quick announcements up front:
 
I have a partial fax copy of the SRI accident report. The rest is on the way
in the mail. Please contact me with your mailing address if you would like a
copy, and please remind me if I forget to send it. I will post a summary of
the SRI report after I get through with the calibration data.
 
The calibration data, by the way, shows that the Droege Device and the
ordinary thermocouples agree to 0.01 deg C at a flow rate of 640 ML, but not
so closely at lower flow rates. You have to filter the data, that is, you must
time-average the signals. The data also shows that water level changes between
8 and 9 cm change the TCal in the box by only 3%, probably because the cooling
loop remains covered. When the level drops and the loop is exposed, the TCal
changes by 20% to 30% as I previously noted.
 
Contact me for e-mail chunks of calibration data, if you really wanna know how
a Takahashi cell works.
 
 
Some of my correspondents have chastised me for believing in conspiracy
theories. I think one person here compared my statements to those of Perot
supporters. Others may assume that I am part of the LaRouche crowd, who see
conspiracies under every bed. Let me make this clear: I do not think there is
any conspiracy to suppress or attack CF, and I have talked to enough of the
400 petition signatories to say with confidence that most of them do not think
so either.
 
The reaction against CF is a normal, healthy, expected part of science.
Fleischmann told me that he expected it, and that he believes science would
not survive without innate, conservative, skepticism. I think however, that
healthy skepticism has gotten out of hand, and become pathological.
 
The resistance to CF is not a conspiracy, because: it is not organized,
coherent, or planned in any way, and it is not surreptitious. Far from it; the
opposition is noisy and public. The DoE does not make any bones about its
policy; it sent exactly the same form letter to me, to the White House and to
the Congress. The policy is clear, and stated in a forthright manner, and if I
agreed with the assumptions it is based upon, I would agree that it is the
right policy. The DoE will tell anyone who asks that CF has not been proven;
that no work is being done on it; and that the scientific community has flatly
rejected the whole idea; and that therefore, nobody in DoE is authorized to
work on it. If that was true, then a CF project in the DoE would be like a
creationism grant from the National Science Foundation -- inappropriate, if
not downright loony. My contention is that these assumptions are *not* true;
people are working on CF - not here, of course, but in Japan; many scientists
do believe it has merit, starting with my 300 petition signatories (and 100
non-scientist signatories), and that therefore, a minimum program involving 20
or 30 people should be allowed. I supplied extensive documentation to prove
what I said about Japan. The DoE told me they are not interested in research
in Japan, and they do not consider it significant. Regarding Takahashi's work
specifically, spokesperson Linda Stuntz wrote, "We... are fully aware that Dr.
Takahashi's cold fusion results were presented at [MIT]... We understand that
the experiments were discussed, although the results were presented as
preliminary and did not appear to be new in substance."
 
I do not believe in a conspiracy, I think the problem is simple stupidity. It
is folly, hubris. It is caused by people who do not understand the
fundamentals of science; particularly those who think that when experimental
evidence and theory conflict, the evidence must be thrown out, and the theory
preserved. It is also caused by racist ignorance and disrespect for Japan;
people who believe that "those Nips don't know anything about science, all
they know how to do is copy us."
 
Foolishness and folly have always characterized the human race, and have
shaped all of human history. We have seen this kind of thing happen over and
over. The Wrights first flew in 1903. They flew for five years after that,
right next to a trolley line in Dayton, OH, in plain view of thousands of
commuters, and *still* the New York Times, the Scientific American, the
Federal Government, and almost all of the "scientific establishment" claimed
they were crazy lunatics. Any newspaper in the country could have sent a
reporter with a camera, who could have settled the controversy in an hour, but
for five long years they refused to bother. People are no smarter now than
they were in 1908. The Scientific American, in particular, has not learned a
thing. We could easily settle the whole CF controversy by sending a handful of
honest scientists to Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Sapporo, but the "skeptics"
refuse to go, and the DoE refuses to pay anyone's plane fare, refuses to send
anyone to the Third Annual Conference, and will not even talk to Ikegami on
the phone. This could not be the result of some secret conspiracy, it is too
absurdly stupid for that.
 
A correspondent told me, "a legitimate scientific discovery (if that is what
cold fusion turns out to be) can be suppressed indefinitely by political
interests..." I agree completely. Many times throughout history, political
interests and vested interests have delayed and hamstrung reforms and
technical innovation, but I do not think they have ever succeeding in blocking
an important invention completely. For example, the milk producers fought
pasteurization for years, because it added to the cost of milk; doctors
refused to wash their hands before operations, because they did not believe in
the germ theory; the railroads did not abandon the notoriously dangerous
railcar linking devices that caused thousands of accidental amputations until
an act of Congress forced them to do so; the North Atlantic shipping lines
saved money by not issuing binoculars to lookouts and by not carrying enough
lifeboats, until after the Titanic disaster. In every case, people woke up to
their own best interests eventually, and adopted the needed technology or
reform. But it takes time, and needless human suffering, to force the issue.
 
There *has* been an inept attempt to suppress CF. It is not a conspiracy, just
a bunch of foolish people acting independently out of spite, to protect their
egos. Imagine the feeling of MIT group in 1989. First they denounced P&F, then
they planted stories about them in the newspapers, then they held a party
celebrating the end of CF, then their experiment began showing excess heat!
Imagine how they must have felt. It is no wonder they lied, and published
false data. A man who has shoved his foot so far down his throat cannot easily
admit he is wrong. It is not human nature to back off once you have taken such
a harsh stance. It takes guts, and intelligence, and these people are so
stupid, they threatened to sue a newspaper for printing statements that they
knew were tape recorded. They threaten me for disseminating experimental data,
even though they know that by the rules of the University, all such data must
be made available to any interested scientist, since the research was
conducted under official MIT sponsorship.
 
In any case, this inept, foolish attempt to discredit CF, these absurd books
from Huizenga and Close, and all the rest, have manifestly failed. CF has
*not* been discredited, it has *not* been suppressed. It is coming along very
rapidly. MITI expects to have a working reactor in 3 to 5 years. The Japanese
are moving ahead, and nobody who looks closely at their programs would have
any reason to doubt they know what they are doing. If CF can be made into a
practical form of energy - if this thing can be done - it *will* be done,
because no power on earth can stop Japan. Not OPEC, not the DoE, and certainly
not the likes of Huizenga or Close.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 / Jon Webb /  Re: Awaiting Details
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Awaiting Details
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 16:00:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <920626135709_72240.1256_EHL57-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
   Your comment: "I would await significant further details about that
 experiment
   before putting it in column of positive results."
 
   Await no more! Get thee to a library and check out all the details you want:
 
   E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishoka, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 29, L666 (1990)
 
   E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishoka, Proceedings of International Progress Review
   "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid/Deuterium Systems", Provo, 1990, p. 354
 
   E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishoka, Proc. ISEM 1992, "New method for inducing
   anomalous nuclear effects in deuterated palladium system."
 
Thanks for the references.  I read the JJAP and Provo Conference
articles (I'm not familiar with the ISEM abbreviation -- there are at
least two conference with the abbreviation ISEM, neither of which
sounds like a place to report anomalous nuclear effects).
 
I was not terribly impressed with either Yamaguchi article.  He
reports three experiments in which bursts of neutrons were observed.
The method is to load a palladium sheet with deuterium gas, then to
deposit a layer of gold on one side and a film of Mn-O on the other.
Bursts of neutrons come out when the plate is depressurized.  He also
observes heat (the palladium-gold forms an alloy, and the plate gets hot).
 
Yamaguchi *does not* claim the heat is caused by a nuclear event.  He
has done experiments with currents that caused the heat and other
effects with deuterium and hydrogen.
 
He did check for the obvious things in looking for neutrons -- turned
off other high-voltage power sources in the lab.  He also verified
that his neutron counter was working by comparing it with another
instrument.
 
I don't have any explanation for the neutrons observed.  But I'm well
aware of the problems in counting neutrons, the importance of
verifying that the neutrons come from the sample under observation,
etc.  Yamaguchi uses a single neutron detector, so that his experiment
is not particularly convincing.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 /  Rothwell /  Correction
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 17:18:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I edited out too many words, and reversed the meaning in part of my
previous message. The correspondent told me:
 
"I do not think that a legitimate scientific discovery (if that is what
cold fusion turns out to be) can be suppressed indefinitely by political
interests..."
 
I don't think it could be suppressed, either.
 
Sorry about that, Mr. Correspondent.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 / Jon Webb /  Re: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 22:37:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <920629151028_72240.1256_EHL75-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   We could easily settle the whole CF controversy by sending a handful of
   honest scientists to Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Sapporo, but the "skeptics"
   refuse to go, and the DoE refuses to pay anyone's plane fare, refuses to send
   anyone to the Third Annual Conference, and will not even talk to Ikegami on
   the phone.
 
There's an alternative: have the Japanese scientists publish in
peer-reviewed journals.  So far, the studies you've cited have just
not been that convincing.  Yamaguchi presents 3 working experiments
followed by 20 non-working ones; the evidence for the 3 working
experiments is nothing more than high neutron counts from a single
counter.  Takahashi has not yet published positive results, only some
theories (at least in Dieter's bibliography.)  Ikegami has not
published at all.  Is this really the best of Japanese research?  Is
this really supposed to convince us?
 
Cold fusion experiments are not reproducible, even by scientists who
claim positive results!  (Except for Pons and Fleischmann, if you
believe what they say).  If anyone develops a repeatable cold fusion
experiment, I guarantee you that many people everywhere will be trying
it out, DoE ban or not.
 
Look at what happened with Takahashi.  He claimed a positive result,
and the next thing you know he's invited to talk at MIT.  That does
not sound like anti-Japanese prejudice or unwillingness to hear
positive things about cold fusion to me.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.30 /  /  News
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 01:22:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There is enough stuff that I mihght as well fill up a whole FD with the status
of our current P&F type experiment.  29 June 1992
 
Executive Summary:
 
1) Current status of the experiment shows a net energy balance of zero well
within all errors.
 
2) Three cheers! to John Logajan
 
3) Gas operation continues to be a mystery.
 
4) A mysterious heat pulse is seen.
 
 
1) Current Status of the Experiment
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 600 ma per sq cm Hi-Lo 6 hour interval
Duration: Now charging for 4860000+ seconds (1350+ hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 5.3 v to 3.8 v on 6 hour Hi-Lo
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 13 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature varies with current.
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
2.0 -  2.5 M sec       7628              +0.0152
2.5 -  3.0 M sec      10286              +0.0206
3.0 -  3.5 M sec      10913              +0.0218
3.5 -  4.0 M sec     -16706              -0.0334
4.0 -  4.5 M sec     -15014              -0.0300
 
The actual measured energy for the period is 17500 joules more than indicated
because it includes the energy gained in switching to 13 C from 20 C.  Net
calorimeter balance since start of the run is 8361 joules or +0.0018 watts.
There are many things that can be straightened out off line.  Between 3 and
3.5 M sec, the calorimeter was opened, and clearly the calibration constant
changed.  Some of the drift can be straightened out off line, some is lost
forever with the missing data disks.
 
There is every indication to still believe that we have a < 1 mw drift
calorimeter if we operate 10 hours or so at one setting.  There are clearly
other things going on that completely overshadow the calorimeter drift.  There
is energy flow of order +/- 50 mw associated with the various gas changes.
The above energy balance also depends on entering calibration constants which
were obtained from calibration runs each time a new temperature is selected.
The present algorithm does not compute through the transient as the change is
made.  So there is an error accumulation each time a change is made which
should average to zero.
 
While we may do better off line, we can not claim the present integral energy
to be any better 0.05 x Running Time.  This is presently 240,000 joules.  Note
this is much larger than the number above.  We are lucky.
 
2) John Logajan Visits the Drug Store
 
My brother Lee keeps wondering how we failed to discover hydrogen peroxide as
kids.  We also never succeeded in making nitro-glycerin although we sure
tried.  But we made almost everything else, even pipe bombs - though we called
them rockets and were disappointed when they blew up.
 
So John put a platinum wire in a bottle of H2O2 and it fizzed.  He probably
did the whole experiment is less time than it took any one of the rest of us
to log on and write our priceless prose.  Good for you John.
 
I have a couple more experiments for you, John.   Put the whole mess in the
fridge and see if it still bubbles.  Then put it in the freezer and note the
same.
 
So unless there is some temperature threshold found for Pd catalyzing D2O2, it
does not look like we have an explanation for the below gas experiments.
 
I should also give credit to Eliot Moss who has noticed that he performs the
experiment every day when he cleans his contact lenses.
 
3) Gas Experiments.
 
First a definition.  By gas gain we mean that the volume of gas in the cell
increases.  This is measured after temperature (and pressure - no correction
made as it is within error) corrections are made.  There is a large
temperature change in the gas above the cell with current due to the operation
of the catalyst recombiner.
 
We continue to explore the territory, short of turning off the current or
reversing the cell.  I am now convinced that the cell is not leaking, or at
least that any leak is much smaller than other processes that are going on.
 
We are presently operating the calorimeter at 13 C.  We alternate periods of
Hi (600 ma per sq cm) - Lo (60 ma per sq cm) and Saw Tooth (60 - 400 ma per sq
cm).  On Hi, the cell temperature reaches 30 C and we gain gas at a rate of 2
cc per hour.  On Lo, the cell temperature is about 19 C and we lose 2 cc per
hour.  This means we can run long periods of Hi-Lo and see little gas change.
So either there is no leak, or we are very lucky.  When the Saw Tooth is run,
we lose gas at a rate of 6 cc per hour (sometimes as much as 10 or 12).  This
means getting up in the middle of the night to reload gas as the syringe only
holds 60 cc.
 
To those of you that have forgotten, this experiment was started with a D2
fill, and we continue to fill with D2.  For those trying to figure out
chemistry, remember there is a constant source of D and D2 coming off the
cathode, and O and O2 coming off the anode.  Don't know how long it takes the
D's and O's to get paired off, but there is also Pt and Pd to do any dirty
deed that is possible.  But we must expect there is not much D or D2 near the
anode or O or O2 near the cathode.  But some???
 
Douglas Danforth wants me to extract some electrolyte to test.  The cell is
designed for the purpose, but apparently the precipitate from the saturated
LiOD has blocked the sample tube.  So wait till next experiment.
 
4) A Pulse!, A Pulse!, But Only One So Far.
 
Thursday night, 25 June 92, we had been running at 13 C and 150 ma per sq cm
in order to explore the cell temperature which gave no net gas change.  It was
then decided to go to a hard charge condition to try to stress the cell into
doing something.  The plan was to run Hi - Lo with Hi higher than under
earlier conditions.  Hi was set at 600 ma per sq cm and Lo was set at 60 ma
per sq cm and the sequence was started at Hi.
 
Two hours later, the switching transient was almost recovered, the net power
being approximately - 50 mw as the cell and calorimeter insides were still
coming up to the higher temperature associated with the higher current.  At
this time there was a sudden cell temperature increase of 0.8 C.  This took
place over 10 minutes and changed as much as 0.1 C per minute.  I estimate the
cell to have a specific heat equivalent of about 60 cc of water.  There is a
fill of 40 cc of D2O plus the other material of the cell.  Just raising the
cell temperature required 60x.8x4.1 joules or 196.8 joules.  This is not taken
into consideration by the on line energy balance.
 
Instantaneous power measurements (made once a minute) became quite noisy, and
some reached +400 mw.  The heat event lasted about one half hour, during which
time the calorimeter integral increased 250 joules.  I note that the
appearance of the on line plot is as if a "Mule Kicked" the calorimeter.  This
is about 50 times the noise level for such a change.  It did not appear to be
an impulse, as have other "events" that I have observed on previous
experiments.  It appeared to be two nearly equal, nearly constant level, power
events with about 5 minutes between them.
 
It should be noted that the calorimeter is the equivalent of a conduction
calorimeter inside a null balance calorimeter.  By noting the difference
between the cell temperature and the calorimeter inner shell, a conduction
calorimeter constant can be obtained to check the null balance calorimeter
reading.  The constant so obtained is approximately .5 watt per degree C.  We
have a total of 8 thermometers on the heat path between the cell and ambiant.
When we look at day to day noise, these thermometers are random.  i.e. cell
temperature increases, but the thermometer in the aluminum spool shaped cell
holder does not increase.
 
With this event we were able to track the heat pulse through the thermometers
and ***in a proper time sequence for a real heat pulse***.  There was also a
4 cc decrease in gas volume.  Do not understand this, but it is hard to get
250 joules from 4 cc of Deuterium.
 
We are still studying this event, and trying to duplicate the conditions to
get more of them.  It is certainly not beyond chemistry, but it is also a lot
for only 0.1 cc of Pd.  But there is a lot of other stuff in the cell.  Still,
there was only 4 cc of gas (lost) change.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.30 /  /  Battery High Voltage
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Battery High Voltage
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 01:25:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue recently proposed stacking up batteries to make I power source
for radiation detectors.  I assume he was not serious.  In case any of you
out there think of doing this, I remind you that any battery stack that
you make up
 
********** is potentially lethal!!!!!! **************
 
All you need is 15 ma.  Even a few hundred volts worth of 9 volt transistor
batteries could kill you.  Batteries are further dangerous in that they are
hard to turn off.  If you were to build up a 3 Kv stack of transistor radio
batteries, you would need a knife switch of the type Igor uses to open and
close the circuit.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.30 /  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, 30 Jun 1992 01:27:40 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
     
Originally-From: barry@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
Date: 29 Jun 92 20:25:44 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <920629151028_72240.1256_EHL75-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>CF has *not* been discredited, it has *not* been suppressed.
>It is coming along very
>rapidly. MITI expects to have a working reactor in 3 to 5 years.
 
Unfortunately, MITI is a government organization, and has
no control over the laws of nature. They can expect a working
reactor, but cannot necessarily create one.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.30 / John Kreznar /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 30 Jun 92 05:53:00 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <920623201237_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM>,
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> I was trying to get the U.S. government to allow a handful of people to study
> CF, may 20, maybe 50.
 
> Because if we do not get it, and Japan or Europe does, they will wipe out
> every single one of our heavy industries within a generation, leaving our
> nation as impoverished and chaotic as the former Soviet Union. I remind you
> that the present breakdown in U.S. society, the drugs, the collapse of our
> education system, the staggering government debt, are real. This is not
> "Mad Max" on TV; you cannot change channels. If we continue to turn our back
> on every challenge and to ignore every problem; if we continue to let Japan
> develop every promising or risky technology, we will destroy our society.
 
> Next question, please.
 
Yeah, I've got some..
 
First, is it consistent to fret about your government's debt on the one hand
while advocating increased spending by it on the other?  Does the righteous
indignation you feel about insufficient taxpayer support for your favorite
program somehow trump the righteous indignation of another with respect to _his_
favorite program?
 
Accepting government funding causes taxes.  Taxes make slaves.
 
Second, why this knee-jerk interpretation of the problem in blatantly
nationalistic terms?  Some of us with an intense interest in the scientific,
technical, and economic dimensions of cnf are absolutely repelled by your
introduction of politics into it.
 
Third, is your government disallowing study of CF?  Are you confusing refusal by
your government to steal yet more money from the innocents that it designates as
"taxpayers" to fund your pet project with its disallowing that project?
 
CNF, if it exists, would present heretofore unimagined opportunities for
individual fulfillment.  Why do you insist on attempting to guarantee that, if
it is achieved, that achievement will be forever tainted by being founded on one
of the most anti-individualist institutions ever conceived by man, democratic
political government and its plunder-based financing arrangements?
 
If you object that political matters such as this don't belong in this
newsgroup, I would agree; your advocacy of further plundering of innocent others
does not belong in s.p.f.
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.29 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 19:51:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
> The only two hot fusion technologies I know of that look like they
> have a chance of succeeding commercially both burn totally aneutronic
> and yield all their energy in high energy charged nucleons+electrons that
> can be convert directly to electrical current with relatively high
> efficiency (50%-60%).  The thermal components would be limited to cooling
> ...
 
What technologies are you describing?  The only device that I know of that
fits this description is the fusion focus, which is not generally considered
promising for fusion power.  Do you have information on new work in this area?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.06.30 /  /  Dr. Nelson Ying
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Nelson Ying
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 22:27:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My brother fought his way through the phone system, and left a message.  Dr.
Ying called back last night.
 
He developed a theory after the P&F announcement.  He was unable to get a
student (surprise) to work on it and left west coast university and ended up
in FL.  He has somehow worked for three years without even knowing that there
was a cold fusion conference in Utah and Como.  His reaction makes gammas and
(23.8 mev gammas) and alphas.
 
He is in the hands of a patent attorney, but promised information in a week
to ten days.
 
He has a theory, and did not appear to be knowledgeable about either radiation
measurement or calorimetry.
 
It was like talking to Mills.  He really believes his theory.  He claims
instant start up of the effect.  Was amazed to hear that I had been running
a Takahashi cell for 1350 hours.  He had not heard of Takahashi.
 
Sorry I am not better at prying information out of people who do not want to
talk.  But he does not appear to be the APS meeting hanger on type who gives
you a paper that proposes to overturn relativity with lots of big words but
no content.
 
So I will wait patiently his week to ten days to see what he has to say.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.01 / John Logajan /  Peroxide Chronicals
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide Chronicals
Date: 1 Jul 92 04:00:51 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
 
>I should also give credit to Eliot Moss who has noticed that he performs the
>experiment every day when he cleans his contact lenses.
 
Yes!  I only wanted to see it for myself.
 
>I have a couple more experiments for you, John.   Put the whole mess in the
>fridge and see if it still bubbles.  Then put it in the freezer and note the
>same.
 
Experiment #1:  Pour 1/3 cup peroxide in custard dish.  Throw peroxide in
freezer.  Remove frozen peroxide.  Allow room heat to melt a thin layer
of peroxide between bulk of frozen peroxide and clear glass custard dish.
Insert Pt wire in thin liquid layer (width of #30 gauge shifts frozen
bulk, establishing dimensions of liquid layer.)    Watch bubbles form.
 
Experiment #2: Throw peroxide in microwave.  Heat until boiling.  Remove
(ouch) hot peroxide.  Wait until boiling stops.  Insert Pt wire.
Watch bubbles form (very rapidly!)
 
Conclusion: Peroxide is decomposed by Pt wire across the entire liquid
temperature range at 1 atmosphere pressure.  Rate of reaction varies
with temperature.
 
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.01 / John Logajan /  H2O2 formation
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H2O2 formation
Date: 1 Jul 92 04:29:43 GMT

Shreve's Chemical Process Industries says that one way to produce H2O2 is
electrolytically with a Pt anode in a solution of H2O and H2SO4.  This was
an older industrial practice, but not necessarily the only electrolytic
method.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.01 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 720 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 720 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 13:33:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here is another mini-lot, fresh from my visit to the library. I assume that
the patent is about cold fusion, i.e. that "hydrogen" includes deuterium. The
report of the preliminary results of the investigation of the SRI explosion
will interest this group; there is now a plausible explanation, it seems. As
has been emphasised here before, Pd is a catalyst, just like Pt, for the
recombination of hydrogen (deuterium) with oxygen, but if it is wet, it slows
down; I guess the gases then have to diffuse through the liquid film first. So
once again to all basement cold fusioneers: look at your cnf cell as a
potential bomb! I know you are being careful, Tom, but there are others.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 1-Jul-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 720
 
Patents; file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philberth K;                              Ger. Offen. DE 4,024,515, 02-Aug-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 116(24):243662 (1992).
"Process for hydrogen fusion for peaceful purposes".
** "The title process comprises fusion of H nuclei in contact with
microclusters of 3-100,000 atoms contg. >= 1 Group B element. The
microclusters can be obtained by cooling fine particles at high temp. The
microclusters are deposited on an electrode surface which is used in
electrolysis of a liq. contg. H." (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments; file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles D;                              New Scientist no. 1827, 27-Jun-92, p.4
"Piece of teflon led to fatal explosion".
** Although the investigation continues at SRI, some conclusions have been
reached about the cause of the explosion of a cold fusion cell in January '92,
which killed Andrew Riley and injured some others. The events are th ought to
have been: a loose piece of teflon near the gas outlet blocked that outlet, as
some gas escaped with a rush. The same rush also wet the catalyst in the head
space, consisting of some Pd spheres. After this, the cell accumulated up to
30 atm of pressure of D2 and O2, which could not recombine fast enough on the
wet catalyst. When Riley moved the cell, perhaps some Pd was exposed, setting
up an explosive burn of the D2 with the O2; the bottom of the cell was blown
out and the cell, now a rocket, hit Riley.
Charles comments that several cold fusion workers have seen Pd electrodes glow
red-hot when exposed to air after electrolysis. Cold fusion work at SRI has
been suspended since the accident, but researchers are asking for more funds,
partly for equipment to prevent recurrence of such an accident.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.001 /  MANN@YaleVM.YC /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 92 17:00:42 EDT
Organization: Yale University

In article <920630131858.20a05bb9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
 
>
>My brother fought his way through the phone system, and left a message.  Dr.
>Ying called back last night.
>He developed a theory after the P&F announcement.  He was unable to get a
 
Upon reading J. Carr's post of 6/28, I called the Orlando Science Center and
spoke with a helpful PR person who faxed to me the material that I am now
posting.  If there are errors in transcription they are mine and I am sorry
....I am not a good typist.  There are a couple of obvious typos in the
originals and I have inserted probable (?possible?) author's correx in
parens.
Document  #1: A press release on OSC letterheading:
 
Title: COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT SUCCEEDS AT THE ORLANDO SCIENCE CENTER
 
FOR REALEASE FRIDAY JUNE 26 1:00 PM EDST
 
Orlando, FL . . . Today, Orlando Science Center Trustee Dr. Nelson
Ying and Senior Technician Charles W. Shults III announced the success
of a cold fusion experiment.  Dr. Ying and Mr. Shults stated that the
next step is to submit their findings for peer review.
 
Dr. Ying, a nuclear physicist, (?and?) an adjunct professor at the
University of Central Florida and President of Quantum Nucleonics Corpor-
ation sponsored the research project that began six months ago at the
Science Center.
 
The process involves using distilled deuterium oxide (heavy water)
from sea water.  The deuterium is separated by electrolysis and used as
a fuel in a safe, clean process to produce larger quantities of power. To
date the experiment has produced 0.5 watts of electrical power from 15 microwat
ts using 20 grams of deuterium oxide distilled from sea water.
 
Dr. Ying explained that a patent disclosure is being filed with the U.S.
Patent Office.  His notes on the process began with his first entry on
November 11, 1989 at 1 AM.  Dr. Ying and Chip Shults list the official
date of the discovery as June 23, 1992, with June 24 as the date they
officially replicated the process.  Sondra Quinn and Science Center Board
Chair Aaron Dowd signed the log book as witnesses to the replication of the
cold fusion effect by observing the thermal curves on a computer.
 
Dr. Ying said, "Cold fusion on demand is wonderful for mankind in terms
of energy and ecology.  No more will we have to worry about oil tanker
spills, automobile exhaust pollution and gas station tank leakage.  Petro-
chemicals can be used in industries and no longer wasted by burning.  The
cold fusion on demand experiment is only the first experimental proof of
my general theory of controlling probability at the quantum level.  I look
forward to seeing the application of these two scientific discoveries
propelling us to a better world in the 21st century."
 
Charles Shults is considered a multi-talented genius by his co-workers at
the Science Center, where he has been on staff since June 17, 1991.  He
has been instrumental in many science center projects, ranging from the
design of hands-on exhibitions to leading the installation of a revamped
laser system in the John Young Planetarium.
 
Sondra Quinn stated, "The mission of the Orlando Science Center is to encourage
the joy of doing science through discovery learning and experimentation.  We
make science visible, touchable and exciting to our audiences.  What better way
for children to get excited about science than for them to see world changing
discoveries occur right here!"
 
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO ARRANGE INTERVIEWS CONTACT JAN DONLAN, ORLANDO
SCIENCE CENTER    (407) 896-7151  EXT. 14
 
-------end transcription of Document #1----------------------------------
 
 
Document #2:  June 26th statement by Dr. Nelson Ying and his associate
Charles W. Shults III, under joint heading of Orlando Science Center and
Quantum Nucleonics Corporation. Transcription follows:
 
 
     The dream of unlimited inexpensive energy is age old and so is the
dream of controlling probabilities.  These two dreams met a 1 AM on
November 11, 1989 when Dr. Nelson Ying contemplated the then again current
news about fusing deuterium and deuterium into helium.
 
     In 1927 Paneth and Peters observed hydrogen in glass producing a trace of
helium.  By 1940, Franck and Sakharov postulated that fusion of DD is doable if
the electron is replaced by a muon.  By 1956, Alvarez observed the above by
introducing muons into a deuterium gas: although he concluded later that the
process is too slow to produce meaningful energy. On March 23, 1989, Pons and
Fleischman announced that they have been able to obtain positive energy gain
from cold fusion.  Jones publish in Nature on April 27, 1989 indicating that
he also discovered cold fusion, however much less energy generation than Pons
and Fleischman.  Other institutions tried to duplicate the results and some
like Texas A & M, Moscow University and Kossuth University in Hungary had
positive results while MIT et al did not.  Even those who did get positive
results seemed to have difficulty repeating the success, while no one was
able to obtain cold fusion on demand.
 
     Dr. Ying postulated that in as much as experimental results indicated
that cold fusion exists albeit with a very small probability of occurring,
the fact that observable results are seen implies that there must be an
enhancing mechanism.  He theorized that instead of considering only that
there is a small probability of DD fusing into helium, but rather in
probability space, the channels such as He + gamma(23.8 MeV) actually exists,
although for only a very short period of time.  Dr. Ying further theorized
that there exists mechanism to grab this virtual short lived state out of
probability space into normal space.  The act of grabbing a virtual state
out of probability space is an act of changing probability.  Applying this
methodology to cold fusion would bring unlimited inexpensive energy to the
world.
 
     The mechanism considered by Dr. Ying is to have an experimental
universe prepared with heavy water, Pt and Pd electrodes, and battery,
undergoing electrolysis.  The incident bosons would be aimed at the
target in the experimental universe.  In this case the Pd cathode is the
target. When the incident bosons are SAME AS AT LEAST ONE TYPE OF HOPED FOR
RESULTING BOSONS, THE INCIDENT BOSON STIMULATED THE PRODUCTION OF THIS
RESULTING BOSON - OR PULLS IT OUT OF PROBABILITY SPACE.  When this happens,
not only do we obtain the resulting bosons which are identical to the
incident bosons, but we also get everything else which is supposed to come out
from this decay channel.  Or, in other words, when we shoot 23.8 MeV gamma
into the Pd cathode, we should get helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gamma out -
and again this is cold fusion.  We note, however, cold fusion is only one
example of the general theory of using incident bosons to change probability.
 
     Following the above theorizing, a paper was produced by Dr. Ying and
mailed to his patent attorney on November 21, 1989.  Under advice of this paten
t attorney, the paper and the originals thoughts (reduced to writing) were
notarized on November 27, 1989.  The period from then until the successful
experiments on June 23, 1992 was taken up by raising funds, forming research
groups, obtaining lab space, purchasing equipment and setting them up and
actually doing the experiments. Dr. Ying was initially assisted by Dr. Lee Chow
 of UCF as Co-Principal Investigator.  Results were not positive and the
research and grant were not renewed upon termination.  Quite a few months later
Dr. Ying, as Principal Investigator, arranged a grant from Quantum Nucleonics
Corp. to perform research at the Orlando Science Center and his work was
assisted by Charles W. Shults III as Co-Principal Investigator.
 
     Although verbal agreement was reached on December 2, 1991, actual research
 did not start at the Orlando Science Center until January 1992 because of the
need to build a small lab. One hundred and two experiments later, we finally
have enough successful experiments, under several different experimental
geometries, to be sure that we have obtained cold fusion which we can initiate
on demand.  We were also able to rejuvenate used cells by a reversing voltage
purge.  After the rejuvenation, used cells which have been showing fatigue
are once more able to produce more energy.
 
     Using alpha and gamma rays as incident initiating bosons, our experi-
mental results indicate that we have an electrolysis inputof less that
(?than?) 15 microwatts with an output of approximately 0.33 to 0.50 watts.
This gives an increase of about 5 orders of magnitude.  Rejuvenation takes
approximately 10 seconds.
 
     From experimentally obtaining cold fusion on demand, we have one experimen
tal proof of Dr. Ying's general theory of 'using incident bosons to grab
decay channels out of probability space into normal space, and thus controlling
probability'.  This is completely new in as much as it has always been held
that decay channels, such as the half life of radioactive substances, etc.
are probability related and cannot be controlled or enhanced by man.
 
     We are happy to report that both cold fusion on demand and the more
encompassing general theory of probability control have now been discovered and
 also proven by experiments at the Orlando Science Center.
 
                                      Dr. Nelson Ying and
                                      Charles W. Shults III
                                      June 26, 1992
 
-------------end of transcription------------------------------------------
 
I called Ms. Donlan at OSC again to ask a few stupid questions and got a little
 more background on the press conference.  She said the experiment was "fired
up" twice, but no video was made. Today, however, a local CBS outlet put a repe
at performance by the principals on tape. I asked her for e-mail addresses of
the two investigators so interested parties could learn more, and she said
she'd try to provide these
 
This is a lot of typing for my old fingers and my eyes have glazed over as I
have seen ipsedixis broadened to a new dimension.  So better that this piranha
pool have at it!
 
 
Ed Manning
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenMANN cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Anti-CF Conspiracy
Date: 2 Jul 92 01:01:56 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <920629151028_72240.1256_EHL75-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   Foolishness and folly have always characterized the human race, and
   have shaped all of human history. We have seen this kind of thing
   happen over and over. The Wrights first flew in 1903. They flew for
   five years after that, right next to a trolley line in Dayton, OH,
   in plain view of thousands of commuters, and *still* the New York
   Times, the Scientific American, the Federal Government, and almost
   all of the "scientific establishment" claimed they were crazy
   lunatics. Any newspaper in the country could have sent a reporter
   with a camera, who could have settled the controversy in an hour,
   but for five long years they refused to bother...
 
     Nothing to do with cold fusion, or maybe it does, but get your
facts straight.  The fundamental discovery which the Wright brothers
made was wing warping (now replaced by flaps) and using it to turn by
banking.  However, since the early aircraft were way underpowered, the
sharp turns WITH CONTROL which they claimed possible were very hard to
demonstrate to anyone not in the aircraft.  (And if you knew aircraft
were unstable in sharp turns, what would you call someone who offered
to take you for a literal spin? :-)
 
     Once they had a plane with enough horsepower (1908) they could
hold a demonstration, invite everyone and the press, and there were no
arguments.  (I'm trying to remember which French aviation pioneer,
said when asked what he thought after the demonstration: "Compared to
the Wrights, we are all children.")
 
    Notice that the Wrights also had patent disclosure problems which
prevented them from answering their critics early on.
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fission & The Future
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission & The Future
Date: 2 Jul 92 02:24:18 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

John E. Kreznar writes:
>In article <920623201237_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>> I was trying to get the U.S. government to allow a handful of people to
study
>> CF, may 20, maybe 50.
>
>First, is it consistent to fret about your government's debt on the one
hand
>while advocating increased spending by it on the other?  Does the righteous
>indignation you feel about insufficient taxpayer support for your favorite
>program somehow trump the righteous indignation of another with respect to
>_his_ favorite program?
 
First, put things in perspective:
 
The Tokamak, has been funded at hundreds of millions of dollars a year
for decades without producing more energy, even thermal, than is being
put in.  The claims of its proponents are that it will take another
40 years at a higher funding rate to achieve a workable reactor -- and
even then it will be a big neutronic mess.
 
All of this has been government funding except for a short burst of
private activity funded by Bob Guccione with Bob Bussard at the helm
on the compact Tokamak (work subsequently taken over by the DoE).
 
Then you have cold fusion:
 
Privately financed by two guys who believe (as do many others) that
they have achieved an essentially aneutronic source of fusion energy
already on totally private financing.
 
What CNF proponents have a lot of trouble accepting is:
 
1) That with hundreds of millions of dollars a year for decades going
to a proven failure, there isn't even 1% of that amount available for
engineering their purported success into an unequivocal demonstration.
 
2) That it is rational to compare the utter indefensibility of the
Tokamak program to modest requests for government funding from the
the privately financed CNF advocates, when they are essentially
promising to determine Yea or Nay as to its viability in a period of
time and for an amount of money that is disappearingly small compared
to the Tokamak.
 
>Third, is your government disallowing study of CF?
 
Yes.  Go out and try to raise money for any sort of fusion development
and you'll find the slander from the Tokamak "scientists" will immediately
drive away your sources of funding.  Only if you are one hell of a
litigious *sshole like certain people who I will not name, can you
hope to get any private funding.  The primary function of the DoE's
Tokamak program is to finance the suppression of competition with the
DoE's strangle hold on the potential of fusion energy.  They want to
maintain that strangle hold because it allows them to dangle the carrot
of fusion energy before the taxpayer, thereby guaranteeing lucrative
long-term employment for themselves and the fun of bossing around young
scientists and engineers who are naive enough to actually believe
the fusion program exists to develop fusion technology.  You can do a
lot of suppressing and engage in a lot of sick behavior on $300M/year.
 
Although NASA does the same thing on a much grander scale, at least
NASA actually does something real now and then.
 
Now I fight government funded technology as well.  In fact, I've
written up legislation to privatize these things, and even gotten
some past.  I believe technosocialism is the single most damaging
policy being pursued by our government at present, and that the DoE's
fusion program is technosocialism at its worst.
 
HOWEVER, I will always get behind those who wish to spend the money
we are already borrowing more wisely even as I fight to terminate all
funding for technosocialism.  If this means that government-funded
technology might end up more successful than it otherwise might have,
then, yes, the increased credibility given to technosocialism is
damaging, but that damage is vastly less than the damage being done
by the continued hegemony of the Tokamak program -- a hegemony which
is promoted with EVERY attack against funding for alternative fusion
technologies.
 
If CNF succeeds -- even if funded by the government -- credit will
ultimately go to P&F for their privately financed independent
invention, just as credit ultimately went to the Wright brothers
despite the fact that Dr. Langley and his government funding
sources drove them to the British.  Remember, it wasn't until
after WW II that the technosocialists allowed the Wright brothers'
to achieve the recognition they deserved 30 years before.
 
CNF's success will undermine the credibility of the cold war version
of "science" and "technology" that is the greatest barrier to productive
investment in advanced technology in this country.
 
So I guess my message to you is, go ahead and fight technosocialism
tooth and nail, but choose your battles more carefully and keep
your priorities straight.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 05:47:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu () says:
>the experiment has produced 0.5 watts of electrical power from 15 microwatts
>using 20 grams of deuterium oxide distilled from sea water.
 
Is half a watt an easy thing to measure?
 
>The incident bosons would be aimed at the
>target in the experimental universe.
 
>when we shoot 23.8 MeV gamma
>into the Pd cathode, we should get helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gamma out -
 
FASER?
 
This could explain "bursting" but where are the gamma's and other products?
 
Though, I must say I like Ying's idea in an intuitive way.  I'm sure before
the end of next week, many other CNF researchers will be shooting bosons
into their Pd.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / John Logajan /  Peroxide, Lye, and Pt
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide, Lye, and Pt
Date: 2 Jul 92 07:48:54 GMT

As a fourth experiment, I put lye (sodium hydroxide NaOH) in the Hydrogen
Peroxide (H2O2) solution to see if that would effect the Pt wire's decomposition
of the H2O2 to H2O and O2.  I detected no significant change in the bubbling
rate at room temperature.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 /  stevo@URSINUS. /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: stevo@URSINUS.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 15:39:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
 
>My brother fought his way through the phone system, and left a message.  Dr.
>Ying called back last night.
 
>He developed a theory after the P&F announcement.  He was unable to get a
>student (surprise) to work on it and left west coast university and ended up
>in FL.  He has somehow worked for three years without even knowing that there
>was a cold fusion conference in Utah and Como.  His reaction makes gammas and
>(23.8 mev gammas) and alphas.
>
>He is in the hands of a patent attorney, but promised information in a week
>to ten days.
>
>He has a theory, and did not appear to be knowledgeable about either radiation
>measurement or calorimetry.
>
>It was like talking to Mills.
 
      If you think that talking to Ying or Mills is an experience, you should
try working with one of them for a year!  Working with Mills was, well,
interesting...
 
      Anyway, Mills has a theory.  He still believes it.  Has anyone out
there got proof that the Mills and Farrell theory is impossible?
 
Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College
Bitnet: Stevo@URSINUS
Round-about via the Internet: Stevo%Ursinus.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenstevo cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: 2 Jul 92 14:42:58 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

First, special thanks to Ed Manning for posting the press release.  I called
Orlando Science Center yesterday to get a copy, and Jan Donlan was busy with
a film crew -- probably the CBS folks.  Now when will we see this?
 
In article <16817EF3A.MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>
>Document  #1: A press release on OSC letterheading:
>
>Title: COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT SUCCEEDS AT THE ORLANDO SCIENCE CENTER
>
>         [...]                      Sondra Quinn and Science Center Board
>Chair Aaron Dowd signed the log book as witnesses to the replication of the
>cold fusion effect by observing the thermal curves on a computer.
 
Important fact #1: they are making calorimetric measurements.  No mention
                   seems to be made of any nuclear product observations.
 
With a 10^5 amplification, verification would not seem to be a problem,
although there is no measure of the efficiency of the gamma-induced
process -- perhaps the flux of gammas is very high, higher than the
number to be expected from 0.5 watts.
 
 (1 Joule = 6.242x10^{12} MeV, so 0.5 Watt = 0.5 Joule/s
 (                                         = 3.121x10^{12} MeV/s
 (                                         = 1.31x10^{11} gammas/s .
 (
 (Note: estimate not accurate since energy also carried by recoil, plus
 (      I ignored energy into other open channels.  Looks like a high
 (      radiation environment to me.
 
 ...
 
>Document #2:  June 26th statement by Dr. Nelson Ying and his associate
>Charles W. Shults III, under joint heading of Orlando Science Center and
>Quantum Nucleonics Corporation. Transcription follows:
>
>         [...]                          In this case the Pd cathode is the
>target. When the incident bosons are SAME AS AT LEAST ONE TYPE OF HOPED FOR
>RESULTING BOSONS, THE INCIDENT BOSON STIMULATED THE PRODUCTION OF THIS
>RESULTING BOSON - OR PULLS IT OUT OF PROBABILITY SPACE.  When this happens,
>not only do we obtain the resulting bosons which are identical to the
>incident bosons, but we also get everything else which is supposed to come out
>from this decay channel.  Or, in other words, when we shoot 23.8 MeV gamma
>into the Pd cathode, we should get helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gamma out -
>and again this is cold fusion.
 
This is basically good old stimulated emission cast in an unusual lingo.  I
am a bit surprised that he did not credit Einstein for the idea in the way
so many public versions of science invoke His Name as justification.
 
"everything else" should also include the other channels -- that is neutrons
and protons in much greater quantities than gamma rays.  What might be
interesting is that the gamma decay is normally inhibited by selection rules,
but perhaps this method of stimulated emission is putting the system in a
state that is not inhibited (somehow), in which case it would decay by
gammas and the other channels would be inhibited??  In any case, he clearly
expects gamma rays as output with an amplification of 10^5 !!???
 
But it is a cute idea, not to be dismissed lightly.  The radiation levels
expected should not be dismissed lightly either.  Monitor this!
 
Sure sign of success: classification as potential gamma-ray laser and
creation of new SDI research program with a high security level.
 
> [...]
>
>     Using alpha and gamma rays as incident initiating bosons, our experi-
>mental results indicate that we have an electrolysis inputof less that
>(?than?) 15 microwatts with an output of approximately 0.33 to 0.50 watts.
>This gives an increase of about 5 orders of magnitude.  Rejuvenation takes
>approximately 10 seconds.
 
No mention is made of run times or loading times.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 /  Rothwell /  SRI Accident Press Release
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI Accident Press Release
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 17:08:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
     Otis Port typed the SRI press release and uploaded it over in CompuServe.
Thank you, Otis! Here it is:
 
June 18, 1992
SRI PROBE OF LAB EXPLOSION: REPORT CITES BUILDUP OF GASES, PRESSURE IN CELL
 
   A fatal explosion in a laboratory at SRI International on Jan. 2 was caused
by an "unanticipated and undetected" buildup of deuterium and oxygen gases
which ignited inside an experimental electrochemical cell, according to the
research organization's scientific investigation of the accident.    SRI
attributed the gas accumulation to the failure of a chemical catalyst and
blockage of a gas outlet tube inside the closed cell. When researchers moved
the cell for examination, it most likely restarted a chemical reaction that
overheated some platinum catalytic spheres, which then detonated the gas
mixture, according to SRI's report on the findings of its team of experts.
"We believe that this tragic accident was the result of an unforeseen and
unusual combination of circumstances that both allowed the gases and pressure
to build up and blinded our scientists to the danger," said SRI Senior Vice
President Jon Clemens, who headed the Investigative Committee.
 
   The explosion blew the welded bottom off the six-inch-long steel
cylindrical cell, which was then projected upward, striking and killing Dr.
Andrew Riley. Three other scientists were slightly injured by flying glass and
other shattered parts of the experimental apparatus.
 
   The researchers had been engaged in scientific studies of power production
in electrolytic cells containing deuterium, a form of hydrogen, and the metal
palladium -- an area of research that has been popularly labeled "cold
fusion." Noting that there was no radioactivity released in the explosion, SRI
also indicated that the physical evidence failed to support a hypothesis that
"cold fusion-related" heat production may have been involved in the explosion.
 
   "The most plausible explanation of the accident, based on the evidence of
the distorted cell, the injury to Dr. Riley, and the distribution of pieces in
the laboratory, is that an explosion occurred in the upper part of the cell
where an oxygen/deuterium gas mixture was located," the report said.    In
order to make highly accurate measurements of the power-in (electrical) and
the power-out (heat) of the electrochemical process and to contain any
reaction products, the experiment was performed in a closed electrochemical
cell set inside a vacuum-glass calorimeter, which was placed in a temperature-
controlled water bath.
 
   The cell contained an electrolyte of "heavy water" composed of oxygen and
deuterium in its bottom half, along with palladium electrodes and various
supporting internal parts made of Teflon. When electricity flows through the
cell, oxygen and deuterium gases are generated and rise up to the top half of
the cell where they eventually come in contact with platinum balls which
catalyze the gases back into heavy water. However, a post-explosion analysis
of monitoring-device data indicated that the catalyst had failed, allowing
oxygen and deuterium gases to accumulate rather than recombine into water. In
addition, the opening to a gas outlet tube, which could have allowed the gases
to escape or indicate a high-pressure condition, apparently became partially
sealed by a Teflon piece that supported wires and other parts near the top of
the cell.
 
   SRI said that the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal-OSHA) is having independent studies performed on the cell, which it has
retained as evidence.
 
   SRI also empaneled an Independent Review Committee, chaired by Barnet
Adelman, president, Adelman Associates, and a respected authority on rocketry,
explosives, ordnance, armor and related fields. The other committee members
include Francesco Tamanini, an explosion and energetics expert from the
Factory Mutual Research Corp. and William R. Fawcett, professor of chemistry
at the University of California, Davis, expert in electrode kinetics. SRI's
findings have been released to Cal-OSHA, local government authorities, the
press, and members of the worldwide scientific community. Following the
accident, SRI and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), which had been
supporting the examination of deuterated palladium (D/Pd) systems over the
past two years at SRI, suspended further research pending the outcome of
investigations. SRI and EPRI are continuing to evaluate the future course of
their research in this area.
 
   Contact: James Kloss of SRI International, 415-859-2547
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 /  Rothwell /  Szzz... Bang!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Szzz... Bang!
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 17:11:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Ah, well, I said I was going to avoid politics, but I have been handed so many
firecrackers; so near the 4th of July, I cannot resist firing off a few.
 
Jon Webb comments: "Look at what happened with Takahashi.  He claimed a
positive result, and the next thing you know he's invited to talk at MIT."
 
To set the record straight: he was invited by Drs. Smullin, Hagelstein and
Mallove, at my suggestion. Fortunately, he paid his own way, we could not have
afforded it. MIT refused to even publish a notice about the lecture, or pay
for his lunch (pizza).
 
 
Robert Eachus comments: "...get your facts straight.  The fundamental
discovery which the Wright brothers made was wing warping (now replaced by
flaps) and using it to turn by banking.  However, since the early aircraft
were way underpowered, the sharp turns WITH CONTROL which they claimed
possible were very hard to demonstrate to anyone not in the aircraft."
 
Get *your* facts straight, Mr. Eachus. The best source of information is "The
Wright Brothers" by Fred C. Kelly, but the following appears in almost every
book about them:
 
The Wrights had complete X, Y and Z control. As you say, many early aviators
could only fly in a straight line, like Curtis, but the Wrights could fly
anywhere they wanted. By 1905 they had flow over 160 miles, mostly going in
circles over Huffman Prarie, just outside of Dayton, OH. The first published
report of circular, controlled flight appeared in Sept. 1904, in "Gleanings In
Bee Culture" by the Editor, the remarkable Mr. A. I. Root, who wrote, "... it
was my privilege on September 20, 1904, to see the first successful trip of an
airship without a balloon to sustain it, that the world has ever seen, that
is, to turn the corners and come back to the starting point..."
 
By 1906, the Wrights had dozens of photographs and affidavits from sixty
leading citizens of Dayton and various people in the neighborhood stating that
they had seen flights, including: E.W. Ellis, asst. city auditor, T. Huffman,
bank president, C.S. Billman, W.H. Shank, treasurer, H. Myers, a post-office
employee, plumbers, hardware dealers, a farmer; also, O. F. Jameson, traveling
salesman, and T. Waddell of the Census Bureau, Washington D.C.
 
In Jan. 1906, in an article titled, "The Wright Aeroplane and Its Fabled
Performances," the Scientific American expressed its disbelief in the
"alleged" flights:
 
     "If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being
     conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which
     everyone feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that
     the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well know, comes down the
     chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a
     fifteen-story skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about
     them and published them broadcast long ago?"
 
The Scientific American gradually became schizophrenic, at one point declaring
in the same issue that the Wrights might have flown, but then again,
definitely had not. Finally, in Dec. 1906, the editor decided that maybe they
had flown, after all, but he did not bother to send anyone to get the details.
The U.S. Government flatly refused to believe anything. This absurd situation
continued until Pres. Roosevelt ordered the War Department to invite the
Wrights to Ft. Myer, VA, where they flew in Sept. 1908. Earlier, when the
British and French Governments sent agents to visit the Wrights, they reported
back that all of the Wright claims were true and verified.
 
I have talked, for hours, to the present editors and writers of The Scientific
American. I have also talked with many other science journalists and
scientists. They say almost *exactly* the same thing as their predecessors in
1906; they have *exactly* this same smug, snide, know-it-all, schizophrenic
attitude. "We know what we are doing," they say, "If the CF claims were true,
we would have found out about them a long time ago. I have checked with my
colleagues (who checked with their colleagues, who checked with theirs, but
nobody ever bothered to actually go to a lab and *look*, mind you.)" In 1906,
The Scientific American had a list of 60 people they could have telegraphed
and asked, they had photographs, they had scientific articles from Europe
describing the Wright's work, and they could have talked to A. G. Bell, one of
the most famous scientists and industrialists of the time, but - they "knew"
it couldn't be true - and that was that. The S.A. also had detailed
correspondence from Root, who by that time knew more about aeronautics than
any other journalist in the world, but they wrote him off as a kook, and
ignored him.
 
The present day S.A. has photos, data, articles from peer reviewed Japanese
journals and from their own Japanese edition (all provided by me), letters
from officials in MITI and the Ministry of Education, and an invitation to the
Third Annual Conference. They could talk to J. Schwinger, Nobel Laureate and
one of the leading scientists of our time, or to Gerischer, Europe's leading
electrochemist. I sent them a list of 400 Petition Signatories, whom they
could ask about CF, including some world class scientists, and many hot fusion
experts, like the Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission. But - they
know it can't be true, and they are sure nothing is happening in Japan - so
that's that. In May, John Horgan wrote that the alleged activity in Japan was
all misinformation and rumor spread by Japanophile, LaRouchite kooks
(Fleischmann and me, to be specific). Documented facts don't matter one damn
bit to him. He will not confront the reality of cold fusion experiments; he
will not even admit that such experiments are being performed!
 
The latest manifestation of this zany attitude was right here, in Zorch, where
Jon Webb blithely declared:
 
"...have the Japanese scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals...
Takahashi has not yet published positive results, only some theories (at least
in Dieter's bibliography.)  Ikegami has not published at all..."
 
Jon could easily have contacted Dr. Ikegami to ask him whether he has
published any peer reviewed papers. He could have asked me to send him
Takahashi's peer reviewed reports of his positive results, going back to 1989.
He could even have checked, say, the J. Journal of Applied Physics, J. Nucl.
Sci. Technol., Denkikagaku (J. Journal of Electrochemistry), Nihon Kinzoku
Gakkaisi, Fusion Technology, Journal of Nuclear Science Technology, ISEM &
Como Proceedings (not peer reviewed), Proc. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
Metal/Deuterium Systems Conf., the Japanese edition of Scientific American
(not ours!), the Nikkei Superconductor Newsletter, or the Journal Of Applied
Electromagnetics In Materials (for Takahashi's latest heat results).
 
But no, he has heard from his colleague Deiter that the Japanese workers have
not published anything. (Deiter is an excellent source, but he does not read
Japanese, and he does not hear each sparrow fall.) So, like the Scientific
American, instead of checking with Ikegami, or me, or the library, Mr. Webb
assumes that he knows all of the facts already, and he assumes that if
anything was *really* happening in Japan, he would have heard about it -- by
ESP, I suppose.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 /  /  The Ying experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Ying experiment
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 20:16:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A brief survey around Fermilab failed to turn up a 23.8 mev gamma source.
While this might be available in some opbscure source (only got to two
good people), it is not very likely.  This means that Dr. Ying must have
a small cyclotron.  It would need to be 5" or so (I remember the 184"
at Berkeley is good for about a GEV).  It is possible that a science
center might have such a device.
 
This means that replication will not be easy in the basement.  Dr. Ying
is sending a disclosure agreement, so soon I will know.  But I may not
be able to tell you if I sign it.  I figure I can send one "bit" of
information by future actions.  If I quit mentioning Ying's experiment,
then this means that I can do it, I am doing it, and it does not require
a cyclotron.
 
There now only remains the question of whether I can sign a non-disclosure
agreement having sent this message.  Hmmm.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 21:02:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) says:
>This is basically good old stimulated emission cast in an unusual lingo.
>
>But it is a cute idea, not to be dismissed lightly.  The radiation levels
>expected should not be dismissed lightly either.  Monitor this!
 
To take the LASER analogy further, isn't it conceivable that a coherence
might direct ejecta along certain preferred axes and not others.  One
might monitor in the wrong place!
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 /  Rothwell /  Measuring one half watt
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measuring one half watt
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 22:00:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
John Logajan asks, "Is half a watt an easy thing to measure?"
 
Answer: Yes, if you know what you are doing. Dead simple. A piece of cake. I
talked to Dr. Ying briefly, but I don't have the foggiest idea whether he
knows what he is doing, or not.
 
Let me explain why I say it is "dead simple." Ying reportedly has his device
in a "styrofoam cooler inside a plastic Coleman cooler," which is pretty good
insulation. I presume it is a simple, static calorimeter. I have been told
that would not work very well for measuring 30 to 200 watts, which is what I
am trying to do, but for 1 or 2 watts, Bockris recommends that kind of
arrangement. He says it is "foolproof."
 
I don't know how much of a temperature change 0.5 watts makes in Ying's
cooler, but I know that when we shut off the cooling water to our insulated
plastic box and input 0.5 watts, making a kind of static calorimeter, the
temperature goes up about 2 degrees above ambient. So, I expect the question
boils down to: has Ying done his homework and set up a arrangement where the
temperature changes 1 or 2 deg C per 0.5 watts, and can he measure 1 or 2
degrees accurately and dependably?
 
In my calibration data, I am comparing temperature changes for several
different kinds of devices here: eight ordinary thermocouples, Tom Droege's
ultra-accurate thermoelectric device, electronic kelvin thermometers, a Radio
Shack electronic thermometer, and two old fashioned mercury thermometers. I
have determined that ordinary thermocouples measure 1 or 2 degrees as
accurately as one of those $15 dollar electronic fever thermometers, or the
Radio Shack Thermometer, that is; to the nearest 0.1 deg C. I have also found
that by sampling twice a minute and averaging 20 points together, standard
thermocouples are accurate to the nearest 0.01 deg C. When I averaged points
from 1 hour or more, they agreed with Tom's device within 0.001 C a few days
ago, but now they seem to be quarrelling, and they are 0.0182 apart at zero
input, although closer at other inputs. I am trying to figure out why, it
could be because of a change in ambient temperature.
 
So: yes, you can make a box that goes up 1 or 2 degrees with 0.5 watts input,
and yes, it is very simple to measure 1 or 2 degrees accurately. A $15
thermometer will work fine. Did Ying do it right? Did he watch his step,
calibrate and recalibrate? Who knows?
 
One cautionary note about Dr. Ying. Gene Mallove, Tom Droege and I have talked
to him, and not gotten clear impressions of what he is doing, or his skill;
and we have sense that he is not too familiar with the field. However, he is
Chinese. Although he speaks English pretty well, English is a Very Difficult
Language for a native speaker of Chinese. Perhaps some of our confusion is due
to communication and cultural gaps. It is very difficult to form an
impression, or opinion about someone from another culture (I have had lots of
experience trying!), so let us not jump to conclusions. Let us cut the man
some slack and wait for his paper.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 /  /  Thank you John Logajan
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thank you John Logajan
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 22:08:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to John Logajan for his nice experiment.  See, you can do experiments
at home without a lot of equipment.  Often faster than you can look up the
reactions.
 
Most of my experiments have been conducted with a third (platinum) electrode
in the cell.  This electrode is held at the most negative cell potential by a
small current source.  The idea is to use this electrode to attract and hold
stray metal ions.  These runs start with a ritual variation of currents
designed to cause all funny ions to stick to the "dummy" cathode thus
preventing them from being plated out on the Palladium cathode.  During this
operation we plate from the regular Platinum anode and the Palladium cathode
to the "dummy".  The hope is that this removes any junk ions from their
surfaces so that the run can start clean.  This means that earlier experiments
continuously had a Platinum cathode in operation.  From John's experiments we
conclude that it disassociated any formed D2O2.
 
It looks like there has been constant formation and disassociation of D2O2 in
the present experiment, with appropriate changes in gas volume.  No way to
sort it out now.  Next experiment we will add back the "dummy" electrode and
fix the sample tube so we can draw out electrolyte to test for D2O2.
 
Every 1400 hour experiment one learns a new trick.  Progress is not fast, but
we keep plugging.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / Richard Long /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 22:01:08 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <9650@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
(stuff deleted)
 
 
> >RESULTING BOSONS, THE INCIDENT BOSON STIMULATED THE PRODUCTION OF THIS
> >RESULTING BOSON - OR PULLS IT OUT OF PROBABILITY SPACE.  When this
happens,
> >not only do we obtain the resulting bosons which are identical to the
> >incident bosons, but we also get everything else which is supposed to
come out
> >from this decay channel.  Or, in other words, when we shoot 23.8 MeV
gamma
> >into the Pd cathode, we should get helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gamma out
-
> >and again this is cold fusion.
>
> This is basically good old stimulated emission cast in an unusual lingo.
 
Gosh Jim, I was going to make this point, but you beat me to it!  In
particular, this analogous to an eximer or possibly a chemical laser, but
of course this one is nuclear.  I had talked about the possibility of a
nuclear gamma ray laser based on radioactive sources years ago, but this
is much better.  Congratulations to Dr. Ying, even if his apparatus
doesn't work--his idea almost surely will someday!
 
 I
> am a bit surprised that he did not credit Einstein for the idea in the
way
> so many public versions of science invoke His Name as justification.
>
> "everything else" should also include the other channels -- that is
neutrons
> and protons in much greater quantities than gamma rays.  What might be
> interesting is that the gamma decay is normally inhibited by selection
rules,
> but perhaps this method of stimulated emission is putting the system in
a
> state that is not inhibited (somehow), in which case it would decay by
> gammas and the other channels would be inhibited??  In any case, he
clearly
> expects gamma rays as output with an amplification of 10^5 !!???
>
> But it is a cute idea, not to be dismissed lightly.  The radiation
levels
> expected should not be dismissed lightly either.  Monitor this!
>
> Sure sign of success: classification as potential gamma-ray laser and
> creation of new SDI research program with a high security level.
>
> > [...]
> >
> >     Using alpha and gamma rays as incident initiating bosons, our
experi-
> >mental results indicate that we have an electrolysis inputof less that
> >(?than?) 15 microwatts with an output of approximately 0.33 to 0.50
watts.
> >This gives an increase of about 5 orders of magnitude.  Rejuvenation
takes
> >approximately 10 seconds.
>
> No mention is made of run times or loading times.
>
> --
> J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of
which I
> jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of
promises
> Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of
challenges."
> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15
July 60)
 
Yes, I too was wondering about the gamma levels, and why Dr. Ying isn't
dead.  I hope they are taking more than the usual precautions.  I also
hope that the government doesn't grab this (In the interest of national
security of course :(  P.S. I wonder if the DoD already has thought of
this, and is developing it right now?  After all, the idea is fairly
simple, and all that P & F needed was a gamma source around 23.8 MeV)
 
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.02 / William Johnson /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: 2 Jul 92 22:24:18 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Jul2.210242.7639@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
 al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>
>In a previous article, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) says:
>>This is basically good old stimulated emission cast in an unusual lingo.
>>
>>But it is a cute idea, not to be dismissed lightly.  The radiation levels
>>expected should not be dismissed lightly either.  Monitor this!
>
>To take the LASER analogy further, isn't it conceivable that a coherence
>might direct ejecta along certain preferred axes and not others.  One
>might monitor in the wrong place!
 
In a word, No.
 
The reason has to do with the nature of the "ejecta," as you put it.  Laying
aside the He-4, other "ejecta" from putative d+d fusion will be either neutrons
directly (from d+d=3He+n) or from photoreactions -- more on that shortly -- or
23-MeV gammas (from d+d=4He+gamma, which is being noised about).  Both wind up
being detectable in miscellaneous directions, even if they are produced
unidirectionally.  Neutrons, whatever their source, don't travel in straight
lines for very long; particularly in hydrogenous media, they move for a few
centimeters in one direction, bump into something, and change direction, losing
a bit of energy in the process (and becoming more detectable as a result).  The
initial direction is lost after the first bounce, again particularly when there
is hydrogen or some other light element around.
 
As for gammas, 23.4-MeV gammas themselves, if emitted unidirectionally, might
well be detected only via a detector looking in the right direction.  However,
such energetic photons make strange things happen.  Photodissociation of the
deuteron is one thing; any deuteron in the path of the gamma risks becoming a
proton and neutron, each aimed in some more or less random direction.  (In
fact, a gamma that energetic could photodissociate the palladium too; the same
general considerations apply.)  Furthermore, gamma rays of energies over 1.1
MeV can react with matter by "pair production" -- they call into being an
electron and a positron, the latter subsequently latching onto another electron
and annihilating, with the resultant production of two 0.511-MeV photons.  This
so-called "annihilation radiation" is the bane of gamma-ray spectroscopists,
and it would be occuring all over the place -- and in any direction -- with a
23-MeV photon source around.  Finally, there are always palladium x-rays from
the interaction of *any* ejecta with the palladium matrix; these too would
have to come off more or less isotropically, although they might be hard to
detect because of their low energy.
 
The bottom line is as it always has been: if a nuclear reaction is occurring,
reaction products *WILL* be detectable.  If no reaction products are detected,
then either the experimenter didn't look carefully -- by now unforgivable given
the state of maturity of radiation detection -- or no reaction occurred.  End
of discussion.
 
--
Bill Johnson				| "This is a bit complicated, so let
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| me explain it backwards."  (first
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| line of a memo from a fellow Los
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| Alamos physicist who will go unnamed)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 /  /  Ying secrecy agreement
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying secrecy agreement
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 00:08:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Received subject agreement and sent it back unsigned.  It was obviously
written by a non native american lawyer.  I am not going to pay my lawyer
to read one of those.  So I wrote my own and sent it back.  Will still
have to keep it secret if he sends the material so previous message holds.
 
If, as I suspect, their source for 23.8 mev gammas is some mini-cyclotron
that they happened to have at the science center, then it is probably
academic, as they are probably already due to die.  From my conversttion
with Ying, it did not sound like they had any radiation detetection
capability, though one would expect at least a gieger counter.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.002 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Ling's stuff.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ling's stuff.
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 92 21:56:36 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

	If Ling's theory fits reality, it would explain eratic
repeatibility of experiments. One, it seems, would need to start
the reaction with the initial 23.8Mev Gamma which would then produce
more gammas and perpetuate the reaction. So any stray gammas from
cosmic showers or nearby deposits of radioactive elements could be
the initiation of the reaction. I suppose the fact that one needs 23.8Mev
gammas as opposed to anything else could make it dependent on just
all kinds of seemingly irrelevant causes. Also contamination with 4He
could be a catalyst. Wow, it gets more and more complicated.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.002 /  MANN@YaleVM.YC /  Re: Ying and Shults / Orlando SC
     
Originally-From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying and Shults / Orlando SC
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 92 19:28:59 EDT
Organization: Yale University

Boson source: cannot disclose until his patent attorney clears, but is a
simple device obtainable from a popular and well known source of supply.
 
Paper for peer review: Well, just read the dates in previous bulletins.
He's started it, but it'll be a while.....the phone keeps ringing.
To save some of you the trouble of doing the research, Dr. Ying says he
hasn't published since his thesis (c.1970).  He describes himself as a
theorist, not an experimentalist.  But he sures sounds confident as all
get out.
 
I/O:  Mistake in press release.  Input is 0.15 milliwatts, not microwatts.
That still gives you 3 or 4 magnitudes of amplication.
 
Calorimetry: various thermal sensors, i.e. temperature.  I infer that he
hangs everything on the apparent heat generated, and is pretty confident
that he's missing the measurement of a bundle of BTU's so he has heat to
spare.
 
Cell figuration:  didn't get into this, but it is simple and open system.
 
Typical run:  Introduce power  input and let cell run for a while to
stabilize, then turning on or somehow introducing boson input.  At this
point temperatures start to rise rapidly reaching a max. output they
calculate equivalent to about 0.4 watt, and then after about 1/2 hour
temperature begins to decay, at which point they initiate "rejuvenation"
(more bosons?) and the thing cycles again.  Yes there are tricks to it,
not the least of which is "geometry" (I infer this relates to the boson
source), but all will be revealed soon. I think I'm reporting correctly
what I heard, but we didn't have a back and forth review for details and
Dr. Ying races ahead...my wife says so often I'm a poor listener...what
other caveat can I supply?
 
Current project:  Right now Shults is trying to build a self rejuvenating
cell.
 
Output measurements:  Q: Do you measure output bosons?  No..not yet. Dr. Y
infers their existence, along with He-4; again, everything hangs on the
theory and the fact that they can crank up a producing cell pretty much
at will. Anecdotal:  After the news conference demo they brought their
prize cell back to the lab and started to fire it up again....nothing
happened and he had that sinking feeling....so they checked around and
found a couple of loose leads which, when repaired, set everything
right.  In fact, he had made 4 separate runs this morning.
 
What about He-4 detection:  Answ:  We're figuring out some sort of
envelope and sampling system, and are looking for help in the area
of He-4 detection.
 
Plain water runs?  Yes, at least two early on...nothing happened.
Agrees need more plain water runs.
 
Radiation:  He's a little worried about that; thinks maybe Shults got
a small radiation burn in Run #55.  My thought: just a little worried?
Well, you've got to remember, he's characterized himself as a theorist.
I'm an old pilot and not a bold pilot, and I think anybody who fiddles
with this idea should proceed with thoughtfulness.  I have to presume
that Mr. Shults is getting sound helpful advice in this area.
 
Confirmation problems:  Sticky wicket (note earlier post by TD who has
put his finger on the sore spot).  There is heavy skepticism at the
local university and negotiations are underway to work out an
arrangement whereby they'll try to replicate without being too hemmed
in by the  patent protection problem
 
E-mail?  He doesn't use it.  Try the fax and phone.  Numbers available from
Jan Dorlan; you have her number in earlier post.
 
Who is this guy?  That's the sort of question that came my way in more than
one letter.  I didn't call the local police station to see if he had a
blotter record, but I do have a couple of friends in FL who have solid
connex in Orlando, and Dr. Y comes up all roses.  Better get it straight
at the outset: this man has been around the block; he's paid for most of
this out of his own pocket; he's a legit business man and he really knows
a lot of physics.  I found him easy to talk with and quite open....I'd like
to know him personally.  He's on the boards of numerous local enterprises
(I'm told) and he's an Orlando booster who gets things done in a nice quiet
way.
 
I wouldn't rush to judgement on the fact that Dr. Ying has chosen the
press conference to get the word out, nor would I draw parallels on his
patent disclosure problems and those of others, notably P&F.  It appears to
me that Dr. Y is quite in charge of this operation, and while I'm sure he
listens to his patent attorney, I have a feeling there will be little or no
hedging down the road.
 
I'm off to the lake. Have a safe 4th.
 
Ed Manning
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenMANN cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Ying's stuff.
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying's stuff.
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 92 05:21:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) says:
 
>One, it seems, would need to start
>the reaction with the initial 23.8Mev Gamma which would then produce
>more gammas and perpetuate the reaction.
 
I don't know what others have heard in phone conversations with Ying, but
from the press release one can only infer he used 23.8Mev bosons.  He
seemed to couch it in more general terms (an energy of a "desired"
reaction product) and used 23.8Mev as an example?
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Ying and Shults / Orlando SC
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying and Shults / Orlando SC
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 92 05:25:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu () says:
 
>Typical run:  Introduce power  input and let cell run for a while to
>stabilize, then turning on or somehow introducing boson input.  At this
>point temperatures start to rise rapidly reaching a max. output they
>calculate equivalent to about 0.4 watt, and then after about 1/2 hour
>temperature begins to decay, at which point they initiate "rejuvenation"
>(more bosons?) and the thing cycles again.
       ^^^^^^
I think the press release/statement said something to the effect that
"rejuvenation" was the application of reverse polarity for approx 10
seconds.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 / John Logajan /  Near surface effect?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Near surface effect?
Date: 3 Jul 92 06:05:58 GMT

Ying's quick charge-up time (unstated, but inferable from the "four runs in
the morning"), heat output time (1/2 hour), and rejuv time (10 seconds) suggests
a not very deep penetration of the D2 into the Pd -- a near surface effect.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.003 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Near surface effect?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Near surface effect?
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 92 12:35:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <9207030605.AA17011@anubis.network.com> logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Ying's quick charge-up time (unstated, but inferable from the "four runs in
>the morning"), heat output time (1/2 hour), and rejuv time (10 seconds)
 suggests
>a not very deep penetration of the D2 into the Pd -- a near surface effect.
 
 
Not necessarily, 10 seconds may have more to do with the time it takes
to get sufficient number of simultaneous reactions going, i.e. this time
may be directly proportional to intensity of the boson source and geometry
of the electrode. What seems to be happenning is the source starts a bunch
of reactions, which self propagate for a while then die out because the
geometry of the electrode does not allow for critical mass(i.e large enough
mass to keep as many secondary gammas in as possible)
 
One thing comes to mind which may spell DANGER, one should under no
circumstances use large  electrodes which have small surface/volume ratio.
One could probably create a run-away chain reaction, and blow the nearby city
up.
 
This stuff scares the hell out of me.
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Near surface effect?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Near surface effect?
Date: 3 Jul 92 13:33:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul03.123537.110191@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>This stuff scares the hell out of me.
Just wanted to clarify what chain reaction I was talking about.
 
d + d + gamma(23.8) -> 4He + gamma + gamma
If the source is switched off then we still have 4He and gamma which
will do
d + d + 4He -> 4He + 4He + gamma
d + d + gamma _> 4He + gamma + gamma
 
If gammas are mostly let to escape then we have a somewhat linear
reaction where 4He is the main catalyst which is recycled, but if
we also keep all the gammas in we may have an exponential growth
in the reaction rate. Tom, do you own a pair of lead underware?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 /  Close /   jed rothwell on mit fraud and utah purity
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  jed rothwell on mit fraud and utah purity
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 16:17:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

re: Jed Rothwell on fraud at MIT and the purity of Pons.
 
Jed Rothwell's recent postings make the "fraud" at MIT sound very dramatic
whereas Fleischmann and Pons, by contrast, appear as abused innocents. He has
reported a version of FP's mobile neutron (actually gamma) data and included
my name in this. I have three broad comments to make.
 
1. Mr Rothwell's description of the time dependence of FP's neutron data
is a rewrite of history.
 
2.It is ABSOLUTELY FALSE to claim, as JR does, that when I discovered the
"mistake" (deception might be a more appropriate word) that I `informed them'
and that `both F and P immediately(sic) and completely(sic) retracted that
 part of the work'.
 
3. The claims that MIT fraudulently shifted a zero such that heat in D2O
became apparently thermal balance, are insubstantial and appear to be little
more than an attempt to deflect attention from more serious issues.
 
I will deal with points 1 and 2 later and start with the MIT business.
 
-----MIT "FRAUD" AS PUBLISHED BY E MALLOVE IN 21st CENTURY----------
 
It was claimed that MIT shifted a zero on power data in D2O to suppress evidence
of thermal imbalance. This shift occured between raw data and that published.
 
The difference between the zero in the figure of the measured raw data
(which JR and EM believe showed heat output) and that published (which
showed thermal balance) is 40mW (by eye). First, let's remember that at that
time (spring 89) we had been led to believe that FP had `4WATTS out for 1watt
in'and here we are debating MILLIwatts. An MIT technical appendix on errors by
Lockhardt shows there were `several heat transport processes that can easily
give rise to systematic errors in the range of (3 to 6 percent i.e.)
40 to 100mW'. Thus the shift of 40mW is well within the intrinsic uncertainties
of the experiment. If this is the sum total of the shift that JR refers to then
there is no significant power excess EVEN IN THE RAW DATA  and so there seems
little point in making a "fraudulent" shift of a zero in order to establish
what was already established anyway. I do not know precisely why MIT revised
the baseline but as it is within errors and does not affect the conclusions of
 the expt why the fuss? If there are other aspects of the data that
concern you, then perhaps you should expose both them and the response of MIT
when you raised questions of them.Your comment that you did not understand MIT's
explanation of recalibration may be more a statement about your understanding
 than of MIT mallovelence, though if MIT are to be accused openly,it would be
nice to see them respond publicly.
 
---JR ACCOUNT OF FP WITHDRAWN NEUTRON DATA------
 
You appear to be describing Petrasso's discovery of errors in FPH published
erratum data (see Nature June 29,1989 for discussion on this) which led to FP
withdrawing (though `immediately' and `completely' is an overstatement - read
the 6/29/89 Nature for yourselves). While this is an interesting piece of
history in the machinations of the FP neutron data, it has nothing to do with
my expose of the deception that occurred during the week following the 3/23
press conference and BEFORE the public appearance of a written paper (3/30).
It is this latter which was featured in the New York Times (3/17/91) and has
caused the question of fraud to be raised; people unaware of this saga or
wanting to whitewash the episode tend to confuse it with the subsequent and
openly published changes in the data(from JEC in early April89 to the erratum
in JEC in mid April to the implicit withdrawal in Nature on 6/29/89). Your
posting seems to be an example of this confusion.
 
Nor are the machinations that I discovered `nitpicking'  (as a UU statement in
1991 and the bizarre Robert Bass have tried to claim): they concern a
cornerstone of FP's fusion edifice, namely a figure purporting to prove
that they had measured fusion radiation -  gamma rays - which appeared
in the 3/30/89 public preprint and in the JEC (the version which omitted
Hawkins name). In fact, I discovered that these data had never been measured
in the form presented in the paper; the figure in the paper was an invention.
Not only was noone told of this history during 1989 and 90, but I discovered
this and eventually published it in 1991. Immediately attempts were made
to deny and discredit my claims about the state of FP's data at the time of
the press conference and the changes that took place during the following week.
Mr Rothwell's version posted recently bears no relation to this at all.
 
Why these events happened and how serious their implications are - given their
seminal relevance to FUSION - are debatable. That they occurred is not in
dispute (or is it Mr Rothwell?). My researches in the USA and Europe in 89 and
90 pieced together the story of what occurred in Utah up to, and in the
days immediately following, the press conference of 3/23/89. I am still
pursuing some aspects in order to help complete the record that I hope to
deposit with the Cornell archive: my own work has become a part of the cold
fusion story and it is important that its source material be available, where
possible, for future historians. It is also important that it be correct; if
you, or anyone, can fault it, or add to it, then please do so.
 
Specifically, early in March 89 Bob Hoffman, a radiologist, took a gamma
spectrum in Pons' laboratory. Hoffman had no more to do with this and, in his
words (NYT 3/17/91) the chemists used his data any way they liked.
As a result of these data FP had what they believed to be gamma rays
from fusion. Originally they believed that 2500keV was the crucial energy
and their data peaked at this value in the versions sent to JEC prior to
3/23 and to Nature on 3/24.
 
F and P clearly believed this to be the right value as Pons said so in a
recorded conversation after the press conference on 3/23 and Fleischmann showed
the figure at Harwell on 3/28. F and P were told by a small group at that time
that the data could not be correct as the relevant energy for a true gamma
linked to fusion should be around 2200keV. F was in Europe. In Utah,Pons
had the axes on the figure redrawn with the result that the same data points
were now centred on 2200keV. The original figure was pulled from the journals.
There were some other changes made, and which are documented in my book, that
show that this was not due to recalibration, modified energy interpolation or
other subsequently publicised excuses.(See e.g. Nature 6/29/89 and MFleischmann
Reply to Critics in New Scientist, April 1991)
 
The paper had already been accepted by JEC; the m/s was by then out of the
US editor's hands. The UK editor was to handle the publication with Elsevier
and awaited a clean copy of the m/s from Utah. A week elapsed following the
press conference before he received this, by which time the figure was at
2200keV.Furthermore, MF also appears not to have had a copy of the m/s until
this time (see his remarks in New  Scientist). Thus there was an interregnum,
after having gone public, when the yet-to-be published paper was not in the
possession of editors or Martin Fleischmann; indeed, I know of no proof that
the paper, in its subsequent form, even existed at this time notwithstanding the
fact that the publication, with the shifted figure, carries a dateline of
prior to the press conference.
 
 As the UK editor received a 2200kev version at the end of March, and the
US editor had ceased dealings with the paper by then, it is likely that they
were each unaware of the nature of the changes that took place during the
intervening days. I am sure that they acted properly at the time, unaware of
these events. Adding to the confusion during the frantic rush to produce
the journal,two revisions were made to the figure during the Elsevier
production process, one of these being the erratum which replaced the figure
that appeared in the original JEC with yet another figure purporting to be a
2200keV gamma ray. To be clear: JR's story deals with the realisation that
this LATTER figure was erroneous - as pointed out by Petrasso and grudgingly
withdrawn in FPHH (Nature 6/26/89); MY concerns are with the origin of the
FIRST published 2200kev peak in JEC.
 
That was the Elsevier/JEC story, whose eventual outcome we all saw. Meanwhile
the paper was still  under review at Nature. The figure was switched there also.
When asked questions by referees of the Nature paper, FP eventually decided not
to proceed with publication there. FP have stated that they did not have the
time to deal with all the changes that Nature wanted and, by this time, their
JEC paper had appeared. It is not on record whether the mobile peak was
queried.
 
When some people at UU first realised that I was onto this, I was subjected
to written intimidation with mention of arrest warrants following what appears
to have been a feeble attempt to compromise me. My book was published rapidly
under fear of possible litigation (Pons' attorney threatened my publisher).
I have been subjected to pressure periodically during the subsequent two years;
however, I have the fullest confidence in my sources and stand by them. Noone
has faulted these claims.
 
Only Martin Fleischmann has ever challenged my chronology (New Scientist 1991).
He then initiated a `detailed correspondence' with me seeking to learn my
sources (his first letter being written coincidentally the same day that Mr
Triggs,a NC attorney wrote `on behalf of F and P', to my US publisher). I am
not prepared to reveal sources,certainly not while under threat of litigation,
but I am ready to display my evidence and to risk being confronted in public by
any contrary documentation. Many net readers have seen this, including Gene
Mallove, a collaborator of Jed Rothwell; thus I am surprised at the distorted
and erroneous version put  out by Mr Rothwell. Gene Mallove has researched this
cold fusion story and was even reported to have been nominated for a Pulitzer
Prize for his investigations so I am sure he knows all about this. He
did not challenge the authenticity of my evidence when he attended my talk
at MIT last year; instead he produced his own claims of MIT roguery which now
cause such vehemance in Jed Rothwell's postings.
 
But back to Martin Fleischmann's challenge. He claimed that my chronology
was wrong, that the two peaks were related by a change of energy scale
interpolation (which is impossible as the counts have increased ninefold) and
even claimed that the peak that I displayed in a New Scientist article
of Jan 1991 (and in my book, Too Hot To Handle, fig 17) had `no basis in fact'.
The explanation, I believe, is that he was not a knowing party to the events
- note that during the period in question (3/24 to 3/30) he was in Europe
and, he claims, had no copy of the manuscript. Nonetheless he felt confident
to challenge my claims at a time (spring of 91) when he was not yet aware
of the extent and strength  of my evidence. I made clear to MF that he
should check my claims by asking SP about them when next in France. That was a
year ago. I do not know whether the subsequent silence is a result of him
having done so and recognising the truth of my claims, or even whether he
has pursued this further. However, he does at least know now that the said peak
indeed had an existence (in a paper with his name on!) and is probably aware of
the existence of other of my evidence as displayed by me in many talks. Last
year I suggested that we compared notes using a Dean at his university, whom
we both know, as go-between; however he has not taken this up.
 
The interpretation of these facts is for each of us individually to decide; the
accuracy of the facts is what only MF has ever challenged. Do you dispute them
Mr Rothwell? They certainly disagree with the fairytale version that you have
put out. Nowhere in my account is there a full and complete retraction after
"Frank Close had told them"; indeed, quite the contrary.
 
You believe that MIT illegally massaged their data. You are irate at what you
perceive to be a fraud. If such had occurred then I would support your
wrath well.Why then do you paint such a pure picture of the events in Utah
as portrayed by me above? Is it because you were writing about events of
which you were,until now, unaware? Or do you challenge these facts?
 
You write AS IF knowledgeable about many things; if these include Dr Pons'
accesibility then ask him if he can show my facts are false. And if he does,
then post it on the net where the world can see. I want to know the full truth
as do some other historians of science. I have lived in the hot seat with
this for two years ever since I exposed the previously unknown history of
the FP experiments, and have not shirked from the risk of being publicly
discredited.I am not amused at dilletante attempts to misreport and distort
what I have uncovered after much effort and risk. If you can fault it, say so.
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 / Paul Dietz /  Peroxide artifacts?
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide artifacts?
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 18:21:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <920702153419.21c003a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
 writes:
 
>Most of my experiments have been conducted with a third (platinum) electrode
>in the cell.  This electrode is held at the most negative cell potential by a
>small current source.  The idea is to use this electrode to attract and hold
>stray metal ions.  These runs start with a ritual variation of currents
..
>continuously had a Platinum cathode in operation.  From John's experiments we
>conclude that it disassociated any formed D2O2.
>
>It looks like there has been constant formation and disassociation of D2O2 in
>the present experiment, with appropriate changes in gas volume.  No way to
>sort it out now.  Next experiment we will add back the "dummy" electrode and
>fix the sample tube so we can draw out electrolyte to test for D2O2.
 
 
Tom,
 
   Presence of peroxide could lead to interesting artifacts.  For
example, if your thermistors are immersed in the electrolyte, and
their surfaces catalyze decomposition of peroxide, this could heat the
sensors above the temperature of the electrolyte, and you could get
anomalously high temperature readings.
 
   If the peroxide is sensitive to trace amounts of certain impurity
ions in the electrolyte, then this artifact might not manifest itself
until most of the ions had been plated out.  Differences in impurity
levels between light and heavy water could give the illusion
of an isotopic effect.
 
	Paul Dietz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.03 /  /  Measuring 1/2 watt
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measuring 1/2 watt
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1992 20:18:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Is 1/2 Watt Easy to Measure?
 
Jed Rothwell says it is.  "A piece of cake."
 
According to Jed, Ying has a styrofoam cooler inside a Plastic Coleman cooler.
Let's say the syyrofoam cooler is a foot cube, and 1" thick.  A little large
for a small cooler, but also a little thick.  Buy a few and measure them.  I
did.  Foam has a thermal conductivity of 0.015 BTU hr-1 ft F.  So our foot
cube has a thermal conductivity of:
 
(0.015BTU hr-1 ft F)*(0.29 W hr BTU-1)*(12 in ft-1)*(5/9 C F-1)*(6 faces)
 
or 174 mw per C.  The plastic cooler does not help much, mainly it serves to
keep down convection currents, and to insert a second time constant.  Any
penetrations, leads, cooling coils, etc., add unknown **large** errors.
 
>From my knowledge of Florida, a few C is not unusual, even in a well air
conditioned building.  Further, this type of calorimeter has a large time
constant.  This means what is measured is some sort of exponentially weighted
mean of the previous temperature history.  Relative humidity changes can add
large errors, particularly if there is any cooling water around since
conditions can wander back and forth across the dew point.  Very likely
conditions in Florida.
 
Without seeing their set up, it would be easy to guess a 0.5 watt one sigma
error.  It is even more troubling that they get heat immediately.  Turn on the
XXX (you name it), and there is the heat.  It was always one of the more
assuring features of P&F that the heat did ***not*** come right away.  Now one
has to find what changed when the heat appears.  If you measure everything,
heat appears after a long "charging time", and nothing has changed, then it
tends to create believers.
 
Note that I do not claim much better for my fancy device.  The 29 June posting
estimated a 50 mw (one sigma - but not stated) error.  It is very hard to
maintain accuracy over these very long experiments.  Something always happens.
Today my computer fan is starting to make gasping noises.  A whack and it
stopped, but it may not last the run.
 
Jed Rothwell seems to be confusing accuracy with precision.  The device I
built for him has much higher precision than the thermocouples he was using.
This is because it has about two orders of magnitude better signal to noise
ratio, and the signal is well above amplifier noise.  It could have high
accuracy after it is calibrated and its behavior is understood over time and
other parameters.  As delivered its accuracy was no better than 50% as I did
not have a good way to measure it.  Jed was quick to point this out, since he
measured a good ratio to his thermocouples, but the reading differed!
 
If the system has enough noise, and the noise has proper characteristics, then
it is possible to improve the precision by averaging multiple samples.
Whether or not this improves the accuracy depends on how the measurement can
be "carried" to some standard.  This debate is too tedious to be carried here.
Of all the "cold fusion" papers, only McKubre to me seems to have spent the
required sleepless nights worrying about this question.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / Bill Jockey /  Lunar helium-3 in July *Fusion Technology*
     
Originally-From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.space
Subject: Lunar helium-3 in July *Fusion Technology*
Date: 4 Jul 92 00:30:40 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In the Interesting Things In Journals I Don't Usually Look At
Department, the  July 1992 issue of *Fusion Technology* (vol. 21, no.
4) is a "Special Issue on D-3He Fusion."  It's apparently been taken
over by the University of Wisconsin crowd, who published the paper in
*FT* that kicked off the discussion of lunar helium-3 supplies in
1986.  (Wittenberg, Santarius, and Kulcinski, "Lunar Source of 3He fpr
Commercial Fusion Power," *FT* v10, p.167 (1986).)
 
I'll give the titles of the papers in this issue; if you're interested
you can look them up yourself.
 
Preface: Special Issues on D-3He Fusion
Fusion Power from Lunar Resources
A Review of 3He Resources and Acquisition for Use as Fusion Fuel
D-3He Fusion in the Joint European Torus Tokamak-- Recent Experimental
      Results
Spin Polarization Effect on Ignition Access Condition for D-T and
      D-3He Tokamak Fusion Reactors
Potential for D-3He Experiments in Next-Generation Tokamaks
Summary of Apollo, a D-3He Tokamak Reactor Design
Operational Parameters for D-3He in Field-Reversed Configurations
Conceptual Design of the D-3He Reactor Artemis
D-3He-Fueled Fusion Power Plant Based on the Pulsatory Field-Reversed
      Configuration
The Pulsator Concept as a Possible Technique for Formation of a
      Field-Reversed Configuration
(Uh-oh, there are more articles, but I forgot to photocopy the second
page of contents.  Well, you get the idea.)
 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhiggins cudfnBill cudlnJockey cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / John Logajan /  Chain reactions
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chain reactions
Date: 4 Jul 92 03:05:34 GMT

alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>What seems to be happenning is the source starts a bunch
>of reactions, which self propagate for a while then die out because the
>geometry of the electrode does not allow for critical mass(i.e large enough
>mass to keep as many secondary gammas in as possible)
 
(You might see a second copy of this reply because of a file full problem
I just had on another system -- sigh.  Well, it gives me a chance to
rethink it and change it.)
 
I believe (but do not know for sure) that controlled fission reactors
need not be designed to be near run-away conditions.  They do not have to
sustain an initial excitment over the course of their operation, because
they are continuously "driven" by random spontaneous nuclear decay.
 
Each decay is "amplified" by triggering a limited number of further
decays -- the whole chain of events involving a life span of pico seconds
or less.  The sheer number of random decay events gives the illusion of
a long term chain reaction, but such is not the case.
 
"Bursts" of cold fusion (if they are not pure fiction) lasting minutes or hours
may be from initial random events triggering a single D+D reaction, which
might produce, through secondary means, unstable isotopes that decay slightly
more slowly.  When these isotopes in turn give up the ghost, they might induce
further D+D reactions.  And so on.
 
I find the idea of a direct long term sustained chain reaction that doesn't
run-away and blow up to be lucky beyond all odds.  A slow "burn" has to
be driven by random events or it has to have some intermediary that moderates
the rate -- and, in fact, the intermediary by its existence might sustain
a burn which the original fuel could never do on its own.
 
That is all to say that there is no particular reason to fear that a putative
cold fusion "burst" implies a borderline run-away chain reaction.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 /  Rothwell /  Revenge of the Dilletante
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Revenge of the Dilletante
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1992 05:23:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Frank Close misconstrues: "It is ABSOLUTELY FALSE to claim, as JR does,
that when I discovered the "mistake" (deception might be a more appropriate
word) that I `informed them'"
 
It is ABSOLUTELY FALSE to claim I said that. I have no idea whether *you*
informed them of anything or not. You have nothing to do with it. Lots and
lots of people informed them. DROVES of people informed them! In May, 1989,
Fleischmann publicly admitted the neutron results were "the weakest part"
of the work, and subsequently he publicly and loudly retracted everything,
I believe he even referred to the neutron work as "garbage." Let's face it:
Fleischmann did not know how to measure neutrons, and you don't know how to
measure water temperature with thermometer.
 
Anyway, who said anything about what *you* did in 1989? Who cares?
 
 
"You believe that MIT illegally massaged their data."
 
This is incorrect. To my knowledge, nobody at MIT has broken any State or
Federal laws. They have acted unethically, they have violated the published
academic standards of the university, and taken part in an increasingly
desparate and inept coverup, but I am not aware of any illegal conduct.
Let me repeat, for the record: I have *never* accused anyone at MIT of
breaking any law. I might get in trouble if I did.
 
 
As for the MIT data, anyone who looks at it can see that the light water
results have not been changed, and the heavy water results have been. Since
there is *no* mention of this, anywhere in the paper, and since they
publicly denied changing the data, it is fraud, pure and simple. Whether
there was excess heat or not is irrelevant. We do not need any cockamamie
explanations or excuses from them, or from you. We do not need any pseudo-
scientific retroactive reasons -- if they had a reason, they would have
included it in the paper. Any fool, or dilettante, who looks can see the
truth for himself.
 
I would love to hear just what "risks" you ran in 1989 attacking P&F.
Hundreds of others were throwing rocks and bricks at them, and you heaved a
cinderblock. What risk, Poor Dear? Did you strain your back muscles heaving
it? Come with me to Nagoya and I will show you how we Orientals hurl heavy
objects.
 
I am delighted to see I got the rise out of you. I am certainly no
"dilettante" troublemaker, am I? I will deal with the rest of your nonsense
later.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / COLIN HENDERSON /  Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 92 10:43:12 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

 
Well, as a putative nuclear physicist, Ying's idea seems completely kooky to
me, though I suppose you all know that and are giving the bloke the benefit
of the doubt.
 
For a start, if you whack a deuteron with a gamma, (cross section around 30
millibarn at these energies) it will with pretty much 100% probability
dissociate into a proton and neutron. So we have to invoke some lattice
interaction with the palladium or whatever they're using and TWO deuterons.
Somehow the gamma zips through and draws them all together?  The trouble is,
gammas at these low energies act pretty much as point sized particles:
either they hit, and disappear, reappearing later as a gamma of different
energy and energetic particles, different direction, etc, or they don't.
 
Also , a gamma is a destructive thing: it will break up nulei, not bind
them. That is where the lasing analogy breaks down. You don't get a laser
when you ionise the atoms, you need to excite them (pump). A 24 MeV gamma
will break ("ionise") a 4He nucleus rather than excite it.
 
In conventional nuclear physics, you can't get a fusion chain reaction.
Unlike fission, where the secondary neutrons perpetuate the reaction by
splitting other nuclei, fusion produces particles (neutrons, alphas, gammas)
which can't stimulate further fusion reactions.
 
But I suppose we should all keep open minds about these things, but this
boson stuff is in the same class as ditching quantum mechanics a la mills.
 
p.s. Why say "bosons" and not "photons"? The only other bosons I can think
of are Z, W, and gluons. Now Fliroda's quite far from Stanford, isn't it? Or
maybe they got Carlo Rubbria to send them some IMV bosons over in a jar.
 
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
Spem in Perversitas.
(or should that be "Spes in Perversitae?")
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.004 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 92 12:09:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <colin.12@physci.uct.ac.za> colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
 writes:
>
>p.s. Why say "bosons" and not "photons"? The only other bosons I can think
>of are Z, W, and gluons. Now Fliroda's quite far from Stanford, isn't it? Or
>maybe they got Carlo Rubbria to send them some IMV bosons over in a jar.
>
>--
>
>Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
>Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
>Spem in Perversitas.
>(or should that be "Spes in Perversitae?")
 
I am somewhat concerned about existence of Z, W. How many groups have
been able to repeat the original experiment and show that W and Z actually
exist?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: Revenge of the Dilletante
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Dilletante
Date: 4 Jul 92 14:52:13 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920704014953_72240.1256_EHL69-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
 [ regarding the F&P(&H) neutron data in the first JEC article ]
 
>                            ...                               In May, 1989,
>Fleischmann publicly admitted the neutron results were "the weakest part"
>of the work, and subsequently he publicly and loudly retracted everything,
>I believe he even referred to the neutron work as "garbage."
 
However, these data have *never* been retracted in the sense the word is
used by scientists.  A retraction of the figure shown in the JEC would
consist of a short article under the names of the 3 authors stating that
they retract a particular part of the earlier paper and its erratum and
(possibly) stating the reason for the retraction.
 
The reason for this should be clear: only the refereed literature has any
standing (with some exception for conference proceedings consisting of
the written version of invited talks that were reviewed by the editors
for accuracy); certainly news reports do not.  At present, someone following
the literature would find no indication that the F&P(&H) JEC article has
anything in it that the authors did not consider true and accurate -- with
the possible exception of the allusions made in their Nature article and
the conclusions a knowledgeable reader can draw from their Nature article
in comparison to the Petrasso article and the JEC article.
 
If you doubt me, look through Science for the various retractions that
have been made of fraudulent data from a variety of scandals.   This is
the normal way of dealing with bad data, and it is what I would expect
from Fleischman based on his reputation as a good scientist.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: 4 Jul 92 15:05:28 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul04.120913.202731@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>I am somewhat concerned about existence of Z, W. How many groups have
>been able to repeat the original experiment and show that W and Z actually
>exist?
 
If we consider the UA1 experiment to be the original, than the answer to
your question is at least 7, and soon to be 8.  The 7 would be UA2 on the
SPS ring, the group at FNAL in the CDF collaboration (who give the best
mass value for the Z, my friends tell me), the group at SLAC using the SLC
and Mark II detector, and the 4 groups (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL) at CERN
on the LEP ring.  They will soon be joined by the D-zero collaboration at
FNAL, once full data taking begins this summer.  There are no overlaps
in membership between UA1 and UA2.  There are also no overlaps between
the members of the 4 groups on LEP or the 2 groups at FNAL, although there
are some overlaps between groups at different labs.
 
They have accumulated millions of Z's, many with very clear and distinct
two-body decays.  Take a look in the journals: Physics Letters for the
basic papers and Z.Phys for the review articles.  Examples were shown
in Physics Today and Scientific American, along with most European
science news magazines.  Where have you been the past 10 years?
 
These are direct observations.  Further evidence for the Z is the observation
of weak neutral currents -- most recently in parity violation seen in the
scattering of electrons at about 500 MeV (sorry, don't remember the details)
at the MIT-Bates electron scattering facility.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: Chain reactions
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chain reactions
Date: 4 Jul 92 15:23:14 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9207040305.AA03175@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>I believe (but do not know for sure) that controlled fission reactors
>need not be designed to be near run-away conditions.  They do not have to
>sustain an initial excitment over the course of their operation, because
>they are continuously "driven" by random spontaneous nuclear decay.
>
>Each decay is "amplified" by triggering a limited number of further
>decays -- the whole chain of events involving a life span of pico seconds
>or less.  The sheer number of random decay events gives the illusion of
>a long term chain reaction, but such is not the case.
 
This is not correct.
 
A controlled fission reactor is "critical", that is, it is operationing
under conditions where the neutron multiplication factor is 1.000.  For
all practical purposes, we can consider the chain reaction to have started
from a random decay neutron (from spontaneous fission, for example) and
that all subsequent neutrons come from neutron-induced fission.  The
reaction is controllable because a small fraction (a few %) of the neutrons
are delayed -- that is, they are emitted a few seconds after the fission
occurs.  Some addtional time is gained from the time required for the
neutron to slow down (be moderated) in the reactor before it can cause
a fisson.  Thus the reactor can be set so that it is not "prompt critical"
and the multiplication factor controlled at 1.00 by adjusting control rods
on the time scale of a few seconds.  This is discussed in any text on
nuclear power.  If all the neutrons were emitted immediately from the
fission, a reactor would not be controllable.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / John Logajan /  Posting via e-mail
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Posting via e-mail
Date: 4 Jul 92 20:21:54 GMT

Since I've been having trouble with a broken News service here, I thought I'd
mention how I've been able to post to sci.physics.fusion through e-mail.
 
Anyone who has access to e-mail through the internet can use this same
technique if they don't have access to normal news posting facilities,
or if their current method is "broken."  It's always good to have two
alternate routes -- at least in my experience, I've used them all at one
time or another.
 
In the sci.physics.fusion case, you simply e-mail your postings to:
 
sci-physics-fusion@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
 
Note that the periods have to be changed to dashes in the newsgroup name.
(If you want to post to any other Usenet newsgroup, you use an identical
technique, merely post to that "name" with all periods transformed into
dashes.)
 
The subject line of your e-mail becomes the subject line of the news posting.
 
Once your e-mail makes it to berkeley, it will be sent to the bulk of the
internet direct connect (backbone) sites within 5-10 minutes. I know this
through experience.  So it is quite fast.
 
This very message comes to you via the above described method.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.05 /  Rothwell /  Mallove's response to Close
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove's response to Close
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 00:08:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
     The following message was uploaded to me by Dr. Eugene Mallove of MIT,
author of "Fire From Ice."
 
     I was amused to see that Frank Close, whose published flimsy version of
the cold fusion controversy is definitely not frank and not even close (to
the truth), is waxing increasingly passionate in the defense of his poor
wares. There is really precious little time to devote to this foolish gnat
who seems to be making his life's work the history of the alleged fraudulent
gamma ray spectrum of Pons and Fleischmann. Close will go down in scientific
history as the classic example of one who misses the forest by an undue study
of a single tree.
 
     To cite but one tiny example as evidence: Too Hot  didn't even mention
the elsewhere widely discussed gas-loaded metal work of Howard Menlove of
Los Alamos National Laboratory. Certainly neutron expert Close should have
commented on this either negatively or positively. He didn't. When he gave
his tedious lecture at MIT on June 7, 1991, I asked him why he didn't include
Menlove, whose work still holds up, he offered no explanation. In fact, I was
told by physicist Dr. David Worledge of EPRI that on Close's request,
Worledge gave Close an armload of cold fusion nuclear effects studies in
ample time to be included in some fashion in his book. They weren't.
 
     I don't want to rehash the gamma ray spectrum bit with Close. Suffice
it to say that even nasty people like Huizenga and the much more pleasant
Professor Robert Adair of Yale do not agree that the gamma ray spectrum
affair constituted fraud by Pons and Fleischmann. It was a straight, inept
mistake on their part, which they admitted, but they have never retreated one
step in their claims of excess heat. Why should they! The excess power has
been confirmed by numerous excellent labs now. Furthermore, numerous other
investigators have now confirmed the existence of 2.45 MeV cold fusion
neutrons. What is most remarkable is that even though the Pons and
Fleischmann neutron data were flawed, others managed to confirm the existence
of these neutrons -- as have Pons and Fleischmann now with different, better
detectors. That's the really exciting part of the story, not Close's
vindictive nonsense.
 
     But I do want to deal with Close's Point 3: "The claims that MIT
fraudulently shifted a zero such that heat in D2O became apparently thermal
balance, are insubstantial and appear to be little more than an attempt to
deflect attention from more serious issues."
 
     First, it is not "MIT" that perpetrated fraud, but one or more
individuals on the Plasma Fusion Center-Chemistry Department group that
published the paper in the Journal of Fusion Energy (which, incidentally, is
edited at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center!!! -- so much for "peer review").
Other researchers at MIT, Professors Hagelstein and Smullin among others,
continue to investigate cold fusion with great intensity and vigor. Second,
the shift in the data was far from "insubstantial." It is of the order of the
kinds of effects that were being claimed by Fleischmann and Pons and others
in those days -- a few watts per cubic centimeter of Pd. There was no
legitimate excuse for that curve shift, it was straight fraud. Period.
 
     This fraud has now been made even more explicit than in my extensive and
detailed complaint to President Vest of MIT. Dr. Mitchell Swartz, an
electrochemist and physician with four electrical engineering degrees from
MIT, has electro-optically scanned and processed the shifted and pre-shifted
PFC data. Among the shocking discoveries he made: 1. There is no possible
linear transformation from the July 10, 1989 unpublished heavy water data set
to the published July 13, 1989 published version, i.e. the data were
definitely massaged and the light water and heavy water cases were treated
differently. 2. Arbitrary points have been inserted; 3. Points were
arbitrarily moved and removed. There is much, much more. Numerous "versions"
of the same data set now exist! It *was* fraud, pure and simple, now it's
cover-up of fraud, pure and simple.
 
     Dr. Swartz concludes in his extensive analysis that the PFC group did,
indeed, measure significant excess heat. Dr. Swartz has prepared an extensive
manuscript of this work which he will publish, pending further refinements.
Perhaps Frank Close will discuss this confirmation of *both* incompetence and
fraud by the PFC group in a future edition of Too Hot, but I won't hold my
breath. The MIT administration has not properly investigated this outrage.
Instead, it is in the process of a calculated cover-up, which will eventually
be exposed in a way that will do far more damage to MIT's integrity that the
original fraud itself.
 
     One of the best characterization of the PFC work came from Dr. Charles
McCutchen, not a cold fusion "believer," but a physicist at NIH who examined
the data and then wrote a letter to President Vest, which reads, in part:
"For its own good, and to restore some civility to a contentious field, MIT
should look into (1) how its scientists came to perform and publish such a
poor experiment, (2) why they either misdescribed their results, making them
seem more meaningful than they were or used a subtle correcting procedure
without describing exactly what it was, (3) how it came about that data from
calorimeters with a claimed sensitivity of 40 mW converged, between drafts,
after completion of the experiments, to within perhaps 5 mW of the result
that hot fusion people would prefer to see. It might have been chance, but
it might not."
 
     As he revealed in his book, Close still thinks that MIT's Stanley
Luckhardt, is "Lockhart." Is Peter Hagelstein still "John Hegelstein" to
Close? Such ineptitude from a supposedly careful investigator! Part of the
MIT administration cover-up scheme was to have Luckhardt this year prepare
an "Appendix " to the original PFC report. If the other 15 authors of the
report agree with Luckhardt's further ludicrous and incorrect widening of
the error limits, why don't they sign their names to the "Appendix"?
Luckhardt is the sole author! The poor incompetent is being asked to "walk
the plank" himself -- just in case the feds or some news media eventually
probe this stinky business to the core. And they certainly will.
 
     A few more barbs for Frank. I was not "reported" to have been nominated
for a Pulitzer Prize. Fire from Ice *was* nominated for a Pulitzer -- one of
only two books out the hundreds published by John Wiley with that honor.
Further, on June 7, 1991 at MIT, I did not challenge the authenticity of what
Close said about Pons and Fleischmann, because master of ceremonies Dr.
Petrasso, Close's buddy in fraud accusations, allowed me, as he said, "only
one minute, Gene." I could easily have responded to Close's accusations, but
I was much more interested in exposing the MIT Press Release fraud and the
data-shift fraud. How much can one do in "one minute"!?
 
- Eugene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.05 /  Rothwell /  Got them low down half watt blues
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Got them low down half watt blues
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 00:09:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Subjects: Got them low-down half watt ambient temp blues
 
I don't know much about these static calorimeter things, so I am probably way
out on a limb already, but let me just take a shot at some of Tom's remarks:
 
"From my knowledge of Florida, a few C is not unusual, even in a well air
conditioned building."
 
You mean, "a few C" changes in ambient temperature, right? We have a big
problem with ever changing ambient temperatures, so I talked to Bockris and
some others, most of whom are using static calorimeters. This is what they
recommended:
 
1. Record ambient temperature! Calibrate with a variety of different
ambients. If possible, try a a much cooler ambient than you ever expect, and
a much hotter one.
 
2. Fill the outer container with hot water from a constant temperature
cooler, and make sure it is hotter than ambient, Bockris said "Make it 35!"
If the ambient fluctuates from 22 to 25, it will not hurt so much. Make
sure the heat leaks out, rather than in.
 
3. Naturally, if possible, avoid ambient temperature changes. I mean, blip
the AC a tad 15 minutes before you measure temperature, to get it as close
to the day you calibrated as you can.
 
"Without seeing their set up, it would be easy to guess a 0.5 watt one sigma
error." I agree 100% Who knows whether they have done their homework? Let
me emphasize again that I meant it is easy if you know what you are doing. If
you do *not* know, it is easy to screw up, as I did for several weeks with my
flow calorimeter.
 
"Easy" and "hard" are relative terms, after all. Is it easy set up a third
serial port device driver for Windows with Turbo C++? Yes, if you know what
you are doing. No, if you work in the accounting department and you have
never heard of a "compiler." I say it is a piece of cake to measure 0.5
watts for those people who have been measuring watts for years and years.
I do *not* include myself in that group. It is a heck of a lot easier than
measuring 0.005 watts - at least that's what Bockris, McKubre and the others
tell me.
 
"Jed Rothwell seems to be confusing accuracy with precision." Naa, I know
the difference. Also, I relearned that lesson last month with my beautiful
half watt calibrated 8 watt excess that turned out to be 6 watts out of
whack. It reminds me of the guy I know who worked a summer job measuring out
chemicals. His boss made him use a big scale, and a little scale. They would
get an order for 800.245 grams of whatever-it-was, so the procedure was to
measure out 800 grams on the big scale, pour it into the jar, and then
measure out an additional 0.245 grams on the precision scale and waft it in
on top. His boss, who had been doing this for years, did not understand that
the big scale was only accurate to to nearest 0.5 grams.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.04 / nod sivad /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 92 12:02:10 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

Maybe I'm just suspicious, but I can't help but notice this discovery
is credited to a Dr. Ying (as opposed to Dr. Yang), and his able
assistent, Mr. Charles Shults (whose name I imagine is pronounced the
same as the creator of the Peanuts comic strip), of Orlando (home
of Disneyworld).  Plus the announcement is couched in rather strange
language.
 
					me
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: 5 Jul 92 17:42:41 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <colin.12@physci.uct.ac.za> colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
 writes:
>
>For a start, if you whack a deuteron with a gamma, (cross section around 30
>millibarn at these energies) it will with pretty much 100% probability
>dissociate into a proton and neutron. So we have to invoke some lattice
>interaction with the palladium or whatever they're using and TWO deuterons.
>Somehow the gamma zips through and draws them all together?
 
His analogy (and it would seem it is only an analogy at this point) is that
the d+d system is metastable, with "decay" through the coulomb barrier to
the fused state possible.  This is true, albeit with tiny probability and
with a rather small branching ratio into the alpha+gamma channel.  Crudely
stated, stimulated emission is the increase in the decay probability caused
by the presence of final state particles.  His hypothesis is that this
will work for nuclear systems.
 
Note that stimulated emission does involve only boson fields; I do not
think it works for fermionic fields and thus could not be used to enhance
the other channels, which have larger branching ratios.
 
>Also , a gamma is a destructive thing: it will break up nulei, not bind
>them. That is where the lasing analogy breaks down. You don't get a laser
>when you ionise the atoms, you need to excite them (pump). A 24 MeV gamma
>will break ("ionise") a 4He nucleus rather than excite it.
 
This is the major experimental problem.  Absent the observation of nuclear
products in the appropriate ratio, it could be that he has merely put 0.5 watt
of energy in with his "boson source" via the traditional mechanisms you
describe.  Since he did not measure radiation, it appears, this cannot be
excluded until a properly controlled and monitored experiment is done.  It
would normally be his responsibility to provide these answers if and when
his paper is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
 
(I say when, since when I contacted Orlando Science Center for a copy of
the press packet, I got back a Fax from Quantum Nucleonics containing a
non-disclosure form that would appear to cover even a press release.  This
is the height of absurdity -- since it makes no mention of my rights to any
commercial gain *he* might gain from any conversation we might have!  Ed,
perhaps you could FAX your copy to me at 904-644-0098.)
 
>But I suppose we should all keep open minds about these things, but this
>boson stuff is in the same class as ditching quantum mechanics a la mills.
 
I do not see why.  Basically this is just good old stimulated emission in
a wierd lingo.  Only thing that is obviously wrong with the theory is that
it would appear to me that the numbers do not work out or he should be dead.
But I see no reason to ditch quantum mechanics -- unless the final state
products of gammas and pair-produced 511's and X-rays, etc are not seen...
 
>p.s. Why say "bosons" and not "photons"? The only other bosons I can think
>of are Z, W, and gluons. Now Fliroda's quite far from Stanford, isn't it? Or
>maybe they got Carlo Rubbria to send them some IMV bosons over in a jar.
 
Because alphas are bosons too.  He implies that either will do.  Of course,
alphas would dump all kinds of energy into the cell because of the charge,
so normal water controls would be most important.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.05 / Brent Nelson /  Cold fusion in Orlando, Florida (?)
     
Originally-From: brent@uful08.phys.ufl.edu (Brent A. Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion in Orlando, Florida (?)
Date: 5 Jul 92 20:16:16 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

I, too, saw an article (in the Gainesville Sun -- 6/27/92 edition) describing
the work of Dr. Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III.  The article, which
came from the Associated Press, gave very few details.  These include: the
researchers are able to repeatably set up an experiment which yields excess
heat, that they are certain that the excess heat is from cold fusion which
they can produce on demand (a paraphrase of Ying), and that Ying had a tabletop
demonstration going at the Orlando Science Center.  Most of this information
has been described on the net.  However, there was one piece of info in the
article that I haven't seen on the net:  Dr. Ying claims to have performed
102 successful experiments (presumably meaning excess heat)!
 
I just thought I'd add that little tidbit, and also express my amazement and
perhaps a little doubt regarding something else someone posted.  The UCF
researchers claim they get out 100,000 times the energy they put in?!? That
HAS to be an error in reporting (or a truly incredible find).  There is no
way someone could make a calorimetry error that enormous.  Could the person
who posted that before (the 100,000 figure, that is) please confirm that he
typed that in correctly? Thanks.
 
 
					Brent A. Nelson
					brent@phys.ufl.edu
					Humble Student of Physics
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbrent cudfnBrent cudlnNelson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.05 / Richard Long /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 20:31:14 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <colin.12@physci.uct.ac.za> colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN
HENDERSON) writes:
 
> millibarn at these energies) it will with pretty much 100% probability
> dissociate into a proton and neutron. So we have to invoke some lattice
> interaction with the palladium or whatever they're using and TWO
deuterons.
> Somehow the gamma zips through and draws them all together?
The question is, does stimulated emission make a significant contribution
the process, or does gamma decay overwhelmingly dominate.  The only way to
find out is to sum the amplitudes over all possible Feynman paths with
respect to each decay product, including the one that produces fusion, and
then look at the psi*psibar to find the probabilities of each.  The
probability of fusion doesn't have to be very much, just enough to be
detected.  Also, the probability of stimulated emission is proportional to
the number of photons with the same quantum number in the vacinity, so it
is photon density dependent, just like a laser.  Maybe the system just
needs to be made longer and thinner along an axis where the deuterium
bound in the palladium lattice is significant.
 
 The trouble is,
> gammas at these low energies act pretty much as point sized particles:
> either they hit, and disappear, reappearing later as a gamma of
different
> energy and energetic particles, different direction, etc, or they don't.
>
> Also , a gamma is a destructive thing: it will break up nulei, not bind
> them. That is where the lasing analogy breaks down. You don't get a
laser
> when you ionise the atoms, you need to excite them (pump). A 24 MeV
gamma
> will break ("ionise") a 4He nucleus rather than excite it.
Again, we have to look at the amplitudes of the possible decay paths.
Gammas react differently under different conditions.
 
>
> In conventional nuclear physics, you can't get a fusion chain reaction.
Using heat as a catalyst is producing a fusion chain reaction.  Here we
simply have stimulated emission as the catalyst, which is a chain reaction
is the same sense as a laser.
 
>
> p.s. Why say "bosons" and not "photons"? The only other bosons I can
think
> of are Z, W, and gluons. Now Fliroda's quite far from Stanford, isn't
it? Or
> maybe they got Carlo Rubbria to send them some IMV bosons over in a jar.
 
Other bosons include alpha particles (he4 nuclei), he4 atoms, D nuclei
(but not the atoms) and anything else with a net integer spin.
Bose-einstein statistics and stimulated emission apply to any of these.
He may be using alpha particles, or maybe even alphas combined with
gammas.  Alphas would be less ionizing than gammas, and would also
catalyze a pathway in which D+D+(N)alphas -> (N+1)alphas+phonons where the
energy is transferred into the palladium lattice instead of carried away
by gammas.  This is of course a wild shot in the dark.
 
> Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
> Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
> Spem in Perversitas.
> (or should that be "Spes in Perversitae?")
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 /  Britz /  Re: Szzz... Bang!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Szzz... Bang!
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 00:22:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>Jon could easily have contacted Dr. Ikegami to ask him whether he has
>published any peer reviewed papers. He could have asked me to send him
>Takahashi's peer reviewed reports of his positive results, going back to 1989.
>He could even have checked, say, the J. Journal of Applied Physics, J. Nucl.
>Sci. Technol., Denkikagaku (J. Journal of Electrochemistry), Nihon Kinzoku
>Gakkaisi, Fusion Technology, Journal of Nuclear Science Technology, ISEM &
>Como Proceedings (not peer reviewed), Proc. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
>Metal/Deuterium Systems Conf., the Japanese edition of Scientific American
>(not ours!), the Nikkei Superconductor Newsletter, or the Journal Of Applied
>Electromagnetics In Materials (for Takahashi's latest heat results).
 
>But no, he has heard from his colleague Deiter that the Japanese workers have
>not published anything. (Deiter is an excellent source, but he does not read
>Japanese, and he does not hear each sparrow fall.) So, like the Scientific
>American, instead of checking with Ikegami, or me, or the library, Mr. Webb
>assumes that he knows all of the facts already, and he assumes that if
>anything was *really* happening in Japan, he would have heard about it -- by
>ESP, I suppose.
 
Jed, the name is Dieter, by the way but I am fairly used to getting misspelled.
I have several times written on this list that I do not claim to have caught all
cnf papers, and asked people to let me know of any that I miss. If I have missed
papers by Takahashi, Jed, could you give me the references, please? I cannot
read Japanese but I still get such papers and do the best I can with them; they
often have English summaries anyway. The day I see something published by
Takahashi on this new stuff, you can be sure I will post it and add it to the
collection.
 
 Just to be quite correct, Jon has not heard from me; if he quotes me, it must
be from my bibliography.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.006 / Jon Webb /  Re: Szzz... Bang!
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Szzz... Bang!
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 92 15:08:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <920702152306_72240.1256_EHL62-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   The latest manifestation of this zany attitude was right here, in Zorch,
 where
   Jon Webb blithely declared:
 
   "...have the Japanese scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals...
   Takahashi has not yet published positive results, only some theories (at
 least
   in Dieter's bibliography.)  Ikegami has not published at all..."
 
   Jon could easily have contacted Dr. Ikegami to ask him whether he has
   published any peer reviewed papers. He could have asked me to send him
   Takahashi's peer reviewed reports of his positive results, going back to
 1989.
   He could even have checked, say, the J. Journal of Applied Physics, J. Nucl.
   Sci. Technol., Denkikagaku (J. Journal of Electrochemistry), Nihon Kinzoku
   Gakkaisi, Fusion Technology, Journal of Nuclear Science Technology, ISEM &
   Como Proceedings (not peer reviewed), Proc. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
   Metal/Deuterium Systems Conf., the Japanese edition of Scientific American
   (not ours!), the Nikkei Superconductor Newsletter, or the Journal Of Applied
   Electromagnetics In Materials (for Takahashi's latest heat results).
 
   But no, he has heard from his colleague Deiter that the Japanese workers have
   not published anything. (Deiter is an excellent source, but he does not read
   Japanese, and he does not hear each sparrow fall.) So, like the Scientific
   American, instead of checking with Ikegami, or me, or the library, Mr. Webb
   assumes that he knows all of the facts already, and he assumes that if
   anything was *really* happening in Japan, he would have heard about it -- by
   ESP, I suppose.
 
I resent this.  You provided some references to Yamaguchi's work, and
I went to the trouble to look them up.  You haven't provided any
references to Ikegami or Takahashi; they aren't in Dieter's
bibliography, either.  You seem have a missionary-like zeal in
promoting the Japanese cold fusion work, the least you could do is
provide us with some references. -- J
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Jon Webb /  Re: Szzz... Bang!
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Szzz... Bang!
Date: 6 Jul 92 15:56:17 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <920702152306_72240.1256_EHL62-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   Jon Webb blithely declared:
 
   "...have the Japanese scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals...
   Takahashi has not yet published positive results, only some theories (at
 least
   in Dieter's bibliography.)  Ikegami has not published at all..."
 
   Jon could easily have contacted Dr. Ikegami to ask him whether he has
   published any peer reviewed papers...
   But no, he has heard from his colleague Deiter that the Japanese workers have
   not published anything.
 
OK, so I searched the INSPEC database and found this reference to
Ikegami, who seems to be a hot fusion guy:
 
Author       IKEGAMI, H.;
             Nat. Inst. for Fusion Sci., Nagoya, Japan
Title        Present and future of cold fusion. Nuclear products from cold
             fusion
Source       Oyo Buturi;
             Oyo Buturi (Japan); vol.60, no.3; March 1991; pp. 212-19
Abstract     The controlled thermonuclear fusion researches are now at
             their turning point in many respects. It might have been more
             than an accident that the cold fusion announcement by
             Fleischmann and Pons worked to direct public eyes upon fusion
             energy and our serious future energy problem. In the present
             article, the recent status of magnetic fusion research is
             discussed with reference and in contrast to unbelievable facts
             having been observed during the past two years of cold fusion
             activities. Recent studies and findings of nuclear products
             such as neutrons and tritium from cold fusion experiments are
             reviewed and discussed. It is now clear that the key element
             in the cold fusion lies in some particular behavior of
             hydrogen isotopes in metals of a certain kind. For further
             development, the establishment of controllability for the
             reproducible cold fusion phenomena is crucial and indispensable
 
This doesn't sound very positive to me -- "unbelievable facts having
been observed during the past two years of cold fusion activities".
But this was published in 1991 -- maybe he's recanted since then.
 
I found these references to Takahashi:
 
Fusion Technol. (USA); vol.19, no.2; March 1991; pp. 380-90
J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. (Japan); vol.26, no.5; May 1989; pp.
             558-60
Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems 1989, ICENES '89. Proceedings
             of the Fifth International Conference; Karlsruhe, West Germany;
             3-6 July 1989;
J. Fusion Energy (USA); vol.9, no.4; Dec. 1990; pp. 441-5
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems; Provo,
             UT, USA; 1990;
 
From the abstracts (we don't have the journals here), these are
Takahashi's 3-body theory + the experiment he reported at MIT.  So he
has published a little more than I thought.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 /  Rothwell /  Retract retraction definition
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Retract retraction definition
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 19:05:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
J. Carr has a better, more rigid definition of "retraction" than mine, with
which I agree completely. I was under the impression that P&F had formally
retracted part of their "Preliminary Note" (as the Roger Parsons called it in
an editorial). I'll take Mr. Carr's word for it that they did not, and maybe
ask Fleischmann about it someday.
 
Just one more historical footnote here, from page 136 of Fire from Ice:
"...Martin Fleischmann told me [Mallove] in 1991, 'I'm absolutely 100 percent
certain that there was a difference in the gamma-ray spectrum, between blank
and measured, in our measurements. I'm sure that is correct. But _why_ that is
so is not clear.' As far as why they may have initially put their peak at 2.5
MeV, Fleischmann said, 'It was as straight mistake.'"
 
Now, to change the subject, I have a little bit more confirmed information
from Dr. Nelson Ying. His radioactive source is 0.1 microcuries of cobalt 60.
Others have told me that would be reasonably safe, and easily obtainable from
a scientific supply house. Also, Ying says he tried distilled water blanks and
got no reaction. Some people I know asked him to revise and simplify his
secrecy agreement, and he readily agreed to do so. I saw the original
agreement, and as Tom says, it looks like a Chinese to English translation.
 
Ying seems honest and on the level to me; but there is no telling whether he
knows how to measure 2 degrees C. I confirmed that is approximately the
temperature change one half watt makes in his calorimeter. The point of my
previous message was that *most* people who have been doing this for 3 years
*do* know how to measure 2 degrees, and they find it far easier than measuring
0.02 degrees, since it is well within the capability of ordinary, off-the-
shelf thermometers. I look forward to seeing Ying's work.
 
Regarding the issue of precision versus accuracy, I am amused to note that in
our experiment, the $200 mercury thermometers appear to be the least precise,
and most accurate; that is, they only measure to the nearest 0.1 C, but they
have the least bias, and appear to be closest to the actual incoming water
temperature which we think is 24.5 C. Sometimes, the oldest and simplest tools
are best.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / John Logajan /  Information exchange and the puritan ethic
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
Date: 6 Jul 92 17:06:13 GMT

Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com writes:
>I've got an informal metric
>in which the degree of wheel-spinning (useless rehashing of ideas not really
>very different from ones already discussed) appears to be a very nice way of
>measuring how DUMB the group think is -- as in "major waste of intellectual
>effort".  Clearly, achieving high group-think IQ is *not* a trivial thing.
 
This puritan collectivist view of the proper function of the net is expressed
time and again.  Fortunately it hasn't stuck.  Fortunately it will never stick.
 
Mr. Bollinger measures usefulness only in the dimension that it advances the
collective outer envelope of knowledge.  Individual joy and development along
the path already travelled by others is labled a "major waste of intellectual
effort."  Most of us, unlike Mr. Bollinger, are not born omniscient, and have
to cover much ground already covered by others.  Mr. Bollinger would have us
do it quietly and joylessly.  Heaven forbid we should ever utter an incorrect
theory.
 
Some argue that the net is not the proper place for ignorance (there is a
proper place?), that we should all read the standard texts and only then
discuss the advanced unsettled issues.  Why?
 
I am reminded of a famous saying about the Koran -- Anything that diverges
from the Koran is blasphemous, anything that agrees with the Koran is
superfluous.  I always think of that quote when I see someone on the net
telling another poster to shut up and go read a standard text.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Ying
     
Originally-From: 71033.536@compuserve.com (Terry B. Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 16:47:22 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

In article <1992Jul6.062230.16686@asl.dl.nec.com>
71033.536@compuserve.com (Terry B. Bollinger) writes:
 
> ... I was delighted to see Dr. Mallove take the time to air his views --
> and I am hopeful that you fellers can keep the tone down JUST LIKE THE
> REST OF US NET USERS by focusing on ISSUES... as opposed to, say, each
> other's status or personalities?
 
Reread this part this morning (yes, I was emailing after midnight again),
and was very annoyed to see that I was ANTICIPATING some sort of personal
snipe back from Dr. Close, in response to Dr. Mallove's highly uncalled
for "gnat" remark.
 
My sincere apologies to Dr. Close, who has NOT to my knowledge EVER stooped
to the types of strange arthropod references (rememember "squashed spider
pus", everyone?) that a few of the pro-"cnf" crowd seem to be inclined to
use at times.  Frank Close gets angry and frustrated in tone, I realize,
but to the best of my knowledge he always tries to focus on events, not
personal slurs.
 
Since I tried to make light of it before, let me be blunter now that I've
had my morning caffeine (and BEFORE anyone dings me about it -- all I've
seen so far is Dieter's excellent followup comment about name fretting):
 
   Dr. Mallove, if you wish to participate in this group, would you please
   be so kind as to not to use it to toss out casual insults that have
   nothing whatsoever to do with whatever point it is you are trying to
   make?  You are doing nothing but damaging your own case when you do so,
   since it's hard to believe that anyone who has to resort to such dumb
   tactics has much of a case to begin with.
 
You didn't get you're Pulitzer nomination by THAT style of writing/thinking,
did you?  Or should the nomination perhaps have gone in part to some of the
folks you listed as major reviewers?  After seeing your entry it's hard not
to suspect that they played a non-trivial role in helping to keep you from
shooting yourself in the literary foot by filtering out such nomination-
wrecking comments and remarks *before* they hit the press.
 
So how about showing us some reasons to think that your nomination was
something more than a fluke -- say with some dazzling logic and new facts
that are a bit more relevant to the world at large than the fact that
Dr. Close and his editors misspelled someone's name?
 
 
E.g., since you clearly do believe in the reality of many of the palladium
anomoly effects (esp. heat), do you REALLY believe that it's "fusion"?  Or
something else?  If so, WHAT else?  In your book conclusion you seem to
acknowledge the need for "new physics," yet you also acknowledge an almost
total lack of commensurate fusion by-products.  You really can't have it
both ways, you know.  So what's the resolution?  How can you and others
who are solidly convinced in the reality of palladium hydride anomolies,
but continue to call such reactions "cold fusion" -- even when you in
particular seem to know darned well that if the results *are* real, they
are no closer to "fusion" than they are "chemistry"?
 
And what DO you propose is going on, if in fact it is not "fusion"?
 
			Cheers & Belated Grumps,
			Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com
			[Speaking only for myself]
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden536 cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.05 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 23:24:24 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
 
   I can't be certain but, it does seem Dr. Ying and C. Shultz are onto
something here.  First, I think Henderson is probably right, it you hit
a deterium atom with a 23.8MeV gamma chances are near 100% that it will
break up into a neutron-proton pair.  Worse yet, if gamma hits a Pd nuclei
where there is a good chance for spatulation or transition metal mutations.
Still when these nuclei fracture the resulting particles carry off a
significant portion 23.8MeV to future reactions.  These later excited
state+kenetic interactions might cause several reactions down the chain.
Recall D+D fusion can be induced at energies as low as 10KeV kenetic.  So
it seems possible that if the energies are distributed right, they may
induce several fusions causing a net energy gain over what was first put
in.  There may also be some solid state effects where the charged particles
are steered down lattice channels.  If the energy is wrapped up in a D
resonace state (of shell model fame) and less so in kenetic energy, it
may increase the probability for that particle to interact with other
intersitual lattice bound D's.  From this point of view, Dr. Ying's
idea of increasing the probability for a select fusion channel by
imparting a resonace energy state to the D seems reasonable at first
glance.
 
    There are some complicated issues to resolve for sure.  First is the
cross-section. What is the probability of imparting 23.8MeV to seed a D
ion and not the Pd lattice atoms. If this is done with a cyclotron and a
D ion beam, there is still cross-section question but also one of converting
the kenetic energy, into the D+D->He4 + gamma resonace condition. I have a
hard time seeing how a cyclotron could setup conditions without all kinds
of complications.  How about a a tuned electron beam to create gamma?  Second,
if a resonaces condition can be establised in a D, how long can the excited
state last before the D + gamma -> p + n + gamma (less p and n energies), and
is this a significant period for other D's to interact.   Maybe that's the
idea.  Impart enough energy to a D ion to fracture the D to p+n and let these
particles interact with further D atoms to make T and He3.  If the D ion
fractures into p+n, it would make sense that they would carry energy
of in a resonace condition compatible with the other D+D branches.  Humm...
Can the initial energies be tuned?  Thus my specualtion is:
 
1. D + gamma -> (p + energy1) + (n + energy2) + (leftover energy if any)
2. (p + energy1) + D -> He3 + energy1
3. (n + energy2) + D -> T + energy2
 
4. D + He4 -> (p + energy1) + (n + energy2) + He4 + (leftover energy if any)
5. (p + energy1) + D -> He3 + energy1
6. (n + energy2) + D -> T + energy2
 
Where energy1 and energy2 are resonace energies of each branch. The idea of
using resonace for transmutaions of isotopes is not unique,  and is, in fact,
used extensivly.  Applying this to induce cold fusion, (if that's what it
can be called in this case) is.  Even imparting the energy to the Pd atoms
could have an effect fusion rates of the Pd D if the ejected particles from
the transmutation are in resonace with the D fusion branchs.
 
   If the N Ying and C Shultz work proves to be correct in concept, I think
it would be idiotic not to fund a group to investigate this latest cold
fusion work.  The implications for fusion science are so broad in this case,
we have to consider thier theory and see where it goes.  Does it change the
model of nucleo-sysnthesis in astro-physics field?  Nievely, I'd say not, but
until his work is released and we understand his methodology, its anyones
guess.  Anybody care to try an NSF or DOE grant based on this latest find?
 
 
Happy Experimenting Folks,
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 \   Klein bottle for sale.  Inquire within.    |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 01:41:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

All this handwaving about gamma ray lasers is more than a bit
absurd.
 
Folks have been trying to build gamma ray lasers for years.
It is extraordinarily difficult, and the difficulty increases
superlinearly with the photon energy.
 
The presence of n photons will increase the rate of transitions that
leave another photon in that state by a factor of n+1 over the rate of
spontaneous emission into that state.  But that rate for "cold fusion"
is extraordinarily small (spontaneously emitted 23.8 MeV photons would
be quite easy to detect).  The number "n" needed to make it go at any
reasonable rate is, well, unreasonable.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: 6 Jul 92 01:36:39 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

One other thing to watch out for if there were 24 MeV gammas incident on
a cell would be the energy of the Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR) in the
various nuclei that might be present in the cell.  The GDR would absorb
those photons very efficiently.  The rule of thumb for the energy of the
GDR is about 80*A^{-1/3} for heavy nuclei (A>120), with something more like
60*A^{-1/3} for nuclei lighter than A=40 and a smooth increase between.
This would mean nuclei in the mass 20-30 region, so it might pay to
check out the details for Silicon.  The GDR is broad, so you do not
have to hit the resonance energy exactly.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: 6 Jul 92 01:38:29 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9677@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>Note that stimulated emission does involve only boson fields; I do not
>think it works for fermionic fields and thus could not be used to enhance
>the other channels, which have larger branching ratios.
 
Wow, was I ever out in the sun too long before I wrote that!  Stimulated
emission only works for boson fields, for obvious reasons related to the
ability to put particles in the same state....
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / John Logajan /  Alphas and gammas
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alphas and gammas
Date: 6 Jul 92 02:57:28 GMT

Ying said (in "document #2) that he was shooting both alphas and gammas
at the cell.  Any idea what energy range the alphas might have been in?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / John Logajan /  Giant dipole resonance
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Giant dipole resonance
Date: 6 Jul 92 03:30:06 GMT

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>One other thing to watch out for if there were 24 MeV gammas incident on
>a cell would be the energy of the Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR) in the
>various nuclei that might be present in the cell.
 
What's a GDR????  Do you mean a number of nuclei intercept the energy
of the incident gamma and and store it, spread amongst themselves
in some wild and wooly keep-your-neighbors-up-all-night rock and roll
fashion?  With the vibes turned up so loud that the neighbors get
agitaged into explosive reaction? :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 /  71033.536@comp /  Ying
     
Originally-From: 71033.536@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 06:22:30 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

Hi Folks,
 
In article <9679@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> In article <9677@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
> | Note that stimulated emission does involve only boson fields; I do not
> | think it works for fermionic fields and thus could not be used to enhance
> | the other channels, which have larger branching ratios.
>
> Wow, was I ever out in the sun too long before I wrote that!  Stimulated
> emission only works for boson fields, for obvious reasons related to the
> ability to put particles in the same state....
 
Shucks, missed my chance!  (Couldn't *believe* you said that, actually ;-)  )
 
[To others:  Fermions *by definition* do not indulge in such behavior -- it
is precisely that property that defines the practical differences between
the two types of particles (and particle fields, if you will).]
 
My first and last comment on Ying:  It does not even pass the preliminary
checks on my informal theory-space search model, and for that reason I have
very little reason to waste much more time reading up on it.  (Have found
this NEAT little function called "Kill (subject)" in the "rn" tool, which
I am finally learning to use...  Three cheers to Larry Wall!)
 
If such a rapid-dismissal "bad attitude" sounds a bit weird (perhaps it
should) coming from The Twister, my profound apologies -- but alas, I'm a
firm believer that the level of insanity of the explanation for must in most
cases pretty well match the level of insanity of proven, highly reproducible
experimental results (if they exist).  Hiding very profound Probability
Miracles for by combining ordinary, well-studied physics effects with
bizarrely convoluted ways of describing them ("bosons yanking events out
of probability space?!?"  oh come ON, give me a BREAK...  why not grab
hold of a couple of borogroves on the way out while your're at it, hmm?)
 
Am also delighted/distressed to see how quickly this group returns to a nice,
slobbering sort of "GEE, THE BY-PRODUCTS MUST BE... HARD TO DETECT!!!"
indifference to all other issues the instant a press release tickles a few
fancies and promotes hopes for the Good Ol' Days.  I'm delighted because
it provides some nice grist for my general interest in how group theorizing
in this sort of medium does *or does not* work.  I've go an informal metric
in which the degree of wheel-spinning (useless rehashing of ideas not really
very different from ones already discussed) appears to be a very nice way of
measuring how DUMB the group think is -- as in "major waste of intellectual
effort".  Clearly, achieving high group-think IQ is *not* a trivial thing.
 
On the other thread of Dr. Close's comments and Dr. Mallove's new entry, I
was delighted to see Dr. Mallove take the time to air his views -- and I am
hopeful that you fellers can keep the tone down JUST LIKE THE REST OF US
NET USERS by focusing on ISSUES... as opposed to, say, each other's status or
personalities?  At a minimum, cutesy remarks comparing other folks to small
flying arthropods are really gnat very nice, and I have this strange, curious
premonition that most people on this net are not going to be very impressed
that someone could actually make a pun on *both parts* (gasp!) of a name like
Frank Close.  Mallove Carol, mawwife, felt the same way when I asked her.
 
In any case, the information and "your side" data that you gave were a very
nice addition, and I for one salute your willingess to join in on our little
fray.  Good luck on your Pullitzer nomination. (I assume the final decision
has not been made for whether it actually got the prize?)
 
 
[Note to Dr. Frank Close:  Major SSC consternations here in Dallas area, for
whatever it's worth.  Texas has a lot of political clout, but it's not at all
clear whether they will be able to pull this one out of the hat or not.  Local
news media do not seem overly optimistic, at least for the moment.  Should be
interesting to watch.]
 
 
[Note to Tom Droege:  Cripes, YOUR recent thermal anomolies sounded as
much or more impressive than this new burp.  I sincerely hope you will hang
in there on those results and not just abandon them.]
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden536 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Mallove's response to Close
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove's response to Close
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 08:36:54 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920704194234_72240.1256_EHL42-1@CompuServe.COM>,
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>      The following message was uploaded to me by Dr. Eugene Mallove of MIT,
> author of "Fire From Ice."
> ...
>      As he revealed in his book, Close still thinks that MIT's Stanley
> Luckhardt, is "Lockhart." Is Peter Hagelstein still "John Hegelstein" to
> Close? Such ineptitude from a supposedly careful investigator! Part of the
> ...
> - Eugene Mallove
 
Like Terry B, I am happy to see EM himself defend his recent statements. But
did you have to then descend to checking Frank's spelling of names? I might
remind you, if you absolutely must, that you misspelled John Tandberg's name
in YOUR book, Dr. Mallove, as "Tanberg", consistently. You say, you never did
see that book - well, I would then quote my sources for the translation of the
text from it... I never did get an answer on that one; you see, I suspect that
text came from my bibliography, but perhaps it didn't.
 
Dieter Britz, trying his luck on the real NEWS.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 /  Close /   Mallove's false claim about Close and Worledge
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Mallove's false claim about Close and Worledge
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 13:31:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Welcome to the net Gene where I hope we will be able to judge your claims and
enable the truth of the MIT accusations to emerge in due course.It is, however,
unfortunate that so soon into your posting you are impugning my integrity, and
possibly that of Dr David Worledge too, with the following fantasy.
`I was told by Dr David Worledge of EPRI that on Close's request Worledge
gave Close an armload of CF nuclear effect studies in ample time to be
included in his book. They werent'
 
1. Dr Worledge sent me four papers, not an armload. (DW denies ever having
used such a simile to EM)
2.DW sent these to me unsolicited in May 91; I did not `request' them.
3.May 91 was four months AFTER Too Hot To Handle was published in the UK and
two months after its appearance in the US, not `ample time' beforehand.
Apart from these, your claim is correct.
 
Your innuendo based on incorrect evidence is surprising `ineptitude from a
supposedly careful investigator' (to use your own words). Clarify this with
Dr Worledge yourself, as I have, and have the decency to post the result so
that all who have read your false accusation can be aware of the reality.Or
are signals propogating backwards in time to be added to the list of cold
fusion phenomena?
 
As this net is supposed to be a discussion forum, and also to enable you
to verify the actuality yourself, here are some abstracts from the relevant
correspondence.
 
___________________________________________________________________________
On 7 May 91 DW wrote to me `Several of my colleagues have informed me that
your book---contains interesting and provocative discussinos of the early part
of the "cold fusion era" '  He then described EPRI's aims and concluded with
`I would be interested to hear your views on the current status'. This
letter awaited me on my return to UK after my seminar at MIT in
June, and I replied on June 14 91. I would write similar even today.
Two abstracts that summarise it. `I am agnostic on the question of low
level nuclear signals; the mainstream of my book was critical of the FP claims
which, I believe, were very much overhyped, poorly measured and irrelevant as
a nuclear (sic) power source. However, it is important that one not allow that
rather negative episode to cloud one's judgement of other work in the broader
theatre.---I leave open the possibility of a chemical (atomic) battery effect.
But I cannot give an informed opinion on that; you should consult experts in
calorimetry to assess the (uncertainties) in the reported measurements'
 
This is hardly the stuff of Close stopping research on cold fusion that Mr
Rothwell, yourself and some others wish to propogate. If you wish to ask
Dr Worledge for permission to see the full letter that is fine by me.
 
BTW, your claim that you were only allowed a minute at my MIT talk is also
somewhat liberal with the truth. After my `tedious' lecture at MIT, over 100
people remained for a full hour discussing its content. EM made several
contributions to this, hardly the one minute that you cite out of context,
and claim that you could `easily have responded to Close's accusations' about
the gamma episode. If you can fault my version then do so now; there is no
60 seconds time limit, nor was there ever.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 /  Close /   Mallove and Mobile peaks
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Mallove and Mobile peaks
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 13:32:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
 
Concerning the mobile gamma peak, Pulitzer nominee Gene Mallove wrote
on p136 of his book (quoted without permission but its a free advert Gene)
"Some evidence suggests that FP initially thought that the gamma ray peak
was at 2.5Mev but that they hastily and unjustifiably moved its location
down to 2.22 when reminded [sic] by knowledgeable physicists in the first
week [after the press conference] where it should be".
 
If this is indeed what happened, and as we know that the peak NEVER had
any right to be located at 2.22, then to `move its location' there `when
reminded -- where it should be' and then present this in a published paper
as a measured datum to support their claim of fusion, would be a serious breach
of ethics at least. Whether you define it as fraud depends on precisely how
you define the word and which country you live in.
 
However, on July 5 92 EM's posting downgrades this  to a "straight inept mistake
on their part which they admitted". What happened Gene? Given your strong
opinions on the nugatory shift in the MIT data, the above shift of a "gamma"
ray - without which no claim for fusion [sic] would have survived - would seem
to be a strong candidate for your indignation.
 
And where/when was this "admitted"?
 
MF admitted that the 2.2 (not 2.22 BTW in their paper, though it ought to have
been) was "rubbish" - in 1991 after my book and the NYTimes article of Bill
Broad.
 
MF also is reported in Gene's book (same page) to have suggested that the
(original) 2.5 placement was "because they were thinking[sic] of the 2.45
fusion neutron that produces the gamma". Are you serious Gene? Did these
people measure anything or merely place peaks at values that suited the
belief of the day, first "thinking" of 2.45 and then "reminded" that it ought
to be at 2.2(2)? You are very generous Dr Mallove. And selective too; how
does your claim fit in with the reappearance of the 2.5 peak (the very same)
in Nature of June 29 1989? Anyway, MF now regards this as a mistake too it
appears.
 
But where have either F or P "admitted" that a change took place from 2.5
to 2.2 in the chronology that I reported on the net last week,in less detail
in my book, have discussed in many talks and which you appear to refer to
(see the first paragraph above)? Never have they done so. In fact, significant
attempts have been made to negate my claims. Their attorney Mr Triggs responded
the moment that Bill Broad reported this history in the New York Times;
before that time the data and full chronology had not been made public.
MF disputed this as recently as April 91 in New Scientist and in correspondence
with me last year. I described this in a recent posting in response to
Jed Rothwell's inaccurate presentation and I invited you, or anyone, to prove
me wrong here, on the net, where all would see. Instead you evade the issue
and confuse it with some perceived plot to kill cold fusion.
 
The questions of what occurred during the week after the press conference, and
what ethical implications may be involved, is quite independent of whether cold
fusion is or is not a real natural phenomenon; cold fusion's validity should
not be judged on the basis of this episode any more than this episode's ethical
implications should be judged by the reality or otherwise of cold fusion.
 
I have frequently (see posting about Worledge) tried to clarify my position
on cold fusion, distinguishing the FP claims of fusion (sic) power at the level
of watts (or even milliwatts) from the possibility that low level nuclear
radiation is above background levels and the unrelated claims that there
may be heat production/storage by non-nuclear sources. The first of these is
without any experimental support; the second seems to me doubtful but still
open (though irrelevant to useful power production) and the third is an area
in which I am not enough of an expert to make a professional assessment - that
I leave to people like Dieter Britz/Todd Green etc on this net and others in
my private network. I do not hear much optimism from them, but that is for them
to expand upon, not I. My book concentrated on the first of these three issues;
Menlove and others have nothing to do with this.
 
I have often, not just on this net, made clear what must be done if you are to
convince others that you have found a nuclear fusion process. In particular I
and others have argued that even if you wish away radiation you are still
left with the ash, that some of the pet theories which you still adhere to
predict that there should be ash and that severe upper limits on the stuff now
exist. Such discussion is the normal mode of scientific enquiry. Quite why you
choose to perceive this in such ad hominem way, with "nasty" Huizenga, "sleazy"
Frank Close (to quote from another of your distributed recent documents) I do
not know; cold fusion will die away as a nuclear power source for scientific
reasons without being hurried along by such alienation. As I said in C and E
News recently, if, as you claim, the true story of cold fusion will be told
by history then I am prepared to wait and be so judged.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / Alex Orenshteyn /  McKubre's He treatment.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre's He treatment.
Date: 7 Jul 92 14:19:40 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

An interesting detail about McKubre's work seems to be related to
Mr. Ying's theory. McKubre was preparing his Pd electrodes by
bombarding them with He to prepare the surface. McKubre himself does
not "implicate" He in either promoting the heat production directly
or having a detrimental effect. McKubre work is I guess is considered
one of the quality efforts and yielded a positive result. It seems
that McKubre may have stumbled into the conditions necessary for
repeatibility but did not realize the importance of having to dope
the electrode with 4He. Make of this what you will.
 
Alex.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: 7 Jul 92 05:37:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET> writes:
>When I read the press release from Orlando where Dr. Ying is reported as
>saying, "When we shoot in 23.8 MeV gammas into Pd cathode, we should get
>helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gammas out."  I hear the distinctive sound of
>breaking porcelain.  I can state with certainty tht Dr. Ying doesn't have
>a source of 23.8 MeV gammas unless he has an accelerator, so what is
>he talking about?
 
I noticed people jumping to conclusions on this right away and I mentioned
it here -- and now Jed Rothwell has confirmed the use of some non-24 MeV
source (Cobalt 60.)
 
Ying's phraseology is pretty apparently future tense ("we *should* get..."),
i.e. hypothetical.  There was actually no telling what reaction or chain of
reactions he was using to get the energies of one of the presumably numerous
channels.
 
Ying also explicitly said that they were shooting *alphas* and gammas.  Maybe
it is the alphas that are his catalysts.  Maybe he can get alphas from
Cobalt 60 that are similar to the energy of D+D=>He4 reaction alphas.  Or
maybe the Cobalt ejecta simply causes D's to pick up velocity and ram into
other D's which only then fuse and generate teh 24 Mev gammas which go off
and start a few more Ying reactions.
 
By the way, for you basement bomber types, many brands of smoke detectors
have radioactive americum in them, and Coleman lantern mantels have radioactive
barium (I believe) in them.  (And if you are a pottery collector, orange
colored Fiesta Wear (I think they called it) was painted with uranium as a
pigment.)
 
I've verified these three things are very radioactive with my handy dandy
Heathkit Geiger counter.  Don't sleep with those three things under you
pillow !
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
Date: 7 Jul 92 06:03:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com writes:
>Doesn't it seem at least *plausible* that this kind of group
>would be more effective if it's memory doesn't get zeroed out evertime
>there is a press release on some (nominally) new finding?
 
If we had perfect memories we probably wouldn't make very many new
discoveries -- at least that is one theory of how the human brain's
imperfect memory is actually a blessing in diguise. :-)
 
>...and now I get labeled a RIGID TRADITIONALIST?
 
I was happy to be proved wrong. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: 7 Jul 92 15:40:55 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

Hi folks,
 
In article <199207061953.AA10868@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
<BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET> (Dick Blue) writes:
 
> ... [numerous excellent remarks on the Florida thing]...
> Jim Carr and others have also noted that there are some problems with
> the concepts Dr. Ying has put forth, but I suppose we in for another
> round of invoking magic at as many levels as is required...
...
> Dick Blue
 
My last two pennies (I have no cents) for a while:  We've got a number of
genuine physicists (e.g. Bill Johnson, Dick Blue, Jim Carr, Frank Close,
Rolf Petschek [a great solid-state type]) who often contribute some really
good comments to this group -- comments that often go right to the heart
of the matter IF you sufficiently understand the physics lingo and concepts.
 
For example, I for one would certainly not expect everyone out there to
know what a "continuum" state is -- so why not just *ask* Dick Blue to
explain a bit more?
 
(Incidentally, a continuum state is one whose energy is so high that the
particles involved behave more like conventional objects that can be
approximated by classical physics approaches.  In contrast, at lower
energy levels [e.g., in normal atomic orbitals] the "wave-like" effects
of QM become far more important and a system can no longer be approximated
as a collection of ordinary, non-"wavy" particles.  If you're looking
for weird quantum effects you DON'T want a continuum state, because the
chances for significant quantum quirkiness drop precipitously as the
more conventional particle-like approximation takes over.)
 
Asking questions of the physicists who participate in this group provides
a good opportunity to *quickly* learn what the key point or issue is,
instead of batting around at the periphery -- and it's a lot faster
than trying to dig the answer out of some cryptic set of references.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 /  71033.536@comp /  Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
     
Originally-From: 71033.536@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 21:25:55 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

Hi folks,
 
Provoked!  Provoked I am!  (Well, at least maybe a bit talky...  }=-)>  )
 
In article <9207061706.AA26239@anubis.network.com> logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM
(John Logajan) writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com writes:
>
> | I've got an informal metric in which the degree of wheel-spinning
> | (useless rehashing of ideas not really very different from ones already
> | discussed) appears to be a very nice way of measuring how DUMB the group
> | think is -- as in "major waste of intellectual effort".  Clearly,
> | achieving high group-think IQ is *not* a trivial thing.
>
> This puritan collectivist view of the proper function of the net is
> expressed time and again.  Fortunately it hasn't stuck.  Fortunately it
> will never stick.
 
Good heavens, of course it won't, and I would be absolutely appalled if it
did.  I stick to my guns about the need not to descend to irrelevant name
calling (mostly because it doesn't *say* anything), but this net would
flatly cease to function if everyone stopped doing everything just because
one joker like me publically states that she or he thinks that a *specific*
new item is a waste of time, given the past history of what has been
discussed on this group.
 
Be it known:  Just because one guy (me) loudly says "oh no, not *again*"
on a new finding DOES NOT in any way, shape, or fashion mean I think that
all conversation by everyone ELSE on said subject should cease.
 
Quite the contrary:  I was rather hoping that such a statement might provoke
a few folks out there to *look back* on all the previous discussion about
coherency (e.g., what about all the old Hagelstein stuff?) and look for
where the "new" ideas -- Ying's -- might be quite similar or even identical
to the stuff *already discussed in detail in this group*.  You've probably
made comments about such things yourself -- so why not look for where they
apply here?  Doesn't it seem at least *plausible* that this kind of group
would be more effective if it's memory doesn't get zeroed out evertime
there is a press release on some (nominally) new finding?
 
[Incidentally, what exactly *does* "puritan collectivist" mean?  Honest
question, please just answer by direct email if you get a chance.]
 
> Mr. Bollinger measures usefulness only in the dimension that it advances
> the collective outer envelope of knowledge.
 
(?) Hey, test pilots have a whale of a good time pushing *their* envelopes!
 
> Individual joy and development along the path already travelled by others
> is labled a "major waste of intellectual effort."
 
Oh pooh.  You're a heck of a lot more active participant in this group than
I am.  Meaning that YOU are precisely one of the folks who ought to be the
first to point out similarities and continuities with past conversations on
the group, and help guide the conversation to FIND commonalities.  To me
that sounds like a very rewarding intellectual exercise in itself -- the
searching out and discovery of common themes.  Isn't that one of the major
themes in the history of science?
 
> Most of us, unlike Mr. Bollinger, are not born omniscient, and have to
> cover much ground already covered by others.  Mr. Bollinger would have us
> do it quietly and joylessly.  Heaven forbid we should ever utter an
> incorrect theory.
 
Oh pooh**2.  WHERE are you getting the impression that I don't enjoy this
stuff?  It's delightful, and I've had more than one chortle when reading
this net, both about the good and the not-so-good.  Perhaps more importantly,
it has driven me to *seriously* read what I consider to be some of the most
profound and absolutely fascinating materials every uncovered by the human
race -- the quantum theory.  You're talking to a person who has spent hours
re-reading sections of Feynman's work that I already "understood" in the
nominal sense of knowing what the equations meant.  Why?  Because Feynman's
work is exceptionally rich in nuancess of HOW he tried to understood this
strange world that he helped quantify.  He took enormous delight in trying
to understand the stranger parts of this reality that we live in, and I am
deeply thankful that he took the time to write so much of his own joy into
his work -- so that readers could know that it is *not* just a set of dry
equations, but a glimpse into some of the most truly profound mysteries of
the universe.
 
No, Mr. John Logajon, omnisicent types don't spend their lunch hours and
spare hours here and there just to read or perhaps re-read two or three
more pages of Feynman, and they don't keep doing such a silly thing day
after day for years.  You do that sort of thing out of joy, fascination,
and a deep love for trying to fathom just a little better some deep
mysteries that great men of physics like Dr. Richard Feynman and Dr. John
Bell were able to see and understand a lot better than me (or you?).
 
 
> Some argue that the net is not the proper place for ignorance (there is a
> proper place?), that we should all read the standard texts and only then
> discuss the advanced unsettled issues.  Why?
 
Oh come ON.  You're talking to someone who believes that computer nets like
this are the early stages of what will eventually prove to be a profound
revolution in the very nature of human intelligence -- the emergence of
group intelligences that simply CANNOT be duplicated using books and
face-to-face conversations alone, and that can solve problems that NO single
person can hope to solve alone.  Who are you arguing against?  Me, or some-
one else who told you to read "standard texts" on some other net group?
I never even *said* (or thought) that when I wrote that email, so I'm a
bit baffled at why you seem to think I was ordering you to go read a text.
 
(Not to mention, Mr. John Logajon, that I had absolutely NO image of any
of your emails when I wrote any of that.  If you thought it was in some
way personal, I can firmly assure you that it was NOT.)
 
Speaking of net ignorance:  Do you think I had any real understanding of
QM when I first joined this group three years ago?  Bleh.  A smattering
here and there -- which, I might add is *still* all I have, as far as I'm
concerned.  But when I read Bell now, I *critique* Bell's cosmic cosmology,
and don't just read it. (I happen not to agree with his Bohm-derived
devaluation of the physical significance of a Feynman-style integral of
possible histories, but at least Bell presents his pilot wave model in a
typical consistent, well-thought-out fashion.) So who knows -- maybe, just
*maybe*, I've learned a bit -- perhaps even enough that my poor analogies
and questions are not *always* trivial?
 
If so, it is *because* of this group, not in spite of it.  For better or
worse, Terry B. Bollinger is very much the offspring of sci.physics.fusion,
at least when we're talking physics.  Should I be castigated because this
group has *caused* me to go out and buy a pile of QM books, or to spend
literally weeks of my time in the Library of Congress scratching around
throught the entire set of Physical Reviews (no joke) looking for forgotten
or seemingly unrelated papers on both palladium anomolies and band solitons?
And for *enjoying* every minute of it, regardless of whether I thought it
would really ever lead to anything or not?
 
Do I seem ascetic to you?  Oh ho, if you only knew.  It's not puritanism
I've had to learn over the last two years, it's Zen -- the paradox of both
believing something so firmly that you make it a deep part of your life,
and at the same time disbelieving it so totally that you can look at it
with a reasonable degreee of dispassion and objectiveness.  Getting too
attached emotionally to a wild hypotheses just doesn't work -- you'll
start seeing *everything* as "clear proof" that you are right, and the
heck with any distracting facts that you don't like.
 
> I am reminded of a famous saying about the Koran -- Anything that diverges
> from the Koran is blasphemous, anything that agrees with the Koran is
> superfluous.  I always think of that quote when I see someone on the net
> telling another poster to shut up and go read a standard text.
 
Oh great.  I make a dead serious posting of a piece -- Twist of Ribbon --
that postulates total annilation of many things currently held dear by the
current physics community, and now I get labeled a RIGID TRADITIONALIST?
 
(Hmm.  I'd sure hate to see what the Radicals have to say...)
 
			Cheers,
			Terry B. Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden536 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Retract retraction definition
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Retract retraction definition
Date: 6 Jul 92 21:48:58 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920706162513_72240.1256_EHL24-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>J. Carr has a better, more rigid definition of "retraction" than mine, with
>which I agree completely. I was under the impression that P&F had formally
>retracted part of their "Preliminary Note" (as the Roger Parsons called it in
>an editorial). I'll take Mr. Carr's word for it that they did not, and maybe
>ask Fleischmann about it someday.
 
And if you find out that they have put such a retraction in the JEC, I would
love to know about it.  I do not have the time to keep checking the Citation
Index to see if such a thing shows up.
 
>Now, to change the subject, I have a little bit more confirmed information
>from Dr. Nelson Ying. His radioactive source is 0.1 microcuries of cobalt 60.
 
Interesting.  That is a great source for 1.17 and 1.33 MeV gamma rays, but
not exactly the way to put 24 MeV photons into your cell....
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / John Logajan /  The Droege Silence clock is ticking
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Droege Silence clock is ticking
Date: 7 Jul 92 06:42:54 GMT

It's hard to know when or if to start the Droege silence clock, but his last
post was dated July 3rd, approx 20 hours GMT.  Any mushroom clouds seen in
the vicinity of Batavia?
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Chain reactions
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chain reactions
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 21:46:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

 
There certainly are a number of interesting thoughts engendered by Ying's
idea:
 
If the idea works in a plasma environment, then the effect should appear in hot
fusion experiments to some extent.  Someday a Tokamak may reach "critical
mass"; the fusions should progressively stimulate more fusion, and blow apart
the reactor in a burst of radioactivity.
 
If the idea is generally applicable, then any highly radioactive substance
should be self-pumping (after all, the proper decay products are being produced
all the time!), and so should show a higher radioactivity than would be
expected from straight quantum mechanics.
 
I don't see what the mechanism is for the faser (great name!).  Does a
deuterium capture a gamma ray and in the instant before it loses the energy
come close enough to fuse?  Isn't it more likely that a paladium atom captures
the gamma and is split apart?  Stimulated fission instead of fusion?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 /  Close /   Jed Rothwells 4th of July
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Jed Rothwells 4th of July
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 13:30:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On 6/24 Jed Rothwell introduced the `issue of fraud' thus;
 
`Pons and Fleischmann made a mistake----A few months into the controversy,
various experts like Frank Close found out about this and informed them. Both
P and F immediately and completely retracted.'
 
On 3/7 I wrote that it is `ABSOLUTELY FALSE to claim that when I discovered
the "mistake" (deception might be a better word) that I "informed them"
AND THAT "BOTH F AND P IMMEDIATELY (SIC) AND COMPLETELY (SIC) RETRACTED--'
 
On 4/7 JR cited the first part of this but omitted the important piece that
I have highlighted (in this posting) in capital letters and stated that it was
ABSOLUTELY FALSE for me to claim that he had said that. Why do you crop my
statement, omitting an essential piece that was highlighted by "sic" on two
occasions and then deny what you have said?
 
In addition you write (4/7) `I have no idea whether you (FC) informed them or
not. You have nothing to do with it.---Anyway, who said anything about what
you (FC) did?' Well, I see my name right there in the middle of a sentence
posted by someone who must have hacked into your computer on 6/24; perhaps you
should check who is sending out misleading messages in your name.
 
When you have done so I await your refutation of the rest of my "nonsense".
As I see you have now quoted from EM's book in a fresh posting just
arrived, I suppose I shall have to deal with that elsewhere.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / John Logajan /  Information exchange and the puritan ethic
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
Date: 6 Jul 92 16:44:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com writes:
>I've got an informal metric
>in which the degree of wheel-spinning (useless rehashing of ideas not really
>very different from ones already discussed) appears to be a very nice way of
>measuring how DUMB the group think is -- as in "major waste of intellectual
>effort".  Clearly, achieving high group-think IQ is *not* a trivial thing.
 
This puritan collectivist view of the proper function of the net is expressed
time and again.  Fortunately it hasn't stuck.  Fortunately it will never stick.
 
Mr. Bollinger measures usefulness only in the dimension that it advances the
collective outer envelope of knowledge.  Individual joy and development along
the path already travelled by others is labled a "major waste of intellectual
effort."  Most of us, unlike Mr. Bollinger, are not born omniscient, and have
to cover much ground already covered by others.  Mr. Bollinger would have us
do it quietly and joylessly.  Heaven forbid we should ever utter an incorrect
theory.
 
Some argue that the net is not the proper place for ignorance (there is a
proper place?), that we should all read the standard texts and only then
discuss the advanced unsettled issues.  Why?
 
I am reminded of a famous saying about the Koran -- Anything that diverges
from the Koran is blasphemous, anything that agrees with the Koran is
superfluous.  I always think of that quote when I see someone on the net
telling another poster to shut up and go read a standard text.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 /   /   Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 20:51:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When I read the press release from Orlando where Dr. Ying is reported as
saying, "When we shoot in 23.8 MeV gammas into Pd cathode, we should get
helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gammas out."  I hear the distinctive sound of
breaking porcelain.  I can state with certainty tht Dr. Ying doesn't have
a source of 23.8 MeV gammas unless he has an accelerator, so what is
he talking about?
 
Next many of you are ready to believe that some form of resonant absorbtion
and re-emission at 23.8 MeV is quite possible because it occurs all the
time in quantized systems at electron-volt energies.  Six orders of
magnitude in photon energy does make for some differences that should not
be overlooked, however.  For starters don't neglect the Doppler shift
due to the recoil of the emitting or absorbing system, unless you want
to give up momentum conservation.  Then don't overlook the fact that
this excited state in 4He is in the continuum with respect to particle
emission so what is the system that is going to absorb the gamma and
then reemit it?   Jim Carr and others have also noted that there are
some problems with the concepts Dr. Ying has put forth, but I suppose
we in for another round of invoking magic at as many levels as is
required, and of course another positive cold fusion result goes up
on the score board.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
Date: 6 Jul 92 20:51:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In sci.physics.fusion article <1992Jul6.164459.17552@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes...
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes...
 
 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes...
 
>Some argue that the net is not the proper place for ignorance (there is a
>proper place?), that we should all read the standard texts and only then
>discuss the advanced unsettled issues.  Why?
 
I don't think there is a canonical answer to the question, "What use is
Usenet?".  There's always this tension between a sort of cooperative-
education function and a near-real-time workspace for the pros.  On sci
groups, there is usually more pressure toward the latter role, although
this tendency is neither uniform within sci nor limited to it.
 
Since there is no agreement on whether this is an electronic scientific
conference (i.e., a gathering of advanced peers) or a classroom, you get
diverse opinions about being harsh to those who present incorrect
information, or who are simply perceived as bandwidth-wasters spending
too much time going over the basics.  Freshman classes are necessary
and enjoyable and informative for the freshmen, but you wouldn't make
all the profs sit in on all of them.  Most of the profs prefer to spend
their limited time with people who have read the standard texts and want
to talk about the advanced unsettled issues.  So it often is on sci groups,
where active researchers and practicioners share the discussion space
with a mixed crowd of "students" and spectators, sometimes uneasily.
 
I think it's "okay to be wrong", but something to keep in mind is that
many newsgroups seem to have a lot of so-called lurkers in addition to
the regular, visible participants -- and that both groups include some
unknown percentage of ignorant and/or gullible people.  Usenet can be
a powerful medium of information, and also of misinformation.
 
A closely related point is that you have to hang around on a group for
some time, and acquire at least a bootstrap level of knowledge about the
subject matter, before you can tell who the reliable authorities are.
To the novice, all things appear plausible.  In fact, outside our own
fields we are all novices, as electrochemists and nuclear physicists
were only too happy to point out to each other in the months following
the Jones and Pons/Fleischmann announcements!  :)
 
You've asked one of those simple questions that have complex answers,
but also one that is starting to diverge from our subject matter, so
note the Followup: line.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Information exchange and the puritan ethic
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 15:54:24 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <1992Jul7.060341.21562@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> | ...and now I get labeled a RIGID TRADITIONALIST?
>
> I was happy to be proved wrong. :-)
 
Thanks, John.  Hang in there & keep the cnf comments coming.
 
			Cheers,
			Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.06 / Richard Long /  Re: Nuclear Lasing??
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Lasing??
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 13:55:33 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1992Jul6.014142.7496@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) writes:
> All this handwaving about gamma ray lasers is more than a bit
> absurd.
>
> Folks have been trying to build gamma ray lasers for years.
> It is extraordinarily difficult, and the difficulty increases
> superlinearly with the photon energy.
>
> The presence of n photons will increase the rate of transitions that
> leave another photon in that state by a factor of n+1 over the rate of
> spontaneous emission into that state.  But that rate for "cold fusion"
> is extraordinarily small (spontaneously emitted 23.8 MeV photons would
> be quite easy to detect).  The number "n" needed to make it go at any
> reasonable rate is, well, unreasonable.
>
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Having time to reflect, I think Paul is right.  There can only be at most
one gamma photon in the vacinity of a potential fusion event, since the
hydride layer is usually so thin. Thus we can expect double the
probability of emission above spontaneous emission.  I guess one must
already possess a working cold fusion device to begin with in order to
make this work.
What about N+1 he4 nuclei?
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 /  /  New Mills Protocol
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Mills Protocol
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 20:36:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Kneizys asked if I could supply the new protocol for heat production
using  a Ni cathode, Pt anode, and an electrolyte of 0.6 M K2CO3.  Yes.
Anyone can request the new protocol by writing to:
 
Dr. Randell Mills
HydroCatalysis Power Company
Suite 110
805 Estelle Drive
Lancaster, PA  17601
 
You must include a SASE.
 
 
Sorry I didn't get this out earlier; I've been on vacation.
 
 
John J. Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /  Britz /  Red Face Dept; A RETRACTION!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Red Face Dept; A RETRACTION!
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 02:07:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A day or so I wrote:
 
>Like Terry B, I am happy to see EM himself defend his recent statements. But
>did you have to then descend to checking Frank's spelling of names? I might
>remind you, if you absolutely must, that you misspelled John Tandberg's name
>in YOUR book, Dr. Mallove, as "Tanberg", consistently. You say, you never did
>see that book - well, I would then quote my sources for the translation of the
>text from it... I never did get an answer on that one; you see, I suspect that
>text came from my bibliography, but perhaps it didn't.
 
Well, a kind friend has pointed out that I am 200% wrong here, and I hasten to
retract the stuff about Tandberg. I am far from my usual place of work and don't
have my books to make the sensible checks before opening my electronic mouth:
it was in fact (writes my kind friend - I still can't check) Frank Close who
consistently misspelled Tandberg as Tanberg, and I guess it was he, too, who
possibly used my translation of the piece out of the book about him. Sorry,
Dr. Mallove, and thank you, kind friend, for allowing me to write this, before
EM buckets me with this news.
 
This does, however, underline something. Why do I confuse EM with FC? Because
they have both written a good book on cold fusion, with - of course - different
slants. I have been quoted as saying that EM's is the better book, and I stand
by this, Frank's being less smooth and perhaps not as even handed as EM's.
EM did, as I wrote long ago, go out of his way to present the skeptics' case.
Why then, Dr. Mallove, do you now descend to name-calling? You and FC are both
people who know a lot, and I have had pleasant communication with both of you;
why cannot you get together and settle your differences? If you explained your
ideas to each other over a beer (instead of at large meetings, where you are
placed in adversary roles), you might benefit by it. We have seen lately that
FC is not the ultra-hard rejecter of SOMETHING strange going on under the
(undoubtedly false but by now generic) name of "cold nuclear fusion", nor is
he in on some conspiracy to stifle research on it. You, EM, have lately
overstated the defense of F&P's gamma shenanigans and the MIT "fraud" but your
book shows that you are not blind to the sins committed by cnf believers.
 
 
Terry Bollinger writes
 
>both ways, you know.  So what's the resolution?  How can you and others
>who are solidly convinced in the reality of palladium hydride anomolies,
>but continue to call such reactions "cold fusion" -- even when you in
>particular seem to know darned well that if the results *are* real, they
>are no closer to "fusion" than they are "chemistry"?
 
As I say above, "cold fusion" has become, I believe, a generic term for
whatever phenomenon may be responsible for the positive results obtained by
some people. It is undoubtedly NOT d-d fusion, or fusion of any of the known
varieties, but it may be some hitherto unknown process (note that I leave out
the "nuclear"). Until we either find conventional explanations for the results
(which is my guess as to what will happen), or find out what that process IS,
we are stuck with "cold fusion". Let us all agree that we do not necessarily
mean it literally.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 / Larry Wall /  Re: The Droege Silence clock is ticking
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Droege Silence clock is ticking
Date: 8 Jul 92 06:17:16 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <9207070642.AA03557@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
: It's hard to know when or if to start the Droege silence clock, but his last
: post was dated July 3rd, approx 20 hours GMT.  Any mushroom clouds seen in
: the vicinity of Batavia?
 
More likely he will be discovered several months from now--exceedingly
well preserved, though perhaps not by FDA standards.  :-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Mallove and Mobile peaks
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove and Mobile peaks
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 07:28:14 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:
 
[The intro deleted..]
 
>If this is indeed what happened, and as we know that the peak NEVER had
>any right to be located at 2.22, then to `move its location' there `when
>reminded -- where it should be' and then present this in a published paper
>as a measured datum to support their claim of fusion, would be a serious breach
>of ethics at least. Whether you define it as fraud depends on precisely how
>you define the word and which country you live in.
 
One of the things I recall from this whole event is a photo and some video
of this gamma ray spectrometer that PF&H where using that simply displayed
a screen of pulses.  There are no indications of channel numbers, energies,
or anything pertinent as a reference to what the energies of the peaks
are.  Petrasso worked that out for us. But with regard to the equipment
It basically looks like something dragged out of surplus.  With equipment
like that and the leadway it leaves for interpretation of the data, (and
P&F's lack of competence in nuclear measurements at the time), it seems
very likely they would bend to others (experts?) suggestions that 2.5MeV
should be 2.2MeV. Hot neutrons verses cold.  Anyway, I have alot of doubts
that the fraud picture painted by the 2.2MeV mobile gamma peak is all that.
Recall that during that time, everyone and his brother was demanding
to see their "paper" (including me). So it is also possible that under
pressure from public demand, and as they learned more about nuclear
aspects of their experiment after JEP, this data with no established
axis was not 2.2MeV as folks had convinced them it was, but was really
2.5MeV.
 
  Anyway, the bottom line is that fraud and ignorance can be confused,
and its best to know which view you take.  I'd say the later, but I
would not rule out a few well placed rumors just to steer the crowd
away, making the whole thing very ConFusing.
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 / david atkatz /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 14:25:16 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

 
 Terry Bollinger at NEC America, Inc. writes:
 
>(Incidentally, a continuum state is one whose energy is so
>high that the particles involved behave more like conventional
>objects that can be approximated by classical physics approaches.
>In contrast, at lower energy levels [e.g., in normal atomic orbitals]
>the "wave-like" effects of QM become far more important and a
>system can no longer be approximated as a collection of ordinary,
>non-"wavy" particles.If you're looking for weird quantum effects
>you DON'T want a continuum state, because the chances for
>significant quantum quirkiness drop precipitously as the more
>conventional particle-like approximation takes over.
 
 
	I think this is somewhat misleading.  For example, the
	plane-wave solutions to the Schroedinger eq.which describe
	particle beams are continuous states.  They exhibit "weird
	quantum effects," such as interference, tunneling, etc.
 
 
>Asking questions of the physicists who participate in this group
>provides a good opportunity to *quickly* learn what the key point
>or issue is, instead of batting around at the periphery -- and it's
>a lot faster than trying to dig the answer out of some cryptic
>set of references.
 
 
	There is no "high road" to physical understanding--if one
	doesn't know enough quantum mechanics to even be
	familiar with key concepts, asking questions to "quickly"
	learn really isn't enough.
 
	How can a person who doesn't know what a continuum
	state is, and either cannot or will not read the proper
	references to find out, going to convince me that cold fusion
	is real, and involves "new physics?"
 
	David Atkatz
	Skidmore College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /  Rothwell /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 17:44:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
My comment: "he [Jon] has heard from his colleague Deiter that the Japanese
workers have not published anything. (Deiter is an excellent source, but he
does not read Japanese, and he does not hear each sparrow fall.)"
 
A comment from DB (hereinafter DB): "The name is Dieter, by the way but I am
fairly used to getting misspelled. I have several times written on this list
that I do not claim to have caught all cnf papers, and asked people to let me
know of any that I miss. If I have missed papers by Takahashi, Jed, could you
give me the references, please?"
 
Owww, I hate spelling people's names wrong! Sorry, sorry, sorry. It's the "i
before e" rule.
 
I have never seen your entire bibliography, only bits and pieces of it as you
post them here. I have no idea what you have and do not have. Anyway, here is
an idea. Why don't you E-Mail me a brief description of your bibliograpy, with
appropriate instructions and addresses? I will print out all the names from my
mailing list for people in Japan, and mail your instructions to them, and they
can send stuff directly to you. They may not get around to it. They may not
want to bother to read your English instructions, so I will put in a short
cover letter in Japanese to get their attention.
 
 
A strange message from Jon, in response to my telling him to do his homework:
"I resent this.  You provided some references to Yamaguchi's work, and I went
to the trouble to look them up.  You haven't provided any references to
Ikegami or Takahashi; they aren't in Dieter's bibliography, either.  You seem
have a missionary-like zeal in promoting the Japanese cold fusion work, the
least you could do is provide us with some references."
 
Right. You sound like my daugher: "You drove me to the library; you looked in
the card catalog; the least you could do is help me write the report." She is
in 5th grade, so she has an excuse.
 
Here is the story: I have no idea what Ikegami has published, because nobody
has never asked me to translate any of it, and he has not sent me much except
for raw data and his Como paper (not peer reviewed). I am not in the business
of keeping track of publications in Japan. I would love to do that, but it
would cost hundreds of dollars for mailing and subscriptions, and I cannot
afford it. I have posted Ikegami's mailing address and fax number on several
occasions, and a list of Japanese publications where I know various papers
about CF have appeared, especially Takahashi's. The rest is up to you.
 
I stand by my statement. You said that "the Japanese scientists" have not
published anything in peer reviews journals, which is absurd nonsense.
Takahashi has published, and I suppose Ikegami has too. Dozens of Japanese CF
scientists have published. You could easily have contacted Ikegami, Takahashi
or me before you declared they have not published anything. I would have told
you, immediately, that I have nothing from Ikegami, but try looking in the
publications I listed, and I would have zapped you his fax number, which I can
always find, because it is printed on the big blue poster for the Third
International Conference, on the wall, smack in front of my nose:
 
052-789-1037
 
An interesting statement is printed on the top left of that poster, in
Japanese-flavored English:
 
"The confirmation of cold fusion has crossed the ridge. We are now in the
stage of accumulating experimental results and analysing the mechanism of
these phonomena. A number of reports and active discussions on excess heat,
measurment of produced particles, and theoretical models, are expected."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.008 / Alex Orenshteyn /  McKubre's He treatment.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre's He treatment.
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 92 19:30:13 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

Just wanted to remedy a small problem with the previous post. It was
Tom Droege who pointed out that McKubre's group beat the hell out of
their electrodes with He in our private e-mail exchange. So I looked
at McKubre's paper where it says: "Electrode preconditioning apparently
plays a significant role in the ability to attain and maintain high
loading under electrochemical conditions, and the appearance of un-
accounted for heat in the deuterium loaded systems. Helium implantation
provides a suitable means of surface activation to facilitate loading;
THE PRESENCE OF HELIUM IS NOT OBVIOUSLY IMPLICATED IN THE GENERATION
OF EXCESS POWER", which made me believe that McKubre may have stumbled
into the receipe without realizing it.
 
Were McKubre to use Argon he may not have gottena positive result.
The credit for remembering that McKubre's group used He implantation
lies with Tom Droege.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Mallove and Mobile peaks
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove and Mobile peaks
Date: 8 Jul 92 19:08:24 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul8.072814.19297@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>
>One of the things I recall from this whole event is a photo and some video
>of this gamma ray spectrometer that PF&H where using that simply displayed
>a screen of pulses.  There are no indications of channel numbers, energies,
>or anything pertinent as a reference to what the energies of the peaks
>are.  Petrasso worked that out for us. But with regard to the equipment
>It basically looks like something dragged out of surplus.
 
No, what I recall seeing is a pretty basic single-channel-analyzer that
would be capable of providing good results.  Petrasso, in the work reported
in Nature, essentially duplicated this setup.  The screen and readouts
with the cursor allow you to determine the channel number accurately, and
it is those counts and channel numbers that should have appeared in the
figure in the original JEC paper.  That is, the figure should have consisted
of values that were read directly from the SCA with an energy scale set
by the calibration peaks in the spectrum.
 
In any case, it is the lack of a compton edge at 1.99 MeV in the published
JEC figure (any of them) that indicates that the peak shown could not be
from capture of a gamma ray in NaI.  This is the most important point from
the standpoint of the science.
 
>                                                           With equipment
>like that and the leadway it leaves for interpretation of the data, (and
>P&F's lack of competence in nuclear measurements at the time), it seems
>very likely they would bend to others (experts?) suggestions that 2.5MeV
>should be 2.2MeV. Hot neutrons verses cold.
 
Two things: (1) it is easy to tell the difference between 2.2 and 2.5 MeV
with equipment like they used, as Petrasso showed and any physics undergrad
could duplicate; and (2) the energy of the gamma ray is not in any way
related to the energy of the neutron.  Nature says that the energy of the
photon emitted when a neutron is captured by a proton to form deuterium
is 2.22 MeV, not "experts".
 
You should, in any case, read the article in Nature (vol. 339, pg. 667,
issue of 29 June 1989) where they show a spectrum.  Although they are
careful to NOT say that the spectrum they show is the spectrum from
which the peak in the JEC was obtained -- to do so would be to admit
that the peak in the JEC article was at best misrepresented -- they
do identify a peak at 2.496 MeV as the "signal peak".  This would not
arise from the capture of neutrons and, indeed, this peak is not of the
correct shape to be produced by a gamma ray in NaI.
 
>                                              Anyway, I have alot of doubts
>that the fraud picture painted by the 2.2MeV mobile gamma peak is all that.
>Recall that during that time, everyone and his brother was demanding
>to see their "paper" (including me). So it is also possible that under
>pressure from public demand, and as they learned more about nuclear
>aspects of their experiment after JEP, this data with no established
>axis was not 2.2MeV as folks had convinced them it was, but was really
>2.5MeV.
 
By the time we were clammoring to see the paper, it and the figure were
supposed to be in the hands of the journal for final processing after
having been reviewed and accepted.  Although I am sympathetic (having
heard all the stories about the putative discovery of superheavy nuclei
here at FSU some years ago), public demand was not why they held their
press conference when they did.  They could have waited a day or two to
fix up the figures, assuming that was the only problem, and no one would
have known the difference.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /  71033.536@comp /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: 71033.536@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 22:13:18 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

Oh what the heck,
 
In article <1992Jul8.142516.15395@scott.skidmore.edu>
datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz) writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger at NEC America, Inc. writes:
> | (Incidentally, a continuum state is one whose energy is so
                            ^^
> | high that the particles involved behave more like conventional
> | objects that can be approximated by classical physics approaches.
> I think this is somewhat misleading.  For example, the
> plane-wave solutions to the Schroedinger eq.which describe
> particle beams are continuous states.  They exhibit "weird
                            ^^^
> quantum effects," such as interference, tunneling, etc.
..
> How can a person who doesn't know what a continuum state is,
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and either cannot or will not read the proper references to find out,
> going to convince me that cold fusion is real, and involves "new physics?"
 
Ah... hmmmmmmm.   OK, so this VERY EVENING I'll be sure to toss out any
references of mine that properly distinguish between the mathematical
concept of a continuOUS function and the high-energy concept of very closely
spaced continuUM states!!  Not to mention that I'll also need to throw out
several soliton articles that use "continuum" in yet another sence of very
closely spaced *low* energy band states in solid state physics.
 
And not to mention that I'm probably one of the most severe *critics*
of "cold fusion" as an explantion for palladium hydride anomolies.
 
(Summer session going a bit slow, Mr. Atkatz?)
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden536 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /   /   Just the facts...
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Just the facts...
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 23:34:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Lots of questions and misinformation in that mad burst of activity
yesterday, so I will have to make my contribution.
 
So now we learn that Dr. Ying's gamma source was 0.1 microcurrie of
60Co.  That gives gammas at 1.17 and 1.33 MeV which is a far cry from
23.8 MeV.  Those gammas are of no significance to either 4He or 2D as
far as nuclear excitation is concerned.  There are no excited states
in either nucleus that are bound with respect to particle emission.
The energies required for photodisintegration are those same old
values we have heard time and time again, 2.23 MeV for 2D and 23.8 MeV
for 4He.  Now Dr. Ying's gamma source puts out rays that don't match
the system he is dealing with in any way, and it is a very weak source,
basically what you can buy without a license.  Most gammas incident
upon PdD will be absorbed through interactions with the Pd atomic
electrons.  I leave it to those who think Dr. Ying may be on to
something to give us a good estimate of how many gammas could possible
interact with the deuterium.  Next we learn that Dr. Ying also uses
an alpha source.  Lantern mantles contain thorium, which is "natural"
so licensing and safety warnings are not needed.  As to what energy
alphas - 5 MeV - a good estimate in almost every case.  Now guess
what happens when you bombard PdD with a weak source of alphas.
Mostly nothing as the alphas simply loose there energy to atomic
electrons, and it happens in a very short distance.  You remember
all the arguements as to how you might not be able to detect the
cold fusion reaction by looking for charged particles?
 
On another matter, Gene Mallove mistates the facts when he says that
the Menlove -Jones results have not been challanged.  There are three
published papers and plenty of commentary that says the results are
very much in doubt, and M&J have not been able to confirm the results
themselves.
 
Next I find Mallove's quote of Fleischmann worth further comment.
<< "I'm absolutely 100% certain that there was a difference in the >>
<< gamma-ray spectrum, between blank and measured, in our measurements.">>
 
The key issue in such cases is often what is the "blank" and getting
that part done right is not always so easy.  In what we were told about
PF and H earliest attempts to measure neutrons, they moved the detector
to another location to make the blank measurement.  Who knows what
they did for the gamma measurements?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /  Rothwell /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 23:43:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
There has been ongoing concern here about possible exposure to radiation
during an experiment performed by Dr. Nelson Ying. This was prompted by
conversations with Dr. Ying and with his coworkers. I heard about the
mysterious "burns" myself. Specifically, I heard that a person was burned
where he was wearing a ring, and that his watch was affected, heated, or
stopped, I am not sure what the story is.
 
I think the first note about this here was from Ed Manning: "He's a little
worried about that; thinks maybe Shults got a small radiation burn in Run
#55."
 
I have faxed and E-Mailed these comments plus some information from Dr. Ying
to a number of cold fusion experimentalists and asked for comments. I myself
am not competent to judge the seriousness, or the likelihood of a radiation
burn, so let me just relay a comment which I got second hand, without taking
sides or declaring any opinion:
 
Ed Storms, of Los Alamos, says that EMF fields in CF cells has been seen from
time to time. He reports that he has measured EMF fields adjacent to operating
CF cells with intensity sufficient to create induction heating in a ring or
watch in close proximity to the cell. The person who talked to Storms has the
impression that Storms is reasonably confident that this is the cause of the
burn, although Storms says that he has not seen detailed information, and
cannot reach any authoritative conclusion. Storms said that any ionizing
radiation sufficient to stop a watch would have killed him quickly. He
suggests that Dr. Ying place an AM radio near the cell while it is operating,
to see if static appears on all channels.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /  /  Precision vs Accuracy
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Precision vs Accuracy
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 23:44:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A little nudge and perhaps I can get a topic started of more use than
calling each other names.
 
My dictionary is absolutely worthless on the topic.  Here is how I see
it never having taken any formal training on the topic.
 
Precision is the number of graduations on my ruler.  There is always some
statistical probability that I am looking at a particular graduation.
One worries that the graduations are observed in proper order.  The 3
really does come after the 2.  Precision worries about whether I can
tell which graduation I am looking at, and what it the probability that
I get it right.
 
Accuracy considers whether once I have identified that I am at graduation
234.5 on my ruler, how close this is to 234.5 real units of whatever
kind.  Accuracy always has to be carried back to some standard.  Again
there is an error involved, but it is related to how well we can
calibrate the precision of the ruler to the agreed standard.  In the US
this means transporting our ruler to NIST (old NBS) or to some secondary
standard that has been to NIST, or to some tertiary standard that has
been compared to some secondary standard etc..  Each step picks up and
error.
 
Hope this gets a real fist fight going.  Much more useful to all of you
than comparing each other to entrails by the side of the road - or is
is squashed bugs.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 /  Britz /  The Pulitzer
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Pulitzer
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 23:45:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been repeated mention in this group that Eugene Mallove has been
nominated for the Pulitzer prize for his book Fire From Ice. I would like to
be enlightened on one point here: who does the nominating? Can it be anybody,
for example Jed Rothwell, or is the nomination itself a significant step
towards the prize? We are being given the impression, I think, that it is a
significant step. Someone please enlighten me.
As I understand it, the prize is for journalism. Now a good journalist must
always remain neutral, and usually we don't value journalistic writing where
the writer is clearly involved personally. On this count, no matter how good
it might be, Mallove's book must surely fail. It is a book by a declared
believer, not by a neutral observer. The same can of course be said about the
other two major books on the subject, but I suspect neither of them expects to
be nominated or to get the Pulitzer prize.
So, please: what does "nominated for" mean? If possible, who nominated?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.08 / Steve Robiner /  Re: The Droege Silence clock is ticking
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Droege Silence clock is ticking
Date: 8 Jul 1992 16:28:07 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <1992Jul8.061716.27799@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
 writes:
>In article <9207070642.AA03557@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
If he repeats the experiment, but with negative results, will he still be
bound not to say anything?  Any anonymous sources have the answer?
 
 
=steve=  srobiner@pollux.usc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 /  Britz /  One from DB
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One from DB
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 03:52:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> in FD 376:
 
>I have never seen your entire bibliography, only bits and pieces of it as you
>post them here. I have no idea what you have and do not have. Anyway, here is
>an idea. Why don't you E-Mail me a brief description of your bibliograpy, with
>appropriate instructions and addresses? I will print out all the names from my
>mailing list for people in Japan, and mail your instructions to them, and they
>can send stuff directly to you. They may not get around to it. They may not
>want to bother to read your English instructions, so I will put in a short
>cover letter in Japanese to get their attention.
 
This has given me an idea for the bibliography. I already had a program that
trimmed the annotations off the complete list, and so I ran that and produced
a shorter file, with just the author(s), reference and title for each item.
This file is now in the archive under the name CNF-BRIF (I have to stick to 8
characters, I am told), and is just short of 150 kbytes long - possible to
send or receive by email in one gulp. I have sent this to you, Jed, with the
asked-for instructions.
Anyone else who thinks he/she may have a reference I missed (and I surely have
missed some), please remember I take only papers directly bearing on cold
fusion in some way and already published in a proper journal. No preprints or
conference procs, please. Email to me at britz@kemi.aau.dk (it will get
forwarded here while I am away) or mail to me at Kemisk Institut, Aarhus
Universitet, DK-8000 Aarhus.
 Thank you in advance. What a good idea, Jed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 /  Britz /  He/she
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He/she
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 04:42:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In my last posting, I used the combination "he/she". Having written that, it
struck me that I cannot remember a single "she" posting to this group. Why is
that, how come cold fusion is almost exclusively a male preoccupation? It is
not because we are all computer freaks, because there are other groups with a
lot of female participants. Why not here? Douglas Morrison, take note: besides
your geographical anomaly, we have another one here, a sex anomaly.
 
Among the papers, there is a smattering of women: I come up with Chatterjee,
Kiseleva, Nekrasova, Rolison, Talcott, Tolstolutskaya, Trzasoma(?), Ulman and
Zhakharova. There may be others, but I don't think it's many. Still a small
minority.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / John Logajan /  Droege *MUST* be testing Ying's procedures!
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege *MUST* be testing Ying's procedures!
Date: 9 Jul 92 05:01:57 GMT

On Thu, 2 Jul 1992 at 20:16:29 GMT Tom Droege wrote:
 
> "If I quit mentioning Ying's experiment [to meet the anticipated terms
> of the non-disclosure agreement -- JML], then this means that I can do it,
> I am doing it, and it does not require a cyclotron."
 
There have been at least three posts in the mean time from some of us egging
Tom on about his "silence clock."
 
But Tom Droege's latest post deals with "Precision vs Accuracy", and does
not mention Ying, or more importantly, details of *Ying's experiment*.  Tom
completely ignores the egging as per his pre-agreement hint to us.
 
Therefore it is a safe bet that Tom has some of Ying's secrets, and as Tom
said -- "can do it" and "am doing it."  It is unlikely that Tom will
contradict this post!  And you all know what that means.
 
I believe, too, but cannot be sure, that we can expect a "confirmed" or
"not confirmed" out of him -- but I have no idea what other details he will
feel free to disclose.
 
Good luck, Tom.
 
 
-- John Logajan    logajan@network.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.07 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Re: Ying and Shults / Orlando SC
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Ying and Shults / Orlando SC
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 21:57:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
 
> Boson source: cannot disclose until his patent attorney clears, but is a
> simple device obtainable from a popular and well known source of supply.
 
Does Edmund Scientific sell a gamma ray source?
 
> I/O:  Mistake in press release.  Input is 0.15 milliwatts, not microwatts.
> That still gives you 3 or 4 magnitudes of amplication.
>
> Calorimetry: various thermal sensors, i.e. temperature.  I infer that he
> hangs everything on the apparent heat generated, and is pretty confident
> that he's missing the measurement of a bundle of BTU's so he has heat to
> spare.
 
If I were him I would be very careful about where all the heat is coming from
and going.  What power input does the boson source add?  How well calibrated is
the system, and does it drift?
 
> Plain water runs?  Yes, at least two early on...nothing happened.
> Agrees need more plain water runs.
 
This would clear up some of the power input/output problems since D2O has only
slightly different chemical properties.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 /  Close /   origins of gamma spectrum
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  origins of gamma spectrum
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 13:32:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In answer to some questions raised by Chuck Sites et al.
1.The gamma spectrum was taken by Bob Hoffman, a radiologist, who
was not cited in the original JEC paper, nor the erratum. His name
appears in the Nature paper of 29 June however.
2. The spectrum shown in Nature of 29June, and the @signal peak@ at 2.496
is indeed the same that Hoffman measured in early March and from which the
JEC and original Nature submissions, with the 2.5 peak, were taken. The
2.496 in that paper is the very same that originally was sent to JEC/Nature
 - e.g. compare its shape and number of events with the detailed picture
that is in my book. Thise who have seen the original version displayed by me
in talks can confirm that the book and the original are the same (apart from
my having removed a fitting curve through the data points)
3. While you are looking at the Nature spectrum, take note of the peak
immediately to the right of the signal peak. It hassome 20,000 events in it. Now
 compare it with the version in the original JEC paper!
Now compare with the detailed figures in my book. Quite remarkable.
4. Hoffman originally identified this 20,000 peak as a naturally
occuring marker peak at 2.6MeV, hence the signal appeared to be at 2.2ish.
Sorry -delete that- should read hence the signal appeared to be at 2.5
An interesting slip of the fingers! If anyone can convincingly place
this peak at 2.2 you win a major prize.
5. MIT (Petrasso) had to show the display as this was the only way
they could expose the full gamma spectrum. They had however had extensive
discussions with Hawkins and Hoffman. It is interesting therefore to note
Pons' comment in Nature, first paragraph of 29June where he denies that
the spectrum comes from his laboratory! If you believe this, then you might
care to examine the picture and discussion in my book where I obtained the
original photo, rather than the edited version shown in Nature. I will not
attempt to paraphrase here what I wrote as that piece, among several others,
was read by the lawyers and phrased accordingly.
6. Chuck Sites suggests this was all as a result of the clamour. Hardly.
The real clamout only began after the paper appeared; the peak change
took place after the press conference but before the paper. There were
only a dozen people at the closed Harwell meeting on 28th when the
problem was pointed out to Fleischmann; this was hardly part of the
clamour.
7. I wasnt sure what Chuck meant by his final paragraph. Are you wanting
me to say whether it is fraud or incompetence? People who write books in
the USA may be freer to do so; in the UK however we have libel laws that
are so restrictive that they managed to keep Fleet St quiet about the
infamous Robert Maxwell while he was plundering his employees pension
funds. So even getting the book finalised at all was an enervating
experience.
 
As regards the factual narrative, the sources are to a large extent
listed in my book and you, or other historians, can go and check them
for yourself. As is often the case in matters such as this, there are some
 sourtce
sources that wish to remain anonymous and so there will be some pieces that
you will have to take on some level of trust. I have invited anyone to
show if they are substantially in error adn so far all I have is
mispelling of names. If you accept what I have written then you know
-almost- as much as I and can come to your own opinion on the issue.
However, I have presented you the story as I have found it; you have
not heard the case for the defence. My own intellectual curiosity would
love to know what that case is and I have tried to find it out but,as
I said in a previous posting, this seems to have been stalled. If anyone
ever does learn from Dr Pons what his version is then it should be made
known. You can at least read Martin Fleischmann's defence as posted in
New Scientist in April 91; you can read my brief response to that and
compare what he wrote there with what I have posted here last week.
 
Dieter asked me privately about the significance of 2.2 differing from
2.22 but I think Jim Carr or Dick Blue (sorry I cant access my original
file right now) addressed that. But if not and if anyone cares I can
later. And Dieter, after blaming EM for my Tan(d)berg, I have decided
not to send you the two pages of typos I have accumulated. However,
my Tandberg source wasnt your bibliography; I received at Oak Ridge
a Swedish version originating with (I think) Magnus Jandel via
Jan Rafelski. A physicsist from Lund traced more about that time and
there were even some colleagues in Sweden who claimed to know of that
period (by folklore). Quite why this story suddenly resurfaced so
quickly whereas others (such as the Indian episode that I reported)
seem to have been previously unknown is less clear, though as the Tandberg
story *might* have had some possible implications for patent priority-----
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: The Pulitzer
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Pulitzer
Date: 9 Jul 92 13:51:17 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <ECDE0EE30A00C499@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 (Dieter Britz):
 
> Now a good journalist must
> always remain neutral, and usually we don't value journalistic writing where
  ^^^^^^
Then there is no such thing as a "good" journalist. :-)
 
> the writer is clearly involved personally.
 
This just isn't true. Reaching a long way back to when I was studying
history... I found that you got the best view of things by reading the
works of people who have a strong personal involvment. The trick is to
look at sources on as many different sides of the issue as you can.
 
Here on the net we have the wonderful opportunity to read the
spontaneous writings of people on every side of the issue.
 
If you want to kill a good day or two in the library you should go
read a couple of good books on the military uses of Zeppelin airships
during World War 1 and then go and read the Scientific American
articles on Zeppelins published during WW1.
 
The speculation published in Scientific American on why air ships
don't blow up when you shot them full of holes and how they can be
made to hang together at all is amazing when compared to the simple
facts of how the ships were really built.
 
It reminds me a lot of what's going on in CNF. There is one big
difference though, I have no doubt that Zeppelin air ships existed.
 
				Bob P.
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / david atkatz /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 14:15:18 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

71033.536@compuserve.com writes:
> Oh what the heck,
>
> In article <1992Jul8.142516.15395@scott.skidmore.edu>
> datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz) writes:
>
> > Terry Bollinger at NEC America, Inc. writes:
> > | (Incidentally, a continuum state is one whose energy is so
>                             ^^
> > | high that the particles involved behave more like conventional
> > | objects that can be approximated by classical physics approaches.
> > I think this is somewhat misleading.  For example, the
> > plane-wave solutions to the Schroedinger eq.which describe
> > particle beams are continuous states.  They exhibit "weird
>                             ^^^
> > quantum effects," such as interference, tunneling, etc.
> ...
> > How can a person who doesn't know what a continuum state is,
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > and either cannot or will not read the proper references to find out,
> > going to convince me that cold fusion is real, and involves "new physics?"
>
> Ah... hmmmmmmm.   OK, so this VERY EVENING I'll be sure to toss out any
> references of mine that properly distinguish between the mathematical
> concept of a continuOUS function and the high-energy concept of very closely
> spaced continuUM states!!  Not to mention that I'll also need to throw out
> several soliton articles that use "continuum" in yet another sence of very
> closely spaced *low* energy band states in solid state physics.
>
> And not to mention that I'm probably one of the most severe *critics*
> of "cold fusion" as an explantion for palladium hydride anomolies.
>
> (Summer session going a bit slow, Mr. Atkatz?)
                  ^^^^^       ^^^^
> 				Cheers,
> 				Terry Bollinger
>
	Actually, Mr. Bollinger, it's not going slowly at all.
 
	I'm sorry I used "continuous" when I meant "continuum,"
	but I stand by my statement.  Plane waves _are_
	continuum states, and they do exhibit "weird quantum
	effects."
 
	Your quite witty criticism of my trivial word-substitution
	error (it was clear what I meant, taken in context) does not
	address either of my points.
 
	By the way, upon re-reading, I'm quite shocked at how
	poorly the sentence "How can a person ... going to ..."
	is constructed!  I guess we all think faster than we can type,
	and don't carefully proofread.  Perhaps that explains
	your use of "slow" as an adverb.  Or am I now to mock and
	disregard  your future intelligent postings?
 
 
	Regards,
	david Atkatz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 /   /   All that was wrong about PF gammas
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  All that was wrong about PF gammas
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 16:00:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Most of this has been said at various times by various people, but I
thought it would be worthwhile to put together a summary to help keep
the issue in better focus.
 
First, how would the NaI iodide detector spectrum looked if there had
been fusion neutrons present and the detector/multichannel analyzer
set-up been working properly?  The response of the NaI detector to
2.5 MeV neutrons WOULD NOT have been any kind of peak at a channel
number equivalent to 2.5 MeV gammas!  Neutrons interact with the
detector in several complex ways, including for example (n,alpha)
reactions with the iodine.  If that was ever what PF had in mind, they
were totally wrong!
 
In spite of having said the above, the use of NaI was a good idea if
it had been done correctly.  Since the "neutron source" was sitting
in a large water bath many of the neutrons would have been moderated
to thermal energies and then captured by protons to yield a gamma ray
at 2.23 MeV, a very good signature for the presence of neutrons.
The equipment that we all saw on TV was adequate for the job.  In
theory one records an energy calibration spectrum using gamma sources
of known energies to establish an energy scale, and to show the
characteristic response curves for gamma in the energy range to be
studied.  Within the resolution required for this measurement the
response in normally linear over most of the range, but there may
be a significant zero offset, i.e. zero energy does not come at channel
zero.  But any talk about quadratic interpolations as Prof Fleischmann
resorted to late in the game was just so much smoke!
 
The "gamma peak(s?)" published at various times and in various places
by Pons and Fleischmann were clearly faulty in an amazing number of ways.
First the peak always appeared "naked" rather than in the context of
a full spectrum that would have included other gamma peaks and an
underlying continuum.  As has been pointed out by FC and others both
the energy and intensity scales were changed without explaination.
Finally the peak shape was screwy in several ways, including the lack
of the compton edge that is part of the detector response for every
gamma ray.
 
One can begin to guess as to how this misshapen peak was obtained only
by resorting to the reincarnation of the full pulseheight spectrum, as
was done at MIT.  From that spectrum, as published by Frank Close, I
would say that the detection electronics was malfunctioning in a way
that resulted in the generation of spurious peaks, especially at the
high end of the spectrum, even though some background gammas appear to
have been correctly recorded.  Anyone with minimal training and experience
with that equipment could have recognized that these peaks were not
gamma-induced.  Therein lies a lesson for all who would aspire to
making a breakthrough discovery.  If you try to play your cards too
close to the chest inorder to avoid sharing the rewards with others,
you can easily blow the whole ballgame.  I find it interesting that
those who have known Pons and Fleischmann prior to this affair have
said that they were generally close-mouthed about their research.
The line between blunder and scientific fraud is a very fine one,
and I would say that it was crossed the instant the peak was put
at 2.23 MeV, because we have never seen any of the calibration
data or even the spectrum from which that peak was extracted.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL at MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / david atkatz /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 15:26:37 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

Terry Bollinger at NEC America, Inc. writes:
 
>Ah... hmmmmmmm.   OK, so this VERY EVENING I'll be sure
>to toss out any references of mine that properly distinguish
>between the mathematical concept of a continuOUS function
>and the high-energy concept of very closely spaced continuUM
>states!!
 
	Well, Terry, since your previous nasty tone has
	pissed me off somewhat, I'm going to correct you
	even further.  (I suppose it's the professor in me.)
 
	Continuum states are not a "high-energy concept."
	Free particles, regardless of their energy, are described
	by continuum states.  For example, a beam of thermal
	neutrons (average energy < 1 eV) is described by
	continuum states.  The continuum states for the hydrogen
	atom begin 13.6 eV higher than the ground state.  Hardly
	"high-energy."
 
>... not to mention that I'm probably one of the most severe
>*critics* of "cold fusion" as an explantion for palladium
>hydride anomolies.
             ^
 
	Pardon me.  I suppose it's now politically correct
	to say "palladium hydride anomalies" rather than
	"cold fusion."  Again, I stand by my statement (with the
	offending words replaced):
 
	"How is a person who doesn't know what a continuum
	state is, and either cannot or will not read the proper
	references to find out, going to convince me that
	palladium hydride anomalies are real, and involve
	'new physics?' "
 
	I'm sorry you took this as a personal criticism--it
	was not meant that way.  Your comments were addressed
	to people on the net--essentially, "take advantage of
	'experts,' rather than do the necessary gruntwork
	yourself." Taking advantage of experts is fine,
	provided the requisite competence and understanding
	are there to begin.   I simply meant that, I, for one, will
	have a very hard time believing the claims of people
	who have not done the necessary work to obtain that
	competence.
 
	Regards again,
	David
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion in Florida?
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 18:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul9.152637.17269@scott.skidmore.edu> datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu
 (david atkatz) writes:
>Terry Bollinger at NEC America, Inc. writes:
>
>>Ah... hmmmmmmm.   OK, so this VERY EVENING I'll be sure
>>to toss out any references of mine that properly distinguish
>>between the mathematical concept of a continuOUS function
>>and the high-energy concept of very closely spaced continuUM
>>states!!
>
>	Well, Terry, since your previous nasty tone has
>	pissed me off somewhat, I'm going to correct you
>	even further.  (I suppose it's the professor in me.)
 
     [several dozen lines deleted]
 
     May I suggest a valium?
 
                          dale bass
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / Rod Burman /  Boson catalysis and the missing solar neutrinos
     
Originally-From: rodb@bridge.COM (Rod Burman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Boson catalysis and the missing solar neutrinos
Date: 9 Jul 92 16:52:22 GMT
Organization: Bridge Information Systems

Just a thought but the missing solar neutrinos (or has someone found them?)
indicate that the sun's core is much cooler than simple models suggest should
be the case but it is full of helium and under high pressure, so may be
boson catalysis as suggested by Dr Ying speeds the reaction:
 
	D + D  => He + energy
 
Possibly een the He has undergone some form of quantum condensation (as in
superfluid) due to the immense pressure in the suns core, this would mean
 
a)	that plenty of He would be in the same "product" state forming a
	large "catalysis" area
b)	extra energy would be liberated (though probably a small %) as
	the He produced fell into the condensed state
 
Analogous arguments might apply to the reaction:
 
	H + H => D + neutrino + energy
 
Since the Deuteron is a boson too.
Well it was just a thought, Rod
 
Disclaimer:	Heisenberg says he's not certain who wrote that
		and he's much cleverer tham I am so what should I Know?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrodb cudfnRod cudlnBurman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.09 / Chris Reimer /  Need a text on fusion
     
Originally-From: reimer@mpr.ca (Chris Reimer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need a text on fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 18:45:32 GMT
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Hi, I have been following this group for about a month, and I seem to get
lost quite often lately.  I am looking for a text to learn more about fusion,
and I am willing to get into quite deep (ie Quantum Mechanics, etc).  I am
a 4th year undergrad engineering student, so I have some (small) physics
background.  Any good textbooks out there?
 
					Thanks in advance
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenreimer cudfnChris cudlnReimer cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Pulitzer
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Pulitzer
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 01:37:16 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1992Jul9.135117.10044@hal.com>, bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:
> From article <ECDE0EE30A00C499@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by
 MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz):
>
>> Now a good journalist must
>> always remain neutral, and usually we don't value journalistic writing where
>   ^^^^^^
> Then there is no such thing as a "good" journalist. :-)
>
>> the writer is clearly involved personally.
>
> This just isn't true. Reaching a long way back to when I was studying
> history... I found that you got the best view of things by reading the
> works of people who have a strong personal involvment. The trick is to
> look at sources on as many different sides of the issue as you can.
 
Interesting what you then write about Zeppelins, but please note I was talking
about REPORTING, not writing in general. There are different expectations
agreed upon for different types of writing. I have nothing against emotive
writing as such, BUT reporting (which the Pulitzer prize rewards) is expected
to be neutral.
DB alias medb@cc.newcastle.edud.au
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: Boson catalysis and the missing solar neutrinos
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boson catalysis and the missing solar neutrinos
Date: 10 Jul 92 13:35:56 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1127@racerx.bridge.COM> rodb@bridge.COM (Rod Burman) writes:
>Just a thought but the missing solar neutrinos (or has someone found them?)
 
The recent report from the Gallex group says they have found about 83 SNU,
which means that they have definitely seen the pp neutrinos.  Further,
since 83/128 is not the same ratio as 2/6 seen at Homestake, the data
place severe (probably impossible) constraints on explanations based on
a modified solar model and are consistent with a very narrow range of
mixing parameters in the MSW model for neutrino oscillations.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Bob Pendelton /  Re: The Pulitzer
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Pulitzer
Date: 10 Jul 92 14:51:59 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1992Jul10.113716.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by
 medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz):
 
> Interesting what you then write about Zeppelins, but please note I was talking
> about REPORTING, not writing in general. There are different expectations
> agreed upon for different types of writing. I have nothing against emotive
> writing as such, BUT reporting (which the Pulitzer prize rewards) is expected
> to be neutral.
> DB alias medb@cc.newcastle.edud.au
 
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Human language has emotional content. Virtually every word in every
language has an emotional conotation. Human beings are emotional
creatures and their emotions come through in their communications.
 
Science goes to great lengths to use language forms and terms that
minimize the emotional content of scientific communication. But even
the dryest paper has emotional content.
 
Reporters are rarely scientists and vice versa. Every report is
filtered through the human mind and interpreted through the emotions
of the reporter. There is little if any effort made to reduce the
emotional conent of what is being reported. And it is all ways slanted
by the reporters emotional responce to what is being reported.
 
Your statement "BUT reporting ... is expected to be neutral." left me
with my mouth hanging open and my eyes popped out. Clearly you expect
reporting to be neutral, and I'm sure since you expect it many other
must have similiar expectations. I have no such expectations and
cannot ever remember a time when I expected reporters to be neutral.
 
We clearly have different world views. Thank you for helping me
identify this difference. Every time I identify a difference in world
views between myself and other people it helps me understand people
better.
 
 
				Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendelton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /   /   Radiation Burns?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Radiation Burns?
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 15:31:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It's is truly amazing to see the believers in cold fusion resorting to
talk about radiation burns coming from CF cells as the long sought
proof of nuclear activity!  If the experimenters are experiencing redening
or irritation of the skin on their hands, and if that were to be due to
some form of radiation, one would consider charged particles such as
betas as the form of radiation involved.  Neutrons or gammas would not
likely result in enough surface cell damage before more general signs
of radiation sickness would occur.  The involvement of a ring as a locus
of irratation is also not indicative of radiation as the cause.  I
wonder why no one has suggested to Jed that lithium hydroxide and other
chemicals may be the source of the irritation?
 
As bits of information leak out about Dr. Ying's bosons we can perhaps
begin to speculate as to what his secret ingredient could be.  So far
we know about a puny little 60Co gamma source, but there seems to be
something else, something readily available.  If I were a betting man
I'd wager that the secret is thorium as the source of bosons.  Speaking
of irritation, if you want a good chuckle read the label on a Coleman
lantern replacement mantle.  It seems that the State of California thinks
they are potentially hazardous, but for the rest of us it's not to
worry.  I wonder if the fellow with the red, rough hands was stuffing
lantern mantles into the Coleman ice chest with his bare hands.  Let's
see now, if the boson source is to deliver say 1 milliwatt to the
calorimeter and the bosons are really 5 MeV alpha particles that would
be 8 X 10^-13 J per alpha.  How many lattern mantles did Dr. Ying buy?
Is there anyone how can check the stores in the Orlando area to see if
they still have any in stock?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL at MSU      "This is strictly unofficial business."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /  Close /   A p.s. for Chuck Sites and confirmation for Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  A p.s. for Chuck Sites and confirmation for Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 17:37:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After reading Chuck Sites' posting, I went through my papers last night and
found the following which may help answer some of Chuck's and others questions
and add a little to Dick Blue's deductions (FD 378) about the gamma spectrum,
resolution, possible errors etc.
 
Hoffman took gamma spectra  over the active cell and also took a background
spectrum over a sink. The spectra were accumulated over 48 hours. I do not know
if they were made simultaneously; they were certainly not made at
the same location. The detector resolution was 87keV, at least in the vicinity
of the K-40 line at 1461keV. This number is directly from Hoffman; the MIT
people (Petrasso et al) made their own set-up and agreed with that.
 
There were some shifts in energy between peaks as measured near the cell and
over the sink.  These shifts were at most 5-10 keV (they are visible in the
Nature paper e.g.) and the spectrum of background gamma is clearly measured
and correctly recorded, as Dick Blue FD 378 notes. The small energy shifts
were mentioned to Pons and Brophy in a memorandum written 27 April 89 but
have nothing to offer anyone who wants to shift a peak's position by some
300keV.The memo notes that the "signal peak" is at least 200keV higher (after
allowing for the 87keV resolution uncertainty) than the 2224keV of a true
gamma from neutron capture and that there is no 2224 peak present in the
spectrum.
 
This memorandum formed the basis of the paper that appeared in
Nature on 29June under the FPHH names (though not necessarily drawn up in
advance by all four people). The April memorandum implies that the spectrum
that was shown on TV (and subsequently used by the MIT group) and which
Chuck, Dick and others have mentioned,is indeed the spectrum that Hoffman
measured and that the partial spectra given in submission to JEC come
from this. As the Nature paper of 29 June draws on this memorandum, it is
surprising that it appears to deny the veracity of the TV spectrum as used
by MIT. Although at the high energy end there are artefacts in the spectrum
(see below and Dick Blue in FD378), the spectrum from 1500 through 2500 keV is
well measured if incorrectly interpreted. It is perhaps worth emphasising, in
order to be fair to Hoffman, that the spectrum and associated energies that
are exhibited in Nature 29/6/89 are the same as he produced for FP in early
March 89 and which formed the basis of the original (press conference)
submissions. Hoffman measured the signal peak at 2496 not at 2224 and that,
until much later, was all that he had to do with it.
 
BTW there is nothing in this spectrum that resembles the 2200 peak in the
JEC erratum. MIT suggested that this was a cursor peak, and were much maligned
for doing so. But sometimes I wonder if, perhaps, they were right. You see,
if instead of analysing the energy spectrum correctly you analyse it with
the "wrong" identifications that the UU team had used, the cursor miraculously
turns out to be at (an artificial) 2.2Mev. Anyway, thats a remark for people
like Dick to play with next time theyre bored and for future historians to
pursue. If anyone ever finds out where the erratum peak came from I would
love to know.
 
 
Dick's comments in final paragraph of FD378 are essentially correct.
The large spikes at the right (high energy end) are electronic "ringing" effects
Later that year( during the summer) Hoffman ran further tests of the equipment
and discovered that there were malfunctions in the preamp system .This news
was transmitted to both Hawkins and to Pons and it may be from this time
that the decision that the data were "rubbish" was made. However, this was
AFTER the full spectrum, including the electronic artefacts, had been shown
in the 29 June Nature. Hoffman suggested to Hawkins and to Pons that an
addendum to the Nature paper be considered but none has ever appeared.
 
Anyway, you now have a pretty full and detailed chronology of what was
measured, when it was realised to be in error, what was done about it and
what/when retractions were made. "Full and Immediate" Jed?
 
Finally some comments about where the correct gamma ray energy should be
and how it is (not) related to the energy of the neutron.
 
 The neutron from dd fusion has an energy of nearly 2.5MeV. The energy of
the subsequent GAMMA ray has NOTHING to do with this (see later and also
Dick Blue's postings). However many people mistakenly thought that it
does; The eq(vii) in the original JEC shows that FP *expected* that a fusion
GAMMA should be at 2.5 and the figure was at 2.5. When they learned
that if real it should be at 2.2Mev, the figure moved to 2.200MeV (whereas it
"should have moved" to 2.224MeV) but the eq(vii) wasnt altered until the
erratum JEC appeared. Why 2.200 and not 2.224? It is possible that the
mysterious quadratic interpolation placed it there, of course, though I think
Dick Blue has that one right as well. There *may* be a more mundane explanation.
Nuclear physicists work in Mev's rather than keV's and so are more likely in a
seminar to alert the speaker that "that 2.5 should be 2.2".
 
And why 2.224? Dick has pretty much said this already but it still seems
to confuse some readers. A neutron from dd fusion has 2.45Mev energy but it is
slowed down by collisions in the water until "thermalised" at an energy of
1/40ev (room temperature, lets call it zero). The neutron AT REST is captured
by a proton (in the water) AT REST to form deuteron.The d rest mass is 2.225 Mev
LESS than the combined p and n. This "spare" energy is released; 0.001 goes
into kinetic energy of the recoil deuteron and 2.224 into a gamma ray. It is
the latter that is the signal. Notice that it is INDEPENDENT of the energy
of the initial neutron; all that it tells you is that the neutron was initially
low enough to have been slowed to rest within the water.
 
I make this point because in the FPHH Nature paper there is confusion. There
are not other neutron reactions that give gamma rays at 2.5, 3.01 or 3.52
Mev in water. It is 2.224 period. And even NaI detectors can easily distinguish
between 2.224 and 2.200. The erroneous placing at 2.200(where there is a natural
background gamma ray) caused many people in early 89 to think that it was
this latter that had been misidentified.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /  /  The 2.5 Peak
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The 2.5 Peak
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 17:42:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The discussion about how the shoe laces of the angeels dancing on the head
of the pin were tied has gone on so long that I have forgotton the original
point.  Could someone remind me?
 
If the peak is at 2.5 and not 2.2, what process produces it?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /  MANN@YaleVM.YC /  From Orlando
     
Originally-From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: From Orlando
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 13:43:25 EDT
Organization: Yale University

In article <199207101432.AA02862@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
<BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET> writes:
 
>
>It's is truly amazing to see the believers in cold fusion resorting to
>talk about radiation burns coming from CF cells as the long sought
 
     Well, it's clear I don't know how to use this vershlugginer posting
program, but I might as well come in here.
 
     I was speaking with someone in Orlando a few minutes ago who knows
better than anyone else what Dr. Ying is doing.  I agree that over
speculation on radiation burns has occurred.  My original post said
something to the effect that in Run #55 the experimenter (Shults)
suffered what Dr. Ying _thought_ might be a minor radiation burn on
his hand.  He also said (and I failed to post this) that in the same
incident they managed to "burn out" their geiger counter; just how this
happened I don't know.
 
     Today I learned that 3 often-heard-from-in-recent-days contributors
to this net have joined the anointed and thus are now privy to the
secrets that should make it possible to confirm and replicate the
experiment with the Ying Cell.  While this was told to me without
injunction, I think each should make his own disclosure to the net
when he chooses;  the initials of one are gone from my mind; another
needs no help in his hometown to play second fiddle; and to the healthily
angry third I say "schottaganai."
 
     I guess that this is the net to stay tuned to.
 
Ed Manning
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenMANN cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /  /  A Skeptics View of Mr. Shults's Burn
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Skeptics View of Mr. Shults's Burn
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 20:28:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

With my skeptics hat on, if I recall correctly Orlando is not far from
Cape Canaveral.  I can imagine them testing some deep space radar that
has been sitting in the same position since 23 June.  A side lobe focused
on Mr. Shults's set up might do the trick.
 
To Dick Blue: Sources in Florida indicate no particular run on Coleman
mantles.  By the way Dick, why not compute for us the number required to
deposit 0.5 watts in a small cell?  I bet you (without doing the computation
) 2 cents that it can't be done.  I.e. you can't get enough of them in the
space around a cell to deposit 0.5 watts.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /  /  Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Experiment
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 20:32:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  10 July 1992
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 600 ma per sq cm Hi-Lo 6 hour interval
Duration: Now charging for 5857000+ seconds (1627+ hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 6.1 v to 3.6 v on 6 hour Hi-Lo
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature varies with current.
 
An energy balance is kept from the start of the run.  It is based on the best
estimate of the calorimeter constant from pre-run experiments.  Sometimes
calibration constants are interpolated.  Since opening the calorimeter, the
constant is based on earlier data corrected by an estimate of the shift.
 
Here is the energy balance to date:
 
Period                Energy for        Watts for
                      Period (Joules)   Period
0    -  .5 M sec        350              +0.0007
0.5  - 1.0 M sec       2769              +0.0048
1.0  - 1.5 M sec      -1069              -0.0021
1.5 -  2.0 M sec       4400              +0.0088
2.0 -  2.5 M sec       7628              +0.0152
2.5 -  3.0 M sec      10286              +0.0206
3.0 -  3.5 M sec      10913              +0.0218
3.5 -  4.0 M sec     -16706              -0.0334
4.0 -  4.5 M sec     -15014              -0.0300
4.5 -  5.0 M sec     -12123              -0.0242
5.0 -  5.5 M sec     -15073              -0.0301
 
We have done everyting we can think of to get the cell to put out another big
pulse.  Running points between 10 and 30 C, various saw tooth ramps, Hi-Lo,
and fixed currents.  There have been a few smaller pulses.  The gas volume
continues to change per the experiments reported earlier.  I really do not
think the cell is leaking because the gas absorption/desorption can be changed
by changes to the cell current profile without much change in other
parameters, i.e. the forwards/backwards ramp experiment.
 
The calorimeter is now being run at the starting conditions, though it has
been opened several times.  In the past, such experiments (repeated openings)
gave an error curve with one sigma of 8 mw.  In other words, opening and
re-closing the calorimeter many times gave a distribution of balance points
where one sigma was 8 mw.  Note that each such experiment takes about 4 hours.
We did about thirty, with mixed operating points to cover as much territory as
possible.
 
Now the balance point is shifted negative about 140 mw.  There was a small
change to the inside of the calorimeter (some tape around the spool) after the
shorting incident, there is also the unlikely possibility that some op amp has
shifted its zero because a few fuses were blown in locating the short.  There
is also the possibility that there was some ground current that has now been
eliminated, but this is unlikely as this is checked by the requirement that
the net current into the calorimeter be zero.
 
Since "anomalous cold" is just as hard to imagine as "anomalous heat", I have
to assume that the calibration has changed, but this is very large (a 1 1/2%
change) compared to the calibration experiments.  So we must wait for the
after the run calibration.  The calibration remains stable over long time
periods - a few milliwatts per week when operated under one set of conditions
i.e. saw tooth at 20 C.
 
So friends, while I still seem to have a precise and stable calorimeter, the
accuracy is shot to hell!  I would still have confidence if a P&F magnitude
heat event were seen.  What I cannot tell, is whether the cell started out hot
and has suddenly cooled after the calorimeter opening.  But I would like to
assure you that I would also not believe it if the data had gone the other
way.  i.e. suddenly started showing heat after the opening.
 
The cell voltage has been slowly increasing.  One sign (per P&F) of a dying
cell.  From time to time there are little pulses (of order 10 joules) that
make sense from the thermometry.  But nothing like the 250 joule event.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Chris Reimer /  Need a text book on fusion.  Sorry!
     
Originally-From: reimer@mpr.ca (Chris Reimer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need a text book on fusion.  Sorry!
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 20:11:38 GMT
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Sorry, I had been given a wrong mailbox address, the new one is correct.  I
missed all of the mail sent to me on a text book on fusion.  As I said before
I am interesed in learing about fusion, in detail.  My background is
engineering, so I know classical physics, but I am willing to get into
the interesting stuff (ie quantum mechanics).  Thanks again.
 
 
			Catch  Ya!
			Xav
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenreimer cudfnChris cudlnReimer cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / John Logajan /  What's my line
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's my line
Date: 10 Jul 92 20:36:56 GMT

Ed Manning proposes four riddles:
>I was speaking with someone in Orlando a few minutes ago who knows
>better than anyone else what Dr. Ying is doing.
 
That's an easy one -- Dr. Ying himself, of course.
 
>the initials of one are gone from my mind;
>another needs no help in his hometown to play second fiddle;
>and to the healthily angry third I say "schottaganai."
 
These three are harder, my guesses are:
 
1.) Tom Droege
2.) J.M. Carr
3.) Jed Rothwell
 
Dick Blue writes:
>If I were a betting man I'd wager that the secret is thorium
>as the source of bosons.
 
You speculated 5 MeV's as the boson energy.  Anyone know the actual
by-products of thorium decay.  My geiger counter detects it at a
longer distance (a couple inches) than the alpha decay from
Americium in smoke detectors (about a quarter inch or less.)  So
I suspect some betas.
 
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 /  Rothwell /  Long sought proof
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Long sought proof
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 22:57:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dick Blue comments: "It's is truly amazing to see the believers in cold fusion
resorting to talk about radiation burns coming from CF cells as the long
sought proof of nuclear activity!"
 
Who are you talking about there Dick? I reported that someone said that it
might have been RF; not, repeat not, ionizing radiation. I never pointed it
out as proof of anything.
 
We have already got the "long sought proof" of nuclear activity. We have it in
spades, we have had it for years, and anyone who understands elementary
thermodynamics would realize that. We have massive excess heat, thousands of
times greater than any possible chemical reaction, and that proves it, beyond
question, case closed.
 
Maybe you don't understand the laws regarding conservation of energy, but I
do. It is truly amazing to see that late 20th century physicists do not
understand such elementary laws, and do not know what thermometers do, or how
accurate they are, or what it means when hundreds of people replicate an
experiment.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: A p.s. for Chuck Sites and confirmation for Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A p.s. for Chuck Sites and confirmation for Dick Blue
Date: 10 Jul 92 21:45:06 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <199207101632.AA07381@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
>
>BTW there is nothing in this spectrum that resembles the 2200 peak in the
>JEC erratum. MIT suggested that this was a cursor peak, and were much maligned
>for doing so. But sometimes I wonder if, perhaps, they were right. You see,
>if instead of analysing the energy spectrum correctly you analyse it with
>the "wrong" identifications that the UU team had used, the cursor miraculously
>turns out to be at (an artificial) 2.2Mev. Anyway, thats a remark for people
>like Dick to play with next time theyre bored and for future historians to
>pursue. If anyone ever finds out where the erratum peak came from I would
>love to know.
 
I do not know, but I might as well put my original speculation on the
record.  I always thought it looked like they might have had a pulser
hooked up for a check on dead time, and that electronic drift such as
seems to have occured between the "sink" and "signal" spectra might
have served to broaden the peak (a pulser would only be one channel
wide unless it was going bad) enough to get what we saw ... and it might
even have been put in an 'empty' region around 2.2 (close to the signal
at 2.5 but far enough away that it would not obscure anything).  This
would be narrow (like the peak in JEC) and would look a lot like a cursor
(like the photo in Petrasso's paper) -- and whoever saw it in the spectrum
might never have consulted whoever put it there in the first place.  No
fraud here, since the pulser was put in by someone looking at 2.5 and
then analysed later (independently and unknowingly) by someone else
looking for the peak they needed at 2.2 MeV.
 
This would also explain the statement in the Nature article that the
spectrum they show is not the one taken from the TV image, since the
former would one of the spectra taken without the pulser and the latter
was the one taken with it.  Pure speculation, but a possibility.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: The 2.5 Peak
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The 2.5 Peak
Date: 10 Jul 92 21:33:48 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920710113701.23e008c8@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
 writes:
>
>If the peak is at 2.5 and not 2.2, what process produces it?
 
If the "peak at 2.5" is the peak shown in the Nature article by F&P&etc,
then it is most likely not from a gamma ray.  There is a structure in
their spectrum, yes, but I think anyone can see that it does not have
the same shape as the other peaks (which do come from gamma rays).  The
peak shape is a characteristic of the detector, and is pretty well known
for NaI crystals.  I do not know anyone who has a clue what could cause
that peak other than some source of noise.  Certainly there have been no
suggestions published in follow-up articles or letters to Nature that I
know of.  Does anyone know?
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 /  Harrison /  Accuracy ...
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Accuracy ...
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 12:43:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege points out that _accurate_ measurement (almost) always
requires a reference to a physical standard at a national lab like
NIST.  The transfer process that eventually connects your instrument to
NIST is supposed to be "traceable", with established error limits at
each step.  Usually "round-robin" tests are done at multiple labs to
find out what the error limits are.
 
All this I learned informally; I would be most interested to know of
references on (1) what "traceable calibration" REALLY is, and (2)
examples of good metrology practice in a variety of physical
measurements.
 
 --Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / T Neustaedter /  Re: What's my line (thorium vs americium decay)
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's my line (thorium vs americium decay)
Date: 11 Jul 92 01:47:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <9207102036.AA04650@sleepy.network.com>, logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
> You speculated 5 MeV's as the boson energy.  Anyone know the actual
> by-products of thorium decay.  My geiger counter detects it at a
> longer distance (a couple inches) than the alpha decay from
> Americium in smoke detectors (about a quarter inch or less.)  So
> I suspect some betas.
 
Presumably thorium 232; Decay energy is 4.081 Mev; the alpha particle
energies are 3.83 Mev, 3.952 Mev and 4.01 Mev (and corresponding gammas).
 
But that single decay isn't the whole story; it fires off the chain leading
to Pb208 - alphas, betas & gammas with decay energies reaching as high
as 8.5 Mev, and no isotope with a half life longer than a year. If your
mantles have been sitting on the mantlepiece [sic] for over a year, you
have a good mix of decays occurring.
 
I don't know which isotope of Americium you are dealing with (presumably
241 or 243), but both their decay trees start with alphas in the 5.5 Mev
range, and they reach long-lived isotopes relatively fast;
	Am243 -alpha-> Np239 -beta-> Pu239 ->(24K years, alpha)->U235.
	Am241 -alpha-> Np237 ->(2M years, alpha)->...
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Steve Robiner /  FUSION Breakeven Point Calculation
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: FUSION Breakeven Point Calculation
Date: 10 Jul 1992 19:45:13 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

When considering the breakeven point energy required for hot fusion,
the energy required for breakeven includes the amount required to contain
the plasma, correct?  If not, then it's not really accurate since that
energy is required to sustain the reaction.
 
If so, then how would a theoretical ignition situation work?  At ignition,
won't the plasma become increasingly hot, feeding on itself, growing hotter
and hotter, and therefore requiring more energy to contain it?  So, isn't
the actual breakeven point constantly increasing as one approaches ignition?
 
=steve=
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  Thorium and Americium
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thorium and Americium
Date: 11 Jul 92 03:02:12 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
 
>By the way Dick, why not compute for us the number [of Coleman mantles]
>required to deposit 0.5 watts in a small cell?  I bet you (without doing the
>computation) 2 cents that it can't be done.  I.e. you can't get enough of
>them in the space around a cell to deposit 0.5 watts.
 
Don't forget that you can increase the packing density by firing them up
once and collecting the fragile ash.
 
 
tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
 
>I don't know which isotope of Americium you are dealing with (presumably
>241 or 243), but both their decay trees start with alphas in the 5.5 Mev
>range, and they reach long-lived isotopes relatively fast;
>     Am241 -alpha-> Np237 ->(2M years, alpha)->...
 
My el-cheapo smoke detector uses 1.0 microcurie of americium 241.
 
 
Hmmm, if my mantles catch fire, will my smoke detector detect it? :-)
(Apologies to Steven Wright.)
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  Isotopes of interest
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Isotopes of interest
Date: 11 Jul 92 03:33:09 GMT

My dictionary's table of the elements page says:
Cobalt 60 -- half life 5.27 years, decay products beta, gamma
Thorium 232 -- half life 14 trillion years, decay products alpha, gamma
               and spontaneous fission??
Americium 241 -- half life 470 years, decay products alpha, beta, gamma
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Steve Robiner /  Re: Isotopes of interest
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Isotopes of interest
Date: 10 Jul 1992 20:47:34 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <9207110333.AA04712@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Cobalt 60 -- half life 5.27 years, decay products beta, gamma
>Thorium 232 -- half life 14 trillion years, decay products alpha, gamma
 
How did anyone ever show that the half life of Throium is 14 trillion
years?  How can something like this be checked?
 
 
And what's this about spontaneous fission?
 
=steve=
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensrobiner cudfnSteve cudlnRobiner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  14 trillion years and counting
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 14 trillion years and counting
Date: 11 Jul 92 06:44:16 GMT

srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve Robiner) writes:
>How did anyone ever show that the half life of Throium is 14 trillion
>years?  How can something like this be checked?
 
I don't know the exact details, but I can guess intuitively how they might
do it.  Working backward, if you had 14 trillion thorium atoms, you'd
probably see one of them decay every two years, on average.  If you had 28
trillion thorium atoms, you'd probably see one decay every year.
And so on.
 
It's been awhile, but I think if you have 1.6e23 atoms of thorium,
you have 232 grams of it.  Or 6.9e20 atoms per gram.  Every 14 trillion
years, half of that gram of thorium will decay, or about 3.5E20.
And that's an average of about 800 decays a second.  (About 1000
decays per second at that start of the 14 trillion year period, down
to about 500 per second at the end of the 14 trillion year period.)
 
So if you have a gram of thorium and you count 1000 decays per second,
you know it has a half life of 14 trillion years.
 
So flame me if I got the details wrong. :-)
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: From Orlando
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: From Orlando
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 22:13:27 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

Hi ya'll,
 
Says Ed Manning:
 
> the initials of one are gone from my mind;
> another needs no help in his hometown to play second fiddle;
> and to the healthily angry third I say "schottaganai."
 
I love this group, I just love it.  :-)
 
...
 
I know of no constructive secrets myself, but I *did* manange to raise
Tom Droege's hackles inadvertantly.  Sorry, Tom -- and please keep at
it.  IF there is anything to any of the recent experiments (note the
absence of the word "theory"), I can't imagine anyone I'd rather see
taking a whack at it and trying to get to the bottom of it than you.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.10 / John Russell /  neutrino role in cf
     
Originally-From: jlr@kd4edw.dixie.com (John L. Russell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutrino role in cf
Date: 10 Jul 92 18:25:29 GMT
Organization: Radio Flyers

 
The purpose of this note is to point out that the recently reported experiment
at the Naval Research Laboratory (Chambers, Hubler, Grabowski) identifying
5.1 MeV tritons in an uniquely unambiguous measurement has profound
implications as to the nature of the cold fusion process.  In that
experiment a beam of 300 to 1000 ev deuterons impinged on a thin (1
micron) film of titanium.  Emerging charged reaction products were
observed with a silicon particle detector.  By covering part of the
detector with another foil, the identity of the particles could be
uniquely determined from the range-energy relationship.  The particles
were also identified by measuring the detector peak shift with bias
voltage. The result of the experiment is that only 5.1 MeV tritium nuclei
are emitted.  No other particles were observed.  After several
conversations with one of the experimenters (Hubler) I estimate the error
in the energy determination to be approximately +/- 10%.
 
The significance of the result is that only one nuclear reaction involving
the experimentally available nuclei can produce tritons of this energy and
also produce no other charged particles -- and this reaction requires a
strange proviso in order to explain the result.  The reaction is:
 
     3d + e --> 2t + v + 9.505 MeV        (note: v means neutrino)    (1)
 
The proviso is that little or no kinetic energy is carried away by the
neutrino.  This condition can only mean that the electron-neutrino
reaction occurs via a virtual process, and the neutrino is emitted from
the reaction volume at very low energy *before* the full three body
reaction occurs.  Otherwise, the neutrino, being the lightest particle,
would carry away most of the kinetic energy.  Just such a scenario has
been suggested on other grounds (Hagelstein).  This sequence would take
the form:
 
     (d + e) + 2d --> (2n + v)* + 2d --> 2t + v + 9.505 MeV           (2)
 
In this way the low energy neutrino does not share in the nuclear energy
release, so that the two tritons share equally the reaction Q giving each
an energy of 4.753 MeV -- within the experimental error band of the
measured value.
 
The great significance of the experiment is that it demonstrates that it
is neccessary to invoke the weak interaction (creation of a neutrino) to
account for the data.
 
It is widely believed that some aspect of our present perception of
nuclear physics will have to change in order to understand the mechanisms
of the cold fusion process.  The triton experiment demonstrates that at
the very least, any explanation must account for the weak interaction
manifesting at low energies and time scales which are not consistent with
the present description of neutrino behavior.  Since the massless
neutrino-nucleon cross section goes to zero with the energy, there is
apparently no basis for accounting for a reaction which creates a very low
energy neutrino.  However, there is mounting evidence that the neutrino has
a small rest mass.  Since a massive particle does not neccessarily have a
vanishing cross section at zero energy, the existence of a neutrino rest
mass perhaps provides the basis for understanding how the weak interaction
manifests in cold fusion.
 
The consideration of a finite neutrino-nucleon cross section at very low
energy leads naturally to further speculation.
 
The probability of a deuteron virtually capturing its orbiting electron is
proportional to the probability of forming a neutrino state which is
returning to the nucleus so that the extreme violation of energy does not
last too long.  The probability of forming such a state in free space is
very small.  However, in a perfectly symmetrical lattice of palladium and
deuterium the probability of forming the returning state is enhanced by
neutrino backscattering from the lattice.  This is a coherent process, so
the scattering probabilitdy is proportional to the square of the number
of nucleons within about one neutrino wavelength of the nucleus.  Under
reasonable assumptions this would be perhaps 10(+12) nucleons.  The square
of that number is large enough to result in significant backscatter
provided the neutrino cross section does not vanish at zero energy.  In
other words, if the very low energy neutrino-nucleon cross section is
large enough, then several times per year each deuterium atom in a lattice
will form a short lived virtual state consisting of a di-neutron and a
very low energy neutrino.  Depending on lattice dynamics, presumably
the di-neutron could capture one or more deuterons.  The above triton
reaction, Eq. 2, apparently requires the di-neutron to capture two
deuterons with the neutrino simply being a spectator.  The nuclear
binding energy is carried off by the kinetic energy of the two tritons.
 
The simultaneous capture of two deuterons by the di-neutron must be a rare
event requiring special loading conditions.  This would be in keeping with
the low count rates recorded in the experiment.  Further, this three
particle reaction cannot be responsible for the excess heat reported in
some cold fusion experiments because the energetic tritons would produce
clearly detectable secondary radiations which are not observed.
Similarly, this reaction cannot be the only one which produces tritium,
which accompanies some cf experiments, since the energetic tritons in
passing through deuterium in the lattice would produce 14 MeV neutrons in
sufficient quantity to excceed the observed neutron/tritium ratio by
several orders of magnitude.
 
Logically, a more plausible candidate for the heat producing reaction
would be the two body reaction in which the di-neutron collides with a
single deuteron - a much more probable event than a three body collision.
The ways in which the di-neutron might react with a deuteron are as
follows:
 
     (d + e) + d --> (2n + v) + d --> | H(4) + v - ~ 0.2 MeV          (3a)
                                      |
                                      | t + n + v + 3.25 MeV          (3b)
                                      |
                                      | He(4) + e + 23.848 MeV        (3c)
                                      |
                                      | He(3) + n + e + 3.269 MeV     (3d)
                                      |
                                      | t + p + e + 4.033 MeV         (3e)
 
(3a) is energetically forbidden.  (3b) is exothermic but implies that the
very low energy collision (2n + d) can somehow overcome the exclusion
principle.  In other words, the di-neutron is a filled s-state (one spin
up, one down) so that the wave function of the neutron in the deuteron
cannot overlap that of the di-neutron unless energy is available to
raise one of the neutrons to a p-state.  The only source of this energy
would be from formation of another nucleus, t in (3b), with the reaction Q
being carried off as the kinetic energy of seperation -- the neutrino
remaining a spectator.  However, the neutron and proton wave functions in
the deuteron are tightly coupled so that preventing neutron overlap also
prevents proton overlap as well which suppresses this reaction.  The
exclusion principle effectively appears as a repulsive force which
prevents the di-neutron from closely approaching any nucleus except light
hydrogen which has no neutrons. (Incidentally, this argument raises the
question of why the reaction of Eq. 2 can occur.)
 
The other three reaction paths, (3c) (3d) and (3e), are more complex in
that they require return of the neutrino to the nucleus and concurrent
reformation of an electron.  This process is ordained to occur because the
virtual state *cannot* live very long.  It must be terminated by either
kreabsorption or the neutrino or by an intervening nuclear event with
enough energy to supply the energy deficit, or both.
 
If the line of reasoning is valid so far, then the only reaction of the
five listed in Eq. 3 which could be the heat producing reaction of cold
fusion is (3c).  The others all produce observable radiations which are
not reported.  Reaction (3c) also would produce observable radiation
unless the electron is prevented from sharing in the nuclear energy
release, ie., unless the nuclear energy is somehow transfered directly to
the lattice by a hitherto unknown process.
 
It would be stretching credibility too far to suggest a different
"miracle" to account for each feature of the cold fusion phenomenon.  If
the weak interaction is somehow involved in the tritium production
reaction above, then that same mechanism is probably the basis for
understanding the peculiar process which transfers energy directly from a
nucleus to the lattice in the heat producing reaction.  Any such
explanation must also account for the suppression of (3d) and (4e).
 
The apparent explanation is that the neutrino coherently backscatters from
the lattice and transfers the 23.848 MeV Q to about 10(+12) particles of
the lattice.  As discussed in (Russell), this process would account for
both the energy transfer as well as the suppression of the other
branches.  The suppression presumably occurs because the center of
mass of the absorbing nucleus must be motionless with respect to the
returning neutrino in order for the coherent process to occur.
 
One of the conceptual difficulties with this explanation, ie., coherent
backscattering of the 23.848 MeV neutrino, is that the neutrino which is
created randomly by electron capture in deuterium, by earlier reasoning
above, is at very low energy, perhaps around 0.1 eV.  This creation of a
di-neutron would appear to be the initiating event which allows cold
fusion to sometimes occur.  In the heat producing reaction a deuteron is
postulated to sometimes approach the di-neutron, and recapture of the low
energy neutrino removes the Pauli barrier to reaction as well as then
making available the reaction Q.  For this to occur, the original emitted
neutrino must leave the nucleus not with 0.1 eV, but with 23.848 MeV --
which can only occur for those cases where a single deuteron will later
arrive at the appropriate time and place to react with the di-neutron.
This presents a quantum causality dilemma reminiscent of the Mossbauer
effect.
 
Another conceptual difficulty is momentum conservation in the
backscattering of the neutrino from the massive lattice particles -- in an
incoherent process little energy would be lost.  However, the sperical
neutrino wave is postulated to coherently backscatter from the whole
coherent region to produce a spherical returning neutrino wave and an
outagoing spherical energy wave in the lattice.  The net momentum of each
wave is zero.
 
The above scenario is one which begins with an assumption apparently
demanded by experiment.  Tracing the subsequent logic leads to a plausible
identification of the nuclear reactions responsible for the cold fusion
phenomenon.  However "unnatural" it may appear, it is one of a very few
published explanations which has any hope of spanning the diverse and
otherwise incomprehensible experimental effects reported.  The explanation
is based on emperical considerations and only semi-quantitative
calculations.  Quantitative calculations cannot be carried out without
knowing something about the neutrino mass and very low energy cross section.
However, two other experiments have been reported which are tantalizing in
their implications, but which would be nearly decisive if they could be
quantified -- measurement of He-4 ash, and observation of accoustic
signals from palladium cathodes.
 
The work of Miles at NRL to measure the He-4 ash associated with the heat
producing reaction is suggestive.  However, the particular approach to
that experiment results in low helium levels and hence only qualitative
demonstration of the correlation of heat and helium.  It would be
extremely illuminating to repeat those measurements using sealed cells
with catalyst recombiner, so that the level of helium in the cell cover
gas could build up to concentrations of several times that of ambient
air.  This would permit a more precise measurement of helium production
which if combined with impeccable calorimetry would permit a quantitative
correlation of heat and helium, and hence would determine the reaction Q.
 
The Russians have reported coulpling a piezo-electric crystal to the
palladium cathode and observing acoustic signals which they ascribe to
crack formation.  I have participated in a similar experiment in the US,
unfortunately not published, in which accoustic signals were also observed
which were order-of-magnitude consistent with deposition of the 23 MeV of
reaction (3c) dumped directly to the lattice as accoustic energy.  In that
experiment the deuterium loading was over 90%, but not over the
approximate threshold of 95% which is claimed by McKubrie to be neccessary
for heat production.  The frequency of accoustic pulses was about once per
second and persisted for the duration of the experiment, about half a
year.  Pulses were not observed from a similar hydrogen loaded cathode.
The effect was repeated with a second deuterium loaded cathode.
It would be extremely valuable to repeat this class of experiment with
impeccable calorimetry until a cathode is found which produces excess
heat.  If accoustic energy follows excess heat production it would
conclusively verify the disturbing concept of direct transfer of nuclear
energy to the lattice.
 
The entire edifice above is hanging by a single thread from the assumption
that the massive neutrino cross section does not tend to zero with energy.
Can anyone out there shed some authoritative light on that assumption?
 
Thanks for your patience.
 
John Russell
jlr@kd4edw.dixie.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlr cudfnJohn cudlnRussell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  My two cents worth
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My two cents worth
Date: 11 Jul 92 07:36:31 GMT

Dick Blue writes:
>5 MeV alpha particles that would be 8 X 10^-13 J per alpha.
 
Tom Droege wrote:
>By the way Dick, why not compute for us the number required to
>deposit 0.5 watts in a small cell?
 
I wrote:
>if you have a gram of thorium you count 1000 decays per second,
 
Well, as long as I'm up, I come up with 1.2 billion grams per watt.
 
That's a lot in a styrofoam cup.  So I wouldn't take the 2 cent bet.
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  How hot are your isotopes?
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How hot are your isotopes?
Date: 11 Jul 92 08:05:19 GMT

Napier's bones wouldn't let me free, alas.
 
Cobalt 60     -- 1.7 grams per watt.
Americium 241 -- 4.0 grams per watt.
Thorium 232   -- 1.2 billion grams per watt.
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  Corrected Isotope heat table
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrected Isotope heat table
Date: 11 Jul 92 18:04:18 GMT

Oops, I wrote:
 
>Cobalt 60     -- 1.7 grams per watt.
>Americium 241 -- 4.0 grams per watt.
>Thorium 232   -- 1.2 billion grams per watt.
 
I slipped a decimal place on the Americium.  The corrected table is:
 
Cobalt 60     -- 1.7 grams per watt.
Americium 241 -- 40  grams per watt.
Thorium 232   -- 1.2 billion grams per watt.
 
[These numbers are based upon my initial calculation that one gram of Thorium
232 undergoes approx 1000 decays per second.  The ratios of the above table
would remain, but the specific values might have to be adjusted if my decay
rate is found to be wrong.]
 
(I used the ratio of half lives and the approximate decay energy (1.5Mev and
5 Mev) to work from Thorium to the other two results.)
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 /  Karol /  Re: Isotopes of interest
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Isotopes of interest
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 14:16:30 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

The question involved how one knows Th-232 has a half-life of 14
trillion years (implying a very long experiment?)  Half-life is related
to "p", probability of decay per nucleus by t(1/2) = (log(e)2)/p =
.693/p.  Decay rate or activity of a pure isotopic sample, such as
Th-232, is ...activity = p*N where N is the number of nuclei.  Working
with a known mass of Th-232 and measuring the absolute activity then
gives the half-life.
 
Re: spontaneous fission.  It's just another form of radioactive decay
like alpha emission.
 
Hope this is clear.
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / John Logajan /  Burn me thrice
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Burn me thrice
Date: 11 Jul 92 21:55:17 GMT

Okay, one more time.  Sheesh.  I forgot that Cobalt 60 was much less massive
than the other two, and I thought I'd better start from scratch and do it
all over again.  So I wrote the program below to eliminate keystroke and
human memory errors associated with the operation of a calculator.
 
The current results are:
 
               Decays
               per sec   Grams     Watts per    Grams per
Isotope        per gram  per watt  micro-curie  micro-curie
-------------  --------  --------  -----------  -----------
Cobalt 60        4.5e13   0.092      8.8e-9       8.2e-10
Thorium 232      4200   270 million  3.2e-8       8.8
Americium 241    1.3e11   9.0        3.2e-8       2.9e-7
 
 
By the way, recall that Ying supposedly uses 0.1 microcurie of
Cobalt 60, that is about 900 picowatts worth.
 
   ---  The BASIC program follows  ---
 
INPUT "Atomic Weight";atomicweight
INPUT "Half life (years)";halflife
INPUT "Average decay energy (MeV)";decayenergy
REM Element    -- Atomicweight -- Halflife -- Decayenergy
REM Cobalt 60     --    60           5.27y       ~1.5Mev?
REM Thorium 232   --   232           1.4e10y     ~5.5Mev?
REM Americium 241 --   241           470y        ~5.5Mev?
REM Constants
avogadro=6.0E+23
evolttoerg=1.6E-12
ergsectowatt=1.0E-07
curietoeventssec=37000000000
secondsperyear=365*24*60*60
REM Decays per second per gram averaged over one halflife
atomspergram=avogadro/atomicweight
decaysperhalflife=atomspergram/2
decayspersecondave=decaysperhalflife/(halflife*secondsperyear)
REM Decays per second per gram at start of halflife period
decayspersecond=decayspersecondave*3/2
REM Grams per watt of decay events
wattspergram=decayspersecond*decayenergy*1000000*evolttoerg*ergsectowatt
gramsperwatt=1/wattspergram
REM Watts per microcurie
wattspermicrocurie=curietoeventssec*decayenergy*evolttoerg*ergsectowatt
REM Grams per microcurie
gramspermicrocurie=(curietoeventssec/1000000)/decayspersecond
REM Print results
PRINT "Decays/sec/gram","Grams/watt","Watts/m-curie","Grams/m-curie"
PRINT decayspersecond,gramsperwatt,wattspermicrocurie,gramspermicrocurie
END
 
   --- End of program ---
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / A Palfreyman /  Naive Speculation On Energy Levels
     
Originally-From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Naive Speculation On Energy Levels
Date: 11 Jul 92 23:21:26 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

John Russell's post, involving as it did precise energy levels, gave rise
to the question: would cold fusion not have a better and more reproducible
chance of working if the cell temperature were kept way lower than room
temperature?
 
That's *cold* fusion :-).
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | Would You Like Fries With That?                 |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew palfreyman@cup.portal.com   |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlordSnooty cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / Chuck Sites /  Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying ideas
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 22:05:58 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
   Well, after reading some more rumors on N. Ying, and C. Shults (I
misspelled his name the last time around sorry.), I feel it's time to
modify my initial speculation.  From Jed Rothwell the info is the activator
is  1 micro curie of Co60, and J. Carr points out that Co60 is an excellent
source of 1.17MeV and 1.33MeV gamma.  In this case, we can now ignore
several of the complications (suggested by this group) of a 23.8MeV gamma
initiating some voodoo chain reaction.  What we now have is something more
in line with some of the deeper questions of real cold fusion.  Lets say
we excite a D atom within a highly deuterated metal with a 1.17MeV gamma
and apply to it all known effects like, electron screening, lattice channels,
high diffusion rates, high charge mobility, quantum banding, resonance states,
tunneling, etc. If it leads to a higher than normal fusion rate, all it
suggests is that something down the line in standard fusion theory is not
well understood within the context of mixed isotopic condensed matter.
Actually, mixed systems and the effects of internal isotope decays on
chemical systems is a relatively new and rich area of study.  I would say
that if fusion can be activated by stimulating D with a metal by a resonance
energy gamma, even it it doesn't lead to a usable energy source, it
it's a whole new method for understanding nuclear excited states within
metal/chemical systems.  Is it possible to excite certain nuclear species
(D in this case) in a mixed system with select frequencies of gamma?
If D can be place in an excited state by stimulation with select frequencies
of gamma, how does this enhance the probabilities for creating a fusion
event?  Anyone care to redo the S. Koonen CF reaction rate calculations
based on an excited D interaction?  Perhaps someone out there with a good
energy level diagram for D can say whether or not, the gamma from Co60
falls in a D resonance energy state.
 
The revised idea goes:
D + gamma1 -> D*
D* + D -> T + p + gamma1
D* + D -> He3 + n + gamma1
D* + D -> He4 + 23MeV gamma + gamma1.
D* -> D + gamma1
D* + Pd -> ?
 
where gamma1 is sourced from the Co60. If thats correct and conditions
are so designed by nature that the Pd cross section for this frequency of
gamma is small, (making Pd transparent to these gamma), it seems likely
the gamma could stimulate (or catalyze) several D reactions for each photon.
The last reaction channel could be really interesting to look at.  The nuclear
ash question (brought up by Dr. Close, Dr. Blue, Dr. Carr and others)
could be very useful in proving Ying's work.
 
 I haven't done any of the book work to verify any of this, but there
are several things in Ying's announcement that upon reflection make one go
humm...
 
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 /  Karol /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 21:53:24 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Chuck Sites talks about excited states of D.  I must be misunderstanding
something about this.  The 'Table of Isotopes', which shows the first
excited state of He-4 at 20.1 MeV, indicates there are no excited
nuclear states for H-2.  Where do 1.173 or 1.332 MeV gammas go in
deuterium?
 
Paul J. Karol
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 01:50:23 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Jul11.220558.16845@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
writes:
>
> The revised idea goes:
> D + gamma1 -> D*
> D* + D -> T + p + gamma1
 
[several
 D* + D -> Y deleted]
 
But why should D* + D go to anything? I realize this is CF and so we
are supposed to allow for miracles, but I don't see why having
the excited nucleus would help. The excited nucleus is not much
larger than the unexited nucleus, and so does little to mitigate
the enormous coulomb barriers to fusion.
 
It seems to me that one must modify the atomic physics of the
P D matrix first, as a precursor to modifying its nuclear physics.
 
 
--
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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.12 /  Britz /  Angels on head of pin
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Angels on head of pin
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 23:59:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
 
>The discussion about how the shoe laces of the angeels dancing on the head
>of the pin were tied has gone on so long that I have forgotton the original
>point.  Could someone remind me?
 
>If the peak is at 2.5 and not 2.2, what process produces it?
 
No, Dick, this is not hair splitting (or pin angeling); for one thing, P&F
keep getting quoted for all of their results, and their gamma spectrum,
reasonable people will agree, is bunkum. It is of interest to try to
reconstruct how all that came about. For another thing, I would guess that
Frank Close is forced to tie the laces of the angels etc, because he is still
being attacked for pointing out this gamma spectrum fiasco.
 
On another level, I am interested to know that the gamma spectrum story is
another piece of evidence to show that Pons is not to be believed. If he lacks
credibility in one area - to put it mildly - I am very reluctant to believe
anything he says. He now has to SHOW me a cell design that I can reproduce and
get to work with no trouble, or a ready made device, like the water heater he
was ready to sell at one time, it seemed. Tables of numbers in a paper written
by him are worth nothing. They, too, might be the result of dubious quadratic
extrapolations.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / D Danforth /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 04:50:56 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

 
 
Barry Merriman writes:
 
>But why should D* + D go to anything? I realize this is CF and so we
>are supposed to allow for miracles, but I don't see why having
>the excited nucleus would help. The excited nucleus is not much
                                                        ^^^^^^^^
>larger than the unexited nucleus, and so does little to mitigate
 ^^^^^^
>the enormous coulomb barriers to fusion.
>
 
Just curious.  How is the size of an excited nucleus determined?
Standard scattering cross sections I assume,  however (as I recall),
the cross section is a function of the probing particle's energy.
Do we have experimental data for modest to low incident energies for
excited nuclei?  Do we excite with gamma's and probe with other
particles or what?  In any chunk of matterial there will always
be a mixture of excited and unexcited nuclei.  The scattering cross
section(s) must be a mixture of each of these nuclear types.  I assume
one must subtract out the unexcited cross sections infered from some
other experiment.  Comments?
 
--
Doug Danforth
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 /  Karol /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 08:22:11 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Doug Danforth asks how the size of excited nuclei are determined and
states that 'in any chunk of matter there will always be a mixture of
excited and unexcited nuclei".
 
On the latter point, 'always' is a gross overstatement.  Helium gas at
room temperature has all its nuclei in the ground excited state.  The
first excited nuclear state is 20 MeV above the ground state.  The
Boltzmann factor will allow you to calculate what fraction of a finite
amount of helium would be in that excited state (on the average).
~Exp(-10^9) is a small fraction.
 
Regarding the former, one way is through nuclear theory, which has
something to say about nuclear compressibility...how much the nuclear
volume changes per unit change in energy.  Theorists differ on the value
for compressibility, but all seem to agree that at the energies we're
discussing, the nucleus is pretty much incompressible.
 
At least, that's my understanding at the moment.
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 /  Close /   Tom: where dod the 2.5 come from
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Tom: where dod the 2.5 come from
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 13:35:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom; the 2.5 peak was almost certainly an electronic artefact caused by
a faulty pre-amp.
 
However, if there are people who wish to believe that it is a real
phenomenon generated by a nuclear process and intend on incorporating
it into a theory, better your theory does not imply a peak at 2.5.
The real position was about 2.8MeV; it was thought to be at 2.5 because
of misidentification of other peaks in the spectrum (in particular that
the sharp spike to its right was a "true" 2.615 marker peak).
 
Msg for Dick Blue: as Gene Mallove puts much store by Menlove's data (are
you still there Gene?) I went and looked old notes on this. In Jan 92 you
posted a suggestion about cosmic ray induced effects, noting that the
"signal" tended to correlate with volume of gas in such a way that, you
felt, it might be cosmic induced breakup of deuterons. I had discussed
similar ideas here with John Davies and wondered if you have had any
response to your idea other than on the open net?
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total of 719 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 719 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 13:37:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
this is not much but got it today and let you know thereby that I am not
slacking on the job. It is probably no news that Bockris was (is?) funded by
EPRI, but I had only heard by way of rumour that he has not had any results
for some time. Here we have it from a journalist, presumably knowing of what
he writes.
Well may you ask how come we've gone down from 720 to 719; a while ago I
found another double, or a fault in the file that confused the count - I
forget which. Until further notice, this is the correct  number now...
 
A question to y'all: does anyone out there have a copy of the paper by
Bockris, Hodko and Minevski, Proc.-Electrochem. Soc 1992, 92-5 (Proc. Symp.
Hydrogen Storage Mater., Batteries, Electrochem.) 223-247, "Fugacity of
hydrogen isotopes in metals: degradation, cracking and cold fusion"? If so,
is there a chance of your mailing me a copy here? If so, I would appreciate
it greatly, and thanks in advance. Better announce it on the net first, to
avoid 20 people rushing to do it...
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 13-Jul-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 719
 
Comments; file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindley D;                                  Nature 357 (1992), 25-Jun, p. 635.
"Out, out brief candle..."
** DL brings us up to date with Texas A&M, in a little item tucked away in a
special issue of Nature, devoted to science in Texas. John Bockris, friend of
Fleischmann, is mentioned as one of those who thought they had found tritium.
Lindley states that the EPRI funded Bockris, and that A&M tritium fever has
apparently subsided since the fraud allegations of 1990, and the traces of
tritium found by Wolf in the original Pd material. Lindley writes that while
claims of cold fusion still pop up, none comes from A&M, where nothing has
been found for some time now.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 /   /   Tritons at 5.1 MeV?
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Tritons at 5.1 MeV?
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 14:50:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to John Russel (Do I know you?) for the post on a new and wonderful
experiment.  Let's see if I have it right.  A beam of deuterons at energies
of 300 to 1000 eV strick a 1 micron titanium foil and out come energetic
charged particles which have been identified as 5.1 MeV +/- 10% tritons.
Pray tell us more, about the experiment that is.  Spare us further
speculation about off-the-wall reactions for the time being.  First off
how about some numbers regarding intensities of the incident beam and
the rate at which particles are detected.  Also some information as to
the geometry of the set-up such as the angle between the beam and the
detector.  Is there a recorded pulse-height spectrum?  Do you have
a calibration source such as Amercium?  Are these particles detected
immediately when the beam is turned on or is there a build-up as
deuterons accumulate in the target foil?  If one makes some wild
assumptions about densities and cross sections are the observed reaction
rates within shooting distance for the proposed 3-deuteron process?
 
Then what plans do you have for refinement of these measurements to
improve particle identification (Use delta E - E Si telescope or a
gas-filled proportional counter if your short on funds.) and to
record a pulse-height spectrum?   Keep us informed.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL at MSU      "A billion grams of thorium?"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: What's my line
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's my line
Date: 13 Jul 92 14:23:22 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9207102036.AA04650@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Ed Manning proposes four riddles:
>
>These three are harder, my guesses are:
>
>1.) Tom Droege
>2.) J.M. Carr            <-------- not me
>3.) Jed Rothwell
 
I asked the Orlando Science Center for a copy of the press materials that
Ed posted here, and that is all.  Still no answer except for the Fax of a
non-disclosure document that I have no intention of signing unless he were
to agree to compensate me for anything he learns from me....
 
I must admit that I am a bit peeved with Orlando Science Center; not very
responsive for an organization that is publicly funded.  Time to call them
back, I guess, and get a straight answer.
 
I am willing to wait for the promised journal article.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Tom: where dod the 2.5 come from
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom: where dod the 2.5 come from
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 15:40:12 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <199207130929.AA17867@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
 
> ... are you still there Gene [Mallove]?
 
I owe Dr. Mallove an apology -- it is not my place to be taking whacks at
you for remarks you have directed to Dr. Close.  Please note that I will
henceforth avoid making any comments of any type on your emails.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: 13 Jul 92 15:19:32 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul13.045056.24755@riacs.edu> danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G.
 Danforth) writes:
>
>Barry Merriman writes:
>
>>But why should D* + D go to anything? I realize this is CF and so we
>>are supposed to allow for miracles, but I don't see why having
>>the excited nucleus would help. The excited nucleus is not much
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^
>>larger than the unexited nucleus, and so does little to mitigate
> ^^^^^^
>>the enormous coulomb barriers to fusion.
>
>Just curious.  How is the size of an excited nucleus determined?
 
Hey, a question in my direct area of expertise -- so I can direct you
to our wonderful review article in Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle
Physics, 36 (1986) 29 where technical aspects of this are addressed.
 
The best means of determining sizes is via scattering reactions, with
better results obtained with electrons and medium energy (200 MeV) protons
than with other possible choices of beam.  Other experiments may tell you
some of the moments of the radial distribution of neutrons and protons,
but these two do the best job of giving you the details of the radial
profile of the particle distribution.  Elastic scattering tells you
about the shape of the ground state distribution, and inelastic scattering
(that takes you from the ground state to a particular excited state) tells
you about the *change* in shape from the ground state -- i.e. where the
particles to and from whence they came.
 
>Standard scattering cross sections I assume,  however (as I recall),
>the cross section is a function of the probing particle's energy.
>Do we have experimental data for modest to low incident energies for
>excited nuclei?  Do we excite with gamma's and probe with other
>particles or what?
 
Cross sections are indeed dependent on the probe used and its energy.
However, this is not to say that the density is probe dependent.  The
cross section is a convolution of three factors: the density (or densities,
there are quite a few, each corresponding to one of the degrees of freedom
that one can excite in a nuclear system), the probe-nucleon interaction,
and a distortion function that tells how the probe is affected by the
mean field of the nucleus before and after the scattering occurs.  The
last two are probe dependent, the first is not, and understanding of the
scattering theory is good enough now so that calculations give consistent
results for reactions induced with quite different probes.
 
There is a *vast* collection of data for very low energy probes.  (These
reactions remain the least understood theoretically, for reasons that I
could go into if pressed -- mainly because the probe is moving roughly
at the same speed as the particles it interacts with and hence does not
experience a simple single scattering.)  This data is evaluated and
archived by the National Nuclear Data Center at Brookhaven -- home of
the famous "barn" book filled with neutron resonance cross sections taken
at very low energy.  These data were acquired for "application" work in
the DOE: design of reactors and weapons.  All of it is for nuclei in
their ground state initially, although there are many reactions where
one can observe transitions from excited states to other excited states
in a multistep reaction.  These are not actually "on an excited state",
although the formal calculation of the cross section treats it as a
sequence of reactions where some do occur "on an excited state".
 
The answer to your third question is basically what I just said: there
are reactions where the probe excites the system in a sequence of steps.
Typically this does not involve gamma rays, since they do not interact
strongly and hence do not make a measurable contribution.  (Such things
might go on in the environment of a supernova or a thermonuclear explosion,
of course, but that is not what we are talking about here.)
 
>                     In any chunk of matterial there will always
>be a mixture of excited and unexcited nuclei.  The scattering cross
>section(s) must be a mixture of each of these nuclear types.  I assume
>one must subtract out the unexcited cross sections infered from some
>other experiment.  Comments?
 
The Boltzman formula tells you the answer to this question, which is a
standard "first problem" in any nuclear course.  I will give you a hint:
Boltzman's constant k = 8.617x10^{-5} eV/K in natural units, or put
another way, 1 MeV is 1.16x10^{10} Kelvin.  Since room temperature is
about 300 and typical excitation energies are on the order of MeV, one
gets a small number *in the exponent* and vanishingly small numbers of
atoms in any sample.  There are nuclei with very low-lying excited states,
but you will note that you get small probabilities even if you work with
energies on the eV scale found in atomic systems.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re:  Tritons at 5.1 MeV?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Tritons at 5.1 MeV?
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:09:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <199207131413.AA23198@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
 writes:
>Thanks to John Russel (Do I know you?) for the post on a new and wonderful
>experiment.  Let's see if I have it right.  A beam of deuterons at energies
>of 300 to 1000 eV strick a 1 micron titanium foil and out come energetic
>charged particles which have been identified as 5.1 MeV +/- 10% tritons.
>Pray tell us more, about the experiment that is.  Spare us further
>speculation about off-the-wall reactions for the time being.  First off
>how about some numbers regarding intensities of the incident beam and
>the rate at which particles are detected.  Also some information as to
>the geometry of the set-up such as the angle between the beam and the
>detector.  Is there a recorded pulse-height spectrum?  Do you have
>a calibration source such as Amercium?  Are these particles detected
>immediately when the beam is turned on or is there a build-up as
>deuterons accumulate in the target foil?  If one makes some wild
>assumptions about densities and cross sections are the observed reaction
>rates within shooting distance for the proposed 3-deuteron process?
 
     This is interesting.  I recall an experiment done by Cecil \etal
     at the Colorado School of Mines reported at the LANL Workshop
     on Cold-Fusion Phenomena in 1989.  They implanted D2 ions in a
     roughly 1.5 micron-wide Pd foil evaporated on a Md substrate.
     They then ran a current through the foil and got a small
     spectral peak at ~5 MeV (fairly wide though so 5.1 is consistent)
     with better than 4 \sigma statistics.
 
     Does anyone know what became of this work?
 
                                dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 /  Rothwell /  News Release
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News Release
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 18:57:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
 
********NEWS RELEASE********
 
 
Japan's MITI Launches Major Cold Fusion Program
 
                                                July 13, 1992
 
            From:       Cold Fusion Research Advocates
                        2060 Peachtree Industrial Court
                        Chamblee, Georgia  30341
 
            Contacts:   Jed Rothwell 404-451-9890 Fax 404-458-2404
                        Dr. Eugene F. Mallove 603-228-4516
 
TOKYO, Japan -- The powerful Japanese Ministry of International Trade and
Industry (MITI) last Friday announced its full economic support for cold
fusion research and development in Japan. Sources in Japan say that the
government plan will serve as a "springboard for similar research by the
private sector."
 
      Front page banner headlines in the major daily Yomiuri newspaper
(7/10/92) read: "Cold Fusion: Clean Energy Source to be Developed into
Practical Use." A bold header follows: "Nation Begins Full Scale Research."
 
      The Energy Resources Department of the Ministry of International Trade
and Industry, will appropriate several hundred million yen for primary
research from the fiscal 1993 budget. The agency intends to spend several
billion yen (several tens of millions of U.S. dollars; 125 yen = $1.00
U.S.) on the five year project beginning in fiscal 1993. The agency has
established a study group together with researchers, power companies, and
large electric machinery producers. The group recently concluded that
excessive heat was, indeed, generated in cold fusion experiments, although
it is not sure exactly how the process works. The research is aimed at
finding this out.
 
 
The first part of the 7/11/92 Yomiuri article reads:
 
"The Energy Resources Department of the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry on July 10 revealed plans that it will launch a full scale program
to develop a new form of fusion. Fusion is considered the ideal form of
energy for the 21st century. This form, cold fusion, was said to have an
'unknown mechanism,' and the 'prospects for practical use have not been
clear.' Agreement was reached during informal meetings with experts that
starting in fiscal '93, several hundred million yen per year will be
devoted to full scale basic research in the field in order to discover the
exact mechanism of the phenomenon. This full scale research is in contrast
to the limited work that has gone on up to now, mostly in University
Laboratories. Cold fusion is considered an ultra-clean form of energy, in
contrast to fission power, because it does not create radioactive waste, so
it is increasingly hoped that it will replace fossil fuel."
 
      Dr. A. Takahashi of Osaka University's Department of Nuclear
Engineering is quoted in the article: "The cause of the effect is still
unknown, but there is no doubt that the effect is occurring. The problem is
how to sustain the reaction. The amount of heat our experiment yielded
makes it certain that this can only be some sort of nuclear reaction. It is
not such a miracle that deuterons closely packed into the palladium lattice
should undergo some sort of nuclear reaction. I am very pleased to see a
national effort to crack this problem. I rate the new program very highly.
It is solid recognition of this as a potentially unlimited energy source."
 
      Other Yomiuri excerpts (7/10/92):
 
      "Cold fusion received global attention after U.S. and European
scientists announced experimental success in 1989. However, the Japan
Atomic Energy Research Institute and several other institutions
discontinued research in April 1991 because of limited success in the
laboratory.
 
      In February this year, however, atomic engineering expert Professor
Akito Takahashi of Osaka University announced he produced twice the amount
of consumed energy for two consecutive months, by electrolyzing heavy
water.
 
      Reviewing the experimental results, the agency [MITI] concluded there
was no doubt that a reaction did occur."
 
 
 
Excerpts from the Nikkei Shimbun, 6/27/92:
 
      "Science Eye" feature section by J. Takaki:
 
Headlines: "A new step for 'cold fusion' development" -- "Osaka University
Excess Heat Data" -- "Replication Experiment underway worldwide, as
industry takes interest."
 
      "If nuclear fusion can be developed, it would give mankind a nearly
inexhaustible source of energy. That dream may now be realized in a simple
laboratory test tube..."
 
      The article relates that Dr. Thomas Passell of the U.S. utility
industry Electric Power Research Institute [Palo Alto, CA] visited Japan
recently and held a meeting in a "certain location" in Tokyo with top
experts from MITI and from 20 corporations. Six other corporations are said
to be at work on cold fusion already. Dr. Passell reveals that the EPRI
budget for the next three years is $12 million. He says that
representatives from the U.S. National Science Foundation are visiting
[EPRI-funded] SRI International [Menlo Park, CA] right now.
 
      Quote from Dr. Hideo Ikegami, Director of the National Institute for
Fusion Science in Nagoya: "There are still a few stuck in the mud 'fossils'
who do not believe the effect is real, but they have not examined the data
since 1989. Overall, acceptance has grown tremendously."
 
      Quote from Dr. T. Mizuno of Hokaido National University: "We sensed
the change in the middle of the year..Recent experiments have vastly
improved, more accurate instrumentation, so we are 100% certain the neutron
measurements are real."
 
      Quote from Tokyo Institute of Technology's Dr. M. Okamoto: "It may not
be nuclear fusion per se, but there is no question that some sort of
nuclear reaction is taking place."
 
 
      A summary of the news sources in Japan that have reported the MITI
announcement:
 
Yomiuri Shimbun, 7/10/92, Lead article, page 1
The Daily Yomiuri (English Edition), 7/11/92
NHK National Television afternoon news broadcast, 7/11/92
Nikkei Shimbun, 6/27/92, page 12
Nikkei Shimbun, 7/11/92, no page number
 
 
 
Meanwhile, U.S. DOE Ignores Cold Fusion
 
      Meanwhile in the U.S., cold fusion research efforts have been held
back.  A hostile scientific climate was fostered by a Department of Energy
panel on cold fusion that reached a negative conclusion within four months
of the March, 1989 Utah announcement. The head of the DOE panel published
a book this year titled: "Cold Fusion: Scientific Fiasco of the Century."
DOE's $500 million/year federally funded hot fusion program continues to
receive support, while the DOE continues to refuse to spend any money on
cold fusion.
 
      Members of hot fusion research centers in the U.S. continue to assail
cold fusion research, as they have done since the spring of 1989, when the
MIT Plasma Fusion Center attacked the work of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann,
terminated its own experiments, and held a "Wake for Cold Fusion" on June
26, 1989, one month before writing up the conclusions of its brief
experiments.
 
      A letter received recently (5/12/92) by New Hampshire Congressman
Dick Swett from Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy at DOE, Linda G. Stuntz
reads, in part: "The Department of Energy (DOE) has supported research into
'cold fusion' in the past, but does not presently conduct any research in
this area." The letter describes Dr. A. Takahashi's work as "not new in
substance."
 
      However, scientists in the U.S. who have gotten intriguing results in
their experiments continue to pursue cold fusion research both in private
laboratories and in quiet, unsupported work at federal research centers.
They are conducting collaborative research with their more fortunate
Japanese counterparts.
 
      In an urgent appeal to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of
the U.S. House of Representatives last year and continuing, over 260
scientists and engineers, and 150 concerned citizens have asked the House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee to hold immediate, intensive
hearings on cold fusion. To date the Committee has not scheduled hearings.
On the other hand, Committee Chairman George Brown of California, who last
month witnessed a privately funded cold fusion experiment in Orlando,
Florida, was quoted in the Florida Today newspaper (6/26/92): "I will
probably assign some of our best staff people to this right away."
 
 
                              -END-
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 17:44:31 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>But why should D* + D go to anything? I realize this is CF and so we
>are supposed to allow for miracles, but I don't see why having
>the excited nucleus would help. The excited nucleus is not much
>larger than the unexited nucleus, and so does little to mitigate
>the enormous coulomb barriers to fusion.
 
>It seems to me that one must modify the atomic physics of the
>P D matrix first, as a precursor to modifying its nuclear physics.
 
  As you probably noticed I tossed out a lot of question marks in that
post. But let me demonstrate my ignorance, and take a stab at it.
True an excited nucleus is not much larger than an unexcited nucleus,
and from that one would not expect any increase in the interactions
between lattice bound D (but remember D's are not static in this system).
 
  I'm uncertain as to whether the coulomb barrier would be changed by
having an D in an excited state.  Recall the Coulomb barrier curve comes
from two sources, the electromagentic and the strong force.  Having one
side in an nuclear excited state may not have the effect of narrowing the
width of the curve, but gamma interactions can impart a significant recoil
energy to the nucleus, given by
 
 E - E_o = hv + E_r = hv + 1/2 M V^2.   (where E_o is ground state, and E_r
is the recoil energy).  Since M V is the recoil momentum by a gamma
interaction given by hv/c = M V,  then E - E_o = hv + h^2 v^2 / 2 M c^2.
If that kick is sufficent to impart say, 10KeV or so to the the D
momentum, it might have the chance of making it.  Anyway, as the
base line is raised, the probabilities for tunneling increases.
 
 There may be some interesting solid state effect in the PdD matrix thing
as you suggest.  Suppose the kick is insuffcient to pull the D out of the
octohedral sites, but is enough to induce the vibrations with in the lattice.
Screening effects could be important in this case.
 
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 21:26:55 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Jul13.174431.25390@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>>But why should D* + D go to anything? I realize this is CF and so we
>>are supposed to allow for miracles, but I don't see why having
>>the excited nucleus would help. The excited nucleus is not much
 
>  I'm uncertain as to whether the coulomb barrier would be changed by
>having an D in an excited state.
 
There are *small* effects.  Most of the coulomb integral comes from far,
far away from the nucleus were nuclear effects are not interesting.
Probably the biggest effect (still small) is that there will be a
*decrease* in the (tiny) fluctuation induced attraction between the
nucleus and the electron, hence a (tiny) increase in repulsion.
 
> E - E_o = hv + E_r = hv + 1/2 M V^2.   (where E_o is ground state, and E_r
>is the recoil energy).  Since M V is the recoil momentum by a gamma
>interaction given by hv/c = M V,  then E - E_o = hv + h^2 v^2 / 2 M c^2.
>If that kick is sufficent to impart say, 10KeV or so to the the D
>momentum, it might have the chance of making it.  Anyway, as the
>base line is raised, the probabilities for tunneling increases.
 
Yup, but this (fast nuclei in solids) does not work.  People tried that
long ago.  The nuclei stop long before they do technological (as opposed
to scientifically) interesting fusion.
 
> There may be some interesting solid state effect in the PdD matrix thing
>as you suggest.  Suppose the kick is insuffcient to pull the D out of the
>octohedral sites, but is enough to induce the vibrations with in the lattice.
>Screening effects could be important in this case.
 
Don't see this as different from fast nuclei in atoms as above.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 /  /  Wow!
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wow!
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 03:03:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Wow!  I came in today to find 45 pages of exciting thought about "anomalous
heat".  Almost no colored mercury or name calling.  It is tempting to try to
understand everything but then I would have no time to do work.
 
I appreciate Frank Close's nice "mud slinging free" discussion of the famous
peak.  Perhaps I have missed something, but I have not found in any of the
discussion an explanation for the source of the peak.  The "turned on pulser"
( Jim Carr ) seems a bit straw grasping.
 
It is always more fun to speculate irresponsibly than to work out the
consequences of half baked thoughts.  So I understand the fun of Dick Blue's
image of Shults stuffing Coleman lantern mantels into a picnic cooler.  But we
all know Dick is capable of doing the computation, and thus the "lambs" among
us might think he was at least close.
 
John Logajan wins my praise for actually doing the computation.  Dick on the
other hand wins the "Fuzzy Thinking of the Week" award.
 
I will leave the theory in John L. Russell's nice piece to those of you who
understand it.  I have some piezoelectric material though, and will try to
include a transducer in a future experiment.  But it will not be easy to do.
The problem is to get the leads out without picking up electrical leakage from
the cell.  I am nervous about getting 10K ohm thermister signals out without
leakage problems.  For a tiny piezoelectric chip one needs about a zillion
ohms.  It is not a nice environment for high impedance signals.
 
By the way, re Andrew - Palfreyman's comment on John Russell, I have run the
present Takahashi cell down as low as 10 C on the inner calorimeter shell, the
cell temperature being somewhat higher, possibly 12 C at low current.  This is
20 C or so lower than most experiments seem to run.  We were hoping for better
absorption, but we don't know what we got.  A lot of gas went somewhere at the
low temperature, but I would be the last to say that it went into the cathode.
For all I know, the D are going off into Buckaroo Bonzai's 9th dimension.
Great movie - listen carefully to what's going on in the background.
 
Terry Bollinger apologizes for "raising my hackles".  It's OK Terry, I
understand it is fun to sling mud.  Not above it myself.  And you are far from
the worst offender.  Lets throw instead tricky problems or neat things to try
to do.  Thanks to John Russell there will be a microphone in a future
experiment.
 
Dieter Britz says he no longer gives credibility to P&F.  I agree.  But in
science we do not believe just because it is Lord Kelvin, or Jim Cronin (who I
know and respect as a clever experimentalist), etc..  We believe because we
did the experiment ourself or because enough of those who we respect did the
experiment.  The real problem comes when no one tries to do the experiment any
more because "wolf" has been cried too often.  I still smell new physics.
 
I think there are now only two possibilities for P&F.  They are working a scam
on the Japanese, or they are focusing on making billions and don't care about
the scientific community.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / John Cobb /  Re: FUSION Breakeven Point Calculation
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FUSION Breakeven Point Calculation
Date: 14 Jul 92 02:47:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <l5sippINNh4e@pollux.usc.edu>, srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steve
Robiner) writes:
|>When considering the breakeven point energy required for hot fusion,
|>the energy required for breakeven includes the amount required to contain
|>the plasma, correct?  If not, then it's not really accurate since that
|>energy is required to sustain the reaction.
|>
|>If so, then how would a theoretical ignition situation work?  At ignition,
|>won't the plasma become increasingly hot, feeding on itself, growing hotter
|>and hotter,
 
Yep, exactly.
 
|> and therefore requiring more energy to contain it?
 
Surprisingly, no. The energy to contain the plasma is expressed not in terms
of the total energy in the plasma, but in terms of its loss rate. It would
not matter how hot the plasma needed to be if there were no losses (i.e.
breakeven would thne be the worst we could do). However a thermonuclear
plasma is not in equilibrium and there are conseqeuently flows of thermal
energy and particles from the plasma to the walls. This energy flow must
be replenished externally. Theoretical breakeven is when this RATE of ENERGY
LOSS (I.E. POWER LOSS) matches the RATE of ENERGY GENERATION (I.E. POWER
GENERATED) by the device. Usually one speaks of the energy being lost
due to collisions (either classical or anomalous) as the temperature
increases these losses actually DECREASE (you can see this from the cross-
sections). So as you increase the temperature you both increase the
fusion power generated (up to a point) and decrease the collisional
losses, so there
is no breakeven "barrier" as you speculate.
 
|>So, isn't
|>the actual breakeven point constantly increasing as one approaches ignition?
|>
Actually, breakeven is just a scientific milestone. Other than that it
doesn't have much meaning. Power generation will require Q much greater
than 1 (breakeven). Q=inifity is called ignition. This is when heating
from fusion products is enough to sustain the reaction by itself.
 
But, Steve, there is an interesting fact that many people overlook on first
notice. After ignition, there is actually more energy around than is needed
to heat the plasma. Thus the plasma starts self heating. So a newly ignited
plasma may actually be thermally unstable. However, unlike fission plants
where this can increase indefinitely, with fusion, the reactivity
curves back down at temperatures around 100 KeV. So when you achieve ignition
what you may see a fusion plant do is heat up until ignition and then very
rapidly heat at ignition to the thermally stable high temperature operating
point. However, other things might happen. You might excite some instability
in the plasma that would cause a disruption or it might act as a thermal
regulator keeping the ignited operating temperature lower than you would
naively expect. This might also have implications for ash removal. Ideally
you would like to remove the helium from the plasma but it is easier said
than done. There are schemes but there is no experiment to test them on.
 
Sooo, what does this all mean? Well there are a great deal of vitally
important questions about ignition that just can't be answered without
an ignition experiment. Right now we have the capability to build an
ignition tokamak and look at the very important questions. However it is
not cheap. The U.S. proposed BPX for 1-2 G$ and it got shot down last year.
Pretty soon you will start to see the P.R. people pushing ITER which is
a large international collaboration for a very extensive physics and
engineering ignition research reactor. It is going to cost ~10G$ for the
total international collaboration. It is alot of money, even if the U.S.
share is only 1/3 to 1/4 of that, but it addresses some questions that
simply cannot be answered otherwise. My personal feelings are that there
are compelling reasons to build an ignition TOKAMAK just to study the
generic features of ignition physics and high neutron loading even though
I do not feel that the eventual magnetic fusion reactor will be a TOKAMAK.
 
Well, I've come far a field from the original question, but you asked an
insightful question that opens up alot of cans of worms and it sure would
be nice (and useful) to find some of the answers for them.
 
john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: neutrino role in cf
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutrino role in cf
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 19:05:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, jlr@kd4edw.dixie.com (John L. Russell) writes:
 
> The Russians have reported coulpling a piezo-electric crystal to the
> palladium cathode and observing acoustic signals which they ascribe to
> crack formation.  I have participated in a similar experiment in the US,
> unfortunately not published, in which accoustic signals were also observed
> which were order-of-magnitude consistent with deposition of the 23 MeV of
> reaction (3c) dumped directly to the lattice as accoustic energy.  In that
> experiment the deuterium loading was over 90%, but not over the
> approximate threshold of 95% which is claimed by McKubrie to be neccessary
> for heat production.  The frequency of accoustic pulses was about once per
> second and persisted for the duration of the experiment, about half a
> year.  Pulses were not observed from a similar hydrogen loaded cathode.
> The effect was repeated with a second deuterium loaded cathode.
 
Very interesting that this is seen with deuterium and not hydrogen.
 
> It would be extremely valuable to repeat this class of experiment with
> impeccable calorimetry until a cathode is found which produces excess
> heat.  If accoustic energy follows excess heat production it would
> conclusively verify the disturbing concept of direct transfer of nuclear
> energy to the lattice.
 
It may be more useful to reverse this inquiry.  If one theorizes that the
acoustical signal is key to the heat effect, then experiments can search for
the setup that gives the best acoustical signal and only then tested for heat.
Since the acoustical signal is relatively easy to quantify, experiments could
be done at a higher speed.
 
> John Russell
> jlr@kd4edw.dixie.com
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / D Danforth /  Re: Ying ideas
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying ideas
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 06:14:08 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

 
 
Just one clarification on my previous post that I seem was ambiguous.
I was refering to a "chunk of matter" that was being irradiated with
probe particles and not just matter in thermal equilibrium.
 
----
Doug Danforth
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.13 / Dieter Britz /  An afterthought
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An afterthought
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 23:27:09 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

I'd like to add a comment to my recent posting on angel pinning; i.e. on the
gamma spectrum fiasco.
In article <199207071115.AA07114@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk
(Frank Close) writes, among other things:
> The questions of what occurred during the week after the press conference, and
> what ethical implications may be involved, is quite independent of whether
 cold
> fusion is or is not a real natural phenomenon; cold fusion's validity should
> not be judged on the basis of this episode any more than this episode's
 ethical
> implications should be judged by the reality or otherwise of cold fusion.
 
This is quite true; cold fusion does not stand or fall on the honesty of Pons,
but by experimental evidence from them or (given Pons' credibility) preferably
others. If someone can demonstrate reproducible excess heat or nuclear products
in - Close's favourite phrase - commensurate amounts, etc, THEN we would have
- Mallove's favourite phrase - compelling evidence. Some say this has been
achieved; others, like me, are not convinced, to put it mildly. While I keep
quoting Belzner et al as a strong quality positive, how long can I keep this
up, before it wears thin? We must have reproduction, as it were.
 
It IS a curious thing that this all started with Pons and Fleischmann having
a hunch that d-d fusion might be possible; they then tried a particular setup,
thought they had it, and this started the world-wide avalanche, with quite a
few more positive results from all over. While this happens, we find that the
process cannot possibly be d-d fusion, and most of what Pons and Fleischmann
thought they found was either invented, withdrawn or is in doubt, even by
people who believe in cold fusion. The rug has sort of been pulled out from
under, but everyone is still standing.
 
By the way, I exaggerate a little when I say "avalanche". I just read that in 5
years, there have been 6000 publications on high temp. superconductivity, so
this easily beats the measly 720 in 3 years of cold fusion. My publications
statistics also show why: the histogram of papers submitted/month vs time looks
like a Poisson distribution, peaking a month or two after March 1989, and then
dying steadily. The real, reproducible HTSC effect kept going instead of dying,
of course.
 
Another by the way: There has been a strange silence from Jed Rothwell and
Eugene Mallove since Frank Close's extensive postings. Does this imply that
they agree with Frank's history?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias (for the nonce) medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 /   /   Old Business
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Old Business
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 16:17:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Frank Close's query regarding my speculation as to the source
of nuetrons seen by Menlove and Jones:  I made a brief attempt to find
some cross section data for the d(mu,n)p process in order to see if
the rates could be in the right ballpark.  I didn't find anything, and
since I never got any response on the issue, I let it drop.
 
Just a brief comment on some other threads.  I see in some of the
speculation about possible (not) exited states in the deuteron an
interesting logical contradiction in the kind of thinking put forward
by advocates of cold fusion.  On the one hand they propose some
unknown mechanism which keeps reaction products tightly coupled to
the Pd lattice so they can't emit photons or neutrons.  Then we see
suggestions that the deuterons can be given some form of excitation
energy, either nuclear or vibrational, that will alter significantly
the orthodox estimates for fusion rates.  Is there a problem with
this?  I just ask whether these notions are consistant with thermal
equilibrium between the deuterons and the lattice.  Before anyone
says the deuterons are not in thermal equilibrium, plus be prepared
to offer an estimate of the relaxation time for the return to
equilibrium.  Oops, that should have been "please be prepared..."
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / Jim Carr /  Re: What's my line (thorium vs americium decay)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's my line (thorium vs americium decay)
Date: 14 Jul 92 14:29:11 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Just as a point of reference: I looked in the Fisher Scientific/EMD
catalog to see what you can buy without a license.  They offer a set
of sources:
 
  alpha  --  0.1 micro-Curie of Po-210
  beta   --  0.1 micro-Curie of Sr-90
  gamma  --  1.0 micro-Curie of Co-60
 
Polonium-210 (aka RaF) kicks out a 5.3 MeV alpha and a 0.802 MeV gamma
with a half-life of 138 days.  Hot stuff.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / John Logajan /  A perspective on Japanese behavior
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A perspective on Japanese behavior
Date: 14 Jul 92 15:56:47 GMT

 
     The current issue (Aug/Sep 92) of Reason magazine has an
interesting article by Jonathan Rauch on how Japanese culture
affects its business and scientific approaches.  I'll adapt a bit
of it here to perhaps give some additional perspective on what may
possibly underlie decisions and motivations in Japan.
 
     The original article was itself adapted from Rauch's book,
The Outnation: A Search for the Soul of Japan, published by
Harvard Business School Press
 
  --- Begin Adaption ---
 
     The intellectual raw material [in Japan] is top-notch, as
good as any in the world.  Yet here is a country with the world's
most vibrant economy, with a well-educated citizenry singularly
devoted to making the country better, with a population fully half
the size of America's and more than half again the size of
Germany's, yet with only five Nobel Prizes in science to its name
-- one thirtieth America's share, one twelfth Germany's and
exactly as many as Belgium's.  Japan has all that is necessary to
make a magnificent contribution to the world's stock of knowledge,
but is failing to do so.
 
     When you cut through to fundamentals, the whole liberal
intellectual system, from the hard sciences to history and even to
journalism, is really a self-organizing hunt for errors.
 
     Why is it a "liberal" system, as democracy and capitalism
are?  Because it is a public competitive-selection system that
fixes rules rather than outcomes or special authorities.  Everyone
is entitled to check anyone, and no one is immune from being
checked just because of who he or she happens to be.
 
     "Particularly at school," a prominent Japanese journalist
told me one day, "we are trained not to make a mistake, even if it
means we achieve nothing spectacular."  At retirement, he said,
Japanese tend to express satisfaction not by speaking of their
accomplishments but by saying that they made no big mistakes. The
exception is where everybody makes the same mistake together, in
which case it is not a mistake.
 
     In Japan disagreement is regarded as an unfortunate accident,
and embarrassment to be papered over.  Book reviewers told me
that, in general, if they don't like a book they simply do not
review it.  "An open debate," a Tokyo University economist
remarked to me, "is nearly impossible in this country."
 
     Yet nowhere in Japan is there even a hint of that kind
centralized intellectual authoritarianism that Plato advocated.
There is no propaganda, no state manifesto in Japan.
 
     In Japan dissenters and minorities are not crushed, they are
ignored or marginalized.  If you feel like saying something
different, and quite a few people do, you can say it with every
expectation of personal safety and financial security, although
also with little expectation of changing anything.
 
     In academic meetings in Japan you're supposed to listen
expressionlessly; to raise a hand and object would be seen as odd,
impolite, inappropriate.  The best policy toward ideas you
disagree with is one of benign neglect.  "The best policy here,"
said Japan's most prominent political scientist, "is to be mute.
Year after year you get accustomed -- you get trained."
 
     I said, But surely, sensei, a man of your eminence is at
liberty to criticize when he pleases?  No, he replied, on the
contrary; the eminent have a special responsibility to restrain
themselves if they cannot agree.  The saying goes that when the
wind blows, the tallest stalk of wheat must bow with the others.
He no longer bothers going to academic meetings in Japan.
 
     Having new ideas is easy.  But most of your new ideas will be
bad.  The hard part is to sort the grains of gold from the
mountains of sand.  So who sorts the winners from the losers?  Who
else?  Foreigners. Gaiatsu -- "foreign pressure."  The outside
competitive-selection system sets the research agenda, and the
Japanese go to work on it.
 
     Academic and government bureaucrats who underwrite research
usually wait until an idea has become fashionable abroad before
they consider it "certified" as worthy of pursuit in Japan -- even
if the idea originated in Japan.
 
     "Japanese have a low evaluation for Japanese results," said a
renowned electrical engineer, "but they have a very high
evaluation of foreign work."
 
     For a century and a half, the Japanese have run their country
on the working assumption that everything in the West is better or
more advanced.  The dark side of the legacy is a clinging sense of
insecurity that diminishes but does not go away.  I have never
before met so many people who examined their country so
mercilessly for any comparative weakness and who were so driven to
fix them.  The Japanese absolutely cannot abide the thought of
being second-rate.
 
   --- End Adaption ---
 
Make of it what you will.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.11 / Bill Vance /  Some provocative questions.....
     
Originally-From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some provocative questions.....
Date: 11 Jul 92 21:41:51 GMT
Organization: (N.) To be organized.  But that's not important right now.....

I've Got some questions I haven't seen addressed here so I'm passing them on
to see if they strike any "sparks" :-) for you.  I recall seeing references
to 1.x GigaHertz "noise" pulses in some of these postings, so....
 
1.  Has anyone tried linking an appropriately ranged grid-dip or other
oscillator to one of the electrodes, and tuned it slowly across that range
to see if it would initiate a more immediate reaction not requiring a long
startup time?
 
2.  Has anyone tried negative feed-back gain of N amplication across the
electrodes or alternatively between one of them and the case enclosing them?
 
3.  Has anyone measured the ratio of the heat developed due to reaction as
opposed to heat developed due to the presence of these pulse trains, ie.,
simple "microwave oven" effect?
 
And last, but least provocative....:-)
 
4.  Is anyone still selling those $20-$25 fusion experiment kits?
 
--
 
bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill
 
You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbill cudfnBill cudlnVance cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / Chuck Sites /  Re: A p.s. for Chuck Sites and confirmation for Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A p.s. for Chuck Sites and confirmation for Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 14:43:16 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
 
>After reading Chuck Sites' posting, I went through my papers last night and
>found the following which may help answer some of Chuck's and others questions
>and add a little to Dick Blue's deductions (FD 378) about the gamma spectrum,
>resolution, possible errors etc.
 
 
    Frank, first I want to say thanks for discussing this issue in detail.
There were some technical points I wasn't aware of, so in some respects,
I can say I learned a thing or two from those last couple of messages.
Perhaps others too.  Dick Blue's comments were excellent as well to the
issue.  It's obvious something got seriously botched in P&F's gamma work.
I went back and re-read the portions of your book on this, and must say
that the shifting peak looks pretty damaging.  It does open the whole
question of motive.
 
    Obviously they "corrected" the peak position based on the information
that a 2.5MeV neutron should produce a 2.24MeV gamma in a water bath. Some
folks on this side of the atlantic have suggested science fraud.  Fraud
implies deception, and I don't see any deception in the affair other than
what is necessary of a couple of scientist tring to be as closed mouth about
as possible in order to protect their intellectual properties. In hind sight,
it would seem highly probable that the reasons for not presenting the whole
gamma spectrum was due to the legal considerations at the time.  Fleishman's
comment, "There is a problem there", doesn't imply deception, but recognition
of an error. However the rescaling of the isolated peak afterwards for
publications is odd. The sad part of this story is that here are two
prominent scientists who may never again regain respect for their future
contributions because some how they misinterpreted the significance of
their total gamma spectrum.  Still, the concept they boldly put forth is
one that will last for the imaginative.
 
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / Dave Andrews /  Re: What's my line
     
Originally-From: dandrews@bilver.uucp (Dave Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's my line
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 16:35:24 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL

In article <9789@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>I asked the Orlando Science Center for a copy of the press materials that
>Ed posted here, and that is all.  Still no answer except for the Fax of a
>non-disclosure document that I have no intention of signing unless he were
>to agree to compensate me for anything he learns from me....
>
>I must admit that I am a bit peeved with Orlando Science Center; not very
>responsive for an organization that is publicly funded.  Time to call them
>back, I guess, and get a straight answer.
 
FWIW, I called them up myself last week (I live in the Orlando area) and
asked the nice lady for a copy of the press release -- I had been out of
town when all this broke.  She said she would mail me a copy, but also
warned me that she was VERY busy... there had been many, many many
requests for same.
 
I don't know what percentage of the Orlando Science Center's budget is
publically funded, and what percentage is memberships.  I can tell you
that they are not a big-budget operation however, so don't be really
surprised if they don't act on your request in a timely fashion.
 
Maybe I'll just run over there and see what I can extort from them
up close and personal...
 
- David Andrews
  dandrews@bilver.oau.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendandrews cudfnDave cudlnAndrews cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 /  71033.536@comp /  Particle Interactions in Momentum Space
     
Originally-From: 71033.536@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Particle Interactions in Momentum Space
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 19:27:38 GMT
Organization: Terry B. Bollinger

Hi folks,
 
A simple and (at least initially) non-mathematical question from a poor,
bewildered information specialist.  Please be kind as you munch!  :)
 
    Both the x (coordinate) and p (momentum) dimensions are space-like
    in their properties.
 
    Particles are most likely to interact when they approach each other
    closely in coordinate (x) space.
 
 Q: Are particles also more likely to interact when they approach each
    other closely in momentum (p) space?
 
 
I would humbly note that there may be more than one level to the answer:
 
 
 CASE 1.  Can *identical* particles interact in momentum space?
 
    If so, would it be by Pauli exclusion only, or would other types
    of interactions be possible, also?  Why or why not?
 
 
 CASE 2. Can particle/antiparticle pairs annihilate each other
         in momentum space?
 
    If your answer to (2) is yes, you might note that it would appear to
    imply the following experimental implication:
 
        If (and only if) positrons and electrons can annihilate each other
        in momentum space, and if positrons are injected into a metal
        crystal in such a fashion that some portion of the positrons will
        delocalize into the same p values band states as those already
        occupied by electrons, the result should be increased rates of
        positron/electron annihilation.
 
    Also, is my above experimental conjecture:
 
        a) flatly wrong because it overlooks/confuses [your answer],
        b) correct, but already a well-known solid state physics effect,
        c) correct, not well known, but provable by standard QED, or
        d) correct, not well known, and not compatible with standard QED.
 
 
 CASE 3. Can *non-identidal* particles (e.g., a muon and electron)
         interact with each other in p space?
 
    If so, would the experimental implications of such interactions:
 
        a) flatly contradict known physics
        b) already be covered by existing particle physics
        c) not be detectable by experiments performed to date
 
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger  71033.536@compuserve.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden536 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Particle Interactions in Momentum Space
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Particle Interactions in Momentum Space
Date: 14 Jul 92 21:07:12 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <1992Jul14.192738.2153@asl.dl.nec.com>, 71033.536@compuserve.com
 writes...
>Hi folks,
>
>A simple and (at least initially) non-mathematical question from a poor,
>bewildered information specialist.  Please be kind as you munch!  :)
>
>    Both the x (coordinate) and p (momentum) dimensions are space-like
>    in their properties.
>
>    Particles are most likely to interact when they approach each other
>    closely in coordinate (x) space.
>
> Q: Are particles also more likely to interact when they approach each
>    other closely in momentum (p) space?
>
 
Excellent question.  Particles can have an interaction due to adjacency
in momentum space if they are identical.  Particle physicists sometimes
call this the "Bose-Einstein" or "HBT" effect.  Two particles emitted from
a single collision are pulled together (apart) in momentum (slightly) due to
wave-function symmetrization (antisymmetrization) if they are identical
bosons (fermions).  This effect is measurable, and can be used to infer
the space-time shape of the emitting source because the strength of the
correlation (anticorrelation) depends on nearness in space as well.
 
Non-identical particles do not experience this effect.
 
-Scott
 
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 /  Rothwell /  Hard at work
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hard at work
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 22:23:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
DB's comment: "Another by the way: There has been a strange silence from
Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove since Frank Close's extensive posting.
Does this imply that they agree with Frank's history?"
 
Good heavens no! We just haven't had time. I have been up half the night
translating this tidal wave of stuff about the MITI program, and Gene is
trying to replicate Ying and do 60 other things. Plus, I have to watch my
fellow Democrats commit political harakiri. It is dull as dishwater this
year, it looks like one long shampoo advertisement, as my wife put it,
but ya' gotta love 'em.
 
As far as Frank Close goes, I feel the way Wellington felt about
Napoleon. He placed a fireplace poker on the floor and explained
(something like this): "Look here, I don't care which way this poker
lies. But if Napoleon says it must lie thusly, then I shall immediately
insist that it be turned to point in the other direction." That's
politics for you, and we aren't playing anything else. If this was
science, then he would start by acknowledging conservation of energy;
then he would admit that thermometers do indeed measure temperature,
which is how you measure heat, and the debate would be over. We would
have won 3 years ago. "Commensurate products" are certain to found later,
when the work is funded properly, unless you believe the tooth fairy
makes water hot.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Does Cerencov radiation make sense?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does Cerencov radiation make sense?
Date: 14 Jul 92 23:28:09 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

 
	Cerencov radiation is produced as a charged particle
moves through the medium in which speed of light, adjusted for
the refraction index of the medium, is less than the speed of
the beforementioned charged article. Is this concept/effect
extendible into the domain of charged particle moving through
metals? It is a somewhat(a lot?) naive question as I know that the
concept of refraction index can be extended to take into account
absorption, but does a charged particle moving through metals
loose its energy by mechanism similar to Cerencov radiation in
dielectrics. It seems to me it must.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Particle Interactions in Momentum Space
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Particle Interactions in Momentum Space
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 00:07:00 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Jul14.192738.2153@asl.dl.nec.com> 71033.536@compuserve.com
 writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>A simple and (at least initially) non-mathematical question from a poor,
>bewildered information specialist.  Please be kind as you munch!  :)
>
>    Both the x (coordinate) and p (momentum) dimensions are space-like
>    in their properties.
>
>    Particles are most likely to interact when they approach each other
>    closely in coordinate (x) space.
>
> Q: Are particles also more likely to interact when they approach each
>    other closely in momentum (p) space?
 
This depends on the interaction and the momentum.  There is no simple
rule - for weak interactions the answer is, roughly, no, for
electromagnetic interactions the answer is yes, for strong interactions
the answer is complicated.
 
> CASE 1.  Can *identical* particles interact in momentum space?
>
>    If so, would it be by Pauli exclusion only, or would other types
>    of interactions be possible, also?  Why or why not?
 
Not only Pauli exclusion, there are also other interactions.  Roughly
you fourier transform the spatial interaction.
 
> CASE 2. Can particle/antiparticle pairs annihilate each other
>         in momentum space?
 
Yes.  Momentum space changes not the physics but is just another way of
looking at it.
 
>        If (and only if) positrons and electrons can annihilate each other
>        in momentum space, and if positrons are injected into a metal
>        crystal in such a fashion that some portion of the positrons will
>        delocalize into the same p values band states as those already
>        occupied by electrons, the result should be increased rates of
>        positron/electron annihilation.
 
This is complicated and positron annihilation in solids is well studied.
It is a standard probe of (a) defects, were the positrons tend to
be and (b) band structure.  There are books on the matter e.g.
 
 TITLE:   Positrons in solids / edited by P. Hautojarvi
 
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: neutrino role in cf
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutrino role in cf
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 23:46:51 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1992Jul10.182529.12321@kd4edw.dixie.com>,
jlr@kd4edw.dixie.com (John L. Russell) writes:
..
> The Russians have reported coulpling a piezo-electric crystal to the
> palladium cathode and observing acoustic signals which they ascribe to
> crack formation.  I have participated in a similar experiment in the US,
> unfortunately not published, in which accoustic signals were also observed
> which were order-of-magnitude consistent with deposition of the 23 MeV of
> reaction (3c) dumped directly to the lattice as accoustic energy.
 
Just to remind you: Pd and Ti both expand as they absorb hydrogen or deuterium,
by something like 15% (I'm not near my books here). So the metal crystal
lattice has to accommodate the expansion, and will likely do so by cracking.
Cracking noises were said to be heard in Ti by the Indians and - as John says -
the Russians have monitored such noises, in their fractofusion efforts.
The point I want to make is that one does not need to invoke exotic processes
at so many MeV; plain lattice expansion explains it. I strongly doubt that
there would be a difference between hydrogen and deuterium, except due to the
fact that they cause slightly different degrees of expansion.
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 / Richard Long /  Re: What's my line (thorium vs americium decay)
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's my line (thorium vs americium decay)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 11:54:30 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <9807@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
> Just as a point of reference: I looked in the Fisher Scientific/EMD
> catalog to see what you can buy without a license.  They offer a set
> of sources:
>
>   alpha  --  0.1 micro-Curie of Po-210
>   beta   --  0.1 micro-Curie of Sr-90
>   gamma  --  1.0 micro-Curie of Co-60
>
> Polonium-210 (aka RaF) kicks out a 5.3 MeV alpha and a 0.802 MeV gamma
> with a half-life of 138 days.  Hot stuff.
>
> --
> J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of
which I
> jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of
promises
> Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of
challenges."
> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15
July 60)
 
Chuck Shults told me over the phone that Po 210 is indeed their alpha
source.
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 / david atkatz /  Re: Hard at work
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hard at work
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 13:49:48 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
>... he would admit that thermometers do indeed measure temperature,
>which is how you measure heat, and the debate would be over. We would
>have won 3 years ago.
 
 
Thermometers do indeed measure temperature.  I think the question,
though, is whether temperature always "measures" _excess_ heat.
 
David Atkatz
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 /  Terry B. Bolli /  Re: Hard at work
     
Originally-From: Terry B. Bollinger
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hard at work
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 15:06:55 GMT
Organization: Terry B. Bollinger

In article <920714214130_72240.1256_EHL41-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> "Commensurate products" are certain to found later, when the work is
> funded properly, unless you believe the tooth fairy makes water hot.
 
Hmmm...  Had no idea that "proper funding" is required in order to expire
from radiation poisoning...  }=-)>
 
(I vote for the Tooth Fairy sneaking in from Buckaroo Bonsai's 9th.  CNF
researchers, hold tight to your teeth!  :-)  )
 
Seriously:  Hang in there Jed, and I for one hope you will be able to keep
this collection of cantankerous curlemudgeons updated on the results of your
translations.  Some of us would really like to hear more specific details
on whatever it is that is being claimed in Japan.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 /  Rothwell /  Nobel Prizes & Japan
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nobel Prizes & Japan
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 17:04:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
John Logajan quotes: "The intellectual raw material [in Japan] is top-notch,
as good as any in the world.  Yet here is a country with the world's most
vibrant economy, with a well-educated citizenry singularly devoted to making
the country better, with a population fully half the size of America's and
more than half again the size of Germany's, yet with only five Nobel Prizes in
science to its name -- one thirtieth America's share, one twelfth Germany's
and exactly as many as Belgium's."
 
Let me explain why this is, with a drastic analogy: "My car won't go. There is
a cloud of water and steam shooting out of the radiator, the engine block
stinks, and one of the rubber gaskets melted. Yet, the temperature gauge on
the dashboard does not show anything wrong. Why is this?"
 
Answer: The temperature gauge is broken.
 
The author notes that Japan is per-capita the richest nation in the world,
that they the best applied science in the world, and that their corporations
are blowing ours out of the water. Then he asks what the lack of Japanese
Nobel Prizes means.
 
Answer: Nothing. The Nobel Prize is broken.
 
The Nobel Prize does not measure Japan's intellectual contribution for several
reasons. Here are what I consider the three main ones:
 
Japanese corporate scientists are not interested in winning the Nobel Prize.
They are not terribly interested in basic science. They concentrate on making
new products, and winning market share. They are practical businessmen first,
scientists second, like Thomas Edison.
 
Until about 25 years ago, Japan was a poor nation. Housing was dreadfully
crowded, people had to work long hours at low wages, and the entire nation was
still struggling, after 100 years, to catch up to European and American
technology. They found it much cheaper to borrow ideas than to invent them. It
took them a long time to catch up partly because their progress was
interrupted by the Second World War, which brought unimaginable devastation
and ruin, and wiped a generation of young people. It takes a long time to win
a Nobel Prize. Often prizes are awarded for work that was done 20 or 30 years
ago. The work that was being done in Japan 30 years ago was still largely
derivative from the West, because the gap had still not been closed.
 
The Nobel Prize selection committee is an elite group of mostly white European
and American old men. They sometimes overlook the contributions of women,
asians and minorities. Most people I know find it easier to deal with papers
in their own languages, and only a few of the Nobel committee members read
Japanese. I do not know whether this group of scientists is particularly
biased or not, but I have met some top-flight American scientists and science
writers who talk about Japan in the most extreme, racist, bigoted terms; the
way David Duke talks about blacks. Racial prejudice is alive and well in our
society (and in Japan, of course), and I would not be surprised if some
members of the Nobel committee are afflicted with it.
 
As for the rest of that article, it was thought provoking. But it does not
apply to the cold fusion scientists, because Japanese scientists working on CF
are mavericks and non-conformists. They are a rowdy bunch of troublemakers. In
Japan's largest newspapers, they call their opponents "stuck-in-the-mud
fossils," and they say, "send in [Tokyo Univ. Pres.] Arima. We will shave his
head!"
 
Articles like this are interesting, but they should not used in unsupervised
conditions at home.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 / John Logajan /  Japan and CF
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japan and CF
Date: 15 Jul 92 21:26:49 GMT

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Japanese corporate scientists are not interested in winning the Nobel Prize.
>They are not terribly interested in basic science. They concentrate on making
>new products, and winning market share. They are practical businessmen first,
>scientists second, like Thomas Edison.
 
You are missing the forest for the trees.  Why aren't they interested, on
average, in research science versus applied science?  The author, Rauch
covers exactly this topic in his article.  [Note, I adapted a rather long
article into a rather short abstract. Please refer to the original article
for a fuller development of his thesis.]
 
>The Nobel Prize selection committee is an elite group of mostly white European
>and American old men. They sometimes overlook the contributions of women,
>asians and minorities.
 
Rauch qualified his reference to the importance of Nobel Prize winnings, but
I left it out to keep the abstract as short as possible.  The point survives,
however, and you accepted it above -- Japanese science is more applied vs
research than Western science. The reason for it is explained by Rauch.
 
>As for the rest of that article, it was thought provoking. But it does not
>apply to the cold fusion scientists, because Japanese scientists working on CF
>are mavericks and non-conformists. They are a rowdy bunch of troublemakers.
 
Again, Rauch gives accounts of numerous "troublemakers."  It is not that they
don't exist in Japan. It is that they are ignored by the consensus perception.
 
Note that the article was written well before Ying here in the West announced
his latest discovery.  Internal Japanese scientists have been announcing
discoveries for months and clamoring for funding.  But the funding is not
kicked loose until a few weeks after someone in the West comes forward with
additional CF claims.  This is right on target of Rauch's thesis.  The Japanese
establishment has to feel gaiatsu, foreign competitive pressure, to guide
their actions.
 
Their culture of conformity to consensus is inadequate to the task of opening
up new areas of discovery.  External mechanisms end up defining the agenda
because their constant consensus seeking behavior would have them either
stuck in a rut, or flip-flopping between shifting perceptions of consensus.
 
Their private thoughts and behaviors, however, are as individualistic as any
Westerner's -- make no mistake about that.  It is the interactional culture
in which these issues show through.
 
>Articles like this are interesting, but they should not used in unsupervised
>conditions at home.
 
So far I've seen nothing to contradict Rauch's basic premises.
 
Let me summarize what I think we can draw from Rauch on the cold fusion
issue in Japan.
 
1.) Apparent widespread acceptence or rejection of cold fusion in Japan does
not carry the same cultural meaning as it does here in the West.  In Japan,
it may only mean that many are "bowing to the wind" with all the rest --
one way or the other.
 
2.) Acceptance or rejection of cold fusion is also tied to Japanese perceptions
of Western work on the subject.  They want to find some Westerners working on
the subject -- even if it turns out to be a mistake, they don't want to be the
only ones making the mistake.  Remember what Rauch said, Japanese hate making
mistakes -- unless everyone else makes the same mistakes, and then it really
isn't a mistake.
 
3.) Now that there is a Japanese "consensus" on the worthiness of cold fusion
research, you can expect top quality work devoted to its discovery.  I'm sure
we all look forward to great things coming out of it -- if there is anything
to find.
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 /  /  Good Grief! Charlie Brown, Is this "anomalous heat"?
     
Originally-From: ames!fnale.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good Grief! Charlie Brown, Is this "anomalous heat"?
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 22:54:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  15 July 1992
 
Cell 4A1
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm saw tooth 1 hour interval
Duration: Now charging for 6290000+ seconds (1750+ hours).
Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
Cell Voltage: Presently 6 v to 3.6 v on 1 hour saw tooth
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
Temperature: 20 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature varies with current.
 
Roughly three days ago, we switched to the saw tooth as the cell voltage was
gradually increasing, a sign per P&F of a dying cell.  This involved changing
a constant in memory.  Good old QuickBASIC is only good for so many program
breaks and then it makes you restart.  So we had to muck around restarting
the program and resetting all the constants.  Sorry, every possible
combination of conditions is not written into the code.  The advantage of
Basic is that it is not necessary to spend your life as a programmer to get
real work done.  In spite of all this, there was no change to the calorimeter
operation since it is independent of the program.  The program just sets DAC's
for control and reads back values.
 
In any case, after all this mucking around, there was 12 hours where the
calorimeter stayed within 150 joules of of the previous trend which has been
-30 milli-watts for the last several megaseconds.  Of course per previous
postings, I don't really know where zero is to 150 milli-watts or so.
 
Over the last 50 hours, the "anomalous heat" has been increasing.  First ten
milli-watts over the trend, and most recently 50 milli-watts over the trend.
 
Nothing like this has happened in the previous 1700 hours of this run.  There
are many matching saw tooth periods available for comparison.  It looks to be
significant to me.  It looks like "anomalous heat".  But there are many things
to check.  The cell is noisy.  We must worry that as the cell noise has
increased over time, that the power computation is no longer correct.  There
is a lot of data where the cell "looks" just as noisy and where the balance is
"zero" to use as a check, but this will take time.
 
To Dick Garwin, Bill Vance and others who worry about such things, my
oscilloscope is on.  The "noise" I talk about is slow, almost DC shifts in the
cell voltage.  Typically a few hundred millivolts per minute.  The obvious
thing to blame is bubble formation on the surface changing the cell
resistance.  But I think not.  This effect is too slow.  There is a lot to be
studied here.  I think there is some over all surface effect.
 
To Bill Vance, I could see anything going on in the cell up to 200 MHz or so
with the scope.  Very bad environment for parasitic oscillations as the
electrolyte is naturally a very lossy medium.  I do own a grid dip meter (Ha!
- and I am not now nor have I ever been a Radio Amateur) but have not even
tried using it because the Q of the cell is so low.  I have not seen, nor have
I heard of anyone seeing Gigahertz pulses.  I claim that I have been in this
business so long that I could feel them in my bones if they were there.
 
So there is much work to do.  At least one of you out there is now getting
data from me.  We will try to train you as a critic.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 /  Rothwell /  Thermometers again
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermometers again
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 22:56:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
David Atkatz poses the question: "Thermometers do indeed measure temperature.
I think the question, though, is whether temperature always "measures"
_excess_ heat."
 
Yes, they sure do! Guaranteed. If you get excess heat, your thermometer *will*
measure it. Here is how it works (leaving out a lot of details):
 
Suppose your room temperature is 20 deg C. You put an ordinary resistor in a
box of water, and pump 10 watts of electricity into it, and the water
temperature goes up to 25 C. Now, you put 20 watts into the resister. The
water temperature will rise to 30 C. So, you know that for every watt you put
in, the water temperature will rise half a degree.
 
Okay, put a CF device in the box, and begin pumping 10 watts of electricity
into it. At first the water will not quite get up to 25 C. After a while, it
will. At that point, everything is in balance -- every watt that goes in,
comes right out, and it is all accounted for. Cross your fingers, knock on
wood, and wait a couple of weeks, and maybe you will see temperature rise some
more. Suppose it goes up to 28 C. You check the electricity going in, to make
sure it has not drifted up. You check the thermocouple, and you put a Radio
Shack thermometer in the box too, to double check everything. If you have not
made any mistakes, you are looking at 6 watts excess, or 360 joules per
minute.
 
Suppose you leave everything alone, and just let the computer measure those
excess joules. They add up, and up. Imagine that the postage stamp sized
sliver of palladium in there was a chemical battery, and it was putting out
twice as much heat as a "nightlight" bulb. It would not last long, would it?
Imagine it was a battery driving a good sized flashlight, it would be out of
juice in no time, wouldn't it? Suppose it was chip of paraffin, or charcoal,
and it was smoldering in the fireplace and putting out that much heat. It
would stop after half an hour, or maybe an hour. But, the CF device does *not*
stop. That is the key point. Like they say in the battery advertisement, it
keeps on going, and going, and going. For days, weeks, even months on end. It
puts out *thousands* of times more than any possible chemical reaction.
Furthermore, when it is finished, you can examine it as carefully as you want,
and you will not find any gross chemical changes, such as a battery undergoes
while it discharges, or a piece of wood undergoes as it burns.
 
I have described a very simple experiment here, I think you will agree. As I
see it, *any* scientist born in the last 200 years should be able to look at
this experiment and instantly understand that this cannot possibly be a
chemical reaction. To my knowledge, there are only two kinds of energy:
chemical and nuclear. So, CF is either nuclear, or it is something brand new,
completely unknown to science. It sure isn't chemical.
 
The skeptics would no doubt respond by saying that the calorimetry must be
wrong. They would say that either the thermometer which read 28 degrees was
wrong, or the power in had crept up to 16 watts. This is nonsense. It is not
hard to check either one of those things. In fact, any competent scientist
could easily have checked them any time since about 1860. In 1847, James
Prescott Joule was able to measure temperature changes as small as 0.02 deg F
(approximately 0.01 C). Eventually, before he died in 1889, Joule perfected
mercury thermometers capable of measuring 0.005 deg F (approximately 0.003 C).
So, modern day science *is* capable of measuring watts, or excess watts, of
heat with absolute certainty. Milliwatts are more difficult.
 
Let me close by saying that some of the best scientists in the world, who work
for the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, are also perfectly
capable of measuring electricity and temperature. They have done so, very,
very carefully, because their jobs are on the line -- their careers and
reputations are on the line. They have committed $100 million dollars of
public and private money to a project based upon their measurements of
electricity and temperature, so you can be damn sure they checked the
calorimetry carefully!
 
I wonder if there any "skeptic" out there who says these scientists are not
capable of performing or verifying a simple experiment, that *any* competent
scientist could have done *any* *time* in the last 150 years. How about it,
does anyone want make that claim? Do you think they are getting ready to spend
$100 million dollars, and they have not bothered to spend five minutes
checking with a multimeter and Radio Shack thermometer, to make sure that P&F
and Takahashi are right? If you honestly believe that, I think you have lost
your mind.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 / Aaron Wininger /  Thomson Scattering
     
Originally-From: arw4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thomson Scattering
Date: 15 Jul 92 21:24:36 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

I'm working on a program to determine temp,dens,pres on a tokomak using
Thomson Scattering. I was wondering whether anybody had any general advice
and also using a gaussian fit (width=temp) or best line fit of the log (slope=
temp) methods of determining temperture...
Thanks
Aaron Wininger
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarw4 cudfnAaron cudlnWininger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.15 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Nobel Prizes & Japan
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nobel Prizes & Japan
Date: 15 Jul 92 23:34:32 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

From Jed Rothwell:
 
>The Nobel Prize selection committee is an elite group of mostly white European
>and American old men. They sometimes overlook the contributions of women,
>asians and minorities. Most people I know find it easier to deal with papers
> (...further assertions of bias in some scientists deleted for brevity...)
> .................... Racial prejudice is alive and well in our
>society (and in Japan, of course), and I would not be surprised if some
>members of the Nobel committee are afflicted with it.
 
In brief: Japanese (and women, and blacks, I'd bet you'd be willing to
add) are underrepresented in the Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by
elderly white Anglos.  THEREFORE said elderly white Anglos are
prejudiced and this prejudice prejudices their choice of Nobel
awardees.
 
I have a question for you.  It's well known that eldest and only
children are statistically way overrepresented among Nobel Prize
winners, members of National Academy of Science, etc., as compared to
later siblings.  In other words, little brothers are discriminated
against (little sisters, too -- I've read that a study of women
corporation and company presidents found the same sort of situation.)
 
THEREFORE, the Nobel Prize committee members, who are mostly older
white, male, Anglo older brothers, not only discriminate against
non-white, non-male, non-Anglo candidates, but against little brothers
also.  But _why_?  (Are they _that_ prejudiced against anyone not
exactly like themselves?)  (And maybe more to the point, _how_ do the
Nat'l Academy of Science members, when they're voting on new
candidates, discriminate against the none-first-borns, when that
information is not even available to them?)
 
As you can tell, the point here is, if you want to say "proportionally
underrepresented in xxx, ergo discriminated against by xxx", you have
to accept what comes of this.
 
[P.S. -- I _don't_ want any of the pop psychology arguments to the
effect that "first-borns get more parental attention, therefore do
better"; it's just as sensible to argue -- and in my own experience
true -- that as parents get more experienced, later siblings should
get _better_ parenting.]
 
--AE ("elderly, white, male, first-born, but not Nobelist") S
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 /  Rothwell /  Ridiculous Nonsense
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ridiculous Nonsense
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 01:32:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
John Logajan made up the following crazy nonsense:
 
"Note that the article was written well before Ying here in the West
announced his latest discovery.  Internal Japanese scientists have been
announcing discoveries for months and clamoring for funding.  But the
funding is not kicked loose until a few weeks after someone in the West
comes forward with additional CF claims.  This is right on target of
Rauch's thesis.  The Japanese establishment has to feel gaiatsu, foreign
competitive pressure, to guide their actions."
 
John, I have been in contact with every major Japanese researcher for a
year now, I have talked to high officials in MITI, and the ministry of
education, with Fleischmann (who is working for a Japanese corporation),
and with people at 20 or so major Japanese corporations which are engaged
in cold fusion research, and with half a dozen science journalists. I
have written and published letters and short articles in Japanese in
major journals. What you just typed here is the biggest bunch of B.S.
that I have seen since I got into this business last year. Sorry, guy,
but you cannot just make up the facts as you go along.
 
I do not have time for this kind of nonsense, but let me just set the
record straight:
 
1. Nobody in Japan has heard of Ying except Ikegami and Kurokawa, and
that is because I just told them. They are not likely to hear about it
from anyone else but me. The only comment Ikegami offered was, "well, if
you replicate it, let me know."
 
2. Internal Japanese scientists have *not* repeat *not* been clamoring
for funding. They have all the money they want.
 
3. Competition with the west has nothing to do with it. We are miles and
miles and miles behind them. You might as well suggest that we threaten
them in the VCR or CD market. We are not even on the radar screen.
 
4. The funding, which you somehow imagine was "kicked loose" last week,
has been in the works since last year. Everyone in field, including me,
knew all about it. Setting up a large program like this takes meeting
after meeting, it is a very deliberate, slow, and carefully planned
process. Nothing was "kicked loose," there is no panic, or and no sudden
decisions have been made. If you knew anything at all about MITI or the
Ministry of Education, you would know that the very idea of a panic
reaction is absurd.
 
Some more B.S. here: "Again, Rauch gives accounts of numerous
"troublemakers."  It is not that they don't exist in Japan. It is that
they are ignored by the consensus perception." Like hell they are being
ignored! I would love to be ignored to the tune of $100 million.
 
"Japanese science is more applied vs research than Western science. The
reason for it is explained by Rauch." I don't know who this Rauch guy is,
or what his reason is, but *I* have been dealing with Japan for 20 years,
*I* speak Japanese just fine, and *I* just explained the reason. Listen
up and I will tell you again: MONEY! The Japanese scientists say to heck
with the Nobel, give us Market and give us Money. They are in it for the
moola, the cash, and you can keep the Boy Scout Prizes. If Rouch tells
you any different, then he does not know beans about the Japanese, and
you can tell him that from me.
 
Moo, ii kagen ni shinasai! (Give me a break!)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / Albert Chou /  Re: FUSION Breakeven Point Calculation
     
Originally-From: albert@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FUSION Breakeven Point Calculation
Date: 16 Jul 92 00:11:08 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

I'd like to add two small points to John Cobb's excellent post.
 
1) The thermally stable operating point for the reactor actually needs to be
_engineered_ to be at some particular temperature < 100 keV, because of
technology considerations.  Since magnet technology is already pushed pretty
much to its limit and beta is set by MHD stability considerations, one can't
afford to let the plasma temperature get too much above 10-25 keV, say.
What is needed is some power loss mechanism that goes as n T^(-3/2) if I
remember correctly; whether or not such a mechanism is present in one's
machine is probably a matter of Nature's desire to be kind to us or not.
 
2) Helium ash removal may prove to be one of the biggest problems.  For some
reason I either didn't quite catch or just failed to understand in class,
the heavier species tend to migrate toward the core of the tokamak plasma,
making them harder to extract than ever.
 
Al
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / Mark Hittinger /  hey data manipulators!
     
Originally-From: an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: hey data manipulators!
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 01:13:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
 
 
I got ahold of Tom's demo diskette which has some data on it from one
of his runs.
 
I wrote a program to take the quickbasic random file (920601.dat) and
convert it into a friendly text (fortranized) file.  Its a little easier
to maniuplate in that form.  model model model
 
 
If anyone wants a copy e-mail me.
 
Thanks to Tom D. for the diskette!
--
--------
NO DAD!! You're supposed to type it in with downer case letters!
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenan288 cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / John Logajan /  Hot Isotopes
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Isotopes
Date: 16 Jul 92 05:52:38 GMT

 
               Decays
               per sec   Grams     Watts per    Grams per
Isotope        per gram  per watt  micro-curie  micro-curie
-------------  --------  --------  -----------  -----------
Cobalt 60        4.5e13   0.092      8.8e-9       8.2e-10
Polonium 210     2.6e13   0.045      3.2e-8       1.4e-9
Thorium 232       46000  31 million  2.6e-7       8.0
Americium 241    1.3e11   9.0        3.2e-8       2.9e-7
 
I've added Polonium 210 to the list and adjusted Thorium 232 to the series
of 10 reactions sent to me by Tarl Neustaedter, as included below.  I don't
have the required reference books here to check the other three "chains."
The result of such chains is to make the material "hotter" than I have it
listed -- provided halflives of the secondary isotopes are sufficiently
short in comparison to the time of last chemical purification to current
use.
 
   Th232->alpha (5.5Mev) + Ra228
   Ra228->Beta- (45 Kev) + Ac228 (5 years)
   Ac228->Beta- (2.2Mev) + Th228 (6 hours)
   Th228->alpha (5.5Mev) + Ra224 (2 years)
   Ra224->alpha (5.7Mev) + Rn220 (3 days)
   Rn220->alpha (6.4Mev) + Po216 (1 minute)
   Po216->alpha (6.9Mev) + Pb212 (0.15 second)
   Pb212->Beta- (0.5Mev) + Bi212 (10 hours)
   Bi212->Beta- (2.2Mev) + Po212 (1 hour) \ Both decays occur
        ->alpha (6.2Mev) + Tl208          / (64%/36%)
   Po212->alpha (8.9Mev) + pb208      \ Two seperate paths
   Tl208->Beta- (4.9Mev) + pb208      / ending at same spot
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nobel Prizes & Japan
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nobel Prizes & Japan
Date: 16 Jul 92 13:41:28 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920715144756_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>The author notes that Japan is per-capita the richest nation in the world,
>that they the best applied science in the world, and that their corporations
>are blowing ours out of the water. Then he asks what the lack of Japanese
>Nobel Prizes means.
>
>Answer: Nothing. The Nobel Prize is broken.
 
Hmmm.  You have a nominee in mind that was overlooked?
 
>The Nobel Prize does not measure Japan's intellectual contribution for several
>reasons. Here are what I consider the three main ones:
>
>Japanese corporate scientists are not interested in winning the Nobel Prize.
>They are not terribly interested in basic science. They concentrate on making
>new products, and winning market share. They are practical businessmen first,
>scientists second, like Thomas Edison.
 
This is, I think, the main reason.  As noted later, the need to rise from
rather extreme conditions has led to a focus of resources on work of more
practical application, much of it derivative.  Although the Nobel was
intended more for inventions than theory, it was never intended for very
good engineering.  But there are deeper reasons.
 
A big part of it has to do with training.  A few years ago when Japan was
being praised, much was made of how their system produces team-oriented
people -- but that they felt a need to learn how the American school system
fosters innovation.  In my observations of nuclear physics, I have seen
plenty of examples of work that could have made breakthroughs if pursued
but somehow the university departments allocate resources equally without
much emphasis on good over mediocre possibilities.  This is not a system
designed to foster the innovation that will lead to the Nobel.
 
As for possible candidates, the last statement amuses me because Akito
Arima would be one of the better candidates for a shared prize, much
along the lines of the one given to Bohr, Mottelson, and Rainwater.
 
>As for the rest of that article, it was thought provoking. But it does not
>apply to the cold fusion scientists, because Japanese scientists working on CF
>are mavericks and non-conformists. They are a rowdy bunch of troublemakers. In
>Japan's largest newspapers, they call their opponents "stuck-in-the-mud
>fossils," and they say, "send in [Tokyo Univ. Pres.] Arima. We will shave his
>head!"
 
Not that it would require much work to do so!  (There must be a cultural
allusion in here that I am missing.  Is this the japanese equivalent of
putting "red hot" in his shorts?)
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 /  Rothwell /  Nobel prejudice
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nobel prejudice
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 15:53:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Anthony E. Siegman asks whether the Nobel Committee members are prejudiced
against younger siblings.
 
Answer: not to my knowledge. I was not aware that there was any statistical
trend towards favoring older siblings, but if there is, you can be certain
that it has nothing to do with any prejudice or bias on the part of the
committee members. This is because the members cannot tell whether a person is
the first born, or a younger sibling, merely by knowing his name, or by
looking at him, or by reading his paper. They cannot understand his language
any better, simply because he is an older sibling.
 
However, this has nothing whatever to do with the point I raised. It is a red
herring; an exaggerated parody of what I said. My point is simply that people
are apt to overlook, or never hear about, the work of a scientist in a far-off
country who speaks a different language. It costs a lot of money to go to
Japan. People who have not lived in Japan, or studied there, are not likely to
have many close friends or colleagues there. People who do not read Japanese
are extremely unlikely to know what is going on there, and Japanese is a
difficult language to read. Even people who are totally free of bigotry and
race prejudice, who have the best of intentions, are apt to overlook and
misunderstand what goes on in Japan. I make every effort to keep up with
events, and I find it difficult. I cannot pay a casual visit to my friends
there; overseas telephone calls cost four times more than domestic calls, and
you can only reach people in the dead of night; I cannot afford to subscribe
to many journals and magazines; and I do not read Japanese anywhere near as
quickly as I read English. I have been to MIT twice in the last six months,
and to Texas A&M, and the airfare for all three trips was less than it would
have cost me to visit Osaka once.
 
Japanese scientists, of course, are apt to overlook, misunderstand, downplay,
or "up-play," what we do in Europe and America. The culture and language gaps
work both ways. There are many real world, practical difficulties to
understanding and appreciating people in alien cultures and distant countries.
If Mr. Siegman does not believe this, then perhaps he has never encountered
these difficulties first hand; he should take a three month course in
Japanese, Chinese, Thai or Cambodian.
 
Finally, I said, "I would not be surprised if some members of the Nobel
committee are afflicted with" race prejudice. I did not say I knew any were,
or were not, but I think it is a large group of people, and it would be very
odd if it included no bigots. In my experience, scientists are no better or
worse than anyone else in this regard. They may be objective truth-seekers in
their own special field, but in matters of race, society, and culture, they
are as blind, bigoted, and foolish as anyone else. A scientist is a human
being, he or she has just as many failings and blind spots as anyone else, and
race prejudice is endemic in most societies, both Western and Eastern. It
would be naive to imagine that prejudice could play no role in the decisions
of the Nobel committee.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / david atkatz /  Re: Thermometers again
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermometers again
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 15:31:16 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

 
Jed Rothwell writes:
 
>David Atkatz poses the question: "Thermometers do indeed
>measure temperature.  I think the question, though, is
>whether temperature always "measures _excess_ heat."
 
>Yes, they sure do! Guaranteed. If you get excess heat,
>your thermometer *will* measure it. Here is how it works
>(leaving out a lot of details):
 
	[lengthy description of a simple calorimetry experiment
	deleted]
 
 
	Perhaps I did not pose the question well--it was really the
	inverse of your statement I was  getting at
 
		If your thermometer measures an (anomalous)
		temperature increase does it clearly and unambiguously
		signal "excess" heat?
 
	I do cosmology and quantum field theory, and what I know
	about calorimetry you could stick in your eye with little
	discomfort.  The last time I even saw a calorimeter was in
	high school--I was splashing water all over the place
	measuring the mechanical equivalent of heat.  Still, why do
	I get the feeling that it is not nearly so simple as you describe?
 
 
>Let me close by saying that some of the best scientists in the world,
>who work for the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, are
>also perfectly capable of measuring electricity and temperature. They
>have done so, very, very carefully, because their jobs are on the
>line -- their careers and reputations are on the line. They have
>committed $100 million dollars of public and private money to a
>project based upon their measurements of electricity and temperature,
>so you can be damn sure they checked the calorimetry carefully!
 
	Hardly a scientific argument for the accuracy of their
	results!  When was the last time you read a paper which
	said " ... we've spent over $100 million on this experiment,
	so you know we're right!"
 
	David Atkatz
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / John Logajan /  Japan and basic science
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japan and basic science
Date: 16 Jul 92 16:32:59 GMT

J. A. Carr jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu writes:
>the need to rise from rather extreme conditions has led to a focus
>of resources on work of more practical application, much of it
>derivative.
 
Which extreme conditions?  The aftermath of WWII?  Did not Germany
as well as a number of European countries have to rebuild also?
Did basic research suffer the same fate in these Western countries
as it did in Japan?
 
Perhaps you refer to an earlier set of extreme conditions.  If so,
we are back to the original thesis -- extreme conditions brought
on by the absense of a cultural mechanism to advance technology
in a robust competitive manner.
 
It would seem to me that such cultural conditions still remain
as constraints against the Japanese advancing to their true
potential.  Advancement in basic science must still come from
the West or from "Westernized" scientists who'll break the
cultural rules and depart from the uniformity of the consensus.
 
 --- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Thermometers again
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermometers again
Date: 16 Jul 92 18:32:55 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920715194422_72240.1256_EHL60-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>  [concerning thermometers measuring excess heat]
>
>Suppose your room temperature is 20 deg C. You put an ordinary resistor in a
>box of water, and pump 10 watts of electricity into it, and the water
>temperature goes up to 25 C. Now, you put 20 watts into the resister. The
>water temperature will rise to 30 C. So, you know that for every watt you put
>in, the water temperature will rise half a degree.
>
>Okay, put a CF device in the box, and begin pumping 10 watts of electricity
>into it. At first the water will not quite get up to 25 C. After a while, it
>will. At that point, everything is in balance -- every watt that goes in,
>comes right out, and it is all accounted for. Cross your fingers, knock on
>wood, and wait a couple of weeks, and maybe you will see temperature rise some
>more. Suppose it goes up to 28 C. You check the electricity going in, to make
>sure it has not drifted up. You check the thermocouple, and you put a Radio
>Shack thermometer in the box too, to double check everything. If you have not
>made any mistakes, you are looking at 6 watts excess, or 360 joules per
>minute.
 
The problem/risk is whether your CF device acts exactly like your resistor.
It took quite some time for people to figure out why the Neumann (sp?)
energy machine looked like a perpetual motion machine, and it turned out
that power was moving around as high-frequency noise that was not detected
by the devices used to measure the power input (if my memory is correct).
 
It is also important to establish that the total (integral from time-zero
when you start charging) power in is actually less, although this becomes
less important if excess is generated in large quantities for a long time.
I state again that I would be happier to see a closed system that took
over and powered itself than trust external measurements.  A good set of
controls with plain water, preferably double blind, might also help --
are there published results of such experiments from the japanese?
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Japan and basic science
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Japan and basic science
Date: 16 Jul 92 18:48:40 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9207161632.AA05609@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>J. A. Carr jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu writes:
>>the need to rise from rather extreme conditions has led to a focus
>>of resources on work of more practical application, much of it
>>derivative.
>
>Which extreme conditions?  The aftermath of WWII?  Did not Germany
>as well as a number of European countries have to rebuild also?
>Did basic research suffer the same fate in these Western countries
>as it did in Japan?
 
To some extent, yes, if a cursory reading of the Nobel list is any
guide.  There has been much less awarded to Germans since WWII.
Major research programs were non-existent for some time during the
recovery, and only recently are they back to where they once were.
 
But as to prejudice .... well, you would think that Yukawa would not
have won the Nobel in 1949 -- just a few years after the war -- if there
was a big problem with race hatred.  Passions were still strong then.
 
>Perhaps you refer to an earlier set of extreme conditions.  If so,
>we are back to the original thesis -- extreme conditions brought
>on by the absense of a cultural mechanism to advance technology
>in a robust competitive manner.
 
But I was also alluding to the fact that Germany, for example, had
a longer history of basic research pre-WWII than did Japan.  Not
so much cultural as historical -- it is hard to spend time on
philosophy if you are hungry, and a country has to reach a certain
level of comfort before it can invest in research that is not of
direct (read engineering) application.  Look at the US, for example,
where basic research really got started much later than in Europe.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / 	FNALD::DROEGE  /  If at first... try, try, again.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE       16-JUL-1992 17:23:47.97
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If at first... try, try, again.
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 03:38:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE       16-JUL-1992 17:23:47.97
To:	GOV%"fusion%zorch@ames.ard.nasa.gov"
CC:	DROEGE
Subj:	Calorimetry
 
Have been trying to restrain myself, but I have to say that calorimetry is
hard!  Compared to electronics where there is about 40 orders of magnitude
between the best insulator and the best conductor, with heat there is less
than 4.  Everything leaks heat when you don't want it to and fails to conduct
as well as you would like.
 
For most electronic circuits radiation losses are small, and there is nothing
that compares to convection.  So heat is a mess.
 
Calorimetry by looking at temperature rise on a thermometer is very unreliable
since it is hard to know that the convection patterns are the same with say a
cell and a test resistor.  Then you can develop a temperature inversion which
unpredictably goes "bloop" and shifts to a different pattern.
 
McKubre's flow calorimetry, and my electronic kludge are attempts to get around
these problems.  The idea is to measure the heat flow where there is only one
thing to watch, and where you can control all the conditions.
 
The Takahashi set up is just full of possibilities to get it wrong.  In cell
convection patterns are on.  I compute a half watt or so per degree C related
to ambiant temperature changes.  Then there is tracking of the flow calorimetry
thermometers.  The cell fluid level changes will surely change the convection
patterns.  Condensation on the cell walls or on the cooling tubing seems
possible.  This gives big changes with dew point, surely a problem (by my
personal experience in a Japanese lab) in Japan.  My guess at a error for
the Takahashi type set up is a one sigma error of one watt, but this is
optimistic about convection and mostly worries about insulation problems.
 
This assumes all the electronics is done right.  Could fill 5 pages with
 subtileways to mess up.  My favorite is the common mode problem I experienced
 on a
shunt amplifier as the cell voltage rose on a long experiment.
 
That should be "In cell convection patterns are one (way to get it wrong)".
 
So I take the Takahashi as only an indication that there might be a procedure
that is worth trying with a proper set up.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  What the Nobel measures
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What the Nobel measures
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 04:09:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
My comment: "The Nobel Prize is broken... The Nobel Prize does not
measure Japan's intellectual contribution for several reasons..."
 
Jim Carr asks: "Hmmm.  You have a nominee in mind that was overlooked?"
 
That is no quite what I meant. Let me spell it out:
 
1. The Nobel prize "measures" achievement in the basic sciences.
 
2. Japanese do not generally do basic sciences, they make intellectual
contributions to the world in other areas.
 
3. Therefore, the Nobel Prize does not "measure" the achievements of the
Japanese very well. Their culture, at this moment in history, is not
oriented to achieving the kind of accomplishments that the Nobel rewards.
 
4. The Nobel Prize measures skill in tasks that European and American
scientists do well; but it does not measure the skills of the Japanese
scientists. It rewards our kind of genius, not theirs.
 
5. I do not mean that the Nobel is inappropriately rewarded, or that
someone has been overlooked. I meant that it is not the right tool to
measure the contributions of the Japanese.
 
The reasons for this are complex; they relate to Japan's history, culture
and economy. I spelled out a few of the reasons, but it is a long story,
and I would have to write a 50 page paper to really justify this thesis.
I have to simplify it too much to fit it in this format.
 
To vastly simplify the argument once more: The Nobel cannot be used to
gauge the particular present-day genius of the Japanese, because there is
no Nobel Prize for making good consumer electronics, for example. They do
things other than basic science, which are equally difficult, and require
equal dedication and intelligence, like manufacturing decent automobiles, and
developing new discoveries like high temperature superconducters, and cold
fusion, into practical products.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pressure to get it right
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 04:13:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
My comment: "They [MITI] have committed $100 million dollars of public and
private money to a project based upon their measurements of electricity and
temperature, so you can be damn sure they checked the calorimetry carefully!"
 
David Atkatz responds: "Hardly a scientific argument for the accuracy of their
results!  When was the last time you read a paper which said " ... we've spent
over $100 million on this experiment, so you know we're right!"
 
David,
 
You have it completely, utterly, backwards and wrong. A MITI spokesman quoted
in today's Yomiuri Shimbun said, "the heat generation is definitely real." The
experiments needed to prove this did *not* cost $100 million! They cost only
about $5 or $10 million, I estimate. The tools needed to verify that these
experiments worked would cost about $50 at Radio Shack, and any high school
kid could learn use them correctly in half an hour.
 
This proof, once established, is being used to justify an expenditure of $100
million. My point is this: because so much money will be at stake, and because
the scientists' careers would be instantly destroyed if it turned out that
they had failed a simple task that anyone could perform in 15 minutes, you can
be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they *did* perform that simple task, very
carefully, over and over again. Hundreds of times, in fact. I have talked to
the Japanese scientists, and I assure you this is the case.
 
MITI does not leave such things to chance. They never take unnecessary risks.
They are the most meticulous, careful, painstaking group of people on earth.
They would never, ever launch a $100 million project without making absolutely
certain that every one of the claims of Pons and Fleischmann was 100% true.
They went into the lab at Nice, France, frequently, and they checked every
detail, over and over again. They also checked the work of people in Japan,
like Takahashi, Mizuno, Ikegami and others very carefully. It is common sense.
Anyone would do that. It would be rash insanity to proceed with a $100 million
project without checking!
 
Pretend that someone has handed you a multimeter and a thermometer and said,
"measure the amps, volts, and temperature of that cell. Be sure you get the
temperature right to within one degree C. If you get it wrong, our government
will loose $100 million, and you will spend the rest of your life working at
MacDonalds."
 
Would you do the work carefully? Would you repeat the measurement over again,
to be sure you got it right? Of course you would!
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Thermometers again
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermometers again
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 23:07:46 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920715194422_72240.1256_EHL60-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> gives us a lesson on thermometers:
>
> Suppose your room temperature is 20 deg C. You put an ordinary resistor in a
> box of water, and pump 10 watts of electricity into it, and the water
> temperature goes up to 25 C. Now, you put 20 watts into the resister. The
> water temperature will rise to 30 C. So, you know that for every watt you put
> in, the water temperature will rise half a degree.
..
> Suppose you leave everything alone, and just let the computer measure those
> excess joules. They add up, and up. Imagine that the postage stamp sized
> sliver of palladium in there was a chemical battery, and it was putting out
> twice as much heat as a "nightlight" bulb. It would not last long, would it?
> Imagine it was a battery driving a good sized flashlight, it would be out of
> juice in no time, wouldn't it? Suppose it was chip of paraffin, or charcoal,
> and it was smoldering in the fireplace and putting out that much heat. It
etc etc.
 
You suppose and imagine a lot here. Look, mate, we all know about thermometers
and know how good they are, and I don't doubt that the Japanese can read one as
well as anyone else. You evade the issue with all this verbiage, the issue
being, just what was being measured? So far, all I know is what you have told
us, and you clearly want to believe it's a wonderful breakthrough. To you, the
mere fact that MITI has committed tens of millions of dollars to cnf means
that it's real. I know, you have also spoken with Takahashi and he assures you
he has seen excess heat. I want to be shown, in the form of a published paper
full of details. This will take some time to appear, IF it is indeed in the
pipeline. Many a breakthrough has never gone into that pipeline, however...
Tens of millions is not that much of a risk, by the way, negligible compared
to the billions spent on hot fusion. The argument that the MITI people are not
stupid means nothing. The Utah State people are not stupid, either, I'll bet,
and they spent 5 millions on nothing. Politics can swing it, as it did with
such make-work projects as Star Wars and hot fusion, and dam building both in
your country and mine, all financed by non-stupid people.
 I await more solid evidence; not breathless reports by a believer. Now if Tom
Droege or Dick Blue were to go over there, go over their experiments and look
at the data and came back and believed in a nuclear process...
 I do appreciate your reporting, Jed; without your translation of those news,
we wouldn't be reading about it until a few months from now, in Science or New
Scientist. So keep it up.
 
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / david atkatz /  Re: Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 13:38:10 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
>My comment: "They [MITI] have committed $100 million dollars
>of public and private money to a project based upon their
>measurements of electricity and temperature, so you can be
>damn sure they checked the calorimetry carefully!"
 
>David Atkatz responds: "Hardly a scientific argument for the
>accuracy of their results!  When was the last time you read a
>paper which said " ... we've spent over $100 million on this
>experiment, so you know we're right!"
 
>David,
 
>You have it completely, utterly, backwards and wrong.
>A MITI spokesman quoted in today's Yomiuri Shimbun said,
>"the heat generation is definitely real." The experiments
>needed to prove this did *not* cost $100 million! They cost only
>about $5 or $10 million, I estimate. The tools needed to verify
>that these experiments worked would cost about $50 at Radio
>Shack, and any high school kid could learn use them correctly
>in half an hour.
 
 
	Jed, I'm not nearly as stupid as I may appear (am I ever
	setting myself up for some comments!).  My comment
	was addressed to your rationale for the accuracy of the
	Japanese results, not the actual situation--I know the experiments
	did not cost $100 million, and that the money is being allocated
	based upon the (alleged) results of these experiments.  You are still
	saying, in essence, "we must have done our job well, for our
	careers are on the line, and people are giving us lots of money."  I
	repeat--hardly scientific.  P & F's careers were on the lin, and
	Utah gave (and the US congress was willing to give) them lots of
	money, too.  How well were their original experiments performed?
 
> ... It would be rash insanity to proceed with a $100 million
>project without checking!
 
	Governments have been known to allocate huge sums of money
	on projects whose scientific and/or technical basis has been quite
	questionable.  Check out the history of the Materials Testing
	Accelerator, or the nuclear-pumped X ray laser, to name but two.
 
	David
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: What the Nobel measures
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What the Nobel measures
Date: 17 Jul 92 13:50:35 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920716225728_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>4. The Nobel Prize measures skill in tasks that European and American
>scientists do well; but it does not measure the skills of the Japanese
>scientists. It rewards our kind of genius, not theirs.
 
I have to disagree with this remark, which sounds vaguely racist to me.
 
Are you saying that Yukawa must have been a closet european to have his
idea about exchange forces?  One can argue that their society puts a
smaller fraction of its most talented people into basic research, with
a proportionately smaller number of prizes for basic discoveries, but
I do not think that THEY have a different kind of genius.
 
I think that we shall see prizes in physics, medicine, and chemistry
out of japan in the next decade that reflect the research now going on
in that country -- research that was not practical in their economy as
little as 25 years ago.  Remember, we are still winning prizes off the
old Brookhaven machine that was world-class when it was built over 30
years ago (I think) and have yet to win one with FermiLab after 20+
years of operation.  Nothing is simple or obvious in this game.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  Nobel again... for the last time
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nobel again... for the last time
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 16:01:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Regarding the lack of Nobel quality basic scientific work in Japan, John
Logajan writes: "Such cultural conditions still remain as constraints against
the Japanese advancing to their true potential.  Advancement in basic science
must still come from the West..."
 
They *have* advanced to their true potential! That is exactly what they have
done, there are no constraints! Don't you see the contradiction in your words?
You say, "the culture is different." Therefore, the goals, desires, and
directions of that culture are different. They don't *want* Nobel prizes! They
are not interested in doing basic science. That is not their "true potential."
Their true potential lies in applied science, in making vast sums of money,
and ultimately, I expect within our lifetimes, in colonizing other planets.
Japanese civilization at this moment in history is like the U.S. was during
the 19th century. It is not oriented to esoteric "book learning," it is a
practical, hands-on nation of shopkeepers and engineers, not scientists.
 
Every nation has its strengths and weaknesses, and every nation constantly
evolves and changes.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  Dr. Arima's hair
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Arima's hair
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 16:45:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I mentioned that several cold fusion scientists in Japan have threatened to
shave Tokyo U. Pres. Arima's head.
 
J. A. Carr says, "Not that it would require much work to do so!"
 
That is *exactly* what Arima himself said. "I am afraid I don't have enough
hair left for that."
 
I find the story hilarious, but perhaps it requires an oriental sense of
humor. Anyway, here it is, from the annals of cold fusion trivia:
 
In 1989, when Pons and Fleischmann first announced the discovery, Arima
dismissed it with a widely reported comment, "if cold fusion is real, then I
will quit physics, shave my head, and become a buddhist priest." He also
reportedly said, "it can't be that easy to create fusion."
 
A few years later, a well known retired physicist named Ueda wrote a pro-cold
fusion article in a journal called "Parity" titled, "I will NOT become a
priest."
 
Then last year, after they decided to hold the Third International Conference
in Japan, grad student began suggesting that they invite Arima to the
conference for a special formal investiture, as he "takes the tonsure" and
renounces this world forever.
 
Arima heard about this, and reportedly said something like, "I am too old to
become a monk now, and I do not have enough hair left to shave. I guess when I
became a university president, I left the physics business" -- meaning that
once you become an administrator, you are not really a scientist any more, and
you should not pass judgement on new ideas. He has backpeddaled. The editors
of the Nikkei Superconder Newsletter and others have told me they have not
heard a peep out of him lately.
 
[The exact words attributed to Arima are very difficult to translate. For the
Japanese language mavins out there in the cybernetic continuum, here is what
he said: "moshi jouonkakuyuugoo ga honto naraba, watakushi wa boozu ni naru.
Butsuri o yameru," and last year, "moo toshi na no de, boozu ni naru hodo no
ke ga nokotte inai. Gakutyou ni natte, butsuri ha haigyou shita mo douzen
da."]
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Close /   The silence of the lambs
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  The silence of the lambs
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 16:45:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
 
**Dieter Britz wrote: "Another by the way: There has been a strange silence
**from Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove since Frank Close's extensive posting.
**Does this imply that they agree with Frank's history?"
 
* [JR reply] Good heavens no! We just haven't had time.
 
Extensive postings on Japanese Nobel Prizes later I am sure you would wish
to find time to respond at least to the following of my postings. It is,
of course, possible that you overlooked it among my other lengthy material.
 
* It is -- unfortunate that so soon into your [Gene Mallove posting forwarded
*by Jed Rothwell]  - -  you are impugning my [Frank Close]integrity, and
*possibly that of Dr David Worledge too, with the following fantasy.
[Quote from EM/JR posting]:-
*`I was told by Dr David Worledge of EPRI that on Close's request Worledge
*gave Close an armload of CF nuclear effect studies in ample time to be
*included in his book. They werent'
[FC response to this]:-
*1. Dr Worledge sent me four papers, not an armload. (DW denies ever having
*used such a simile to EM)
*2.DW sent these to me unsolicited in May 91; I did not `request' them.
*3.May 91 was four months AFTER Too Hot To Handle was published in the UK and
*two months after its appearance in the US, not `ample time' beforehand.
*Apart from these, your claim is correct.
*
* --- --- --- Clarify this with Dr Worledge yourself, as I have, and have
*the decency to post the result so that all who have read your false
*accusation can be aware of the reality.
 
Does your `Good Heavens no' mean that you deny my version, points 1,2,3
above?
 
However,here you were merely the posting agent for Dr Mallove who has
recently published papers elsewhere with namecalling and innuendo against
Dr Huizenga and me among others. To these is now added the above false
attempt to discredit me. It is a rare opportunity to see these antics displayed
in a public forum where they can be challenged.
 
I am sure you would not wish readers to doubt Dr Mallove's integrity by
failing to respond to this challenge even if you are unable to find time
to address the other places where I showed that certain of your own postings
have been quite inaccurate.
 
Your silence on this issue speaks volumes.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  Latest news from Takahashi
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest news from Takahashi
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 16:51:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tom Droege says, "Have been trying to restrain myself, but I have to say that
calorimetry is hard! ... The Takahashi set up is just full of possibilities to
get it wrong... So I take the Takahashi as only an indication that there might
be a procedure that is worth trying with a proper set up..."
 
Don't restrain yourself Tom! I love it when you let it all hang out. Here is
the latest news from Takahashi, that will set your mind at ease, I hope:
 
After he finally got his last experiment to turn off, Takahashi redesigned his
box somewhat. He put in another thermocouple to measure the delta T
temperature difference in the flow. He calibrated quite a lot, and got two
straight lines, one for box, and one for flow. He set up another box in
another room, which is also a live cell, not a blank, and he is running them
both, and getting good indications of excess from both. It has not ramped up
to the levels he saw last time, but it is still increasing. I believe he
mentioned that it is up to around 20 watts excess during low phase, but don't
hold me to that, I may have got it wrong.
 
The problem with the previous experiment was that he was honestly not
expecting heat, and he was not prepared to measure it. The main purpose of the
thermocouple was to be sure the box did not get too hot when he put in 100
watt during the high phase. Now, he is better prepared, with more accurate
equipment.
 
Now that it has been reported in the Japanese newspapers, I feel free to
report that Mike McKubre, Tom Passell, and others just got back from Japan.
They went to visit Ikegami, who has 4 cells (and one blank, I think). Two of
his cells are working, he thinks, but it is too early to be sure, so please
take that as a preliminary, informal report. Mike and Tom also went to see
Takahashi, who now has two cells, both working. They reviewed his calorimetry,
and they think it is just fine. No problem at all. I think we can all agree
that Mike is a very good judge of calorimetry, so perhaps you will feel more
confident about Takahashi's work. I don't know what Ikegami's calorimeter
looks like, but I have heard that it costs a mint, and it is the Cadillac of
calorimetors.
 
Now, getting back to your basic thesis, it seems to me you have forgotten, or
overlooked, one essential point: you are trying to measure very small amounts
of heat, with a high degree of precision and accuracy; whereas Takahashi and
P&F are only trying to measure gross amounts of heat, with moderately
accurate, simple equipment. This is a critical point. It is far, far easier
for Takahashi to measure 20 watts that it is for you to measure a tiny
fraction of one watt. It is exactly like the difference between trying to
detect the light of a distant star, and the light of the sun.
 
As you say, with heat, as opposed to electricity, you get all kinds of noise,
and convection patterns, and so on, and these cause a messy signal. I have
been looking through megabytes of data for both power in, and heat out, and I
quite agree! But, when the signal is overwhelming, as it is with P&F and
Takahashi, the noise does not matter. When you see 1 watt go in, and 20 watts
of heat evolve, you can absolutely certain it is real, even thought the sigma
for the heat is not as great as it would be for, say, 20 watts of electricity.
 
What you are doing requires blood, sweat and tears. It is, as you say, HARD to
do. Measuring 20 watts, on the other hand, is child's play. (Not really, but
relatively speaking, it is).
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  /  Palladium
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 18:59:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just went long one 100 oz Palladium contract for December delivery.  Contract
price $88.00 per oz.  Note the September contract is $88.70 so it is cheaper
to buy Palladium in the future than today.  This means that speculators think
the market is going down.
 
For those who do not understand how futures markets work, I have just paid my
broker about $50 to arrange a contract with some seller who promises to
deliver 100 oz of Palladium to me in December.  I in turn have promised to
buy it at $88.00 an oz.  Niether of us can back out of the transaction.  But
this does not mean that I have to "take delivery".  Either of us can "buy
back" the contract if we can find someone else to take it.  That is of course
done by my broker for another aprox. $50 dollar fee.  That is how the broker
and the exchange get theirs.  But the price for selling the contract can be
different.  For example if Palladium goes up to 100 dollars tomorrow I could
make a fast 1200 bucks!  Actually not quite true.  If the "spot" price went
up to $100 (the price a holder is willing to sell me Palladium today), the
December price could be higher or lower, depending on what the speculators
think the future price will be.
 
But I do not know anything I have not told you.  Just having fun!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What we know about thermometers
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 18:59:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
DB comments: "Look, mate, we all know about thermometers and know how good
they are, and I don't doubt that the Japanese can read one as well as anyone
else. You evade the issue with all this verbiage, the issue being, just what
was being measured?"
 
Only one thing can be measured with a thermometer: temperature. A temperature
significantly above the calibration point for a given level of electrical
input can only mean one thing: excess heat. That is my *entire* point. The
experimental results are too stark and too simple to mean anything else.
 
Do we really all know about thermometers? Think carefully about that. I am
serious. What exactly does it mean when the water gets hot? I assert that it
can only mean one possible thing. If you know of something else, please list
it, don't evade the point.
 
Tell us please: what can possibly cause a temperature to go up except heat?
Don't say "experimental error" it has been ruled out by a very, very careful
and deliberate group of scientists who have a great deal at stake, and who
know how to find errors. What do you know about thermometers that I do not?
More to the point, what do you know that MITI does not? You can save the
Japanese taxpayers a great deal of money if you tell us.
 
Regarding the verbiage: I did not waste a word. Please do not be mislead by my
"folksy" style of writing (I spent so many years writing dry as dust computer
manuals, that I now account myself liberated from that.)
 
My point is deadly serious, and every word in that essay was there to clarify
and emphasize it. This is a key point that you, and many other "skeptics,"
have been evading for years; you should stop and face the music, and address
this issue. This discussion keeps going off on irrelevant tangents, about
mistakes that P&F may or may not have made measuring neutrons back in 1989.
Neutrons, which have now been measured with absolute assurance, are not the
central issue of cold fusion. As Fleischmann says, the principle signature of
the reaction is heat.
 
The point of my essay was this: massive heat, at the levels P&F, Takahashi and
others are now measuring, is absolutely dead simple to measure. I spelled some
of detailed steps a person takes to measure heat at this level in order to
give you a clear, mental image of what the experimenters are doing. (I am not
talking about the kind of techniques that Tom Droege is forced to use, in
order to measure far smaller quantities of heat, with much greater accuracy.)
This discussion has often trailed off into a netherworld of theoretical
nitpicking. I feel that a course correction is in order. Cold fusion is not,
repeat, *NOT* based upon any theoretical knowledge of physics. There is no
generally accepted theory to explain it. Indeed, as often noted here, it
appears to violate the laws of physics as they are now understood. But that is
totally irrelevant, because cold fusion is based up replicated laboratory
experiments, not theory, and therefore, any discussion of the existence, or
non-existence, of cold fusion, must focus on those laboratory experiments.
 
It is no good debating the nitty-gritty of how the thing might work according
to theory. The proof is experimental, not theoretical. The only thing you can
prove by debating theory at this stage is that you do not understand what is
going on. Man does not understand even 0.1% of anything in this universe, and
often what he "knows" turns out to be wrong, so our ignorance of this
particular phenomenon proves nothing.
 
The other reason I wish to steer the debate back to facts, and away from empty
supposition, is that I have only a practical, hands-on knowledge of the
experiments, and no knowledge of advanced physics. I have nothing else to
contribute to the discussion! I remind the reader however, that a caveman,
working with fire, might quickly learn to recognize it, control it, and make
use of it, without ever learning anything of its true nature. Frank Close
might refer to that caveman the way he described me: as a dilettante. But the
caveman would have far better "hands-on," practical, useful knowledge of fire
than ordinary people nowadays do, (other than people like combustion
engineers, or potters who work with kilns.) The caveman could quickly light a
blazing fire from a tiny spark, even in the rain. He did not have to
understand the "why" of fire in order to use it as an expert.
 
This is a *very* *important* *point*, and you skeptics have overlooked it. It
is not necessary for us to understand how cold fusion works, or exactly what
it is, in order for us to absolutely certain of two things:
 
1. It exists.
 
2. It is not a chemical reaction, because it puts out more heat than any
possible chemical reaction.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  /  Anomalous Heat
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anomalous Heat
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 18:59:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Trying to Make it Go Away
 
Now that it appears that I am seeing heat, it is time to try to make it go
away.  So far, the effort is not completely successful.
 
The big problem in deciding if the heat is real, is the cell voltage "noise".
The cell voltage is not constant, but has a profile that I cannot explain.
This is not new, but has been observed in various forms over the last three
years.
 
The cell voltage is constant for a while, then ramps up at a near constant
rate to a higher value.  It then suddenly drops to the low value.  Typical
periods for the present cell are 3 minutes constant, and two minutes ramping
up.  Voltage change is of order 200 millivolts on a 5 volt base.
 
>From other measurements, it is reasonably certain that the voltage change is
caused by a cell impedance change.  There is a current spike at the drop at
the end of the ramp when the constant current servo does not react fast
enough.  Everything is in the right direction to be caused by bubbles.  But I
think not.  I think it is a whole surface effect as it is too slow to be
bubbles.  Further, if anything the pulse rate is faster at lower currents,
completely wrong for bubbles.  I think it is some sort of surface film which
forms then tears away in one big piece.  Vigorous bubbling inhibits the
formation, while low currents allow peaceful formation.  But just a wild
guess.  Have any of you electrochemists observed this sort of cell operation?
 
It is hard to tell, but it looks like the "anomalous heat" comes during the
steady periods of low cell voltage.  i.e. we have a thin steady surface film.
 
All this cell voltage activity means that there are large swings in the one
minute power computations.  ("large swings" means a few per-cent.) My
understanding of sampled data is that we still get the correct power
computation no matter when we sample (could just as well use a random number
generator to select sample times), or how the parameters are changing, ***even
if there is frequency content above the sample rate***.  It is only necessary
that the voltage and current samples be taken at the same time.  (I would bet
that they don't even have to be taken at the same time if the relationship is
truly random.)  Of course the error limit for the measurement will be
determined by the number of samples taken.  Aliasing can only generate a power
computation error if the sample time is locked in to the noise spike time,
***and stays locked in for the life of the experiment***.  If there is a
"beat" between the sample time and the noise pulse time, it might take a very
long time to get a good measurement, but after enough time the power integral
would be correct, again within an error determined by the number of samples
and the number of "beat" periods.  My oscilloscope is on, and the on line
display is watched for any "lock in" effects.
 
It should be noted that with my apparatus, false "anomalous heat" would be
indicated if we under measured the cell power.  It seems likely to me that
noise would cause the cell power to be over measured because power is a square
measurement and equal errors one too high and one two low on voltage and
current caused by noise result in a too high measurement.
 
Someone who knows this stuff (Dieter Britz?) please check my thinking.
 
Note that I have a lot of data that looks just as noisy as the present data
but which does not show "anomalous heat".  We will work on the data to try to
understand what might be happening.  Suggestions are welcome.  Meanwhile, I am
running the cell under a variety of conditions, slow ramp, fast ramp, Hi-Lo,
constant current, etc., to try to understand what is going on.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / D Danforth /  Re: Nobel Prizes & Japan
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nobel Prizes & Japan
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 18:35:34 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

 
Birth order effects have been investigated by Bob Zajonc.  A simple model
that seems to work is the more time you spend with older individuals
the higher your academic performance (on the average).  Large families
with wide spacing between children do better than families with
small spacing.
 
Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Just a tid bit of information out of my past.
 
===========
Doug Danforth
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / John Logajan /  Japan -- my last too
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japan -- my last too
Date: 17 Jul 92 20:55:43 GMT

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Japanese civilization at this moment in history is like the U.S. was during
>the 19th century. It is not oriented to esoteric "book learning," it is a
>practical, hands-on nation of shopkeepers and engineers, not scientists.
 
But that shackles them to being a driven society rather than a driving
society.  They will never be able to lead because they will always be
waiting to be led. [I say "never" assuming the cultural tendency to defer
to the consensus remains unaltered.]
 
And despite the popular ballyhoo that the Japanese are more efficient than
the US, they are actually only 3/4s as productive as the US worker when
measured per capita relative to purchasing price parity.
 
So apparently, the western culture of being individualistically competitive
is more robust, using the price system to determine consensus, rather than
cultural rules.  The west is still more efficient and more "inventive" than
the east.  To the extent that Japan makes gains in these areas is, I
believe, to the extent that they become "westernized" and adopt less
reverence to authority and consensus.
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / Jon Webb /  Re: What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What we know about thermometers
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 21:47:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

I'm getting very tired of Jed Rothwell's posts.  I say this not
because I don't want him to post (after all, I could always just skip
the posts or add him to a kill file) but because he seems to have some
useful information, or at least have access to useful information, and
what we mostly get from him is polemics on the reality of cold fusion.
 
I wish Jed would stop trying to convince us that cold fusion is real
because Japanese researchers or MITI think it is real.  I wish he
would instead tell us as much as he knows about what Japanese
researchers and MITI are doing.
 
I would especially appreciate it if Jed would provide us with pointers
to journal articles published by Japanese researchers.  He seems to be
in frequent contact with the researchers; why can't he simply ask them
for pointers -- especially for pointers to articles written in
English.  He's posted a few before, and I found some in INSPEC, but
frankly these are not terribly convincing.
 
Please don't take this as an assault, Jed; plese don't tell me again
to FAX Dr. Ikegami.  I'm sure Dr. Ikegami is a nice guy, friendly and
willing to share his results with anyone, but you *know* him.  It
should be very easy for you to ask him for references.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  /  Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Murphy Brown
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 22:54:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While many of you have told me that you enjoy my posts, apparently you
read them while enjoying Murphy Brown with your friend Dan Quale.  In
other words, with your brains turned off and your memory disconnected.
 
Isn't anyone going to ask if any change was made to the experiment
recently?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 /  Rothwell /  Mystery black box experiment
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mystery black box experiment
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 23:43:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
J. A. Carr's lucid comments begin: "The problem/risk is whether your CF device
acts exactly like your resistor."
 
As far as I know, all devices act the same way in a calorimeter. You put the
device in the calorimeter, which is usually a box full of water, and the water
gets hot. It works exactly the same way, with all know sources of heat:
electric, chemical, electrochemical, nuclear fusion, fission, or a mixture of
these sources. You put a mystery black box into the calorimeter, the black box
generates heat, and the water gets hot.
 
Perhaps I do not follow what you are saying, but if the water gets hot, what
could that fact possibly mean except that there is heat? We are not looking at
the performance of the CF cell per se, we are looking at the performance of
the calorimeter. How could the CF device "fool" the water into getting hotter?
A box of hot water is a very simple, well understood physical system.
 
I *am* aware that there are minor differences between the performance of an
electric heater in my box, and an electrochemical device. For example, the
water gets mixed up better with an electrochemical device, so the thermal
gradient between the top and the bottom of the box is smaller. But this is a
marginal difference; it is easy to observe, to explain, and to account for. It
does not affect the performance enough to explain the kind of excesses people
have observed. It has no effect at all on the flow delta T measurement. I have
not experimented with fissionable nuclear sources; I suppose they would also
have some minor, unique effects on the performance of the box, and on me.
 
In the case of electrochemistry, there is added complexity with an "open"
cell, but this problem has been addressed in experiments with closed cells,
which contain recombiners. McKubre has done the best of these experiments,
which he summarized last year as follows:
 
     "For the thermodynamically closed and intentionally isothermal systems
     described here, output power was observed to be as much as 28% in excess
     of the electrochemical input power or 25% above the known total input
     power. When excess power was present, it was more typically in the range
     5-10%, in a calorimeter that was accurate to +-0.1%. ...the largest
     observation of excess energy corresponded to 1.08 MJ, or 45.1 MJ/mole or
     [approx] 450 eV/atom...
 
 
"It took quite some time for people to figure out why the Neumann energy
machine looked like a perpetual motion machine, and it turned out that power
was moving around as high-frequency noise that was not detected by the devices
used to measure the power input..."
 
It would have to be great deal of high-frequency noise indeed to account for a
20 to 30 watt excess. Simple one watt DC power supplies have been around for a
long time, I do not think it is possible that they accidentally generate 30
watts, (29 of them above the usual range of detectable electricity). One or
two of them might, I suppose, but not hundreds of them, not in laboratories
all over the world. Even if one did, somebody in the lab would surely notice,
somewhere along the line; the AC to DC converter would certainly show it. In
any case, hundreds of highly qualified people have been looking for this sort
of error for three years, which is "quite some time," and they have not found
it.
 
I have never heard of this Neumann machine, but what you describe sounds like
the subtle kind of error that can occur at the very edge of instrument
detectablity, "close to the noise." This is the sort of thing that might
happen if you thought you were putting in 1000.000 watts of electricity, and
getting out 1000.001 watts of heat. Or, going back to 1989, if you were
putting 0.5 watts into an open cell, and getting out some amount of heat above
recombination, but below 0.5 watts.
 
This, however, is nothing like the situation with present day CF experiments.
We are no longer talking about subtle, difficult, amounts, or tiny fractional
gains (input to output ratios). The leading researchers put in 1 watt and get
out 20, which is far above the minimum sensitivity of the instruments, so this
kind of problem is unlikely. The second tier of people put in 1 watt, and get
out 1.2 watts, or 1.4, say, with a closed cell, which is still well beyond the
minimum capacity of their machines. Of course, a lot of first class people put
in 1 watt, and get out 1 watt. This business is not easy! What is hard about
it though, is not measuring 20 watts, or even 0.2 watts, the problems are
elsewhere.
 
 
"It is also important to establish that the total (integral from time-zero
when you start charging) power in is actually less, although this becomes less
important if excess is generated in large quantities for a long time."
 
Quite right. There are three issues: accuracy of measurement, duration of
charging up time, and the excess power level. If you get one or more of these
wrong, you may think you have an excess, but it may actually be stored up
energy. However, there is an absolute limit to the size of this error: the
absolute maximum chemical storage capability of palladium (assuming no energy
is stored in the heavy water). Once you exceed that maximum, it does not
matter what the previous total integrated balance might have been, or whether
it was correct.
 
To give an unrealistic, simplified example, suppose you charge up a small cell
at 10 watts. You measure power in, and heat out, both with an accuracy of +/-
1 watt. At first it appears to absorbs energy, then it comes into balance, and
outputs 10 watts of heat. After 100 hours, it begins to generate 16 watts of
heat. Now, you think that there was a balance, 10 in, 10 out, but because you
can only measure +/- 1 watt, you might suppose that it could *possibly* have
been imbalanced, 11 in, 9 out, so it might have absorbed 120 joules per
minute, or 720,000 joules. You think it is outputting 6 watts excess, but it
might be 4 worst case, so you might want to wait until it has run for 50
hours, to "use up" the worst case imbalance, before declaring that it is
"really excess."
 
However, this analysis is false. The cathode is a tiny piece of palladium that
cannot possibly hold 720,000 joules. So, no matter how inaccurate the
integrated total power is, there is an absolute maximum storage capacity, and
once you generate an excess beyond that, you can ignore the problem. It does
not matter if it took a week to charge, or a year. You do not have to know the
balance. In the real world, it often happens that computers break down, or
someone erases the data, and we *do* lose the integrated total, or part of it.
This is a nuisance, but it does not wreck the experiment. Again, in the real
world, an experimenter who manages to get any excess at all lets it run for
100 or 1000 times beyond any possible storage maximum, or worst case
integrated input power maximum, so this is not a problem, unless the reaction
keeps fading out completely. As long as it stays positive, the initial loading
does not matter.
 
 
"I would be happier to see a closed system that took over and powered itself
than trust external measurements."
 
Naturally, we all agree with you. Unfortunately, nobody I know can build one
yet, except possibly P&F. There are several problems, here are the main ones:
 
1. Most people do not have a large enough input:output ratio, or high enough
temperature yet. For a simple thermoelectric generator, I believe it would
take approximately 1:10 at 100 deg C.
 
2. Nobody understand what makes these things work, and they do not want to
scale them up beyond a few watts before they learn to control them better. I
am not sure about this, but I think it would take at least 10 or 20 watts out
to make a practical regenerating device, at about 80 C. Any less than that,
and the heat would simply dissipate without driving the device. Takahashi
could easily stop the cooling water, and use his cell to drive a
thermoelectric regenerating device. But he does not understand the reaction,
for all he knows, the gadget might explode! After the SRI accident, the
researchers began to take this issue more seriously.
 
3. Most these device are quirky, the power out ebbs and flows too much for a
regenerating system.
 
4. Most researchers in Europe and America are working on a shoestring, and
cannot possibly afford any kind of engineering, or extra gadgets. People like
me, who cringe at the thought of paying for another bottle of heavy water out
of our own pocket, could not possibly buy additional experimental equipment
and parts we would need for a regenerating system.
 
So, the long and the short of it is, you *will* see a stand alone, closed
system, but it will take a few more years. The people at MITI tell me they
expect to have one in 3 to 5 years. It will be a laboratory prototype, but it
will definitely be the kind of system you have in mind: an electric generator.
Wait ten years after that, and I expect you will be able to go buy a stand
alone "Mr. Fusion" generator from Toshiba at Sears or K-Mart. I am not joking,
or exaggerating.
 
 
"A good set of controls with plain water, preferably double blind, might also
help -- are there published results of such experiments from the japanese?"
 
Most researchers do not have enough money to run a control. This sounds
flippant, but it is true: our experiment has cost me $12,000 for one
calorimeter. One experiment takes up all of my equipment, and takes months to
run, so I cannot possibly afford a parallel blank. Takahashi has the money, of
course, but he has to concentrate all of his efforts into making the real
thing work, he does not have time to run a blank, and he does not have an
extra neutron detector. Ikegami is running 4 live cells and a blank, I
believe.
 
Most experiments don't work, so I guess you could call them "blank."  Mine
showed a balance of zero for weeks, blank as blank can be, until both
computers packed up a few weeks ago. We got it working again, and it showed
zero for two more weeks, until Tuesday when the $250 flowmeter bit the dust,
and it began to show all kinds of nonsense. You get the idea -- we do not have
the resources, or the time, to do these experiments right (on this side of the
Pacific). We do the best we can under impossible circumstances. Rather
dangerous, cramped, impossible circumstances, actually.
 
As for other blank experiments in Japan, I cannot think of any off-hand.
However, I have not done an extensive review of all experiments, by any means.
I have three sets of conferences summaries, plus Ikegami's Como paper, which
describes the main points of 11 experiments, and various tables and reviews,
like Ed Storms, but these do not include that kind of detail. The material I
know in detail is that which I have summarized or translated, so my knowledge
is spotty. I do not have the money to buy the journals, and I would not have
time to review the literature, even if I could afford it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 /  Rothwell /  Racism versus anthropological observatio
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Racism versus anthropological observatio
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 00:57:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Me: "The Nobel Prize measures skill in tasks that European and American
scientists do well; but it does not measure the skills of the Japanese
scientists. It rewards our kind of genius, not theirs."
 
J. A. Carr: "I have to disagree with this remark, which sounds vaguely racist
to me.  Are you saying that Yukawa must have been a closet european to have
his idea about exchange forces?  One can argue that their society puts a
smaller fraction of its most talented people into basic research..."
 
You have hit the nail on the head. That is *exactly* what I am saying: they
put a smaller fraction of their people into it, so they get fewer results.
 
There is nothing the least bit racist about it; it is an obvious, manifest,
observation -- they don't do much science, they don't get many Nobels, and
their top people have told me they want money, and they do not give a darn
about Nobels. It all adds up, and there is no mystery to it. It is a phase
their society is going through, just as ours once did. No doubt, it will
change in the future.
 
It would be racist to suggest that the Japanese *want* Nobel Prizes, that they
are working as hard as they can to *get* them, but for some strange reason
they just can't seem to hack it, they can't do the work, and so they can't win
those prizes. That would be absurd nonsense. They can do anything they put
their minds to, and so can we, and so can any people, anywhere.
 
That absurd nonsense by the way, is exactly what this fellow Rouch is
spouting. It is just crazy to suggest that because the Japanese do not get
Nobel prizes, they have not met some mystical level of intellectual
"performance." Rouch should not go around judging the accomplishments of an
alien culture and society by a narrow, limited, provincial standard like the
Nobel Prize. The Nobel is not some be-all, end-all, SAT standardized test for
all people, in all places, in all times. That is ridiculous. Let Rouse try to
memorize and master 1900 Japanese Characters first, let *him* try to
manufacture a Sony Walkman, and then he can tell us about how the Japanese
have failed to meet some stupid international standard of intellectual
achievement! What a lot of crap!
 
As far as Yukawa goes: I can write articles with those Japanese Characters on
my word processor, and I am still 100% American; so I guess he can do basic
science without endangering his identity as a Japanese person. Any individual
can master any skill, no matter what culture it originates from, if he wants
to. When he was born, it was statistical less probable that Yukawa would go
for basic science than me. That is a generality, which applies to the entire
nation, as you can see from the Nobel statistics, but such generalities have
no meaning when applied to individuals. The same statement applies to black
people, or women; it is statistically less likely that they will study basic
science than me. That statement says nothing about any specific individual,
and it makes no assumptions about the cause of that trend. It does not mean
that a *specific* black woman will not run rings around me in basic science.
It is merely a statement of statistical probability, that you can verify by
looking in any science lecture hall class.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / A Palfreyman /  Re: Palladium
     
Originally-From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 18:21:27 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Tom Droege "speculates":
: Just went long one 100 oz Palladium contract for December delivery...
:
: I have just paid my broker about $50 to arrange a contract .........
: Either of us can "buy back" the contract if we can find someone else
: to take it.  That is of course done by my broker for another aprox.
: $50 dollar fee.  That is how the broker and the exchange get theirs.
 
Tom, you've been had. $100 for what is called "round turn" is excessive
in the extreme. I myself pay $18 + $4 BOT fees. Anything over $30 is really
not on. Sure, one pays extra for "handholding", but you yourself are far
better connected with the cold.fusion state-of-play than a dumb broker!
 
As an aside, I got into futures in '89 because of palladium and cold.fusion.
It was very lucrative, riding up to $160/oz and then all the way back down
again. The "nice" thing about futures is that it's equally easy to make
(and lose!) money in either direction of price movement.
 
One more thing. Make sure your account is margined adequately! Note: Another
way to get ripped off by a broker is for them to set the margin requirements
way over the Exchange Minimum, which (minimum) is quite easy to shop around
for.
 
If you're interested in further details, give me an email buzz.
I posted this more generally as a Caveat for anyone who might be naively
ripped off by taking your figures as "normal".
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | Would You Like Fries With That?                 |
| poisoned electric head |                               andrew palfreyman |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlordSnooty cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / J Yegerlehner /  Re: Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: yegerleh@franklin.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 01:27:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <920717163351.23c00256@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,  writes:
> While many of you have told me that you enjoy my posts, apparently you
> read them while enjoying Murphy Brown with your friend Dan Quale.  In
> other words, with your brains turned off and your memory disconnected.
>
> Isn't anyone going to ask if any change was made to the experiment
> recently?
>
> Tom Droege
 
At this risk of being really stupid, since I haven't payed very close
attention to this group, have you been grabbing bosons out of probability space,
or something like that? Can you just plunk down a blob of Cobalt 60 next
to your P&F cell and see the temperature go up, and then take it away
and see the temperature go down, or what? That's what I've been wondering.
 
And sorry to ask such personal question, but what's you're net worth? If
it were better than, say, $500k, I might believe that you were just
having fun throwing wads of 8.8 kdollars for Palladium futures around
just for fun, and that you don't know anything that you haven't told us.
But if you do, why don't you mortgage your house and buy 10 contracts
for 100 december ounces instead of just one?
 
Thanks
JIm
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenyegerleh cudfnJames cudlnYegerlehner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / nod sivad /  Re: Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 18:15:19 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>Pretend that someone has handed you a multimeter and a thermometer and said,
>"measure the amps, volts, and temperature of that cell. Be sure you get the
>temperature right to within one degree C. If you get it wrong, our government
>will loose $100 million, and you will spend the rest of your life working at
>MacDonalds."
>
>Would you do the work carefully? Would you repeat the measurement over again,
>to be sure you got it right? Of course you would!
 
But if the multimeter and thermometer were insufficient for the task, it
wouldn't matter how careful I was.  I'd still get it wrong.
 
I have no doubt the Japanese scientists checked the results carefully.
But if they did it wrong, it is wrong, no matter how many dollars or careers
are involved.
 
I hope they did it right.  I hope they are correct.
Cold fusion could be a significant boon to mankind, especially in the
Third World.  But my hope will not make it so, any more than my doubt
will make it untrue.
 
					me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: A perspective on Japanese behavior
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A perspective on Japanese behavior
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 17:49:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
 
>      The intellectual raw material [in Japan] is top-notch, as
> good as any in the world.  Yet here is a country with the world's
> most vibrant economy, with a well-educated citizenry singularly
> devoted to making the country better, with a population fully half
> the size of America's and more than half again the size of
> Germany's, yet with only five Nobel Prizes in science to its name
> -- one thirtieth America's share, one twelfth Germany's and
> exactly as many as Belgium's.  Japan has all that is necessary to
> make a magnificent contribution to the world's stock of knowledge,
> but is failing to do so.
 
America and Germany have been collecting Nobel Prizes for about a century,
Japan has only in the last couple decades been producing first-rate science.
Since it takes the Nobel Committee a decade or two after a discovery to decide
whether it deserves a prize, Japan has just begun collecting prizes.
 
Number of Nobel Prizes may not be the ideal measure of scientific prowness; a
better measure might be the number of published papers voted by people in the
field as being groundbreaking.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.17 / Paul Schauble /  Re: What the Nobel measures
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What the Nobel measures
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 23:53:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> I think that we shall see prizes in physics, medicine, and chemistry
> out of japan in the next decade that reflect the research now going on
> in that country -- research that was not practical in their economy as
> little as 25 years ago.  Remember, we are still winning prizes off the
> old Brookhaven machine that was world-class when it was built over 30
> years ago (I think) and have yet to win one with FermiLab after 20+
> years of operation.  Nothing is simple or obvious in this game.
>
> --
> J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
 
> jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promis
es
> Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges
."
> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60
)
 
An interesting observation. Could it perhaps be that
  - it is fairly easy for "maverick" scientists to get time on the obsolete
    Brookhaven machine to test non-mainstream long-shot theories, AND
  - experiment time at Fermilab is harder to get and goes to establishment-
    reviewed and accepted experiments, AND
  - the long shots pay off!
 
After all, people don't get Nobel prizes for an experiment that confirms the
widely accepted theory.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / John Logajan /  In probability space, no one can hear you scream.
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In probability space, no one can hear you scream.
Date: 18 Jul 92 07:47:53 GMT

yegerleh@franklin.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner) writes:
>Tom Droege writes:
>> Isn't anyone going to ask if any change was made to the experiment
>> recently?
 
>At this risk of being really stupid, since I haven't payed very close
>attention to this group, have you been grabbing bosons out of probability
>space, or something like that? Can you just plunk down a blob of Cobalt 60 next
>to your P&F cell and see the temperature go up, and then take it away
>and see the temperature go down, or what? That's what I've been wondering.
 
Tom seems pretty eager to break his self-imposed vow of silence.  But I'm not
sure he can do so, not having seen the actual agreement he sent to Ying.
 
Here is Brad S.'s idea:
>I was going to propose that the s.p.f contributors begin a game of
>anti-20-questions in which Droege's non-responses would yield complete
>information about his experiments.  Droege could just post a non sequitur
>to indicate that a particular set of assertions were incorrect.
 
The trick is to do it in such a way that you extract the info from Droege,
yet do not violate the terms of his agreement.  A poser.
 
[p.s. Tom D., it has not slipped most of our notice that you are suddenly
reporting anomalous heat indications just days after you agree to implement
Ying type procedures.  But thanks for the confirmation. :-) ]
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: 18 Jul 92 15:34:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <920717163351.23c00256@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>While many of you have told me that you enjoy my posts, apparently you
>read them while enjoying Murphy Brown with your friend Dan Quale.  In
>other words, with your brains turned off and your memory disconnected.
>
>Isn't anyone going to ask if any change was made to the experiment
>recently?
>
>Tom Droege
 
Hey! That is not fair, I asked and you said "There is noone here but us
chickens". Here, comparing us to Dan, Destroy Republican Party, Quayle is
not fair.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / Paul Karol /  Re: What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What we know about thermometers
Date: 18 Jul 92 14:13:36 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Although I am a skeptic about CNF, I was not aware CNF violated "known
laws of physics" as stated in Jed Rothwell's posting.  I thought CNF
only violated known mechanisms and models, but not any laws.  Am I wrong?
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 /  Rothwell /  What does it take to convince you?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What does it take to convince you?
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 18:41:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jon,
 
Your comment: "I wish Jed would stop trying to convince us that cold fusion
is real because Japanese researchers or MITI think it is real."
 
Okay, I'll try to convince you because heat is real. What do you have to
say to that? Do you believe in calorimetry, or are you one of these
"skeptics" who thinks the tooth fairy makes water hot? The ball is in your
court, if you know something about thermometers I don't, please lay it on
the line.
 
"I wish he would instead tell us as much as he knows about what Japanese
researchers and MITI are doing."
 
I wish they would tell *me*, but they haven't yet. I am getting a ton of
political news, in the newspapers and technical rags, but no technical
details yet. All the Big Guns from Toshiba, Mitsubishi, MITI, Technova and
the rest are meeting with P&F for a week or so, and then *maybe* we will
hear something, but probably not until the October Conference. I said before
that MITI tells you everything when you call, but I didn't mean they tell you
the next day. They tell you in their own good time, when everyone has signed
off, and the decisions have been cast in concrete. Right now everyone is
"in a meeting" and unavailable; no point in faxing any of them.
 
We will hear about it, in good time. Most of what I hear, I can talk about.
The rest I feed to reporters here, who ignore it.
 
"I would especially appreciate it if Jed would provide us with pointers to
journal articles published by Japanese researchers... especially written in
English.  He's posted a few before, and I found some in INSPEC, but frankly
these are not terribly convincing."
 
Honestly, I posted the names of the journals, and I don't read all that much
of this stuff. Check out Ikegami's Como paper for an overall guide.  The
guides and papers from the big physics conferences are also good, like ISEM;
I have that one in English. Sorry, but in most cases, if it is in English,
already, I probably don't see it. People send me stuff they want translated.
 
I don't know what you find "terribly convincin,g" but what convinces me is
heat. Actually, I don't give a fig about the rest of it. Calorimetry is hard
enough. It seems to me that if you read one or two good papers about excess
heat, from the Como conference, that should wrap it up for you. Read McKubre,
P&F, and Takahashi's latest, and you will see that it is all over but the
shouting. Neutrons, tritium, products and the rest are icing on the cake,
minor details to be filled in later; the principle signature is heat.
 
>From my point of view, one or two really good experiments showing massive heat
should be enough to convince anyone. If there were 10,000 dud experiments, and
one that went off, that proves it beyond question, what do you need more for?
Of course, it would be a lot more fun if Tom and I finally figured out how
to replicate it, but it only took one A-bomb to prove *that* technology
worked, and it only takes the Big Three to prove that CF is real. If you
don't find 1.08 MJ (McKubre) or 140 MJ (Takahashi) convincing, than I don't
see what will ever convince you, short of a "Mr. Fusion" home generator. You
are just going to wait a few years for that.
 
"Please don't take this as an assault, Jed..."
 
Assault?!? Are you kidding? You are talking to a guy who deals with the
DoE, Scientific American, Nature, John Huizenga, the U.S. Congress! You are
talking to a guy who mails dozens of copies of data showing that the
President and Provost of MIT are engaged in a cover up of academic fraud!
Assault? Compared to those guys, you don't even know the meaning of the word.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / Richard Long /  Re: Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 18:26:06 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <920717163351.23c00256@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
> While many of you have told me that you enjoy my posts, apparently you
> read them while enjoying Murphy Brown with your friend Dan Quale.  In
> other words, with your brains turned off and your memory disconnected.
>
> Isn't anyone going to ask if any change was made to the experiment
> recently?
>
> Tom Droege
 
I thought we weren't allowed to ask ;)
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / John Moore /  Re: What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What we know about thermometers
Date: 18 Jul 92 16:47:00 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords:
 
In article <WEBB+.92Jul17164709@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon
 Webb) writes:
]I wish Jed would stop trying to convince us that cold fusion is real
]because Japanese researchers or MITI think it is real.  I wish he
]would instead tell us as much as he knows about what Japanese
]researchers and MITI are doing.
 
I would also like to know what they are doing. What is Takahashi doing that
is different? What is his cell configuration? A short summary would do.
I hear language that implies that one could duplicate his results
trivially. I'm ready! I've got my Palladium (which I paid WAY too much
for a couple of years ago :-) I've got a tad of D2O. I've got some thermistors
and A/D's. I just don't have time to do experiments with a low probability of
success (in this case, defined as positive results). Nor do I have time to do
the one's with the precision of Tom Droege.
 
Where is Jed posting from? Japan?
 
Tom Droege.... how many ounces in a Palladium contract? How did you manage
to pay such a high commission?
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / John Logajan /  Rothwell vs Rauch, in ten rounds.
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell vs Rauch, in ten rounds.
Date: 18 Jul 92 20:33:10 GMT

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>That absurd nonsense by the way, is exactly what this fellow Rouch is
>spouting. It is just crazy to suggest that because the Japanese do not get
>Nobel prizes, they have not met some mystical level of intellectual
>"performance." Rouch should not go around judging the accomplishments of an
>alien culture and society by a narrow, limited, provincial standard like the
>Nobel Prize.
 
You are shadow boxing here. Jonathan Rauch (Reason, Aug/Sept '92 and his
book The Outnation: A Search for the Soul of Japan, published by Harvard
Business School Press) is being descriptive more than he is being
prescriptive -- at least in regards to the Nobel prize issue.
 
Both Rothwell and Rauch say that the Nobel prize statistic is a signal that
means something.  Rothwell says it means they are more bottomline focused.
All Rauch adds is additional cultural insight into why they are more tuned
to the bottomline -- and what other implications such a cultural bias implies.
 
From my reading of Rothwell and Rauch, I find they actually say many similar
things -- but from different perspectives.
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.18 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Palladium
     
Originally-From: an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 22:34:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
 
>Just went long one 100 oz Palladium contract for December delivery.
 
Oh brother...in the midst of the silent ticking of the Droege silence clock
he drops the news that he went long Palladium.  And not the nearby contract
either.  Do you intend to take delivery Tom?
 
>But I do not know anything I have not told you.  Just having fun!
 
Uh huh.......my high opinion of Droege is starting to ..... shatter :-) :-)
 
Guess I'll look at the options prices in Barrons today.
 
What a week.  Perot drops out.  Ken Olsen drops out.  Clinton has fun.
Droege goes long Palladium.  Precious metals have been doing good anyway.  Damn.
--
--------
NO DAD!! You're supposed to type it in with downer case letters!
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenan288 cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 / Bradley Sherman /  Quantum Nucleonics Corporation
     
Originally-From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Nucleonics Corporation
Date: 19 Jul 92 00:20:04 GMT
Organization: Sunlight, DNA and Luck

 
The Oakland (CA) Public Library business section has no record of
Quantum Nucleonics Corporation.  The librarian thought that if the
company had formed before May, 1992 there would be a record.  Someone
in Florida might like to check a local and more current public record.
 
-------------
    --Brad Sherman
 
Many of the abstractions that are characteristic of modern theoretical
physics are to be found discussed in the philosophy of past centuries.
At that time these abstractions could be disregarded as mere mental
exercises by those scientists whose only concern was with reality,
but today we are compelled by the refinements of experimental art to
consider them seriously.
     --Werner  Heisenberg
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  Rothwell /  CF not a mega-project
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF not a mega-project
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 05:46:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
David Atkatz remarks:
 
"P & F's careers were on the line, and Utah gave (and the US congress was
willing to give) them lots of money, too.  How well were their original
experiments performed?"
 
The original experiments were splendid. They were magnificent! If CF can be
developed into a source of energy, those experiments will be seen as the most
important in the history of science. Naturally, they were crude, and P&F
made many mistakes, but the basic discovery has been verified. It is silly
criticize the crudeness, and the groping, tentative nature of these
experiments. New discoveries are always like that. The 1903 Wright Flyer
barely got off the ground, and I believe it cracked a landing skid when
it came down. But the *essence* of the experiment was a brilliant success.
 
The Utah money was well spent. The U.S. Congress should fund CF, at a
moderate, exploratory budget, of $10 million or so. Because it refuses to do
so, Japan will soon have a hammerlock on this vital new technology, as it has
on so many other new, good ideas. This will cause terrible, unnecessary
economic suffering in the U.S. You, and your children, and your children's
children will be poorer, and will have fewer opportunities than they might
have had, because our leaders and industrialists refuse to try new ideas, or
take risks, or give people like P&F a chance.
 
"Governments have been known to allocate huge sums of money on projects whose
scientific and/or technical basis has been quite questionable. Check out the
history of the Materials Testing Accelerator, or the nuclear-pumped X ray
laser..."
 
These cases are totally dissimilar. I do not know much about them, so let
me take the liberty of illustrating the difference between this type of
"mega-project," and CF, by comparing it to another well know, failed effort:
the Japanese 5th Generation Computer project.
 
When the 5th Generation project began, nobody knew whether it was possible
to achieve the goals or not. Some experts said it might go well, while others
said it was unrealistic.
 
There were various science fiction-like goals; they wanted to build a computer
that could translate natural language, or one that could simulate certain
aspects of human thinking, and do well on the Touring Test. These goals are
ambitious. They are also fuzzy; ill defined. It is very difficult to know
whether a computer is doing a good job a translating. Unless it does nearly
as well a human being, you have to ask yourself, "is this good enough?
I paid $5 million for this quality, is it good enough?" -- and that question
is very difficult to answer. I have seen some of the Japanese to English
output of translation programs from Hitachi. I think the output is remarkable,
but you would consider it useless gibberish. Unless you understand Japanese,
and know how difficult the problem is, and how bad the previous programs were,
you would think that no progress has been made, and that the entire effort
was a waste of time. So, I might say it was worth it, because I see progress,
and you might say it was a waste of money, because the product is not good
enough to sell yet, and there is no telling how much longer it will take.
Neither one of us is "right" or "wrong" -- it is a matter of opinion, and
guessing about the future. Success is not easy to judge.
 
The only way to find out whether it was really possible to build a computer
that translates, or simulates human thought is to go ahead and build one.
You cannot possibly predict, in advance, with a small-scale model, whether
such a computer is possible or not. It is like building a nuclear bomb, the
only way to know for sure that you can make one work, is to set one off, and
that takes a massive commitment from the beginning. It takes hundreds of
people, and many years, before you know whether the thing will work or not.
 
Now, let me turn to CF. There could not be stronger, starker contrast.
Here is a technology that two people actually built and proved on their own,
with $100,000! It is as if someone programmed an ordinary personal computer
to translate Japanese into English with near human-like accuracy. (This is
utterly impossible, so far as I know.) Imagine that two people built a
computer capable of handling 1,000 words, and most common grammar, and it
actually worked. Imagine they were hired by Technova, and 3 years later they
have a version capable of handling 10,000 words. If someone from Technova
wants to find out if it is working, all he has to do is stroll into the lab,
type a sentence in Japanese, and see if it comes out in English.
 
CF is even simpler than my make-believe translation program. P&F have
publicly stated that they are getting 16 times more energy out than they
put in. They say they can boil away a substantial amounts of heavy water in
20 minutes. These claims are *incredibly* simple to verify. Anyone allowed
into the lab could check them, instantly. Unlike the 5th Generation project,
the Japanese Government does not have to spend hundreds of millions first to
find out if the thing will work. They can put one man on an airplane, with
$50 worth of equipment, and he can report back the next day, either:
 
    It is true, they are putting in 10 watts and getting out 160 (or whatever
    it is; I do not know the exact numbers); or;
 
    It is not true. They are lying.
 
There is absolutely, positively, no question whatsoever about the results.
We are not talking about trying to detect a 50 millwatt difference between
input and output. We are talking about measuring some electricity in, and
then watching a test tube full of water boil away. If you want to check
the calorimetry, you put in a 10 watt resister, and wait to see if it boils
the water.
 
Doing cold fusion is difficult -- very, very difficult. But observing the
results on the scale that P&F have achieved, and verifying that these
results are correct, is trivial. Any scientist, or any automobile mechanic,
could do it. It is like going out to see the Wright Brothers fly; a
bee-keeper, or a computer programmer, is as qualified as anyone. If you
understand elementary physics, the laws concerning conservation of energy;
if you observe that a 10 watt power supply does not boil the water but a
10 watt CF device does; and you see that the thing goes on putting out heat
hour after hour, day after day -- then you know instantly that P&F are right.
There can be no question about it, the case is closed.
 
Now, I assert that is what has happened in Nice, France. I do not know it
for an absolute fact, and I do not know the details, because I was not there.
But that is more or less what I have been told (I simplified the story), and
that is more or less what the newspapers and technical journals say, and what
the Japanese Government says. Mitsubishi, Technova, and all the others are
acting precisely the way you would expect them to act if this story was true.
Unless you believe that a very brilliant group of scientists has suddenly,
inexplicably, gone stark raving crazy en mass, and are trying to destroy
themselves and their companies, you have to assume they have performed these
trivial, simple tests, and they are telling the truth.
 
The commonsense evidence, in people's actions, statements, and published
scientific reports, in newspaper articles, and statements from official
government spokesmen is overwhelming. Cold fusion is real, it does produce
massive excess heat.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  Rothwell /  Take a number please, wait in line
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Take a number please, wait in line
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 05:46:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Frank Close writes:
 
"I am sure you would not wish readers to doubt Dr Mallove's integrity by
failing to respond to this challenge even if you are unable to find time
to address the other places where I showed that certain of your own postings
have been quite inaccurate.
 
Your silence on this issue speaks volumes."
 
Gene handles your department, Frank. I do calorimetry, politics, Japan, and
the conservation of energy, which you never learned about in high school.
Would you like to mano-a-mano with me, and explain how water gets hot
but it isn't heat? I would love to hear your version of how thermometers
work.
 
Gene has a deadline to meet, and he does not have time for you right now.
Wait your turn; in good time we will blow you out of the water, with some
help from our oriental colleagues and friends.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  Rothwell /  Laws of physics
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laws of physics
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 05:46:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Paul Karol comments: "I was not aware CNF violated "known laws of physics"
as stated in Jed Rothwell's posting.  I thought CNF only violated known
mechanisms and models, but not any laws..."
 
Don't misquote me, I said "appears to violate." It is a common figure of
speech. You have expressed the same idea, in a more technically accurate
fashion. Nothing anywhere ever actually violates the laws of physics. The
problem is, we don't know for sure what those laws are, because we are not
God.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  Rothwell /  Sufficient accuracy
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sufficient accuracy
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 05:46:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Me: "Pretend that someone has handed you a multimeter and a thermometer and
said, measure the amps, volts, and temperature of that cell. Be sure you get
the temperature right to within one degree C...
 
Nod Sivad comments: "But if the multimeter and thermometer were insufficient
for the task, it wouldn't matter how careful I was. I'd still get it wrong."
 
Sorry, I should have stated more clearly what I meant:
 
The multimeter and the thermometer are definitely sufficient for the task,
because at the leading labs, the strength of the cold fusion reaction has
grown to 20 watts and beyond. Furthermore, the ratio between input and output
has increased to 1:14 and beyond, so the reaction could easily be detected and
measured with simple, relatively inaccurate tools. If you can accurately
measure the temperature within 1 deg C, and power within one watt, then you
can be certain the reaction is real. It does not require any painstaking,
heroic accuracy.
 
Alas, most of us are not "the leading labs;" we still struggle to get ratios
like 1:1.1, so people like Tom & I are back here trying to do heroic,
painstaking measurements, because we have no alternative. I am talking about
the top, leading labs, especially P&F, I do not mean just anybody.
 
To give a real example, Takahashi is inputting 1 watt, and I believe his
calibration constant in the box is 14 watts per degree. If he is getting
20 watts excess (which is what I *think* he said, but don't hold me to it),
then that would show up as a 1.4 deg temperature elevation over the
calibration point. If you do the work carefully, and you repeat the
experiment, there is no way you can overlook or mismeasure a temperature
this large. It might as well be 100 degrees, it is so certain. P&F have
much larger temperature elevations, which make it all the more easy to be
sure.
 
Two more quick clarifications here, to avoid future confusion:
 
1. Takahashi is NOT actually using a Radio Shack thermometer! He has at least
two thermocouples, one in the box, one in the flow, and of course everything
is logged on microcomputers. A R.S. thermometer would be sufficiently
accurate, but it would be a nuisance. Even an old fashioned mercury
thermometer would work.
 
2. There is no question whatsoever that the basic method of calibrating, and
then measuring against the calibration curve works. This experimental
technique is *definitely* "sufficient for the task." If you want to measure
heat between, say, 0.1 watts and a few hundred watts, this method is
foolproof. A skeptic who says otherwise ignores the last 150 years of
calorimetry.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Latest news from Takahashi
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest news from Takahashi
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 07:00:46 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920717162739_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM>,
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> Tom Droege says, "Have been trying to restrain myself, but I have to say that
> calorimetry is hard! ... The Takahashi set up is just full of possibilities to
> get it wrong... So I take the Takahashi as only an indication that there might
> be a procedure that is worth trying with a proper set up..."
 
I agree 100% with Tom. Precise calorimetry is very hard to do, and it is a
gross oversimplification to equate the precision of the heat determination with
the ability to accurately read small temperature changes with a thermometer.
If your calorimeter is a bad design with temp gradients or non linearities etc.
you are asking for trouble regardless of the resolution or accuracy of the
temperature sensors.
 
Earlier on Jed said that if the electrolysis power hasn't changed and the
cell temperature goes up that this = XS heat. Not necessarily, though. You are
assuming that the cell constant hasn't changed since the calibration. In the
calorimeters I ran there were occasional rises in del T but upon recalibration
with the heater it was clear that only the cell constant had changed - no heat
in other words.
 
> After he finally got his last experiment to turn off, Takahashi redesigned his
> box somewhat. He put in another thermocouple to measure the delta T
> temperature difference in the flow. He calibrated quite a lot, and got two
> straight lines, one for box, and one for flow. He set up another box in
> another room, which is also a live cell, not a blank, and he is running them
> both, and getting good indications of excess from both. It has not ramped up
> to the levels he saw last time, but it is still increasing. I believe he
> mentioned that it is up to around 20 watts excess during low phase, but don't
> hold me to that, I may have got it wrong.
>
> The problem with the previous experiment was that he was honestly not
> expecting heat, and he was not prepared to measure it. The main purpose of the
> thermocouple was to be sure the box did not get too hot when he put in 100
> watt during the high phase. Now, he is better prepared, with more accurate
> equipment.
 
I'm glad that Takahashi is improving his calorimeter because the original
design was not particularly impressive. But why won't he do any light water
runs?! This is the ONLY way to assess the true errors in the calorimeter,
and if he really hasn't done any, this is a serious blow to the credibility of
the experiment. I know that the effect  is so large (130% XS heat) that it is
hard to imagine anyone screwing up the heat balance so badly but you can't rule
it out. Just because a person has tenure at a good university doesn't mean that
they can't occasionally do bad experiments, particularly if it is outside there
area of expertise. I find it sobering that some of the largest claims of XS
heat in the past (e.g. by Schoessow (300%), Liaw (1500%) and (maybe) Mills
(3700%)) have all come to naught. In many ways these results are similar to the
Takahashi claim: a big effect but done with fairly rough calorimetry. The other
thing that makes me nervous is how the heat was revised down from 150% to 130%,
and now after improving the calorimeter, the XS heat seems to be lower still.
This seems to be another common problem with positive claims: the magnitude of
the effect seems to decrease over time and with increasing sophistication of
the calorimetry.
 
Anyway, I get the feeling that this claim is not going to hold up, but if the
confirmations start rolling in I'm prepared to eat my words.
 
 
- todd green
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentiq cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 / Chuck Sites /  Re: What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What we know about thermometers
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 05:43:28 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol) writes:
 
>Although I am a skeptic about CNF, I was not aware CNF violated "known
>laws of physics" as stated in Jed Rothwell's posting.  I thought CNF
>only violated known mechanisms and models, but not any laws.  Am I wrong?
 
>Paul J. Karol
>Nuclear Chemist
 
   Just to add a few words to Jed's comments. With all do respect I must
disagree with the premise that physics theory does not predict the effects
described of CNF.  The situation with the theory types is that alot of
unknowns appear during quantification that can only be resolved by experiment.
With CF, by it's controversial nature, the situation is complicated by the
politics, public opions, information availability and patents.  To the
uninitiated, CF presents a complicated theoretical playing ground.  It
spans the gambit from thermo to chemistry to solid state to nuclear
physics and then back again.  And very little of it is conventional
at this time.  (Its does not play by the hot fusion rules. Why?).
 
    Behind every experiment, there is an idea, or a theory so to say,
that leads an experimenter to do what he does so well.  Similarly
for the theorist the experimenter provides the quantitative data.
Its a symbiotic relation.  Convention says the rate of fusion by
S. Koonen is 1E-26 f/s in the PdDx system.  But this is only
derived with respect thermal and screening effects.  There has
got to be better.  Perhaps the latest from Russell is.
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com (502)-9688500
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 / Bill Vance /  Re: Good Grief! Charlie Brown, Is this "anomalous heat"?
     
Originally-From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good Grief! Charlie Brown, Is this "anomalous heat"?
Date: 19 Jul 92 10:01:02 GMT
Organization: (N.) To be organized.  But that's not important right now.....

In article <920715143620.20202c47@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ? writes:
>This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  15 July 1992
>
>Cell 4A1
>Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
>Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
>                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
>Electrolyte: 40 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD
>Charging Profile: 60 to 400 ma per sq cm saw tooth 1 hour interval
>Duration: Now charging for 6290000+ seconds (1750+ hours).
>Initial D/Pd ratio: ??? but likely >.95 see earlier posting
>Heater + Cell Power: 9.8 watts
>Cell Voltage: Presently 6 v to 3.6 v on 1 hour saw tooth
>Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, and Storms carbon fiber platinum.
>Temperature: 20 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature varies with current.
>
>Roughly three days ago, we switched to the saw tooth as the cell voltage was
>gradually increasing, a sign per P&F of a dying cell.  This involved changing
>a constant in memory.  Good old QuickBASIC is only good for so many program
>breaks and then it makes you restart.  So we had to muck around restarting
>the program and resetting all the constants.  Sorry, every possible
>combination of conditions is not written into the code.  The advantage of
>Basic is that it is not necessary to spend your life as a programmer to get
>real work done.  In spite of all this, there was no change to the calorimeter
>operation since it is independent of the program.  The program just sets DAC's
>for control and reads back values.
>
>In any case, after all this mucking around, there was 12 hours where the
>calorimeter stayed within 150 joules of of the previous trend which has been
>-30 milli-watts for the last several megaseconds.  Of course per previous
>postings, I don't really know where zero is to 150 milli-watts or so.
>
>Over the last 50 hours, the "anomalous heat" has been increasing.  First ten
>milli-watts over the trend, and most recently 50 milli-watts over the trend.
>
>Nothing like this has happened in the previous 1700 hours of this run.  There
>are many matching saw tooth periods available for comparison.  It looks to be
>significant to me.  It looks like "anomalous heat".  But there are many things
>to check.  The cell is noisy.  We must worry that as the cell noise has
>increased over time, that the power computation is no longer correct.  There
>is a lot of data where the cell "looks" just as noisy and where the balance is
>"zero" to use as a check, but this will take time.
>
>To Dick Garwin, Bill Vance and others who worry about such things, my
>oscilloscope is on.  The "noise" I talk about is slow, almost DC shifts in the
>cell voltage.  Typically a few hundred millivolts per minute.  The obvious
>thing to blame is bubble formation on the surface changing the cell
>resistance.  But I think not.  This effect is too slow.  There is a lot to be
>studied here.  I think there is some over all surface effect.
 
I don't have the posting in my news dir anymore (it expired) some time ago.
It is possible I misread or misunderstood something.  I do believe it is a
possible factor in reference to radiation sources, but you're probably right.
>
>To Bill Vance, I could see anything going on in the cell up to 200 MHz or so
>with the scope.  Very bad environment for parasitic oscillations as the
>electrolyte is naturally a very lossy medium.  I do own a grid dip meter (Ha!
>- and I am not now nor have I ever been a Radio Amateur) but have not even
>tried using it because the Q of the cell is so low.  I have not seen, nor have
>I heard of anyone seeing Gigahertz pulses.  I claim that I have been in this
>business so long that I could feel them in my bones if they were there.
>
Ok, there is still the question of the dielectric constant of the
electrolyte, purity of same in various peoples experiments etc., and how
that could affect things capacitively.  This field is still new enough that
nobody has all the factors down pat yet.  I guess the question might be "how
lossy" your electrolyte is compared to other's experiments, and how it might
be a factor.  Sea water experiments would presumable have much more mineral
content, i.e., more loss than pure water.  What constant "heavy water" or
other electrolytes might be I do not know at this time.  Perhaps someone in
sci.materials might know.  There may be factors I don't even know about that
might affect things too, but I'll leave those for someone else to "kibbitz"
about.  :-)  I think with something "new" like CF even remotely possible
factors should be checked out as nobody really knows what might be involved
yet.
 
>So there is much work to do.  At least one of you out there is now getting
>data from me.  We will try to train you as a critic.
>
>Tom Droege
 
I don't know how good a critic I might be here, but if I come up with a
question, (even a dumb one), I don't in the least feel bad about asking it
as even a dumb one can "spark" new ideas by just looking at the facts from a
new direction.  What price the muses who inspire us, eh?  Given the efficacy
of Murphy's Law, even dumb ideas pan out sometimes too.  :-)
 
I don't post here too often, but I do have an interest in following what's
going on with CF, and if I spot something that might help someone out or
"spark" a thought I'll pass it along.  I'll finish this off then, with one
final "kibbitz" :-)
 
I have noted that the people in this group in general use the group to keep
track of what's going on elsewhere (among other things), but, there is no
"central clearing house" as it were, of just who is doing what where.  What
I mean by that is that people in a company know what they are doing/not
doing, but people elsewhere don't, at least not to exacting specs,
techniques, or stuff to do/already done.  That means a lot of duplicated
effort/stuff that never gets done.  I realize people regard their "own" work
as proprietary to some extent, but most of the threads I've read here seems
to involve people actually trying to help each other accomplish CF, so a
"clearing house" of ideas and techniques might be of benifit.  Such info as
you provided at the start of this post would be relevant perhaps with the
addition of pictoral information for new configurations, special winding
techniques or whatever.  Someone new to Cf work could then find out what has
allready been done, and possibly check out info as what has yet to be tried
as well.  I know such an archive site would always be "just a little" behind
the times, but would still be of help.  Archiving listings of books and
papers etc. on CF is already being done, so this would carying it a step or
two further.
 
Keep up the good work.
--
 
bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill
 
You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbill cudfnBill cudlnVance cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 / Jim Carr /  Re: What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What we know about thermometers
Date: 19 Jul 92 19:52:54 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <920717175025_72240.1256_EHL47-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Only one thing can be measured with a thermometer: temperature. A temperature
>significantly above the calibration point for a given level of electrical
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>input can only mean one thing: excess heat. That is my *entire* point. The
 ^^^^^
>experimental results are too stark and too simple to mean anything else.
 
Therefore, the measurement with the thermometer is not the only measurement
being made.  If you believe in the reliability of the thermometer, then
perhaps you should pay more careful attention to the measurement of the
electrical power input.  As I have pointed out several times, power into
a resistor is not necessarily the same as power into an operating cell,
since the latter might lead to a more complex waveform that might or might
not lead to your power measurement being skewed.  It is my understanding
that it was a problem like this that made it so difficult to diagnose
what was going on with the Neumann energy machine.
 
This is where double blind controls can help.  A related issue is the level
of sensitivity required.  Output of 20 watts sounds like a lot, but is the
input 1 watt or 1000 watts?  The significance of possible systematic errors
and ones concern about same should be proportional to this ratio.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  Rothwell /  What Takahashi is up to
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Takahashi is up to
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 23:04:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
John Moore asks:
 
"What is Takahashi doing that is different? What is his cell configuration?
A short summary would do..."
 
Alas, it is all on paper. Takahashi and his crowd are not into E-Mail yet.
I see you have included your address, so I will send you a ton of stuff about
the experiment. It is sort of hard for me to describe without pictures, but
it uses a flat plate, 2.5 cm X 2.5 cm X 1mm, with a Pt wire wrapped around
it, which enhances even loading from both sides. The loading begins with
a one week "sawtooth" period, followed by 6 hour high-low.
 
"I hear language that implies that one could duplicate his results
trivially. I'm ready! I've got my Palladium (which I paid WAY too much
for a couple of years ago :-)"
 
I was really, really hoping it would be easy to duplicate, but after 4 months
of trying, I guess I have to say it is not. Not easy for me, anyway. Too bad.
I've got free Palladium, courtesy of the Japanese Government and Tanaka
Precious Metals Company. If anybody wants some, just contact me.
 
I suspect I know the problem. Tanaka P. M. made two runs of Pd plates. The
ones from the first run worked splendidly: Takahashi, Storms, Celani, Ikegami
and others reported excess heat. It would appear, however, that the
second run was a dud. Nobody knows why exactly, but various ideas are being
passed around and communicated back to Tanaka. I have asked them to melt down
the remaining plates and try again, which I think they will do. I am waiting
for a third run, and I will try again. This kind of coordination, monitoring,
and communication of results is essential. Unfortunately, nobody does it. I
would do a lot more of it if I had any money. (Overseas calls, and calling
two dozen researchers costs a ton.)
 
Incidentally, Takahashi himself does not know why my experiment failed. He
spent a day looking at it, and offering suggestions, but he does not know.
This is not easy, cookbook science yet. It is definitely real, but nobody
understands it yet, so it is still at the hit or miss, twiddle and fiddle
stage. MITI and the Big Guns will spend $100 mill on it, and make it into
a science. After that anyone will be able to do it -- just pay the license
fee and follow directions.
 
"I just don't have time to do experiments with a low probability of
success..."
 
I recommend you stay out of the CF game then. It is only for people who like
to flounder around in the dark, and work on totally revolutionary areas of
physics that nobody understands, or even imagined existed a few years ago.
It is for people like me, who can spend $12 grand of their own money, and who
kind of enjoy getting attacked by the Scientific American as a reward. If you
fail, you have wasted your money; if you succeed, they will drive you out
of the country like P&F; Taubes will publish articles saying you lied.
Fortunately, Mitsubishi, Technova, EPRI, and others will await you with open
arms and open pocketbooks.
 
"Where is Jed posting from? Japan?" Atlanta Georgia, with live connections
everywhere. At Your Service.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 /  Rothwell /  Yup, precision calorimetry is hard
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yup, precision calorimetry is hard
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 23:04:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Todd Green comments:
 
"I agree 100% with Tom. Precise calorimetry is very hard to do, and it is a
gross oversimplification to equate the precision of the heat determination
with  the ability to accurately read small temperature changes with a
thermometer."
 
I agree with that 200%. Make it 300%. Precise calorimetery is very hard to do.
I have been trying to do it for 4 months, and I know that as well as anybody.
Fortunately, rotten, imprecise calorimetry works fine with 1 watt in, and 20
out. 1.4 C is *not* a small temperature change. It is a gross change, and even
if it is off by 10%, it is real, for certain. P&F are getting so much heat
that you hardly need any calorimetry at all. Just throw in a resister at the
same power level, and see if it boils the water away in 20 minutes.
 
If you called the doctor and said, "my child's temperature is up to 101.6 F,"
the doctor would never respond, "oh, don't worry about that. It is an
experimental error. 1.4 C changes don't mean a thing." If the doctor *did*
say that, then you dialed the wrong number, and reached a doctor of physics,
not a medical doctor.
 
 
"If your calorimeter is a bad design with temp gradients or non linearities
etc. you are asking for trouble regardless of the resolution or accuracy of
the temperature sensors."
 
True again. Fortunately, lots of Big Guns from Big Corporations have been
in to see Takahashi and they all tell me his calorimeter is fine. The last
person to tell me that was McKubre. I am sure you will agree Mike understands
calorimetery. I have built an exact duplicate of Takahashi's cell, and I have
spent the last 4 months exploring the performance of it. I know about the
temperature gradients, non linearities, and so on. You could not measure
0.1 watt with this box; it was not designed for that. I have not measured
any excess, alas. However, I have established, beyond question, that this
box can measure 1 watt accurately, and it can measure 20 or 30 watts with
absolute assurance. Takahashi knows how to use this thing a lot better than
me.
 
By the way, he did not pull the design of the calorimeter out of a hat. He
is measuring neutrons at the same time he measures heat, which is a tricky
business, so he has had to sacrifice accuracy to keep his neutron detectors
happy.
 
 
"Earlier on Jed said that if the electrolysis power hasn't changed and the
cell temperature goes up that this = XS heat. Not necessarily, though. You are
assuming that the cell constant hasn't changed since the calibration."
 
I assume nothing of the kind, and neither does Takahashi. He made a big,
embarrassing mistake during the first run, that taught him never again to
make such assumptions. We test this stuff. We recalibrate, and recalibrate
again. We know what we are doing. My description of the experiment was
"simplified," as I clearly stated. It was not intended to be a guidebook for
the ins and outs of calorimetery, it was intended to give the readers a mental
image of the experiment.
 
 
"I'm glad that Takahashi is improving his calorimeter because the original
design was not particularly impressive. But why won't he do any light water
runs?! This is the ONLY way to assess the true errors in the calorimeter,
and if he really hasn't done any, this is a serious blow to the credibility of
the experiment."
 
I don't buy that. I do not think that blanks add to the precision of the
calorimetry. But as it happens, Ikegami is doing a blank. I am not sure
whether it is light water, or platinum. The reason we do not generally do
blanks in this business is because it takes so much time and effort to do
the real thing. I think that a blank is a good idea in the early stages, when
you are still not sure the effect is real, and you do not know how to use
the calorimeter. We spent weeks running various blanks, and it was a good
learning experience, but it did not demonstrate, or help us achieve, any
particular level of accuracy. On this side of the Pacific none of us could
possibly afford real blank experiments, and in Japan, everybody knows the
effect is real, so they do not bother with them anymore.
 
 
"I know that the effect is so large (130% XS heat) that it is hard to
imagine anyone screwing up the heat balance so badly but you can't rule it
out. Just because a person has tenure at a good university doesn't mean that
they can't occasionally do bad experiments, particularly if it is outside
their area of expertise."
 
Actually, it is 3000% XS heat, but the point is well taken. Nobody is ruling
out mistakes! Do you suppose that MITI would call in the top executives from
20 companies for a week, and would be getting ready to spend $100 mill if
they had not checked Takahashi's work? They asked various people to go over
the experiment with a fine tooth comb, to look at *every* *aspect* to make
certain there were no mistakes. They replicated it in various labs. Nobody is
relying on tenured authority! MITI would never be so stupid. They have
numbers, and they have sent in people to check. Actually though, they have
much better, stronger proof from P&F's experiments than from Takahashi's.
P&F are working for a very private, very secret organization; I do not have
the details, and even if I did, I would never post them, because nobody would
ever tell me a thing after that. The Como paper and a few other snippets of
information are enough though, it is obvious that they have solid proof.
 
The thing is, Takahashi, McKubre, Ikegami, P&F, Mallove and Rothwell are no
fools. We have all had extensive experience with the Innate Perversity of
Inanimate Objects. Every couple of weeks, Gene & I get an indication of
excess heat, or we get an indication that a black hole has appeared and it
is swallowing up joules. Gene, however, has two engineering degrees, and I
have tangled with gadgets made by Data General and Northern Telecom that
make this calorimeter of ours look like a pussycat. We know what to do with
our socalled "excess heat." We poke around, ask a few questions, measure the
flow with a cylander, instead of relying on the flowmeter, and we get to the
bottom of it. It is a corroded wire, a roached disk, silt and gunk in the
flowmeter, air bubbles in the pipes... we find it quickly enough. This is not
a difficult experiment. We are not trying to track down every milliwatt the
way Tom is. He could see a reaction 1000 times smaller than anything we could
detect; so we are hoping for a nice big reaction. Haven't seen one yet!
 
 
"The other thing that makes me nervous is how the heat was revised down from
150% to 130%, and now after improving the calorimeter, the XS heat seems to be
lower still."
 
No, no. It is building up gradually, the same way it did last time. The last
experiment ran for a month or two before reaching 30 watts. These two just
started. The revision down was made during the middle of the last run. There
was an involved reason for it, too long to hash out here. The important point
is, he found the mistake, he fixed it, he felt embarrased and chastised, and
he got darn carefull. The excess heat continued after that.
 
 
"This seems to be another common problem with positive claims: the magnitude of
the effect seems to decrease over time and with increasing sophistication of
the calorimetry."
 
Nope. Not at all. Ikegami did not even see any heat until he installed his
delux calorimeter this spring. McKubre has the second best calorimeter in the
world (Tom is # 1), and he has been getting more and more heat. The effect
does fade out over time, unless you know how to promote it, but those who know
how to promote it are keeping their mouths shut.
 
There is a social or political aspect to this that you scientist types have
trouble grasping. I am from the Private Sector, so I am used to it. Basically
the rule is: the more success you achieve, the less you talk about it.
P&F will not say a word about the details; they can't! When he was at MIT, F.
was roundly critisized for that. Face it guys: IBM does not tell you about
their next generation of hard disks; Hitachi does not publish the details of
their chip manufacturing techniques, and it will not tell you how it
manufactures HTSC materials. Technova is not playing by your rules; CF is
a trade secret.
 
 
"Anyway, I get the feeling that this claim is not going to hold up, but if the
confirmations start rolling in I'm prepared to eat my words."
 
Confirmations of this particular technique have already rolled in, but they
are informal, with strings attached, in case the workers feel like yanking
them back. This stuff takes time, as I am sure you know. But believe me,
MITI would not be publishing stuff on the front page of the newspapers if
they did not have plenty of proof. McKubre and P&F proved this stuff years
ago. What more do you need?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / John Logajan /  Films and surface effects
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Films and surface effects
Date: 20 Jul 92 00:27:54 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>I think it is some sort of surface film which forms then tears away in
>one big piece.  Vigorous bubbling inhibits the formation, while low
>currents allow peaceful formation.
>
>It is hard to tell, but it looks like the "anomalous heat" comes during the
>steady periods of low cell voltage.  i.e. we have a thin steady surface film.
 
Ying also described a quick onset time (no reference to months of loading
D into Pd) and the need for a "rejuvination" by reverse current for 10 seconds
after a few hours of "heat".
 
Tom's speculation about a surface film being associated with "heat" and just
the general Ying shallow penetrating alpha source idea points to a very near
surface effect.
 
It's hard, however, to tie Tom's film to Ying's results, since the electrolyte
used by Ying has not been disclosed on the net.  His press release merely
mentioned Pd and Pt electrodes in a bath of D2O.  That would actually be a
fairly high resistive electrolyte, so one would presume there is something
else in the electrolyte.
 
If we are actually dealing with films, it is probably pretty important to
know what the film is made of, and hence the electrolyte used by Ying.
 
On the other hand, there is an effect I noticed when I was idly playing with
a Mills cell.  If I manually momentarily closed then opened the circuit,
making contact for a fraction of a second, bubbles (of Oxygen, I presume)
would float up from the Pt electrode, but almost no bubbles (of Hydrogen,
I presume) would float up from the Ni (or Ti) electrode.  Where did the
Hydrogen go???
 
If I held the circuit closed for slightly longer, still a fraction of a
second, then the Hydrogen bubbles would appear.  Why the onset delay???
 
I don't have a pulse generator, so I haven't been able to study this
transient phenomena further.  I also don't know if it relates at all to this
"film" business, but I thought I'd mention it.
 
-- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: What we know about thermometers
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What we know about thermometers
Date: 19 Jul 92 23:44:40 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920717175025_72240.1256_EHL47-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> DB comments: "Look, mate, we all know about thermometers and know how good
> they are, and I don't doubt that the Japanese can read one as well as anyone
> else. You evade the issue with all this verbiage, the issue being, just what
> was being measured?"
>
> Do we really all know about thermometers? Think carefully about that. I am
> serious. What exactly does it mean when the water gets hot? I assert that it
> can only mean one possible thing. If you know of something else, please list
> it, don't evade the point.
 
Jed, you write as if we are schoolchildren, and we are not. Yes, Teacher, if
something gets hot, there must have been heat to make it hot, we understand.
What is at issue here is the actual results; we'd like to see them. I have no
confidence in conference talks, many of these go down the gurgler. If they get
published, there is a bit more guarantee that the researchers went ahead with
it and are sure about it. I have not been convinced that there is no
experimental error. This was claimed about the Liaw+ results, too - the effect
is so large it has to be real. Then, when I read the paper, the "so large"
shrank considerably, being just a funny way to calculate it; since then, we've
heard nothing so that must have fizzled,, or they found an error.
I admit that the fact that this MITI (which I had never heard of before, but I
take you on trust that it is a respectable body) has given $1E08 means that
some presumably hard-nosed people have decided cnf is a goer, and we have to
be alert from now on. Certainly, I'll be watching for scientific papers from
Japan.
Jed, the word "skeptic" means to me about the same as agnostic; I am not
willing to accept what any breathless messenger tells me to believe in, just
because he/she wants to believe it so badly. I need evidence. Now don't go and
tell me again about heat making water hot, and thermometers; that is not
evidence. On the other hand, if that messenger brings me good solid evidence,
I will of course accept it. I can't help laying some odds, though. The whole
CNF story smells of a grand and fond delusion and my odds are that that is
what it is. Prove me wrong. when you write
> 1. It exists.
>
> 2. It is not a chemical reaction, because it puts out more heat than any
> possible chemical reaction.
you are simply telling us your beliefs, this proves nothing.
 
By the way, how do you know so much about cavemen? How do you know they could
light fires in the rain? My guess is they huddled miserably when it rained and
hoped it would stop soon, so that they could light a fire again.
 
Dieter Britz alias db@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ----------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 23:49:56 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920717163351.23c00256@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
writes
 
> While many of you have told me that you enjoy my posts, apparently you
> read them while enjoying Murphy Brown with your friend Dan Quale.  In
> other words, with your brains turned off and your memory disconnected.
>
> Isn't anyone going to ask if any change was made to the experiment
> recently?
 
I don't know what a Murphy Brown is but I'll be the first to bite:
What changes have you made, Tom, to start getting excess (?) heat again?
 
Dieter Britz, alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 
PS: I'll have a look at your other questions, e.g. sampling etc,  tonight (have
to work, too, you know). db
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Anomalous Heat
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anomalous Heat
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:58:14 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920717134811.23c00256@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
writes:
> Trying to Make it Go Away
> The cell voltage is constant for a while, then ramps up at a near constant
> rate to a higher value.  It then suddenly drops to the low value.  Typical
> periods for the present cell are 3 minutes constant, and two minutes ramping
> up.  Voltage change is of order 200 millivolts on a 5 volt base.
>
>>From other measurements, it is reasonably certain that the voltage change is
> caused by a cell impedance change.  There is a current spike at the drop at
> the end of the ramp when the constant current servo does not react fast
> enough.  Everything is in the right direction to be caused by bubbles.  But I
> think not.  I think it is a whole surface effect as it is too slow to be
> bubbles.  Further, if anything the pulse rate is faster at lower currents,
> completely wrong for bubbles.  I think it is some sort of surface film which
> forms then tears away in one big piece.  Vigorous bubbling inhibits the
> formation, while low currents allow peaceful formation.  But just a wild
> guess.  Have any of you electrochemists observed this sort of cell operation?
 
Well, sessile bubbles just might cause stagnant volumes near the surfaces and
who knows what surface films. Generally, bubble formation (if the bubbles let
go) is one of the most efficient ways of stirring.
Cell voltage can be affected by (1) a change in the electrochemical properties
at the interface; i.e. a change in the current/overvoltage (i/E) relationship,
due to, e.g. film formation. Bubbles can do it, too, simply by reducing the
area of bare metal, so "current density" becomes apparent cd. (2) and less
important, I feel, is electrolyte conductance. Some part of the overall cell
voltage is the iR drop in the electrolyte between the working electrode and
either the reference electrode (for a 3-electrode, potentiostatic setup) or the
counter electrode (which is normal, I'd say, for cnf electrolysis, using
controlled current). This, I feel, is going to change a bit but not suddenly. A
relatively sudden change is most likely to be a surface film. (3) Cell
temperature affects electrolyte conductance AND the i/E relation. Again, this
is likely to be a slowish effect, not sudden. I'd say that effect (1) is the
most important, due to gunk formation. These long electrolyses are unusual,
you know, and even some Pt, dissolved from the anode, has time to wander across
and deposit - along with any other impurity such as stuff dissolved out of the
glass walls etc. I shudder to think of it.
 Aliasing has not much to do with power calculation, you're right there, it
affects a power spectrum if you want that, which you don't. However, if you
should be so unlucky that you get large swings in i*E in between sampling,
you could be missing out on some power; this, I feel, is also very unlikely.
 High frequency oscillations keep raising their ugly heads; I have said before
that you can forget these. Your constant current gadget is not likely to
generate them, or to allow them in a cell that is trying to force them by
virtue of nonlinearities.
All in all, I think you have it about right, instrumentationally.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  $50, or $1E08; or: How many schoolchildren?
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: $50, or $1E08; or: How many schoolchildren?
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 08:11:00 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

Jed,
I haven't the time right now to collect your various statementns, for proper
quotes but you and the other netters will remember what I am commenting on. You
say in one posting that $50 and a schoolchild is all you need to demonstrate
the reality of CNF. OK, spend that $50, find that schoolchild, do it and write
a real paper, so we find out what all this is about.
 
However, on the other hand, MITI is spending a lot more. How many school
children are they going to hire? Just kidding, you know, we scientists
sometimes make jokes. Still, there does seem to be a contradiction there. OK,
you say MITI is going to get a real reactor, and that needs development. I
take the point - before you make it. Still... why did the NCFI need so much
money? It wasn't ALL spent on lawyers' fees, was it?
 
Somewhere you tell us that McKubre is still getting excess heat. This is
interesting: are you telling us that SRI has restarted that experiment??? I
thought they were still deciding whether or not. Tell us more - or is that
exaggeration on your part? Just asking, "really wanting to know", as Eeyore
said.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Films and surface effects
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Films and surface effects
Date: 20 Jul 92 12:26:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <9207200027.AA06057@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
 
>On the other hand, there is an effect I noticed when I was idly playing with
>a Mills cell.  If I manually momentarily closed then opened the circuit,
>making contact for a fraction of a second, bubbles (of Oxygen, I presume)
>would float up from the Pt electrode, but almost no bubbles (of Hydrogen,
>I presume) would float up from the Ni (or Ti) electrode.  Where did the
>Hydrogen go???
>
>If I held the circuit closed for slightly longer, still a fraction of a
>second, then the Hydrogen bubbles would appear.  Why the onset delay???
>
>I don't have a pulse generator, so I haven't been able to study this
>transient phenomena further.  I also don't know if it relates at all to this
>"film" business, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
>-- John Logajan
 
It most likely has to do with different solubility of H2 and O2 in the
the electrolyte.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 /  Rothwell /  A tiny spark
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A tiny spark
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:26:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
DB has answered my question:
 
"Jed, you write as if we are schoolchildren, and we are not. Yes, Teacher, if
something gets hot, there must have been heat to make it hot, we understand.
What is at issue here is the actual results; we'd like to see them..."
 
In short, he does not understand how thermometers work. He asserts that the
finest scientists in the Japanese government are incapable of telling the
difference between 1 watt of heat and 30 watts of heat. A schoolchild would
know better.
 
DB asserts that he does not believe that MITI, P&F, and McKubre cannot
perform a simple experiment that *any* *scientist* could have performed with
absolute confidence in 1880. Why? Because these results have not appeared in
the so-called peer reviewed literature.
 
MITI, P&F, McKubre and others cannot, and will not publish, because they are
working for money, in private industry, and they would cutting their own
throats publishing the details. Takahashi published his heat results already,
I listed the publication, I don't have it with me at the moment. Lots of
other people have published heat results. For the rest, you are simply going
to have to settle for the accounts published in the Japanese Edition of
Scientific American, in the Nikkei Superconductor Newsletter, and elsewhere.
If you choose to ignore these sources because they lack the virginal purity
of peer reviewed papers, then you miss the show.
 
"By the way, how do you know so much about cavemen? How do you know they could
light fires in the rain? My guess is they huddled miserably when it rained and
hoped it would stop soon, so that they could light a fire again."
 
Your guess is wrong. I know several anthropologists who have lived and worked
amoung primitive people in various climates. Such people are experts at
survival skills. Even small children among them can quickly start a fire with
a tiny spark, where one of us could not do it with a whole can of lighter
fluid.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Jon Webb /  Re: A tiny spark
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A tiny spark
Date: 20 Jul 92 16:21:51 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <920720060600_72240.1256_EHL27-1@CompuServe.COM>
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
   MITI, P&F, McKubre and others cannot, and will not publish, because they are
   working for money, in private industry, and they would cutting their own
   throats publishing the details.
 
I don't believe this.  First, this might be true if they were doing
development work, having worked out the theory and practice of cold
fusion, and now merely optimizing performance; surely they'd want to
hold off on publication until their work was fully protected by
patent, and even then they might want to leave out some trade secrets.
But cold fusion has not advanced to this point.  Reliable cold fusion
experiments do not exist.  There is no predictive theory.  If they
have found a way of reproducing the effect, it would behoove them to
publish if only to get more people trying to develop a theory that
could help them.
 
Second, you're contradicting yourself.  You claim that they have
"published" in lots of places, like Japanese Scientific American, and
they're clearly willing to share their techniques with other
researchers, for example Takahashi telling you how to build a cold
fusion cell.  But they won't publish in journals.
 
The real reason they haven't published in journals is quite simple:
all they have so far is incoherent, irreproducible results.  It's the
same story for cold fusion research everywhere else.  There seems to
be some evidence *something* is going on, but when you look closer it
goes away.  They've managed to get a handful of experiments going, and
a lot of experiments under identical conditions that don't work.  They
have no idea why it sometimes seems to work and sometimes not.  They
can't publish in a journal because they know their work so far
wouldn't stand up to the criticism of their skeptical colleagues.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 /  Rothwell /  A thought experiment, not every detail
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A thought experiment, not every detail
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 17:26:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
J. A. Carr comments:
 
"The measurement with the thermometer is not the only measurement being made.
If you believe in the reliability of the thermometer, then perhaps you should
pay more careful attention to the measurement of the electrical power
input..."
 
Right, right. We all understand that incoming power is critical. I spent a ton
of money on good quality, used power supplies. As I mentioned, from time to
time we see false indications of excess heat, and we always check the power
supplies, first thing.
 
As I said, I was not presenting a detailed look at every aspect of the
experiment. If you look at the length of my postings now, you will be thankful
that I don't start railing on about power in, flow rates, bubbles in the hose,
thermal gradients, fluctuations in the incoming temperature, the effect of
changes in ambient temperature and humidity, the effect of power spikes and
brownouts, and on, and on. All of these things do play a role, that I am
painfully aware of. The thermometer is not the only instrument involved with a
flow calorimetry. I focused on it in a simplified "thought experiment" because
I would like the skeptics to try to come to grips with the innate simplicity
of these experiments. Just assume that we experimentalists, who spring from a
long line of HO railroad hobbyists, can deal with the bubbles in the hose and
all the rest of it. I assure you, we can; it is not very difficult. So, the
skeptics should meditate on the meaning of this info I just got from
Takahashi:
 
Before the latest run, Takahashi calibrated 9 points with electrolysis, for
one hour per step: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 amps. This gave him two very
nice straight curves which show that a one watt input in Takahashi's cell
should cause a 0.17 deg C rise in temperature in the box, and a 0.007 deg C
rise in the flow. That is exactly what the happened during the first week of
the run; each watt in caused the temperature to go up the predicted amount. By
6/18/92, the temperature during the 1 watt, low phase was up about 0.68 C
hotter than it should have been; and during 53 watt high phase input, it was
1.36 C hotter that it should have been; indicating 3-5 watts excess on the
low, 5-10 on the high. By 7/10/92 it was up to 20 watts on the low (I don't
know about the high).
 
A very simple experiment...  This one is a lot clearer and more dramatic than
most, but you skeptics should face reality: *hundreds* of other
experimentalists have observed this, albeit at lower levels. HUNDREDS. Many of
them are using even simpler "static" calorimeters which are even less finicky
than these flow calorimeters, and less susceptible to oddball errors. I think
the ball is in your court; if you really believe a temperature significantly
above the calibration point is a systematic experimental error, that hundreds
of workers have made, you should explain exactly what that error is. How could
this error have escaped our notice when calorimetry has survived and become
ever more accurate for 150 years? Why, 1989, did calorimetry suddenly become
subject to errors as large as 3000%, when Joule himself, back in 1847, could
reliably measure the heat added to the water in a stream by a "scenic
waterfall" (on his honeymoon, no less).
 
I see you have taken a shot at explaining the error:
 
"As I have pointed out several times, power into a resistor is not necessarily
the same as power into an operating cell, since the latter might lead to a
more complex waveform that might or might not lead to your power measurement
being skewed.  It is my understanding that it was a problem like this that
made it so difficult to diagnose what was going on with the Neumann energy
machine."
 
How skewed? Does a simple 6 hour high-low waveform routinely get 20% off, or
3000% off? Slightly skewed will not cut the mustard. After 6 months in
Takahashi's lab, don't you think somebody would have noticed the power
supplies were drawing 30 watts instead of 1 watt? In our setup, we see the AC
power, we see the settings on the DC power, we go in from time to time and
measure amps and volts, and of course, we have two computers recording
everything, so we would notice a drift. I absolutely guarantee that if the
power had drifted, and crept up to a level 30 times greater than it should be,
we would notice! So would Takahashi, McKubre, P&F or anybody else still in
this business after 3 years.
 
I do not know what this Neumann machine was, but did it ever appear to put out
20 or 30 times more energy than it consumed? We are not talking about some
subtle 0.02% gain here, we are talking about 1400% with P&F (Spring, 1991) and
3000% with Takahashi.
 
 
"This is where double blind controls can help.  A related issue is the level
of sensitivity required.  Output of 20 watts sounds like a lot, but is the
input 1 watt or 1000 watts?"
 
1 watt. 0.17 amps, 3 volts, for 6 hours. High phase is 4.0 amps, 12 to 13.3
volts, for 6 hours.
 
A "blind" control is nearly impossible and impractical, if by that you mean a
situation where the researcher does not know whether it is Pd or Pt, or heavy
or light water. It would be dangerous, too. Everyone in the lab must know full
details about the cells they are working with, because these things can be
unpredictable and dangerous; Takahashi's started boiling with only 100 watts
in; McKubre's exploded; and others have told me they have minor recombination
explosions "every month or so."
 
A regular, blank control experiment would be nice but it is a luxury few of us
can afford. Please try to imagine what it would be like running an experiment
like this in your basement, and paying for everything out of a middle class
income. These wild suggestions about running a blank, or trying this, or
trying that, are completely out of the question. We can barely afford to run
what we have, and we work far into the night trying to analyze results (since
we have other jobs during the day). That any of us manages to get any coherent
results at all -- like a clear zero in my case -- is a testimony to our
abilities, if I do say so myself. It is also a testimony to our dogged
persistence in the face of unending ridicule, attack, foolish bigotry,
officially sanctioned harrassment, and zero funding.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / John Logajan /  Ed Manning tells all
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ed Manning tells all
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:49:47 GMT

Ed Manning sent this to me instead of posting it, and then asked me
to repost it.  What follows is from Ed Manning, and not from me.
Thanks.
 
 
MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
 
In article <9207200027.AA06057@sleepy.network.com> on
20 Jul 92 00:27:54 GMT you write:
 
>
>Tom Droege writes:
>>I think it is some sort of surface film which forms then tears away in
>
(deletions)
 
>Ying also described a quick onset time (no reference to months of loading
>
 
This area is obscure in reports out of Orlando.  My understanding is that
that there is a "short" loading period (i.e. presumably loading period for
in that period there is no temperature rise).  What is short? I have heard
figures like 100 seconds up to "a few minutes."
 
 
>Tom's speculation about a surface film being associated with "heat" and just
>the general Ying shallow penetrating alpha source idea points to a very near
>surface effect.
>
>It's hard, however, to tie Tom's film to Ying's results, since the electrolyte
>used by Ying has not been disclosed on the net.  His press release merely
>mentioned Pd and Pt electrodes in a bath of D2O.  That would actually be a
>fairly high resistive electrolyte, so one would presume there is something
>else in the electrolyte.
>
>If we are actually dealing with films, it is probably pretty important to
>know what the film is made of, and hence the electrolyte used by Ying.
>
>-- John Logajan
 
     There was some ambiguity about what brew Ying was using, but it has been
cleared up.  He used only D2O.  Initial experiments were run with "old" D2O
meaning that the presumably pure stuff came out of a bottle that had been
previously opened.  Suspecting (I infer) that he might be using less than
"200 proof" material, he opened a sealed bottle of D2O and characterizes that
as "new" D2O.
 
     I have another post that is hung up in this vershlugginer program that
I use until I can get operator help to unplug it, in which I transcribe
Ying's July 6 rewrite of his first document (Doc. #2 in my earlier post).
In it I observe that nobody wants to fool around with an ongoing experi-
mental cell because of the problem of replication. But once you cross
over into Valhalla and you get replication, then is the time to try
other things.  Apparently that hasn't happened yet.  On a typical Ying
Cell run, I wonder what the starting pH (or rather pD) is? And the pD
throughout the run?  Suppose they started to add microdrops of D2SO4 or
LiOD during the course of the run after they hit their temperature
plateau...what would happen?  What would happen to the temp is they
added just plain water? On and on ad nauseam.
 
Ed Manning
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 /  /  Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:38:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell, if you would write shorter messages I would read them more
carefully.
 
Briefly, there is a big difference between a calibration resistor in an
open calorimeter, and a cell which bubbles and causes the electrolyte
level to change.  Don't know how one can be used to calibrate the other
with much accuracy.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 /  /  News
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:38:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Bishop of the Wall Street Journal called this morning.  He had heard
that I had confirmed Takahashi.  I said that my results were provocative,
but far from a conformation.
 
Bishop said that McKubre had completed the paper work associated with the
death of Andrew Riley and that he was back to work!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Thomas Edwards /  Re: CF not a mega-project
     
Originally-From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF not a mega-project
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:38:42 GMT
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <920718191457_72240.1256_EHL5-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>CF is even simpler than my make-believe translation program. P&F have
>publicly stated that they are getting 16 times more energy out than they
>put in. They say they can boil away a substantial amounts of heavy water in
>20 minutes. These claims are *incredibly* simple to verify. Anyone allowed
>into the lab could check them, instantly.
 
Yeah, but who's been there?
 
>Doing cold fusion is difficult -- very, very difficult. But observing the
>results on the scale that P&F have achieved, and verifying that these
>results are correct, is trivial. Any scientist, or any automobile mechanic,
>could do it. It is like going out to see the Wright Brothers fly; a
>bee-keeper, or a computer programmer, is as qualified as anyone.
 
Interestingly enough, it did take many years for most people to believe that
the Wright Brothers actually flew a heavier than air craft.  Sci. Am.
I believe was particularly sceptical.
 
-Thomas
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentedwards cudfnThomas cudlnEdwards cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Allan Duncan /  Re: Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:34:44 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <1992Jul20.094956.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by
 medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz):
..
> I don't know what a Murphy Brown is but I'll be the first to bite:
 
Is this supposed to be satirical, or has the iron dust got to you :-)
Maybe you are one of those fortunate souls w/o a telly, and don't read
the trivia in the press regarding the terrible morals of TV characters.
Allan Duncan	ACSnet	 a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708	Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
		UUCP	 {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / Wayne Harvey /  Possible new cell design?
     
Originally-From: wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Wayne Harvey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Possible new cell design?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 00:16:31 GMT
Organization: Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

 
 
I have been following developments in this feild for a while as an interested
 observer, and I have developed what could be a new cell design with
 possibilities. I have neither the time, resources nor background to persue it
 further, so I would appreciate any comments, even if it is to tell me to go
 away.
 
Current cell designs seem to be small cyclotrons or accellerators of some
 description, which move clusters of deuterons and triterons around a lump of
 palladium. This is a modification of that design.
 
1. Construct ion accelerators (cf. electron guns) that direct streams of
 dueterons at a palladium target, arranged to point from all 6 directions.
2. Encase the target in a spherical magnetic field, created by coil windings in
 the shape of the seam on a tennis ball. This will prevent some (if not all) the
 dueterons from escaping the target when the target becomes saturated.
3. Pump microwave or similar radiation at the target to excite the clustered
 dueterons. Another possibility here is to oscillate the containment feild at a
 high frequency, or perhaps a combination of both.
4. Then, hopefully, we will get something interesting happening. Who knows, it
 might even blow up the laboratory!
 
The idea behind this is to supersaturate the target, then excite it enough to
 hopefully fuse some dueterons and hence get some energy back. It may be
 necessary to encase the target in some container such as quartz and inject the
 fuel through the container, or to make the target itself of a solid core with
 'air' holes to allow some gases to escape. However, these are just variations
 on a theme, and that is what experimentation is for.
 
A bit about me: I studied (most of) a Bachelor of Science in Physics at Griffith
 Uni, and now I am back doing something completely different. I have design
 ideas like this often, but I never have enough money etc to do anything about
 them. Hence, I give it to you to examine and comment upon. And if it works,
 just mentioning my name in the reports will be sufficient. Please contact me
 with regards to this if you wish.
 
 
 
 
 
--
______________________________________________________________________________
         				'You live and learn,
					 or you don't live long.'
Wayne Harvey 					Robert Heinlien.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwharvey cudfnWayne cudlnHarvey cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  /  The Takahashi Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Takahashi Experiment
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:40:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Interpreting the Takahashi chart recordings.
 
I have several versions of Takahashi data nicely provided by Jed Rothwell.
Takahashi estimates the power generated based on a "steady state" calibration.
This discussion is limited to his experiment 115 where he calibrated with a 50
and 100 watt heater which gave a 14.3 watts per C calorimeter constant.  I
find that there is an additional piece of information in the raw data curves
provided by Rothwell, and also available in a later version in the copies of
the MIT talk view graphs.
 
This information is contained in the temperature time constant as the
experiment is switched between low current and high current.
 
To make sense of this, we have to have some kind of model for the Takahashi
cell.  A very crude one is to consider it a "conduction calorimeter" where the
temperature difference exists a small distance around the cooling coils.  We
thus assume the bulk of the electrolyte is at some heated temperature, and the
cooling coils are at some fixed low temperature (20 C).  The resistance
measured between them by Takahashi is 0.07 C per watt.  This is not a very
good model, someone who likes this sort of thing do better!  But I think that
convection is critical and almost impossible to model.
 
To use the simple model we consider the water fill heated to some temperature
above the cooling coil value.  When the power is turned off, it relaxes to the
cooling coil temperature, and the low current input power can be neglected.
The initial rate of change of temperature is determined by the thermal
capacity and the thermal resistance.  Likewise, when the power is increased,
we assume that the loss of heat at the low temperature to the cooling coil is
small, and most of the input power goes into heating the water.  The time
constant seen is then simply determined by the water thermal capacity and the
input power.
 
Takahashi refills the calorimeter when the water level drops to 450 cc to 700
cc.  We will take an average "fill" of 575 cc.  I also assume that the
specific heat of the water fill is the dominant thermal component.
 
When the calorimeter is switched from high current to low current, I estimate
from the Takahashi chart recordings (Exp. 115 - 34 sweep) that the initial
rate of change of the temperature is 34 C per hour, or 0.0094 C per second.
Using the average fill:
 
(575 cc)*(1 cal/C cc)*(4.1 joules/cal)*(0.0094 C/second) = 22.1 watts
 
I assume the thermometer reads correctly, and it was reading 33.5 C at the
time the switch to low current was made.  The computed calorimeter constant is
now (33.5 - 20 C)/22.1 watts or 0.61 C per watt!  Nine times Takahashi's
value.  Why?  I think the stirring changes drastically as the current is shut
down.  This causes the conduction calorimeter resistance to increase.  Note
that we can neglect the low power input (1.2 watts) compared to the conduction
cooling.  Using this calorimeter constant, and the input power of 1.2 watts
gives a temperature rise of 1.2*0.61 = 0.7 C, nearly the value shown on
the "corrected" view graph of the MIT talk.
 
Next the low to high current switch is considered.  I estimate from the chart
recordings that the initial rate of change of temperature is 140 C per hour,
or 0.039 C per second.  Again using the average fill:
 
(575 cc)*(1 cal/C cc)*(4.1 joules /cal)*(0.039 C/second) = 91.9 watts.
 
This is very near the listed input power of 92 watts.  Here we can neglect the
conduction part of the calorimeter, since at the low power delta t is low and
all the input energy goes into heating the cell contents.
 
Those of you that look at the chart labeled Exp. 115 - 34 sweep will wonder
how I came up with rise and fall times.  They are my best estimate.  You make
yours.  We can wonder how the transient and steady state calorimeter constants
are so different.  I think it is due to the location of the calibration
resistor.  One can imagine that with a calibration resistor, and looking at
the drawing of the cell, that a big convection loop forms, up over the
resistor and down through the cooling coil and past the thermocouple.  Since
the thermocouple would see freshly cooled liquid, it would read low, and thus
give a lower C/watt constant.  With the cell in place, the wound structure
might encourage local convection loops to form, which might include the
thermocouple and thus give the higher calorimeter constants indicated by the
transient analysis.
 
In any case, after thinking about the convection loops which might form, I am
lead to completely mistrust the Takahashi calibration.  Please note that I do
not claim that the thermocouple gives any better measure of what is going on
in the transient analysis than in the steady state.  Both are likely trash.
But using the same data, I can come to a different conclusion.  So a good
experiment needs to be done.
 
******************************************************************************
I conclude that the chart recording labeled Exp. 115 - 34 sweep, and which
Takahashi labels with excess heats of 150 watts at high current and 71 watts
at low current is consistent by thermal transient analysis with a null
experiment.
******************************************************************************
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  Rothwell /  You do get it, don't you?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: You do get it, don't you?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:40:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter,
 
Look, do you really not understand this, or are you just pulling my leg?
 
It is hard to make cell, but -- if you do manage to make a good one  --
 
It is easy to see that it is working. Dead Simple, Damn It!
 
 
Let's go over this one last time:
 
It is very, very, difficult to build a cold fusion cell. The best
scientists in the world would have to struggle for months to make one
work. I have struggled for months and got nowhere, and I know some very
talented people who have been working on it for three years and have
nothing to show for their efforts. Making a CF cell in 1992 is exactly
like trying to make a semiconductor in 1949, when they were so difficult
to make that many conservative "skeptics" proclaimed they did not exist.
 
However, if you can make a cell that works really well, like P&F,
McKubre, or Takahashi, or Mizuno (once), then anyone with an ounce of
sense can see that the thing is working.
 
Yes, $50 worth of tools is all you need to measure 1 watt in. Yes, a
thermometer will work fine to measure 30 watts out, (you have to
calibrate first, of course). There is absolutely nothing to it. You could
do it, I could do it, any intelligent high school kid could do it.
 
If you really do not understand this then I pity you. If you do, stop
fooling around, admit you do, and let us get on to the next topic. Skip
Murphy Brown, too, and let us not get into "you say potato, I say
potatoe."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  Rothwell /  Public & Private Research Rules Differen
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Public & Private Research Rules Differen
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:41:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Me: "MITI, P&F, McKubre and others cannot, and will not publish, because they
are working for money, in private industry, and they would cutting their own
throats publishing the details."
 
Jon Webb: "I don't believe this.  First, this might be true if they were doing
development work, having worked out the theory and practice of cold fusion,
and now merely optimizing performance...
 
Nobody on earth has done that yet! Don't be silly.
 
Jon: "Surely they'd want to hold off on publication until their work was fully
protected by patent, and even then they might want to leave out some trade
secrets. But cold fusion has not advanced to this point.  Reliable cold fusion
experiments do not exist.  There is no predictive theory.  If they have found
a way of reproducing the effect, it would behoove them to publish if only to
get more people trying to develop a theory that could help them..."
 
B.S.! I bet you have never worked for private industry. IBM or Hitachi would
not tell one word to anybody about a project like this. They do not tell
anybody about their HTSC products, or new computer chips, until the products
are ready to demonstrate. (Unless they have to leak to kill a small
competitor, which is a special case).
 
Technova is connected to Hitachi, MITI, Japan National Railways, EPRI and
dozens of other of the world's most powerful and successful corporations.
Their board of scientific advisors includes a dozen top U.S. scientists from
All The Right Places. They do not need any help from anyone! It behooves them
to keep their mouth shut, and figure it out themselves. Frankly, I am amazed
they leaked anything about it at all.
 
"Second, you're contradicting yourself.  You claim that they have "published"
in lots of places, like Japanese Scientific American, and they're clearly
willing to share their techniques with other researchers, for example
Takahashi telling you how to build a cold fusion cell.  But they won't publish
in journals..."
 
You have gotten people all mixed up! P&F and McKubre work for private
industry. Everything they do is secret. They let out a few tantalizing hints
at Como, but no details, and they do not publish in the journals.
 
Takahashi is professor at Osaka National University, Dept. Of Nuclear
Engineering. The taxpayers pay his salery, so absolutely everything he does is
public and in the public domain. He has no secrets at all, and neither do any
of the other 100+ researchers in the National Labs. He publishes whenever he
feels like it. He cannot get any patents or weath from his work (officially,
anyway). The ground rules are completely different for P&F and McKubre on one
hand, and Takahashi's crowd on the other. Don't get them mixed up.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / John Logajan /  The List
     
Originally-From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The List
Date: 20 Jul 92 22:36:43 GMT

Ed Manning, MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>My understanding is that that there is a "short" loading period (i.e.
>presumably loading period for in that period there is no temperature
>rise).  What is short? I have heard figures like 100 seconds up to
>"a few minutes."
 
>There was some ambiguity about what brew Ying was using, but it has
>been cleared up.  He used only D2O.
 
 
So here's what I think we (peons on the net) know about the Ying setup.
 
  o Uses Pd, Pt, and D20.
 
  o Uses 15 milliwatts electrical input power. (And gets about 500
    milliwatts out as heat.)
 
  o Uses one or more radioactive sources with approx 5 Mev alphas and
    1.2 Mev gammas. (Po 210 and Co 60 as rumored candidates.  Each
    deliverying less than a nano-watt of by-product "heat" per
    micro-curie.)
 
  o Electrolytically "loads" the Pd for several minutes before heat.
 
  o Reverses current every few hours for 10 seconds to "rejuvenate."
 
 
Here's what I think we don't know about Ying's setup.
 
  o The physical geometry of the anode and cathode. (Besides the
    electrolytic issues, does the Pd electrode need to be have
    the proper dimensions as a microwave anti-cavity. :-)
 
  o The "waveform" of the applied electical power.
 
  o The physical (and dynamic?) geometry of the radioactive trigger.
 
  o The "waveform" of the intensity of radioactive bombardment on the
    Pd electrode.
 
 
What have I forgotten to list?
 
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Films and surface effects
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Films and surface effects
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:50:07 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <9207200027.AA06057@sleepy.network.com>, logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
(John Logajan) writes:
> On the other hand, there is an effect I noticed when I was idly playing with
> a Mills cell.  If I manually momentarily closed then opened the circuit,
> making contact for a fraction of a second, bubbles (of Oxygen, I presume)
> would float up from the Pt electrode, but almost no bubbles (of Hydrogen,
> I presume) would float up from the Ni (or Ti) electrode.  Where did the
> Hydrogen go???
 
Nickel, like palladium, absorbs hydrogen, though not to the same extent, and
the hydrogen diffuses into it more slowly than into Pd. When you first start
a cell like the one you describe, oxygen get liberated at the anode, hydrogen
is made at the cathode (the Ni) but is absorbed into the Ni initially, forming
nickel hydride.
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  Tiny spark but mostly smoke
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tiny spark but mostly smoke
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 23:05:03 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920720060600_72240.1256_EHL27-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> DB has answered my question:
>
> "Jed, you write as if we are schoolchildren, and we are not. Yes, Teacher, if
> something gets hot, there must have been heat to make it hot, we understand.
> What is at issue here is the actual results; we'd like to see them..."
>
> In short, he does not understand how thermometers work. He asserts that the
> finest scientists in the Japanese government are incapable of telling the
> difference between 1 watt of heat and 30 watts of heat. A schoolchild would
> know better.
 
Jed, you didn't answer my questions. This stuff about how thermometers work
is a smokescreen, and I for one am getting tired of it. You evade most of the
points made, and questions asked, with this verbiage. As I say, I would like
to see the results themselves.
You then go on with
> DB asserts that he does not believe that MITI, P&F, and McKubre cannot
> perform a simple experiment that *any* *scientist* could have performed with
> absolute confidence in 1880. Why? Because these results have not appeared in
> the so-called peer reviewed literature.
Do you remember a few postings ago, Jed, when I wrote that I was AGNOSTIC?
This, as I explained then, means that I neither believe nor disbelieve. If you
(or anyone) were to show me convincing results, I would be convinced. It has
not happened yet. Why do I stay on this list? Why not get out, as I have done
with a couple of others?  If I thought that there is absolutely no chance that
there is something interesting going on under the generic name "cold fusion",
I'd stop wasting my time here. Please read the above sentence, and please, no
more about thermometers. I know a good place for you to put them, mate.
 
And by the way, with your smoke screen you evaded my question, which I put
here once again: you say McKubre is still seeing excess heat; do you mean he is
still looking at the pre-explosion results and seeing the same heat, or do you
mean he is doing new experiments and again seeing excess heat? Please clarify
this point - if you can. The reason I ask is that it looks to me as if you are
making something up here, for the reasons I mentioned in my last posting. Tell
me I am wrong, by answering the question.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.20 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: 20 Jul 92 14:11:52 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell writes:
>Pretend that someone has handed you a multimeter and a thermometer and
said,
>"measure the amps, volts, and temperature of that cell. Be sure you get the
>temperature right to within one degree C. If you get it wrong, our
government
>will loose $100 million, and you will spend the rest of your life working
at
>MacDonalds."
>
>Would you do the work carefully? Would you repeat the measurement over
again,
>to be sure you got it right? Of course you would!
 
Jed, while I agree that the DoE, academic (esp MIT) congressional, etc.
figures you point to have committed abomidable crimes against humanity
as well as engaging in the lesser crime of treason against the U.S.,
I disagree with you on at lest 2 points:
 
1)  They were guilty of these acts of treachery independent of cold fusion's
 
ultimate status.  When it comes to seeing these people hang, I couldn't
care less about whether cold fusion ultimately supports or proves wrong
their early, self-serving and politically motivated opposition to the most
modest cold fusion investigations in contrast to their deafening silence
toward the hundreds of millions of dollars per year going to the Tokamak.
That inconsistency, alone, is sufficient to justify conviction under the
Nuremberg precident not to mention a number of lesser counts of
malfeasance, corruption and high treason.  The only reason I wouldn't
include Mallove in that list is because he had the honor to resign his
position at MIT.  That doesn't make him a hero anymore than refusal to
join the Nazi party made a German citizen a hero in the 1930's.  Any
honorable person would do the same in the same situation.  On the other
hand, Hagelstein's speculative spray of cold fusion patents out of MIT,
even as MIT acted to prevent others from investigating cold fusion,
implicates Hagelstein in MIT's crimes against humanity.  At best,
Hagelstein has no honor and at worst Hagelstein has a central role
in MIT's treachery.
 
2) The whole reason we have to deal with the aforementioned situation
is that, under the policy of technosocialism (ie: government-funded
 technical accomplishment as opposed to "industrial policy" which is
 government guided incentives for privately funded technical
 accomplishment) it is simply impractical to hold people accountable
for their actions, as you seem to believe the Japanese government
is going to do via it's MITI-funded cold-fusion program.  It is no
accident that the chief advocate of technosocialism is an MIT economist.
TECHNOSOCIALISM IS THE SINGLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE POLICY BEING PURSUED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND, INDEED, THE WORLD.  It stifles humanity's
greatest gift in the one nation where it matters the most:  Innovation
in the United States.  This is what generates the negative-sum world
view with its increasing race-hatred, crime, violence and corruption.
 
Ending technosocialism will promote the positive-sum world view
and its behaviors of love of diversity, creativity, peace and justice.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / Dieter Britz /  HUNDREDS?
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HUNDREDS?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:47:41 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <920720154844_72240.1256_EHL23-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> most, but you skeptics should face reality: *hundreds* of other
> experimentalists have observed this, albeit at lower levels. HUNDREDS. Many of
 
I'll be the mug: who are these HUNDREDS? Or are you plucking facts out of the
air, Jed? Remember, I have the bibliography (and you have it too), and there
are some HUNDREDS of experimental papers alright, but not HUNDREDS of
calorimetry papers or authors. Where do you get this number from? Give us a
list of names.
 
> I see you have taken a shot at explaining the error:
>
> "As I have pointed out several times, power into a resistor is not necessarily
> the same as power into an operating cell, since the latter might lead to a
> more complex waveform that might or might not lead to your power measurement
> being skewed.  It is my understanding that it was a problem like this that
> made it so difficult to diagnose what was going on with the Neumann energy
> machine."
 
Here I must come in on Jed's side (I think it's his side). In most cells I
have read about, the current is controlled, i.e. constant for periods of time.
As long as the cell voltage then does not cross zero (and that cannot happen),
AND as long as you are not extremely unlucky and sample synchronously with
some periodicity of the cell voltage (e.g. only at the highs, or lows, of a
sine-wave shape), then the power is indeed the same as for a resistor. There
are persistent suggestions of high-frequency oscillations in the current
supply, and I persistently maintain that this is almost impossible. For
constant current and positive cell voltage, Int(i*E).dt ("Int" meaning
integral) is the same as i*Int(E).dt = i*<E>, i.e. current times the mean cell
voltage E. If there is a flaw in claims of excess heat, this is not its source.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: Murphy Brown
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Murphy Brown
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:46:34 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Sorry that this is off topic, but this amazed me and could not pass...
 
In article <1992Jul20.223444.2011@trl.oz.au> aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan
 Duncan) writes:
>From article <1992Jul20.094956.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, by
 medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz):
>...
>> I don't know what a Murphy Brown is but I'll be the first to bite:
>
>Is this supposed to be satirical, or has the iron dust got to you :-)
>Maybe you are one of those fortunate souls w/o a telly, and don't read
>the trivia in the press regarding the terrible morals of TV characters.
 
The fact that Dieter did not understand the Murphy Brown allusion, which
was stretched quite a bit to begin with, did not surprise me.  After all,
the poor fellow is down in OZ, far removed from US politics.
 
It *astounds* me that someone else in Oz knows the story (and is eagerly
awaiting the fall season premiere of the "Murphy's Revenge" episode?) of
Murphy and the illustrious Mr. J. Danforth 'my name ends in e' Quayle.
 
Replys by E-mail only, please, but you really had coverage of this?
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / Eliot Moss /  Re: Laws of physics
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laws of physics
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:24:29 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

>>>>> On 19 Jul 92 05:46:36 GMT, 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) said:
 
Jed> Paul Karol comments: "I was not aware CNF violated "known laws of physics"
Jed> as stated in Jed Rothwell's posting.  I thought CNF only violated known
Jed> mechanisms and models, but not any laws..."
 
Jed> Don't misquote me, I said "appears to violate." It is a common figure of
Jed> speech. You have expressed the same idea, in a more technically accurate
Jed> fashion. Nothing anywhere ever actually violates the laws of physics. The
Jed> problem is, we don't know for sure what those laws are, because we are not
Jed> God.
 
Of course, nothing can violate the true laws of physics, by definition. The
issue here is whether it violates the known and generally accepted laws of
physics. That is, are we dealing with a phenomenon that can be explained in
terms of known laws, even though we have yet to figure out the explanation, or
does our collection of known laws need revision to permit and explain the
phenomenon?
--
 
		J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / John Logajan /  Re: The Takahashi Experiment
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Takahashi Experiment
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:35:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>I conclude that the chart recording labeled Exp. 115 - 34 sweep, and which
>Takahashi labels with excess heats of 150 watts at high current and 71 watts
>at low current is consistent by thermal transient analysis with a null
>experiment.
 
Ouch.  What confuses me, then, is why they don't see their other null runs
(of which everyone claims many) as "excess" heat runs.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  Rothwell /  Better Experiment Now In Progress
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Better Experiment Now In Progress
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:55:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tom,
 
     I will fax your comments to Takahashi. I think you should talk to him
directly to resolve some of these doubts and questions you have raised. Your
comments are helpful, but somewhat off the mark. The good news is that he
improved his calorimetry, and he has started a second experiment.
 
     Let me ask a few questions, based upon my replication of Takahashi's
work. If his excess heat is an artifact of the convection loops and so on:
 
1. Why did it take several weeks to show up? When he calibrates, and when he
begins the high-low run, he sees no such effect. How could convection suddenly
have this effect 2 or 3 weeks into the experiment, and why does it build up
over time? The effects of convection currents must surely be the same
throughout the experiment.
 
2. Why does the heat also show up in the flow Delta-T (in the current
experiment)? Convection within the box does not affect this measurement.
 
3. Why don't I see it? My box is exactly the same as his, and I have not seen
anything like this. I have been watching four months of a rock steady
performance. I see no such elevated temperature artifact in the box
temperature. Takahashi and I both calibrated with resisters and with
electrolysis. There was no significant difference between the curves. Although
there was a larger thermal gradient with the resister, it was nothing like
what you have postulated here.
 
4. If his cell TCal varies by a factor of 9 as the water level changes, why
does mine only change 3% when I keep the water level in the range he
recommends, and 20% to 30% when I let the water level down by half (far below
what he did)? I assume, of course, that I was not getting any excess heat at
any time.
 
"This information is contained in the temperature time constant as the
experiment is switched between low current and high current... I assume the
thermometer reads correctly, and it was reading 33.5 C at the time the switch
to low current was made.  The computed calorimeter constant is now (33.5 - 20
C)/22.1 watts or 0.61 C per watt!  Nine times Takahashi's value.  Why?  I
think the stirring changes drastically as the current is shut down. This
causes the conduction calorimeter resistance to increase.  Note
that we can neglect the low power input (1.2 watts) compared to the conduction
cooling.  Using this calorimeter constant, and the input power of 1.2 watts
gives a temperature rise of 1.2*0.61 = 0.7 C..."
 
The stirring does not change drastically. When we go from 100 watts to 1 watt,
the three thermocouples in my box do not show any significant change in the
thermal gradient, or any significant horizontal temperature differences. The
temperature does not oscillate. It shows a very steady, predictable level,
hour after hour, day after day.
 
I do not follow your analysis. Let me point out though, that after the box
cools down, the TCal returns to exactly the right level. That is: in my box,
with no excess heat, the temperature goes right back to the original
calibration point TCal, and in Takashi's box, during the first weeks of the
experiment, it returns to *his* original calibrated level. So, I think you do
not understand the dynamics of the cooling. If the TCal has changed, why does
it revert back to the original level after the cell cools down?
 
I suggest that you ignore the cooling phase, because it is complicated, and
concentrate instead on hours 2 through 5 of the low phase. In my cell, and in
Takahashi's sweep 1, the cell goes back to the original TCal. In sweep 42 it
does not. Why?
 
One thing you have overlooked is that low phase input power for sweep 34 is
not 1.2 watts. It is 31 watts; 1 watt of electricity, 30 watts cold fusion.
That is the whole point. There is a lot more energy going into the cell as it
cools down than you think. I suggest you contact Takahashi and get clean,
blown up copy of sweep 1 and sweep 34 and try again.
 
Mark Hugo did an analysis of the heat loss time constant, and came up with
*exactly* the opposite conclusion from you. He looked at the slope, and the
fact that it takes 45 minutes to 1 hour for the cell to stabilize back to its
normal TCal, and from that he showed that there must be more than 1 watt going
into the cell. If there was only 1 watt, the cell would drop to 20 C in 15
minutes. We ran a few tests that seemed to confirm his analysis, but our tests
were not conclusive. I think you and Mark should get together and hash this
out. I suggest you use my data, or ask Takahashi for more.
 
"This discussion is limited to his experiment 115 where he calibrated with a
50 and 100 watt heater which gave a 14.3 watts per C calorimeter constant." In
previous experiments with same box and the very same water, but with different
cathodes, he also calibrated with additional points, as shown in figure 27: 0,
15, 45, 75, 150, 190, 240 watts. If, as you say, the TCal was 9 times lower
with 100 watts, why is this calibration line straight?
 
In the current experiment, he calibrated with 8 points, measuring the
temperature in the cell, at the cell wall outside (I believe), and in the
flow. They all line up. The TCal does not vary by even 3%, and certainly not
by 900%! Not in his cell, and not in mine; I would have noticed if it did. I
would have thought I had excess heat!
 
I think you misunderstand the dynamics of cooling, but as I *certainly* don't
understand these dynamics, I am not in a position to judge. I prefer to look
at the steady state equilibrium the cells reach after they cool down, and
compare these temperatures. I will run your analysis past Gene, Mark and
Takahashi-san, and I will post their responses.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  /  We are doing the Ying Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: We are doing the Ying Experiment
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:55:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are doing the Ying Experiment.  I have just read the letter I wrote and
can say that.  I also specified a six month time limit, but for the most
part others have revealed a lot, and some have guessed a lot.
 
We do not yet have the right stuff to do Ying, so we are doing pseudo Ying.
We are also doing something that Ying has not yet done according to Jed
Rothwell.  We are alternating periods of "Ying On" with periods of "Ying
Off".
 
I estimate that the effect of our "Yind On" device is two or three orders
of magnitude less than the specified "Ying On" device.
 
So far, we have the initial "off" period, followed by an "on", "off", and
an "on".  The two "on" periods both accumulated more heat than the two
"off" periods.  Since god has a "Ying On" device that she turns on from
time to time, it is not possible to have a true "off" period.
 
If this keeps up for a few more periods, I propose to set up a "double blind"
experiment.  I will have one of you out there tell me when to be on and off.
Then I will send data to a second who does not know the on - off sequence.
A third can then look at the two sets of data and compare them.  I should
be able to find someone at Fermilab to come by every couple of days and
seal the data disk and mail the full one.
 
The present period is 24 hours.  Not a high speed experiment, but it has
always been my belief that a very sensitive low level experiment will be
more convincing than one that blows the recreation room off my house.
 
I nominate Jim Carr to start thinking about how to set up such an experiment.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  Rothwell /  From Gene Mallove
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: From Gene Mallove
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:55:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Gene Mallove's Response to Tom Droege's posting:
 
	I think Tom has jumped to many unwarranted conclusions in his
analysis of Takahashi's initial results.  Jed has addressed many of these
incorrect conclusions in his response, with which I fully concur. But I have
a few comments of my own.
 
	Takahashi has clearly seen anomalies that we have not yet seen --
healthy indications of *temperature elevation* in his cell as a function of
time (sweep). This has nothing to do with postulated convection variations in
calibration. Both his high and low end cell temperatures rise. As long as we
can trust his thermocouple and his ambient temperature drift correction,
he's got excess heat. This is the main point of his work.  I agree that it is
better to also have a coolant loop inlet-outlet delta-T measurement, and that
is what we and he have recently been doing, with the assistance of Tom's
wonderful thermoelectric delta-T gadget. Takahashi apparently is getting
excess heat with such measurements; we have not yet seen it
unambiguously.
 
	I agree that at Takahashi's high current input there is something like
0.07 C delta-T (electrolyte-to-coolant) per input watt to the cell. And I
agree that his number would be extremely difficult and unreliable to model
because of the complexity of convective heat transfer. The problem in
Tom's analysis, however, is the comparison of this 0.07 with another
number, 0.61 C/watt, which was obtained by Tom in an entirely different
way. Tom seems to think that 0.61 C/watt contradicts 0.07 C/watt.  It
doesn't, because 0.07 is right and 0.61 is wrong.
 
	As I understand Tom's analysis, he takes the *initial* slope of the
temperature decline from Hi to Lo and measures it. I will assume that he
has measured it correctly and that it is 34 C/hour or 0.0094 C/second.  He
then uses this number multiplied by the thermal capacity of the cell (575cc)
*(1 cal/C cc) * (4.1 joules/cal) to to get an *initial* heat outflow of 22.1
watts. That may be a fine estimate of the initial heat outflow. But then
Tom's analysis breaks down when this initial slope-derived number (22.1)
is divided into the total temperature difference drop from 33.5 to 20 C.
That results in the 0.61 C per watt. But this makes no sense because the
slope of the power curve is changing throughout the 45 minutes to an hour
to reach the lo-phase equilibrium.
 
	Basically, one can't use a complex time history of temperature decay,
which may be strongly dependent on the convective heat transfer history,
to infer anything about the initial high-phase cell resistance. Dividing
(33.5-20 by 22.1) gives a meaningless number. So there is no basis, in my
view, for comparing 0.61 with 0.07.
 
	On the basis of this, in my view, bogus comparison, Tom suggests
that stirring must be changing drastically as the current is shut down. He
winds up concluding that Takahashi has not calibrated properly because of
this supposed changed stirring.  Let me point out that that Takahashi did
not calibrate with a pure resistance heater. He used a dead cathode and
calibrated with electrolysis fully under way, so his cell was always stirred
That's what he emphasized in his MIT talk. So it seems to me that on that
misunderstanding alone Tom's entire argument collapses. I do not believe
Tom's assertion that the conduction resistance of the calorimeter increases
that much when the power drops.
 
	A final point:  both the Bow, NH, experiment and Takahashi's new
one have time history data for heat outflow as the cell switches from Hi to
Lo. There is no need to do computations based on curve slopes,  we have
the raw measurements in hand.
 
- Gene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  Rothwell /  Newton's Constant Somewhere
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Newton's Constant Somewhere
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:56:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tom's D. comments:
 
"Briefly, there is a big difference between a calibration resistor in an open
calorimeter, and a cell which bubbles and causes the electrolyte level to
change.  Don't know how one can be used to calibrate the other with much
accuracy."
 
Well, it is not a big difference. I have lots of data to show it is a
moderate, predictable difference, but the point is well taken. Fleischmann and
Takahashi both suggest that it is better to calibrate with electrolysis than
with a resister. I suggest it is best to calibrate with both. It does not add
to accuracy, but it gives you a better feel for the calorimeter.
 
Regarading water levels: it is essential that you get a handle on this.
Calibrate with the highest possible water level, the lowest level, and in the
middle.
 
"Jed Rothwell, if you would write shorter messages I would read them more
carefully." Hey, I got a lot to say! I'm talkin' politics & Japan here, both
wordy subjects. Seriously, though, there have been so many misconceptions
about this business, and so many odd, incorrect ideas about basic calorimetry,
that I feel it is time to lay it out in depth. Dieter objects to my treating
the subject as if I was talking to children. You, and he, are both welcome to
chalk that up to my own ignorance of the field, and my need to explain every
point in enough detail to allow anyone to see if I have gone off the track.
 
I notice, however, that in spite of his objections, Dieter has not attempted
to explain how a simple calorimeter could be off by a factor of 30. You gave
it a good solid try, but your analysis is wrong. Keep Trying! It is a good
exercise for everybody. I don't know why you are wrong, but my data shows you
are completely off. (Having real data is a luxury; its great for people like
me who do not understand heat transfer theory. I don't *have* to understand
it, I can see right here that mixing does not change between phases, and the
TCal remains constant.)
 
Mark Hugo, by the way, tells me you forget Newton's constant somewhere.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  /  Money
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Money
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:56:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To all who have worried that I am getting ripped off by my commodities broker,
I actually don't know what I paid in commission as I don't yet have the slip.
It is a new broker for me as my regular stock broker does not handle
commodities.  I have learned not to worry about paying a little more if I can
get the right person to guide my order.  Note that I said "about $50".  I did
not assume that there would be so many commodities traders listening.  Just
trying to tell the "lambs" how the system works in general.  By the way, if
anyone out there decides to speculate in commodities, and finds a broker quick
to take your business, grab your money and run.  In each case when I have
tried to get "qualified" to do futures, it has taken several weeks to do so.
Good brokers will try to "cool you down" by being slow in taking your
application.  This even happened to me when I had done business with the firm
ten years.  They all (the good ones) tell you that no brokerage customer ever
makes money in futures.  They are right.
 
To John Moore, there are 100 oz in a Palladium contract.  Yes, there is the
chance that I might take delivery, though I still have 6 one oz Pd "coin
store" Engelhard 99.9% bars.  Last 5 bought recently at $102.  There is a big
mark up on the little bars.  They come numbered and sealed in a plastic
wrapper.  I took delivery on the last contract that I held for 1000 oz of
silver.  The bar at the moment is sitting in my band saw.  Every so often I
cut off a "slice".  Gave the "heal" away to a friend who admired it so much
that I had to present it to him.  Silver has wonderful thermal properties,
much better than copper for calorimetry.  It was a grand adventure to drive
into the Harris bank in Chicago and tell them I was there to "take delivery"
of a silver bar.  Never saw so much money in my life!
 
Jim Yegerlehner asked for my net worth to determine whether he could believe
that I was just having fun speculating in Palladium futures.  Then he proposes
mortgaging the ranch (hard to do - the government really does try to protect
us lambs) to buy more.  That would *** not *** be fun Jim.
 
I started putting money into TIAA/CREF in 1961 and have been in it ever since.
My physicist friends are quick to point out that I make more than they do, and
so after all these years TIAA/CREF is up to the point that it would return
more than I spend if I were to retire.  This gives me a wonderful sense of
freedom.  Since the children have been out of college for some time, more
money comes in than goes out.  Since "college freedom" a little speculation in
stocks like "Three Mile Island" (actually a Corp. called General Public
Utilities) bought at 4 1/2 sold at 25 has built up some "net worth".
 
I am really in this for "fun".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  /  Deuterium Absorption
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterium Absorption
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:56:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:
"If I manually closed then opened the circuit, ... bubbles ... from the Pt
(anode) ... almost no bubbles ... from the (cathode)"
 
During many runs, we have observed that fresh Pd absorbes almost *all* the
evolved Deuterium (Hydrogen).  At least 90%, possibly higher for a fresh
cathode.  This is likely true for the Ni and Ti cathodes, I have not tried
Ti.
 
I am in e-mail overload.  Too much stuff to ever answer has piled up.  If
you feel that I owe you an answer pleas bug me.  To Alex Orenshteyn, I did
not mean to put you down.  You did notice.
 
Thanks to Dieter Britz and David Cyganski for helping to think about power
computation.  I keep thinking I am doing it right, but always humble as
it is so easy to get bit.
 
Jed Rothwell sent a long rebuttal to my post on Takahashi calibration.  To
me, the high current temperature rise time better matches the actual input
power than the input power + claimed anomalous heat.  My real point is that
the calorimetry is too crude for me to believe.  Jed points out that there
is a change between sweep 1 and sweep 34.  To me, this is either because
there is a change in calorimeter constant, or there is anomalous heat.
 
Dieter, you are indeed fortunate not to recognize Murphy Brown.  I see that
news did get to Allan Duncan who is in Australia, where if I remember
correctly you also are.  I thus admire your taste in media.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / Paul Karol /  Re: Laws of physics
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laws of physics
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:37:58 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think Eliot Moss has missed the point I was trying to make.  My
understanding was that there was no known *mechanism* (pathway) to
explain cold nuclear fusion at high rates within the confines of known
laws of physics.  Laws and mechanisms are different.
"Superconductivity" needed a new mechanism (pairing) to be understood,
but no laws of physics changed.
 
The question I had raised was, does CNF (forgetting the arguable
experimental situation, please) violate any *laws* of physics?
 
PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 /  MANN@YaleVM.YC /  Re: Revised Ying Thing info
     
Originally-From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Revised Ying Thing info
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 16:10:30 EDT
Organization: Yale University

 
     On 01 July (#1688) I posted as Document #2 Dr. Ying's first
issued statement out of the OSC.  Last Saturday I received from
his office a similar statement, but sufficiently different to
deserve re-posting.  At least this new statement has a dateline.
Transcription follows:
 
Dateline:  July 6, 1992
 
Title:  COLD FUSION IN AN 'YING CELL' AND PROBABILITY ENHANCEMENT
        by BOSON STIMULATION
 
        Nelson Ying* & Charles W. Shults III~
 
*Quantum Nucleonics Corporation, P.O.Box 22447, Lake Buena Vista,
 FL 32830 USA     ~Orlando Science Center, Loch Haven Park, Orlando,
 Florida 32802  USA
 
The dream of unlimited inexpensive energy is age old and so is the
dream of controlling probabilities.  They were realized when an unique
theory of using incident stimulation bosons to enhance probability of
certain decay channels is considered.  Application of this theory to
experiments produced successful Cold Fusion on demand. Rejuvination method for
used cell is also found.
 
          Paneth and Peters (1) (2) observed hydrogen in glass producing
a trace of helium.  Franck (3) and Sakharov (4) postulated that fusion of
deuterium and deuterium is doable if the electron is replaced by a muon.
Alvarez (5) observed the above by introducing muons into a deuterium gas;
although he concluded later that the process is too slow to produce
meaningful energy.  On March 23, 1989, Pons and Fleischman announced at a
press conference and later published (6) that they have been able to
obtain positive energy gain from cold fusion.  Jones et al. (7) published
in Nature on April 27, 1989, indicating that they have also discovered
cold fusion, however with much less energy generation than Pons and
Fleischman.  Other institutions tried to duplicate the results and some
like Texas A&M, Moscow University, and Kossuth University in Hungary had
positive results while MIT et al. did not.  Even those who did get
positive results seemed to have difficulty repeating the success, while
no one was able to obatin cold fusion on demand.
 
          In 1989, one of us (Ying), postulated that in as much as
experimental results indicates that cold fusion exists albeit with very
small probability of occuring, the fact that observable results are
seen implies that there must be an enhancing mechanism.  He theorized
that instead of considering only that there is a small probability of
deuterium-deuterium fusing into helium, but rather consider that in
probability space, the channels such as Helium-4 + gamma(23.8Mev) actually
exists, although for only a very short percentage of time.  He further
theorized that there exists mechanisms to grab this virtual short lived
state out of probability space into normal space.  The act of grabbing a
virtual state out of probability space is an act of enhancing probability.
 
          Applying this methodology to cold fusion requires an experiment
consisting of heavy water, inert anode and a cathode which attracts and holds
hydrogen, such as Pt and Pd respectively, and battery, undergoing
electrolysis.  Then incident bosons would be aimed at the target in the
experiment.  In this case the Pd cathode is the target.  When the incident
bosons are SAME AS AT LEAST ONE TYPE OF HOPED FOR RESULTING BOSONS, THE
INCIDENT BOSON STIMULATES THE PRODUCTION OF THIS RESULTING BOSON - OR PULLS
IT OUT OF PROBABILITY SPACE.  When this happens, not only do we obtain
the resulting bosons which are identical to the incident bosons, but we
also get everything else which is supposed to come out from this decay
channel.  Or in other words, when we shoot 23.8 MeV gamma into the Pd
cathode, we should get helium-4 and more 23.8 MeV gamma out - and this
is cold fusion.  But it also means that when we shoot alpha particles
(which are really helium-4 ions) into the target, we should also obtain
23.8 MeV gamma and more resulting helium-4 - and again this is cold
fusion.  He notes, however, cold fusion is only one example of his
general theory of using incident stimulation bosons to enhance probability.
 
          In December 1991, we (Ying and Shults) teamed together and one
hundred and two experiments later, we finally have several successful
experiments, under several different experimental geometries, to be sure that
we have obtained cold fusion which we can initiate on demand.  We were also
able to rejuvenate used cells (cells showing fatigue and no longer able to
produce energy) by a reverse voltage purge so that they can once more produce
energy.
 
          We used alpha and gamma rays as incident stimulation bosons. Our
experimental results indicates that we have an electrolysis input of less than
750 microwatt with new deuterium oxide and 15 milliwatts with six months
old deuterium oxide; with an output of approximately 0.33 to 0.50 watts
(calculated from considering only between 2 to 8 degrees centigrade increase
in 10 grams of deuterium oxide and without even considerating that the
surrounding equipments' temperature are also increasing from 2 to 8 degrees
centigrade).  This gives a power increase of at least two to four orders of
magnitude.
 
          Rejuvination runs were performed for periods of between 10 to 30
seconds for different geometries at 600 microamp (old deuterium oxide) and 15
VDC or 9 milliwatts.  Since rejuvination power is several orders of magnitude
smaller than the above output, this implies that the rejuvination is not a
'charging' process and that the above temperature increases are not due to
only reversable chemical processes.
 
          Control cell using Pt and Pd in distilled water were stimulated with
alpha and gamma, and experimented upon as above with no resulting temperature
increase.  This further implies that the temperature increase in the
successful experiments are not due to chemical processes.
 
          From successfully obtaining cold fusion on demand, we have an
experimental proof of Ying's general theory of 'using incident stimulation
bosons to grab decay channels out of probability space into normal space, and
thus enhancing probability'.
 
References:
 
1. Paneth, F. and Peter, K.  Nature 118, 526 (1926)
2. Paneth, F.  Nature 119, 706-707  (1927)
3. Franck, F.C.  Nature 160,  525  (1947)
4. Sakharov, A.D.  Report of the P.N. Lebedev Inst.,  Moscow  (1948)
5. Alvarez, L.W. et al.  Phys. Rev. 105, 1127  (1957)
6. Fleischman, M. and Pons, S.  J. Electroanalyt. Chem. 261, 301-308 (1989)
7. Jones, S.E. et al.  Nature 338,  737-740  (1989).
 
-----END OF TRANSCRIPTION--------------------------------------------------
 
     Along with the paper I received some xerographic reproductions of some
photos from a 6/26/92 TV news item showing a demo of the Ying Cell (Channel 6
in Orlando).  One of these shows a monitor screen readout of temperature, and
atop the grid is the caption "Cell #6 - alpha and gamma in tandem in old
Faraday cage.  Base voltage 2.163....  Range is 5.64......" Caption to the
photo reads: "Run #102.  Cell #6 with Alpha and Gamma source in tandem.  The Y
axis is temperature showing 1/2 degree per box (increment).  Here we have over
12 degrees increase.  The X-axis is time with 275 second per box (almost 5
minutes per box).  Here it shows the temperature increase of over 12 degrees
occuring over an one hour period.  The four lines (curves) are of four
separate thermocouples placed in different locations close to the 'Ying'
cell."  Three of the curves are bunched together in typical "breadloaf"
x-section...almost quarter-circle arcs. Impressive.
 
     Dr. Ying mentions nothing in his 'paper' about using a Faraday cage but
when I spoke with him just before he left on a two-week vacation trip
he cautioned against trying to replicate the work without using a Faraday cage
to enclose the experiment.
 
     If this stuff ever makes it to a popular journal, I hope the editor
captions the story, "Ying and Shults use bosons to put new spin on cold
fusion."
 
     The reference to "old" D2O and "new" D2O is, I infer, the
old-bottle-on-the-shelf problem....who knows if it was properly handled? So
you grab a new sealed bottle, and you call that the "new" stuff.
 
     Most experimenters, it seems to me, would be reluctant to tinker with an
experiment that might not easily be replicaple, but once you've crossed into
magic land and even claim replicability on demand, then there's room to play.
How much more convincing all this would be if they had dribbled in some plain
H2O once they had plateaued their temperature rise.
 
     Dr. Ying mentioned a fourth experimenter who had been given the "secrets"
of the Ying Cell.  I've been watching the weather map for signs of very
turbulent weather in the southwest, but nothing yet.
 
Ed Manning
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenMANN cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.21 / Bill Vance /  Re: Films and surface effects
     
Originally-From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Films and surface effects
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:35:21 GMT
Organization: (N.) To be organized.  But that's not important right now.....

In article <9207200027.AA06057@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Tom Droege writes:
>>I think it is some sort of surface film which forms then tears away in
>>one big piece.  Vigorous bubbling inhibits the formation, while low
>>currents allow peaceful formation.
>>
>>It is hard to tell, but it looks like the "anomalous heat" comes during the
>>steady periods of low cell voltage.  i.e. we have a thin steady surface film.
>
>Ying also described a quick onset time (no reference to months of loading
>D into Pd) and the need for a "rejuvination" by reverse current for 10 seconds
>after a few hours of "heat".
>
>Tom's speculation about a surface film being associated with "heat" and just
>the general Ying shallow penetrating alpha source idea points to a very near
>surface effect.
>
>It's hard, however, to tie Tom's film to Ying's results, since the electrolyte
>used by Ying has not been disclosed on the net.  His press release merely
>mentioned Pd and Pt electrodes in a bath of D2O.  That would actually be a
>fairly high resistive electrolyte, so one would presume there is something
>else in the electrolyte.
>
>If we are actually dealing with films, it is probably pretty important to
>know what the film is made of, and hence the electrolyte used by Ying.
>
>On the other hand, there is an effect I noticed when I was idly playing with
>a Mills cell.  If I manually momentarily closed then opened the circuit,
>making contact for a fraction of a second, bubbles (of Oxygen, I presume)
>would float up from the Pt electrode, but almost no bubbles (of Hydrogen,
>I presume) would float up from the Ni (or Ti) electrode.  Where did the
>Hydrogen go???
>
>If I held the circuit closed for slightly longer, still a fraction of a
>second, then the Hydrogen bubbles would appear.  Why the onset delay???
>
>I don't have a pulse generator, so I haven't been able to study this
>transient phenomena further.  I also don't know if it relates at all to this
>"film" business, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
>-- John Logajan
 
Please excuse my elementry level chemo/physics, but I might have a possible
clue for you.  Leaving out whatever extras might be involved as an
electrolyte, isn't the deuterium what used to be known poopularly as "heavy
water"?  i.e. water with an extra oxygen atom?  If so, the "reaction" would
seem to be stripping off oxygen one atom at a time as follows:
 
   1.  Starting with h3o one oxygen atom gets stripped off.
   2.  Then with h2o another is stripped off.
   3.  With ho same again.
   4.  Only now would you see a hydrogen atom (bubble).
 
Hope that helps.....
--
 
bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill
 
You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbill cudfnBill cudlnVance cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  /  Defense of a Bad Model
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Defense of a Bad Model
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:09:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gene Mallove writes:
"As I understand Tom's analysis, he takes the *initial* slope of the
temperature decline from Hi to Lo ...."
You bet.  My model is that it is a first order system and is thud a
decaying exponential.
GM "But this makes no sense because the slope of the power curve is
changing throughout the 45 minutes to an hour ..."
That is exactly why I used the initial slope.  On the (gross) assumption
that it is a first order system, the initial slope (and final value)
tell me everything.
 
No need to beat a dead horse.  Unless some work has been done on simulation
using differential equations, it is unlikely that the ideas can be followed.
The ideas work pretty well for electronic circuits, aeroplanes and missiles;
and I have done some work on all.  But I am not very good at it and always
have to think about which is the pole and which is the zero.  I am sure
there are a few reading that are far more expert than I.
 
Heat is a whole different problem.  Most heat problems, unlike electronic
ones to not have nice closed solutions.  But computer models work pretty
well now days.
 
My only point, I repeat, is that the Takahashi cell is not a very good
calorimeter.  One just can't say anything about what is going on.  I know
there are calibrations at various points.  I just don't know how to be
sure that they mean anything.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  Rothwell /  Oops.
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oops.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:09:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
DB asks:
 
"I'll be the mug: who are these HUNDREDS? Or are you plucking facts out
of the air, Jed?"
 
Oops, sorry. No, not the air. I am plucking it out of my database. I did
not really mean hundreds of group leaders who have published papers, I
meant hundreds of people tagged in places that have reported excess heat,
who happen to have their mailing address in my computer. Like for
example, 3 at Hokkaido, 5 or 6 at Bockris's lab., a bunch in India,
several at NTT... The number of groups who had reported heat last year
according to Fire from Ice (page 246, courtesy Fritz Will) was 34. There
have been a lot since then, of course. Most are getting more heat than
ever, a few have probably decided they did not get heat after all. This
is an informal count, not by peer reviewed papers. And you never really
know what is happening at places like Hitachi. They take information,
they don't give it (not often, anyway).
 
It was not an accurate way to express the idea, I should have said
"hundreds of workers in dozens of labs..." or some such. There is a big
difference between one person in a lab doing this alone, and three people
working together. A group is much better; it is much more likely to catch
an error or a dumb mistake.
 
 
DB asks again: "And by the way, with your smoke screen you evaded my
question, which I put here once again: you say McKubre is still seeing
excess heat; do you mean he is still looking at the pre-explosion results
and seeing the same heat, or do you mean he is doing new experiments and
again seeing excess heat?"
 
Not evading, just forgot. Kind of busy. Remind me if I forget. I meant
pre-explosion results were much better than those reported at Como. Way
better, but I have heard 50 different versions of just how much better,
so who knows? McKubre is back from Japan and back at work now, I have
heard. I have not spoken to him directly, lately. All work was suspended
until the report came out. The report was delayed because of political
problems, I believe, and also because they could not understand the cause
of the accident. It seems to me they offer two possible causes, so
perhaps they still don't know exactly what caused it, but I do not like
to speculate on such matters now that a detailed report is available. If
anyone wants to know, please call EPRI.
 
And by the way, what is with your smokescreen? Let's hear *your* version
of Takahashi and P&F and McKubre are off by such huge factors? Hmmm? You
know how these experiments work, so tell me how every one of them, for
three years, has managed to be so dreadfully wrong? I am gunna make a
collection of these explanations for posterity: "How A Million Phycists
Defied 150 Years of Calorimetry -- And Lived To Tell The Tale!" Not
snappy enough?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  Rothwell /  Techno-Something-Or-Other
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:09:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jim Bowery comments:
 
"TECHNOSOCIALISM IS THE SINGLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE POLICY BEING PURSUED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND, INDEED, THE WORLD."
 
Well, I don't want to get too involved in this -- never though about it
really -- but we Japanese jes' lo-o-o-v-e techno-socialism-big-
government-economic-planning. Hey, it works for us. What can I say?
 
I am not actually Japanese, you understand. Honorary Japanese, maybe.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / James White /  Re: Mystery black box experiment
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mystery black box experiment
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:30:05 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>          ... There are three issues: accuracy of measurement, duration of
> charging up time, and the excess power level. If you get one or more of these
> wrong, you may think you have an excess, but it may actually be stored up
> energy. However, there is an absolute limit to the size of this error: the
> absolute maximum chemical storage capability of palladium (assuming no energy
> is stored in the heavy water). ...
 
This is a bad assumption. The most likely chemical explanation is that
deuterium peroxide (D2O2) is being formed at the platinum anode.
High concentrations of D2O2 can pass unnoticed, if no check is made.
This can lead to excess heat in at least 4 different ways:
 
1) The decomposition of a liter of D2O2 gives about 4 MJ of heat. Heat
   can be stored up over the long precharge and released later in very
   impressive amounts. If the Pd cathode is .1cc and the cell is 1 liter,
   then 40MJ/cc of Pd can be observed. (More if there also are other errors.)
 
2) If the thermometer is in the electrolyte and its surface catalytically
   decomposes D2O2, then it could read higher than the actual cell
   temperature.
 
3) If the calorimeter is calibrated by adding a known amount of heat to
   a working cell, the increase in temperature could increase the rate
   of D2O2 formation. This would absorb energy and thus make it appear
   that a given amount of heat causes a smaller temperature rise than
   is actually the case. Thus, a balanced cell would appear to be
   giving excess heat.
 
4) D2O2 reacting with hydrogen at the cathode would have the same effect
   as recombination. This would only happen after the cell had been
   operating a while, and it might turn on and off unpredictably.
   Spot checking to see if recombination is occurring could easily
   miss this.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / John Logajan /  Deuterium Absorption
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterium Absorption
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:42:30 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>John Logajan writes:
>"If I manually closed then opened the circuit, ... bubbles ... from the Pt
>(anode) ... almost no bubbles ... from the (cathode)"
>
>During many runs, we have observed that fresh Pd absorbes almost *all* the
>evolved Deuterium (Hydrogen).  At least 90%, possibly higher for a fresh
>cathode.  This is likely true for the Ni and Ti cathodes, I have not tried
>Ti.
 
I guess I was too obtuse with my description.  What I found confusing
about the observation was that there were no bubbles for a fraction of
a second, and then there were.  Meanwhile, bubbles started right away
at the Pt anode.  I could shut off the power before the bubbles ever
started at the cathode.  Now I believe it was probably some form of
absorbtion (the whole basis for the cell in the first place, no? :-)
but why did absorbtion efficiency drop off so quickly, so that bubbles
formed rather than getting "pushed" into the anode.
 
I was trying to link this in some way to your "film" being disrupted
by bubbles idea -- but I admit I was stretching it a wee bit.
 
[My next experiment, when I get round tuit, will be to run a pulse
generator so that I only have sufficient duty cycle on time to do the
non-bubble time bit, and then let it relax long enough before the next
non-bubble on time.  And *then* I will crank up the voltage in hopes of
an asymetrical "hammer" effect.  Where I can do a short on time pulse, and
really "drive" those hydrogen molecules into the anode, yet relax enough
so as to not waste undue heat -- yet get around to the next hammer blow
before the injected molecules can find their way back out.
 
This is all based on the naive belief that maximum loading has something
to do with the electrolyte/anode interface voltage gradient, and that a high
current (i.e. high applied voltage) will give the steepest gradient.]
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Better Experiment Now In Progress
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Better Experiment Now In Progress
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:12:16 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920721160021_72240.1256_EHL12-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> Tom,
>
>      I will fax your comments to Takahashi. I think you should talk to him
> directly to resolve some of these doubts and questions you have raised. Your
> comments are helpful, but somewhat off the mark. The good news is that he
> improved his calorimetry, and he has started a second experiment.
>
>      Let me ask a few questions, based upon my replication of Takahashi's
> work. If his excess heat is an artifact of the convection loops and so on:
 
(stuff deleted)
 
I'm not sure I understand under what conditions Takahasi measures the excess
heat. Is the 20 minute current sawtooth just used to charge the electrode, or
is he doing the XS heat measurements during these ramps? I would have thought it
very hard to do such a measurement because the calorimeter never reaches the
steady state - i.e. temp always lagging behind the power somewhat. I notice that
this is not a problem for McKubre because he always runs at constant power,
backing of the heater power as the current is ramped. So what does the "high
low" operation refer to exactly?
 
 
As for the earlier thread on Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle, we have in fact heard
of them in Australia. The former is, I believe,  an important media person,
the latter is some actor who plays the part of a half-witted Vice-President in
some American sit-com. I hope I've got this right...
 
 
todd green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentiq cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  tiq@fennel.cc. /  Re: Oops.
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oops.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:54:52 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <920721214152_72240.1256_EHL55-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>> DB asks:
>>
>> "I'll be the mug: who are these HUNDREDS? Or are you plucking facts out
>> of the air, Jed?"
>
> Oops, sorry. No, not the air. I am plucking it out of my database. I did
> not really mean hundreds of group leaders who have published papers, I
> meant hundreds of people tagged in places that have reported excess heat,
> who happen to have their mailing address in my computer. Like for
> example, 3 at Hokkaido, 5 or 6 at Bockris's lab., a bunch in India,
> several at NTT... The number of groups who had reported heat last year
> according to Fire from Ice (page 246, courtesy Fritz Will) was 34. There
> have been a lot since then, of course. Most are getting more heat than
> ever, a few have probably decided they did not get heat after all. This
          ^^^
Come on Jed, there have been heaps of XS heat claims that have never panned out.
This list is a VERY padded one. People like Oriani, Wadsworth, Scott, Huggins,
Appleby, Landau, Schoessow and  Hutchinson all claimed heat in 1989 but how
many of those are still going strong now? Answer: none. I can only think of
two others (McKubre and Bush) who were claiming heat in mid 1989 and are still
claiming it now. Others have since bit the dust: remember the fuss about
Liaw with his 1500% heat in a molten salt experiment? As far as I know
they could never replicate, and others who have tried it failed too. So, I
don't  think it is fair to include most of these as "confirmations" especially
if the reason(s) for them abandoning the research are unknown. Maybe somebody
should ring these people up and ask them what their current position is wrt
XS heat.
 
> Not evading, just forgot. Kind of busy. Remind me if I forget. I meant
> pre-explosion results were much better than those reported at Como. Way
> better, but I have heard 50 different versions of just how much better,
> so who knows? McKubre is back from Japan and back at work now, I have
> heard. I have not spoken to him directly, lately. All work was suspended
 
How much better? I heard rumours that he can get up to 250%, but is this
true? I notice from the accident report that the cell had a much larger
cathode than usual - maybe they are attempting to scale up the process.
If only there were a few more good experiments like this one...
 
todd green
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentiq cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Revised Ying Thing info
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Revised Ying Thing info
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:36:33 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1682BE37C.MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
reports:
>
>      On 01 July (#1688) I posted as Document #2 Dr. Ying's first
> issued statement out of the OSC.  Last Saturday I received from
> his office a similar statement, but sufficiently different to
> deserve re-posting.  At least this new statement has a dateline.
> Transcription follows:
..
>           Paneth and Peters (1) (2) observed hydrogen in glass producing
> a trace of helium.
 
I hope that the rest of Ying's stuff is more reliable than his history.
Paneth and Peters observed no such thing. They THOUGHT for a while that this
was what they observed, but as I have said before, they didn't trust their
results and kept looking for errors, and found them. So what they actually
observed was not the production of helium, but the ingress of helium into
their cell through the glass walls, which had become more helium-permeable
because of the hydrogen present.
Today's cold fusion researchers do not seem to operate like that, with only
a few notable exceptions like Tom Droege. Others do not seem too eager to try
to prove themselves wrong, leaving that to others who, however, do not have all
the experimental facts at their disposal. I have been waiting for a thorough
look at FPALH-90, and it seems it has appeared at last. I'll be getting hold
of it the next few days, and will report on it.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Dieter Britz /  Peroxide again!
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide again!
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:06:26 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1992Jul22.033005.14971@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
(James R. White) writes:
 
>> energy. However, there is an absolute limit to the size of this error: the
>> absolute maximum chemical storage capability of palladium (assuming no energy
>> is stored in the heavy water). ...
>
> This is a bad assumption. The most likely chemical explanation is that
> deuterium peroxide (D2O2) is being formed at the platinum anode.
> High concentrations of D2O2 can pass unnoticed, if no check is made.
> This can lead to excess heat in at least 4 different ways:
etc.
 
We've been down that path, as our politicians like to say. Forget peroxide.
At the overpotentials in cnf electrolysis cells, you go straight to O2 at the
anode. I am afraid that the only sources of chemical heat one can reasonably
expect in one of these cells is the recombination of D2 and O2, and the
absorption of deuterium by the Pd, both exothermic, with recombination about
ten times larger than deuterium absorption. The strong excess heat results
do seem to be above these levels, or at least comparable to them. E.g., my
favourite quality positive, Belzner et al (wearing a bit thin after much use,
not having been followed up) had excess heat at about the level of
recombination, but without subtracting the heat of water electrolysis. So in
fact, if they had no recombination, then had twice as much excess heat as they
claimed - unless of course, they made a mistake with their measurement.
 
If you want to invoke chemical storage of heat, there is not much scope here;
the PdDx is a storer of cold, rather than heat, because the release of
deuterium is endothermic, but we are not so sure about high loadings. Should
the release from highly loaded PdDx be exothermic, the heat stored in that way
will not amount to much. BUT: as was shown by Kreysa in 1989, if you expose
PdDx to air (O2) and let it release the D2 and the D2 burns, then you get the
recombination heat, and you can possibly get a melt-down, an IGNITION! (but not
in the nuclear sense implied by FPH). Another storage possibility is the
apparently intermittent function of the recombiners used. Tom Droege, I think,
has told us that he sometimes accumulates gas, and then it recombines in a
rush. This causes heat surges. I can't think of any other ways of storing heat
in these cells. We skeptics must keep our sense of proportion, and not propose
unlikely mechanisms to explain away results of others.
 
I have a feeling that if cnf is ever disproved, it will not be by way of an
exotic chemical reaction, but by way of finding errors of measurement. This is
one reason I am not expecting it to be ever disproved, because one cannot go
back to the work of, say, Belzner et al, and prove anything. It will have to
be the other way around: the cold fusioneers will have to demonstrate to us
that it does indeed work, and I don't mean by telling us how smart this or that
organisation is, so it has to be real, doesn't it? Stanley Pons' little water
heater would do the job, hot water coming out, with less power applied than
is coming out.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Dieter Britz /  Deuteron beams and yodeling
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuteron beams and yodeling
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:27:13 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

I note that nobody has bothered to answer the bloke from Brisbane. I find
that his message has disappeared suddenly from my NEWS window - shows that
the way I work in Denmark is better, using LISTSERV. Anyway, whoever you
are, mate, you propose using massive beams of deuterons aimed at Pd plus
nifty ways of optimising the catch. This has been looked at extensively in
the 1950's and is called self targeting. The deuterons at first get absorbed
in the Pd, and when that gets saturated, beam deuterons increasingly hit
deuterons sitting at the surface. If the beam has an energy of some keV, you
do indeed get fusion. Quite a few Russian papers about "cold fusion" are in
fact in this category, they don't seem to know about the effect. The problem,
I presume, is that you put in a lot more energy to make that beam, than you get
from the fusion. I am sure that people were thinking of this as an energy
source back in the 50's.
 
Having said this, I wouldn't say that this proves it is totally impossible to
make it go. Some ideas come up before their time. E.g. others before Watt had
the idea of a steam engine, but he was the first to be able to build one with
the tolerances required. Likewise, the Difference Engine of last century was
a good idea in principle, but unrealisable because of its mechanical nature;
the first vacuum tube computers were just about in the same category. I
remember a poor engineer replacing valves (tubes to you lot) just about all
the time on the first computer at Sydney University. Not the way to start the
computer age. So, maybe one day a way will be found to use self targeting as
a source of cheap, unlimited etc etc bla bla. So keep thinking.
 
While we're in Australia, I do really not know who Murphy Brown is, though I
have heard about Dan Quayle - there was a good joke about him. You're right,
Tom, I don't watch TV, here (no time anyway) OR in Denmark, and I am glad to
be uninformed about the US elections. Not all the world is following that
circus: I am not. But they do have TV here, I believe, it's not all guitars
and yodeling in the bush. Anymore.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Stefan Hartmann /  Cold Fusion, latest success ? Where is FAQ ?
     
Originally-From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion, latest success ? Where is FAQ ?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 12:42:31 GMT
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System

Hi,
please can somebody give me a help, where I can find a FAQ
(frequently asked questions) about the new success of Cold Fusion ?
 
What about the Takahashi experiment ? Do they put 1 Watt electricity
power in   and get 30 Watts heat power out , or what ?
 
Please post some summary or a FAQ !
 
Please not to chemical-techno, cause I'm more into electronics !
 
Best regards Stefan Hartmann.
email to: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de
 
 
 
--
 
*************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:         *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                          *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79 *
*************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenleo cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Eliot Moss /  Re: Films and surface effects
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Films and surface effects
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:29:27 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

>>>>> On 21 Jul 92 19:35:21 GMT, bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) said:
 
Bill> Please excuse my elementry level chemo/physics, but I might have a
Bill> possible clue for you.  Leaving out whatever extras might be involved as
Bill> an electrolyte, isn't the deuterium what used to be known poopularly as
Bill> "heavy water"?  i.e. water with an extra oxygen atom?  .....
 
Well, my physics, etc., is only elementary, but (no offense intended, Bill)
clearly better than yours. Even I know that heavy water is D2O as opposed to
ordinary water H2O. H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide; D2O2 would be deuterium
peroxide I guess. What's heavy about the water is that each hydrogen atom has
an additional neutron in the nucleus, making it deuterium. Two deuterons can
fuse to make a helium nucleus and release energy; this is one of the basic
fusion reactions that can happen in the core of stars, etc.
--
 
		J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor
		Department of Computer Science
		Lederle Graduate Research Center
		University of Massachusetts
		Amherst, MA  01003
		(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax); Moss@cs.umass.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / MIKE JAMISON /  Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Date: 22 Jul 1992 12:35 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

If I understand what Dr. Ying is saying, Pd may not be the best medium for
verifying his theory.  The probability  for forming a virtual He atom
should increase with decreasing distance between atoms (inverse square
probability?).
 
With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of
(?Frank Close?)'s postings.
 
Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
angstroms.
 
Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2
times greater than it is for a PdD cell, all other factors being equal (
size of cell, etc.).
 
The experiment:
 
Two identical dewars, each having an equal amount of D2.
 
Two (almost) identical pieces of material, one radioactive, the other inert
  The radioactive material should be whatever Dr. Ying uses, with very low
output power.
 
The dewars should be sized/filled so that most of the decay particles/
gammas are absorbed by the D2, which probably means that some sort of net
should be placed in each dewar to keep the material suspended above the
bottom (done for both so the experiments are as identical as possible).
 
Lower both pieces of material into their respective dewars at the same time
, and note the amount of time for a given amount of D2 evaporation (should
be extremely high at first, if the material used is near room temperature).
 
Follow up experiments:
 
1)  Switch dewars, and repeat.
 
2)  Place a small resistive device in one or both filled dewars, apply
power equivalent to that supplied by the radioactive material, correlate
results to the above experiments.
 
3)  Perform all of the above with H2 instead of D2.  Correlate to D2
experiments.
 
Anyone willing to perform such experiments should obviously be very
cautious, ensuring that the experiments are performed where ventilation is
adequate to the task, etc.
 
If the above experiments show no signs of anomolous heat, but Dr. Ying's
experiments do, then the Pd has more to do with enhancing the virtual He
probability than I'm guessing it does.
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Dennis Daly /  ITER contracts
     
Originally-From: dfdaly@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov (Dennis F. Daly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ITER contracts
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:39:13 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center  Hampton VA  23665

Does anyone have any information on the signing of the ITER contracts for the
start of the design phase?  My girlfriend is a Nuclear Engineering student at
North Carolina State University, and has no access to the net at her summer
job.  I thought I might find some information from this news group.  Thanks
in advance for your help.
 
					Dennis Daly
----
And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendfdaly cudfnDennis cudlnDaly cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:26:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>angstroms.
>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2
>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
 
Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
 
And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?
 
In any case, there is D2 in a Ying device -- at the surface of the Pd
electrode, coincidently enough, where all the alleged anomolous heat
effect is going on.   Hmmm.
 
>The experiment:
>Two identical dewars, each having an equal amount of D2.
 
I don't think anyone is going to trust gas volume measurements. :-)
 
If you are going to run atmospheric pressure tests, might as well just
look for nuclear by-products.  A real D2 device would have to remain liquid
to at least beyond the boiling point of water to be a commercially useful
power source -- which means pressurized D2.
 
--
- 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / John Logajan /  Cell constants -- for children only
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell constants -- for children only
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:14:37 GMT

Here is my laymen's interpretation of what the debate is over
"cell constants" and *changing* cell constants.  This *IS*
directed at children, so no offense intended to others. :-)
 
Suppose you have a genetic defect that makes you like a cold
blooded lizard -- no automatic systems to regulate your body
temperature.  Scientists are fascinated, so they stick a
remote thermometer *in* your chest, and montior your temperature
by radio relay.
 
Now, when you exert yourself, your temperature rises, but
you also lose heat to the outside environment.  The greater
the difference between your temperature and the outside
temperature, the faster you lose heat.  At any level of
exertion, you will reach an equilibrium temperature where
you are losing heat just as fast as you are creating it.
 
If the scientists believe they know your rate of heat
loss, your "cell constant", they can determine your rate
of heat generation by examining the time/temperature plots
from the remote thermometer.
 
Suppose, however, you put on an overcoat without telling
them.  Now you lose heat much slower for the same difference
in internal versus external temperature.  For any given
level of exertion, your internal temperature will climb
higher and quicker than the same exertion without the
overcoat.
 
If the remote scientist doesn't know about the coat, and
you exert yourself, he may well see record high temperature
levels, and erroneously assume you are putting out super-
human (well, you are a lizard, after all :-) levels of
exertion.  But you really aren't doing anything more than
you usually do.  Only your "cell constant" has changed.
 
I think Tom Droege was claiming the the "cell constant" of
the Takahasi changed because at high current, more bubbles
caused a better stirring of internal heat to the outside
walls of the container.  When in the low current mode,
bubble production dropped off and stirring was much less
vigoruos.
 
The stilled water became like an overcoat, and if you failed
to correct for the overcoat effect, your assumptions about the
rate of heat loss would make it look like the system was
producing unusual amounts of heat -- when in fact, the heat
creation level was the same, only the "cell constant" changed.
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: ITER contracts
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ITER contracts
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:14:31 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Does anyone have any information on the signing of the ITER contracts for the
>start of the design phase?
 
I think the international agreement was just signed (things were held
up for a while, apparently not because of any disagreement, just
because some papers were slowly working their way through Japan's
bureaucracy).
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  Rothwell /  Miscellaneous responses
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miscellaneous responses
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:07:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
James White points out that some energy can be stored in heavy water.
Hmm, well, okay. This is a good reason to make a small cell, with a
limited amount of heavy water in it. If the water can hold some energy,
then perhaps it is best to compare the CF cell to a wet cell battery. The
question then becomes: has this cell continuously generated 100, or 1000
times more heat energy than a battery of the same weight could generate
in the form of electricity? If the answer is yes, then we do not need to
worry whether part of that energy came from short term chemical storage.
The output has to be *continuous*, however.
 
"If the calorimeter is calibrated by adding a known amount of heat to a
working cell, the increase in temperature could increase the rate of D2O2
formation. This would absorb energy and thus make it appear that a given
amount of heat causes a smaller temperature rise than is actually the
case. Thus, a balanced cell would appear to be giving excess heat."
 
Maybe, but I don't think so. It seems to me it would have a puzzling,
opposite effect. If you have a resister, you always calibrate before the
experiment, before electrolysis, when there is no free oxygen. So, the
pre-run calibration would show, say 2 watts per deg C. Then, during the
run, you would do a recalibration on the fly, by adding heat to a working
cell with the resister. This is an excellent idea, by the way, but it is
not particularly accurate, because the electrolysis background is noisy.
This time, however, you would add 2 watts and the temperature would only
go up, say, 0.98 C. That would not look like excess heat. It would
confuse the issue, but not in such a way as to look like excess heat.
After a while, there would be a surge of heat, which you might recognize
as being related to the recalibration, especially if you did it twice a
week for four months. I personally would write it off as part of the
background noise problem. It sounds terrible, but I am not interested in
fractions of watts. I am looking for a 10 or 20 watt excess which lasts
for weeks, which is far, far out the range of effects from things like
D2O2. I am hoping, someday, to see the kind of reaction that P&F,
McKubre, Takahashi or Mizuno saw, which totally swamps any possible
chemical effect.
 
 
Not to beat a dead horse on my end either, but Tom Droege remarks:
 
"That is exactly why I used the initial slope.  On the (gross) assumption
that it is a first order system, the initial slope (and final value) tell
me everything."
 
This assumption is incorrect. Your method of deriving the TCal from the
slope does not work, it does not come close. Mark Hugo left town
yesterday, but he would be happy to supply the correct equation if
anybody is interested. It is based upon Newton's law of cooling, with a
factor thrown in for the added heat from electrolysis and the unknown
heat from CF. It is very complicated; as I said, all of the
electrochemists I have talked to strongly recommend you work with a
system which has come into equilibrium. They say you should stay away
from transitions, and base your computations on a pre-calibrated points,
after an hour or more of "settling time."
 
Not to beat another dead horse, but:
 
"My only point, I repeat, is that the Takahashi cell is not a very good
calorimeter.  One just can't say anything about what is going on.  I know
there are calibrations at various points.  I just don't know how to be
sure that they mean anything."
 
My only point is that I have built a Takahashi cell and operated it for
four months, and I have data which proves that it is a very good
calorimeter. I *can* say what is going on, with assurance. My cell
measures heat reliably, week after week; it shows a nice, fat, zero
excess -- except when we dump water on the computer, or roach the flow
meter, cut a wire accidentally, or monkey with the cooling water
temperature. It has definite, known limitations, for example, with my
particular device, the "box temperature" does not measure amounts less
than 2 watts very well. However, we have compared the box temperature,
which is what Takahashi uses, against the best instrument available,
which was supplied to us by a superb electrical engineer by the name of
Tom Droege, and we have found that the box calibration agrees with flow
calibration as measured by the Droege Device *almost* *exactly*. It is
uncanny. As I said, they separate only at very low power levels, and this
remains true three weeks into the current run.
 
You had various doubts about the performance of the cell, primarily
because you believed the cell mixes the water at different rates during
high and low phases, (if I understand your argument correctly.) My data
shows conclusively that this is not the case. If you have any other
doubts about the design, let me know, and I will check the data to
resolve your questions. You might also consult with Takahashi, or with
Mike McKubre, who just came back from visiting Takahashi.
 
That is my last word on the matter, unless someone would like to see an
actual sample of data, or has any additional questions.
 
 
Todd Green asks:
 
"I'm not sure I understand under what conditions Takahashi measures the
excess heat. Is the 20 minute current sawtooth just used to charge the
electrode, or is he doing the XS heat measurements during these ramps? I
would have thought it very hard to do such a measurement because the
calorimeter never reaches the steady state - i.e. temp always lagging
behind the power somewhat."
 
He measures excess during the 6 hour "high-low" runs. With the last
experiment this was 100 watts in for 6 hours, followed by 1 watt in for 6
hours. He got some boiling during the high phase, so for this run, he
lowered this to 50 watts for 6 hours, followed by 1 watt for 6 hours.
Takahashi says it is too complicated to measure excess heat during the
sawtooth run, and in any case, he only runs the sawtooth for a week, and
the cell does not build up significant excess until a few weeks after
that.
 
You are quite right, "it very hard to do such a measurement because the
calorimeter never reaches the steady state..." The electrochemists I have
talked to have suggested I avoid such computations; it is much better to
wait until the cell reaches equilibrium (or gets close to equilibrium;
there are always slight fluctuations.) This is the suggestion I passed on
to Tom Droege, above.
 
However, I have had some success getting a zero by simply adding up all
of the "instantaneous" power in and power out measurements for a day,
with the usual fudge factors for heat leak and electrolysis. Since I have
not seen excess heat, I don't know whether this really works. I think I
should try adding some heat from our auxiliary resistance heater during a
sawtooth run. There are so many things I would like to try! It would be
nice if the DoE would try one or two of these things... These experiments
are conceptually simple; they are far easier than the computers and
telephones I tangled with for 14 years; and easier than the biology I
dabbled in 20 years ago in Japan; but alas, the experiments are time
consuming and expensive. It is just not possible to do a decent job in
your spare time.
 
Metallurgists I have talked to say that the sawtooth "charges up" the
cell by pushing the deuterons in, and then relaxing, and letting them out
again. Ikegami and others who have been measuring loading have recently
confirmed this. The saw tooth method has been know for quite a long time,
long before CF came on the scene. Mark Hugo cited a study of hydrogen
embrittlment of steel (I cannot find the title in my notes, alas), in
which it was found that a 20 minute period was several orders of
magnitude more effective than day long periods, or very short periods.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  /  Ying Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying Experiment
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:07:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.
 
First, let me explain the following obscure language.  I have agreed to keep
the details of Ying's process secret until he has time to publish.  The
advantage to me is that I get a head start on his process.  The advantage to
Ying is that he gets a replication attempt by an experienced worker.  It is a
fair bargain and I expect to keep it even though it goes against some of our
ideas of free interchange of intellectual information.
 
>From only the press release, we see that the Ying process involves a source of
bosons.  Whether the source of bosons is a cyclotron or something else, it
should be clear to most of you that the source can be turned on and off.  For
the time being, you must trust me that I have found a way to do this that does
not disturb the calorimeter balance.  Later in this experiment we will repeat
with light water in the cell to check this.  I hope that by now most of you
will agree that I will worry that, for example, turning the cyclotron on and
off does not disturb the power supplies or air currents in the room and thus
change the calorimeter balance.
 
For this experiment we simply "modified" the running Takahashi experiment to
add "incident stimulation bosons".  We are now at about run hour 1900.
 
The press release further states "We used alpha and gamma rays as incident
stimulation bosons."  At present, I have only a producer of gamma rays.  I
hope to have the official alpha and gamma ray producers soon.  The geometry is
such, that when on, it provides an estimated one ten thousandth of the flux
used by Ying.  Ying has apparently not attempted to operate with alternate
stimulation on and off periods.  (Source for this either Gene Mallove or Jed
Rothwell from conversations with Shults.)  This seemed like an obvious
experiment to me and this process was started as soon as it looked like there
might be some effect.  The first few points were taken while still feeling out
the experiment.  The last period is not yet complete.  We are attempting to
alternate 24 hour periods of gamma on and off.  Sometimes I sleep or go to
parties, etc., so the period is irregular.
 
 
 
Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
On      17760      4.9        532.8        49          0.0300  +/- 0.0027
Off     48060     13.4       1268.8        50          0.0264  +/- 0.0010
On      87300     24.3       2715.0       100          0.0311  +/- 0.0011
Off     77220     21.5       1621.6        50          0.0210  +/- 0.0006
On      82740     23.0       3607.5        50          0.0436  +/- 0.0006
Off     51840     14.4       1658.9        50          0.0320  +/- 0.0010
 
The error limits are based on an eleven day calibration run.  They are
relative measurements only and reflect the stability of the calorimeter.  The
maximum change from balance during any one hour was 10 joules.  Over any 24
hour period it was 50 joules.  Over any 10 day period it was 100 joules.  The
calorimeter configuration is not quite the same as during the calibration
runs.  See the Como proceedings paper for a few more details on the
calibration.  In spite of spending many, many hours on calibration I think the
numbers are optimistic.  But they are all I have.  There is no good way to
insert a feeling of mistrust for being fooled by calorimetry.  I just do the
calibration experiments and that is what they show.  Note that this "worst
observation over n hours" is more like a three sigma than one sigma error
limit - but I am not statistically literate.  Still, I am nervous.
 
The measurements should be considered to have only relative accuracy.  I do
not know the location of the calorimeter zero any better than 150 milliwatts.
The calorimeter constant was set to give zero after the power problem during a
time that I believed that there was no "anomalous heat".
 
I leave it to you, my jury, to decide what if any significance these
measurements have.  The next obvious experiment is to change the intensity of
the source, and to use the recommended procedure.  All in good time as we get
the stuff.  I remind you all that god has a gamma ray source and he (used she
last time) capriciously turns it on and off.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  /  Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:07:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes:
"How could convection suddenly have this effect 2 or 3 weeks into the
experiment, and why does it build up over time?  The effects of convection
currents must surely be the same throughout the experiment."
 
We live in a fluid called air, Jed.  Sometimes we have Tornadoes, but not all
the time.  They are very capricious.  That is because temperature gradients in
a fluid can do very complicated things.  Lakes are known to develop inversion
layers and "turn over" at unpredictable times.  These effects are also
observed in deep ocean behavior.  The largest computers are yet to be able to
predict these effects.  I have observed something similar to lake "turn over"
in my cells.  So I do not trust the thermometer in the cell to provide
anything more than an indication that the temperature at one point in the cell
is changing.
 
The only calorimetry that I will begin to trust eliminates any dependence on
temperature gradients in the calorimeter.  McKubre uses one scheme to attempt
this, I use another.  There are others that do good calorimetry.  Takahashi is
not yet on my list.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  /  D2O2
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2O2
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:08:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

James R. White has posted a nice note on D2O2 formation.  Have you followed
my postings on gas absorption in my cell.  I keep pumping in D2.  If not
I will forward some stuff then you can answer all the questions about
when D2O2 is formed and how it is again disassiciated.
 
If you have been following, then how about a write up on what might be
happening?  Briefly, as I run a saw tooth current, D2 tends to evolve
when the current is high and to be absorbed when the current is low.  Cell
temperature is higher when the current is higher.  But note there is a
catalyst in the cell so if D2O2 breaks down into O2 and D2O, the cell
volume will go down as the O2 converts D2 on the catalyst.  So it will
look like D2 is absorbed when it is really D2O2 breaking down.
 
I have been looking for some time for an expert in this area to step
forward!  Are you it?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: ITER contracts
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ITER contracts
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:54:55 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Does anyone have any information on the signing of the ITER contracts for the
>start of the design phase?
 
Here's the news release, retyped by me from an nth-generation fax
peeled off somebody's window (i.e., any typos are presumed mine).
Reading it carefully, you'll see that it is indeed an agreement to
design, with construction decisions deferred until afterwards, and
that no explicit commitment about pulse length has been made.  This
bears upon the nuclear-engineering side of its mission (the original
goal of self-sustained two-week burn is still up in the air) and
thus upon the need for alternate sources of energetic neutrons and
possibly the need for neutral-beam injection.
 
Here goes...
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
DOE NEWS
News Media Contact: Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806
For Immediate Release July 21, 1992
 
           AGREEMENT SIGNED ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
               TO DESIGN EXPERIMENTAL FUSION REACTOR
 
Representatives of the European Community, Japan, Russia and the
United States today signed an agreement to cooperate in the
engineering design of an International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER).
 
The ITER engineering design activities will extend for six years
and result in completion of a test facility that would, if built,
demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion
energy -- the same energy that powers the sun.  The estimated cost
of the engineering design and its associated research and development
is about $1.2 billion (1992 US dollars) to be shared equally among
the four parties.  The parties will decide at the end of the
engineering design work on construction of the reactor.
 
Secretary of Energy James D. Watkins signed the agreement for the
US, while Professor Viktor Mikhailov, Minister of the Russian
Federation for Atomic Energy, Minister Hiroshi Hirabayashi, Deputy
Chief of Mission in the Embassy of Japan in Washington, and Ambassador
Andreas van Agt, Head of the Delegation of the Commission of the
European Communities to the US, signed for their parties.
 
Dr. Hans Blix, the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the agency under whose auspices the ITER work will
be conducted, participated at the signing ceremony that was held in
Washington, D.C.
 
"Today's agreement is truly a milestone in the development of a safe,
environmentally sound energy source for the next century," said
Admiral Watkins.  "The international nature of this team means that
the best scientists and engineers will be cooperating to produce a
world-class design."
 
The ITER project will be headed by a director from the EC.  A joint
central team will assist the director to coordinate and integrate the
design and the research and development work that will be done by
institutions located on the four parties' home territories.  This
joint team will be located in three cocenters of equicalent importance
at Garching near Munich, in Naka, Japan, and in San Diego, CA.
 
The R&D and design work will be assigned to the participating parties
through a joint decision process.  In the US, this R&D and design will
be performed by combined teams of industry, universities and national
laboratories and managed by the US Home Team Leader, Alexander Glass of
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Dr. Glass will be assisted
by the Home Team Management Office, which includes personnel from the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory as well as Livermore.  The US cocenter will be operated by
the University of California at San Diego.
 
The ITER project will be overseen by a council composed of members from
each party.  This ITER Council will be chaired by a member from the
Russian Federation and co-chaired by a member from Japan.  The council
will be supported by an international Technical Advisory Commuttee,
chaired by the Japanese person who will also serve as the co-chair of
the council.  The formal seat for ITER Council meetings will be in Moscow.
 
The parties completed about three years of conceptual design activiuties
for ITER in December 1990,.  The conceptual design yielded a construction
cost estimate of $5 billion 1989 US dollars.  The encineering design will
develop a more detailed cost estimate.
 
Fusion is the process that provides the sun and other stars with their
energy.  The process involves combining fuel such as hydrogen into
heavier atoms such as helium, with a resultant release of energy. ITER
would be capable of confining the fusion fuel within strong magnetic
fields.  ITER's goial is to demonstrate the self-sustaining operation
of all the components and systems of a fusion reactor for extended
periods of time under realistic conditions.
 
US participation in ITER is a compponent of the administration's National
Energy Strategy, whose goals include proving fusion to be a technically
and economically credible energy source, with an operating demonstration
plant by about 2025 and operating commercial plant by about 2040.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Mike Miskulin /  Re: Palladium
     
Originally-From: mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:11:26 GMT
Organization: High Energy Concepts

In article <920717124300.202026cd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>Just went long one 100 oz Palladium contract for December delivery.  Contract
>price $88.00 per oz.  Note the September contract is $88.70 so it is cheaper
>to buy Palladium in the future than today.  This means that speculators think
>the market is going down.
>
 
It also means that there is a cost of carry to be considered.  If you take
delivery in September vs December you have lost 3 months of interest on
the cash you use for your purchase - lets take the 3 month Treasury as the
risk free rate - at about 3.25%.  This gives an uncompounded loss of about
$0.70 to own palladium in September vs December.
 
 
Mike
 
 
 
--
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mike Miskulin		mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us	70053,551@compuserve.com
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmmm cudfnMike cudlnMiskulin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  /  Reply to Tod Green
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Tod Green
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:57:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tod Green says:
"Maybe somebody should ring these people up and ask them what their current
position is wrt XS heat."
 
Did not ring them up but I note that Huggins and Liaw are on ICCF3
advisory committee.  If I thought my previous work was junk, I would
find it convenient to be somewhere else.  (after retraction of course).
 
A conversation with Tetek at Oak Ridge sounded like Scott had retired.
So possibly the score is not so bad.  Talk a few months back with Oriani
indicated he was pretty much in a class with me - he had seen enough to
want to keep working.
 
It is hard for those who need to keep their jobs and their reputations to
be one of "all claimed heat in 1989 but haw many of those are still going
strong now?"
 
In short, I don't think that normal rules or logic apply when their are
witch burners looking for victims.
 
Tenure is supposed to solve this problem, but it does not really.  What is
needed is old age and money.  Ross Perot just demonstrated that even high
office is worth continuously getting beat up by the media.  It is not fun
to have your friends avoid you. (not even high office is worth etc.)
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Oops.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oops.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:03:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Jed, pardon me if I sort of butt in here for a minute.
 
I think that problem is coming down to a perfectly simple
idea: either there is excess heat being measured or there
isn't.
 
If there is excess heat, then we are all interested in the
mechanism from which it occurs.
 
If there isn't any excess heat, but there _appears_ to be
excess heat, then we must also find an explaination for that.
 
In either case, the necessary questions will always have some
personal portent of someone's failure. I don't think that is
important to the subject and should be ignored since science
is the act of correcting mistaken ideas.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 /  Rothwell /  I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I have a little list...
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:47:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Todd Green has an interesting list of people:
 
"Oriani, Wadsworth, Scott, Huggins, Appleby, Landau, Schoessow and Hutchinson
all claimed heat in 1989 but how many of those are still going strong now?
Answer: none."
 
Hmmm. I have not heard of Wadsworth, Landau or Hutchinson; they are not in
my computer. Of the others, I just talked to Oriani, and I have been in
touch with Huggins and Abbleby, but I don't think they are in the CF
business any more. Schoessow is still going strong. To my knowledge, none of
these people has retracted. The claims of Oriani, Huggins and Appleby seem
solid to me, I don't know anything about Schoessow.
 
You understand of course, that with a database of hundreds of scientists
working in, or related to CF, I cannot check them, or judge them. No doubt
there are some flakes in there, but I just take what they tell me at face
value. This is a mailing list, not an FBI check. Many people in the list are
working on CF but not doing experiments, like the theoreticians, and the
people at Rockwell who analyze other people's cathodes.
 
I am quite sure there at least 100 others in Japanese corporations who I have
never hear from. For example, I only have 3 names from Technova, and no
address in France, where there must be at least five or ten people hard at
work. I have only two or three in China, but the head of the program there
told me they have launched a "large project." Goodness knows how many people
that might mean. I have only one or two names in Russia.
 
It would be very good for this field if I had the money to mail out a survey
to all of the people on my list, asking what results they have achieved
lately. DB's bibliography is great help, but it takes many months for papers
to appear, and a paper may not lay out the facts you want for a database. It
would be good if I could publish such a database.
 
"I heard rumors that [McKubre] can get up to 250%, but is this true?"
 
Your guess is as good as mine. I have heard that rumor, and several others.
I do not know the truth. If I did, I would have to say, "sorry, I can't
answer." I talk so much that it may seem strange, but I keep secrets when I
am told to. People who don't keep secrets never hear anything more! It is
the oldest rule of journalism. An old journalist trick failed to elicit the
information you are after. Bockris and I fed Mike two enormous Texas Style
meals and several bottles of first class Champaign -- I lost track of how
many -- and Mike never even blinked! Not one word! By the way, Bockris paid
(which is journalistic trick # 2: somebody else pays.)
 
"If only there were a few more good experiments like this one... [McKubre's]"
 
Amen. I hope he really is back to work, and Godspeed to him.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.22 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: We are doing the Ying Experimentnex
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We are doing the Ying Experimentnex
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:52:19 EST
Organization: Wright State University

[ Stuff Deleted ]
>
> We do not yet have the right stuff to do Ying, so we are doing pseudo Ying.
> We are also doing something that Ying has not yet done according to Jed
> Rothwell.  We are alternating periods of "Ying On" with periods of "Ying
> Off".
 
I propose a naming system for the "Ying On"/"Ying Off" processes.
"Ying On" should be called "Ying", while "Ying Off" should be called
"Yang".
 
>
> I estimate that the effect of our "Yind On" device is two or three orders
> of magnitude less than the specified "Ying On" device.
>
 
Please note that this post was made in a humerous state of mind and
I intended no offense by it.  The "Ying" and "Yang" comment was made in
reference to the Chinese philosophy of "Yin and Yang".
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ...         | Beatles
              |    and a minute is a long time.            |   When I'm 64
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjbatka cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Ying Experiment
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying Experiment
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:34:19 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <920722135155.242008a0@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
   On      17760      4.9        532.8        49          0.0300  +/- 0.0027
   Off     48060     13.4       1268.8        50          0.0264  +/- 0.0010
   On      87300     24.3       2715.0       100          0.0311  +/- 0.0011
   Off     77220     21.5       1621.6        50          0.0210  +/- 0.0006
   On      82740     23.0       3607.5        50          0.0436  +/- 0.0006
   Off     51840     14.4       1658.9        50          0.0320  +/- 0.0010
 
   As a statistician this looks like a good place to use some
non-parametric tests.  (Non parametric statistics to not assume
anything about the error distribution, although they still assume
independence of data samples.)  Of course you pay for the relaxation
of assumptions in test power, but in my opinion it beats looking for
100 sigma to overcome assumptions about error sources...
 
   A week more of data would make a more reasonable data set (say ten
on periods and ten off).  For the current data using Wilcoxon's W
statistic (H0 = no effect, H1 = excess heat during on periods), I get
alpha = 0.20.  (In other words, there is a 20% chance that a random
data set would be this "good" assuming the null hypothesis is true.)
 
   Probably a more powerful test given the expeimental setup would be
to look at On-Off pairs using a signed rank test (this is the less
likely to be affected by long term drift in the calibration).  I get
alpha = 0.125 for the current data, but a sample of three is very
small.  I'll post again when Tom supplies more data.
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / James White /  Re: Peroxide again!
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide again!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:33:26 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

In article <1992Jul22.210626.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
 medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.033005.14971@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
> (James R. White) writes:
>>                ... The most likely chemical explanation is that
>> deuterium peroxide (D2O2) is being formed at the platinum anode. ...
>
> We've been down that path, as our politicians like to say. Forget peroxide.
> At the overpotentials in cnf electrolysis cells, you go straight to O2 at the
> anode. ...
 
An overpotential of half a volt is enough to allow peroxide to form.
This is an order of magnitude less than the total voltage at which
many cnf cells operate, and the potpourri of contaminants that are
present might well cause such an overpotential. This is a much less
exotic assumption than that there is a radiation-free ash-free nuclear
process producing the heat.
 
Do you know what the overpotential at the anode is in any of the cells
which have produced large bursts of heat?
 
After considerable thought, I have concluded that the most impressive
results must be due to either peroxide or something much more exotic.
The amount of excess heat in these results is too large to be explained
by calorimetry errors. And only deuterium and oxygen are present in
large enough quantities to store the huge amount of energy involved.
That is why I would like to see peroxide taken seriously, and decisively
ruled out (or in) by the researchers who are getting these impressive
results.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / John Logajan /  TD's Y
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TD's Y
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:47:46 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>the source can be turned on and off.  For
>the time being, you must trust me that I have found a way to do this that
>does not disturb the calorimeter balance.
 
My guess?  You inserted a bit of radioactive material (Co 60?) on the end of
a length of stiff wire.  You either push or pull this away from the Pd, or
you have a hunk of tinfoil or other shield on one side of the bit of "hot"
stuff, and you rotate it toward or away from the Pd.  The rotation method
would introduce the least amount of outside heat interference.  The push
pull method could transport heat in or out of the cell -- but of course,
only minute quantities, depending upon the thermal storage capacity of
the exposed wire segment.
 
>The geometry is such, that when on, it provides an estimated one ten
>thousandth of the flux used by Ying.
 
Ah, your existing design won't let you get close enough.
 
>I remind you all that god has a gamma ray source and he (used she
>last time) capriciously turns it on and off.
 
What?  You signed a non-disclosure agreement with god too?  :-)
 
All I can think of is cosmic rays, or their by-products.  My Heathkit
geiger counter only counts about 8-15 counts per minute of natural
background radiation (source unknown.)  Don't know what you guys get their
in Batavia, but I imagine it can't be too much more intense.  You guys
don't glow in the dark, do you? :-)
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:05:23 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
 
>If I understand what Dr. Ying is saying, Pd may not be the best medium for
>verifying his theory.  The probability  for forming a virtual He atom
>should increase with decreasing distance between atoms (inverse square
>probability?).
 
>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of
>(?Frank Close?)'s postings.
 
>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>angstroms.
 
and
 
In article <1992Jul22.182608.24724@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
 edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>>angstroms.
>>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2
>>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
>
> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
>
> And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
> Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?
 
If I remember my numbers correctly, the d-d separation in D2 gas is 0.72 A,
and in PdD it is about 4.2 A. This was one of the early "proofs" by physicists
that cnf is impossible. It falls down on the possibility (accepted by some
knowledgable people) that the PdD crystal environment has some special
properties to enhance fusion rates. I wouldn't know. Are Schwinger and
Hagelstein senile and non compos, respectively? We must not go by authority, it
is said, but inevitably we do. Frank Close and Huizenga are authorities, too,
and they flatly deny the possibility of such special solid state effects.
 
The question whether there is any D2 in PdD is a good one. In fact, there is
no unity about just what form deuterium takes in the deuteride. Most people
accept that it is in the form of rather highly mobile deuterons, i.e.
positively charged deuterium nuclei; I did find at least one paper claiming
that it is in fact negatively charged D- ions that predominate. I don't know.
Metallurgists will tell you that at high loadings, when micro-voids form, some
deuterium will evaporate off into these as D2 gas; this could be the way that
super-0.8 loadings fit in. This is well known to metallurgists and corrosion
people, because these small gas bubbles are under high pressure (not 10**27
atm though) and do damage to the metal; it happens to important metals like
steel, copper, etc. and is called hydrogen embrittlement.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Dieter Britz /  Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Ying?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:25:37 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

Something bothers me about the Ying experiment. I'm just a humble
electrochemist, so maybe some physics expert out there can enlighten me:
The Ying theory says, correctly, that one of the branches of d-d fusion is
d + d --> (4)He + gamma (23.x MeV); this is in fact the controversial minor
branch, with a probability of 1E-07 times the other two, with the infamous
50:50 branching ratio, yielding neutrons or tritium. OK. Ying now proposes
to enhance this minor branch by tickling it with gamma rays at just that
energy, 23.x MeV.
 
I understand that quantum physics is not like chemistry but I still can't
shake the thought that this is the wrong way around. In chemistry, if you
have a reaction like
 
A + B + C + ... ---> O + P + Q + ...
 
then if you add, to a mixture of all these, one of the products O, P, Q ...,
you drive the reaction backwards. This is Le Chatelier's Principle, and we
understand it today in terms of thermodynamics, equilibrium constants etc.
Looked at in this light, it would seem to me that if you shoot gammas at PdD,
you'd squash even that tiny branch producing (4)He, and get even less fusion.
Where am I going wrong? How can the gammas pull the branch out of probability
space?
 
Why, in fact, should this enhance the fusion rate? The way I think it works is
that two d's decide to fuse (at some astronomically small rate [if you can have
something astronomically small] or, if you believe Jones+, a very small but
measurable rate of about 1E-21 fusions/d-d pair/s), and they first go into an
excited intermediate state, from which there are certain probabilities for then
exiting into one of the three branches. If the gamma rays shot at the target
were (against my gut feeling) to enhance the (4)He branch, then you still would
not get a fusion rate larger than the original one.
 
So please, experts, explain these points. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of
garbage to me. Ah, that feels better.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Richard Long /  Re: Ying Experiment
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying Experiment
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:19:27 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <920722135155.242008a0@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
> We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.
>
(etc)
  Ying has apparently not attempted to operate with alternate
> stimulation on and off periods.  (Source for this either Gene Mallove or
Jed
> Rothwell from conversations with Shults.)  This seemed like an obvious
> experiment to me and this process was started as soon as it looked like
there
> might be some effect.  The first few points were taken while still
feeling out
> the experiment.  The last period is not yet complete.  We are attempting
to
> alternate 24 hour periods of gamma on and off.  Sometimes I sleep or go
to
> parties, etc., so the period is irregular.
>
>
>
> Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
> Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
>
> On      17760      4.9        532.8        49          0.0300  +/-
0.0027
> Off     48060     13.4       1268.8        50          0.0264  +/-
0.0010
> On      87300     24.3       2715.0       100          0.0311  +/-
0.0011
> Off     77220     21.5       1621.6        50          0.0210  +/-
0.0006
> On      82740     23.0       3607.5        50          0.0436  +/-
0.0006
> Off     51840     14.4       1658.9        50          0.0320  +/-
0.0010
>
> The error limits are based on an eleven day calibration run.  They are
> relative measurements only and reflect the stability of the calorimeter.
The
> maximum change from balance during any one hour was 10 joules.  Over any
24
> hour period it was 50 joules.  Over any 10 day period it was 100 joules.
The
> calorimeter configuration is not quite the same as during the
calibration
> runs.  See the Como proceedings paper for a few more details on the
> calibration.  In spite of spending many, many hours on calibration I
think the
> numbers are optimistic.  But they are all I have.  There is no good way
to
> insert a feeling of mistrust for being fooled by calorimetry.  I just do
the
> calibration experiments and that is what they show.  Note that this
"worst
> observation over n hours" is more like a three sigma than one sigma
error
> limit - but I am not statistically literate.  Still, I am nervous.
>
> The measurements should be considered to have only relative accuracy.  I
do
> not know the location of the calorimeter zero any better than 150
milliwatts.
> The calorimeter constant was set to give zero after the power problem
during a
> time that I believed that there was no "anomalous heat".
>
> I leave it to you, my jury, to decide what if any significance these
> measurements have.  The next obvious experiment is to change the
intensity of
> the source, and to use the recommended procedure.  All in good time as
we get
> the stuff.  I remind you all that god has a gamma ray source and he
(used she
> last time) capriciously turns it on and off.
>
> Tom Droege
 
I had only hoped to get vague hints as to what you were doing with Ying's
stuff, so I very happy that you can reveal as much as you have.  Thanks
Tom!
 
From conversations with Shults and Dr. Chow in the UCF physics Dept. (who,
by the way does not believe Ying's results.  He says that the probablity
of tunneling is 10e-70 and so no amount of boson addition will help.  He
worked with Ying on the experiment for 8 months with gamma only and got no
results, but back to my point)  the setup doen't work with Co60 gamma
alone or Po210 alpha alone, but only when they are combined!  Personally,
I don't understand why this could be true, unless a more conventional
series of transmutation and decay processes are going on, as opposed to
Ying's stimulated emission.  Any ideas as to why they need to be combined?
 
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:09:42 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Jul23.182537.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>Something bothers me about the Ying experiment. I'm just a humble
>electrochemist, so maybe some physics expert out there can enlighten me:
>The Ying theory says, correctly, that one of the branches of d-d fusion is
>d + d --> (4)He + gamma (23.x MeV); this is in fact the controversial minor
>branch, with a probability of 1E-07 times the other two, with the infamous
>50:50 branching ratio, yielding neutrons or tritium. OK. Ying now proposes
>to enhance this minor branch by tickling it with gamma rays at just that
>energy, 23.x MeV.
>
>I understand that quantum physics is not like chemistry but I still can't
>shake the thought that this is the wrong way around. In chemistry, if you
>have a reaction like
>
>A + B + C + ... ---> O + P + Q + ...
>
>then if you add, to a mixture of all these, one of the products O, P, Q ...,
>you drive the reaction backwards. This is Le Chatelier's Principle, and we
>understand it today in terms of thermodynamics, equilibrium constants etc.
 
All correct.  However:
 
Think about a laser.  A laser has a population inversion (many more
atoms in an excited state than in a lower level state) and this can be
thought of as a system with a *negative* temperature.  Well
negative temperatures are hotter than any positive temperature so you
can convert heat (the energy in the excited state) at a negative
temperature into heat at a positive temperature or into work [you can
easily verify this from standard thermodynamical formulae - but be
careful the Kelvin statement of the second law only works at positive
temperatures while the Clausius statement works for any temperatures,
given that all negative temperatures are higher than all positive
temperatures {it is impossible for any engine working in a cycle to have
the sole effect of transfering heat from a colder reservoir to a hotter
reservoir}- really you should think about beta=1/T as the appropriate
variable].  Anyhow with all of this systems with a negative temperature
have weird-o properties and, in particular Le Chatelier's Principle
comes out dead backwards - again a fact you can verify by re-doing the
arguments which get you Le Chatelier's Principle at positive
temperatures.  Thus you shoot light into the active cavity
of a laser and more light comes out [provided there is a population
inversion (negative temperature) and some other conditions].
 
Well now lets think about d and He and suppose that they are ideal
gases [this won't matter much].  If the reaction you consider is in
equilibrium at any positive temperature then there is lots of He and
little d, because He has so much less energy.  To make there be more d,
as there is in the Ying experiment using the formula
 
c_d^2/c_{He} = lambda^{-3}exp(-Delta E/kT)
 
where c_d is the concentration of deuterium, c_{He} is the concentration
of Helium, lambda is a (ratio of) thermal wavelengths and I am ignoring
non-ideal gas effects, Delta E is the dd --> He energy change then you
readily find that T has to be negative.  Thus there is a clear
population inversion, (more d than needed at any positive temperature)
and a negative temperature in this system so that if you can tickle this
system appropriately you can stand Le Chatelier on his head.  This is
what Ying proposes.
 
>> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
>> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
>> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
>> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
>>
>> And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
>> Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?
>
>If I remember my numbers correctly, the d-d separation in D2 gas is 0.72 A,
>and in PdD it is about 4.2 A. This was one of the early "proofs" by physicists
>that cnf is impossible. It falls down on the possibility (accepted by some
>knowledgable people) that the PdD crystal environment has some special
>properties to enhance fusion rates. I wouldn't know. Are Schwinger and
>Hagelstein senile and non compos, respectively? We must not go by authority, it
>is said, but inevitably we do. Frank Close and Huizenga are authorities, too,
>and they flatly deny the possibility of such special solid state effects.
 
I have never understood and fo the Schwinger/Hagelstein papers and in
consequence do not believe them - however
 
>The question whether there is any D2 in PdD is a good one. In fact, there is
>no unity about just what form deuterium takes in the deuteride. Most people
>accept that it is in the form of rather highly mobile deuterons, i.e.
>positively charged deuterium nuclei; I did find at least one paper claiming
>that it is in fact negatively charged D- ions that predominate. I don't know.
>Metallurgists will tell you that at high loadings, when micro-voids form, some
>deuterium will evaporate off into these as D2 gas; this could be the way that
>super-0.8 loadings fit in. This is well known to metallurgists and corrosion
>people, because these small gas bubbles are under high pressure (not 10**27
>atm though) and do damage to the metal; it happens to important metals like
>steel, copper, etc. and is called hydrogen embrittlement.
 
and one supposes that if these pressure were high enough then fusion
might take place.  Now there is absolutely no need for pressures like
10**27 but there is need for pressures of many, many Megabars and this
is (a) impossible with a few volts of excess chemical potential and (b)
will rip the metal to shreds, anyway.  However this is an effect which
might make cold fusion many orders of magnitude faster in a cold fusion
system than in ordinary D2 gas.  Doesn't make it interesting,
unfortunately.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / John Logajan /  My bosons are bigger than your bosons
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My bosons are bigger than your bosons
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:11:51 GMT

>My guess?  You inserted a bit of radioactive material (Co 60?) on the end of
>a length of stiff wire.  You either push or pull this away from the Pd, or
>you have a hunk of tinfoil or other shield on one side of the bit of "hot"
>stuff, and you rotate it toward or away from the Pd.
 
Mike Jamison tells me I am out to sea on the penetration power of gammas.
He says 4 Mev gammas are depleted only 90% per inch of lead.  He also
says that penetration effects vary with energy, penetration dropping
once again as energies increase beyond a certain level.
 
So Droege probably (???) has an external gamma source -- which accounts
for his 1/10000th of Ying's intensity.
 
You could still use my "stipulator" (as comedian Norm Crosby?? would call
it) for the alpha source.
 
I averaged Tom's three "on" powers minus the average of the three "off"
powers, and I come up with a delta power of 8.5 milliwatts.  Though this
is about 1/60th Ying's delta power, Tom claims his incident boson
intensity is 1/10000th that of Ying's.
 
Conclusion -- Tom's bosons kick butt.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 /  /  Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:51:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says: "Your method of deriving the TCal from the slope does
not work."
 
Under my assumption that it is a first order system, if the initial value and
slope and the final value are known, then everything is known.  Of course it
is not a first order system.  But it might be close enough that this view will
give a check on the other measurement.  My point still is that this analysis
gave an answer closer to a null result than the claimed high power, so I am
suspicious.
 
Steve Finberg looked up my 1958 MS thesis where I first started working on this
kind of computer model.  Since, I have worked on the computer simulation that
drove the centrafuge that trained Grissom, Shephard, Glenn, etc., to practice
flying their capsule under "g" forces.  Wrote code and did simulations for many
missiles that never flew (because of the simulations).  But I am not an expert.
Most of these simulations do not work.  We completely failed to get a decent
model for the present calorimeter.
 
But I am not so sure that an arbitrary electrochemist is an expert.  Jed is
correct in saying that transient analysis is harder than steady state.  But
now we have the FFT and can do some wonderful things.  Still it is hard to get
any model that works for an arbitrary system.  That is why McKubre and myself
work hard on the physical configuration of the calorimeter.  With the right
physical layout, it is possible to have a reasonable model.  The Takahashi
configuration is such that I don't know how to get a model, and thus don't
believe that it can be calibrated.
 
I now retire from the discussion, as Jed can clearly type faster than I can.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 /  /  Palladium
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:51:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I was amazed to find that while no one seems to want to jump in to a
discussion of computer simulation of CNF cells, many know about futures
contracts.  The bill just came.  Commission $15.00, $1.35 clearing fee,
$0.12 NFA fee.  Total, $16.47.  The price is down 0.30 so I have already
lost $30.  Guess 1.5 standard deviations is not enough to impress the
market.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / John Logajan /  Coleman Mantels and Thorium
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:34:28 GMT

I checked my brother's Coleman lantern mantles with my
geiger counter and found they weren't radioactive!  I've
checked others before and they were radioactive.
 
Today I went to the sporting goods store to investigate.
Coleman now sells something called "Gold Top" or some
such name, and claim it is four times tougher.
 
But they don't contain any Thorium.  Fortunately they
are still selling Thorium containing mantles -- or,
perhaps they are clearing them out of inventory???
 
The new ones cost $1.50 and the old ones cost $1.00.
The old radioactive ones are clearly marked that they
contain Thorium.  The ones I bought today are Model 20.
 
I got four sets, just in case it is my last chance to
get radioactive material on the cheap.
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Thomas Edwards /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:56:57 GMT
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <920723020943_72240.1256_EHL23-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>It would be very good for this field if I had the money to mail out a survey
>to all of the people on my list, asking what results they have achieved
>lately. DB's bibliography is great help, but it takes many months for papers
>to appear, and a paper may not lay out the facts you want for a database. It
>would be good if I could publish such a database.
 
This is another good argument for getting every researcher in the US, and
possibly the world, on the net.
 
So, if I'm not mistaken, Ying's hypothesis means that the reason why
so few researchers got valid results, and why few of them got
any kind of repeatability was because the cold-fusion was being
set off by environmental radiation.  This would mean that the people
who carefully shielded their experiments while looking for
gamma rays should have had the worst results!
 
If I were in charge of research money (which I'm not...yet),
I'd say we keep spending enough money on CF until we figure out
1) if CF is real
or
2) why it appears CF is real if it is not
 
Even if CF is not real, I have to start wondering what important
calorimetry problem we are having that lead so many reasonable people
to conclude that something is going on.  This _is_ an important
problem to solve!
 
-Thomas
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentedwards cudfnThomas cudlnEdwards cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:34:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul23.185657.15206@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas
 Grant Edwards) writes:
>In article <920723020943_72240.1256_EHL23-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>>It would be very good for this field if I had the money to mail out a survey
>>to all of the people on my list, asking what results they have achieved
>>lately. DB's bibliography is great help, but it takes many months for papers
>>to appear, and a paper may not lay out the facts you want for a database. It
>>would be good if I could publish such a database.
>
>This is another good argument for getting every researcher in the US, and
>possibly the world, on the net.
>
>So, if I'm not mistaken, Ying's hypothesis means that the reason why
>so few researchers got valid results, and why few of them got
>any kind of repeatability was because the cold-fusion was being
>set off by environmental radiation.  This would mean that the people
>who carefully shielded their experiments while looking for
>gamma rays should have had the worst results!
 
     This was the thought of some early on.  This was one hypothesized
     reason why people like Pons and Fleischmann were able to get results
     while people like Gai who surrounded their detectors with
     oodles of lead and cinderblocks did not.  Of course, at that time
     there was a bunch of speculation about novel particles, not ordinary
     old gammas and alphas.
 
                                dale bass
 
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Paul Karol /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:12:10 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think Dieter Britz is confusing macroscopic thermodynamics with
microscopic kinetics when he invokes Le Chatlier's principle to question
how the input of gamma irradiation affects the D + D --> He-4 + gamma
reaction.  In microscopic reaction rate theory, before we can talk about
Le Chatlier's principle and equilibrium, we have to say something about
the reverse elementary reaction, He-4 + gamma --> D + D.  When we know
the relative rates of each of these steps, we have an equilibrium
constant.  But suppose the rate of that latter step is zero, i.e. that
it does not occur.  You have an irreversible reaction, no 'equilibrium',
and no place for Le Chatlier's principle.  Or, if you add aluminum
powder to a solution of copper, metallic copper will form and the
aluminum will dissolve.  You can't get metallic aluminum back by adding
more product copper metal.
 
PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:23:40 EST
Organization: Wright State University

>
>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of
>>(?Frank Close?)'s postings.
>
>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>>angstroms.
>
> and
>
> In article <1992Jul22.182608.24724@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
> (John Logajan) writes:
>> In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
 edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>>>angstroms.
>>>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2
>>>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
>>
>> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
>> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
>> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
>> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
>>
>> And, something I should know after all this time, but are the D's in the
>> Pd lattice mono or do they still hang around together?
>
> If I remember my numbers correctly, the d-d separation in D2 gas is 0.72 A,
> and in PdD it is about 4.2 A. This was one of the early "proofs" by physicists
> that cnf is impossible. It falls down on the possibility (accepted by some
> knowledgable people) that the PdD crystal environment has some special
> properties to enhance fusion rates. I wouldn't know. Are Schwinger and
> Hagelstein senile and non compos, respectively? We must not go by authority,
 it
> is said, but inevitably we do. Frank Close and Huizenga are authorities, too,
> and they flatly deny the possibility of such special solid state effects.
 
Just some points of interest concerning this thread.
 
First on the atomic seperation issue:  The seperation of the D in the
PdD lattice is due to the D occupying the interstitial sites of the Pd
crystal.  IF two Ds were forced into a single interstitial site would
the resultant forces create a void in the Pd crystal or 'squish' the
Ds together?  Also in a metal crystal some of the Pd electrons swim
through the crystal not bound to any single atom.  Is it possible that
the D electrons do the same?  If so couldn't several electrons in the
vicinity of the Ds under the compressive load help reduce the electro-
magnetic forces keeping them apart?
 
Tell you what, let me get out my metallurgy book and do some
calculations.
 
 
 
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ...         | Beatles
              |    and a minute is a long time.            |   Yellow Submarine
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjbatka cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Idea for verifying Ying's probability fusion theory
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:12:16 EST
Organization: Wright State University

>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms, per one of
>>(?Frank Close?)'s postings.
>
>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>>angstroms.
>
> and
>
> In article <1992Jul22.182608.24724@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
> (John Logajan) writes:
>> In article <22JUL199212352997@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
 edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>>>With 1:1 Pd:D loading, atomic separation is about 1.7 angstroms
>>>Atomic separation of D2 should be roughly the same as for H2, or about 0.74
>>>angstroms.
>>>Hence, in liquified D2, the probability for fusion should be at least 2
>>>times greater than it is for a PdD cell
>>
>> Hmmm.  You have the average seperation of D2 to D2, no?  In a gas or even
>> in a liquid this is probably much greater than the 1.7 average for Pd:D.
>> The liquid D2 is lumpier, but on the average much more dilute, no?  Which
>> is the more important value, the average of the lumpiness, or the lumps?
>>
Just finished calculating the values.
 
Pd Atomic Radius              = 1.37 A
H (best guess for D) Radius   = .46 A
Pd Crystal Type               = FCC (Face Centered Cubic)
Unit Cell Length              = 3.875 A
Min Diam Interstitial Site    = 1.135 A
Dist between int site centers = 2.74 A
 
There is plenty of room for 2+ Ds to bang around inside of one of these
interstitial sites.  In fact due to the geometery there may be enough room
for 3 Ds to be present.  This is based solely upon size constraints
not electromagnetic potential constraints.
 
With two Ds in one interstial site the minimum seperation would be
.46 A and the maximum would be .675 A.
 
Another advantage to being inside of an interstitial site is that the
Ds have a much greater force keeping them together then they have when
in liquid or gaseous form.
 
Now how about some of you Chemical Phycists & Physical Chemists calculating
the maximum pressure a Pd crystal could exert upon two Ds in an interstitial
site?
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ...         | Beatles:
              |    and a minute is a long time.            |   Yellow Submarine
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjbatka cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Richard Long /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:02:08 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1992Jul23.150942.4310@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.182537.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> >Something bothers me about the Ying experiment. I'm just a humble
> >electrochemist, so maybe some physics expert out there can enlighten
me:
> >The Ying theory says, correctly, that one of the branches of d-d fusion
is
> >d + d --> (4)He + gamma (23.x MeV); this is in fact the controversial
minor
> >branch, with a probability of 1E-07 times the other two, with the
infamous
> >50:50 branching ratio, yielding neutrons or tritium. OK. Ying now
proposes
> >to enhance this minor branch by tickling it with gamma rays at just
that
> >energy, 23.x MeV.
> >
> >I understand that quantum physics is not like chemistry but I still
can't
> >shake the thought that this is the wrong way around. In chemistry, if
you
> >have a reaction like
> >
> >A + B + C + ... ---> O + P + Q + ...
> >
> >then if you add, to a mixture of all these, one of the products O, P, Q
.,
> >you drive the reaction backwards. This is Le Chatelier's Principle, and
we
> >understand it today in terms of thermodynamics, equilibrium constants
etc.
>
> All correct.  However:
>
> Think about a laser.  A laser has a population inversion (many more
> atoms in an excited state than in a lower level state) and this can be
> thought of as a system with a *negative* temperature.
etc.
 
Rolfe's analysis of the thermodynamics is very clear.  However, he does
not mention the quantum mechanical properties of bosons that makes not
only lasers, but superfluid He4 and superconductivity, as well as lasers,
possible.
My naive understanding (having never done the wavemechanical calculations
myself, but instead borrowing from Feynman's more intuitive descriptions)
is that when two bosons are within a wavelength or so of one another,  (so
that the uncertainty principle makes the two completely
indistinguishable), we have two possible pathways for a process like.  One
is the process itself, the second is the two bosons are exchanged along
with the process.  Boson wavefunctions are even, so the total wavefunction
is the sum of the two.  Since the wavefunctions are identical, the
probability is simply doubled.  For N bosons, there are N possible
exchanges and the probability is multiplied by N.
For this boson coupling to work, we need the bosons to be within a
wavelength or so of one another, and in very nearly the same quantum state
(within the uncertainty relations).  This means that, in the case of a
laser, the emitted photon will be in very nearly the same quantum state as
the neighbors (with a probability proportional to N) which is why laser
light is coherent.
In the case of liquid He4, we have the same argument.  The uncertainty
relations say that our needed distance between He4 nuclei should be on the
order of the wavelength.  For liquid helium, this is about 2 angstroms.
The uncertainty relations say that:
	2e-10 m = h_bar/p = h_bar/(sqr(2mE)) = h_bar/(sqr(2mkT))
 
Solving for T gives a critical temperature of about 3 degrees kelvin for
superfluid he4.
 
By the same token, we would expect that photons will behave as a
superfluid when the photon density puts the average photon within a
wavelength of the others.  Materials that are opaque would then become
transparent.  The reason is that, if a photon scatters to a new direction
and frequency, the probability of it rescattering back to the same
direction and frequency is increased by the number of photons within one
wavelength.
Also, the very short wavelengths of gamma rays would be what makes a gamma
ray laser so difficult make, I imagine, since the interaction
cross-section is so much smaller.
Which brings me to Ying's hypothesis.  The alpha penetration (the distance
of closest approach) is proportional to 1/E, and the wavelength is
proportional to 1/(sqr(E)).  The energy where these two match is in the
tens of MeV range, so energetic alphas would work I guess, but the
interaction cross-section would be so small that I don't see how it would
work.  Maybe the virtual alpha from fusion is so spread out as to make
this cross-section very large, and at the same time allow the wavelength
to be longer (lower energy).  Otherwise, its probably better to just put
the whole thing in a superfluid He4 bath, but then there would be other
more mundane physical problems to overcome ;)
 
 
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Peroxide again!
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide again!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:56:11 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1992Jul23.043326.3736@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
(James R. White) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.210626.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>  medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul22.033005.14971@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
>> (James R. White) writes:
>>>                ... The most likely chemical explanation is that
>>> deuterium peroxide (D2O2) is being formed at the platinum anode. ...
>>
>> We've been down that path, as our politicians like to say. Forget peroxide.
>> At the overpotentials in cnf electrolysis cells, you go straight to O2 at the
>> anode. ...
>
> An overpotential of half a volt is enough to allow peroxide to form.
> This is an order of magnitude less than the total voltage at which
> many cnf cells operate, and the potpourri of contaminants that are
> present might well cause such an overpotential. This is a much less
> exotic assumption than that there is a radiation-free ash-free nuclear
> process producing the heat.
>
> Do you know what the overpotential at the anode is in any of the cells
> which have produced large bursts of heat?
>
> After considerable thought, I have concluded that the most impressive
> results must be due to either peroxide or something much more exotic.
> The amount of excess heat in these results is too large to be explained
> by calorimetry errors. And only deuterium and oxygen are present in
> large enough quantities to store the huge amount of energy involved.
> That is why I would like to see peroxide taken seriously, and decisively
> ruled out (or in) by the researchers who are getting these impressive
> results.
 
I think you have it the wrong way around. Electrolysis of water produces
oxygen at the anode; oxygen is the end of the road, while peroxide is part
way down the road of oxidation. So the larger the overpotential, the less
chance of getting peroxide. The actual overpotential achieved is hard to know;
FPH claimed 0.8 V but didn't say how they got that. Being an experienced
electrochemist, though, Fleischmann can probably be trusted with the figure. He
knows about such complications as iR drop (the total cell voltage is the sum of
the overpotentials at cathode and anode, and ohmic drop in the solution).
 
Jorge Stolfi emailed me privately and submits that Tom's gas loss is best
explained in terms of D2O2 formation. This could be tested by either taking
out an aliquot from the cell and testing chemically for peroxide (I think
iodide should do, but would want to look at a table of standard potentials
to be sure) - or to inject a drop of a test solution, something I am sure Tom
would shudder at the thought of.
 
In the next few days, I'll be posting a paper by Riley et al, in which they
describe in situ deuterium loading measurements using gas volume. They get
precisely what one expects, with one puzzling exception, where they get a
loading of 1 instead of about 0.75-0.8. This supports my contention that
peroxide can be forgotten about.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Alexander Anger /  Re: Does Cerencov radiation make sense?
     
Originally-From: alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does Cerencov radiation make sense?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:33:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

>In sci.physics.fusion, alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>
>
>    	Cerencov radiation is produced as a charged particle
>    moves through the medium in which speed of light, adjusted for
>    the refraction index of the medium, is less than the speed of
>    the beforementioned charged article. Is this concept/effect
>    extendible into the domain of charged particle moving through
>    metals? It is a somewhat(a lot?) naive question as I know that the
>    concept of refraction index can be extended to take into account
>    absorption, but does a charged particle moving through metals
>    loose its energy by mechanism similar to Cerencov radiation in
>    dielectrics. It seems to me it must.
 
It probably does, but it may be very difficult to measure in metals.
My guess is the Cerenkov radiation is absorbed in the metal before it
can be detected, but I don't know for sure.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenalexa cudfnAlexander cudlnAnger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / John Moore /  Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:24:07 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords:
 
In article <9207231834.AA07357@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
]I got four sets [of Coleman Lantern Mantles], just in case it is my last chance
 to
]get radioactive material on the cheap.
 
 
Smoke detectors have a very hot source in them. My counter goes bananas
(many hundreds of counts per minute) when placed within an inch of them.
Almost nothing farther away.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:25:27 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <MePjNuS00WBME3xIw9@andrew.cmu.edu>, pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Paul Karol) writes:
> I think Dieter Britz is confusing macroscopic thermodynamics with
> microscopic kinetics when he invokes Le Chatlier's principle to question
> how the input of gamma irradiation affects the D + D --> He-4 + gamma
> reaction.  In microscopic reaction rate theory, before we can talk about
> Le Chatlier's principle and equilibrium, we have to say something about
> the reverse elementary reaction, He-4 + gamma --> D + D.  When we know
> the relative rates of each of these steps, we have an equilibrium
> constant.  But suppose the rate of that latter step is zero, i.e. that
> it does not occur.  You have an irreversible reaction, no 'equilibrium',
> and no place for Le Chatlier's principle.  Or, if you add aluminum
> powder to a solution of copper, metallic copper will form and the
> aluminum will dissolve.  You can't get metallic aluminum back by adding
> more product copper metal.
 
I did suspect that my physical gut feeling was suspect, and several people
have now told me so. I have been reminded of stimulated emission from lasers
and so on; I accept all this, and that Le Chatelier never thought of cold
fusion enhancement.
 
Your point about copper and aluminium is wrong, though, mate; my chemistry is
OK, if not my physics. Thermodynamically speaking, in the system Cu++ and Al,
although the equilibrium is far to the side of Cu + Al+++, i.e. the reaction
(simplified)
3Cu++ + 2Al  <=> 3Cu + 2Al+++  goes to the right,
you can't get it to go back by adding Cu, true, because you can't increase
the activity of copper beyond 1; but in principle if you add a lot of Al+++,
you'd shift the equilibrium backwards, if only a tiny bit. This can get sort of
theoretical, though, in some cases you are talking about 1 atom in a normal
volume, AND the reaction rate might be astronomically small (there I go again).
 
I still want to see a Ying reactor doing its stuff - just like the Pons water
heater {:]
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / Paul Karol /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:01:32 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

My complaint to Dieter Britz about the inapplicability of Le Chatlier's
Principle was rebutted.  I used a specific chemical example to simplify
my point.  DB countered that in the equilibrium
 
     2Al + 3Cu(++) <=> 2Al(+++) + 3Cu
 
although adding copper (as I was discussing) would not re-generate
metallic aluminum, adding Al(+++) would reverse the reaction.  But I did
not suggest considering the addition of more Al(+++) anymore than the
suggestion has been offered to check the reaction
 
      D + D --> He-4 + gamma
 
by pumping helium in to see if deuterium is formed.  So I still stand by
my comment and example.
 
PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:28:43 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul23.193434.10646@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.185657.15206@src.umd.edu> tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas
 Grant Edwards) writes:
>>
>>So, if I'm not mistaken, Ying's hypothesis means that the reason why
>>so few researchers got valid results, and why few of them got
>>any kind of repeatability was because the cold-fusion was being
>>set off by environmental radiation.  This would mean that the people
>>who carefully shielded their experiments while looking for
>>gamma rays should have had the worst results!
>
>     This was the thought of some early on.  This was one hypothesized
>     reason why people like Pons and Fleischmann were able to get results
>     while people like Gai who surrounded their detectors with
>     oodles of lead and cinderblocks did not.  Of course, at that time
>     there was a bunch of speculation about novel particles, not ordinary
>     old gammas and alphas.
 
Right.  There was much speculation about muons and other cosmic rays in
particular, plus possible novel particles as final products or as part
of the mechanism.
 
However, it is not true that all experiments were shielded or that all
shielded experiments got null results.
 
There were at least two experiments that I know about that were set up
with scintillator paddles positioned to provide veto or coincidence
information on possible fuision neutron events associated with cosmic
radiation.  These did not see any results above background.
 
There was also a Jones experiment done in a mine near Leadville that
was below a separate experiment that was looking at very high energy
cosmic rays.  He saw bursts of neutrons (at a level hundreds of times
weaker than his original paper reported) at very infrequent intervals.
The timing of these bursts was then checked with events seen at the
surface experiment and it was noted that there was no correlation.
 
Note that a silver mine would be expected to have a significant alpha
background that could be relevant.  However, it is very unlikely that
the alphas could penetrate the apparatus, and the rates Jones saw were
not a possible explanation for any heat.  Ying's suggestion poses an
interesting question to those who thought they had controlled all the
variables in the problem....
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / Woody Ligon /  Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
     
Originally-From: Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:30:53 GMT
Organization: GE-CRD

In article <1992Jul23.222407.18064@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
 Moore) writes:
>
> Keywords:
>
> In article <9207231834.AA07357@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
> ]I got four sets [of Coleman Lantern Mantles], just in case it is my last
 chance to
> ]get radioactive material on the cheap.
>
>
> Smoke detectors have a very hot source in them. My counter goes bananas
> (many hundreds of counts per minute) when placed within an inch of them.
> Almost nothing farther away.
>
>
I have a small hand-held Geiger counter which I take with me when my wife
drags me off to antique stores.
 
The place to look is in the old chinaware section.  It turns out that the
"fiesta ware" pieces which are very bright orange got that way because they
use a uranium containing glaze. The uranium is natural abundance, of course,
but the purity must be pretty high because the activity is quite significant.
 
The New York regulations on "Ionizing Radiation Protection" (12 NYCRR 38)
list this as an exempted use as follows:  "Source material contained in any
of the following products: Glazed ceramic tableware, the glaze of which
contains not more than 20% by weight of source material;....."
 
Woody Ligon
standard disclaimer applies
(ligon@macgw1.ge.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenLigon cudfnWoody cudlnLigon cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / John Logajan /  Coleman mantles, decay rate
     
Originally-From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coleman mantles, decay rate
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:25:16 GMT

From the "feel" of the count rate of my geiger counter sampling Coleman
mantles, I'd estimate it to be about 2 orders of magnitude higher than
background radiation.  Somewhere in the range of 100's of events (at the
detector tube) per minute.  Not terribly intense.
 
But, the count was hardly diminished by tin foil -- but mostly blocked
by my Revere Wear copper clad stainless steel frying pan.
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:11:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9949@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.193434.10646@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>>     This was the thought of some early on.  This was one hypothesized
>>     reason why people like Pons and Fleischmann were able to get results
>>     while people like Gai who surrounded their detectors with
>>     oodles of lead and cinderblocks did not.  Of course, at that time
>>     there was a bunch of speculation about novel particles, not ordinary
>>     old gammas and alphas.
>
>Right.  There was much speculation about muons and other cosmic rays in
>particular, plus possible novel particles as final products or as part
>of the mechanism.
>
>However, it is not true that all experiments were shielded or that all
>shielded experiments got null results.
 
     True, which is one reason (among many others) why the hypothesis
     fell into abeyance.  Another thing detracted from the plausibility.
     It was difficult to understand why certain people at altitude and certain
     people not at altitude got results, while others at altitude and
     not at altitude did not.  Of course, if it were gammas, that
     could easily explain the intermittency seen in some experiments.
 
     However, is it just me or does Ying's mechanism seem a bit
     contrived?
 
     Well, there's always the solar cycle ...
 
>There was also a Jones experiment done in a mine near Leadville that
>was below a separate experiment that was looking at very high energy
>cosmic rays.  He saw bursts of neutrons (at a level hundreds of times
>weaker than his original paper reported) at very infrequent intervals.
>The timing of these bursts was then checked with events seen at the
>surface experiment and it was noted that there was no correlation.
 
     Funny, I have always felt that Jones' experiments were even more
     questionable than PF (no offense intended to Dr. Jones who could
     probably be more profitably employed doing something else).  At
     least Pons and Fleischmann claimed a substantial effect.
 
                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / 	FNALD::DROEGE  /  Can't type
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE       23-JUL-1992 17:43:21.78
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can't type
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:43:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE       23-JUL-1992 17:43:21.78
To:	GOV%"fusaion%zorch@ames.arc.nasa.gov"
CC:	DROEGE
Subj:	Radiation Lengths
 
I walked down the hall and found a physicist with a famous little blue book.
 
Radiation Lengths:
 
Lead     0.56 cm
Concrete 10.7 cm
Water    36 cm
 
A radiation length is the length of material required for the intensity of
the gamma rays to fall to 1/e of their initial intensity.  Does not seem to
be a strong function of wave length, or there would have been more data.
But this obviously does not work at really long wave lengths (i.e. visible
light).  Possibly you start calling them gamma rays when this starts working.
 
I notice that it is getting hard to tell my "set" of private information from
the "set of all information revealed on the net".  A AND NOT B = 0 ???
 
So if I wanted to shoot gamma rays in from outside, they would not be bothered
much by 5/8" inches of aluminum, a mm or so of ss, and all that styrafoam.  But
the geometry is important.  Those of you who can look up the drawing of my
calorimeter in ICCF2 will notice that it would be possible to cut a hole in the
outside of the foam, through the aluminum inner layer, and through more foam,
and that this could be done with a dremmel tool while the experiment was
running.  This would allow placing a source within about 10 cm of the running
cell.  Plugging the hole with foam would pretty much preserve the calorimeter.
In any case if not true, one would see a big change in balance while grinding.
 
I should tell you all that long before there was any communication with Ying
there was a radium dial watch taped to the outside of the calorimeter on day
1 and it was inside on top of the cell on day two.  No obvious result.
 
Of course, moving a source that was 10 cm away from a cell to say 10' away
would change the intensity by a factor 62500.  Enough of a factor to do
an experiment.  Most of the above in answer to John Logajan.
 
Richare Long gives some information obtained about Ying's earlier work which
I presume is now public.  Not clear who is quoted but Long writes "the setup
doesn't work with Co60 alone...".   Perhaps Ying and Chow did not have a
very sensitive detector.  The stuff in the TV picture looks pretty crude.
Again commenting on John Logajan's butt kicking source, perhaps Ying could not
tell 1/2 watt from 20 watts.
 
There is only one piece of protected information in the kit I received from
Ying.  It contains a specific configuration and a specific procedure.  I am
not following the procedure yet, though I plan to when the stuff arrives.  I
am really only doing what anyone could do reading the stuff posted here.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 /  Rothwell /  The proof is in the pudding
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The proof is in the pudding
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:43:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tom Droege comments: "The Takahashi configuration is such that I don't know
how to get a model, and thus don't believe that it can be calibrated."
 
We don't need a model to calibrate. We run a heater, then we run electrolysis
at different levels, and we get straight calibration lines. During the
experiment we watch the input power, the flow Delta-T, and the box
temperature; they track very closely. This proves that box temperature
measures heat accurately.
 
We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the water is constantly, thoroughly
mixed. This is a clear plastic box; you can look inside it, and see that the
water is bubbling, sloshing and splashing around. Bubbles, and occasional
small pieces of grit, are driven everywhere. Furthermore, we have three
thermocouples, separated vertically and horizontally. With joule heating, they
show a thermal gradient. With even one watt of electrolysis, the gradient
almost disappears.
 
We don't have to know exactly how the box works in order to be certain that it
*does* work. A computer model is good, but actual experimental data is
indisputable proof.
 
Before I leave for vacation, I would like to quickly address your other
statement: "We live in a fluid called air, Jed.  Sometimes we have Tornadoes,
but not all the time.  They are very capricious.  That is because temperature
gradients in a fluid can do very complicated things..."
 
"Capricious" is the key word. Storms do not start up after a few weeks, and
persist for 4 months steadily. They do not respond to input proportionally,
changing in a precise manner every 6 hours. They are not inversely correlated
with neutrons.
 
Takahashi's grad students hauled the box out of the neutron counter by pulling
the red wires shown in the photo, and sloshed in new heavy water periodically.
Flow gradients would never survive such jostling; they would stop temporarily,
and then take another two weeks to restart. The conditions in the box were
just as conducive to thermal gradients during the first week as they were 2
weeks later, or 4 months later. If this miniature storm could flick on at
random after a few weeks, then sometime during the next four months, it would
flick off again at least once.
 
Furthermore, if a gradient could produce a bogus 30 watt positive reading on
the low end and 100 watts on the high end, then from time to time it would
produce strongly negative readings of -30 and -100 watts, as the flow shifts
capriciously around. Neither Takahashi nor I have ever observed anything like
this. In any case, visual observation of the box and my computer data both
prove that there are no gradients, and that Takahashi was not seeing a tempest
in a test tube.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 /  Rothwell /  Database
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Database
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:43:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Thomas Edwards comments on my database idea: "This is another good argument
for getting every researcher in the US, and possibly the world, on the net."
 
This would help, but as Dieter can tell you, somebody has to do a lot of hard
work to organize the data. Also, Japanese researchers are very unlikely to get
on a net, since they do not generally speak English fluently, and they do not
have time. Most of their papers and meetings are in Japanese (obviously!).
Finally, the big corporate people, who have the best results both here and in
Japan, would never, ever, contribute a word. They might respond to a formal
survey. OTOH, I am no Fritz Will, so they would probably ignore me.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 /  /  A Little More Data
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Little More Data
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:41:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.
 
Dr. Nelson Ying called this morning and I now have a better idea about what I
can talk about.  There is a specific drawing which shows the configuration of
Ying's experiment.  In fairness to Ying, I will not say how the present
configuration compares to the Ying set up.  This way I will give away as
little as possible of his design.
 
We have added a Co60 source to the "old" Takahashi experiment.  Sources are
pretty well protected these days.  While I could easily check out a source at
Fermilab (if I sat through enough video tapes and took enough tests) I would
be fired if I took it off site.  I really think they would actually do it.
It shows the pickle science has gotten into by accepting government support.
 
There is also a radium dial watch sitting on top of the cell.  I wish it were
not there, but to remove it I would have to open the calorimeter, and this
would compromise the calibration.
 
Fortunately I have a friend at a university who has boxes full of old stuff.
The source he brought is stamped 0.5 micro-curie.  No telling how old it is.
Could easily be 30 years old.  If so, it would be down to 0.008 micro-curie.
When put right against the gieger counter window, it barely brings it up to
0.1 rem per hour.  I believe the source Ying is using is much more intense,
but I won't know until I get it.  He can obviously create a more favorable
geometry than I have.  The UPS driver came and left this morning without
bringing a source, so no change is possible until monday.
 
As stated previously, I dremmel tooled my way through the outer shell of the
calorimeter so that I can put the source up against the outside of the dewar.
This puts it about 10 cm from the cathode.  Between the source and the cathode
are two approximately 0.020 stainless steel dewar walls, 1/16" of copper, 5/8"
of aluminum, 0.030" of polypropylene, and 2 cm of D2O saturated with LiOD.
There is a 2" foam plug which is put in behind the source position whether it
is there or not.  Even if the plug is left out, the change in heat leak would
be only of order 100 micro-watts per degree C.  Room temperature is constant
to better than 1 C.  I do not see much possibility that source in - source out
does anything to change the calorimeter balance - other than through the
effect of the source radiation.
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
1   On      17760        4.9        532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
2   Off     48060       13.4       1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
3   On      87300       24.3       2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
4   Off     77220       21.5       1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
5   On      82740       23.0       3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
6   Off     79980       22.2       2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
7   On      83640       23.2       3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
8   Off     57300       15.9       1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
 
Note that since the last posting, point 6 has completed its on time.
 
No good way to tell for sure, but it looks like there might be a small time
lag related to source on-off.  This data is all taken while running the
Takahashi saw tooth current profile.  The period is 15 minutes, and the
current ramps up to 400 ma per sq cm from a low of 60 ma per sq cm.  The ramp
gives a power integral that looks like a rectified sine wave.  We always do
things i.e., take a data point or change the source position, at the slowly
changing top of the integral data.  The energy (accumulated net joules) is a
continuous sum of the total energy - time interval product.  The total energy
is the power in - the power out.  The power in measurement is the algebraic
sum of all the E*I of all the leads coming in to the calorimeter.  The power
out it the refrigerator current times the refrigerator scale factor determined
from calibration experiments.  Calibration experiments are much quieter than
this data.
 
With point 8 we will reduce the time interval to 12 hours in an attempt to get
more data.
 
Many thanks to Robert Eachus for his data analysis.  How about it skeptics,
what would be convincing?  I think it would be a lot of fun to run a double
blind experiment over the network.  I already have a few volunteers to work,
but I really would like to hear from the skeptics, who suddenly seem to be
quiet?  Hello?  Hello?.  Skeptics, are you there?  I want to give you jobs to
do, like compare the power measurement stream with the source in - source out
sequence.  If we can line up a set of volunteers, I do not even need to know
when the source is in and out, and do not have to touch the data disk.  I am
still a Dieter Britz type agnostic.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / John Logajan /  Ying and the conductivity of ionization trails
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying and the conductivity of ionization trails
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:14:26 GMT

Here's a wacky idea.  Ying says they "rejuvenate" by a reverse current
of 600 uA at 15V.  This implies an electrolyte ("old" D2O) resistance
of about 25,000 Ohms.
 
When running in normal mode, Ying claims an input power of 15mW.  This
works out to 775 uA at 19.3V -- assuming a 25K resistance.
 
Now Ying introduces a ionizing radiation source.  What happens to the
electrolyte resistance when it has ionization trails punched through
it by the decay products?
 
I don't know about the chemistry of such interactions in liquids, but
I do know that in high resistance atmospheres, the conductivity increase
through the "trail" and allows current to more easily flow.
 
If the current flow is intense enough, the "trail" is maintained.  If
the current flow isn't so intense, the "trail" quickly breaks up.
 
Let's assume we have short lived conductive "trails" formed in the
D2O by the passing of the ionizing radioactive particles.  We'd get
very short "current" bursts through the liquid.  If we don't have
a good means of measuring fast transients in current flow, we are
likely to have our true electrical input power under-reported.
 
We might see anomolous heat because we've lost track of the actual
amount of input power we are injecting.
 
Ying's "new" D2O might even have a higher resistance (he didn't release
enough numbers to tell for sure, but it looks like it to me.)  This
would make it even more susceptible to "gains" in heat due to the
difference between non-conduction and ionized conduction.
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Lane Kagey /  Re: We are doing the Ying Experiment
     
Originally-From: lane@ast.COM (Lane Kagey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We are doing the Ying Experiment
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:04:37 GMT
Organization: AST Research Inc., Irvine, CA

In article <920721124650.20206aab@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, Tom Droege writes:
> ... periods.  Since god has a "Ying On" device that she turns on from
> time to time, it is not possible to have a true "off" period.
>
 
might this imply a correlation between CF results and solar activity
(or being near Chernobyl ;-) ) ? is this a relevant question?
 
 
--
Lane Kagey                          lane@ast.com -or- ...uunet!legs!lane
c/o AST Research Inc. Dept 670      fax: (714) 727-8589
16215 Alton Parkway P.O. Box 19658  Tel: (714) 727-8468
Irvine, California 92713-9658
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlane cudfnLane cudlnKagey cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 /  Karol /  D+D-->He+gamma
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D+D-->He+gamma
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:27:42 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Could someone be kind enough to post a brief (100-200 word) summary of
the 'Ying' CNF scheme that seems to involve the equivalent of stimulated
fusion by resonance gammas.  Just the gist of the model?  I've gotten
lost in all the side-tracking and never did get a good grasp of it.  I'm
particularly interested in how 'heat' appears.
 
Thanks to any responders.
 
Paul J. Karol
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.24 / Robert Eachus /  Re: A Little More Data
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Little More Data
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:36:39 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <920724131231.208006aa@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
   #   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
   1   On      17760        4.9        532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
   2   Off     48060       13.4       1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
   3   On      87300       24.3       2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
   4   Off     77220       21.5       1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
   5   On      82740       23.0       3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
   6   Off     79980       22.2       2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
   7   On      83640       23.2       3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
   8   Off     57300       15.9       1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
 
   Many thanks to Robert Eachus for his data analysis. [Danke.]  How
   about it skeptics, what would be convincing?...
 
   I realized last night that a simple binomial test would be fairly
powerful with this data.  The expected result is that the power will
be greater when the power is on than off.  Consider a trial to be
adding or removing the source, and all we need to look at is whether
the difference between successive power levels is in the "right"
direction.  So the above data gives us 7 pairs all in the right
direction.  Alpha = 1/2**7 = 1/128 = 0.0078 = 0.78%, so with a one
percent significance level reject the null hypothesis.  (This only
says that the addition of the radiation source has an effect and it is
in the right direction, but that is saying a lot. This is already more
convincing than the statistics in most published papers in many
fields, including Cold Fusion.)
 
   For completeness the two statisics I posted previously are now:
 
Using Wilcoxon's W statistic (H0 = no effect, H1 = excess heat during
on periods): Alpha = 0.057 = 5.7%
 
Using the signed rank test (this is the less likely to be affected by
long term drift in the calibration as is the binomial test above):
Alpha (confidence level) = 0.0625 = 6.25%
 
Neither is decisive, but I still need more data (for this sort of test
about 20 data points is usual).  I'll do some more analysis over the
weekend, but at this point unless the data change radically, I'm
really looking for more information in the data, not whether or not
there is a treatment effect.
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:40:26 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Jul23.182537.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
(Dieter Britz) writes:
> Something bothers me about the Ying experiment. I'm just a humble
> electrochemist, so maybe some physics expert out there can enlighten me:
> The Ying theory says, correctly, that one of the branches of d-d fusion is
> d + d --> (4)He + gamma (23.x MeV); this is in fact the controversial minor
> branch, with a probability of 1E-07 times the other two, with the infamous
> 50:50 branching ratio, yielding neutrons or tritium. OK. Ying now proposes
> to enhance this minor branch by tickling it with gamma rays at just that
> energy, 23.x MeV.
>
> I understand that quantum physics is not like chemistry but I still can't
> shake the thought that this is the wrong way around. In chemistry, if you
> have a reaction like
>
> A + B + C + ... ---> O + P + Q + ...
>
> then if you add, to a mixture of all these, one of the products O, P, Q ...,
> you drive the reaction backwards.
 
Well, to me the situation is not analogous to chemistry, because in
chemical systems the interation is always present between physically
nearby reactants (being electrical in nature), while in nuclear interactions
the interaction is not always present (being the short range strong
force) between physically nearby reactant. So, if you toss in the gammas,
the d-d-gamma dont all see eachother anyway.
 
Still, even when one thinks about it in a more proper intuitive way,
it seems a bit odd (please correct my intuition....): in my mind,
in the d + d -> He + g, the two d nuclei slam together and start
vibrating, and the vibration shakes off a gamma of the same frequency.
 
if you add the gamma back to a bunch of d's, so what? it may shake
individual d nuclei a bit, but it bounces off because its not
at a resonant frequency and in any event it doesn't seem to
encourage the d's to get close together.
 
??
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Peroxide again!
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide again!
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:55:22 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Dieter Britz writes:
>
> Jorge Stolfi emailed me privately and submits that Tom's gas loss is best
> explained in terms of D2O2 formation. This could be tested by either taking
> out an aliquot from the cell and testing chemically for peroxide (I think
> iodide should do, but would want to look at a table of standard potentials
> to be sure) - or to inject a drop of a test solution, something I am sure Tom
> would shudder at the thought of.
 
 
        In some research that I was doing several years ago, I had the
opportunity to develop a sensitive assay for peroxide formed in solutions of
auto-oxidizing phenolic compounds.  The test was based on iodide, with the
sensitivity enhanced by using liquid starch (which forms a blue colored complex
with the product).  Tom tells me that he is using saturated LiOD in D2O.  I
will try to spend a couple hours in the lab this weekend and see what I can
develop in the way of a sensitive spot test using a single drop of electrolyte.
I think the main problem may be the strong base, which may have to be
meutralized before proceeding with the test.  I will post any methodology that
I develop.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 /  /  What I Know About Gas
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What I Know About Gas
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:16:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thank you all for the discussion of the D2O2 problem.  Let me try to tell
you what I know for sure.
 
I am running with a saw tooth between 60 and 400 ma per sq cm.  This means
there is a big change in the cell temperature in the head space above the
liquid since the catalyst is there.  About 10 C over the cycle.  The
headspace volume is about 50 cc so this alone would produce a 1.7 cc
change.  But sometimes I see a small change and sometimes it is as much
as 6cc.  There tends to be a decrease in gas volume when the current
drops at the end of the saw tooth.  Since this is as much as 6 cc it
is too much to be explained by temperature.  This held up for very slow
cycles so it cannot be explained by thermometer temperature lag.  The
total cell voltage is about 6 volts at the high current point and 3.5
volts at the low current point.
 
I am quite willing to accept that the long term gas loss is a leak.  I
have done separate experiments where I tie off the gas syringe system
and check it for leaks and find none.  It has more tubing than the cell
and it is tygon where the cell tubing is viton.  But so far about
2000 cc have disappeared and this seems to much to be anything but a
leak.  I also do not think it is anything funny in the syringe.  I have
done a number of hysterisis loops for test and have observed no gas
"pumping" type of loss.
 
A lot would be explained if D2O2 were formed at high temperature and
high cell voltage, and then disassociated at low temperature and low
cell voltage.  Remember I previously ran the ramp backwards and did
not see the same gas change.  So it requires a sudden drop in current
to disassociate the D2O2 by this theory.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 /  /  Models
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Models
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:17:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Back when P&F made their announcement I wondered what all the arguments
about thermometers were about.  So I set out to make measurements which
did not depend on temperature gradients.  Now I find myself on the other
side of the argument.
 
Jed, you have a model whether you know it or not.  Your model is that the
thermometer tells you something about the calorimeter power level.  As I
remember it, Takahashi made a rather large change in calibration between
the original data and the MIT presentation.  I expect a few more changes
as he learns what the "model" is for his calorimeter.
 
Sorry that you say that you can look inside your calorimeter.  Guess you
have a better design than I as I do not know how to put in a window
without introducing a large variable error.
 
No one has discussed my first order system model.  Les Earnest, I know
you studied this at MIT in the same course that I took.  Are you listening?
Is it possible that none of you have used spice like programs to model
physical systems?  What do you do with all those computers??  I will be
the first to admit it is a weak model, but I was very surprised when it
told me there was no net power!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / John Logajan /  Ionization conductivity -- Not!
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ionization conductivity -- Not!
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:55:21 GMT

I wrote:
>Let's assume we have short lived conductive "trails" formed in the
>D2O by the passing of the ionizing radioactive particles.  We'd get
>very short "current" bursts through the liquid.
 
Apparently not.  I tried this at home.  I took two thin sheets of aluminum
about 2 inches long by 3/4 wide, held them apart about 1mm (by double
sided sticky foam tape at top and bottom with about a one inch open gap)
and immersed them in distilled water.
 
Then I applied 40 volts DC. After a bit, the resistance of the cell settled
out to be about 56,000 ohms.  I inserted a 10,000 ohm resistor in series
and got approx a 6 volt drop across it. (Which is how I determined the cell
resistance.)
 
Then I would alternately place my Coleman lantern mantles near the pill
bottle holding the aluminum plates. (These thorium mantles only produce
about 1000 counts per minute, about 1mRem on the dial.)
 
Across the 10K resistor I hooked a 100Mhz o-scope.  The only thing I saw
was slight low frequency drifting, probably due to bubbles.  There was
nothing different between the case with radiation and without.  With the
room lights turned down, I could see single triggers.  If this mechanism
was going to account for a half a watt of power, I *would* have seen something.
Even occasional single events.  But nothing.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Ted Dunning /  Re: Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 07:12:57 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab

 
In article <920716225805_72240.1256_EHL48-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   Pretend that someone has handed you a multimeter and a thermometer
   and said, "measure the amps, volts, and temperature of that cell.
   Be sure you get the temperature right to within one degree C. If
   you get it wrong, our government will loose $100 million, and you
   will spend the rest of your life working at MacDonalds."
 
   Would you do the work carefully? Would you repeat the measurement
   over again, to be sure you got it right? Of course you would!
 
 
actually the human answer is not to make sure they get it right, but
rather to recruit enough others so that the blame for getting it wrong
will be spread around enough.  this results in a massive decrease in
the collective intelligence applied to the problem and often results
in stupid decisions.
 
 
with regard to miti being terribly careful people, take the 5th
generation project as the canonical counter-example.  there were lots
of claims made by people regarded as trustworthy by miti, and now
a few years and yen later, the program is essentially a bust.  none of
the real goals of the project were met.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudented cudfnTed cudlnDunning cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:08:03 GMT

The responses to the "why doesn't adding photons shift the equilbrium
back towards D+D" miss the point.
 
Le Chatelier's principle applies to systems that are close to
thermodynamic equilibrium.  From a nuclear point of view, a system
containing any deuterium at room temperature is way out of equilibrium.
 
Were you to add photons to an extremely hot gas containing deuterons,
helium nuclei, and what not, you discover that, yes indeed, the equilbrium
is shifted away from 4He (but to free nucleons, not deuterons).
This happens at enormous temperatures, like in the big bang or inside
imploding stars.  The chance that your cold fusion apparatus is at a
temperature approaching 24 MeV is remote.
 
Chemical systems that are far from equilibrium can also exhibit behavior
seemingly at odds with this principle (for example, adding DNA to
a solution of polymerase and whatnot makes more DNA).
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Colin UCT /  Tom doing the Ying-Yang. Hassles with alphas.
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom doing the Ying-Yang. Hassles with alphas.
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:09:15 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

Tom Droege talks about turning the source of alphas and gammas off and
on.
 
Gammas are easy (you simply take away the source).
Alphas would (it seems to me) require a complete redesigning of the
cell in order to place the alpha source very close to the palladium,
and then use a shutter to turn the source off and on.
(the range of 5.5 MeV fission alphas in water is in the order of a few
microns - and they'd hardly get anywhere in the palladium.)
 
In order to get your alphas to make it through the calorimeter, water
etc you'd need either an evacuated tube right up to the electrode, or
to pump in alphas of 200 MeV+. Nasty.
 
IMHO, the (very dubious) advantages of introduction of alphas into the
experiment is simply not worth the hassle. I'd be interested to know (
and must wait, of course) to know just how Ying is introducing his
stimulatory alphas.
 
--  Colin Henderson Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
    colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Ying Experiment
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ying Experiment
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 13:50:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> .. God has a gamma source...
 
(should have been Goddess last time, BTW)
 
When are you making the trip to the lead mine?
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:26:08 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul24.151111.7971@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <9949@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>There was also a Jones experiment done in a mine near Leadville that
>>was below a separate experiment that was looking at very high energy
>>cosmic rays.  He saw bursts of neutrons (at a level hundreds of times
>>weaker than his original paper reported) at very infrequent intervals.
>>The timing of these bursts was then checked with events seen at the
>>surface experiment and it was noted that there was no correlation.
>
>     Funny, I have always felt that Jones' experiments were even more
>     questionable than PF (no offense intended to Dr. Jones who could
>     probably be more profitably employed doing something else).  At
>     least Pons and Fleischmann claimed a substantial effect.
 
The issue in any experimental investigation is not how big an effect
you claim, but whether the effect is real and reproducible.  In
particular, I always look for the control of systematic errors and
the significance of the signal.
 
One of the strengths of this latest work by Jones is that he has a
number of detectors and a setup where he can monitor coincident
events with particular emphasis on bursts.  His signal to noise in
that experiment looked very good; there were no coincident events
except for very rare cases that consisted of a burst of tens to
hundreds of neutrons.  A burst or nothing.  The "accidental" rate
is thus zip, although the energy produced is also zip because of
the low rate of bursts -- one every day or so I recall.
 
Thus I think it is more likely that Jones is close to establishing
a *nuclear* effect that is at variance with simple predictions than
that P&F(&H) have established a nuclear fusion effect.
 
I think it is, unfortunately, also true that P&F have not yet established
heat effects in a controlled and reproducible fashion ... at least in
the sense of a published paper or patent that describes a device that
anyone skilled in the art could construct and obtain a well-defined
effect in a reliable and consistent fasion.  (They may have done so to
their own satisfaction in private, but that is not the same thing.)
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:22:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9967@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.151111.7971@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     Funny, I have always felt that Jones' experiments were even more
>>     questionable than PF (no offense intended to Dr. Jones who could
>>     probably be more profitably employed doing something else).  At
>>     least Pons and Fleischmann claimed a substantial effect.
>
>The issue in any experimental investigation is not how big an effect
>you claim, but whether the effect is real and reproducible.  In
>particular, I always look for the control of systematic errors and
>the significance of the signal.
 
     Yes.  But part of whether the effect is 'real' is how close to
     the edge of detection the effect is.  My guess (actually vague
     remembrance) is that Jones' current results would not even be
     seen by the old equipment and that the old results would be
     extremely substantial in the new equipment.
 
>One of the strengths of this latest work by Jones is that he has a
>number of detectors and a setup where he can monitor coincident
>events with particular emphasis on bursts.  His signal to noise in
>that experiment looked very good; there were no coincident events
>except for very rare cases that consisted of a burst of tens to
>hundreds of neutrons.  A burst or nothing.  The "accidental" rate
>is thus zip, although the energy produced is also zip because of
>the low rate of bursts -- one every day or so I recall.
 
     I am always afraid of the rare event that mimics such bursts.
     The problem with boosting signal to noise is that you make
     more important the source of noise that you had no experience with
     before.
 
>Thus I think it is more likely that Jones is close to establishing
>a *nuclear* effect that is at variance with simple predictions than
>that P&F(&H) have established a nuclear fusion effect.
 
     Probably, but it seems that Jones is still not very close.
 
>I think it is, unfortunately, also true that P&F have not yet established
>heat effects in a controlled and reproducible fashion ... at least in
>the sense of a published paper or patent that describes a device that
>anyone skilled in the art could construct and obtain a well-defined
>effect in a reliable and consistent fasion.  (They may have done so to
>their own satisfaction in private, but that is not the same thing.)
 
     I agree.  However, certain people here seem to be doing very good
     work along these lines.  I suspect (and heartily hope) that people
     like Tom Droege will do such a thing and put this to rest one way
     or the other (at a substantial profit, one hopes).
 
                                  dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 26 Jul 92 00:59:17 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell writes:
>
>Jim Bowery comments:
>
>"TECHNOSOCIALISM IS THE SINGLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE POLICY BEING PURSUED
>BY THE UNITED STATES AND, INDEED, THE WORLD."
>
>Well, I don't want to get too involved in this -- never though about it
>really -- but we Japanese jes' lo-o-o-v-e techno-socialism-big-
>government-economic-planning. Hey, it works for us. What can I say?
 
No it doesn't.
 
For some reason you missed my distinction between "industrial policy"
and "technosocialism" or you wouldn't have made your statement.  In Japan
the majority of its R&D funding decisions and risks are made and taken
by the private sector.  In the US the majority of the R&D decisions
and risks are made and taken by the public sector.
 
In the cases where Japanese R&D decisions and risks ARE made by the
public sector, such as with the H2, Tokamak, the 5th generation
computer project and others, the results are negative, just as they
are in the US with the Shuttle, the Tokamak, VHSIC, Sematech, Synfuels
and a host of other technosocialist programs too numerous to name.
 
On the other hand, "industrial policy" includes tax incentives which,
while they do "pick winners" in the sense of favoring certain private
sector activities over others, do NOT "pick winners" in terms of awarding
specific funding to individuals or groups on the basis of how politically
savvy and ability to suppress competition -- as is currently done under
the policy of technosocialism the world over.
 
If you don't like the term "technosocialism" to describe the policy
of public sector investment decisions and risk taking favoring the
more politically savvy and ruthlessly anticompetitive among us, then
I suggest you come up with a better term, because whatever its name,
everyone attempting to make fusion a reality knows the face of
this policy in gorey detail and could certainly use a commonly
recognized name that goes with that face.
 
"The Beltway Beast" has a nice ring to it.
 
You have any other ideas?
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 / John Logajan /  Radium and mercantilism
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radium and mercantilism
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:06:35 GMT

Droege mentioned his radium watch.  I presume it must be Radium 226, which
is listed as an alpha source of mostly 4.8 Mev alphas, with a half life of
1600 years.  The only other "long lived" Radium isotope is Ra 228, with
a half life of 5.75 years, and 45Kev beta.  Like Thorium, Radium undergoes
a series of transmutations on its way to Lead which produce a series of
alpha, beta, and gamma emissions.  These daughters have fairly short half
lives, so even a few months after chemcial purification, they should be
equal probability events.
 
Jim Bowery suggest "technosocialism."  A broader term is mercantilism,
updated from the old days when precious metal reserves were considered
important -- but retaining the grants of favoritism directed toward
connected interests, with regulation and taxes designed to stomp out
their competitors.
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 / D Danforth /  Radiation induced phase change in Helium-3
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radiation induced phase change in Helium-3
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:56:44 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

 
I post the following article with some trepidation since the effect
mentioned is in Helium-3, acts at the atomic level and may only tangentially
be related to Ying's model. There are enough similarities, however, and
the last paragraph is most provocative ...
 
-- Doug Danforth
 
SCIENCE NEWS
July 18, 1992
Vol. 142, No. 3
Pages 33-48
 
		  'BAKED ALASKA' COOKED UP IN LIQUID HELIUM
 
Baked Alaska seems an unlikely term to encounter in physics, but this
culinary surprise, consisting of meringue baked around ice cream, serves as
an apt description of an exotic, theoretical model accounting for a curious
aspect of liquid helium behavior. The model, proposed in 1984 by Anthony J.
Leggett of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, suggests that
high-energy particles produced by cosmic rays can trigger the otherwise
inexplicable formation of one form of superfluid helium-3 at the expense of
another.
 
In the baked Alaska scenario, high-energy electrons, created by the passage
of cosmic-ray-generated muons through the supercooled liquid, deposit
significant amounts of energy in spots less than a micron in diameter. Each
intensely heated microball of liquid helium expands into a hot shell, leaving
behind a pocket of cold superfluid helium. Isolated from the rest of the
liquid, this cold core provides a protected environment in which a bubble of
a different type of superfluid helium-3 can nucleate and start to grow.
 
Now researchers have obtained experimental evidence establishing the
plausibility of Leggett's scenario. "Our results are certainly consistent
with the [baked Alaska] model, though there are still unanswered questions,"
says peter E. Schiffer of Stanford University.
 
"The Stanford results show that at least the idea of nucleation by
high-energy particles isn't totally crazy," Leggett notes.
 
Schiffer, Douglas D. Osheroff, and coworkers report their findings in the
July 6 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS.
 
Helium-3, a rare isotope of helium, becomes a super fluid -- a liquid that
flows without friction -- at temperatures below 2.5 millikelvins. In this
chilly state, helium atoms tend to form pairs. Because these pairs can
arrange themselves in two different ways, helium-3 has two distinct
superfluid states. Depending on the pressure and the magnetic field applied
to a sample, the so-called A phase is more stable than the B phase at higher
temperatures, whereas the B phase takes over at lower temperatures.
 
In 1977, Osheroff (then at AT&T Bell Laboratories) and co-worker Michael
Cross showed that the superfluids had characteristics implying that the A
phase, even when supercooled well below the temperature at which a transition
from the A to the B phase should occur, cannot by itself spontaneously make
the change. Because such phase transitions actually do occur, this puzzling
feature led to a search for a mechanism that would explain how the transition
happens.
 
"I played around with various ideas, and it eventually sank into my mind that
no mechanism based on a thermal equilibrium distribution of energy was going
to explain this," Leggett recalls. His baked Alaska model emerged out of this
line of reasoning.
 
"I had to convince myself you couldn't apply the normal laws of hydrodynamics
or thermal transport under these conditions because you're so far from
equilibrium," he says. "It really matters how the heat spreads out."
 
To check whether radiation can indeed trigger the nucleation of the B phase
within the A phase of superfluid helium-3, the Stanford group used a
specially designed, long, thin, silica glass tube with microscopically smooth
surfaces. Within this tube, the team discovered it could dramatically
supercool samples of the A phase to temperatures as low as 0.37 millikelvins,
much lower than temperatures achieved by other groups.
 
In addition, by placing sources of radiation near the sample cell, they
discovered that they could greatly reduce the length of time before
nucleation occurs in the supercooled A phase. Both gamma rays and neutrons
produced comparable effects.
 
"It's clear that radiation does play a part," Osheroff says.
 
These findings indirectly suggest that the presence of surface irregularities
or defects also has a strong influence on the nucleation of phase B. This
factor may have thwarted previous attempts to detect radiation-induced
nucleation.
 
Moreover, the Stanford experiment demonstrates the conditions necessary for
observing the A phase at lower temperatures and lower magnetic fields than
previously possible. "Now that we've got it pinned down, I think there's
going to be a burst of activity," Leggett says. "A lot of people would love
to have [A-phase] helium-3 in low magnetic fields at low temperatures. There
are all sorts of things you can do with it."
 
Precisely how surface roughness and the presence of minute traces of such
impurities as radioactive tritium contribute to the nucleation of phase B
remains unclear. Osheroff and his team are now discussing the design of
sample containers specially fabricated to have a certain roughness. The
researchers would also like to observe nucleation at different pressures and
magnetic fields.
 
"Helium-3 is an ideal system for understanding physics that would be
completely masked in any other system," Osheroff says.
 
To leggett, the A-B transition in superfluid helium-3 represents a
particularly clear example of how locally concentrated energy that can't
dissipate through normal channels can induce events that by any other,
reasonable, statistical measure would seem astronomically improbable.
 
						-- I. Peterson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: I have a little list...
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have a little list...
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:11:01 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul26.002202.8209@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <9967@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>
>>The issue in any experimental investigation is not how big an effect
>>you claim, but whether the effect is real and reproducible.  In
>>particular, I always look for the control of systematic errors and
>>the significance of the signal.
>
>     Yes.  But part of whether the effect is 'real' is how close to
>     the edge of detection the effect is.  My guess (actually vague
>     remembrance) is that Jones' current results would not even be
>     seen by the old equipment and that the old results would be
>     extremely substantial in the new equipment.
 
Your vaque remembrance is accurate.  The later results are many times
more sensitive than the results reported in Nature.  It should be
remembered, however, that there were many questions about the results
in Nature because of the high background level and the sensitivity of
the signal to the background subtraction.  Also, Jones saw nothing in
the set up provided by Moshe Gai at Yale, which was more sensitive than
the original experiment by a factor I do not recall, but about 3-5 I think.
 
What is interesting here is that Jones worked to control errors and was
not afraid to put his experiment in front of someone else's detectors.
The result is an experiment where the effect is quite far removed from
the limit of detection by the system ... just not too interesting.
 
>     I am always afraid of the rare event that mimics such bursts.
>     The problem with boosting signal to noise is that you make
>     more important the source of noise that you had no experience with
>     before.
 
This is always a concern, especially in a mine, but the devices being
used are pretty well understood.  It is important to note that the
imposition of a coincidence requirement is a very strong filter against
random sources of background.  The absence of any events with 2 or 3 or
.. neutrons, just ones with 70 or 80 neutrons, argues against noise
of a conventional sort.  Jones was asked many questions by those
present concerning all the things they would worry about as a possible
source of odd events, and he had already considered them and had good
answers.  What puzzles me is why I have not seen this work published
yet, but maybe I missed it.  Dieter?
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Radioactive cathodes
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactive cathodes
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:15:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

If the Ying experiment turns out to be the key to getting
reproducible results, the energy output may depend on the
amount of radiation reaching the cathode.  A way to increase
the intensity would be to form an alloy of the palladium
along with the alpha source (Po 210), and also possibly the
gamma source (Co 60).  I tried to look up some information on
these alloys, but came up with nothing.  Can anyone comment
on whether this would be feasible?  This technique would
obviously be more useful for use in production devices rather
than for experiments.
 
Recent reports of the current P&F experiments indicate that
they are now using some alloy rather than pure palladium.
Could it be that they have intentionally or inadvertently
included a low-level radioactive source in the alloy?
 
 
-- Bob Horst
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.26 / John Logajan /  Slurry
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Slurry
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:56:56 GMT

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
> A way to increase the intensity would be to form an alloy of the
> palladium along with the alpha source (Po 210), and also possibly the
> gamma source (Co 60).
 
Or a possible(??) reaction control might be to put one or both of the sources
into the electrolyte, kept in suspension by the constant stirring.  Boiling
or other liquid loss *might* help shut down the reaction???
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 /  Britz /  Jones papers
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones papers
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:25:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>Jones was asked many questions by those
>present concerning all the things they would worry about as a possible
>source of odd events, and he had already considered them and had good
>answers.  What puzzles me is why I have not seen this work published
>yet, but maybe I missed it.  Dieter?
 
I only have my bibliography file with me here and none of the actual papers;
I find about 6-7 papers with Jones as coauthor, the most recent being from
1990. I don't think any of them mentions the above. This, as Jed has pointed
out, is one of the drawbacks of the bibliography; it lags behind developments.
I have also been told that the Jones group had an experiment in the Kamiokande
neutrino detector site, where the neutron background is about 2 per year - and
got nothing at all. This, too, has not been published yet, but I expect Jones
to publish it,, of course.
But I believe Dr. Jones reads this group; how about a word direct from the
horse's mouth?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / John Logajan /  Droege's 12 hour cycle
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's 12 hour cycle
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:13:40 GMT

I don't know what possible solar/cosmological effects there are, but a 12 hour
cycle period might hide unknown influences.  I think the 24 hour cycle was
the best.  I think a good 12 hour cycle switch point would be at high
noon and midnight -- at least for the sun.  Other cosmological sources??
A six hour cycle increase the chance for cancellation, and shorter times
are even better.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Does it need to be hot?
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does it need to be hot?
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:11:16 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

 
	Now that many are discussing different ways to get hot (read
alpha/gamma radio-active) substances closer to the electrode including
suggestions to create Pd/Po-210 alloys; I want to ask what makes everyone
so sure alpha-sources are the way to go(besides that Ying is using it)
instead of preparing the electrodes by pumping He4 into it by electrolysis.
Someone posted a while back some data about permiability of Pd to He4,
I remember it was something interesting and could be related to Ying-type
catalysis.
 
Could that someone repost that data, thanks in advance.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 01:11:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I don't think we need to invent new buzz words and then attempt
to breath some sort of ulterior motives into them. Socialism
is socialism, regardless of whether it is being exercised in the
technical arena or the social welfare arena.
 
Socialism breeds bureaucracy and bureaucracy is the cause of much
of the idiotic red-tape and hidden expense of government.
 
On the other hand: Some projects are so large that it requires
funding from sources larger than available from any private sector
source. And bureaucracy has the positive virtue of decreasing the
rate of change -- this is generally called conservatism and is
generally viewed as preferable to radical liberalism. Bureaucracy
also _tends_ to avoid the hidden agendas of private sector financial
sources to find profits at the costs of safety and intelligent
use of resources.
 
Now I don't attempt to say that there isn't a terrible price to pay
for bureaucracy run amuck as we now have it. But there definitely is
a good and proper place for it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Gregg Giles /  Fusion Information Desired
     
Originally-From: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu (Gregg Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Information Desired
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:59:14 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

 
   1) I am not a spy. :-)
   2) I'm very interested in seeing what research and discoveries have
happened with fusion over the last 5-7 years. With this in mind, what is
the best source of this information? Are there ftp sites that specialize
in this information (needs to be anonymous, of course).
   I guess my fascination with fusion started in high school when I did
a research paper on how to use a fusion plant to generate starship thrust.
The theories seemed so simple (don't they always?), but the details were
way out of my league.
   Any leads would be appreciated. Thanks. (Please Email all responses).
 
 
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Giles (Dynamix, Inc.)                 BIX: ggiles
All opinions expressed are my own.          Internet: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenggiles cudfnGregg cudlnGiles cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Bruce Dunn /  Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:49:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Measurement of D2O2 in saturated LiOD solutions
 
 
Background:
      There has been some suspicion that some of the thermal effects seen in
cold fusion cells may be related to the formation and later decomposition of
deuterium peroxide.  This note describes a chemical assay for hydrogen peroxide
which I have designed for testing very small samples of saturated LiOH.  It
presumably would work as well for deuterium peroxide in LiOD.  I developed and
fine-tuned the assay based on some previous work that I had done measuring
peroxide in solution.  The assay has been tested with known peroxide
concentrations and saturated LiOH, and has a sensitivity of at least 10E-4
molar (0.0001 molar).
 
Principle:
        Hydrogen peroxide oxidizes iodide ion (I-) to iodine (I2).  In a
solution with excess iodide, the resultant iodine forms a complex with iodide
to give the ion I3-.  The I3- is visualized by adding starch to the solution,
which forms a blue complex with the I3-.  The peroxide oxidation of I- to I3-
is relatively slow, so to speed up the reaction molybdate ion is added to the
solution - the molybdate acts as a catalyst.  The color does not appear at
alkaline pH, so the assay is performed in an acidic acetate buffer.
 
Reagents:
 
Hydrogen Peroxide
        Drugstore 3% Hydrogen Peroxide (sometimes called 10 volume).  The
bottle that I purchased was marked "3% w/v" which I take to be weight/volume,
or 30 grams peroxide per liter.  The Merck index suggests that nominal "3%"
material ranges in strength from 2.5 to 3.5 %.  For the purposes of a standard
for a semiquantitative assay, the peroxide is assumed to be 3% by weight, which
is 0.88 molar.  Be sure to use freshly bought peroxide, as it is unstable in
long term storage.  If accurately calibrated standards of peroxide are needed,
the peroxide concentration of solutions can be measured by ultraviolet
spectrophotometry.  I am sorry, but I don't have the wavelength or extinction
coefficient handy - if anyone has this information, would they please post it.
 
        From this material, prepare a series of standards by dilution in water.
I prepared standards as follows:
 
10E-1 molar = 10 ml of stock peroxide plus 78 ml of water for a total of 88 ml
10E-2 molar = 10 ml of 10E-1 M plus 90 ml water for a total of 100 ml
10E-3 molar = 10 ml of 10E-2 M plus 90 ml water for a total of 100 ml
10E-4 molar = 10 ml of 10E-3 M plus 90 ml water for a total of 100 ml
10E-5 molar = 10 ml of 10E-4 M plus 90 ml water for a total of 100 ml
 
        For the sake of clarity, note that in the notation that I am using,
10E-3 molar peroxide is 1 millimolar peroxide.
 
        Any other logical scheme could be used, depending on the glassware etc.
available.
 
Potassium Iodide, KI  :  MW 166  - sodium iodide would probably work as well
 
Ammonium Molybdate, (NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O : MW 1236  - probably any other molybdate
salt would work
 
Acetic Acid:    glacial acetic acid
 
Starch:         Liquid Laundry Starch:  I bought a $2 bottle of "Glide Fabric
Starch" at my local grocery store.  The starch is a viscous, somewhat cloudy
liquid with a very faint blue tinge.
 
 
Color Reagent (prepare fresh each day):
 
1) weigh 166 mg of Potassium Iodide and 12 mg of Ammonium Molybdate, and
dissolve in 24 ml water
2) add 25 ml glacial acetic acid
3) add 1 ml liquid starch
 
This produces a reagent containing:
 
2x10E-2 molar Potassium Iodide - this concentration is not critical within a
factor of approximately 2 or 3 fold
 
2x10E-4 molar Ammonium Molybdate - this concentration is not critical within a
factor of approximately 10 fold
 
50% acetic acid  - this concentration is not critical, but must be high enough
to over-neutralize any base added to it
 
2% liquid starch - this concentration is not critical within a factor of
approximately 2 or 3 fold
 
The concentrations used were determined in a series of trials using 10E-3 molar
peroxide, and aiming for the maximum color development.  If someone wants to
further develop the assay, it would be appropriate to use a 10E-4 M peroxide
standard, and vary the iodide and starch concentration for maximum color.  The
molybdate is catalytic, and it's concentration hardly affects the final color -
if the molybdate however is left out, little or no color develops.  If either
too much starch or too much iodide is used, the color is less intense and tend
to be a golden brown rather than blue
 
The assay is performed by adding together 1 volume of the LiOD, 1 volume of
color reagent, and 1 volume of either water or hydrogen peroxide standard.
 
Assay blank:                    1 volume color reagent and 2 volumes water
 
Experimental determination:     1 volume color reagent, 1  volume LiOD,
                                1 volume water
 
Positive Control:               1 volume color reagent, 1 volume LiOH,
                                1 volume peroxide standard
 
Note that saturated LiOD will be somewhere around 5 molar (one reference book
lists the solubility of LiOH as 128 grams/liter at 20 degrees, or 5.34 molar).
The color reagent contains 50% acetic acid, which is just a little under 9
molar.  Equal volumes of LiOD and color reagent are added, with the LiOD
neutralizing about half the acid, and forming an acetate buffer in the mixture.
 
The volumes used can be varied depending on how much material is withdrawn from
the cell.  I performed my assays in very small plastic centrifuge tubes using
50 microliters (about 2 drops) of saturated LiOH (I am not in the cold fusion
business so don't have any LiOD), 50 microliters of color reagent, and 50
microliters of peroxide standard or water.  This could probably be scaled down
to 1 drop of each in the bottom of a tube or as a spot test on a piece of wax
paper or plastic.
 
Using 50 microliters of color reagent, 50 microliters of saturated LiOH, and 50
microliters of peroxide or water, I found that 10E-1 molar and 10E-2 molar
peroxide produced an almost instantaneous dark blue-black color.  10E-3 molar
peroxide produced a dark blue color, but took a couple of minutes.  10E-4 molar
peroxide over several minutes produced a yellow-brown color, clearly
distinguishable from the colorless solution produced by substituting water for
the peroxide.  10E-5 molar peroxide or water gave no visible color.
 
The assay as described is only semiquantitative, and has a detection limit of
at least 10E-4 molar.   Using standards of peroxide, I think the assay will be
good enough to put an upper limit of say 10E-4 molar on the deuterium peroxide
concentration in a 1 or 2 drop sample taken from a cell (ie. if you see no
color, but show using the same reagents that you can detect the peroxide in an
equivalent volume of 10E-4 molar hydrogen peroxide standard, then the LiOD has
to have less than the 10E-4 molar peroxide).
 
As an alternative to using starch for visualizing the I3-, it is possible to
measure the I3- at 360 nm in a spectrophotometer.  This would require that the
volumes be scaled up to give enough volume for a spectrophotometer cell.  Using
spectrophotometry at 360 nm would make the assay more quantitative and would
possibly boost the sensitivity by a factor of 10 or so (detection of 10E-5
molar peroxide or better).  If 360 nm absorbance is used, the provision of
appropriate blanks is important to avoid the possibility that 360 nm absorbance
comes from the reagents or impurities in the used LiOD.
 
        Peroxide is stated by reference books to be unstable in alkali, and a
trace of acid is often added to commercial peroxide as a stabilizer. I have
added 50 microliters of 10E-4 molar peroxide to 50 microliters of saturated
LiOH - after 10 minutes I added the acidic color reagent.  Assays performed in
the manner gave the same color intensity as did assays using peroxide which had
not been pre-incubated with LiOH.  This suggests that at least on a short term
basis, peroxide is stable enough to potentially accumulate with time in a LiOD
solution.
 
        I leave it to others to do the appropriate calculations to calculate
whether the detection limit of 10E-4 molar is adequate to rule out peroxide
effects in cells.  If not, I would be prepared to further fine tune the assay,
probably using larger volumes and spectrophotometry at 360 nm.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Andrew Pierce /  Re: Does it need to be hot?
     
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does it need to be hot?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:12:28 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1992Jul27.011116.250111@cs.cmu.edu> alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex
 Orenshteyn) writes:
>	Now that many are discussing different ways to get hot (read
>alpha/gamma radio-active) substances closer to the electrode including
>suggestions to create Pd/Po-210 alloys; I want to ask what makes everyone
 
   Does it matter which electrode it gets close to?  Why not use a soluble
Po-210 salt in the solution along with the LiOD?  My guess is that there
are appropriate choices for both anions and cations which undergo alpha
(or whatever you want) decay in solution.
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenajpierce cudfnAndrew cudlnPierce cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <13765@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
writes:
> Measurement of D2O2 in saturated LiOD solutions
..
> Using 50 microliters of color reagent, 50 microliters of saturated LiOH, and
 50
> microliters of peroxide or water, I found that 10E-1 molar and 10E-2 molar
> peroxide produced an almost instantaneous dark blue-black color.  10E-3 molar
> peroxide produced a dark blue color, but took a couple of minutes.  10E-4
 molar
> peroxide over several minutes produced a yellow-brown color, clearly
> distinguishable from the colorless solution produced by substituting water for
> the peroxide.  10E-5 molar peroxide or water gave no visible color.
>         I leave it to others to do the appropriate calculations to calculate
> whether the detection limit of 10E-4 molar is adequate to rule out peroxide
> effects in cells.  If not, I would be prepared to further fine tune the assay,
> probably using larger volumes and spectrophotometry at 360 nm.
 
Good on you, Bruce. I suppose Tom really ought to get a syringe, take out a
wee drap of his electrolyte and try this. However, as to sensitivity: no need
to go to ultra-low concentrations, because D2O2 came in as a suspect gas
swallower or excess heat producer, so it would have to be in excess of, say,
0.01 M to even register in Tom's data as a disturbance.
 I still say forget peroxide.
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Aaron Wininger /  inertial fusion
     
Originally-From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: inertial fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:12 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

Does anyone know the state of research of inertial fusion is at?
How close to breakeven, compared to tokomaks? Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
world doing research on inertial fusion?
Thanks
Aaron Wininger
 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Aaron Wininger                               Columbia Plasma Physics Laboratory
arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu                                  New York, NY 10027
_______________________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenarw4 cudfnAaron cudlnWininger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: inertial fusion
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:22 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>Does anyone know the state of research of inertial fusion is at?
 
LLNL program has been quite competently and aggressively managed and
carried out (IMHO), and has spent massive Gigabucks over past couple
of decade or so.  It's still going on, with reasonable support, so far
as I know.
 
>How close to breakeven, compared to tokomaks?
 
Still long ways away. And (again strictly IMH--and nonexpert--O) it's
not going to get there, and would be unlikely to be an economically
feasible power source if it did.
 
>Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
>world doing research on inertial fusion?
 
Japanese _had_ a fair-sized effort (at Osaka); present status not
known to me.  Modest effort, only being half-heartedly pursued, so far
as I can see, at Garching in Germany.  University of Rochester still
carrying on rather modest effort (I think).  Russian work?  There was
some, but I don't know the status.  Los Alamos: mostly turned off, I
think.  Others? -- May be, but I don't know of any.
 
   --AES
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 /  /  Ying and alphas
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ying and alphas
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Colin Henderson doesn't think Ying's alpha source does anything.  Niether
do I and I know but can't tell how he uses it.  Have a wounderful simple
experiment planned to prove my point.  It will have to wait until I can
get my sources.  Meanwhile, I will file a disclosure document so I can
prove I thought of it first.
 
My plan in all of this is to have fun.  I am trying to put everything into
the public domain.  I will claim in any future litegation that this media
is public.  I assume I will be dead before patent fights stop if this turnd
(turns) out to be real.
 
BTW, if a publication comes out of this, I am going to try to publish as
the physics.sci.fusion collaboration.  Or possibly as T. Droege and the
sci.physics.fusion collaboration - or whateve the proper name is - I
don't even know.
 
So the real experiment I am trying to do is e-mail science.  The "anomalous
heat" project is just an excuse.  I think this is the media of the future.
I know I am doing most of the work, but the help received has been building
over time.  I look forward to equal (collaborations are never really equal)
collaborators as this progresses.
 
To P&F, EPRI, and any others doing secret work.  I agree that you are allowed
to do that, and it is proper to go for financial reward.  But it is also
proper for some of us to try to beat you at your game and to put discoveries
into the public domain.  So don't wait too long to disclose your "teaching"
or I will publish first!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Brad Sherman /  Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
     
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:09:09 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase

 
In article <1992Jul27.183113.8208@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org
 (Barry Wise) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.163322.27469@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu
>(Jonathan Grad) writes:
..
>> According to the Wall Street Journal article, materials
>> scientist Edmund Storms claims to have successfully replicated
>> the Takahashi experiment.  Storms claims, in a paper submitted
>> to Fusion Technology, that his experiment began putting out
>> an excess of power after 90 hours of operation
 
Here's the result of a quick search of the U.C. Berkeley on-line
card catalog for author E. Storms:
 
[Books]
Holley, C. E.
  The actinide carbides / C.E. Holley, Jr., M.H. Rand, E.K. Storms ;
  executive editor, F.L. Oetting ; editors, V.A. Medvedev, M.H. Rand,
  E.F.  Westrum, Jr.  Vienna : International Atomic Energy Agency ;
  [Murray Hill Station, New York, NY, : UNIPUB, distributor], 1984.
  Series title:  The Chemical thermodynamics of actinide elements and
  compounds ; pt. 6.
 
Storms, Edmund Kugler, 1931-
  The refractory carbides [by] Edmund K. Storms.  New York, Academic
  Press, 1967.  Series title:  Refractory materials, v. 2.
 
[Current Contents]
Storms E.
  Review of Experimental Observations about the Cold Fusion Effect,
  Fusion Technology, 1991 DEC, V20 N4:433-477
 
Storms E; Talcottstorms C.[sic]
  The effect of Hydriding on the Physical Structure of Palladium and on
  the release of contained tritium, Fusion Technology, 1991 SEP, V20
  N2:246-257
 
Storms E; Talcott C.
  Electolytic Tritium Production, Fusion Technology, 1990 JUL, V17
  N4:680-695
 
[No way to tell if it's all the same guy.]
----------
    --Brad Sherman
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbsherman cudfnBrad cudlnSherman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: Why Ying?
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:31:44 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <1992Jul23.224026.14653@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>Still, even when one thinks about it in a more proper intuitive way,
>it seems a bit odd (please correct my intuition....): in my mind,
>in the d + d -> He + g, the two d nuclei slam together and start
>vibrating, and the vibration shakes off a gamma of the same frequency.
>
>if you add the gamma back to a bunch of d's, so what? it may shake
>individual d nuclei a bit, but it bounces off because its not
>at a resonant frequency and in any event it doesn't seem to
>encourage the d's to get close together.
 
The forward reaction rate in a reaction involving dd and He (assumed to
be essentially classical particles) and a gamma is
 
k*(n+1)
 
where n is the number of gamma's in the quantum state into which the
gammas decay.  If there is more than one state then this is the average
number in such possible states.  The rate of the back reaction is
 
k'*n
 
Now k/k' in this case is less than 1, assuming more d's than He's so all
we need is to increase n.  Suppose we have a source with a band width of
1eV [this seems to me wildly optomistic]
and center frequency of 24 MeV.  Now assuming that this
is at the correct frequency to have n of order unity would require
an energy density in gamma's of (hbar c)^{-3}(pi)^{-2} E^3(Delta E)
where E is the center frequency, hbar is Planck's constant, c is the
speed of light and pi is 3.141592654... . Well, now that turns out to
be rather a lot - not bothering to be careful I seem to get
10^26 ergs/cm^3 but it is clear that this has to be lots and lots
in comparison with, say the energy flux associated with a black body at
the temperature of the sun (ouch) (which is only a few keV).  To see a big
effect you need n much bigger than unity (say, 10^50).
 
Thus I think that the possible answers are
 
Ying sees no effect.
This and similar theories are the wrong ideas for Ying's effect.
Ying is dead, long since but had access to the biggest damn monochrome
source you ever dreamed of, since melted.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.27 / Les Earnest /  Re: Models
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Models
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:39:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

Tom Droege, my house-mate from 35 years ago, sez:
>No one has discussed my first order system model.  Les Earnest, I know
>you studied this at MIT in the same course that I took.  Are you listening?
>Is it possible that none of you have used spice like programs to model
>physical systems?  What do you do with all those computers??  I will be
>the first to admit it is a weak model, but I was very surprised when it
>told me there was no net power!
 
Sorry for the slow response -- I was travelling last week.  Alas, at
MIT I "progressed" from linear systems to artificial intelligence and
then to research management (a.k.a. "artificial stupidity"), so I'm
not much help.  Give me a programming problem and I'll thrash out a
solution, but please don't ask me to deal with reality.
--
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:
cuddy27 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Les Earnest /  Re: Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

ted@nmsu.edu writes:
.  .  .
>with regard to miti being terribly careful people, take the 5th
>generation project as the canonical counter-example.  there were lots
>of claims made by people regarded as trustworthy by miti, and now
>a few years and yen later, the program is essentially a bust.  none of
>the real goals of the project were met.
 
I believe that it would be more accurate to say that none of the
*stated* goals were met, but that the real goal (to substantially
increase research funding for the MITI establishment) was met
admirably.  In fact, this project also had the effect of substantially
increasing government-sponsored computer research in the U.S., which
was stimulated by a well-known book describing the threat of
Japanese domination of the field (the "yellow peril" stikes again!).
 
I wouldn't want to claim that the 5th generation project and the
hysterical response in the U.S. were products of a conspiracy between
research groups in the two countries, but that model certainly fits
the data.
--
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:
cuddy28 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 /  /  Latest News
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest News
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - this is the present status.
 
It looks like it will be at least a week until I have some sources.  The
weekend was spent trying to speed up the data collection process by making
faster source switches.  At the end of this data we made up a dummy of the
source so that the in - out is as much alike as possible.  With the speed up,
the signal went down into the noise.  If there is a signal.
 
This lead to an experiment to try to determine the relative intensity of the
source and the background.  Two of us (my visiting brother in law is a solid
state physicist) counted by ear as long as we could stand to hear the geiger
counter ping.  A five minute background count gave 69 counts, a five minute
count with the source at the same distance (but without any simulation of the
calorimeter materials) gave 76 counts.  I conclude from this that an upper
limit on the increase in radiation at the cell due to the source is 50%.  More
probable it is of order 10% and so it is a fair match to the data.
 
By the time one considers what might be happening in the cell, and what the
statistics might be, it does not look so good for short periods and I wish I
had not changed.  One reason for the short periods is to better remove drift,
like weather and relative humidity effects.  However, I am more or less
committed to roughly eight hour periods now until the better source arrives.
I do not want to run 12 hour periods because there is a hint in all my data
that there is a day/night effect in the calorimeter balance that is there with
heavy water but not there calorimeter empty.(No good light water data for
this.)  It is only a few milliwatts, and enough of a puzzle that if "cold
fusion" does not work out, I will go after the day/night effect.  The more I
think about it, it would seem better to go back to 24 hour measurement and
simply put in the stronger source on the next in period after it arrives.
 
At the end of the data below, I made a small program change.  Before, the down
sweep of the saw tooth was initiated when the command value exceeded a
particular value.  Since the current is stepped every 10 seconds and the data
is measured every minute there was a beat between the saw tooth down time and
the data collection time.  The program change synchronized the down sweep with
data taking.  The idea was to reduce the beat "noise" so that shorter data
collection periods would be possible.  Note that I do *not* think that this
effects the power computation over long periods either way.  (And there is a
lot of data at a wide range of saw tooth period to argue my point!)
 
There is a 1000 hours or so of data where there is no "anomalous heat"
indicated which can be compared to the data below.  This will be an
interesting exercise if it is not possible to find a "knock your socks off"
experiment.
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
1   On      17760        4.9        532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
2   Off     48060       13.4       1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
3   On      87300       24.3       2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
4   Off     77220       21.5       1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
5   On      82740       23.0       3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
6   Off     79980       22.2       2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
7   On      83640       23.2       3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
8   Off     57300       15.9       1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
9   On      25440        7.1        897.0        50       0.0353  +/- 0.0010
10  Off     20940        5.8       1365.4        50       0.0652  +/- 0.0010
11  On      34500        9.6       1663.3        50       0.0483  +/- 0.0010
12  Off     25500        7.1       1398.8        50       0.0548  +/- 0.0010
13  On      11760        3.3        685.5        33       0.0560  +/- 0.0028
 
The promising thing about this data is that it is made up of 5150 individual
power measurements with the source out which average to 0.0310 watts of excess
heat.  There are 5719 source in power measurements which average to 0.0389
watts.  Because of the saw tooth current, and the lag of the servo in
response, the calorimeter power input measurements vary from 7 to 12 watts and
are more or less evenly distributed over that range, with a mean refrigerator
power of 10 watts.  Thus we are comparing two "box car" distributions with
mean values that vary by 0.0089 watts source out to in but with widths of 5
watts.  I really do think the calorimeter is good enough to make this
measurement.  If there is anyone who thinks it can't, I offer to bet you $1000
a crack that given wires and a resistor into my calorimeter, I can tell when
you are putting in 10 mw.(some restrictions apply - write for details).
 
The discouraging information is that the effect seems to have gone away or
reversed with the shorter interval.  Perhaps there is a time lag.  But one as
long as indicated boggles the synapses.
 
Looks like I am where I always seem to be with "anomalous heat".  There is
just enough to keep me looking for a better experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 /   /   The Ying Thing & Rehash of Menlove and Jones
     
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  The Ying Thing & Rehash of Menlove and Jones
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For those concerned about injecting extraneous bozons into their magic
soup perculating under a plexiglass pyramid (purchased from Edmund
Scientific so it has to be good) I thought I'd inject some real numbers.
The ranges for 5 MeV alpha particles in H2O, Al, and Iron are respectively
0.004 cm, 20 micrometers, and 10 micrometers.  It's tough to get those
little buggers into your sample.  As to putting the source right on the
Pd, in olden times we used to make alpha sources by disolving Po in
dilute HCl.  Then when you dipped a nickel wire into the soln, the Po
would plate out onto the wire.  I suppose something like that would
work for Pd, but don't try this at home, kids!
 
Next, the attenuation of gamma rays.  The mass absorption coefficients
for 1.5 MeV gammas are roughly 0.05 cm^2 per gm.  To convert that
to a linear coefficient, multiply by the density.  At lower energies
the attenuation is strongly energy dependent and Z dependent.  So you
can get gammas into the sample, and right on through it with no interaction.
But, for the life of me, I can't see what 1.5 MeV (or less) gammas have
to do with fusion.  Can anyone explain how these puny photons are
going to do what 23 MeV photons probably don't do either?
 
Tom Droege wants to no that we skeptics are still here.  My comment
at this point is basically to repeat someone else's suggestion that
you change the period of your source on/source off cycles.  Too many
things run in a daily cycle so 12 or 24 hr cycles are suspect.
Michelson, when measuring c in California, found that his results
should a daily cycle because the length of the path varied due to
earth tides.  To mention a couple of possibles: line voltage and
air temperature.
 
Jim Carr has been saying nice things about the results of the Menlove
and Jones experiment that need some correcting.  Firstly the notion
of bursts of neutrons was overstated.  If you look at the data, it
is clear that most of the net effect was events involving 2 to 4
counters firing, as I recall.  Single-counter events were excluded
from the data sample.  Jim, you are correct in saying that this
reduces the possibility that "accidental coincidences" account for
the result, but that is "good" only if the source reaction is in
fact one that produces single neutron events.  Consider instead
the situation where you are detecting muon induced spallation, a
multi-neutron process.  Basically the enforced coincidence
requirement then makes the detector much more sensative to the
muon induced background than it would be to cold fusion which, at
low rates would NOT produce many multineutron events.  In short
they threw the baby out with the bath.
 
While Tom Droege continues to take pot shots at Takahashi's
calorimetry, I'll chime in to say that the neutron data is pretty
suspect as well.  I have already pointed out that most of what
is being called "neutrons" is probably are gamma ray pulses.  The
next point I raise has to do with the correlation between count rate
in the detector and the phase of the electrolysis current (high versus
low current).  If you examine the recorded pulse height spectrum
shown by Dr. T in his MIT presentation, you will see that the rate
rises steeply as you move to lower pulse heights until you reach the
electronic threshold which gives a sharp cutoff on the low end.  Most
of the recorded counts come from pulses near threshold so very
small changes in that threshold can have a big effect on the total
number of counts recorded.  So I suggest that perhaps the threshold
moves when the electrolysis current is changed.  Isn't neat howmany
ways you can generate data in support of what ever notion catches
your fancy?
 
Dick Blue, writing in haste
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBLUE cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Brad Sherman /  Text of WSJ Article, 27 July (long)
     
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Text of WSJ Article, 27 July (long)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:40:02 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase

[Typos are probably mine --bks]
 
_The Wall Street Journal_, 27 July 1992, p.B5, writes:
 
U.S. Researcher Claims to Replicate Japanese Experiment in 'Cold Fusion'
   By Jerry E. Bishop and Jacob M. Schlesinger
 
A scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico said he
successfuly replicated a Japanese "cold fusion " experiment that is
claimed to produce more energy than it consumes.
 
Materials scientist Edmund Storms reported in a paper submitted to a
scientific journal that he has measured 20% more power coming out of his
experiment as heat than was put into it electrically.  The experiment was
almost identical to a  heat-producing cold-fusion type of experiment
described earlier this year by Akito Takahashi of Osaka University.
 
This market the first time that one laboratory has claimed to have
reproduced a cold fusion experiment in another laboratory and obtained
the same positive results.  A major cloud hanging over claims of cold
fusion has been the inability of reserarchers to describe to others how
to build and operate a cold fusion experiment that, as is claimed,
releases more energy that it consumes.  Skeptics say they won't believe
claims of cold fusion until they see the phenomenon for themselves, and
most fusion physicists believe claims of excess heat from cold fusion
arise from scientific error and delusion.
 
In Japan, meanwhile, representatives of several Japanese companies
gathered in a closed meeeing last week with Japanese scientist doing cold
fusion experiments and with the two chemists who made the original cold
fusion claim, B. Stanley Pons of the U.S. and his British colleague,
Martin Fleischmannn.  Reached at a hotel in Sapporo, Dr. Fleischmann
would not reveal the purpose of the meeting.  A Japanese scientist who
attended said the two chemists presented "some interesting data,
convincing us to accept that cold fusion is taking place."
 
The meeting was in the offices of Imra Japan Inc, a new energy research
company that is indirectly affiliated with Toyota Motor Corp.  The
meeting came as the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry
considers funding a special effort in what it is cautiously calling "new
hydrogen energy,"  A MITI representative also attended the meeting.
 
Much of the new interest in Japan has been fueled by Dr. Takahashi's
experiment.  In January Dr. Takahashi said he was getting an average of
70% more power, in the form of heat, out of his cold-fusion type of
experiment than was being put into it electrically.  The experiment, he
said, was continuously producing more energy than it was consuming, and
during a typical week might produce 50 megajoules (14 kilowatt-hours) of
excess energy.
 
As in almosts all cold fusion experiment, Dr. Takahashi was running an
electric current through two elecrodes -- a piece of palladium encircled
by a platinum wire -- that were immersed in "heavy" water.  The
controversial claim has been that as the heavy water is elecrolyzed, the
heavy hydrogen, called deuterium, from the water is absorbed by the
palladium metal.  Energy is released, according to cold fusion
enthusiasts, when the deuterium atoms fuse inside the palladium metal.
 
Dr. Takahashi's bench-top experiment uses a small thin plate or sheet
of palladium as the electrode instead of a a thin cylindrical rod of the
metal as others have used.  Dr. Storms used palladium sheets obtained
from the same Japanese metals company, Tanaka Kikinozoku Kogyo, that
supplied Dr. Takahashi.
 
Both researchers also "cycled" the elecric current, running it at a high
level for a few minutes to a few hours, and then shifting to a low level
of the same duration.  Until now, other researchers have applied a steady
current to their experiments.
 
In his paper submitted to Fusion Technology, a monthly jounal published
by the American Nuclear Society, Dr. Storms said his experiment began
putting out an excess of power after about 90 hours of operation and
continued to produce excess power whenever the current was raised above
a certain level.  At its peak, the experiment put out 7.5 watts more
power than was put in. The experiment was stopped after 295 hours when
the device for recombining the oxygen and hydrodgen gases into water
failed.
 
Dr. Storms said that a key finding was made when a second experiment,
using a sheet from another batch of palladium, failed to produce excess
power.  Under the microscope this non-working palladium was found to be
studded with microscopic cracks, whereas the palladium sheet that worked
was relatively free of such cracks.  The scientist theorized that
cracks prevent the palladium from holding endough deuterium to begin a
nuclear reaction.
 
At least two other attempts are under way to replicate Dr. Takahashi's
experiment.  At the Italian Institute of Nuclear Physics in Frascati,
Francesco Celani said he was getting about 10% excess power from an
improved version or Dr. Takahashi's experiment.  But he said the
experiment was stopped when copper from an exposed wire contaminated
the palladium,  Because of the contamination problem Dr. Celani said he
isn't asserting any claims of excess power.  A new experment will get
under way this week, he said.
 
In Japan, Hideo Ikegami at the National Institute for Fusion Science in
Nagoya said he also is running a simialr experiment.  "I'm not quite sure
yet" whether the experiment is producing excess heat, he said. "I'm
getting a very high temperature ... but I can't say definitely" that it
is excess heat until detailed calculations are made, he said.
---------
    --Brad Sherman
 
 `Never forget, gentlemen,' he said, to his astonished hearers,
 as he held up a copy of the `Authorized Version' of the Bible,
 `never forget that this is not the Bible,' then, after a moment's
 pause, he continued, `This, gentlemen, is only a translation of
 the Bible.'
    --Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbsherman cudfnBrad cudlnSherman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / MH100 ph /  WSJ News
     
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WSJ News
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:43:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

 
	Today's WSJ: "U.S. Researcher Claims to Replicate Japanese
Experiment in 'Cold Fusion'", July 27, 1992, Page B5, By Jerry E. Bishop and
Jacob M. Schlesinger
*****************************************************************************
	Here are highlights of this article:
	1. Ed Storms from LANL is the news maker;
	2. Takahashi-type experiment;
	3. 20% excess power;
	4. P&F with representatives from several Japanese companies held
	   a closed meeting in Sapporo last week;
	5. Storms indicated the cracks on one of the Pd foils are responsible
	   for the failure of producing excess heat for the second run;
	6. Francesco Celani from Frascati claimed 10% excess from Takahashi-type
 cell;
	7. Ikegami might get excess too but not sure yet.
********************************************************************************
H. Liu
Phys. Dept, CSM
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhliu cudfnMH100 cudlnph cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / John Logajan /  Forest for the trees
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Forest for the trees
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:00 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>The discouraging information is that the effect seems to have gone away or
>reversed with the shorter interval.
 
You have a better feel for your data, but it looked like power out was
increasing.  Yes the correlation with in-out disappeared, but so too does
a flywheel smooth out a steam piston's herky-jerky thrust.
 
You've lost the on-off signature, but what of your net power out?
 
> Perhaps there is a time lag.  But one as long as indicated boggles the
> synapses.
 
Doesn't the whole concept? :-)  You mentioned a possible time lag effect
*before* you switched to shorter cycles, so at least it isn't totally
an after the fact explanation.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / John Logajan /  Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:59:58 GMT

Dick Blue writes:
> Can anyone explain how these puny [1.5 MeV] photons are going to do what
> 23 MeV photons probably don't do either?
 
Maybe nothing directly.  Maybe something through some atomic sized Rube
Goldberg chain reaction -- the photon illuminates the cheese which starts
the mouse running, which pulls the string tied to his foot ...
 
This whole body of anecdotal indications of self-sustaining chain reactions
points to some sort of "store and delayed release" mechanism.  There might
be more than one way to get into the initial first state.  Have all isomers
been identified and characterized?  How are they born, how long do they live,
how do they die?
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 /  Close /   Waiting for Godot
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Waiting for Godot
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:26:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***
 
In response to my demonstration that Gene Mallove publishes reckless and
blatantly false accusations about me and about David Worledge of EPRI,
Jed Rothwell writes (on behalf of Gene?) that
 
"Gene has a deadline to meet, and he does not have time for you right now.
Wait your turn;"
[belligerent remarks about "blowing me out of the water" deleted].
 
No hurry! We who await the coming of cold fusion are used to being patient.
It is Gene Mallove's credibility that is at stake,his reckless disregard for
the truth that has been exposed and his moral integrity that are called
into question by this silence. If he wishes it to remain so, thats his problem.
 
 
I hope that the several places to which Dr Mallove sent out his more extensive
written attacks on John Huizenga and me, as well as on various people at MIT,
are now aware, via this public exposure, of the shameless style of these false
accusations and of the similarly dubious nature of the claims for cold fusion
that accompany them. I am indeed glad that this public network has enabled this
sort of behaviour to be more widely exposed to view.
 
 
But it does make me wonder a little: If you are acting as agent for one who
seems prepared to post such untruths in an attempt to rewrite history and,
when caught out, he/you do not come clean, then how are readers to know whether
to believe the rest of the material that you put out?
 
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:27:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
another mini-load from Down-Under, but you'll agree it's a good one. The "but"
refers not to Down-Under but to mini. Nothing wrong with Australia, OK? OK.
You can tell from the abstracts' lengths that I was interested - or maybe that
I understood what it was about... take your pick.
 
We finally have an expert looking at the FPALH-92 paper, something I have long
wished for. Groenlund, a physical chemist from Copenhagen re-analysed the
data, and arrives at somewhat different conclusions. He is careful not to
rubbish FPALH but he does say that the actual errors are not knowable from the
published data. The excess heat he calculates is maximum 5% of input power...
and a lot of people reckon that's about the error for that sort of
calorimetry. But the no-heat hypothesis is contradicted by the very smooth fit
of excess heat vs. input power, an exponential relation; one cannot easily
imagine an error behaving like that. So the paper reduces FPALH in size,
allows you to think of it as experimental error, or not - but does not
demolish it.
 
Prati et al believe they have demolished Scaramuzzi-type cold fusion; they
reckon that the Ti would not have absorbed any deuterium under those
conditions, and when it did for them, no neutrons were detected. Another
quality negative. Lastly, Riley et al (that's Andrew Riley, who died in the
SRI explosion) show how to monitor deuterium loading in situ, by gas
volumetry, within about 5%. Very careful work, and although it does not
mention cold fusion or F&P, it is clearly motivated by cold fusion and I
include it in the main group.
 
 Lastly (again, but a different lastly), a sort of magazine report from
Australia, in anticipation of restrained fireworks at Nagoya later this year.
I am a bit puzzled why he should have chosen Wada's set-up as the only Figure,
but he did.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 28-Jul-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 722
 
Papers    files cnf-pap1..5
^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groenlund F;                                   J. Thermal Anal. 38 (1992) 229.
"Electrolysis in calorimetry".
** This paper takes a critical look at the paper of Fleischmann et al 1992 or
FPALH-92. Instead of the empirical and hard-to-follow method of analysis used
by FPALH, Groenlund starts from basics, not unlike Balej and Divisek. Only
known thermodynamic relations and reactions are considered. Input power, heat
flow out of the cell, enthalpy of electrolysis and of water evaporation (in
the saturation of evolved gases) are all known and can be related. The numbers
from the grand Table in FPALH are used; the only missing variable, cell
temperature, is calculated indirectly. The calculated excess heats are about
an order of magnitude smaller than those given by FPALH, i.e. 0-5% of input
power. There is a linear, rather than power-, relation between excess heat and
current, and an exponential one with -Ea/RT (Ea = activation energy). The heat
bursts of FPALH remain unexplained but no evidence exists for an anomalous
effect for their origin. Conclusions are: At low current densities, the
present analysis agrees with FPALH, i.e. FPALH's method agrees with the
thermodynamic approach; at higher cd's, FPALH's values are too high by an
order of magnitude and may be due to error; the apparent large accumulation of
excess energy could be due to small rates of recombination, despite FPALH's
insistence that no recombination occurred.                            ?/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prati P, Ricco G, Taiuti M, Boragno C, Eggenhoffner R, Valbusa U;
Nuovo Cimento A 105 (1992) 293.
"Search for neutron emission from titanium-deuterium systems".
** This team designed a new type of multiparameter, high-efficiency neutron
detector, recognising that this is required for cold fusion experiments. The
aim was to verify the results of Scaramuzzi et al, for high D loadings in Ti.
Three coaxial scintillator shells were used, 20 cm long and about 5 cm thick.
The inner shell was filled with NE213 liquid and the two outer ones are
plastic NE102A.  Cd sheets between the shells capture neutrons thermalised
within the detector. An anticoincidence cosmic ray detector was placed over
the setup and the whole surrounded by a paraffin (20 cm) and Cu (2 cm) and
Pb (10 cm) wall. A 30 cm**3 sample could be placed in the centre of all this.
A pulse shape discriminator separated gamma events from neutrons. Detection
efficiency at 2.45 MeV was calibrated at 12.5 %. Ti shavings were exposed to
D2 gas under pressure; when the Ti was not heated in vacuum, no D2 was
absorbed and the neutron count was the same as the background; the same was
obtained with Ti powder. When the powder was heated in vacuum at 560 C for
about 7 h, and then exposed to 16 atm of D2 gas, it did absorb it and the
temp. went up to 600 C; still no neutrons were detected. This loaded Ti was
then subjected to several thermal cycles between liquid N2 and room
temperature, and at no time was there any neutron emission above background.
The authors conclude that the Scaramuzzi-type experiment is not suitable,
because no D2 is absorbed.                                       Oct-91/Feb-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riley AM, Seader JD, Pershing DW;        J. Electrochem. Soc. 139 (1992) 1342.
"An in-situ volumetric method for dynamically measuring the absorption of
deuterium in palladium during electrolysis".
** This team refined the method used by Divisek et al, i.e. they measured the
deuterium loading in real time by the deuterium volume lost. The paper
thoroughly reviews a large number of other methods for loading monitoring. A
thermostated cold fusion electrolysis cell is attached to a pair of gas
burettes (not thermostatted but room temperature was controlled to some
extent). Pressure in the sealed cell was kept at 1 atm by adjusting the
burette levels. The cell was initially cleared of air by evacuating and
refilling with deuterium, repeating once. A catalytic recombiner in the cell
removed all the oxygen and a stoichiometric amount of deuterium with it, which
registered in the gas burette as a loss. Electrolytes were 0.1 M LiOD as well
as an acid solution made by acidifying that solution to a pH of 1.7 by
addition of D2SO4. Control experiments were carried out, and gave small
signals, setting the measurement error.
 Results showed loadings generally of 0.75-0.8. At current density above about
30-60 mA/cm**2, loading rate was constant, being controlled by the diffusion
within the Pd; at lower current densities, loading is slowed down. From these
results, the diffusion coefficient of deuterium in the deuteride could be
determined, and was 1.7E-11 m**2/s, in good agreement with the literature
(Lewis, 1.6E-11). In a few experiments, loading levels of about unity were
achieved; it was not possible to identify the factors leading to this. The
conclusion is that gas volumetry is a good method of monitoring the loading
within about 5% accuracy and is useful for closed-system calorimetry.
                                                                 Mar-91/May-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Comment: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grad P;                        Engineers Australia 64(14) (1992) 24-Jul, p.18.
"Cold fusion still controversial".
** Triggered by the upcoming cold fusion conference in Nagoya in October, this
report sums up the field. Grad believes that the conference will be a more
sober affair than the previous conferences, and many participants, he thinks,
will avoid the term "cold fusion" altogether. While Huizenga is quoted against
the phenomenon, Grad writes that too much evidence now points to some real
nuclear effect, and lately experimenters have achieved some degree of
reproducibility, he believes. He quotes a recent statement by Wada, as well as
describing his original experiment, which is shown in a figure. Takahashi is
also quoted, claiming excess heat, neutrons and tritium. Tritium has also been
found by Dr. Will, at 50 times the background, but Will regrets the lack of
solid evidence for excess heat. Hagelstein's theory is mentioned.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Nick Szabo /  Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
     
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:28:38 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Jul27.054445.12125@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu
 (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
 
>...He said that you
>can buy a generator from Caterpiller which will generate electricity with
>less polution and less cost per kilowatt-hour than a centralized coal-fired
>plant could.  Moreover the MTBF is such that your grandchildren will still
>be running it.
>
>With the existance of such generators, it is impossible for privatized
>utilities to form oppressive monopolies.
 
In addition, large plants run by competitors could be hooked into the
power grid and sell power several states over, since "transport" costs of
electricity are low.  This requires open access of producers to the power
grid, just as phone deregulation gave open access for long-distance companies
to the Baby Bell customers.  This would be a hallmark of Libertarian
energy policy.
 
I would also add to small diesel generators several "climate freindly"
options for decentralized energy, should global warming become a problem:
 
* Biofuels would take as much greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere as
they return.
 
* Solar power, primarily developed in the private sector despite massive
government "investment" in energy tech in general, has been rapidly
coming down in costs, and will soon be a competitive decentralized
source in many areas of the country.  It is already being used for
satellites, boats, campers, lodges, etc.
 
* Many nuclear options in both fission and fusion could, with
deregulation, be fully explored in the private sector instead of being
supressed in the public sector.  This is admittedly a trickier deregulation
problem, but quite worthwhile looking into.  As a starting point,
hundreds of small research fission reactors have operated safely on
college campuses across the country, and we have extensive experience
with decentralized nuclear technology in hospitals.  These might make
good models for decentralized nuclear power safety.
 
The government will continue to fund hyper-centralized programs like
hot fusion, and use that _political_ power to supress the many
decentralized options, if we don't move towards a Libertarian program.
We will continue to have government-regulated monopolies "serving"
our power needs if we don't move towards a Libertarian program.
You can send a clear, strong message of change this fall by voting
Libertarian.
 
 
--
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenszabo cudfnNick cudlnSzabo cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:18:52 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Thomas H. Kunich writes:
>I don't think we need to invent new buzz words and then attempt
>to breath some sort of ulterior motives into them. Socialism
>is socialism, regardless of whether it is being exercised in the
>technical arena or the social welfare arena.
 
I strongly disagree and assert that this lack of appreciation of the
differentially greater destructive impact of direct government
funding of technology development, especially in fusion, vs other
forms of socialism, is central to the greatest problems our world
faces.
 
Socialism is destructive in proportion to the immaturity of the
field in which it is applied.  Bureaucracy is the antithesis of
innovation and creativity -- it is least damaging where there are
mature, well understood disciplines and standards and most damaging
in nascent fields where the overthrow of established ideas and a
diversity of approaches are required and the sources of funding must
be close to the action so as to prevent an incursion of funding
parasites with their run-away foot-dragging, wasteful "experimentation"
and ultimately, viciously anticompetitive politics.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Latest News
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest News
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:09:01 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Don't get upset Tom, the data isn't really that bad.  Wilcoxon's
Rank Sum W alpha = 0.037, Binomial test alpha = 0.0730, Paired
differences alpha = 0.1094 or 0.3438 (There were an odd number of
measurements this time.  The two numbers are for discarding the first
or last measurement respectively.)
 
     Also the apparent slight increase in effect with time has become
a deluge.  (At which point did you start using the "blank" source?)
 
     One last point...a geiger counter is not the best detector for
gamma rays.  Putting an appropriate material (Boron, I think) in place
will substantially increase the sensitivity to gammas. I've seen
counters which come with just such a shield.
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Latest News
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest News
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:08:00 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Don't get upset Tom, the data isn't really that bad.  Wilcoxon's
Rank Sum W alpha = 0.037, Binomial test alpha = 0.0730, Paired
differences alpha = 0.1094 or 0.3438 (There were an odd number of
measurements this time.  The two numbers are for discarding the first
or last measurement respectively.)
 
     Also the apparent slight increase in effect with time has become
a deluge.  (At which point did you start using the "blank" source?)
 
     One last point...a geiger counter is not the best detector for
gamma rays.  Putting an appropriate material (Boron, I think) in place
will substantially increase the sensitivity to gammas. I've seen
counters which come with just such a shield.
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Pressure to get it right
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:48:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul28.000122.10365@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
>
>I wouldn't want to claim that the 5th generation project and the
>hysterical response in the U.S. were products of a conspiracy between
>research groups in the two countries, but that model certainly fits
>the data.
 
Les, I think that you are subscribing to the 'conspiracy' theory of
history. I don't believe that people can successfully be so devious.
 
The _stated_ goals of the Japanese 5th generation computer were to
achieve real artificial intellegence and that always reminded me of
the cartoon where two scientists were looking at the blackboard and
one says to the other, "I think you have to work on the middle part
there." And in the middle of a group of calculations is the statement,
"And a miracle occurs."
 
The Japanese discovered that miracles don't often occur on schedule.
So I think we can safely assume that their project did meet the
expectations.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 /  /  Latest Result
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest Result
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:00:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We continue the pseudo Ying experiment.
 
We now have 4 days of running at an average of 8 hour source in/out time.
This represents 5987 data points.
 
Mean Power Source In/Mean Power Source Out = 1.001
 
Looks like a null result to me.  So back to 24 hour period.  Yes Dick Blue
I know to be careful of the earth's rotation.  But note this is a 48 hour
period.  24 hours in, 24 hours out.  Perhaps Dick can name a few things off
the top of his head with this period.
 
The trouble with the skeptics is that they don't work very hard.  Note that
I did worry about 24 hours and ran 4 days so that there were the same number
of samples at all times of day, with the 8 hour test.  Come on Dick, you
can do better than "Line Voltage".  I am three layers of regulation (woops
it is actually 4) away from that proble.  And the last two are in a
temperature controlled box.  Why don't you think of something exotic for
me to worry about, like the early morning utility frequency correction
cycle?  Tides are a little better.  There is a small problem in my device
that might even be tides.  Why should I have a small day night effect when
heavy water is in the calorimeter and not on the calibration runs?  This
is something to investigate when I give up on "anomalous heat".  But Dick,
I do look, and worry a lot!  Of course there is a correction for air
temperature.  But it is really quite small, even when I run (as at present)
with the outer shell servo off to allow wider calorimeter temperature
control.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 / Paul Karol /  D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:13:18 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Just to provoke a better response, before I misinterpret the present
situation...
 
It's been several days since I asked for a brief explanation of what the
D + D --> He + gamma scheme is all about.  I got two responses.  One was
a request that if I got any responses, please forward a copy.  The other
was a statement that it's a crock and why was I wasting my curiosity (my
paraphrasing).
 
Are youns out there going to let it lie (no pun, as usual) this way?
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / John Logajan /  The importance of being chained
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The importance of being chained
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:06:42 GMT

Tom Droege reports an apparent 9mW average difference between
bosons on and off.
 
If we postulate that the source of the 9mW of heat is D+D=>He plus
24MeV, we find that that implies a minimum of 1.2 Curies of
activity (A Curie is 3.7E+10 events per second.)
 
However, Tom's boson source is nowhere near one Curie.  In fact,
it is marked 0.5 microcurie -- one two-millionth of a Curie.  He
further suggests that the source is old and is only a fraction of
its marked activity, he speculates as low as (or lower than) 0.008
microcurie.  This is less than one 150-millionth the number of
events required to generate the observed heat on a one-for-one
basis.
 
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain
reaction *must* be appealed to. [Standard disclaimer about the
reliability of the original data, etc.]
 
An average gain per trigger event of less than 1.0 will never
account for the gain of 150 million.   An average gain of exactly
1.00000 will not account for it either.
 
Only gains greater than an average of 1.00000 can hope to account
for the net gain of 1.5E+8.  And gains greater than, yet very
nearly, 1.00000 are improbable due to the arbitrary geometry of
the Pd cathode surface which presumably "leaks" doomed chain
events.
 
The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the gain is
greater than 1.0000 by some significant amount.  But that leads to
further requirements.  If the event times are on the order of
picoseconds, all the pending event opportunities will be consumed
in a fraction of a second.  If these be all the D's in the Pd
lattice, we ought to have a serious nuclear explosion rather
than tiny quantities of excess heat.
 
I see two general possibilities to explain the absence of mushroom
clouds in Orlando and Batavia.
 
One is that at any given time there are only a very few pending
event opportunities -- a fraction of the available D's.  They all
do go off in a very quick chain reaction flash, but their numbers
are relatively small.  A fraction of a second later after the
previous flash, new event opportunities arise, and the relaxation
oscillator can be triggered to fire again.  Sort of like the early
German V-1 "buzz bomb."  (Depending upon the rate of relaxation,
an RF "signature" might arise from this hypothetical mode.)
 
A modification of this is to postulate that there is always a
continuum of event opportunities appearing in the lattice, and
these overlap the firing of their predecessors.  The chain is
controlled, then, by the rate of event opportunity creation, just
as a rocket engine self-ignites new fuel.  (This would be a
continuous "burn" and might have no RF "signature.")
 
The second possibility is that event opportunities can assume bi-
stable states.  One state is the ground state, and one state is
the excited state.  The excited state halflife is (apparently) on
the order of minutes or hours -- if the statistics do actually
show a "lag" effect.
 
The problem with the bi-stable state theory is that it ought to
still lead to a runaway condition, although the onset of such
slowed to hours or days.  There is no evidence yet of such an
ongoing runaway condition.  So I have to conclude that the bi-
stable is not present, or is further controlled by some secondary
mechanism.  In any case the evidence is ambiguous.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Trinary experiments
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trinary experiments
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:33:55 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Another idea for Droege's latest experiment would be to
change it from a binary experiment (source "In" or "Out"), to
a trinary experiment ("In", "Out", or "Mid").  The Mid state
would have approximately half the radiation reaching the
cathode.  This could be done by moving the source farther
from the experiment, using separate strong/weak sources, or
by interposing some material to reduce the radiation reaching
the experiment by about 50%.  He could run for 24 hours in
each of the three states, or better yet, run for 12 hours in
each state.  Then, if the two 12-hour periods per day are
called AM and PM, in a three day period he would get all six
states -- In_AM, Mid_PM, Out_AM, In_PM, Mid_AM, Out_PM, ...
If the trials are not thought to be independent, the next
three day period could reverse the order (Out would follow In
rather than Mid).
 
The statisticians could then go crazy -- determining the
effect of AM/PM, memory effects, correlations with weak and
strong sources, etc.
 
-- Bob Horst
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Bruce Scott /  Re: inertial fusion
     
Originally-From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:04:03 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>>Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
>>world doing research on inertial fusion?
>
>...Modest effort...at Garching in Germany...
 
There is no inertial fusion going on at IPP Garching. There is a
stellarator (W7-AS) and a tokamak (ASDEX Upgrade), and part of the
design team for ITER. Besides this there are groups for tokamak physics
in general, general theory, and plasma-wall interactions.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
 
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenScott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Bruce Scott /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:12:54 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

>D + D --> He + gamma
 
The problem is that DD doesn't go this way. There are two branches:
  D + D --> He^3 + n + 3.27 MeV
        --> T + p + 4.03 MeV
with equal probability. Most energy from D + D comes from the secondary
reactions, which have much higher cross-sections:
  He^3 + D --> alpha + p + 18.3 MeV
  T + D --> alpha + n + 17.6 MeV
In each case, the energy is divided such that C/M momentum is zero.
 
I think D + D --> alpha violates some quantum transition rules.
 
Source: NRL Plasma Formulary, 1983 edition.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenScott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: The importance of being chained
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:29:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <9207290006.AA08478@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Tom Droege reports an apparent 9mW average difference between
>
>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain
>reaction *must* be appealed to. [Standard disclaimer about the
>reliability of the original data, etc.]
>
>An average gain per trigger event of less than 1.0 will never
>account for the gain of 150 million.   An average gain of exactly
>1.00000 will not account for it either.
>
>Only gains greater than an average of 1.00000 can hope to account
>for the net gain of 1.5E+8.  And gains greater than, yet very
>nearly, 1.00000 are improbable due to the arbitrary geometry of
>the Pd cathode surface which presumably "leaks" doomed chain
>events.
>
>The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the gain is
>greater than 1.0000 by some significant amount.  But that leads to
>further requirements.  If the event times are on the order of
	I am glad someone else thinks there is a possibility of chain
reaction (possibly run-away if the geometry is right). As I said before,
people probably have to be carefull what kind of electrodes they build,
high surface/volume ratio is probably safe.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / MIKE JAMISON /  Stimulated Emission
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stimulated Emission
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:11:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

While thinking about the Ying device, and how to exploit its effect without
the continuous use of a gamma source (i.e. making a gamma ray laser), I was
struck by the following thought:
 
1)  If D+D+gamma -> He4+2gamma exists, then:
 
2)  (your favorite gamma source)+gamma -> fragments + 2gamma
 
should also exist.
 
In other words, if gamma induced fusion exists, then gamma induced fission
should also exist.
 
Conversely, if gamma induced fission doesn't exist, then gamma induced
fusion won't, either.
 
Are there any known cases of gamma induced fission?
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / John Logajan /  Trinary
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trinary
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:01:02 GMT

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
 
>change it from a binary experiment (source "In" or "Out"), to
>a trinary experiment ("In", "Out", or "Mid").
 
But suppose there is a "critical" level of incident radiation.
"Mid" might be either over or under the critical level, and
therefore might look "In" or "Out."  Would this be useful
information in a statistics experiment or would it cause
further confusion?
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / John Logajan /  Re: The importance of being chained
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:08:49 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn) writes:
>logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
>>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain
>>reaction *must* be appealed to.
 
>	I am glad someone else thinks there is a possibility of chain
>reaction (possibly run-away if the geometry is right). As I said before,
>people probably have to be carefull what kind of electrodes they build,
>high surface/volume ratio is probably safe.
 
Actually, I believe that the fact that there have been apparent very high
gains and no runaway means that runaway conditions are *NOT* easy to obtain.
 
I believe the following two properties are required to explain the current
results.
 
1.) Any major anomalous heat *must* require a chain reaction of sorts.
 
2.) There is an inherent moderating mechanism opertating apart from but
    in conjuction with the chain.
 
Without a chain reaction, there is no way to account for the huge gains.
Without a moderating mechanism, there is no way to account for the lack
of serious lab explosions.
 
I have no idea what the chain reaction is, nor what the moderating mechanism
is.  I just know they are required to exist to explain the supposed data.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Stimulated Emission
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stimulated Emission
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:40:10 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <29JUL199212110773@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>Conversely, if gamma induced fission doesn't exist, then gamma induced
>fusion won't, either.
>Are there any known cases of gamma induced fission?
>
>Mike Jamison
Photo-induced fission is known for Uranium and probably many other heavy
isotopes.  People have studied this process to understand more about the
fission decay products and the branchings.
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Mark Iverson /  ...to lighten things up a bit.
     
Originally-From: marki@netcom.com (Mark N. Iverson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ...to lighten things up a bit.
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:12:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (Los Angeles area access)

 
[Everybody must be asleep |-) zzzz  out there, as I thought someone would
 have jumped on this immediately...]
 
In recent reply to one of Tom's articles, someone (think it was Deiter) wrote:
 
>                                              ...  Tom Droege, I think,
>has told us that he sometimes accumulates gas, and then it recombines in a
>rush.  This causes heat surges.
 
Thank goodness the sense of olfaction doesn't work over the net!!!  :-)
 
 
Tom, try taking some papaya tablets after eating; it really helps! ;-)
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
[ and another opportunity that i couldn't pass...]
[ ...altho, it contains a very serious element...]
 
Terry Bollinger writes:
 
>Hmmm...  Had no idea that "proper funding" is required in order to expire
>from radiation poisoning...  }=-)>
>
>(I vote for the Tooth Fairy sneaking in from Buckaroo Bonsai's 9th.  CNF
>researchers, hold tight to your teeth!  :-)  )
 
..Buckaroo's comment after his Cold Fusion Mr. Coffee melts down...
 
 
 
 
                "No Matter Where You Glow, There You Die"
 
 
 
 
wake up out there...
 
Mark
 
--
Mark N. Iverson
marki@netcom.com                    /  We dance round in a ring and suppose,
                   (scientists)--> |   but The Secret sits in the middle,
Disclaimer: mine, and only mine.    \  and knows.               -- R. Frost
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmarki cudfnMark cudlnIverson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / JOSEPH CHEW /  Re: inertial fusion
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:19:43 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Does anyone know the state of research of inertial fusion is at?
>How close to breakeven, compared to tokomaks? Is anyone besides LLNL is US or
>world doing research on inertial fusion?
 
Try Key, "Lasers generate plasma power," Physics World, August 1991, for
a survey of the laser-based inertial fusion energy programs worldwide.
The article is aging as an accurate description of what's going on in
the mercurial world of big-science funding, but the semi-technical
background is interesting.
 
A proposed Nova upgrade/replacement at LLNL could get into the regime
of scientific breakeven eventually, producing megajoule-range fusion
output with megajoule-range drive beams.  Of course, the "wall plug"
efficiency would be rather less.  A commonly accepted definition of
"IFE," as distinguished from laboratory microfusion experiments, is
10 MJ in and 1000 MJ out, for a gain of 100x.  D-T pellets capable of
supporting this gain requirement, and also compatible with the drive
beam in question, will be an important R&D area.
 
The key areas of IFE R&D are somewhat different from those of MFE,
because the questions are different.  We have assurances, from a
series of nuclear-weapon-driven experiments called Centurion-Halite,
that IFE-relevant pellets can be driven and fused.  The numbers are
still classified, but the people who have access are permitted to
show me a qualitative cartoon of where we are now (tiny pellets driven
by today's lasers) and of Centurion-Halite results, with IFE in the
middle.  The big issue is how to drive the pellets in a way that is
more cost-effective and causes fewer complaints from people living
around the power station.  :)  That might turn out to be big lasers
(which in any case would be necessary for pellet and maybe reactor
R&D) or particle beams.
 
Some scientists consider the latter approach to be especially
promising. I'm writing this in a fugue state from the production of
a published version of the Conceptual Design Report ("CDR" ~~ DOEspeak
for "proposal") for the Induction Linac Systems Experiments, a step
towards a driver based on heavy-ion beams from an induction linac.
If you're really interested, drop me a note and I'll put you on the
mailing list.  We expect to get a go-ahead to start building it.
 
The Germans are working on a synchrotron-based approach at GSI.
I don't know whether Sandia is still running their proton diode,
Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II, but they've been pursuing the
use of beams of light ions.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjtchew cudfnJOSEPH cudlnCHEW cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: inertial fusion
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:28:18 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>...Modest effort (on laser fusion) at Garching in Germany...
>
>Bruce Scott replies:
>
>There is no inertial fusion going on at IPP Garching. There is a
>stellarator (W7-AS) and a tokamak (ASDEX Upgrade), and part of the
>design team for ITER. Besides this there are groups for tokamak physics
 
   But is there not a very large short-pulse iodine-laser facility in
the new IPP/MPQ building?  (In fact, the building was partly designed
around it).  And does not this include a facility for irradiating
targets with the laser beam?  And was not laser-induced fusion at
least a part of the motivation for the initial investment in this
facility at the time the decisions were made a decade or so ago (along
with general laser plasma physics and perhaps X-ray laser
experiments)?
 
   I certainly thought that was the case; though I also have the
impression that the interest in completing and using the facility may
have diminished in recent years, and the focus turned from laser
fusion possibilities more to a general focus on laser plasma physics.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Trinary
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trinary
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:04:22 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9207291801.AA08539@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   But suppose there is a "critical" level of incident radiation.
   "Mid" might be either over or under the critical level, and
   therefore might look "In" or "Out."  Would this be useful
   information in a statistics experiment or would it cause
   further confusion?
 
   At this time, I'd say further confusion...
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.25 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Coleman Mantels and Thorium
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:16:34 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <9207231834.AA07357@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>I got four sets, just in case it is my last chance to
>get radioactive material on the cheap.
>
 I noticed in a welding supply catlog "thoriated" tungsten welding rods.
I don't know how much is in them, but I'm guessing it's for stabilizing or
starting the arc.
 
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates!_________|
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:29:39 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <IeRMsym00UhB83IXpS@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
 writes:
>
>It's been several days since I asked for a brief explanation of what the
>D + D --> He + gamma scheme is all about.  I got two responses.  One was
>a request that if I got any responses, please forward a copy.  The other
>was a statement that it's a crock and why was I wasting my curiosity (my
>paraphrasing).
 
I have been too busy to formulate a complete reply, so I was hoping to
see one and spare me the effort.  At the risk of being incomplete ....
 
d+d has three fusion paths: He-3 + n, H-3 + p, and He-4 + gamma.
 
The branching ratios are basically 0.5, 0.5, tiny (I do not recall the
value for the gamma branch, but many orders of magnitude down because
of selection rules) so no one expects to see the gamma branch.  If it
is there, it is easy to identify because there is not much background
for 20+ MeV photons.  It has been looked for and not seen.
 
Ying describes something that *is* stimulated emission cast in a funny
(non-standard, but clear) language.  The idea is that the presence of
either the gamma or the He-4 (or both) would stimulate the emission by
enhancing the probability for the reaction.  As I speculated and someone
here worked out, unreasonably high radiation levels are required for this
to occur according to the rules of stimulated emission.  Further, the
energy should come out in observable -- and dangerous -- radiation.
 
A problem for this picture is that Ying used a gamma source that produces
low energy gammas; not gammas of the same energy as the ones he wished
to stimulate, as the theory requires.  He did use an alpha source that
might produce alphas of a reasonable energy in the apparatus, but the
intensity would still be low compared to what the theory requires.  (This
is the theory that lasers are built from, so it is pretty well understood
by that experimental/technological community.)  His apparent health
argues against his own claims.
 
Thus his model is not wrong, but seems implausible as an explanation until
one can see some products other than heat.  If there is stimulated emission
of gammas, he should be able to detect gammas in proportion to heat!  If he
can do so, this would be a major breakthrough.  Lacking them, one is forced
back into the old problem of how to couple the fusion reaction to thermal
energy without radiation (the Hagelstein-like phonon lasers) and how to
detect He-4 products in the presence of background He-4 -- and where are
the X-rays from recoiling He-4 nuclei?  These pictures do not seem to
require stimulated emission of gammas, but their study would be helped
if one had an experiment that worked on demand.
 
For me, the key is whether it is a perfectly reproducible, heat-producing
experimental protocol.  If so, then one can proceed to study it.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  /  Now trying to do it right.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Now trying to do it right.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:24:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are back to running the experiment on a 48 hour cycle, 24 with source
in and 24 with source out.  I will try to make the changes on a more
regular interval, so that I can use things like the FFT on the data.  But
it will be hard to do it right until I build a machine to do it.
 
I seem to be much less excited than some of the rest of you.  There have
been too many false alarms in the past.  So the first data just says to me
"take the time now to do a better experiment".  There is the problem that
the "anomalous heat" level does seem to be increasing over time.  For any
long term change over 10 mw, I am at a loss as to the cause.  Ov course
every time I do something, like the recent change in the saw tooth algorithm,
there is a small chance for a change in calorimeter balance point.
 
But I believe the calorimeter is very stable.  So if it is indicating 30 mw
and this changes to 40 my and I have not done anything like change the saw
tooth frequency, then I think it is significant, and have lots of data to
prove it.  (mw not my)
 
So there will not be much to report for a while.  I have you all excited
and the data is not worth that yet.  Poor Ed Storms talked too much and it
has got him a lab full of reporters.
 
The plan is to alternate source in and source out until the new source
arrives.  I will then put it in on the next "in" cycle.  If this produces
a big increase in power, I will get excited, and will put up a "red alert"
message!  Meanwhile, I will accumulate low level data for a base line.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  Robert Eachus, I have tried every way I know (not much) to send you
a message.  How do I do it.  Would like to give you detailed info on the
data.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  /  Just Mucking Around
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just Mucking Around
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:25:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ed Storms nicely sent me a copy of the ICCF3 preprint.  It contains several
tables.  Table 2 lists all the disasters - dieing recombiner, broken
connections, etc..  Table 3 lists all the different operating points, saw
tooth, high-low, steady etc..  It looks just like my log book.  It looks
just like what I can read from the McKubre paper.
 
My point is that we are all struggling to find a repeatable experiment.  What
keeps us going is that every so often we see something.  But I think that
no one has it yet.  This in my opinion includes P&F.  There may well be
nothing to find, but it is sure fun trying.  So to some of you standing by
the sidelines wishing you could participate, there is still time!  Jump in,
you are not that far behind the rest of us.  ( An alternate reading of the
previous statement is "Misery loves company").
 
Bob Horst suggest a three level experiment.  You bet Bob, I actually have
two 1 microcurie sources coming.  So we can do background, weak old, one
microcurie, two microcurie.
 
For thought.  Everyone worries about getting the loading high.  The theory
seems to be that high **uniform** loading is needed.  Thus P&F are rumored
to be using Pd/Ag alloy because it is stronger and can take loading without
fracture.  How in the world can it be uniform?  To me, a real process must
work on a single crystal grain!  Or possibly in a single grain boundary.
So I advocate building a sensitive device and looking for a tiny effect.
Then it can be optimized.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Paul Karol /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:52:42 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Bruce Scott talks about He-3 or T induced secondary reactions as a
source of high energy fusion output.  If this were important, then He-3
or T experiments would have been done.  In fact, I know of an
unpublished search for CNF using a sample loaded with multi-curies of
tritium and no ...no... indications of fusion were observed.  This was
done a couple of years ago.
 
Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.
 
Paul J. Karol
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Paul Karol /  Re: Stimulated Emission
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stimulated Emission
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:01:07 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Mike Jamison asks about gamma induced fission and whether or not it has
ever been observed.  One of the most respected references, "Nuclear
Fission" by Vandenbosch and Huizenga (that's JOHN HUIZENGA, crew), has a
25-page subchapter on "photofission".  It's old stuff already.
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / John Logajan /  Runaway power
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Runaway power
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:52:48 GMT

A table of energy and power.
 
3.5 megawatt-hours  --  The energy available in Droege's Pd electrode if all
                        loaded D's fused into He4's.
 
8.9 milliwatts      --  The delta power between Droege's boson source in,
                        and out.
 
60 picowatts        --  The delta power if each incident boson only triggered
                        a single D+D=>He event.
 
4 picowatts         --  The power of the incident bosons themselves.
 
 
 
If the correlation between Droege's boson in/out mode and heat output is
statistically significant, then there *must* be a chain reaction, even if
it is chemical in nature.  The need for a chain is even greater in a lower
energy chemical reaction, since far more events are required to achieve
the same delta-power.
 
There also *must* be a moderating mechanism even if it is chemcial in nature.
If it is nuclear, then there must be a reason that a gain of 150 million
doesn't build to ignite the entire 3.5 megawatt-hours in a fraction of a
second.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Jon Noring /  A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 03:44:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article doug@UC780.UMD.EDU writes:
>In article ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>Enclosed is a snippit from sci.physics.fusion:
>>There is some interesting stuff being discussed there ...
>>***** BEGIN QUOTE *****
>>
>>Materials scientist Edmund Storms reported in a paper submitted to a
>>scientific journal that he has measured 20% more power coming out of his
>>experiment as heat than was put into it electrically.
>
>I'd like to see a third institution reproduce this. If it can, we've got
>a bit more than a quirky transient phenom... is MIT going to take another crack
>at cold fusion? Any other University?
>
>>14 kWh is no small quantity of heat!  and 70% is a non-trivial percentage.
 
 
I talked to Dr. Harold Puthoff the other day.  Dr. Puthoff has published
several papers in Physical Review concerning zero-point energy and
Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED).  His research in that area has greatly
added, but not completed, our understanding of the zero-point energy of
the vacuum.
 
What does this have to do with cold fusion?   Well first of all, Dr. Puthoff is
associated with a company that is developing CCT (condensed charge
technology), with applications in many areas including energy conversion.
Dr. Puthoff claims (and verification from several National Laboratories
is arranged and hopefully confirmed by the end of this year) that their
device is producing substantial excess energy, and this energy is coming
from the vacuum energy.  Apparently the zero-point energy of the vacuum
(which amounts to well over 10^98 ergs/cm^3 at the Planck cutoff) is not in its
highest entropy state.  This is explainable by the theory (in one of Puthoff's
papers) that the source of this energy (which is believed to be highly
random electromagnetic energy) comes from the motion of all charge carriers
in the universe.  Since the distribution of mass is nowhere near it's
highest entropy state, there is potential to produce useful work from the
vacuum, with the net effect that the energy returns to the vacuum energy
but increases the entropy of the universe.  Thus, the thermodynamic laws are
not violated by this conjecture.
 
Anyway, back to cold fusion.  Dr. Puthoff believes that the anomalous heat
generation without neutron emission is due to vacuum energy extraction and
not nuclear fusion.  He says that there are some aspects of the cold fusion
experiments that happen to mimic CCT, so under special circumstances (which
may be quite touchy), vacuum energy is tapped and converted to thermal
energy.
 
Anyway, this is no doubt highly controversial and quite speculative (Dr.
Puthoff and his company have to prove the energy gain of their device),
but I bring it out to add a novel theory as to the real source of the
anomalous heat as observed in many of the "cold fusion" experiments.
 
Jon Noring
 
 
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:59:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

 
I could not find this article on page B3, is this the correct page number?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  Close /   DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:34:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Someone wrote "I think dd->alpha violates some quantum transition rules"
In fact it is even more basic: it violates energy momentum conservation and
that is why something has to be radiated (gamma).
 
For those interested in why: The mass of an alpha is *less* than that of two
 
deuterons. The minimum initial energy that the two deuterons can have is if
 theyare at rest and they then fuse to make an alpha at rest. This satisfies
 momentumbut the *energy* (mass = rest energy/c**2) dont balance because of the
 mass
defect of the alpha. The result is that the alpha is produced in a short lived
 eexcited state and sheds the excess by gamma radiation.
 
 
Anyone who has studied QED knows that it costs probability to shed gammas -
roughly alpha=1/137 per gamma in the matrix element. The more gamma you shed
 theless chance. So shedding 2,3 etc is less and less likely. Even one kills you
by around a million relative to the "direct" strong processes of t+p or
n+3He.
 
Concerning Ying, and the whole world for that matter: forget theory and
look for products. No products, no fusion. As explained in detail a
couple of months ago these arguments about products depend only on
*general* arguments of *energy conservation* and the order of magnitudes
of nuclear binding energies (which are the *source* of any energy released
in nuclear transmutations).
 
Invoke as many miracles as you like to hide the products of dd fusion
and you wont explain the lack of products in the data *unless* you are
prepared to give up *energy conservation*. Even Jed Rothwell keeps
on about energy conservation, so it seems even he is ont prepared to give
up thta property (I am sure Jed will correct me if I am wrong; I have only
quoted from memory). I am nopt prepared to, by the way, but here is an
historical note that might amuse younger readers.
 
Pauli invented the idea of the neutrino in order to explain the *apparent*
 
violation of energy-momentum conservation in beta decay (193x). This is
now confirmed exptally. What is less widely known is that people as eminent
as Bohr seriously considered the possibility that E-mom might *not* be
conserved in nuclear beta decay; their thesis being that we had seen a whole
new change in outlook going from macroscopic to *atomic* dimensions, quantum
theory etc; and now one was extrapolating those ideas to *nuclear* dimensions
which was a comparable leap in scale.
 
I posted this for three reasons.
1."Establishment" science *is* open to "crazy" ideas
2.Why have   the believers in cold nuclear fusion (sic) been so conservative
and not suggested this "obvious" explanation: energy *not* conserved.
The ultimate free lunch.
3. Sorry. My memory has a half-life shorter than lithium-11 and I
forgot what the third post was supposed to be. Maybe I recoiled from the
enormity of the rest of this posting.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Rolfe Petschek /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:16:01 GMT
Organization: CWRU Physics Department

In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
 writes:
 
>Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
>selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.
 
d is spin 1
He is spin 0
gammas are spin 1
 
d is a boson. In a symmetric orbital angular momentum zero state two d's
must have a symmetric spin wave function or total spin 0 or 2.  This implies
that there must be non-zero angular momentum either in the initial or
final state (or two gammas in the final state or something).  Two gammas
will decrease the transition rate by a large factor, depending on
details unknown to me such as excited states of He.  Orbital momentum in
the final state will decrease the transition rate by something like
(ka)^2 where k is the inverse wavelength of the gamma and a is the
nuclear size (roughly 10^{-6}) and orbital momentum in the initial state
is going, particularly at low energies, to be yet much more serious.
This seems modestly consistent with the results as mentioned e.g. He is
down by about 10^{-7}, but you should know that I am a solid state
physicist and am making this up without reference to books or such.  I
am sure that good discussions exist.
 
--
Rolfe G. Petschek			Petschek@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics		rgp@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University		(216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrpetsche cudfnRolfe cudlnPetschek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Colin UCT /  <None>
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:09:50 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <29JUL199212110773@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>,
 edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
> While thinking about the Ying device, and how to exploit its effect without
> the continuous use of a gamma source (i.e. making a gamma ray laser), I was
> struck by the following thought:
>
> 1)  If D+D+gamma -> He4+2gamma exists, then:
>
> 2)  (your favorite gamma source)+gamma -> fragments + 2gamma
>
> should also exist.
>
> In other words, if gamma induced fusion exists, then gamma induced fission
> should also exist.
>
> Conversely, if gamma induced fission doesn't exist, then gamma induced
> fusion won't, either.
 
I don't think conventional theories of nuclear physics follow this
logic! :-)
 
Gamma induced fission does indeed exist - for a start in deuterium
itself. If you hit a deuteron with a gamma of greater than its binding
energy, (2.2 MeV), it will photodisintegrate.  Same goes for any
nucleus. No one has yet been able to do the opposite - e.g. fire a
gamma at two nucleons (neutron and proton) and see them fuse. It's
completely counterintuitive. Like putting a stick of dynamite between
two rocks and expecting the explosion to make them stick together.
 
The only way I can see the Ying scenario working is if the gamma
somehow gives a deuteron kinetic energy (maybe momentum is absorbed
by the lattice for conservation purposes) and that deuteron goes
shooting off and hits another deuteron. I, however, remain entirely
sceptical of this. If a 24 MeV gamma hits a deuteron, you get protons
and neutrons. If a 1.5 MeV gamma hits a deuteron, it excites it.
 
As far as chain reactions go, I agree that to explain the supposed
Ying effect, you need one, but you can't get one without trashing
nuclear physics. Fusion is not like fission. In fact, it's quite the
opposite :-)
 
I'm finding the statistical and thermondynamical reatment of nucl phys
very interesting. Hitherto I've been strictly a ball-and-chain man.
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / John LeMay /  HOW TO IMPROVE THE COST, TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY OF INFO. TO YOU
     
Originally-From: jlemay@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John LeMay)
Newsgroups:
 sci.med,sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology,sci.bio.technology,sci.engr,sci.materi
 als,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COST, TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY OF INFO. TO YOU
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:22:02 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

 
           ELECTRONIC SURVEY ON THE FUTURE OF
            DIGITAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
 
The Boston Consulting Group is conducting a study on the
future of electronic publishing and distribution, and would
like to get your input.  Technology platforms like wide area
networks (Internet, Bitnet, etc), local area networks, CD-
ROM, multimedia PCs, and hand-held information appliances
will continue to reshape the way you access and use
information.  This survey itself is an experimental way of
soliciting feedback on digital information flows from
researchers, authors, professors, practitioners, and
students. We hope that your response will help improve the
cost, delivery, timeliness, and availability of electronic
information to the scientific and technical community.
 
This survey has two parts.  Part One contains structured
responses to a defined set of questions.  Part Two contains
more open ended questions on what information you need, how
you want to access it, and the major dissatisfactions with
electronic information in its current state.
 
Send responses by e-mail to: jlemay@nwu.edu
 
PART ONE:  STRUCTURE SURVEY:
 
1.  How would you describe your occupation:
 
____ Researcher
____ Professor
____ Undergraduate
____ Graduate Student
____ Practicing Scientist / Engineer
________________________________ Other (describe)
 
2.  What is your primary discipline?
 
____ Chemistry
____ Engineering
____ Biology
____ Medicine
____ Mathematics
____ Physics
____ Geosciences
_________________________________Other (describe)
 
3.  On average, how many hours/week do you spend on Internet
or other wide area networks?
 
____ Less than one
____ One to five
____ More than five
 
4.  What is your networking platform?
 
____ Unix
____ IBM
____ MAC
_________________________________Other (describe)
 
5.  Do you subscribe to a commercial on-line database service
(please check)?
 
____ Compuserve
____ Dialog
____ Prodigy
____ Other
____ No, I do not subscribe
 
6.  If you answered no to question five, do you plan to
subscribe to a commercial on-line service:
 
____ within the next year?
____ within the next three years?
____ No, I do not plan to subscribe.
 
7.  Do you own a CD ROM drive?
 
____ yes
____ no
 
8.  If you answered no to question five, do you plan to buy
one:
 
____ within the next year?
____ within the next two or three years?
____ No, I do not plan to buy a CD ROM.
 
9.  Do you have easy access to a CD ROM drive?
 
____ yes
____ no
 
10.  Please rank the following sources on a scale of 1-5
(5=highest) based on their usefulness to you:
 
____ Books
____ Refereed articles
____ Communication with colleagues/associates
____ Unpublished research papers or research results
____ Abstracts
____ Indexes
____ Reference sources
____ Fact-oriented databases (patents, chemical compounds,
statistics, etc)
____ Magazines/Newspapers
____ Current contents
 
11.  Please rank the following on a scale of 1-5 (5=most
frequent) based on the frequency with which you access them:
 
____ Books
____ Refereed articles
____ Communication with colleagues/associates
____ Unpublished research papers or research results
____ Abstracts
____ Indexes
____ Reference sources
____ Fact-oriented databases (patents, chemical compounds,
statistics, etc)
____ Magazines/Newspapers
____ Current contents
 
12  Please rank the following on a scale of 1-5 (5=highest)
based on your desire to access them electronically over a
wide area network or CD ROM product:
 
____ Books
____ Refereed articles
____ Communication with colleagues/associates
____ Unpublished research papers or research results
____ Abstracts
____ Indexes
____ Reference sources
____ Fact-oriented databases (patents, chemical compounds,
statistics, etc)
____ Magazines/Newspapers
____ Current contents
 
13.  Overall, how satisfied are you with your ability to
access information electronically (5= completely satisfied,
no complaints):
 
____ Level of satisfaction
 
14.  What are the major drawbacks to on line information
(1=minor drawback, 5=major) drawback)?
 
____ Speed of information access
____ Graphics
____ Cost
____ Breadth of information available
____ Search and retrieval tools
____ Document delivery
____ Screen display
____ Ability to print out in quality format
____ ________________________________ other (specify)
 
15.  How important is it to have all major publishers
represented in a database of past and current literature
(5=extremely important)?
 
____ Importance
 
16.  How often do you use the following delivery media:  (1-
more than 5 times per week, 2 - one to five times per week, 3
- less than once a week, 4 - do not use)
 
____ On line
____ CD ROM
 
 
17.  How important is browsing of print products to you
(5=extremely important)?
 
____ Importance of browsing
 
18.  Do you / would you use electronic products mostly as a
replacement or a supplement to regular print products
(1=mostly replacement, 5=mostly supplement)?
 
____ currently
____ in two years
____ in five years
 
19.  Following are potential improvements or applications in
an electronic document environment.  Please rate between 1
and 5 (5=highest) based on the value to you:
 
____ Full text and graphic databases available on line at
higher communication speeds than are currently available
 
____ Back issues only of journals available on CD ROM
 
____ A customized CD ROM of the journals you use the most,
including 3 or more years of back issues
 
____ Journals delivered to you on line with full text and
color graphics, at higher communication speeds than are
currently available
 
____ Journals delivered to you on CD-ROM with full text,
color graphics and abstracts of all references
 
____ Shorter cycle times between print publication and
appearance of an article in abstract and information services
 
____ Browse on line full text of a collection of books in a
subject area, select sections/chapters of interest and create
customized information resource
 
____ Electronic preprints or abstracts released 4-6 weeks
prior to print publication (i.e., future contents)
 
____ A customized electronic current awareness service in
which you specify the information you would like presented
 
Part Two:  Open Questions
 
Please feel free to share your thoughts on the following
issues.
 
20. What major changes would you like to see in the way
electronic information is structured or accessed?
 
21.  What factors would increase your use of electronic
information?
 
22.  How do you see the delivery media changing?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlemay cudfnJohn cudlnLeMay cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Richard Long /  Re:  DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:10:13 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1992Jul30.131601.20968@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
> In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Paul Karol) writes:
>
> >Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
> >selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.
>
> d is spin 1
> He is spin 0
> gammas are spin 1
 
I believe that both d and He4 can have different total spins than those
listed; however, this requires some energy.  In the case of d, alligned
spins have a lower energy than opposite spins, and so spin zero is
possible if the deuteron is excited by a photon.  The same is true of He4,
although the energy is very much greater since all of the nuclear shells
are filled for both neutrons and protons, and so one must go to a whole
new shell and leave the other with a vacancy crying to be filled.  Thus,
we can rule out spin 1 He4, but spin zero d is certainly a possibility.
 
If a spin zero d fuses with a spin 1 d to give a spin zero He4 and a spin
1 gamma, then we have reaction that does not violate spin or momentum.
Is it possible to stimulate deuterium with low energy gammas to produce
spin zero d?  Are there any other mechanisms to forbid this kind of
reaction, such as the nuclear forces which interchange protons and
neutrons in the d nucleus.  Does the strong force require alligned spins
in d?
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.29 / Charles Poirier /  Re: The importance of being chained
     
Originally-From: poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:27:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <9207290006.AA08478@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some sort of chain
>reaction *must* be appealed to....
>
>The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the gain is
>greater than 1.0000 by some significant amount....
>
>I see two general possibilities to explain the absence of mushroom
>clouds in Orlando and Batavia.
>
>One is that at any given time there are only a very few pending
>event opportunities...
>
>The second possibility is that event opportunities can assume bi-
>stable states....
>
>  -- John Logajan
 
A third possibility is that the "stimulated emission" may have a narrow
cross-section around the path of the stimulating photon.  If so, and if
the emitted gammas follow the path of the initiator exactly, the cascade
should be limited in scope: each incident gamma might sweep out a very
small fraction of the volume of Pd.  This effect is independent of the
effects John Logajan proposes, and any or all might be operating to suppress
the mushroom clouds.
 
A couple of random thoughts:  if CNF is indeed a stimulated emission
phenomenon, one might expect it to work better in sheets than in wires,
and better in chunks than in sheets.  Random trajectories through the
material would have a longer average path length in each case.
 
The other random thought:  is there any known way of *reflecting* 23 MEV
gammas?  Or refracting them?  Even a fairly low efficiency might be
useful, given sufficient gain on each pass through the cell.  For lasers,
you like to have a cavity with mirrors on the ends.  No one has yet
brought up this idea, and I expect it is for good reason (eg. it being
utterly impossible), but I am curious enough to ask.
 
Even absenting the possibility of reflectors, an obvious thing to try is
to aim one's beam of gammas down the long axis of a rod-shaped Pd electrode
so as to maximize path length.
 
	Cheers,
	Charles Poirier
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpoirier cudfnCharles cudlnPoirier cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / John Logajan /  Re: The importance of being chained
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:05:02 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes:
>A third possibility is that the "stimulated emission" may have a narrow
>cross-section around the path of the stimulating photon.  If so, and if
>the emitted gammas follow the path of the initiator exactly, the cascade
>should be limited in scope: each incident gamma might sweep out a very
>small fraction of the volume of Pd.  This effect is independent of the
>effects John Logajan proposes, and any or all might be operating to suppress
>the mushroom clouds.
 
Actually, I think it fits under the broad definition of chain reaction.
I wasn't trying to define what the chain reaction really was, or whether
it was even nuclear or chemical in nature.
 
My only point was that if there is a statistical correlation between the
application of incident bosons and heat gains (in excess of a one-for-one
correspondence to either nuclear or chemical reactions) then some sort of
chain must exist.  Your proposal certainly falls within the genus "chain",
and it has a nice "moderating" mechanism to boot.
 
--
- 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Robert Eachus /  Re: DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DD->4He + gamma
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:14:25 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <199207300852.AA20319@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
 
   ...Anyone who has studied QED knows that it costs probability to
   shed gammas - roughly alpha=1/137 per gamma in the matrix element.
   The more gamma you shed theless chance. So shedding 2,3 etc is less
   and less likely. Even one kills you by around a million relative to
   the "direct" strong processes of t+p or n+3He.
 
   If Yang is right and has gamma mediated fusion, the three (most)
probable reactions are:
 
   d + d + gamma --> He4 + gamma
   d + d + gamma --> He3 + n + gamma
   d + d + gamma --> t + p + gamma
 
   As compared to the hot fusion reactions of:
 
   d + d --> He4 + 2 gamma
   d + d --> He3 + n
   d + d --> t + p
 
   First, since there are only two products in the first reaction
instead of three, and it is energeticly favored, there is no reason in
a Yang type process why we should see many protons or neutrons.
 
   Also, has anyone looked carefully at the resonances of the various
palladium isotopes?  If the reaction Pd + gamma --> Pd* --> Pd + many
gammas is going on, a chain reaction is very possible.  (The "all the
deuterium fuses at once" scenario is not real.  Assume that there is
some special state required for fusion, such as pairs of deuterium
atoms in interstitial sites.  As the system approaches criticality,
the first energetic particle to come along will cause a cascade,
lowering the number of favorable sites, and thus reducing criticality.
The initial signature of this will be heat pulses.)
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  Close /   the third point i forgot
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  the third point i forgot
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:10:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When I suggested that CNF believers were too conservative and asked why
 
they had not suggested violation of energy conservation as an "explanation"
of heat without nuclear products I said I was posting for three reasons; I
cited two and forgot the third.
 
Here is the third.
 
If you *are* prepared to suggest that energy is not conserved then what
is wrong with the following: "Too much energy for chemistry. Therefore
energy is not conserved".
No need to mention *nuclear* at all.
 
However like me, and Jed Rothwell, and most other people on this net
(is this true), you probably prefer to believe that energy *is* conserved.
In which case what is wrong with my argument that there must be 10**12
pieces of nuclear ash per joule?
 
Which brings me to what was *really* my third point. When Bohr was prepared
seriously to contemplate that E-mom might be violeted in nuclear beta decay
it was because of the existence of *clear, reproduced, incontrovertible
experimental evidence* that a "forbidden" process was happening. Some of
us still have to take that leap of belief in the present episode.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  /  Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:10:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - status 30 July 92.
 
The source is not expected for a week or so.  This will give time for a number
of 24 hour segments.
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
1   On      17760        4.9       532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
2   Off     48060       13.4      1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
3   On      87300       24.3      2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
4   Off     77220       21.5      1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
5   On      82740       23.0      3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
6   Off     79980       22.2      2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
7   On      83640       23.2      3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
8   Off     57300       15.9      1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
9   On      25440        7.1       897.0        50       0.0353  +/- 0.0010
10  Off     20940        5.8      1365.4        50       0.0652  +/- 0.0010
11  On      34500        9.6      1663.3        50       0.0483  +/- 0.0010
12  Off     25500        7.1      1398.8        50       0.0548  +/- 0.0010
13  On      11760        3.3       685.5        33       0.0560  +/- 0.0028
Here the code was changed to synchronize the data points with the saw tooth
down stroke.  While the computation must be suspect, I think it is not the
cause.  My best guess for the following power increase is that the change
caused a higher peak saw tooth current, and this generated more "anomalous
heat".  There are a lot of saw tooth changes, even in the data of this run
which do not show computed power changes.
14  On      11400        3.2      1348.0        32       0.1182  +/- 0.0028
15  Off     33360        9.3      3673.3        50       0.1101  +/- 0.0010
16  On      21840        6.1      2250.2        50       0.1030  +/- 0.0010
17  Off     29460        8.2      2830.3        50       0.0960  +/- 0.0010
Dow inserting "dummy" of source during off periods.
18  On      33480        9.3      2405.1        50       0.0718  +/- 0.0010
19  Off     54240       15.1      4229.7        50       0.0780  +/- 0.0010
20  On      85680       23.8      7285.0        50       0.0850  +/- 0.0010
21  Off     86040       23.9      8063.7        50       0.0937  +/- 0.0010
 
Point 22 will likely come out larger than 21 so it sort of looks like we have
the "in-out" effect on top of a rising trend.
 
While every time I "so something" I suspect that it might cause a calorimeter
zero change, the calibration and null runs have been so stable that I consider
any thing over a 10 mw change to be significant.
 
Here is my theory for the above data with my "true believers" hat on.
Starting at point 8 the time lag in the effect washed the "in" data into the
"out" data.  When the program change was made, the increased current caused a
temporary increase in the "anomalous heat" which is decaying exponentially.
This reached its low at point 18, and "anomalous heat" is now building again
due to the cumulative effect of the source.
 
With my "true believers" hat off, it looks like nothing is happening.
 
With the program change, we can look for information in the relatively smooth
data between the above points.  By grouping all the power points in one saw
tooth together there is a nice smooth trend with an occasional up bump.  I
will try to get this data into shape that it can be passed out to those of you
that want to look at it.
 
Dennis Cravens has suggested that the source might change the efficiency of
the thermoelectric refrigerator.  To get positive "anomalous heat" the
efficiency of the refrigerator set that pumps heat out of the calorimeter
would have to decrease.  Note that this set runs at about 1/2 ampere.  Those
of you that like to compute such things have a go at this.  This will be
tested by the cell out calibration at the end of the run.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Albert Chou /  Re: inertial fusion
     
Originally-From: achou@plasma.icsl.ucla.edu (Albert Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of California at Los Angeles, EE Dept.

In article <25033@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>I don't know whether Sandia is still running their proton diode,
>Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II
 
PBFA II was still in business as of March of this year.  I was on a tour of
it during the High Temperature Plasma Diagnostics Conference in Santa Fe
that month.
 
Al
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenachou cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Jim Carr /  Re:  DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:35:04 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul30.161013.12714@cs.ucf.edu> long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard
 Long) writes:
>
>             ...                             In the case of d, alligned
>spins have a lower energy than opposite spins, and so spin zero is
>possible if the deuteron is excited by a photon.  ....
 
The deuteron does not have any bound excited states.  If it did have
a bound S=0, T=1 state, we would observe bound di-neutrons.  We don't.
 
The S=0 resonance is not unbound by very much, if I remember the size
of the singlet phase shift, but my top-of-the-head few-body physics
knowledge is pretty limited.
 
The key number in such a discussion is the decay width of the resonance
as observed in photo-disintegration studies.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 /  Britz /  Scales from eyes
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scales from eyes
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:31:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
 
>Pauli invented the idea of the neutrino in order to explain the *apparent*
>violation of energy-momentum conservation in beta decay (193x). This is
>now confirmed exptally. What is less widely known is that people as eminent
 
Of course! Scales fall from my eyes! The answer has been there, staring at us,
all along. The hitherto missing emission is neutrinos! Deuterium fuses to
alpha plus a bunch of neutrinos - a lot of them in fact, because you need a
lot to shed that much energy. But you don't detect them without a tank with
tons of gallium or dry cleaning fluid or whatever. Doug Morrison has
occasionally posted his theories about the "missing" solar neutrinos; well,
did you notice that according to him, recently the figures show that there are
not as many missing as people thought - or, *as there used to be* ... What
with cold fusion experiments all around the world (hundreds of labs), all
putting out masses of neutrinos, no wonder the neutrino detection sites are
finding more!
 
>I posted this for three reasons.
>...
>3. Sorry. My memory has a half-life shorter than lithium-11 and I
>forgot what the third post was supposed to be. Maybe I recoiled from the
>enormity of the rest of this posting.
 
What are you hiding, Frank? Were you going to tell us about neutrinos but then
changed your mind?
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  Bob_Sidebotham /  Social responsibility?
     
Originally-From: Bob_Sidebotham@transarc.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Social responsibility?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:09:38 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 29-Jul-92 The importance of
being cha.. John Logajan@SLEEPY.NETW (3369)
 
> I see two general possibilities to explain the absence of mushroom
> clouds in Orlando and Batavia.
 
This sort of discussion makes me feel rather uneasy. Obviously, there is
no way of determining whether a runaway chain reaction might occur,
short of actually understanding what's going on or actually experiencing
such an event. On the other hand, the *possibility* of creating an
uncontrolled reaction may exist due to the various experiments being
conducted, whereas the possibility of this happening in the absense of
experimentation is remote.
 
Now I understand that lack of funding coupled with the relative ease of
experimentation (as compared to traditional attempts to achieve
controlled fusion, for example) is impelling people to perform these
experiments under varying conditions and with relatively little emphasis
on safeguards.
 
So here's some scenarios to think about:
 
1. Let's suppose a major incident occured, with extensive loss of life
and destruction of infrastructure. This is clearly not a good thing, and
besides the immediate results, would likely result in a complete
government clampdown on further research (I'm assuming it would become
obvious to the authorities where the explosion had originated and why)
and severe restrictions on the propogation of information. I suspect it
would be likely to have extreme effects on many other aspects of our
society.
 
Is this worth the current "risks" that are being taken (if, indeed, any
are being taken at all)?
 
2. A major incident does not occur, but the means for creating one is
published. It turns out that creation of a "cold fusion bomb" is
relatively simple.
 
What happens to society under this scenario? Do researchers have a
responsibility to evaluate the destructive possibilities inherent in
their work *before* publishing?
 
3. The government decides, for National Security reasons, to bottle up
all research. Since National Security is invoked, the precise reason
this is done is not mentioned. It could be for both physical security or
economic reasons.
 
What would your reaction, as researchers, be to this? Is it likely?
(Perhaps one sure indication that we have that the U.S. government
completely disbelieves in cf research is the fact that they haven't yet
taken this step.).
 
This is just to broach the topic. What do you guys think? What are the
potential social implications of cold fusion, and what are your
responsibilities as investigators? Are there any parallels to this?
Here's one: remember the lawsuits brought against biotech firms due to
fears of the possibility of the release of some deadly agent? Why
shouldn't cf experimentation pose a similar *potential* hazard?
 
Bob Sidebotham
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBob_Sidebotham cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 /  ratiller@ualr. /  Re: A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
     
Originally-From: ratiller@ualr.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:02:30 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock

In article <hapm6d_.noring@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>
> I talked to Dr. Harold Puthoff the other day.  Dr. Puthoff has published
> several papers in Physical Review concerning zero-point energy and
> Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED).  His research in that area has greatly
> added, but not completed, our understanding of the zero-point energy of
> the vacuum.
>
> What does this have to do with cold fusion?   Well first of all, Dr. Puthoff
 is
> associated with a company that is developing CCT (condensed charge
> technology), with applications in many areas including energy conversion.
> Dr. Puthoff claims (and verification from several National Laboratories
> is arranged and hopefully confirmed by the end of this year) that their
> device is producing substantial excess energy, and this energy is coming
> from the vacuum energy.  Apparently the zero-point energy of the vacuum
> (which amounts to well over 10^98 ergs/cm^3 at the Planck cutoff) is not in
 its
> highest entropy state.  This is explainable by the theory (in one of Puthoff's
> papers) that the source of this energy (which is believed to be highly
> random electromagnetic energy) comes from the motion of all charge carriers
> in the universe.  Since the distribution of mass is nowhere near it's
> highest entropy state, there is potential to produce useful work from the
> vacuum, with the net effect that the energy returns to the vacuum energy
> but increases the entropy of the universe.  Thus, the thermodynamic laws are
> not violated by this conjecture.
>
> Anyway, back to cold fusion.  Dr. Puthoff believes that the anomalous heat
> generation without neutron emission is due to vacuum energy extraction and
> not nuclear fusion.  He says that there are some aspects of the cold fusion
> experiments that happen to mimic CCT, so under special circumstances (which
> may be quite touchy), vacuum energy is tapped and converted to thermal
> energy.
>
> Anyway, this is no doubt highly controversial and quite speculative (Dr.
> Puthoff and his company have to prove the energy gain of their device),
> but I bring it out to add a novel theory as to the real source of the
> anomalous heat as observed in many of the "cold fusion" experiments.
>
> Jon Noring
>
Here are some of the numbers culled from the patent #5,018,180 by Kenneth
Shoulders, section 31, column 67/68(no page number).
 
input power:  1KV thru 1500 ohms = 667  (P = I^2 R)
 
output power:  2 Kv thru 200 ohms = 20,000 (P = I^2 R)
 
ratio of output to input:  20,000 / 667 = 30
 
 
input pulse width #1 = 5 ns
input pulse width #2 = 0.001 ns
 
output pulse width   = 16 ns
 
energy conversion factor with 5 ns input pulse:
 
	(16 / 5) * 30 =  96 times more output than input
 
(output width/input width) * ratio of output power to input power
 
energy conversion factor with 0.001 ns input pulse:
 
	(16 / 0.001) * 30 = 480,000 times more output than input!!!!!!
 
 
These numbers seem quite amazing.  I hope that they can be confirmed.
 
In column 69, Shoulders mentions that the "source of the energy appears
to be the zero point radiation of the vacuum continuum."
 
Would anyone care to comment on the numbers?
 
 
Robert Tiller
Still studying to be a genius
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenratiller cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Jack Jansen /  A stupid question about reaction cross-section, etc.
     
Originally-From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A stupid question about reaction cross-section, etc.
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:41:09 GMT

The discussions on this group have long gone past the point where my
physics education went, so this is probably a stupid question, but
here goes anyway: I keep hearing about the reaction cross-section; is
this a number that rolls out of theory or is this an experimental
result?
 
The reason I ask is the following: if it is experimental, would it be
possible that the real chance of two deuterons fusing is actually a
lot bigger than we think, only that usually the end result of the
reaction is again two deuterons? (So, in stead of 50% chance of the
tritium path, 50% chance of the He3 path and a tiny chance of the He4
path we actually have 50% DD path, 25% T, 25% He3 and tiny% He4 or
something similar). In such a regime (where there would be many more
opportunities for fusion than we currently think) it would be a lot
easier for the gammas or alphas to change the behaviour of the whole
system, since there would be many more opportunities for them to have
a significant influence...
--
--
Jack Jansen        | If I can't dance I don't want to be part of
Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | your revolution             -- Emma Goldman
uunet!cwi.nl!jack    G=Jack;S=Jansen;O=cwi;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjack cudfnJack cudlnJansen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Social responsibility?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Social responsibility?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:15:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bob_Sidebotham@transarc.com writes:
>What happens to society under this scenario? Do researchers have a
>responsibility to evaluate the destructive possibilities inherent in
>their work *before* publishing?
 
There are some things that cannot be kept secret, no matter how important
it is to keep them secret.  The very act of govenrments trying to now clamp
down on CF research would be taken as an obvious signal that something
powerful is to be discovered.  "Basement bombers" would take on a new meaning,
and ferocity.  Foreign enemies would go on three shift work day.  The secret
would quickly become the biggest non-secret in history.
 
When P+F went public, the genie was out of the bottle.  There is no way to get
the genie back into the bottle.  If there is something to CF, there simply is
no way of preventing that discovery from now being made.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / William Hawkins /  Thanks for the quality
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks for the quality
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:56:19 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

For those of you who have Jon Noring, or anything with alt in the
newsgroups list, in a kill file; he has made a posting to this
group.  It seems that his friend (acquaintance?) Dr. Puthoff has
suggested "vacuum energy" as the source of energy without ashes.
In fairness to Jon, the posting is quite reasonable, by 'net
standards.  But it probably marks the end of the quality of this
group, which has enjoyed unusual freedom from cross posting.  It
has been a group whose "signal" has been strong enough to overwhelm
the noise generators.  (I hope I'm wrong about using the past tense.)
Tom Droege and Dieter Britz are an inspiration to those of us who only
sit and read.  Others contribute to the high signal content, but
I think that those two stand out.
 
Once the group becomes "popular" because it is mentioned in the
entertainment news (anyone selling news for commercial considerations),
it will join sci.space.shuttle and sci.med in the flood of postings
from people who do not understand the science involved.  You don't
have to be a fusion scientist to have access to a newsgroup.  See
the posting of "Heavy Boots" in rec.humor.funny (recent) for some
examples of how far away from science you can get, or almost any
other sci group.
 
Any ideas on how to stem the tide?  Should there be an "accept" as
well as a "kill" function?  Send your replies to me, rather than
posting to the group, and I will summarize.
 
Bill Hawkins  bill@texan.rosemount.com  Work/Voicemail 612 895-2085
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 /  Close /   d He gamma and Dieters neutrinos
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  d He gamma and Dieters neutrinos
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:37:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rich Long asks if spin 0 deuteron is possible. No. The reason is quantum
mechanical and similar in spirit to the way that electrons build up the
Mendeleev table. The electron is a fermion and obeys the Pauli exclusion
principle: "no two can be in same quantum state". This limits the possible
electronic configurations to a few, and hence the regularity of chemistry.
Same idea works in the nuclear world (all you chemists out there: nuke isnt
that different really). The p and n are fermions and obey Pauli; this limits
the possibilities. The pn deuteron is spin 1; if there were pp or nn states
these would be spin 0 and there would also be "another" pn state with spin 0.
However, as Jim Carr noted, this set is unstable. The only stable one is
the lone pn which Pauli exclusion forces into spin 1. Sorry that its technical
but thats how somethings are.
 
But to reiterate my earlier posting. The absence of direct d+d->alpha is much
less exotic: it is energy-momentum conservation.
 
Rob Eades picks up my remark about shedding 2,3 etc gammas suppresses the
probability. The word "shedding" has misled you, sorry. The total number of
gammas is the critical factor, whether initial or final state. So
gamma+d+d->He+gamma has the same problem as d+d->He+2gamma.
In fact even more of a problem: as discussed on the net two months ago (?)
in connection with Takahashi's triple d colision hypothesis, triple
coincidence collisions are so improbable as to be ignorable.
 
And, I repeat, the bottom line is: look for the helium that has to be there
if you want to believe in Ying.
 
Someone mentioned Pd excitations. Quite why a charge 46 nucleus suddenly
"likes" to beat the Coulomb repulsion when a charge 1 (d) has enough
problems beats me, but ---
You can look for such hypothesised transmutations too. No Pd isotope
anomalies have ever been found (there was a rumour in 1989/90 that Pd
anomalies had been found but these turned out to be misidentified
ZrO in the mass spec).
 
Dieter: congratulations on your solution to the neutrino puzzle and CNF
in a stroke. Or is it sunstroke, mate, there on the ozone hole illuminated
Oz beaches? :-) Must be the Danish influence, inspired by my reference to
Bohr. Well, get back to work and find out who is hacking into your computer
and sending out messages in your name attempting to discredit you:-). Have
any net notables taking vacation been sighted entering Australia recently?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Paul Dietz /  Re: DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rpchester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DD->4He + gamma
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:55:28 GMT

 
In article <EACHUS.92Jul30141425@Dr_No.mitre.org>, eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org
 (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
|>    If Yang is right and has gamma mediated fusion, the three (most)
|> probable reactions are:
 
Listen, this is just getting too silly.  We can compute the
intensity of gamma radiation needed to get sufficient stimulated emission.
The number is absurd, by scores of orders of magnitude.   The "gamma
stimulated emission" theory is about as plausible as the "divine intervention
from the Sun God Ra" theory.
 
So let's stop pulling bogons out of gullibility space, ok?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / T Neustaedter /  Re: A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A Different Perspective (was Re: Cold Fusion, real again?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:17:55 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul30.120230.1@ualr.edu>, ratiller@ualr.edu writes:
> Here are some of the numbers culled from the patent #5,018,180 by Kenneth
> Shoulders, section 31, column 67/68(no page number).
> [...]
> 	(16 / 0.001) * 30 = 480,000 times more output than input!!!!!!
>
>
> These numbers seem quite amazing.  I hope that they can be confirmed.
>
> In column 69, Shoulders mentions that the "source of the energy appears
> to be the zero point radiation of the vacuum continuum."
>
> Would anyone care to comment on the numbers?
 
Yup. Build one and confirm them. But don't be dissapointed if it doesn't
happen to work. This a quasi-periodic phenomenom, where someone files a
patent for extracting energy from nothing. To date, none of them have worked.
 
The sci.physics.fusion group is centered on a particular variant of this
which is hellishly difficult to reproduce, but enough people believe in it
to generate a healthy amount of discussion (and there have been enough
positive results to give hope that it is real). Alt.sci.physics.new-theories
was created to give a forum for people with alternate theories - but be
prepared to be dissected, flamed and mentally parboiled if you aren't
knowledgeable enough about the theory to answer questions.
 
> Robert Tiller
> Still studying to be a genius
 
You might want to change your signature. People see the word "genius" in a
self-description and mentally translate the entire description to "twit".
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / John Logajan /  Occam's razor
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Occam's razor
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:11:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
>2.Why have the believers in cold nuclear fusion (sic) been so conservative
>and not suggested this "obvious" explanation: energy *not* conserved.
 
This really has a very simple explanation -- a loyalty to the time tested
notion known as Occam's razor.  Go with the simplist explanation that
remains consistent with the known data.
 
Here the battle lines form around what is "known" and what isn't.  But
no one is going to jump to violations of energy conservation until they
have to.
 
At some point in *every* discovery, you have to accept that not all of the
lab results represent experimental error.  In principle, however, you could
maintain exactly that -- human error, human mendacity, whatever.
 
On the other extreme you could believe in things without any evidence, and
a truck load of counter-evidence.
 
Between these extremes lies a contiuum and individuals fall in different
positions.  No two people will have the same standards of "proof" for
everything.  Thus are born the debates over what is "known", what is
"certain."  But this doesn't mean that two debators cannot both appeal
to Occam's razor, or the elements of logic.  It may merely mean they have
different starting premises.
 
It is hoped that eventually the correlation between reality and the
conflicting premises will sort itself out.  In some people's minds,
that is already done, in others, that is still ongoing.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Colin UCT /  Re:  DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:13:36 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Jul30.161013.12714@cs.ucf.edu>, long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard
 Long) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.131601.20968@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
> rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>> In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu
> (Paul Karol) writes:
>>
>> >Bruce Scott also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum
>> >selection rule, but I do not believe that is the case.
>>
>> d is spin 1
>> He is spin 0
>> gammas are spin 1
>
> I believe that both d and He4 can have different total spins than those
>[ ... ]
> we can rule out spin 1 He4, but spin zero d is certainly a possibility.
>
 
Spin zero d's are unbound, aren't they? Like diprotons and dinutrons.
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / MIKE JAMISON /  More wild speculation
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More wild speculation
Date: 31 Jul 1992 16:47 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Here comes another difficult-to-accept CNF idea:
 
D + Pd -> Ag + 13.1 MeV gamma.
 
Along with ruining your investment in Pd by turning it into less valuable
silver, there is the added fact that through coulomb repulsion alone the
probability of this reaction is about 46 times lower than D + D fusion (Fc
= Kq1q2/r^2, q1 = 1.6e-19, q2 = 46*1e-19).
 
Although this would explain the lact of Helium "ash", it won't explain why
the gammas aren't seen.  BTW the gamma comes from the fact that D has a
mass "excess" of 13.136 MeV (where mass excess is defined as mass - atomic
mass number, ref. "Introductionto nuclear physics and chemistry, second
edition" by Bernard G. Harvey) and Pd104 and Ag106 have mass excesses of
about -80something keV, or "negligible compared to the positive mass excess
of D".  I got the mass excesses from Table II of the above book - it has
mass excesses for every element under the sun (and in it :)).
 
As Frank Close has pointed out, D+D fusion products have less mass than
their constituents, so energy must come out of the reaction.  If the result
has more mass than the constituents, then why bother doing it, since you'll
lose energy.
 
BTW, Some people have been referencing "The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai
across the 9th dimension".  I could have sworn it was the 8th dimension...
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Richard Long /  Re:  DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: long@next3.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 21:18:34 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <10030@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
> The deuteron does not have any bound excited states.  If it did have
> a bound S=0, T=1 state, we would observe bound di-neutrons.  We don't.
>
> J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of
which I
> jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of
promises
> Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of
challenges."
> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15
July 60)
 
Now that you bring it up, Dr. Clarke and I were wondering why there were
no bound di-neutrons.  We assumed that there were, but that one of the
neutrons would then decay into the usual proton electron and antineutrino
with the usual lifetime.
   But we were wrong (I finally looked it up under pressure from you guys
:) ).  The strong force is spin dependent.  Note, however, that I cleverly
covered my butt in my posting by *asking* if there was a strong force
principle that forbade deuteron excited states ;).  Anyway, I interpret
the spin dependence of the strong force to be due to the zero spin of the
Yukawa exchange boson.  Then, Di-neutrons can't exist since the pauli
principle requires anti-parallel spins, and the Yukawa boson does not
change spin, and so requires parallel spins.  Is this right?
     BUT, do we require a stable spin zero deuteron nucleus?  Is it
possible that the mere scattering of a gamma ray off of a deuteron
enhances the lifetime of a virtual *unbound* spin zero state (by reducing
the amount of energy that needs to be borrowed from the energy-time
uncertainty relation)?  Maybe this is the function of Ying's
much-to-low-for-Stimualted-Emission-but-maybe-enough-for-virtual-spin-
zero-unbound-excited-state-catalyzed-He4-fusion gamma rays (TM)  :-)'
 
     While we are off the deep end in wild speculation (I'm a Math grad,
so what have I got to loose by way of reputation?) my Modern Physics book
(Blatt, F 1992) tells me that UUD (protons) and UDD (neutrons) quark
combinations exist in spin 3/2 states as well as 1/2.  Anyone know the
energies of these spin 3/2 versions?  My book dosn't say.  If the energy
is low, maybe it contributes another path to the Virtual Ying Process (c).
Also, do phonons have zero spin?  I've heard that they have a longitudinal
vibration component as well as transverse.
 
Anyway, I hope noone is offended by my lazy speculations, while Tom and
others do all the real work.  But heck, someone's got to help fill in the
empty hours of anticipated waiting!  Next year, I promise that I'll try
and get a Job at the Orlando Science Center as a late-night janitor to
Ying's lab and do some REAL science.  I just hope I don't turn big and
angry and green from all them gamma rays :).
 
--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlong cudfnRichard cudlnLong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / John Logajan /  Caught in the middle
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Caught in the middle
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 21:46:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>D + Pd -> Ag + 13.1 MeV gamma.
>
>Along with ruining your investment in Pd by turning it into less valuable
>silver, there is the added fact that through coulomb repulsion alone the
>probability of this reaction is about 46 times lower than D + D fusion (Fc
>= Kq1q2/r^2, q1 = 1.6e-19, q2 = 46*1e-19).
 
There is approximately 13,000 lbs of atmospheric force on the front of
your body.  Yet you are not blown backward and can actually walk into the
force with ease because there is also 13,000 lbs of atmospheric force
on the back of your body.
 
I'm not saying such conditions exist on a D caught between two Pd's, but
at least it has some intuitive possibilities.
 
>I got the mass excesses from Table II of the above book - it has
>mass excesses for every element under the sun (and in it :)).
 
The table of isotopes in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is also
very useful.  It gives atomic weights along with decay energies and products.
From the before/after atomic weights you can determine the amount of enery
needed or released for any given reaction.
 
>BTW, Some people have been referencing "The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai
>across the 9th dimension".  I could have sworn it was the 8th dimension...
 
Adjusted for inflation?
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.30 / Chuck Sites /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:21:30 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

I guess I'm to blame for that one.  The idea is simple to state,
 
D + gamma -> D*
D* + D -> T + p + gamma
D* + D -> He3 + n + gamma.
 
  The interesting thing with gamma interactions is that according to
standard models D + gamma does not result in any reaction except
D + gamma -> n + p at resonance of 2.224MeV which is the binding
energy of D.  It seems strange to me that the first excited state
of a D atom is the energy required for photodisintegration.  So to
find out if anything below exists it's necessary to understand how
a quantum of photon energy couples to D.  Th gamma wavelength is
much larger than the radial size of the nucleus.  So the only way
for an interaction to to occur is by electric and magnetic multipole
moments of the n and p of the deuteron. The overall effect is to
change the angular momentum l of one of the D components (n or p in a
independent particle model, or L in a shell model. Someone correct me
if I'm wrong.) The actual hard core physics behind this is complex
and is complicated by the nuclear model one chooses.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.01 / John Logajan /  Feeling Rejuvenated
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Feeling Rejuvenated
Date: 1 Aug 92 04:03:45 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>A curious thing happened when the source was put in
>for point 22.  The heat immediately increased to about 130 mw.  This increase
>then slowly died down to the order of the following "Off" segment....
>It is as if the source "uses up" an accumulation of prepared reaction sites.
                         ^^^^^^^
 
Need I point out to anyone the similarity here to Ying's "rejuvenation"
cycles?
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.01 / John Logajan /  Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 1 Aug 92 04:53:28 GMT

edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
> D + Pd -> Ag + 13.1 MeV gamma.
 
I looked up the isotopes in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Here's what I managed to extract (or calculate.)
 
In the table below are the various natural istopes of Pd combined somehow
with D.  The "1st Mev" is the energy released or consumed in making the
"Interim" product (silver isotopes.)  I presume the energy *must* be gammas.
The "Halflife" is that of the "Interim" product (only one is stable.)
The "2nd Mev" is the energy of decay of the "Interim" to the "Final"
product.  And the "2nd Decay Mode" is the decay mode of the "Interim"
to "Final" product.  B+ is positron emission, B- is electron emission,
and E.C. is electron capture.
 
Natural                                  1st  Half  2nd  2nd
Abund.    1H2 +      Interim     Final   MeV  life  MeV  Decay Mode
-------- -------     -------     ------- ---  ----  ---  ----------
( 1.02%) 46Pd102 --> 47Ag104 --> 46Pd104  10   69m  4.3  B+ or E.C.
(11.14%) 46Pd104 --> 47Ag106 --> 46Pd106  46   24m  3.0  B+ or E.C.
(22.33%) 46Pd105 --> 47Ag107             -13
(27.33%) 46Pd106 --> 47Ag108 --> 48Cd108 -11  145s  1.0  B-
                             --> 46Pd108 -11  145s  1.6  E.C.
(26.46%) 46Pd108 --> 47Ag110 --> 48Cd110 -11   25s  2.9  B-
(11.72%) 46Pd110 --> 47Ag112 --> 48Cd112 -11  188m  3.9  B-
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Jim Carr /  Re: A stupid question about reaction cross-section, etc.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A stupid question about reaction cross-section, etc.
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:01:54 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <6879@charon.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes:
>The discussions on this group have long gone past the point where my
>physics education went, so this is probably a stupid question, but
>here goes anyway: I keep hearing about the reaction cross-section; is
>this a number that rolls out of theory or is this an experimental
>result?
 
Both.  The great triumphs of nuclear physics are when the two agree to
better than a few percent.  In general terms, cross sections at low
energy have been measured in excruciating detail and cross sections
for the basic n+p system have been measured very carefully at a wide
range of energies.  In addition, spin-dependent observables (where
either the projectile or target or both are polarized and/or the spin
of the ejectile or recoil or both are measured) have also been measured
for the n+p system with excellent precision, providing the basis to
calculate many things of relevance to the d+d system with confidence.
 
The biggest weakness in the theoretical results for d+d is that no one
bothered to calculate anything since about 1956 since the results seemed
uninteresting and outside the possibility of being measured.  The FPH
claims changed *that* in a hurry!
 
>The reason I ask is the following: if it is experimental, would it be
>possible that the real chance of two deuterons fusing is actually a
>lot bigger than we think, only that usually the end result of the
>reaction is again two deuterons?    ...
 
This would not be fusion and would give no energy:  d+d --> d+d has the
same mass in the final state, hence no energy released.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Bruce Scott /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:33:17 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <weRiXuK00UhW04InRD@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
 writes:
>Bruce Scott talks about He-3 or T induced secondary reactions as a
>source of high energy fusion output.  If this were important, then He-3
>or T experiments would have been done.  In fact, I know of an
>unpublished search for CNF using a sample loaded with multi-curies of
>tritium and no ...no... indications of fusion were observed...
>...also guesses that D + D --> He-4 violates some quantum...rule...
 
Look, the fusion scenario we are working on is the D + T, which has the
highest cross section. We normally work only with D, since T is quite
difficult (more expensive) to handle safely. The small DD fusion rate
can be and has been measured in many tokamaks. Fusion neutrons from
D + T were measured directly in the JET DT shots; the "fusion power"
(which was *not* recovered in any usable form) of 1+ MW was calculated
from the production rate of these neutrons.
 
I'm not surprised that no-one has seen *cold* fusion with T, since this
is illusory in general.
 
Jim Carr answered to the effect that D + D --> alpha + gamma does indeed
violate selection rules; that's why the cross-section was so small that
the NRL "blue book" made no mention of it.
 
Rolfe Petschek gave the quantum details. Both posts confirmed my suspicion.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenScott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Jim Carr /  Re: Social responsibility?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Social responsibility?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:52:59 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul31.061546.29620@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>Bob_Sidebotham@transarc.com writes:
>>What happens to society under this scenario? Do researchers have a
>>responsibility to evaluate the destructive possibilities inherent in
>>their work *before* publishing?
>
>There are some things that cannot be kept secret, no matter how important
>it is to keep them secret.  The very act of govenrments trying to now clamp
>down on CF research would be taken as an obvious signal that something
>powerful is to be discovered.   ....
 
I think the point was for the researchers to keep it secret, from the
governments as well.  This was the approach taken by fission researchers
prior to WWII (concerning the number of neutrons released in the fission
of U-235) up to the point when Joliot and Curie published their findings
on the subject -- to the horror of others who had seen same and suppressed it.
 
Of course, the "secret" is still out there for anyone else who looks....
 
>When P+F went public, the genie was out of the bottle.  There is no way to get
>the genie back into the bottle.  If there is something to CF, there simply is
>no way of preventing that discovery from now being made.
 
This is true.  Who you tell about it is another matter.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Robert Eachus /  Re: DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DD->4He + gamma
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:49:24 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <20432@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rpchester.edu (Paul Dietz)
 writes:
 
   > Listen, this is just getting too silly.  We can compute the
   > intensity of gamma radiation needed to get sufficient stimulated
   > emission.  The number is absurd, by scores of orders of magnitude.
   > The "gamma stimulated emission" theory is about as plausible as the
   > "divine intervention from the Sun God Ra" theory.
 
   > So let's stop pulling bogons out of gullibility space, ok?
 
   I'm not familiar with any theories involving the Sun God Ra, but I
think you are jumping off half-cocked.  I know that any reaction which
requires three simultaneous inputs is highly improbable.  But that has
nothing to do with what I was trying to say.  In that reaction the
branching ratio must be very different from the ratio in the standard
d + d reaction.  Period.  I did not propose pulling bosons OR bogons
out of probability space, or attempt to justify Yang's theories.
 
 
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The importance of being chained
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The importance of being chained
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:03:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Poirier brings up an interesting idea that I've been
mulling around -- what if this CNF thing is really
just another form of a laser? What if it's a stimulated
emission?
 
John apparently would classify this as a nuclear reaction.
I'm quite willing to agree with this idea.
 
But, of course, we can be sure that a laser will work
only as an energy sink, so the calorimetry is critical
and everything else hinges on the reliable duplication of
the successful experiments in order to varify this.
 
I'm quite sure that if it is a stimulate emission that
emits in, say, the infrared region, that an experiment
could be designed to optomize for such a thing.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 /  /  Status 31 July 92
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status 31 July 92
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:54:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - status 30 July 92.
 
The source is not expected for a week or so.  This will give time for a number
of 24 hour segments.  Please save some of your interest for the future.  While
it does not look like much for the moment, who knows what a few more data
points will bring.
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
1   On      17760        4.9       532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
2   Off     48060       13.4      1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
3   On      87300       24.3      2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
4   Off     77220       21.5      1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
5   On      82740       23.0      3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
6   Off     79980       22.2      2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
7   On      83640       23.2      3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
8   Off     57300       15.9      1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
9   On      25440        7.1       897.0        50       0.0353  +/- 0.0010
10  Off     20940        5.8      1365.4        50       0.0652  +/- 0.0010
11  On      34500        9.6      1663.3        50       0.0483  +/- 0.0010
12  Off     25500        7.1      1398.8        50       0.0548  +/- 0.0010
13  On      11760        3.3       685.5        33       0.0560  +/- 0.0028
Here the code was changed to synchronize the data points with the saw tooth
down stroke.  While the computation must be suspect, I think it is not the
cause.  My best guess for the following power increase is that the change
caused a higher peak saw tooth current, and this generated more "anomalous
heat".  There are a lot of saw tooth changes, even in the data of this run
which do not show computed power changes.
14  On      11400        3.2      1348.0        32       0.1182  +/- 0.0028
15  Off     33360        9.3      3673.3        50       0.1101  +/- 0.0010
16  On      21840        6.1      2250.2        50       0.1030  +/- 0.0010
17  Off     29460        8.2      2830.3        50       0.0960  +/- 0.0010
Dow inserting "dummy" of source during off periods.
18  On      33480        9.3      2405.1        50       0.0718  +/- 0.0010
19  Off     54240       15.1      4229.7        50       0.0780  +/- 0.0010
20  On      85680       23.8      7285.0        50       0.0850  +/- 0.0010
21  Off     86040       23.9      8063.7        50       0.0937  +/- 0.0010
22  On      86820       24.1      8222.2       100       0.0947  +/- 0.0012
23  Off     39120       10.8      3424.2        50       o.0875  +/- 0.0012
 
Point 23 is not complete.  A curious thing happened when the source was put in
for point 22.  The heat immediately increased to about 130 mw.  This increase
then slowly died down to the order of the following "Off" segment.  This did
*not* happen on the following insertion of the dummy source.  It will be
interesting to study the old data to look for this, and to watch for it in the
future.  It is as if the source "uses up" an accumulation of prepared reaction
sites.
 
Note that last time I wrote:
 
"Point 22 will likely come out larger than 21 so it sort of looks like we have
the "in-out" effect on top of a rising trend."
 
That was because I was looking at a big change which then faded.
 
At the least this data will give a nice base for tests when the source
arrives.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.31 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Thanks for the quality
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks for the quality
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:37:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

After seeing Noring's posting I immediately placed it in
the realm of the Tesla Society and dismissed it. I got some
of the literature from the TS (more likely the BS) and
they seem to specialize in perpetual motion and rediculous
claims, backed up with the most transparently dubious experiments
possible.
 
I suggest totally ignoring such postings as a method to
keep the 'noise' level down. (If you think those other
conferences are bad, try looking at sci.nanotech -- there
hasn't been a _single_ intelligent posting there yet!)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 4 Aug 92 23:16:15 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <5BB68EDAD2027904@cc.newcastle.edu.au> Dieter Britz
 <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au> writes:
 
   Well, as Australian politicians like to say, we've been down that path. I
   checked with the bibliography and found the following (I abbreviate a bit):
 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jackson JC; Nature (London) 339 (1989) 345 (1-Jun).  "Cold fusion
   results still unexplained.".  ** Proposes that the energy release
   is not due to fusion of deuterons but a chain reaction involving
   radiative capture, by Pd nuclei, of neutrons produced by
   photodisintegration of deuterons. Neutrons weakly bound to protons
   in d are transferred to Pd nuclei:
   n + (104)Pd --> (105)Pd + gamma.
   The gammas will knock more neutrons off deuterons. Detailed maths will be
   needed but J suspects that the cross sections will bring the chain close to
   being self-sustaining.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   Thanks twice over Dieter,  I vaguely remembered the reference, and
was going to dig through your bibliography myself to find it.  But I'm
afraid I can't agree with your conclusions.  I've been doing some more
digging, and I will probably end up relying on simulation to get a
useable model, but I think I've convinced myself of three things:
 
   1) If anything nuclear or otherwise is going on, these reactions
      must also be occuring.
 
   2) If there is a nuclear process involved, neutron capture must be
      the principle energy source in any case, since even if the Q is
      significantly less than 1, the energy multiplier is very high.
 
   3) I think I know enough now to achieve "engineering break-even"
      with this process.  Forget about all the electrolysis, etc., all
      it takes is a gamma source Cobalt 60 will do, and some palladium
      saturated with D2.  Even a .6 or so loading factor should do.
      (It boggles the mind to think of a power plant which uses
      nuclear waste and palladium to produce energy, but it sure would
      make environmentalists happy.)
 
   4) There is a "neat" contradiction here which probably makes me a
      "true believer."  I now have to disbelieve a lot of
      conventionally accepted wisdom to accept that some nuclear
      process is not occuring.  If someone shoots high energy gammas
      into a "cold fusion" apparatus, they should see lots of low
      energy gammas come cascading out, unless there is some efficient
      mechanism for turning the low energy (0-2 Mev) gammas into heat.
      If there is an efficent coupling between the cell and the
      gammas, or if energy is going into some other channel, there is
      new physics here.
 
    None of this says that Tom is seeing a gamma chain reaction, but
as far as I am concerned, it seems to do a nice job of fitting the
data, and a much better job than any other theory I have seen.
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Transmutation and CNF
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmutation and CNF
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 23:55:40 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <weTdHuO00Uh_Q1pulU@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
 writes:
 
   A few questions regarding recent postings on transmutation involving Pd
   in CNF.  There was one suggestion about Pd, with its large thermal
   capture cross section, might capture the deuterium disintegration
   neutron.  My question involves how do you get thermalized neutrons and
   have no evidence of capture in experiments involving lithium, which also
   has large capture cross sections, or accumulation of easily-detected Pd
   radioisotopes?
 
   I'll take a shot at this.  First, Lithium.  Li6 has a high cross
section for Li6 + n --> He4 + t.  If the lithium is penetrating into
the Palladium you would expect to see this reaction also.  If the
neutrons being produced are trapped in the Palladium and there is
little or no penetration by the lithium, then there should be little
or no tritium production.  See elsewhere for discussions of whether
He4 or tritium have been detected. :-)
 
   The second question about easily detected Pd radioisotopes is what
really got me interested in this in the first place.  There are none.
The high neutron cross-sections all go with transitions without easily
detected signatures outside the apparatus.  (Except by low energy
gammas, but see my earlier post on that.)  Pd103, which decays by
electron capture has a half-life of 17 days, will not be produced
in large amounts.  Pd104 and Pd105 will absorb most of the neutrons
producing Pd105 and Pd106, with no residual radioactivity.  Pd107 has
a half-life of several million years, and emits a very weak beta.
Pd111 is very unlikely (Pd110 has a low capture cross-section) with a
22 minute half-life.
 
    The best signature would be Pd109, with a half-life of 13 hours,
and which decays by emitting a 1 MeV beta.  But rather than looking
for the radiation, a better test would be to look at the ratio of
silver isotopes.  If there is very little silver in the original
electrode, it should be possible to check the Ag107/Ag109 ratio and
see if it is enriched in Ag109.  (As mentioned above even though Pd107
will be produced, it takes millions of years to decay to Ag107.)
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 4 Aug 92 15:07:49 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <272@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
=>In article <v_lm8+a.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
 writes:
=>
=>> On the other hand: Some projects are so large that it requires
=>> funding from sources larger than available from any private sector
=>> source.
=>
=>So your solution is to steal it?!
 
Much deleted. Please move this discussion to somewhere else, e.g.
alt.politics.loony.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 5 Aug 92 00:03:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>      with this process.  Forget about all the electrolysis, etc., all
>      it takes is a gamma source Cobalt 60 will do, and some palladium
>      saturated with D2.  Even a .6 or so loading factor should do.
 
One of the neat things with Ying vs Takahashi is the very low input power
of Ying.  Ying's system seems more comfortable toward the above operation
points.  And the alleged output power is far higher than the input power,
presumably making the caliorimetry that much less susceptible to error.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / John Logajan /  Neutron capture seems "hot"
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron capture seems "hot"
Date: 5 Aug 92 03:02:18 GMT

My CRC lists the free neutron atomic mass at 1.008665.
 
It lists Pd104 at 103.904029 and Pd105 at 104.905079.
 
That is a mass difference of 1.00105 as compared to the neutron mass of
1.008665, for an excess mass of 0.007615.
 
To convert mass units to Million electron Volts (MeV) multiply by 931.5.
 
Thus the reaction Pd104 + n --> Pd105 + gamma yields:
the excess 0.007615 * 931.5 for 7.09 MeV -- all in the gamma, I presume.
(Or perhaps the super-asymetrical cold fissions mentioned in the 3/90 SA?)
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: Wed,  5 Aug 92 00:00:50 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

 Bruce McCulley writes...
>
> I too saw this report, I believe it may've been on page B4 of today's WSJ.
>
> Can't recall all the details, but one salient point that stuck out for me
> was that the successful experiment used electrode material from the same
> supplier in Japan as the successful Japanese experiment and another cell
> using material from a different source was unsuccessful...
>
> Sorry for the skimpy details, I'm working from memory of a report sanitized
> for general interest audience...
>
> --bruce
 
Pardon me if I've posted this story before, but I think it might be appropriate
to post it again.
 
This is not the first time that a replication of a "successful" cold fusion
experiment was performed only by using the same supplier for the electrodes.
Consider this story:
 
Electronics in the WW II era were not built from semiconductors, which had
not been invented yet. They used various vacuum tubes for high voltage or
fast switching and relays for low voltage, slow switching, or high power.
Conversion from AC to DC was done by either a vacuum tube diode or by a
primitive solid state rectifier.
 
One common material used in building rectifiers was copper oxide. This was
manufactured by mining copper ore, smelting it to crude copper, and multiply
electrolytically refining the copper to be chemically pure copper.I believe
the oxygen was also chemically produced so as to be chemically pure. And both
materials were totally pure, according to the best analytic techniques of the
day.
 
Very clean process. The only problem is that copper ore from one particular
mine in Chilie produced notably better rectifers than ore from any other mine.
This became a problem when shipping became difficult during the war and some
engineers had to explain to the procurement people that chemically pure
copper from this mine was different from domestic mines. They had no idea why.
 
In the early sixties, someone went back to this question with then current
analytic techniques and discovered that the ore in that mine contained a
fraction of a percent of germanium.
 
I wonder what's lurking in some of the batches of "pure" platinum. Look at
it this way: if the exact composition of an electrode is as critical as the
composition of a transistor die, but you have no theory telling you how or
why, how likely are you to hit on that exact composition by accident or search?
And how likely to repeat it once you do?
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 5 Aug 92 08:11:04 GMT

In article <EACHUS.92Aug3111214@Dr_No.mitre.org>, eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
 
|>      I have a much simpler "speculation" that doesn't seem to require
|> any magic.  Pd has a fairly high thermal neutron capture
|> cross-section, what if we are seeing:
|>
|>     d + gamma --> p + n
|>     n + Pd104 --> Pd105 + gammas
 
 
Failed reality check, guys.  The cross section for deuteron
photodisintegration is in the tens of millibarns.  The cross section
for photons to be absorbed by pair production, compton
scattering, etc. is much, much higher.
 
In any case, a scheme where one gamma produces one gamma could
not form a chain reaction.  You need multiplication to avoid the
inevitable chain terminating steps.
 
Not to mention, the gammas are not seen, and would be easy to
detect at levels orders of magnitude lower than would be necessary.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 13:50:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
well, things are so quiet, why not send off this single solitary item, I say?
You will no doubt have been holding your breaths, so you can relax again now.
It is but a Comment in a Letter to the Editor; clearly an unbeliever, scorning
the thought of nuclear reactions in palladium deuteride. In fact, I don't
think Hagelstein proposes such a thing; he reckons it is the photons (gammas)
that get absorbed coherently by the Pd - I think. No doubt there are good
reasons why there should be secondaries from this process as well, the gamma
coming off at about 24 MeV, but the magic word coherency waves this away, I
take it.
Now my comment on the comment is longer, I think, than the comment itself.
Deceptive packaging, that's called.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 5-Aug-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 722
 
Comment: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldhaber M; Science 257 (1992) 310 (17-Jul).
"Cold fusion: not nuclear".
** M. Goldhaber comments on an earlier issue of Science, in which one David H.
Friedman asserts that the Hagelstein theory has it that neutrons are absorbed
by the Pd. Goldhaber writes that this can only be the Pd nuclei, and such
absorption would release secondary products such as radioactive Pd isotopes,
beta- and gamma rays, all easily detected. They have not been, and therefore
the process does not occur. In fact, since neither tritium, helium or neutrons
have been found, nuclear explanations of excess heat in cold fusion
electrolyses are not due to nuclear processes.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Oops: (Re: More Wild Speculation)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oops: (Re: More Wild Speculation)
Date: 5 Aug 92 15:52:42 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <3AUG199210393085@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>I had claimed the reaction:
>
>D + Pd yields (or could yield, to be more nebulous) Ag + 13 MeV gamma,
>since the mass excesses of Pd and Ag are about -80 keV.  It turns out that
>I misread the table (figured this out friday night, but couldn't get into
>my office until this morning, since it's locked during weekends) and the
>correct mass excesses are:
>
>Pd(104):  -89.411 MeV
>Ag(106):  -86.943 MeV
>
>The reaction should give a gamma with 10.67 MeV, not 13 MeV.
 
Actual numbers (from the NNDC Nuclear Wallet Cards, July 1990) are
 
          H(2)  +  Pd(104)  -->  Ag(106)  +   Q
 
         13.136 +  -89.393   =   -86.941  +   Q          Q = 10.684
 
(I spell this out, just in case anyone does not know how to do this calc)
 
The positive Q means energy excess that must be disposed of.  The problem
is with getting this out in a single gamma ray *assuming* the reaction
occured without the d having some energy to get over the substantial
coulomb barrier.  The reason is that the neutron in Ag-106 is only bound
by about 8 MeV so the most likely path is for a neutron to escape (we
would say "boil off") with most of that energy.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 5 Aug 92 17:42:26 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <20528@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
 writes:
 
   The cross section for deuteron photodisintegration is in the tens
   of millibarns.  The cross section for photons to be absorbed by
   pair production, compton scattering, etc. is much, much higher.
 
-- First observation cuts both ways.  The cross section is of course
-- energy dependant, but it is certainly large enough that few high
-- energy (>2.2 Mev) gammas should get though a jar of D2O.
 
   In any case, a scheme where one gamma produces one gamma could
   not form a chain reaction.  You need multiplication to avoid the
   inevitable chain terminating steps.
 
-- But above you talk about several of the multiplier steps.  Are you
-- now going to explain them away?  (If a gamma participates in pair
-- production half the energy must be carried off by each particle,
-- due to conservation of momentum.  So one 6 Mev gamma will produce
-- an electron and a positron each carrying ~2.5 Mev.)  In addition
-- several of the neutron capture products decays though intermediate
-- stages.  The big question is not where are all the high energy
-- gammas, it is, "Where did all the low-energy gammas go?"
 
   Not to mention, the gammas are not seen, and would be easy to
   detect at levels orders of magnitude lower than would be necessary.
 
-- As I said elsewhere, if the gammas are not being absorbed somehow,
-- the low-level gamma cascades from high-energy background radiation
-- and cosmic rays should have left fingerprints over all the data.
-- To me this is the dog that didn't bark in the night.
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / John Logajan /  Material purity
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Material purity
Date: 5 Aug 92 15:56:26 GMT

pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>the ore in that mine contained a fraction of a percent of germanium.
 
And many elements vary considerably in their isotopic concentrations
depending upon the source location.
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 /  /  A quick look for stimulated emissions
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A quick look for stimulated emissions
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 20:03:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Charles Poirier suggested that we look with the geiger counter on the front
side of the source and on the through the cell side of the source.  Results:
Front side of the source (2 uC)    72 counts per min +/-9
Through the cell                   43 counts per min +/-7\
Looks like nothing significant to me.  The lower through the cell count could
be statistics, or it could be the attenuation of 1 1/4" Al and 1/8 Cu and the
other cell stuff.  I think I will buy a cheap scaler and do a longer count.
Particularly if there are the Ying promised power pulses.  The count rate with
the new source is a little high for accuracy counting pings by ear.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 /  /  Status 5 August 1992
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status 5 August 1992
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 20:51:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - status 5 August 92.
 
The source is now here.  We bouught two sets and taped the two 1 micro-curie
sources together.  This makes a thing about the same size and shape as the
dummy and old source.  I could not resist putting it in this morning.  So
point 28 will be mixed old unknown source and the new 2 micr-ocurie one.  Did
I ever say I was a disciplined scientist?  Nothing happened.  But Ying claims
that he sees only intermittent heat bursts with a gamma source.
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
1   On      17760        4.9       532.8        49       0.0300
2   Off     48060       13.4      1268.8        50       0.0264
3   On      87300       24.3      2715.0       100       0.0311
4   Off     77220       21.5      1621.6        50       0.0210
5   On      82740       23.0      3607.5        50       0.0436
6   Off     79980       22.2      2709.7        50       0.0339
7   On      83640       23.2      3284.3        50       0.0393
8   Off     57300       15.9      1201.0        50       0.0210
9   On      25440        7.1       897.0        50       0.0353
10  Off     20940        5.8      1365.4        50       0.0652
11  On      34500        9.6      1663.3        50       0.0483
12  Off     25500        7.1      1398.8        50       0.0548
13  On      11760        3.3       685.5        33       0.0560
Here the code was changed to synchronize the data points with the saw tooth
down stroke.  While the computation must be suspect, I think it is not the
cause.  My best guess for the following power increase is that the change
caused a higher peak saw tooth current, and this generated more "anomalous
heat".  There are a lot of saw tooth changes, even in the data of this run
which do not show computed power changes.
14  On      11400        3.2      1348.0        32       0.1182
15  Off     33360        9.3      3673.3        50       0.1101
16  On      21840        6.1      2250.2        50       0.1030
17  Off     29460        8.2      2830.3        50       0.0960
Dow inserting "dummy" of source during off periods.
18  On      33480        9.3      2405.1        50       0.0718
19  Off     54240       15.1      4229.7        50       0.0780
20  On      85680       23.8      7285.0        50       0.0850
21  Off     86040       23.9      8063.7        50       0.0937
22  On      86820       24.1      8222.2       100       0.0947
23  Off     85080       23.6      7506.1        50       0.0882
24  On      85920       23.9      6669.1        50       0.0776
25  Off     86100       23.9      7440.1        50       0.0864
26  On      86100       23.9      8975.3        50       0.1042
27  Off     86040       23.9      9524.4        50       0.1107
28  On      44880       12.5      5431.3        50       0.1210
 
Point 28 is not complete.  But after this data point I put in the new source.
I will report this as a "split" data point in the future.  So don't just
mindlessly add up every other point.  You would have been wrong already.  This
source is much stronger.  At least 100x.  I will have to buy a scaler to tell
for sure.  The old 0.5 micro-curie source was probably prepared by Mdme. Curie
herself.
 
Some of you might note an increasing trend.  I have data where the calorimeter
does not change from it's trend more than 100 microwatts in ten days.  I can
be wrong on the net heat value.  i.e. whether point 25 is +0.0864 or -0.100,
or + 0.184.  But a change of more than 10 milli-watts is hard to account for
in light of previous calibration runs.  So when I finally decide to end this
run, we will try for a fairly long calibration period where nothing is changed
but the cell current direction.  I will run a reverse saw tooth at negative
cell current.  Dick Garwin has agreed that this is a good test.  The problem
is that it is hard to know that the cell is "turned off" without opening the
calorimeter and removing the cell.  This has been evaluated and it is known
that it can produce an 8 mw one sigma error.  If the calibration can be
accomplished without opening the calorimeter, this is more like 1 milliwatt.
One thing I will try to do is to suck the electrolyte out of the cell.  But on
last try, the tube designed for this was clogged.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.005 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Neutron Absorbtion experiment.
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron Absorbtion experiment.
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 19:01:11 GMT
Organization: Sinectonalysis, Inc.

	The entire argument about whether palladium deuteride absorbs
neutrons (Pd + n mechanism) is vacuous, one can do a very simple experiment
by making a hollow Pd electrode, placing a known neutron source inside
(like U) then measuring neutrons from this setup at first without electrolysis,
then with electrolysis pumping Ds into the Pd. Same experiment can be repeated
with alpha and beta sources.
 
Alex.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.07.28 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Originally-From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Originally-From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Originally-From: mcculley@racy.zko.dec.com (Bruce McCulley)
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Originally-From: mcculley@racy.zko.dec.com (Bruce McCulley)
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: META - Duplicate Messages
Subject: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: inertial fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Does it need to be hot?
Subject: Re: Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
Subject: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: inertial fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Subject: Ying and alphas
Subject: Re: Models
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Subject: Ying and alphas
Subject: Re: Models
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Subject: Text of WSJ Article, 27 July (long)
Subject: Latest News
Subject: The Ying Thing & Rehash of Menlove and Jones
Subject: WSJ News
Subject: Forest for the trees
Subject: Text of WSJ Article, 27 July (long)
Subject: Latest News
Subject: The Ying Thing & Rehash of Menlove and Jones
Subject: WSJ News
Subject: Forest for the trees
Subject: Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
Subject: Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
Subject: Waiting for Godot
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Subject: Re: Latest News
Subject: Re: Latest News
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Subject: Waiting for Godot
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 16:08:56 PDT
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:06:53 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:12 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:33:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:12:28 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:46:45 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:06:53 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:12 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:33:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:31:13 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:09:09 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:40:09 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:31:44 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:39 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:39:15 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:31:13 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:09:09 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:40:09 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:31:44 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:39 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:39:15 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:22 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:40:02 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:25 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:40 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:43:42 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:00 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:40:02 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:25 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:40 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:00 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:59:58 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:28:38 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:59:58 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:28:38 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:26:57 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:27:10 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:18:52 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:08:00 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:09:01 GMT
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:48:39 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:26:57 GMT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:27:10 GMT
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

I've been receiving a LOT of duplicate messages in this newsgroup.
Is anyone else noticing this?  I suspect some network configuration
error somewhere. There follows an extract of message headers from
last session with duplicates noted.
===============================================================
(46 new messages / begin reading at 624)
 
[Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion]
 
Post: 624 of 669 [dup 629]
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:06:53 GMT
 
Post: 625 of 669 [dup 630]
Originally-From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Subject: inertial fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:12 GMT
 
Post: 626 of 669 [dup 631]
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:33:22 GMT
 
Post: 627 of 669 [ok]
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Subject: Re: Does it need to be hot?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:12:28 GMT
 
Post: 628 of 669 [ok]
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Subject: Re: Measuring D2O2 in LiOD electrolytes
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:46:45 GMT
 
Post: 629 of 669 [dup 624]
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:06:53 GMT
 
 
Post: 630 of 669 [dup 625]
Originally-From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Subject: inertial fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:17:12 GMT
 
Post: 631 of 669 [dup 626]
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:33:22 GMT
 
Post: 632 of 669 [dup 640]
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:22 GMT
 
Post: 633 of 669 [dup 641]
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:31:13 GMT
 
Post: 634 of 669 [dup 642]
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:09:09 GMT
 
Post: 635 of 669 [dup 643]
Originally-From: mcculley@racy.zko.dec.com (Bruce McCulley)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:40:09 GMT
 
Post: 636 of 669 [dup 644]
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:31:44 GMT
 
Post: 637 of 669 [dup 645]
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Ying and alphas
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:39 GMT
 
Post: 638 of 669 [dup 646]
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Models
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:39:15 GMT
 
Post: 639 of 669 [dup 647]
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:22 GMT
 
Post: 640 of 669 [dup 623]
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: inertial fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:22 GMT
 
Post: 641 of 669 [dup 633]
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:31:13 GMT
 
Post: 642 of 669 [dup 634]
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:09:09 GMT
 
Post: 643 of 669 [dup 635]
Originally-From: mcculley@racy.zko.dec.com (Bruce McCulley)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal, Monday
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:40:09 GMT
 
Post: 644 of 669 [dup 636]
Originally-From: rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek)
Subject: Re: Why Ying?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:31:44 GMT
 
Post: 645 of 669 [dup 637]
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Ying and alphas
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:39 GMT
 
Post: 646 of 669 [dup 638]
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Models
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:39:15 GMT
 
Post: 647 of 669 [dup 639]
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:22 GMT
 
Post: 648 of 669 [dup 653]
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Subject: Text of WSJ Article, 27 July (long)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:40:02 GMT
 
 
Post: 649 of 669 [dup 654]
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Latest News
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:25 GMT
 
Post: 650 of 669 [dup 655]
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Subject: The Ying Thing & Rehash of Menlove and Jones
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:40 GMT
 
Post: 651 of 669 [dup 656]
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:43:42 GMT
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Subject: WSJ News
 
Post: 652 of 669 [dup 657]
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Subject: Forest for the trees
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:00 GMT
 
Post: 653 of 669 [dup 648]
Originally-From: bsherman@genome.lbl.gov (Brad Sherman)
Subject: Text of WSJ Article, 27 July (long)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:40:02 GMT
 
Post: 654 of 669 [dup 649]
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Latest News
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:25 GMT
 
Post: 655 of 669 [dup 650]
Originally-From: <BLUE@MSUNSCL.BITNET>
Subject: The Ying Thing & Rehash of Menlove and Jones
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:35:40 GMT
 
Post: 656 of 669 Date: 28 Jul 92 04:43:42 GMT
Originally-From: hliu@slate.mines.colorado.edu (MH100 ph)
Subject: WSJ News
Keywords: Ed Storms, 20 % excess heat
[dup 651]
 
Post: 657 of 669 [dup 652]
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Subject: Forest for the trees
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:00 GMT
 
Post: 658 of 669 [dup 660]
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Subject: Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:59:58 GMT
 
Post: 659 of 669 [dup 661]
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:28:38 GMT
 
Post: 660 of 669 [dup 658]
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Subject: Microscopic Rube Goldbergs
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:59:58 GMT
 
Post: 661 of 669 [dup 659]
Originally-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:28:38 GMT
 
Post: 662 of 669 [dup 668]
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject: Waiting for Godot
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:26:57 GMT
 
Post: 663 of 669 [dup 669]
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:27:10 GMT
 
Post: 664 of 669 [no dup]
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Re: Techno-Something-Or-Other
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:18:52 GMT
 
Post: 665 of 669 [no dup]
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Latest News
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:08:00 GMT
 
Post: 666 of 669 [no dup]
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Latest News
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:09:01 GMT
 
Post: 667 of 669 [no dup]
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Pressure to get it right
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:48:39 GMT
 
Post: 668 of 669 [dup 662]
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Subject: Waiting for Godot
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:26:57 GMT
 
Post: 669 of 669 [dup 663]
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 107 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:27:10 GMT
 
--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Status Report
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status Report
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 92 05:11:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>status 3 August 92.
>Those of you with more powerful tools may see something
>in the latest data points, but it looks like noise to me.
 
There are still 8 increases in power associated with off-on transitions
against 5 decreases.
 
On the other side, there are 7 decreases in power associated with on-off
transitions against 4 increases.
 
Also, the direct correlation of on and off to increase and decrease of
power seems to be mostly lost above a certain power output.
 
Finally, some of us out here don't know what to make of your apparent
trend of increasing power.  You don't say much about it.  But is a 1/10
of a watt over the course of 24 hours something to sneeze at???  You used
to say anything over 10mw was significant.  You've seen several periods
nearly 10 times greater than "significant."  And midway thru point 26
you have 90,000 joules of apparent excess energy.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Ric Werme /  Re: Standup Physics
     
Originally-From: werme@alliant.com (Ric Werme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standup Physics
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 12:50:59 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.

In article <9208032116.AA09166@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Tom Dreoge writes:
>> To ... others worrying about conversion of Pd to Ag, I too am worried.
>> That is why I buy Pd futures contracts rather than holding the metal.
 
>I don't think they are giving Nobel Prizes yet in humor. :-)
 
Maybe he should use a Rh/Pd alloy so the reaction stays PD-neutral.
--
| A pride of lions               | Eric J Werme                 |
| A gaggle of geese              | 77 Tater St                  |
| An odd lot of programmers      | Mont Vernon NH  03057        |
| A Constitution of Libertarians | Phone: 603-673-3993          |
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwerme cudfnRic cudlnWerme cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus):
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 00:32:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus):
 
>     I have a much simpler "speculation" that doesn't seem to require
>any magic.  Pd has a fairly high thermal neutron capture
>cross-section, what if we are seeing:
>
>    d + gamma --> p + n
>    n + Pd104 --> Pd105 + gammas
 
>    (There are more complex chains for the other Pd isotopes, ending
>in Rhenium, Silver, and Cadmium.  Of course, since Palladium's
>neighbors all have even higher capture cross-sections, the final "ash"
>would be Tin.)
 
Well, as Australian politicians like to say, we've been down that path. I
checked with the bibliography and found the following (I abbreviate a bit):
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson JC;                         Nature (London) 339 (1989) 345 (1-Jun).
"Cold fusion results still unexplained.".
** Proposes that the energy release is not due to fusion of deuterons but a
chain reaction involving radiative capture, by Pd nuclei, of neutrons
produced by photodisintegration of deuterons. Neutrons weakly bound to
protons in d are transferred to Pd nuclei:
n + (104)Pd --> (105)Pd + gamma.
The gammas will knock more neutrons off deuterons. Detailed maths will be
needed but J suspects that the cross sections will bring the chain close to
being self-sustaining.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolison DR, O'Grady WE;                            Anal. Chem. 63 (1991) 1697.
"Observation of elemental anomalies at the surface of palladium after
electrochemical loading of deuterium or hydrogen".
** Detection of significant traces of the elements Rh and Ag at the surface of
Pd after electrolysis. Both Rh and Ag did indeed accumulate at the surface, to
several at%. If a nuclear reaction takes place in the Pd, the interaction of
resulting energetic particles with Pd might produce such elements. However,
this happened for both heavy and normal water and R&O'G conclude that Rh and
Ag were initially present in the Pd at much lower levels, and migrated to the
surface during electrolysis.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donohue DL, Petek M;                                Anal. Chem. 63 (1991) 740.
"Isotopic measurements of palladium metal containing protium and deuterium by
glow discharge mass spectrometry".
** ...whether there are changes in the isotope distribution of Pd upon
electrolysis of D2O at such Pd, acting as a cathode. Mass spectrometry was the
main analytical tool. It was found that pure Pd gave a characteristic isotope
pattern, deviating somewhat from the expected. After electrolysis, the spectra
included various protonised and deuteronised Pd species such as PdH+, PdH2+,
etc. Heating, to drive out the hydrogen isotopes, then restored the original
Pd isotope distribution in all cases. That is, electrolysis did not change the
Pd isotope distribution.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer FJ, Reitz JR;                             Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 552.
"Nuclear energy release in metals".
** ... making a virtual mono-, di- or tri-neutron. This might last about 60
microsec, enough time to do stuff. These might incidentally explain the
anomalously high diffusion rate of hydrogen (isotopes) in Pd. Virtual
dineutrons ... can react with some impurities that are deposited during
electrolysis, such as Pt, U.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ragheb M, Miley GH;                             J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 429.
"Deuteron disintegration in condensed media".
** Another novel theory. The authors point out that the deuteron is one of the
few nuclei in which the proton and neutron are loosely bound, with a largish
mean distance between them. When a deuteron approaches another nucleus X, the
protron turns away from X (polarisation), and the deuteron might cleave, the
neutron entering X (with the proton still outside the Coulomb barrier) and the
proton flying off. If X is another deuteron, this makes a triton. X might also
be a Pd isotope, making another one plus a proton. This would explain the
strange branching ratios found for cold fusion, which then in fact is better
classified as a fission reaction (fission of the original deuteron), or a
neutron capture reaction. The corrected gamma spectrum of FPH (Petrasso+, 89)
even shows some evidence of the reaction with Pd.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan SR, Gibson JH;                             Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 95.
"Comments on 'Nuclear energy release in metals'".
** A letter to the Editor, commenting on Mayer and Reitz's previous paper (FT
19 (1991) 552). M&R claimed that there is experimental evidence for their
theory of a nuclear reaction with the Pd atoms, leading to Pd isotope
distribution changes. Bryan and Gibson say that this is a misinterpretation,
and no such changes took place.                                  Aug-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
So there you have it. I go along with the view that nuclear reactions with Pd
- or any other non-light element - would again leave a signature as well as a
change in the isotope distribution, and neither has been observed. I will soon
be posting a Comment out of Science, making that very point. I am satisfied
that such reactions can be discounted.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.03 / John Logajan /  Standup Physics
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standup Physics
Date: 3 Aug 92 21:16:46 GMT

Tom Dreoge writes:
> To ... others worrying about conversion of Pd to Ag, I too am worried.
> That is why I buy Pd futures contracts rather than holding the metal.
 
I don't think they are giving Nobel Prizes yet in humor. :-)
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.03 / Colin UCT /  Re: d He gamma
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: d He gamma
Date: 3 Aug 92 20:34:28 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <199207310858.AA03397@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank
 Close) writes:
 
> the lone pn which Pauli exclusion forces into spin 1. Sorry that its technical
> but thats how somethings are.
>
> But to reiterate my earlier posting. The absence of direct d+d->alpha is much
> less exotic: it is energy-momentum conservation.
 
Hang on a mo: In p-d fusion, the path goes
 
p (spin 1/2) + d (spin 1) --> 3He (spin 1/2) + gamma (spin 1)
 
(This is a guess - about the spins at least.) It is the only
channel, and the cross section is small and the fusion is slow.
Surely energy-momentum considerations would apply equally to p-d
fusion as to d-d fusion (to 4He plus gamma)?
 
I think there must be spin violation, or simply that the d+d->t+p or
3He+n are mediated by the strong interaction while the gamma channel
is mediated by the electroweak
 
I said earlier that a 1.5 MeV gamma excites a deuteron. For what
it's worth, as Paul Karol pointed out, that's pure bunkum. Deuterons
have no bound excited states. The only thing you can get when
gammas hit deuterons below photodisintegration threshold is
compton-type scattering, with tiny cross sections and negligible
energy loss by the gammas.
 
Which brings me to a question asked by someone else earlier.  23 MeV
gammas can be reflected ("scattered") by nuclei, but they're much more
likely to knock bits off your mirror than to be bounced back.
 
 
p.s. The pd fusion reaction was how Alvarez first saw muon catalysed
fusion in a bubble chamber, with the muon absorbing the gamma (called
in this case a "conversion muon") and gaining the 13.5 MeV released
from fusion. Of course, the fusion happened very slowly, so the muon
often died before it could take place, and more often than not (80 %
of the time), the muon didn't even smell the gamma.  Ref: Phys Rev.
105 p1127 (1957) if anyone's interested. (Ying's history is wrong, by
the way, and rather mixed up. Why he brings muon catalysed fusion into
a theory on gamma-induced fusion even in his preamble is a puzzle.)
 
 
Alvarez' experiment (or chance observation) has always fired my
imagination, along with the two neutrino one, Rutherford's alpha-4He,
and a few others my imagination's gone on holiday about.
 
To echo Frank Close "sorry it's so technical, but that's"... the way I am.
One day I'll get my hands on his book.
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
 
Someone please stop me if I'm blabbing on too much.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.02 / Chris Lynch /  Test Message #
     
Originally-From: clynch@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Chris Lynch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test Message #
Date: 2 Aug 92 06:49:20 GMT

test
 
UUCP: {crash, kksys, petrus, quest}!orbit!pnet51!clynch
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!clynch@nosc.mil
INET: clynch@pnet51.orb.mn.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenclynch cudfnChris cudlnLynch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Status Report
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status Report
Date: 6 Aug 92 01:11:08 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I've been busy (among other things automating some of the
statistics), but I finally got back to Tom's data (repeated below for
convenience).  It shouldn't take a statistician to tell anyone that
the most recent thirteen data points are very different from the first
thirteen.  Since Tom changed the input power at that point, the right
thing to do seems to be to analyze the two sets separately.  (The last
four or five data points of the first set also seem disjoint, but I
feel much less comfortable with treating the shift from 24 hours to 8
as a major change.)
 
     In the second data set there are 12 power shifts, six with the
"expected" sign and six with the opposite sign.  However, the more
powerful Wilcoxon two sample test gives an alpha of 0.183.  The
Wilcoxon test on the first 13 points, you may remember, gave an alpha
of 0.037, in the range normally considered significant.
 
     So keep on trucking, Tom.  I gather you now have a more powerful
gamma source from your most recent post, which probably means another
change in the setup.  But don't stop making changes just yet.  There
is a time when the right approach is a formal experiment with controls
to convince the skeptics, but right now all you should be looking for
is enough of a confirmation to keep you on the right track before
trying the next variation.
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
 
 
In article <920803135220.20601d6e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   Path: linus.mitre.org!linus!agate!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
   From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
   Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
   Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
   Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
   Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 20:17:39 GMT
   Lines: 63
 
   We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - status 3 August 92.
 
   The source is not expected for a week or so.  This will give time
   for a number of 24 hour segments.  Those of you with more powerful
   tools may see something in the latest data points, but it looks
   like noise to me.  Points 1 - 8 are still curious, and possibly my
   mucking around "killed" an effect.  In this business, one grasps at
   micro-straws.  I can't believe this kludge is still running after
   2200 hours.
 
   Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
   #   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
   1   On      17760        4.9       532.8        49       0.0300
   2   Off     48060       13.4      1268.8        50       0.0264
   3   On      87300       24.3      2715.0       100       0.0311
   4   Off     77220       21.5      1621.6        50       0.0210
   5   On      82740       23.0      3607.5        50       0.0436
   6   Off     79980       22.2      2709.7        50       0.0339
   7   On      83640       23.2      3284.3        50       0.0393
   8   Off     57300       15.9      1201.0        50       0.0210
   9   On      25440        7.1       897.0        50       0.0353
   10  Off     20940        5.8      1365.4        50       0.0652
   11  On      34500        9.6      1663.3        50       0.0483
   12  Off     25500        7.1      1398.8        50       0.0548
   13  On      11760        3.3       685.5        33       0.0560
   Here the code was changed to synchronize the data points with the saw tooth
   down stroke.  While the computation must be suspect, I think it is not the
   cause.  My best guess for the following power increase is that the change
   caused a higher peak saw tooth current, and this generated more "anomalous
   heat".  There are a lot of saw tooth changes, even in the data of this run
   which do not show computed power changes.
   14  On      11400        3.2      1348.0        32       0.1182
   15  Off     33360        9.3      3673.3        50       0.1101
   16  On      21840        6.1      2250.2        50       0.1030
   17  Off     29460        8.2      2830.3        50       0.0960
   Dow inserting "dummy" of source during off periods.
   18  On      33480        9.3      2405.1        50       0.0718
   19  Off     54240       15.1      4229.7        50       0.0780
   20  On      85680       23.8      7285.0        50       0.0850
   21  Off     86040       23.9      8063.7        50       0.0937
   22  On      86820       24.1      8222.2       100       0.0947
   23  Off     85080       23.6      7506.1        50       0.0882
   24  On      85920       23.9      6669.1        50       0.0776
   25  Off     86100       23.9      7440.1        50       0.0864
   26  On      45020       12.5      4592.0        50       0.1020
 
   Point 26 is not complete.  The error column has been deleted.  It did not
 mean
   much.  The real error limit is the error in joules column which is really an
   upper limit of error seen during a comparable period on a calibration run.
 
   The point 22 data caused me to actually look at some of all that data on
   Saturday.  It looked very provocative "on line" but when examined by my crude
   techniques, it was not enough of an effect to call in experts.  There is
   likely a small day/night effect in the calorimeter.  As I have mentioned
   before, this is curious as I cannot tie it in to the ambient temperature
 which
   is the most likely culprit.  But things are not always as they seem in servo
   systems with large time constants.  While the most important one is 15
   minutes, I have a suspicion that there is one of order 70 hours.  It may well
   be that the day/night effect goes sharply positive at 11 pm which is when I
   have been making the source changes.
 
   Tom Droege
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / John Logajan /  Trends in fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trends in fusion
Date: 6 Aug 92 01:28:17 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>Some of you might note an increasing trend.  I have data where the calorimeter
>does not change from it's trend more than 100 microwatts in ten days.  I can
>be wrong on the net heat value.  i.e. whether point 25 is +0.0864 or -0.100,
>or + 0.184.  But a change of more than 10 milli-watts is hard to account for
>in light of previous calibration runs.
 
And if you take the previous four data points, you are seeing 10 milliwatt
increases per 24 hour period!
 
Also, over the last four data periods the rate of increase is greater for the
two on times than for the two off times -- too small a sample to have much
significance, but at least the polarity is, for the time being, back in
sync ;-)
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / Paul Dietz /  Re: d He gamma
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: d He gamma
Date: 6 Aug 92 07:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug4.160253.20738@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
 Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
|> hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT) writes:
|>
|> >Hang on a mo: In p-d fusion, the path goes
|> >  p (spin 1/2) + d (spin 1) --> 3He (spin 1/2) + gamma (spin 1)
|> >(This is a guess - about the spins at least.) It is the only
|> >channel, and the cross section is small and the fusion is slow.
|>
|> That's because p-d is a weak interaction. Only strong interactions are
|> interesting for fusion as a technonlogy. BTW: the fact that p-d is so
|> slow is the reason long-lived stars exist at all.
 
 
No, p+d doesn't involve any weak interactions at all.  In the sun,
deuterium formed by the p+p reaction (which *is* weak, and the rate
limiting step)  is then consumed by p+d within a few seconds.
 
p+d is slow because it involves emission of a gamma photon.
Reactions of this kind are usually slower than those that produce
two or more nuclear particles and no photons.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 08:07:00 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <EACHUS.92Aug4181615@Dr_No.mitre.org>, eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org
(Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>    1) If anything nuclear or otherwise is going on, these reactions
>       must also be occuring.
>
>    2) If there is a nuclear process involved, neutron capture must be
>       the principle energy source in any case, since even if the Q is
>       significantly less than 1, the energy multiplier is very high.
>
>    3) I think I know enough now to achieve "engineering break-even"
>       with this process.  Forget about all the electrolysis, etc., all
>       it takes is a gamma source Cobalt 60 will do, and some palladium
>       saturated with D2.  Even a .6 or so loading factor should do.
>       (It boggles the mind to think of a power plant which uses
>       nuclear waste and palladium to produce energy, but it sure would
>       make environmentalists happy.)
>
>    4) There is a "neat" contradiction here which probably makes me a
>       "true believer."  I now have to disbelieve a lot of
>       conventionally accepted wisdom to accept that some nuclear
>       process is not occuring.  If someone shoots high energy gammas
>       into a "cold fusion" apparatus, they should see lots of low
>       energy gammas come cascading out, unless there is some efficient
>       mechanism for turning the low energy (0-2 Mev) gammas into heat.
>       If there is an efficent coupling between the cell and the
>       gammas, or if energy is going into some other channel, there is
>       new physics here.
> 					Robert I. Eachus
 
A lot of speculation there, Robert.
I'll go along with point (1) and maybe (2), but the "if" is very important.
I'll boggle at point (3) when you present evidence for it. Point (4): Who
has shot gammas at PdD and got out no lower-energy stuff? Again, that "if".
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Neutron capture seems "hot"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron capture seems "hot"
Date: 5 Aug 92 16:08:38 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9208050302.AA09613@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>Thus the reaction Pd104 + n --> Pd105 + gamma yields:
>the excess 0.007615 * 931.5 for 7.09 MeV -- all in the gamma, I presume.
>(Or perhaps the super-asymetrical cold fissions mentioned in the 3/90 SA?)
 
Yep, I get +7.094 MeV for Q.  Also, "the Chart" shows this as having a
decent 10+ barn cross section for thermal neutron capture with gamma
emission.  One would have to go to the literature to find out more about
the spectrum of gammas expected.
 
The cross section is significant, but cannot compete with, say, the Li-6
thermal capture cross section of almost 1000 barns.
 
However, the real deal is that you must not overlook Pd-108 (26% abundance)
with its >100 barn thermal capture cross section to a *radioactive* Pd-109
whose IT and beta- followed by gamma would be detectable.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / Jacques Amar /  No nuclear ash or radiation ?
     
Originally-From: phsjga@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU (Jacques G. Amar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No nuclear ash or radiation ?
Date: 6 Aug 92 21:01:57 GMT

The following paragraph was omitted in a previous transcription of the
Wall Street Journal article on Dr. Storms' experiment which was posted (I've
forgotten by whom) on this net.  Perhaps it is relevant to the question of
whether or not nuclear ash has been observed.
 
    "Dr. Ikegami also said that like Dr. Takahashi he is recording a low level
of neutron radiation which rises and falls as the current is raised and dropped
He also is using palladium from the same source as Dr. Takahashi."
 
 WSJ, Monday, July 27, 1992 Page B4.  by Jerry Bishop & Jacob Schlesinger
 
Do the skeptics not consider this to be nuclear ash?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenphsjga cudfnJacques cudlnAmar cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / Richard Martin /  Re: Social responsibility?
     
Originally-From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Social responsibility?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 20:59:59 GMT
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON

In article <1992Jul31.061546.29620@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>"Basement bombers" would take on a new meaning, and ferocity.  Foreign enemies
>would go on three shift work day.  The secret would quickly become the biggest
>non-secret in history.
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
On the topic of basement bombers...
How easy is it to get Palladium?  To make it work?  Is it any easier to obtain
CF weaponry (in the case of its development) or more destructive than chemical
weapons?
A rhetorical question.
Probably not.  CF could, however, become the latest technology in ICBM and
battleground ammunition.
 
Richard Martin.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMartin cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Paul Karol /  Transmutation and CNF
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Transmutation and CNF
Date: 4 Aug 92 06:32:26 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

A few questions regarding recent postings on transmutation involving Pd
in CNF.  There was one suggestion about Pd, with its large thermal
capture cross section, might capture the deuterium disintegration
neutron.  My question involves how do you get thermalized neutrons and
have no evidence of capture in experiments involving lithium, which also
has large capture cross sections, or accumulation of easily-detected Pd
radioisotopes?
 
A second (and final) question is a request for more information about
the idea that Pd undergoes fission.  There was a reference sited
(Sci.Am.3/90) and I guess the reference is the article on exotic
radioactivities, but I could not (quickly) locate any indication that Pd
break-up by binary large cluster decay was other than an extremely rare
process.  Could someone please aim me more precisely to the convincing
reference?
 
Thanks.
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Topher Cooper /  Re: Status Report
     
Originally-From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status Report
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 14:43:41 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA

 
In article <1992Aug4.051159.27881@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
 
>There are still 8 increases in power associated with off-on transitions
>against 5 decreases.
>
>On the other side, there are 7 decreases in power associated with on-off
>transitions against 4 increases.
 
    Watch out for this, or you'll get an exagerated impression of significance.
    I haven't tried to figure out the "right" way of doing this, but your
    two "sides" are not statistically independent.  A randomly high value
    during, say, an "on" period would tend to produce both an increase on an
    off-on transition and a decrease during an on-off transition -- as would
    a randomly low value during an "off" period.  You really can only count
    one or the other against chance expectation, rather than compare the two.
 
    A randomization test may be the right approach here.
 
                                         Topher
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencooper cudfnTopher cudlnCooper cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: d He gamma
     
Originally-From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: d He gamma
Date: 4 Aug 92 16:02:53 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT) writes:
 
>Hang on a mo: In p-d fusion, the path goes
>  p (spin 1/2) + d (spin 1) --> 3He (spin 1/2) + gamma (spin 1)
>(This is a guess - about the spins at least.) It is the only
>channel, and the cross section is small and the fusion is slow.
 
That's because p-d is a weak interaction. Only strong interactions are
interesting for fusion as a technonlogy. BTW: the fact that p-d is so
slow is the reason long-lived stars exist at all.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenScott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 /  /  Photoelectron Spectrometer
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Photoelectron Spectrometer
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 18:36:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have a rather unusual request.  I would like to find someone with a
photoelectron spectrometer with two features: (1) ability to measure gas
samples and (2) ability to detect radiation in the approximate range of 50
eV to 250 eV. If you have such an instrument, please contact me over the
net or by phone (717)291-3803.  If you know of someone who has such an
instrument, please let me know over the net.
 
Thank you.
 
John J. Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Jim Carr /  Re:  DD->4He + gamma
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  DD->4He + gamma
Date: 4 Aug 92 18:06:05 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul31.211834.29145@cs.ucf.edu> long@next3.acme.ucf.edu (Richard
 Long) writes:
>In article <10030@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
>writes:
>> The deuteron does not have any bound excited states.  If it did have
>> a bound S=0, T=1 state, we would observe bound di-neutrons.  We don't.
>
>Now that you bring it up, Dr. Clarke and I were wondering why there were
>no bound di-neutrons.  We assumed that there were, but that one of the
>neutrons would then decay into the usual proton electron and antineutrino
>with the usual lifetime.
 
Nope.  (1) if the di-neutron were bound but could still decay weakly to
deuterium, its lifetime would not be the same as that of a free neutron.
(2) if it were to decay weakly, it would be around *plenty* long enough
for research and would be studied almost as much as the deuteron -- it
would certainly displace Li-11 as the most interesting radioactive beam,
for a while at least -- so from a nuclear physicist's standpoint it
would be just another one of our friends.
 
>   But we were wrong (I finally looked it up under pressure from you guys
>:) ).  The strong force is spin dependent.  Note, however, that I cleverly
>covered my butt in my posting by *asking* if there was a strong force
>principle that forbade deuteron excited states ;).  Anyway, I interpret
>the spin dependence of the strong force to be due to the zero spin of the
>Yukawa exchange boson.  Then, Di-neutrons can't exist since the pauli
>principle requires anti-parallel spins, and the Yukawa boson does not
>change spin, and so requires parallel spins.  Is this right?
 
Good start.  The strong force is due to gluon exchange between quarks.
The force between nucleons is due to quark exchange (simple gluon exchange
between nucleons vanishes unless quarks are exchanged too) and this looks
a lot like meson exchange.  Meson exchange is a good low-energy effective
theory, but one must include all mesons.  Pion exchange is only the long
range part; one must also consider rho exchange and 2-pion exchange, etc,
until one gets to short range (high energy) where quark effects take over.
 
Pion and rho exchange give different spin dependences, so the resulting
force has very complicated structure.  Its properties at low energy
(which is all that matters for bound state properties) can be summarized
in a few numbers: the scattering phase shifts extrapolated to zero
energy.  There one sees that the triplet (see below for notation) is
attractive enough to bind but the singlet is attractive but just barely
too weak to produce a bound state.  These general properties can be
calculated from meson-exchange models.
 
The role of the Pauli principle is a bit different.  The wavefunction
must be totally antisymmetric under interchange of the p and n in a d.
Lowest states are spherical in radial space (L=0) hence spatially
symmetric.  S=1 and T=1 are also symmetric and S=0 and T=0 are anti-
symmetric, so only S=0,T=1 or S=1,T=0 are allowed.  (T is isospin,
where pp and nn and a particular pn system are T=1, and the other pn
system is T=0, in strict analogy to spin systems.)  These are called
singlet-even and triplet-even in scattering lingo.  The other ones
are not irrelevant, since they come in for odd states (L=1 say), but
do not play a role for the lowest bound states.
 
>     While we are off the deep end in wild speculation (I'm a Math grad,
>so what have I got to loose by way of reputation?) my Modern Physics book
>(Blatt, F 1992) tells me that UUD (protons) and UDD (neutrons) quark
>combinations exist in spin 3/2 states as well as 1/2.  Anyone know the
>energies of these spin 3/2 versions?  My book dosn't say.  If the energy
>is low, maybe it contributes another path to the Virtual Ying Process (c).
 
The most famous (and hence remembered) is the Delta at 1232 MeV.  It has
spin-3/2 and isospin-3/2 (comes in ++, +, 0, and - just in case you did
not know there are doubly charged "elementary" particles).  It is a very
strong and broad resonance formed by the absorption of a pion by a nucleon,
and is quite far removed in energy to help with VYP(c).
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D+D:Mother of all discoveries
Date: 4 Aug 92 18:22:42 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul30.192130.12471@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>I guess I'm to blame for that one.  The idea is simple to state,
>
>D + gamma -> D*
>D* + D -> T + p + gamma
>D* + D -> He3 + n + gamma.
 
If such things are going on, there would be plenty of "ash" laying around.
 
>  The interesting thing with gamma interactions is that according to
>standard models D + gamma does not result in any reaction except
>D + gamma -> n + p at resonance of 2.224MeV which is the binding
>energy of D.  It seems strange to me that the first excited state
>of a D atom is the energy required for photodisintegration.  So to
 
Strangely put.  The excited states of a D atom are measured in eV and
are essentially the same as those in an H atom.
 
Photodisintegration is not a resonance process: any photon with more than
2.224 MeV will cause d + gamma --> n + p.  The cross section has an energy
dependence that should show a peak (resonance) at the location of various
unbound states in d, such as the S=0,T=1 state discussed lately.  (I say
should because I am not a few-body expert and do not know how clean the
magnetic data are.  Those in my texts are pretty poor, but show the
virtual singlet state just above threshold.)  The bulk of the effect is
smooth, rising from threshold to a peak at several MeV above threshold
as phase space opens up.
 
>find out if anything below exists it's necessary to understand how
>a quantum of photon energy couples to D.  Th gamma wavelength is
>much larger than the radial size of the nucleus.  So the only way
>for an interaction to to occur is by electric and magnetic multipole
>moments of the n and p of the deuteron. The overall effect is to
>change the angular momentum l of one of the D components (n or p in a
>independent particle model, or L in a shell model. Someone correct me
>if I'm wrong.) The actual hard core physics behind this is complex
>and is complicated by the nuclear model one chooses.
 
Basically correct, but the final state is in the continuum so shell model
pictures are not appropriate there.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Conserve Nuclear Physics
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conserve Nuclear Physics
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 20:29:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We seem to suffer a periodic reversion to a rehash of some very basic
facts about the nuclei that are assumed to be responsible for the
"miracle of cold fusion".  Unfortunately, the nuclei which have mass
numbers 2,3 or 4 refuse to cooperate with the various schemes being
put forth which might involve some form of multiphoton process.  They
simply DO NOT have excited states that are bound with respect to
particle emission!  If deuterons are bombarded with gamma rays there
are only two things that can happen: (1)no change in the energy of
the deuteron or (2)the deuteron breaks up into a proton and a neutron.
Same sad state of affairs applies to tritons, 3He, and 4He except they
have more options as to how they break up.  And furthermore no subtle
lattice effects are going to alter this picture.  If you want to
suggest some revolutionary new picture of nuclear structure you may
as well go for broke, as Frank Close suggests, and stop conserving
anything.  There is a price to pay, however.  As one Worrywart observes
we then won't know whether or not something we do might trigger a
chain reaction and wipe us all out.  We really still are at square
one on this matter.  If there is a way to induce cold fusion, the
most sensitive test is to look for nuclear reaction products.
Calorimetry is a less sensitive test by a factor of a billion or
so.  Logic then tells us that if an experiment shows "surplus heat"
but no reaction products, there is a problem with the experiment.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.04 / Richard Frost /  RFC - CATIA and FAST codes
     
Originally-From: frost@sdsc.edu (Richard Frost)
Newsgroups:
 sci.aeronautics,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RFC - CATIA and FAST codes
Date: 4 Aug 1992 19:45:36 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @UCSD.

Last week at the SIGGRAPH conference in Chicago, IBM and Sterling Software
demonstrated NASA's FAST package on an RS/6000.
 
We are considering a solicitation to add a CATIA read module to FAST.  That is,
a software module which will allow FAST to read CATIA geometry models.  If you
or your colleages would benefit from such a tool, please contact me at the
address below.
 
Thank you,
 
Richard Frost
San Diego SuperComputer Center          619-534-5179 (voice)
P.O. Box 85608                          619-534-5113 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92186-9784                frost@sdsc.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenfrost cudfnRichard cudlnFrost cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.006 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Social responsibility?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Social responsibility?
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 92 21:39:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug6.205959.13431@csi.on.ca> richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
 writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.061546.29620@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>>"Basement bombers" would take on a new meaning, and ferocity.  Foreign enemies
>>would go on three shift work day.  The secret would quickly become the biggest
>>non-secret in history.
>
>On the topic of basement bombers...
>A rhetorical question.
>Probably not.  CF could, however, become the latest technology in ICBM and
>battleground ammunition.
 
Yeh, we could drop a CF experiment on some enemy and wait to see
if there is any excess heat. Then someone can propose a mechanism
long since discounted to achieve the excess heat that can't be
detected. Not to mention the nuclear processes that leave no
nuclear ash, no radiation energy loss and leave the isotopic
analysis the same. :-)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.06 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update update
     
Originally-From: medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update update
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 23:19:08 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <8F9AD0AAF2030869@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au
(Dieter Britz) (that's me) writes:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Goldhaber M; Science 257 (1992) 310 (17-Jul).
> "Cold fusion: not nuclear".
> ** M. Goldhaber comments on an earlier issue of Science, in which one David H.
> Friedman asserts that the Hagelstein theory has it that neutrons are absorbed
...
 
Sorry good people: that name should have been Freedman. It was in the 24-Apr
issue of Science, p.438.                      ^^^^^^^^
 
Dieter alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au
 ------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmedb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.07 / John Logajan /  True Disbelievers
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: True Disbelievers
Date: 7 Aug 92 05:34:42 GMT

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>So wouldn't it be more productive to concentrate on developing solid
>experiemental evidence than theorizing new physical laws?
 
I'm not so sure that these two paths are so easily differentiated.
Experiments aren't designed in an intellectual vacuum -- you generally have
to define what you are looking for and then guess a way to look for it.
 
P+F said one day, "Hey, maybe we can do CF in a jar."  Then they set about
trying to do it.  They weren't necessarily looking for new laws of physics,
but they weren't adverse to tripping over new laws either.
 
I think much of science is goal oriented -- a search for new energy, a cure
for AIDS, etc.  All of these require us to ask, "What if...?"  We can't
even get started teasing out the experimental evidence until we select
a hypothesis to test.  There are just too many avenues to investigate them all
in a systematic deterministic way.
 
We are left with pursuing hunches, often wild, and often wrong ... but right
often enough to advance our understanding of the structure of reality.
 
Would Droege be now shooting gamma's at Pd+D if Ying or P+F or somebody
else hadn't come up with a new wild and crazy hypothesis?
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.07 / John Logajan /  A brief history of heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A brief history of heat
Date: 7 Aug 92 05:59:38 GMT

Tom Droege hasn't published his 0.5Msec interval table in a while, so I thought
I'd take a real gross stab at it.  First is the last one I have archived, from
July 10th.  Then are the three approx 0.5Msec (+or- an in or out period)
periods since the pseudo-Ying started.
 
Time               Watts
---------------    -------
First there was Takahashi...
0   -  .5 M sec    +0.0007
0.5 - 1.0 M sec    +0.0048
1.0 - 1.5 M sec    -0.0021
1.5 - 2.0 M sec    +0.0088
2.0 - 2.5 M sec    +0.0152
2.5 - 3.0 M sec    +0.0206
3.0 - 3.5 M sec    +0.0218
3.5 - 4.0 M sec    -0.0334
4.0 - 4.5 M sec    -0.0300
4.5 - 5.0 M sec    -0.0242
5.0 - 5.5 M sec    -0.0301
5.5 - ? (6.5?)        ?
And then came Ying...
0   -  .5 M sec    +0.030
0.5 - 1.0 M sec    +0.080
1.0 - 1.5 M sec    +0.095
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.07 / Bruce Scott /  Re: d He gamma
     
Originally-From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: d He gamma
Date: 7 Aug 92 14:40:24 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <20553@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
 writes:
>In article <1992Aug4.160253.20738@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
 Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>|> That's because p-d is a weak interaction. Only strong interactions are
>|> interesting for fusion as a technonlogy. BTW: the fact that p-d is so
>|> slow is the reason long-lived stars exist at all.
>
>No, p+d doesn't involve any weak interactions at all.  In the sun,
>deuterium formed by the p+p reaction (which *is* weak...
 
oops, sorry for the confusion.  I did have pp in mind here, which is
clear from my comments.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenScott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: No nuclear ash or radiation ?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No nuclear ash or radiation ?
Date: 7 Aug 92 14:26:32 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9208062101.AA07099@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> phsjga@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU
 (Jacques G. Amar) writes:
>
>    "Dr. Ikegami also said that like Dr. Takahashi he is recording a low level
>of neutron radiation which rises and falls as the current is raised and dropped
>He also is using palladium from the same source as Dr. Takahashi."
>
> WSJ, Monday, July 27, 1992 Page B4.  by Jerry Bishop & Jacob Schlesinger
>
>Do the skeptics not consider this to be nuclear ash?
 
That would depend on whether the neutrons produced are in proper proportion
to the energy produced, both in number and timing.  It would also depend on
the detector used and whether it might be susceptible to giving false signals
in proportion to the ambient temperature or indirect effects from the change
in power used by the experiment.  (Simple detectors are notorious this way,
cf the Ga.Tech experience.)  Critical in my view would be measurement of the
energies of the neutrons, and detection of X-rays from the charged particles
expected at the same time.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.07 / John Moore /  Re: A brief history of heat
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A brief history of heat
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 16:40:45 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords:
 
In article <9208070559.AA09918@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
]Time               Watts
]---------------    -------
]First there was Takahashi...
]0   -  .5 M sec    +0.0007
 
It occurs to me that a better way to present this data might be in terms
of error units. Thus, if Tom believes his calorimeter is good to (let's say),
1 milliwatt, then present the value shown above as .7.
 
This way, it is easier to visually get some idea of the significance with
the calorimeter error information included.
 
Comments?
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.08 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 8 Aug 92 11:47:51 GMT

Robert seemed to not grasp why the neutron/gamma scheme
he has been discussing is obviously nonsense.  Let's
try again with a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
 
The cross section for photodisintegration of a deuteron
is quite small.  It peaks, I think, around 100 millibarns.
That's about 10^-25 cm^2.
 
Now, let's suppose your palladium is loaded to a Pd/D
ratio of 1.  The volume density of deuterons is around
5 x 10^22 cm^-3.
 
So, how far would a gamma photon have to travel before
causing photodisintegration, assuming nothing else got
the photon first?  About 1 / (10^-25 x 5x10^22)
cm = 2 meters.
 
I note that *even if* there was nothing else absorbing
the photons, the electrodes (hell, the electrolytic
cells themselves!) are not 2 meters in diameter!
 
Of course, most of the gammas will be degraded and
lost to compton scattering, etc.  There are many more
electrons around in the palladium than there are
deuterium nuclei.  The most favorable situation
would be if one were shooting photons into pure
deuterium, where the deuteron/electron ratio is 1.
I did a BOtE calculation on *that* a few years back,
and concluded that even then one could not expect
many of the gammas to disintegrate nuclei.  If one
*could* get a high yield, then we'd be seeing nuclear
reactors based on deuterium or heavy water with
photoneutrons causing fission in a uranium blanket
(and, this technology would be used by countries
wanting to make plutonium, since you'd need much
less deuterium and uranium than in a heavy water
reactor).
 
 
|> -- As I said elsewhere, if the gammas are not being absorbed somehow,
|> -- the low-level gamma cascades from high-energy background radiation
|> -- and cosmic rays should have left fingerprints over all the data.
|> -- To me this is the dog that didn't bark in the night.
 
This sounds like pure bullshit to me.  Dollars to doughnuts that,
yes, all these experiments do have background radiation present.
You do understand that experiments in nuclear physics typically
subtract off background, don't you?
 
 -------------------------------------
 
Robert, go look up the cross sections.  Do the trivial
calculations.  Then stop talking nonsense.
 
        Paul F. Dietz
        dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.10 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 110 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 110 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 01:08:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
a small Chem. Abstracts harvest, just 3 patents (plus a couple of papers I
have to chase). Not much to say about these; the first one actually gets
"absorb" right, the others use the usual "adsorb", meaning the other. I am
amused at the hedging of bets in Yanagihara + Noya one, where they will be
siphoning off both the heat from cold fusion, AND that from the absorption of
deuterium. They must be accountants, can't see the difference between millions
of something, and fractions thereof. Ah well.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 10-Aug-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 722
 
Patents: file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yanagihara N, Noya S;           Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 35,194 30-Jun-89.
"Heating by heavy water electrolysis and apparatus therefor".
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(2):15847 (1992).
** "The app. comprises: (A) a cathode from a metal or alloy which absorbs D;
(B) an anode from alk.-resistive metal; (C) a porous separator placed between
(A) and (B); (D) an electrolysis cell contg. (A)-(C) in D2O contg. an
electrolyte; (E) a heat-exchanger for extg. the heat of D absorption and that
of cold fusions generated in (A); and a flow loop for circulating the
electrolyte sol. between the (A) subcell and (E)". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nishioka T, Yamaguchi E;        Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04 24,595 21-May-90.
"Cold nuclear fusion and apparatus".
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(2):15848 (1992).
** An app. consists of alternately laminated 1st layers from Pd or Ti, and 2nd
layers from a material (e.g. Si) which reacts with the 1st-layer material and
forms an eutectic. Cold nuclear fusion is achieved by allowing the 1st-layer
material to adsorb D or T, and by heating the laminar app. to form an eutectic
of the 1st- and 2nd-layer materials". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ikegami H;                               Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 477,018 20-Sep-90.
"Apparatus and method for utilizing heat generated owing to Pons-Fleischmann
effect".
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(2):15849 (1992).
** App. and method for efficiently utilizing heat generated owing to so-called
cold fusion comprises a metal rod, heat pipe, or the like directly connected
to a cathode in which excess heat is generated owing to the Pons-Fleischmann
effect, to deprive the cathode of heat. The heat is used to perform elec. or
mech. work. Depriving the cathode of heat also contributes to maintenance of
the performance of the cathode". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Press Release
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:48:38 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

Hi folks,
 
In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> The new model is based on three different bound clusters of protons and
> neutrons, rather than the traditional separate proton and neutron
> composition of the atomic nucleus.
 
My my.  So all those nuclear physicists and chemists who have set up and
calculated results based on independent-nucleon nuclear shell models for
the last several decades are just flat-out *wrong*, hmm?  How interesting.
 
[...huge list of largely irrelevant "plugs" for participants in "CSC"...]
 
Mr. Rothwell, are you trying to persuade us or yourself?  In my experience
people who get overly carried away with creditials and name dropping usually
do so because they are rather insecure about their beliefs in the first
place.  More than anything else, your press release reminded me of some
forms of Creation Science literature -- the little pieces that go on and
on and on about all these *great* minds who *know* that the view they are
promulgating is RIGHT.
 
Granted your release was intended for something other than this group, it
still is astonishingly sparse on any kind of relevant details.  Would it
really have hurt you to write towards, say, at least for the minimal level
of explanation seen in general science publications as Science News?
 
Or should we take this to be just one more form of election-year politicking
-- you know, getting a "ground swell" relatively uninformed but *concerned*
citizens to proclaim by proclamation that all the nuclear scientist are
wrong, not just about cold fusion, but also about *any* nuclear reaction?
 
How quaint.  Reality by acclamation.  Mayhaps the folks who thought a dragon
was eating the sun during an eclipse were right after all?  They were, after
all, *very* convinced of the reality of said dragon by the well-written press
releases from their local chapter of the Creative Reality Astrological Party.
 
 
> Mr. Jed Rothwell ... holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Japanese Language
> and Literature ... [and] was a founder and manager of software development
> for Micro-Tel, Inc., a software company in Norcross, GA...
 
This raises a question.  How much of what you just did in the above article
have you been doing for years in Japan, shielded by the mystique of being
a supporter of a "poor, downtrodden American 'cold fusion' community?"
 
Your arguments are persuasive, Mr. Rothwell.  In fact, you've just persuaded
me to pretty well stop paying attention to ANY further news from Japan about
"cold fusion."  I for one do not place much credence on orchestrated press
releases, and you've just given me ample reason to suspect that the level of
orchestration over there is much higher than I had once thought.
 
				Hmphs,
				Terry Bollinger [Speaking only for myself]
 
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Terry Bollinger                            | Phone: 214-518-3538           |
| Advanced Switching Laboratory, NEC America |   Fax: 214-518-3499           |
| 1525 Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038 | Email: terry@asl.dl.nec.com   |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / John Logajan /  Quantum Leap
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Leap
Date: 11 Aug 92 03:41:54 GMT

If the net energy of D --> p + n is on the order of 2.5MeV how is it possible
for Co 60 gammas (which have been claimed to be on the order of 1.5MeV) to
"photodisintegrate" the D?
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:31:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug11.153441.7520@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
>:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
>:developed by a United States company.
>
>...The
>:predecessor of CSC, Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC),
>:developed the unique and comprehensive model of the atomic nucleus that
>:was conceived by Mr. Brightsen.
>
[questions about the theory deleted]
 
     More importantly, isn't the appellation 'CSC' going to be confusing
     in Northern Virginia?
 
                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 /  /  Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experiment Status
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 18:45:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We have "ended" the current experiment.  The long weekend was spent looking
for a better operating point.  We may have found one.  At least the first
two points look interesting.  The new operating point contains more of the
features of the Ying experiment, but still not all as that would involve
opening the calorimeter.  This means that I cannot tell you the operating
point, only the data until I get a release from Ying.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Hunches and Poor Experiments
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hunches and Poor Experiments
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 20:29:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One problem with following hunches in the design of experiments is that,
unless you have the guidance of good sense and some experience in the
field of investigation, there are too many possible avenues to be
explored.  You can p*ss away untold time and resources doing experiments
that haven't a ghost of a chance of turning up anything new or interesting.
Just because you want cold fusion to happen doesn't make it good
prospect for extensive experimentation, especially by people who aren't
able to accept NO for an answer!
 
However, if you insist of doing the experiments, it is still very
important to do things right.  Take the problem of neutron detection
at low levels and, as our current bad example, Dr. Takahashi.  There
is a clear body of established scientific fact that can not simply
be ignored, even if you believe that multibody deuteron reactions can
account for the complex pulse height spectrum as Takahashi has
proposed.  The best explaination for the spectra are that he is not
recording neutron events at all, but is rather detecting background
radiation that is predominantly gammas.  From copies of the viewgraphs
which Dr. T used in his recent presentation at MIT (provided to me by
Jed Rothwell) we can reach certain conclusions concerning the
neutron detection methods employed.
 
The key problem in detection of low-level neutron radiation is the
rejection of gamma radiation which can easily overwhelm the neutron
rate by a factor of 10^4.  The simple rejection schemes employed by
Takahashi and others are only good for about 10^2 gamma rejection
factor.  Obviously any data taken using the methods which Takahashi
employed are "highly suspect".  If the whole Japanese scientific
establishment is going off to chase the cold fusion illusion on
the basis of this quality of experimental data, it is indeed a
sad commentary of the state of science.  Hunches just don't
make for good research without a good solid grounding in established
scientific fact!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU      "I heard it with my ears and I saw it with my eyes
                 and a piece of it fell on my tail."  C. Little
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / david atkatz /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:51:32 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.153441.7520@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
 writes:
> >In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> >:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
> >:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
> >:developed by a United States company.
> >
> >...The
> >:predecessor of CSC, Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC),
> >:developed the unique and comprehensive model of the atomic nucleus that
> >:was conceived by Mr. Brightsen.
> >
> [questions about the theory deleted]
>
>      More importantly, isn't the appellation 'CSC' going to be confusing
>      in Northern Virginia?
>
>                                dale bass
 
 
		I thought you southerners were partial to 'CSA'
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:05:29 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Aug11.153441.7520@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
>:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
>:developed by a United States company.
>
>:The Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) provides a comprehensive explanation for
>:both nuclear fission and cold fusion...
>
>	And how do its predictions compare with those of "standard"
>nuclear physics?
>
>	Especially for the lighter nuclei?
 
There is nothing new about cluster models in nuclear physics.
 
In particular, these models are most often found to be applicable in
light nuclei where there are various observable effects that can be
classified in this way.  They do not describe *all* aspects of such
nuclei, and the progress on 'ab initio' calculations of the light
nuclei allows one to see where the approximations break down.
 
(The classic example for all students is Li-6, which looks a lot like
alpha+d and has a very large spectroscopic factor for pickup of a d.
Interestingly, it also has a very large S-factor for looking like
He-3 + H-3, and it is always interesting to ask students how it can be
that the probabilities for these two different ways of making Li-6 can
add up to more than 100%.  It requires a bit of understanding of non-
orthogonal wavefunctions to sort it out -- and helps one understand
some of the limitations of cluster models.)
 
One of my colleagues here, Don Robson, has mucked about with cluster
models for several decades and has had varying degrees of success --
particularly with his "soft" tetrahedral alpha particle as an explanation
for the level structure of C-12 and O-16.  Unfortunately, one level
predicted by this model has never been found in O-16 despite careful
and diligent searches.  The basic ideas and detailed calculations for
cluster models are well established in nuclear physics.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 11 Aug 92 20:14:42 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <20627@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul
Dietz) writes:
 
   Robert Eachus's claim basically comes down to the assertion
   that the photoneutron cross section for deuterium increases by some
   3 or 4 orders of magnitude in a metal.
 
   Not quite.  What I am suggesting is that, if the Pd and D are in
close proximity, there is an enhancement since both the total energy
is higher and there is no need to actually produce the intermediate
products through electromagnetic and/or weak interactions, while still
overall conserving spin and charge.  This, of course requires that the
Pd and D nuclei be in very close proximity. (Is there a CNF theory
that doesn't?)  However, note that there is no requirement that the
energy of the incident photon be greater than 2.2 MeV...
 
   I don't believe it for a moment.  I'd love to see a reference in
   Physical Review; this would be an effect as startling as "cold
   fusion" and likely worth a Nobel prize.  It would certainly be
   contrary to known physics.
 
   No, it is required by quantum mechanics, if the initial conditions
hold.  But you and I are apparently starting from different premises.
I am trying to see if reported experimental results do agree with
theory.  You are assuming that the results do disagree with the theory,
and so must discard either the experiments or the theory.  (I'm not
saying that your approach is inappropriate.  It is the right place to
start.  But having been convinced by the data, I'm now left with
trying to avoid discarding the theory.)
 
   Even if we agree to swallow this, there are still fatal problems
   with Eachus's idea:
 
   (1) Neutrons would be generated at fairly high energy, on the
   order of a MeV (as most of the gammas are well above threshold).
   Fast neutron cross sections are on the order of barns, so most of
   the neutrons will escape the palladium.  Remember that for 1 watt
   of putative output, we should be seeing on the order of a trillion
   neutrons.  Published results for "cold fusion" experiments are far
   lower.
 
   No, the whole idea was to explain the lack of neutrons.  In my
model most of the neutrons would be virtual particles produced by the
interaction of a photon < 2.2 MeV with a deuteron.  Only real neutrons
produced by high energy gammas could escape.
 
   Perhaps Eachus would like to invoke another miracle, that magically
   inflates fast neutron cross sections?
 
See above.  Resonances for virtual neutrons would help, but nothing
could reconcile large numbers of fast neutrons with the data.
 
   (2) No radioactivity is being detected, even though it should be
   induced in the palladium.
 
Not quite.  Pd104 --> Pd105 and Pd105 --> Pd106 should dominate.
Neither of these involves a radioactive isotope.  Pd106 --> Pd107
produces an isotope with a half life of millions of years and which
decays by beta emission, etc.  As I've said the decays to Ag109 would
be detectable, but easier is just to look for the silver.
 
   (3) Gammas should be escaping from the cathode, even if (gag) they
   are strongly absorbed there, since some gammas should be generated near
   the surface.  Again, remember, 1 watt corresponds to on the order
   of a trillion photons per second.
 
   Yes, but at what energy?  Since much of the energy released would
be carried away by protons, and the rest by interal transition gammas
of relatively low energy, I would expect most of those photons to have
energies measured in keV not Mev, and most of the energy to be
scattered away in the apparatus.
 
   Eachus also confused photoneutrons (from (gamma,n) reactions) with
   neutrons from self targeting ((d,n) reactions).  It should be quite
   easy to set up an experiment in which a gamma source of known
   energy and intensity bombards a deuterated metal.  The neutron yield
   in this situation from self targeting should be minimal, contrary
   to Eachus's claim that it would cause a background problem, because
   there is no way for a gamma photon to knock a deuteron flying at
   high speed (conservation of momentum forbids it).
 
   No the confusion comes from d + d --> n + He3, and d + d --> p + t,
p + d --> 2p + n.  Basically what happens is that at even low energies
you get a lot of nuclear "noise" from fusion reactions caused by
energetic deuterons from scattering.  (This is why Project Sherwood
was so optimistic early on.  Even experiments orders of magnitude
colder than today's tokamaks provided lots of detectable neutrons.)
In the experiments I ran (not part of Sherwood) most of the noise was
caused by electric field acceleration of deuterons, argon, or xenon.
But there was a significant signal from even low energy gammas/high
UV.  What prompted all this was a memory that the delta in radiation
from beaming gammas at plasma was significantly higher than from
beaming gammas at gas.  The noise to signal ratio meant we couldn't
make the measurements we wanted.
 
    We were trying to figure out why the radiation from a plasma
didn't contain the high energy UV we wanted to generate.  The eventual
model we had to live with had core plasma temperatures in the ten to
twenty thousand degrees K range, but where almost all radiation coming
out as either black body radiation from the plasma wall or in
characteristic spectral lines for the wall gas.  The trick to getting
out the high UV was to run concentric layers of different gasses, but
even then most of it was absorbed in the millimeter or two it had to
travel.)
 
   The neutron generators that Eachus mentioned (in response to the
   claim that his miracle would provide an easy route to plutonium
   production) don't support him at all.
 
   First, I never claimed an easy route to plutonium production, you
did.  The problem with plutonium production using any neutron source
is the heavy shielding required, and the continual refinement to avoid
making Pu240.  Second, power production using nuclear waste would be
practical today with no other miracles than environmentalists showing
common sense.  In fact, refined nuclear waste is used to power several
spacecraft, including Voyager II.
 
   Commercial neutron generators have very low efficiency, measured in
   the fraction of input energy that actually comes out as neutrons.
   Certainly a lot lower than if one could make gammas preferentially
   disintegrate deuterons in metals.  Also, most neutron generators
   are deuteron-on-deuteron, deuteron-on-tritium devices, or
   alpha-on-beryllium devices, not photonuclear sources.
 
   You are confusing several things here.  First most of the neutron
generators I am aware of depend on electric field acceleration, not
gammas for the initial excitation.  I never said otherwise, so I hope
we are in agreement.
 
   Second, most of the sources I am familiar with are optimized for
short intense bursts of high energy neutrons, not for efficiency.  But
in any case, using nuclear waste as the primary radiation source makes
questions of efficiency moot.  Did you miss that part?  The concept
is to construct a system where the initial radiation from the waste
can cause several other nuclear reactions, some of which produce
substantial heat.  So I was proposing krytons, etc. for experiments,
but nuclear waste as a neutron source for power generation.
 
   A photonuclear source using deuterium in thorium would make no
   sense at all; if you *did* make a photoneutron source you'd almost
   certainly use a beryllium target for convenience.
 
   As I remember it Beryllium9 does a nice job of converting high
energy neutrons into two alphas and two low energy neutrons.
Thorium-232 has a fairly high fission cross-section producing high
energy neutrons.  A lower conversion ratio, but it depends on what you
want as output.
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / John Logajan /  Hide the neutron
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hide the neutron
Date: 12 Aug 92 03:06:12 GMT

Okay, I think I understand the "virtual neutron" idea now, and how it
allows the process to occur even though the "trigger" energy seems
to be insufficient (which I repeat below.)
 
In the tables below, I computed the energy required to break apart a
deuterium nucleus (2.45 MeV.)   And I also computed the energy released
by the neutron capture of Palladium 104 (7.09 MeV.)  Computations are
based upon weights listed in the CRC HCP.
 
If we want to produce neutrons from D, we need a gamma of at least
2.45 MeV.  Once we have the free neutrons, they can be captured by the
Pd(104 in this case) and release 7.09 MeV.  The net gain is 7.09-2.45,
or 4.64 MeV.
 
But suppose that the first reaction can borrow energy from the second
reaction.  Because the sum of energy change is positive at 4.64 MeV,
from an energy balance point of view, it doesn't require *ANY* outside
energy to occur, it could happen spontaneously.
 
Apparently, such "virtual intermediate state" reactions would increase
in probability when the physical distance between the D and the Pd
becomes very small.  But, of course, the electric charge on the two
nuclei keep them well apart.
 
 
And now for more speculation.
 
Perhaps there is simple "mechanical" movement of D into the vicinity
of Pd.  We know that D's can be Compton scattered directly (don't we?).
We know they can be scattered indirectly by electric force "collisions"
with Compton scattered electrons. [Note: Compton scattering merely
means that the incident gamma ray induced physical movement in the
particle, with a resultant deflected gamma with reduced energy.]
 
A "D" which picks up kinetic energy by direct or indirect Compton
scattering is going to be able to approach the Pd nucleus closer.
And like a bullet shot into a tank, it is going to bounce around inside
the lattice for a while, approaching many Pd nuclei in sequence,
perhaps until probability smiles on it and it is captured.  (Heh,
I can even envision a D caught between two Pd's like a ping-pong
ball between the table top and a descending paddle board -- brrrrt.)
 
Under this mode of reaction, direct photodisintegration of a D into
p + n, even if a virtual n, is not required.  Maybe we are more
interested in the Compton scattering rather than gamma capture?
Ehy?
 
 
 
Photodisintegration Reaction:
(finds required gamma energy)
 
Starting     Atomic    | Result       Atomic    |  Weight    (x 931.50)
Particles    Weight    | Particles    Weight    |  P1 - P2      MeV
---------  ----------- | ---------  ----------- | ---------  ----------
                         1H1 (p)      1.00797
                              n       1.008665
                                    -----------
1H2 (D)      2.0140                   2.016635    -0.002635  -2.4545025
 
 
Palladium 104 neutron capture:
(finds released gamma energy)
 
Starting     Atomic    | Result       Atomic    |  Weight    (x 931.50)
Particles    Weight    | Particles    Weight    |  P1 - P2      MeV
---------  ----------- | ---------  ----------- | ---------  ----------
46Pd104    103.904029
     n       1.008665
           ----------
           104.912694    46Pd105    104.905079     0.007615   7.0933725
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 12 Aug 92 07:49:41 GMT

In article <EACHUS.92Aug11151442@Dr_No.mitre.org>, eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org
 (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
|>    Not quite.  What I am suggesting is that, if the Pd and D are in
|> close proximity, there is an enhancement since both the total energy
|> is higher and there is no need to actually produce the intermediate
|> products through electromagnetic and/or weak interactions, while still
|> overall conserving spin and charge.  This, of course requires that the
|> Pd and D nuclei be in very close proximity. (Is there a CNF theory
|> that doesn't?)  However, note that there is no requirement that the
|> energy of the incident photon be greater than 2.2 MeV...
 
But the whole reason that cold fusion is so silly is that the
probability that two deuterons are very close together is
vanishingly small.  The chance that a deuteron and a palladium
nucleus are close together is smaller still, by an enormous
factor.
 
 
|>
|>    I don't believe it for a moment.  I'd love to see a reference in
|>    Physical Review; this would be an effect as startling as "cold
|>    fusion" and likely worth a Nobel prize.  It would certainly be
|>    contrary to known physics.
|>
|>    No, it is required by quantum mechanics, if the initial conditions
|> hold.  But you and I are apparently starting from different premises.
 
Where's the reference?  I don't believe that your idea is correct,
or has survived peer review in a reputable journal.
 
 
|> I am trying to see if reported experimental results do agree with
|> theory.  You are assuming that the results do disagree with the theory,
|> and so must discard either the experiments or the theory.  I'm not
|> saying that your approach is inappropriate.  It is the right place to
|> start.  But having been convinced by the data, I'm now left with
|> trying to avoid discarding the theory.)
 
The history of physics is replete with bogus data that people
believed.  When experiment contradicts well established theory, the
experiment is usually wrong.  So unless your data has been peer
reviewed and replicated, I would not trust it at all.
 
 
|>    Even if we agree to swallow this, there are still fatal problems
|>    with Eachus's idea:
|>
|>    (1) Neutrons would be generated at fairly high energy, on the
|>    order of a MeV (as most of the gammas are well above threshold).
|>    Fast neutron cross sections are on the order of barns, so most of
|>    the neutrons will escape the palladium.  Remember that for 1 watt
|>    of putative output, we should be seeing on the order of a trillion
|>    neutrons.  Published results for "cold fusion" experiments are far
|>    lower.
|>
|>    No, the whole idea was to explain the lack of neutrons.  In my
|> model most of the neutrons would be virtual particles produced by the
|> interaction of a photon < 2.2 MeV with a deuteron.  Only real neutrons
|> produced by high energy gammas could escape.
 
 
Whoa!  Neutrons are quite massive.  "Virtual neutrons" would have
a range in the fermis.  They would have only a vanishly small chance
of tunnelling through interatomic distances.
 
In particular, the tunneling rate is an exponential in something
like the integral of the square root of the potential (in your case,
the amount by which the gamma is under threshold) over the distance
the neutron must travel, times a term related to the mass of the
tunneling particle.  Even if the gamma is only a few keV below threshold
the tunneling rate gets vanishingly small for typical interatomic
distances.
 
Moreover, you still need to break up the deuteron; there will be
a term related to the rather low chance to do this.  So your
cross section should not go up.
 
 
|>
|>    Eachus also confused photoneutrons (from (gamma,n) reactions) with
|>    neutrons from self targeting ((d,n) reactions).  It should be quite
|>    easy to set up an experiment in which a gamma source of known
|>    energy and intensity bombards a deuterated metal.  The neutron yield
|>    in this situation from self targeting should be minimal, contrary
|>    to Eachus's claim that it would cause a background problem, because
|>    there is no way for a gamma photon to knock a deuteron flying at
|>    high speed (conservation of momentum forbids it).
|>
|>    No the confusion comes from d + d --> n + He3, and d + d --> p + t,
|> p + d --> 2p + n.  Basically what happens is that at even low energies
|> you get a lot of nuclear "noise" from fusion reactions caused by
|> energetic deuterons from scattering.  (This is why Project Sherwood
|> was so optimistic early on.  Even experiments orders of magnitude
|> colder than today's tokamaks provided lots of detectable neutrons.)
 
 
I was pointing out that a properly designed experiment would not
have this background.  If you bombard the target with gammas from
an external source, there will be *no* d+d reactions.  Sherwood was
a plasma device, and so is entirely irrelevant.
 
 
 
|> In the experiments I ran (not part of Sherwood) most of the noise was
|> caused by electric field acceleration of deuterons, argon, or xenon.
|> But there was a significant signal from even low energy gammas/high
|> UV.  What prompted all this was a memory that the delta in radiation
|> from beaming gammas at plasma was significantly higher than from
|> beaming gammas at gas.  The noise to signal ratio meant we couldn't
|> make the measurements we wanted.
 
Good grief, man.  How about doing a properly designed experiment
before proposing some miraculous effect?  If your SNR was bad, maybe
the entire thing is a crock, eh?
 
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / David Seghers /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 00:35:27 GMT
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server

>/ hpcc01:sci.physics.fusion / terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) /
 8:48 am  Aug 11, 1992 /
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>
>Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>> The new model is based on three different bound clusters of protons and
>> neutrons, rather than the traditional separate proton and neutron
>> composition of the atomic nucleus.
>
>My my.  So all those nuclear physicists and chemists who have set up and
>calculated results based on independent-nucleon nuclear shell models for
>the last several decades are just flat-out *wrong*, hmm?  How interesting.
>
   This has been obvious, even to a lay person such as myself, for years!
>
       [flames deleted]
 
>Granted your release was intended for something other than this group, it
 
Then why attack it?  I haven't seen so much antagonism since, well, P&F
announced cold fusion!
 
>still is astonishingly sparse on any kind of relevant details.  Would it
>really have hurt you to write towards, say, at least for the minimal level
>of explanation seen in general science publications as Science News?
 
I seems to me that Jed and company are putting their money, reputations, and
efforts where their mouths are!  If they come up with nifty new materials and
gadgets based on their theory which you and others couldn't come up with
based on your thoeries, then I will consider that Jed and co. are one step
closer to a real understanding of how the world works than the current
establishment.  Note, please, that Jed posted his press release in response
to a request for it!
 
>
>Or should we take this to be just one more form of election-year politicking
>-- you know, getting a "ground swell" relatively uninformed but *concerned*
>citizens to proclaim by proclamation that all the nuclear scientist are
>wrong, not just about cold fusion, but also about *any* nuclear reaction?
>
>How quaint.  Reality by acclamation.  Mayhaps the folks who thought a dragon
>was eating the sun during an eclipse were right after all?  They were, after
>all, *very* convinced of the reality of said dragon by the well-written press
>releases from their local chapter of the Creative Reality Astrological Party.
>
 
How quaint indeed!  Those who were convinced that a dragon was eating the
sun were the athorities of the time.  I tend think you would have been one
of the ones believing in the dragon at that time, and roundly denouncing
the current theories!
 
>
>> Mr. Jed Rothwell ... holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Japanese Language
>> and Literature ... [and] was a founder and manager of software development
>> for Micro-Tel, Inc., a software company in Norcross, GA...
>
>This raises a question.  How much of what you just did in the above article
>have you been doing for years in Japan, shielded by the mystique of being
>a supporter of a "poor, downtrodden American 'cold fusion' community?"
 
Come now!  Jed's postings have, as a whole, been well thought out and full
of interesting information, unlike this flame.  You seem to be drowing some
pretty strange conclusions from information which doesn't support it.  Perhaps
you need to go back and read, I repeat, read, the release.  What article?
Have you been working in the lab too long???
 
>
>Your arguments are persuasive, Mr. Rothwell.  In fact, you've just persuaded
>me to pretty well stop paying attention to ANY further news from Japan about
>"cold fusion."  I for one do not place much credence on orchestrated press
>releases, and you've just given me ample reason to suspect that the level of
>orchestration over there is much higher than I had once thought.
>
>				Hmphs
 
My, my, my!  Grumpy are we!  Certainly off on a tangent.  Does the term
half-cocked ring a bell?
 
,
>				Terry Bollinger [Speaking only for myself]
>----------
Thanks for the comic relief Terry!  And good luck Jed!  I hope you don't
need it at this point!  When you can, I would like to hear more about the
new physics.
 
David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
 
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
 
Charter member of the "I HATE vi Club!"
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
 
 "I'd rather be alone than with most people I know." - Dr. Hollis
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenseghers cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:07:37 GMT

I wrote:
 
|> Whoa!  Neutrons are quite massive.  "Virtual neutrons" would have
|> a range in the fermis.  They would have only a vanishly small chance
|> of tunnelling through interatomic distances.
|>
|> In particular, the tunneling rate is an exponential in something
|> like the integral of the square root of the potential (in your case,
|> the amount by which the gamma is under threshold) over the distance
|> the neutron must travel, times a term related to the mass of the
|> tunneling particle.  Even if the gamma is only a few keV below threshold
|> the tunneling rate gets vanishingly small for typical interatomic
|> distances.
 
To be precise, let's hark back to intro quantum mechanics.
A particle of mass m penetrates into a potential barrier of
height E a distance of about
 
	hbar (2 m E)^(-1/2)
 
Now, for this case, if we let the barrier be 2.2 kev (.1% of
the binding energy of the deuteron; in other words, the photon
is just a shade below threshold):
 
	hbar = 1.054x10^-27 erg-s
	m    = 1.66x10^-24 g
	E    = 3.5 x 10^-9 erg
 
The penetration depth is then about 10^-11 cm, or .001 angstroms.
Since typical interatomic distances will be on the order of
an angstrom, that neutron doesn't stand much of a chance of penetrating
to the palladium nucleus (remember, amplitude declines expontially
with distance into the barrier).  That the neutron would liberate
binding energy upon reaching the palladium nuclear doesn't change
this fact.
 
So forget "virtual neutrons".
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Colin UCT /  Re: Press Release
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:21:46 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

 
In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes: [most of which has been sent to the
electronic winds by yours truly...]
 
> PRESS RELEASE  August 10, 1992
 
Can anyone tell me the point of puffing off an oddball theory like
this?  Is this sinister?  Do they want to attract shareholders?
 
> ... NCM Periodic Table of the Beta Stable Nuclides, and the complete
> explanations for thermal neutron fission characteristics, presents
> incontrovertible support for CSC's Nucleon Cluster Model.
 
Immediate reaction: Balls.  Though you're welcome to try to convince
me otherwise.  I await the paper...
 
>
> CSC will focus on developing commercial technologies aimed at converting
> radioactive waste to a non-radioactive state; designing advanced
> materials for manufacture of superconductors; creating superior
> semiconductor formulas; developing new isotopic materials with useful and
> unique physical and/or chemical properties; and the developing propulsion
> devices -- all of these can be derived from the NCM.
 
Yeah, yeah.  Unless these clusters have extra-nuclear properties I
really don't see what semiconductor tech has to do with NCM.
 
>
> Mr. Brightsen has submitted a scientific paper describing the application
> of the NCM  to the conventional fission processes to the Journal Fusion
> Technology.
 
Why there?  Hey, Nuclear Physics A, no less, or Phys Rev C for
something as far reaching and as completely successful as this!
 
>  The paper has already been reviewed and praised by leading
> experts in the nuclear energy field.
 
How about in the nuclear physics field?
 
>
> CLUSTRON SCIENCES CORPORATION ANNOUNCES
> BREAKTHROUGH IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE
>
 
I reckon if this one's a lemon, they'll be calling it "klutztron".
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.10 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 10 Aug 92 09:57:15 GMT

I wrote:
 
|> The cross section for photodisintegration of a deuteron
|> is quite small.  It peaks, I think, around 100 millibarns.
|> That's about 10^-25 cm^2.
 
Whoops!  That's way off.  It actually peaks around 3 millibarns.
In contrast, the Klein-Nishina cross section for Compton
scattering is > 50 mb per electron for all photon energies
less than 10 MeV -- and there are many more electrons
than deuterons here.
 
        Paul F. Dietz
        dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.09 /   /  Target Tracking
     
Originally-From: student3@sunrans.cern.ch (Student3)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Target Tracking
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 15:22:02 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

============================================================================
 
Dear Coleagues,
 
I would like to ask for your help for the following:
 
I am beginning my work in Particle Physics Research Field on a problems
related to:
 
  1. Multi-hypothesis tracking algorithms for target tracking.
 
  2. Using Hough-Transform for track-initialization.
 
Would you like please, to point out some of the most succesful
books, rewiev-papers and mostly Source-Code sources in any
algorithmic language (Fortran, Pascal, C etc.), because I have
to concentrate mainly on their application on a specific data
from our experiments.
 
I am posting for a first time, so please excuse me if this is not the
right group, but I really believ that this is multy-disciplinary
interest.
 
Any comments, advices and orientations are your best for a beginner
like me.
 
Your answers you can send to my E-mail address:
 
          student3@sunrans.cern.ch
 
Sincerely thanks in advance.
 
Albena
============================================================================
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenstudent3 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.09 /  tabitha@vms.hu /  faq , archives
     
Originally-From: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: faq , archives
Date: 9 Aug 92 23:08:27 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

please forgive this question.  I'm an unlooker only.  i've never seen an faq
for this group, so i don't know what address to ftp for archives of the
discussions.  i want to download some weeks of discussion.  please help.
sorry for the interjection.
-dennis turner
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentabitha cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.10 / MIKE JAMISON /  Request For Information
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request For Information
Date: 10 Aug 92 17:50:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

If anyone knows what conditions the JET ran under for its 2 second D-T run,
I'd appreciate a copy (e-mail) of the information.
 
I'd also like to know:
 
JET toroid inner/outer diameters
Magnetic field strength (Tesla) at start and end of run (linear increase/
time???)
 
Energy (eV) and direction in which the plasma is injected.
 
Anything else (regarding the technical details of the JET) you can think
of.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.10 / Bruce Scott /  JET fusion shot details (Re: Request For Information
     
Originally-From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JET fusion shot details (Re: Request For Information
Date: 10 Aug 92 20:06:05 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <10AUG199212503323@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>If anyone knows what conditions the JET ran under for its 2 second D-T run,
>I'd appreciate a copy (e-mail) of the information.
 
See the paper, "Fusion Energy Production from a Deuterium-Tritium Plasma
in the JET Tokamak", by the JET Team, in the journal Nuclear Fusion,
first half of 1992.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenScott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 /  Rothwell /  Press Release
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Press Release
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 04:06:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Clustron Sciences Corporation
8230 Leesburg Pike
Vienna, VA 22182
 
PRESS RELEASE  August 10, 1992
 
CLUSTRON SCIENCES CORPORATION ANNOUNCES
BREAKTHROUGH IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE
 
CORPORATION TO PURSUE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF COLD FUSION
AND CLOSELY RELATED NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC PHENOMENA
 
 
Contacts: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Vice-president for Research
          Mr. Russell George, President
          Tel: 703-442-4504    Fax: 703-442-4507
 
Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
developed by a United States company.
 
The new model is based on three different bound clusters of protons and
neutrons, rather than the traditional separate proton and neutron
composition of the atomic nucleus.
 
Mr. Ronald A. Brightsen, Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Russell George,
President, today announced the formation of Clustron Sciences Corporation
(CSC), headquartered in Vienna, Virginia.  CSC will capitalize on
business opportunities in the emerging field of new nuclear science.  The
company intends to introduce innovative commercial applications in the
field of cold fusion and related nuclear and atomic phenomena.  The
predecessor of CSC, Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC),
developed the unique and comprehensive model of the atomic nucleus that
was conceived by Mr. Brightsen.
 
The Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) provides a comprehensive explanation for
both nuclear fission and cold fusion.  The NCM has produced the first
_complete_ explanation for thermal neutron nuclear fission and its
experimentally well known characteristics since the discovery of fission
in 1939 by Hahn and Strassman. The new framework for nuclear physics, the
Nucleon Cluster Model, has led to the development of a systematic and
periodic relationship among all known stable isotopes, generically called
nuclides.  This accomplishment is analogous to the development in 1869 by
Mendeleev in Russia of the Periodic Table of the Elements. The  Brightsen
NCM Periodic Table of the Beta Stable Nuclides, and the complete
explanations for thermal neutron fission characteristics, presents
incontrovertible support for CSC's Nucleon Cluster Model.
 
Immediately after the announcements in 1989 of cold fusion experiments,
Mr. Brightsen recognized that his NCM would explain cold fusion.
Experimental validation of cold fusion is now in hand and is fully
consistent with the NCM.  The NCM provides a revolutionary and complete
explanation of all observed cold fusion phenomena. It also explains what
has not been observed, but which was expected by conventional physics.
Cold fusion is rapidly becoming recognized, particularly in Japan, as a
potential source of virtually limitless power production. CSC scientists
are certain that the NCM explanation of cold fusion will provide a clear
path to enhance and control cold fusion power.  CSC is seeking worldwide
patent protection for its basic concepts and their applications.
 
CSC will focus on developing commercial technologies aimed at converting
radioactive waste to a non-radioactive state; designing advanced
materials for manufacture of superconductors; creating superior
semiconductor formulas; developing new isotopic materials with useful and
unique physical and/or chemical properties; and the developing propulsion
devices -- all of these can be derived from the NCM.
 
Clustron Sciences Corporation was created as a new venture by the
principals of Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC), Solid State
Fusion, Incorporated (SSFI), and Venture America, a technology-oriented
venture capital firm in the Washington D.C. area.  The key founding
members of CSC are Mr. Ronald A. Brightsen, CEO and Chairman of the
Board; Mr. Russ George, President; Dr. Eugene Mallove, Executive Vice
President of Research and Board Member; Mr. Jed Rothwell, Vice President;
and Daniel E. Moore, Chief Financial Officer and Board Member (A General
Partner of Venture America).
 
Mr. Brightsen has submitted a scientific paper describing the application
of the NCM  to the conventional fission processes to the Journal Fusion
Technology.  The paper has already been reviewed and praised by leading
experts in the nuclear energy field. Mr. Brightsen and Dr. Mallove have
submitted a scientific paper, that describes the NCM's concise
explanation for cold fusion to Fusion Technology.  The paper details the
exact manner in which the NCM establishes the unusual phenomena involved
in cold fusion.
 
The NCM model of the atomic nucleus has unlocked a wealth of unexpected
explanations for many physical phenomena in addition to cold fusion and
nuclear fission.
 
Clustron Sciences Corporation - Biographical Information
 
Mr. Ronald A. Brightsen, CEO and Chairman of the Board of CSC was born in
New York City and now resides in Reston, VA. He received a Bachelor of
Science degree in Chemistry and physics at the University of Michigan
(1947) and a Master of Science degree in Nuclear Chemistry from MIT
(1950).  He has been directly involved in the atomic energy field as a
scientist and businessman since 1945.  During his active career he has
participated in every aspect of the atomic energy field, ranging from the
applications of radioisotopes; development and testing of nuclear
weapons; the development of the Nautilus, the world's first nuclear
powered submarine, at Westinghouse Atomic Power Division; and the
development by Westinghouse of the first civilian nuclear power plant at
Shippingport, PA.
 
Mr. Brightsen had been involved in corporate development in the nuclear
physics field as an independent consultant and the president of Nuclear
Science and Engineering Corporation (NSEC - founded, 1954, Pittsburgh,
PA), which he founded with Gordon Dean, Chairman of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission under President Harry Truman.  The board of directors
included many people prominent in the atomic energy field, including Dr.
Glenn T. Seaborg, Nobel prize winner, and Dr. Manson Benedict, who
designed the uranium-235 diffusion plants at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
 
Mr. Brightsen was a senior executive with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, prior to becoming president of Nuclear Science Research
Corporation (NSRC). He authored a Fortune magazine article, "How to Save
Nuclear Power," prior to the Kemeny Commission's report on the Three Mile
Island nuclear accident.  He has also published scientific articles on
the abundances of elements in the universe.  While a graduate student at
MIT, he was responsible for the discovery of a short-lived product of
uranium-235 fission, arsenic-78.
 
Following the introduction of Mr. Russell George, a founder of SSFI (a
company formed to pursue interests in cold fusion), to Mr. Brightsen of
NSRC by Mr. Floyd Culler, President Emeritus of The Electric Power
Research Institute and former Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
the decision was made to form Clustron Sciences Corporation.
 
Mr. Russ George, President of CSC and a resident of Palo Alto, CA,
studied biology at the University of Utah and later received a Master of
Science degree equivalence rating in Environmental Planning from the
Ministry of Environment in British Columbia.  He has worked extensively
in resource development as a planner and manager for the Ministry of
Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources and the Ministry of the
Environment in British Columbia, Canada. He has had an active role in
cold fusion via his consulting practice in scientific research, media,
and management.  He began work in cold fusion in 1989 following the Utah
announcements, and has become well known to researchers in  the field
around the world as being extremely knowledgeable in the field.
 
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Vice-president of Research and Director at CSC is
a resident of Bow, NH and is a founder of Solid State Fusion, Inc. He
obtained a Bachelor of Science degree and Master of Science degree in
Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from MIT, and a Sc.D. in
Environmental Sciences and Engineering at Harvard. He has worked as an
engineer for high technology companies - Hughes Research Laboratories,
The Analytical Sciences Corporation, and the MIT Lincoln Laboratory.  He
was a top science writer and broadcaster for The Voice of America.  From
1987 to 1991, he was chief science writer at the MIT news office. His
third major book, Fire From Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind The Cold
Fusion Furor, John Wiley and Sons (1991), was nominated for a Pulitzer
Prize.
 
Mr. Jed Rothwell, Vice-president of CSC is a resident of Atlanta, GA and
a founder of Solid State Fusion, Inc.  He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree
in Japanese Language and Literature from Cornell University and also
studied at Okayama National University in Japan.  He was a founder and
manager of software development for Micro-Tel, Inc., a software company
in Norcross, GA.. For the past two years he has been active in
facilitating information exchange between Japanese and American cold
fusion researchers.
 
Mr. Daniel E. Moore, Chief Financial Officer of CSC, McLean, VA, has a
MBA from the University of Pittsburgh and is a CPA.  He is a General
Partner of Venture America, a leading technology oriented venture
investment capital company in Vienna, VA.
 
Dr. Frederick Forscher, a resident of Pittsburgh, PA, is a materials
scientist and has been a close collaborator with Mr. Brightsen in
research leading to the NCM.  He was a co-founder of Nuclear Materials
and Equipment Corporation.  He received his Ph.D. in Materials Science
from Princeton University.  Dr. Forscher's personal papers have been
placed into the Smithsonian collection of the history of American
Technology.  In 1977 he started his unique newsletter, Energy Commentary
and Analysis.  He has been a shareholder and director of NSRC and is a
shareholder and Senior Advisor of CSC.
 
Mr. Homer Lowenberg, Rockville, MD, is a mechanical and chemical engineer
with Mechanical Engineering and Chemical Engineering degrees from Stevens
Institute of Technology.  He has forty-five years of experience in both
the commercial and government nuclear industries.  He was a former senior
executive in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), President of
Lowenberg Associates, which consults internationally in the nuclear fuel
cycle, and a director and shareholder of NSRC since its inception.  He is
a Senior Advisor and a shareholder of CSC.
 
 
Supporters of The Nucleon Cluster Model
 
Mr. Arnold Kramish, Reston, VA, is a nuclear physicist and early
colleague of Mr. Brightsen.  A shareholder and former director of NSRC
and shareholder of NSRC and CSC.
 
L. Manning Muntzing, Esq., Potomac, MD, former Director of Regulation
U.S. AEC/NRC, former director of NSRC, and former president of American
Nuclear Society, is an  internationally known lawyer in the nuclear
utilities industry and a shareholder of NSRC and CSC.
 
Admiral (retired) Elmo (Bud) Zumwalt, Arlington, VA, is former Chief of
Naval Operations and former Chairman of the Board of NSRC.  He is a
shareholder of NSRC and CSC and is a Senior Advisor to CSC.
 
Dr. Lloyd Zumwalt, Raleigh, NC, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering
at North Carolina State University, a former director of NSRC, and early
research colleague of Mr. Brightsen. Led the original team to detect the
first test of a Russian atomic bomb.  Shareholder of NSRC and CSC.
 
Dr. Manson Benedict, Lexington. MA, Professor Emeritus Nuclear
Engineering MIT, former head of Nuclear Engineering Department MIT.  An
early confidante and supporter of Mr. Brightsen.
 
Mr. Floyd Culler, Menlo Park, CA, Chemical Engineer, former Director of
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and President Emeritus of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI).  He has been a long term supporter and
confidante of Mr. Brightsen's research.
 
Dr. Walter Loewenstein, Palo Alto, CA, past president of The American
Nuclear Society.  Key nuclear physicist with EPRI involved in an early
review of the NCM research.
 
Mr. John Taylor, Menlo Park, CA, Vice-president of the Nuclear Power
Division, EPRI.  A nuclear physicist and colleague of Mr. Brightsen at
Westinghouse Atomic Power Division and a key supporter of the NCM at
EPRI.
 
Dr. Martin Schwartz, Livermore, CA, a Materials Scientist at Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory and an early enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Brightsen
as to the the significance of the NCM to materials science.
 
Dr. Warren Buck, Hampton, VA, Associate Professor of Physics, Hampton
University.  He reviewed the NCM and immediately recognized the far
reaching implications of the model.
 
Dr. Gerald Tape, Bethesda, MD, former AEC Commissioner who participated
in a private peer review of Brightsen's nuclear fission paper.
 
Mr. R. C. Berglund, San Jose, CA, Manager, Advance Nuclear Technology,
General Electric Co. Participated in the private review of Brightsen's
nuclear fission paper.
 
Dr. Norman Rassmussen, Sudbury, MA, Professor of Nuclear Engineering MIT.
Participated in a private peer review of the nuclear fission paper with
Dr. Kaplan.
 
Dr. Irving Kaplan, Belmont, MA, Professor Emeritus Nuclear Engineering
MIT.  Participated in a private peer review Brightsen's nuclear fission
paper with Dr. Rassmussen.
 
Dr. Robert Charpie, Wellsley, MA, former Deputy Director, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, now Chairman of Ampersand Ventures.  Participated in
a private peer review of the nuclear fission paper.
 
Dr. Marvin Roush, College Park, MD, Nuclear Physicist and Professor of
Reliability Engineering, University of Maryland.  A research colleague of
Mr. Brightsen in computer modeling of NCM.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.10 / John McCauley /  Re: Request For Information
     
Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Request For Information
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 18:28:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <10AUG199212503323@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>If anyone knows what conditions the JET ran under for its 2 second D-T run,
>I'd appreciate a copy (e-mail) of the information.
 
See if you can find 'Fusion Energy Production from a Deuterium-Tritium Plasma
in the JET Tokamak' -- "Nuclear Fusion" Volume 32, pp 187-203, 1992 (2).
 
I have a copy of the preprint (JET report JET-P(91)66).
 
Some of the parameters for Shot 26148, (the one with the most fusion power and
about 2 sec of beam heating) are:
 
Plasma Current:         3.1 MA
Torroidal Field:        2.8 Tesla
Neutral Beam heating   14.3 MW
Peak ion density       2.4E19 per m^3
 
Maximum Neutron emission 6.0E17 n/s
Neutron Yield            7.2E17 neutrons
 
Fusion Triple product   3.8E20 m^-3 keV s  (Lawson product)
Central Ion temperature 18.8 keV = 213 million degrees kelvin
Q (fusion out/heat in)  0.15
 
If you find this article too technical, try "Magnetic Confinement Fusion"
by H.P. Furth, "Science" 249 no 4976 pp 1522-1527 Sept 28, 1990.
 
        Hope this helps,
 
                Scott
 
 
>
>I'd also like to know:
>
>JET toroid inner/outer diameters
 
Major radius = 3.15 m, horizontal major radius about 1 m, vertical
major radius 1.0 / 1.6
 
>Magnetic field strength (Tesla) at start and end of run (linear increase/
>time???)
>
Don't know for sure, though looks like the field was kept at 2.8 Tesla
at least as long as the Neutral Beam heating was on -- most probably
longer (5 - 10 seconds or so).
 
>Energy (eV) and direction in which the plasma is injected.
>
>Anything else (regarding the technical details of the JET) you can think
>of.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Mike Jamison
 
The Neutral beams were injected at tangental angle, I think, if that helps.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 00:47:37 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <20591@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
 writes:
 
 > Robert seemed to not grasp why the neutron/gamma scheme
 > he has been discussing is obviously nonsense.  Let's
 > try again with a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
 
 > The cross section for photodisintegration of a deuteron
 > is quite small...
 
    Quite true, but almost completely irrelevant.  Known exprimental
data, some of which I personally gathered, shows that the behavior of
gammas mixed with deuterium films on metals or deuterium plasmas is a
much different game.  So called "self-targeting" of deuterium ranges
from a pesky problem when working with deuterium to a major radiation
hazard.  If you want to argue that I should speak of Compton
scattering caused self-targeting as the principle mechanism for
spalling off of neutrons, fine.  But my personal opinion is that there
are several such processes involved.  In any case if you have ANY
paper which claims to have measured the photodisintegration of
deuterium in a metal lattice as the same as in bulk D2 or D2O, read it
and have a good laugh.  When I was working in the field, the other
sources of neutrons dominated.
 
    The same holds true of deuterium plasmas, which are of course of
interest in hot fusion as well.  At all frequencies at which I
measured, from IR to ~5 MeV, the optical density of a deuterium plasma
was orders of magnitude higher than the gas in the tube with no
current.  (Of course trying to measure the transmission spectrum of a
10KW arc is also a bit difficult, especially when it is generating its
own gammas.  Xenon and Argon were a lot easier...)  Now, most of those
gammas may have been elastically scattered, but our radiation
levels were several tens of REMs per hour, so things got lost in the
noise.  (Most of the radiation was in the form of soft X-rays, but too
much was penetrating to ever come out with a commercial product.)
 
 > If one *could* get a high yield, then we'd be seeing nuclear
 > reactors based on deuterium or heavy water with photoneutrons
 > causing fission in a uranium blanket (and, this technology would be
 > used by countries wanting to make plutonium, since you'd need much
 > less deuterium and uranium than in a heavy water reactor).
 
   Hmmm.  You do know that you can buy commercial neutron sources
which work exactly this way?  (Just don't try to export them to Iraq.)
Although I think most of the commerical sources use thorium targets in
deuterium.  Of course, the end user is expected to provide the
uranium-235 or plutonium-239 for the neutrons to react with.
 
 > This sounds like pure bullshit to me.  Dollars to doughnuts that,
 > yes, all these experiments do have background radiation present.
 > You do understand that experiments in nuclear physics typically
 > subtract off background, don't you?
 
   I don't think you read what I said.  All the data I looked at had
background.  In fact in some cases, not subtracting it out correctly
led to erroneous conclusions.  I was just saying that, to me, no
difference in background between a cell containing H2O and a cell
containing D2O is an indication of an incorrect design.  If no
background is seen from the apparatus under test, why should anyone
conclude that the data--or lack of it--actually came from the
apparatus?  Due to tritium contamination, if nothing else, D2O should
show up on any sensitive detector.  And from pre-Cold Fusion
experience--and I'm sure you saw it a lot of the same thing in the
good (and bad) cold fusion work--D2O uncontaminated with tritium is
about as easy to find as the tooth fairy.
 
 > Robert, go look up the cross sections.  Do the trivial
 > calculations.  Then stop talking nonsense.
 
   The trivial calculations are easy, but we are talking about
cross-sections which are difficult or impossible to measure directly.
(The real cross-section of concern is that of PdD for gamma + D +
Pd(X) --> p + Pd(X+1) + ???.  Since there is no guarentee of a
radiation signature, you're going to have to find that proton.  But if
my hypothesis is true, those protons are very low energy.)  Anyway, I
am trying to put together a usable model which will allow some of
these parameters to be measured by inference...
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 /  MANN@YaleVM.YC /  Re: Some upcoming news
     
Originally-From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some upcoming news
Date: 11 Aug 92 00:36:05 GMT
Organization: Yale University

 
 
     Someone who knows Jed Rothwell should ask him to please post the news
release that he's distributing to the print media.  I have read it and it's
interesting and pertinent to this net.
 
Ed Manning
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenMANN cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Charles Poirier /  Gamma search question
     
Originally-From: poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gamma search question
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 02:35:54 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

If you'll pardon my grasping at the gamma-stimulated-emission straw again,
I have a quick question or two:
 
Did the people who looked for gamma radiation coming out of CF cells,
pay much attention to the area *under* the apparatus?  Cosmic-ray gammas
would be heading mostly downward, right?  If isotropic radiation was
expected, amplified gammas heading downward might easily have been missed.
 
In the same vein, is there any correlation between the *orientation* of
Pd electrodes and the time distribution of reported excess heat?
Sheets or rods held vertically would be hit less often by cosmic-ray
debris, but might generate distinct heat bursts whenever a well-aimed
gamma (or whatever) traverses the sample lengthwise.
 
        Cheers,
        Charles Poirier
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpoirier cudfnCharles cudlnPoirier cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transmuting Pd to Ag and Cd
Date: 11 Aug 92 12:02:28 GMT

Robert Eachus's claim basically comes down to the assertion
that the photoneutron cross section for deuterium increases by some
3 or 4 orders of magnitude in a metal.
 
I don't believe it for a moment.  I'd love to see a reference in
Physical Review; this would be an effect as startling as "cold fusion"
and likely worth a Nobel prize.  It would certainly be
contrary to known physics.
 
Even if we agree to swallow this, there are still fatal problems
with Eachus's idea:
 
(1) Neutrons would be generated at fairly high energy, on the
order of a MeV (as most of the gammas are well above threshold).
Fast neutron cross sections are on the order of barns, so most of
the neutrons will escape the palladium.  Remember that for 1 watt
of putative output, we should be seeing on the order of a trillion
neutrons.  Published results for "cold fusion" experiments are far
lower.
 
Perhaps Eachus would like to invoke another miracle, that magically
inflates fast neutron cross sections?
 
(2) No radioactivity is being detected, even though it should be
induced in the palladium.
 
(3) Gammas should be escaping from the cathode, even if (gag) they
are strongly absorbed there, since some gammas should be generated near
the surface.  Again, remember, 1 watt corresponds to on the order
of a trillion photons per second.
 
 
Eachus also confused photoneutrons (from (gamma,n) reactions) with
neutrons from self targeting ((d,n) reactions).  It should be quite
easy to set up an experiment in which a gamma source of known
energy and intensity bombards a deuterated metal.  The neutron yield
in this situation from self targeting should be minimal, contrary
to Eachus's claim that it would cause a background problem, because
there is no way for a gamma photon to knock a deuteron flying at
high speed (conservation of momentum forbids it).
 
The neutron generators that Eachus mentioned (in response to the
claim that his miracle would provide an easy route to plutonium
production) don't support him at all.  Commercial neutron generators
have very low efficiency, measured in the fraction of input energy
that actually comes out as neutrons.  Certainly a lot lower than
if one could make gammas preferentially disintegrate deuterons
in metals.  Also, most neutron generators are deuteron-on-deuteron,
deuteron-on-tritium devices, or alpha-on-beryllium devices, not
photonuclear sources.  A photonuclear source using deuterium in thorium
would make no sense at all; if you *did* make a photoneutron source
you'd almost certainly use a beryllium target for convenience.
 
        Paul F. Dietz
        dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Loren Petrich /  New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:34:41 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
:developed by a United States company.
 
...The
:predecessor of CSC, Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC),
:developed the unique and comprehensive model of the atomic nucleus that
:was conceived by Mr. Brightsen.
 
:The Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) provides a comprehensive explanation for
:both nuclear fission and cold fusion...
 
        And how do its predictions compare with those of "standard"
nuclear physics?
 
        Especially for the lighter nuclei?
 
        And how is CSC supposed to differ from standard nuclear
physics, anyway?
 
        Are there any papers based on CSC in reputable physics
journals?
 
        Were any ever submitted?
 
        If so, then what did the referees say?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Press Release
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:48:38 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

Hi folks,
 
In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> The new model is based on three different bound clusters of protons and
> neutrons, rather than the traditional separate proton and neutron
> composition of the atomic nucleus.
 
My my.  So all those nuclear physicists and chemists who have set up and
calculated results based on independent-nucleon nuclear shell models for
the last several decades are just flat-out *wrong*, hmm?  How interesting.
 
[...huge list of largely irrelevant "plugs" for participants in "CSC"...]
 
Mr. Rothwell, are you trying to persuade us or yourself?  In my experience
people who get overly carried away with creditials and name dropping usually
do so because they are rather insecure about their beliefs in the first
place.  More than anything else, your press release reminded me of some
forms of Creation Science literature -- the little pieces that go on and
on and on about all these *great* minds who *know* that the view they are
promulgating is RIGHT.
 
Granted your release was intended for something other than this group, it
still is astonishingly sparse on any kind of relevant details.  Would it
really have hurt you to write towards, say, at least for the minimal level
of explanation seen in general science publications as Science News?
 
Or should we take this to be just one more form of election-year politicking
-- you know, getting a "ground swell" relatively uninformed but *concerned*
citizens to proclaim by proclamation that all the nuclear scientist are
wrong, not just about cold fusion, but also about *any* nuclear reaction?
 
How quaint.  Reality by acclamation.  Mayhaps the folks who thought a dragon
was eating the sun during an eclipse were right after all?  They were, after
all, *very* convinced of the reality of said dragon by the well-written press
releases from their local chapter of the Creative Reality Astrological Party.
 
 
> Mr. Jed Rothwell ... holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Japanese Language
> and Literature ... [and] was a founder and manager of software development
> for Micro-Tel, Inc., a software company in Norcross, GA...
 
This raises a question.  How much of what you just did in the above article
have you been doing for years in Japan, shielded by the mystique of being
a supporter of a "poor, downtrodden American 'cold fusion' community?"
 
Your arguments are persuasive, Mr. Rothwell.  In fact, you've just persuaded
me to pretty well stop paying attention to ANY further news from Japan about
"cold fusion."  I for one do not place much credence on orchestrated press
releases, and you've just given me ample reason to suspect that the level of
orchestration over there is much higher than I had once thought.
 
                                Hmphs,
                                Terry Bollinger [Speaking only for myself]
 
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Terry Bollinger                            | Phone: 214-518-3538           |
| Advanced Switching Laboratory, NEC America |   Fax: 214-518-3499           |
| 1525 Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038 | Email: terry@asl.dl.nec.com   |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / John Logajan /  Quantum Leap
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Leap
Date: 11 Aug 92 03:41:54 GMT

If the net energy of D --> p + n is on the order of 2.5MeV how is it possible
for Co 60 gammas (which have been claimed to be on the order of 1.5MeV) to
"photodisintegrate" the D?
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:31:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug11.153441.7520@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
>:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
>:developed by a United States company.
>
>...The
>:predecessor of CSC, Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC),
>:developed the unique and comprehensive model of the atomic nucleus that
>:was conceived by Mr. Brightsen.
>
[questions about the theory deleted]
 
     More importantly, isn't the appellation 'CSC' going to be confusing
     in Northern Virginia?
 
                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 /  /  Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experiment Status
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 18:45:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We have "ended" the current experiment.  The long weekend was spent looking
for a better operating point.  We may have found one.  At least the first
two points look interesting.  The new operating point contains more of the
features of the Ying experiment, but still not all as that would involve
opening the calorimeter.  This means that I cannot tell you the operating
point, only the data until I get a release from Ying.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Hunches and Poor Experiments
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hunches and Poor Experiments
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 20:29:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One problem with following hunches in the design of experiments is that,
unless you have the guidance of good sense and some experience in the
field of investigation, there are too many possible avenues to be
explored.  You can p*ss away untold time and resources doing experiments
that haven't a ghost of a chance of turning up anything new or interesting.
Just because you want cold fusion to happen doesn't make it good
prospect for extensive experimentation, especially by people who aren't
able to accept NO for an answer!
 
However, if you insist of doing the experiments, it is still very
important to do things right.  Take the problem of neutron detection
at low levels and, as our current bad example, Dr. Takahashi.  There
is a clear body of established scientific fact that can not simply
be ignored, even if you believe that multibody deuteron reactions can
account for the complex pulse height spectrum as Takahashi has
proposed.  The best explaination for the spectra are that he is not
recording neutron events at all, but is rather detecting background
radiation that is predominantly gammas.  From copies of the viewgraphs
which Dr. T used in his recent presentation at MIT (provided to me by
Jed Rothwell) we can reach certain conclusions concerning the
neutron detection methods employed.
 
The key problem in detection of low-level neutron radiation is the
rejection of gamma radiation which can easily overwhelm the neutron
rate by a factor of 10^4.  The simple rejection schemes employed by
Takahashi and others are only good for about 10^2 gamma rejection
factor.  Obviously any data taken using the methods which Takahashi
employed are "highly suspect".  If the whole Japanese scientific
establishment is going off to chase the cold fusion illusion on
the basis of this quality of experimental data, it is indeed a
sad commentary of the state of science.  Hunches just don't
make for good research without a good solid grounding in established
scientific fact!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU      "I heard it with my ears and I saw it with my eyes
                 and a piece of it fell on my tail."  C. Little
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / david atkatz /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:51:32 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.153441.7520@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
 writes:
> >In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> >:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
> >:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
> >:developed by a United States company.
> >
> >...The
> >:predecessor of CSC, Nuclear Science Research Corporation (NSRC),
> >:developed the unique and comprehensive model of the atomic nucleus that
> >:was conceived by Mr. Brightsen.
> >
> [questions about the theory deleted]
>
>      More importantly, isn't the appellation 'CSC' going to be confusing
>      in Northern Virginia?
>
>                                dale bass
 
 
                I thought you southerners were partial to 'CSA'
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:05:29 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Aug11.153441.7520@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>:Vienna, Virginia - A new model of the atomic nucleus, which will
>:revolutionize a wide range of energy and materials technologies, has been
>:developed by a United States company.
>
>:The Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) provides a comprehensive explanation for
>:both nuclear fission and cold fusion...
>
>       And how do its predictions compare with those of "standard"
>nuclear physics?
>
>       Especially for the lighter nuclei?
 
There is nothing new about cluster models in nuclear physics.
 
In particular, these models are most often found to be applicable in
light nuclei where there are various observable effects that can be
classified in this way.  They do not describe *all* aspects of such
nuclei, and the progress on 'ab initio' calculations of the light
nuclei allows one to see where the approximations break down.
 
(The classic example for all students is Li-6, which looks a lot like
alpha+d and has a very large spectroscopic factor for pickup of a d.
Interestingly, it also has a very large S-factor for looking like
He-3 + H-3, and it is always interesting to ask students how it can be
that the probabilities for these two different ways of making Li-6 can
add up to more than 100%.  It requires a bit of understanding of non-
orthogonal wavefunctions to sort it out -- and helps one understand
some of the limitations of cluster models.)
 
One of my colleagues here, Don Robson, has mucked about with cluster
models for several decades and has had varying degrees of success --
particularly with his "soft" tetrahedral alpha particle as an explanation
for the level structure of C-12 and O-16.  Unfortunately, one level
predicted by this model has never been found in O-16 despite careful
and diligent searches.  The basic ideas and detailed calculations for
cluster models are well established in nuclear physics.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Nuclear Physics? (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:05:58 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <4730001@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (David
 Seghers) writes:
>>/ hpcc01:sci.physics.fusion / terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) /
  8:48 am  Aug 11, 1992 /
>>
>>My my.  So all those nuclear physicists and chemists who have set up and
>>calculated results based on independent-nucleon nuclear shell models for
>>the last several decades are just flat-out *wrong*, hmm?  How interesting.
>>
>   This has been obvious, even to a lay person such as myself, for years!
 
Then you had better check out the work of Wiringa and company at Argonne.
 
Their work is an attempt to calculate the masses of light nuclei with no
model assumptions other than a non-relativistic potential between nucleons
taken from fits to the NN data and the intrinsic limitations of their
calculational scheme.  They do a very good job of getting mass-3 and mass-4
and appear to get O-16 in their latest results.
 
The weakness of cluster models is that they must take something like the
mass of He-4 as a given and construct an effective interaction between
the He-4 and the other particles.  This is not wrong, but it is better
when the microscopic approach shows that those (sometimes arbitrary)
choices can be justified based on a more basic starting point.  The risk
of such approximations is that they are uncontrolled: you must trust your
intuition that you are not leaving out anything important, and hope that
a more complete calculation will not prove you wrong.
 
I should add that the results of microscopic calculations tend to verify
the assumptions made by cluster models (or collective models, etc) in
the domain where they have been applied.  Thus the simpler model is just
that -- simpler and more convenient to use, although limited to application
in some particular domain -- and not more correct than the microscopic
approach.  Certainly nothing new about any of this.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Press Release
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:06:19 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Aug12.142146.202345@uctvax.uct.ac.za> hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za
 (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT) writes:
>
>> Mr. Brightsen has submitted a scientific paper describing the application
>> of the NCM  to the conventional fission processes to the Journal Fusion
>> Technology.
>
>Why there?  Hey, Nuclear Physics A, no less, or Phys Rev C for
>something as far reaching and as completely successful as this!
 
Or Zeitschrift fur Phyzik, Journal of Physics G, or Nuovo Cimento
for that matter.  And start it off with a short paper in Modern
Physics Letters, etc etc etc.
 
>>  The paper has already been reviewed and praised by leading
>> experts in the nuclear energy field.
>
>How about in the nuclear physics field?
 
Actually, I *know* one of those people listed as reviewers, and another
is very respected in the field of nuclear engineering and radiation effects.
I shall have to find out what he says about it.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Keith Mancus /  Re: Press Release
     
Originally-From: mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:29:48 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug12.142146.202345@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za
 (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT) writes:
|>
|> In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jed
|> Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes: [most of which has been sent to
 the
|> electronic winds by yours truly...]
|>
|> > PRESS RELEASE  August 10, 1992
|>
|> > ... NCM Periodic Table of the Beta Stable Nuclides, and the complete
|> > explanations for thermal neutron fission characteristics, presents
|> > incontrovertible support for CSC's Nucleon Cluster Model.
 
  Could someone refer me to a readable source of the mainstream nucleon
model?  Specifically, what I want is a "Periodic Table of the Nuclides,
Orthodox Style."  I have never seen anything like this anywhere, whereas
chemical periodic tables appear even in high school texts.
 
--
| Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
|                 N5WVR                                                  |
|  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
|  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmancus cudfnKeith cudlnMancus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Hide the neutron
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hide the neutron
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:14:03 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9208120306.AA10493@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   Okay, I think I understand the "virtual neutron" idea now, and how it
   allows the process to occur even though the "trigger" energy seems
   to be insufficient (which I repeat below.)
 
   If we want to produce neutrons from D, we need a gamma of at least
   2.45 MeV.  Once we have the free neutrons, they can be captured by the
   Pd(104 in this case) and release 7.09 MeV.  The net gain is 7.09-2.45,
   or 4.64 MeV.
 
-- The figure I have been using for the mass of deuterium is 2.01410,
-- and 1.007825 for the mass of protium (1H1).  This gives 2.226 MeV
-- for the deuterium disassociation energy, which is close to the
-- "commonly accepted" value.  I also have slightly different values
-- for the Pd isotope weights, but all those are nits.
 
   A "D" which picks up kinetic energy by direct or indirect Compton
   scattering is going to be able to approach the Pd nucleus closer.
   And like a bullet shot into a tank, it is going to bounce around inside
   the lattice for a while, approaching many Pd nuclei in sequence,
   perhaps until probability smiles on it and it is captured.  (Heh,
   I can even envision a D caught between two Pd's like a ping-pong
   ball between the table top and a descending paddle board -- brrrrt.)
 
-- I like the image. :-) My analogy is that the deuterium can get
-- caught in a vice.  (There I was, surrounded by eight Palladium
-- atoms, and they were all coming after me!)  But in any case, High
-- kinetic energy and lattice vibrations seem to be the best
-- candidates for bringing things together.
 
   Under this mode of reaction, direct photodisintegration of a D into
   p + n, even if a virtual n, is not required.  Maybe we are more
   interested in the Compton scattering rather than gamma capture?
   Ehy?
 
-- I'm hedging my bets!  Seriously, any model which has enough energy
-- to slam the nucleii together by force, also leads to all sorts of
-- detectable radiation.  The combination of a squeeze and tunneling,
-- with the incident gamma energy added, has the advantage (in
-- explaining the data as well as for Mr. Fusion generators) that none
-- of the intermediates can get out.  The new nucleus has lots of
-- energy to get rid of, but it doesn't all have to come out at once.
-- Most of the energy would be released as low energy (order of 20 to
-- 50 KeV) gammas. In fact Pd107 has a beta decay half-life of seven
-- million years.
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / MIKE JAMISON /  Plasmak/Paul Koloc
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Date: 12 Aug 1992 16:47 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I hate to interrupt all these cool flames, but, what the heck :)
 
The last time someone asked Paul what he was up to, he responded that, if
all went well, they'd be testing their device sometime in August (I'm going
from memory here, I think it was August...)
 
Well, it's sometime in August, Paul, what's going on???
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / Paul Karol /  Nuclear Cluster Models
     
Originally-From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Cluster Models
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:20:51 GMT
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In all this recent discussion (euphemism) on nuclear cluster models and
a recent 'Press Release', why has no one mentioned Linus Pauling's
nuclear cluster model?  He even has a publication out in the most recent
issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which no
physicist I've spoken to ever even looks at) on an explanation of
spectra of superdeformed nuclei using his cluster model.  There are
references to other alleged successes of his model in the paper.
 
Paul Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Press Release
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:51:47 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Aug12.172948.12119@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov
 (Keith Mancus) writes:
>
>|> In article <920810212319_72240.1256_EHL49-3@CompuServe.COM>, Jed
>|> Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>|>
>|> > ... NCM Periodic Table of the Beta Stable Nuclides, and the complete
>|> > explanations for thermal neutron fission characteristics, presents
>|> > incontrovertible support for CSC's Nucleon Cluster Model.
>
>  Could someone refer me to a readable source of the mainstream nucleon
>model?  Specifically, what I want is a "Periodic Table of the Nuclides,
>Orthodox Style."  I have never seen anything like this anywhere, whereas
>chemical periodic tables appear even in high school texts.
 
These are two different questions, in my view.
 
Nuclear physicists use a "Chart of the Nuclides" to keep track of such
matters.  You do not see it in texts because it is rather large: even
with boxes 12mm on a side, the thing is about 29" by 50" and hangs on a
wall.  A booklet version exists, but is not as convenient.  (available
from General Electric Company, Nuclear Energy Operations, 175 Curtner
Avenue M/C 684, San Jose CA 95125, USA)
 
In principle, one could build a periodic table, but it would have to be
3-dimensional and would have to accomodate somehow the fact that "similar"
regions grow in size as one moves up the chart ... and the fact that the
additional degree of freedom (neutrons) complicates the physics enough
that there are few rules to rely on.  For example, N=Z closed shell
nuclei are very stable at the low end (He-4, O-16, Ca-40) but Sn-100
has yet to be seen and, if it even exists, it is at the very edge of
the valley.  The existing chart uses color to encode information on
stability and lifetime and, because of the use by reactor people,
neutron absorption cross sections and major fission branches.
 
The global pattern -- where closed shells occur and where deformation is
maximal -- can be seen in graphs of separation energies or quadrupole
moments as a function of N and Z in most introductory texts.  Sorry,
I cannot recommend one, but Enge is pretty basic and I think it has
all the requisite pictures.  Preston and Bhaduri has lots of stuff,
but you have to start looking in chapters 6 (fig. 6-3 and 6-4) and
9 (fig. 9-1 and 9-4) since they do not start with phenomenology.
Marmier and Sheldon (two volume set) cover the experimental situation
somewhat better.  See what you can find in your library.
 
The most reliable source on the mainstream model would be deShalit
and Feshbach "Theoretical Nuclear Physics, Volume 1: Nuclear Structure".
This is pretty serious stuff; however, they do introduce some key
experimental results early on, before proceeding to derive all of them.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 / John Logajan /  Co60 gamma energy
     
Originally-From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Co60 gamma energy
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:37:50 GMT

Someone sent me e-mail suggesting Co60 gammas could be 5MeV.  The CRC HCP says
two gamma versions are likely, 1.1 and 1.33 MeV.   I also checked the
before and after atomic weights of 27Co60 and 28Ni60 and the difference
amounts to about 2.82 MeV  (which the CRC also says is the decay energy)
but I had to subtract 0.511MeV for the electron mass.
 
That leaves about 2.3MeV to be divided up between the gamma, the nucleus and
the neutrino.
 
 --John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 / James White /  Periodic Table and Chart of the Nuclides (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Originally-From: bobwhite@nova.ta52.lanl.gov (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Table and Chart of the Nuclides (was Re: Press Release)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:18:34 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

Check out this bit of E-mail I received some time ago.  Happy
downloading, assuming it's still on that FTP server...
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
Originally-From: bobwhite@nova.ta52.lanl.gov (James R. White)
~ A handy-dandy Macintosh Hypercard stack I downloaded the
~ other day has a combination of the chart of the nuclides as well
~ as the periodic table.
~
~ Best I recall, I got it from the file named /info-mac/card/isotopes.hqx
~ from the Mac archives at sumex-aim.stanford.edu
~
~ Do you not read the newsgroup comp.sys.mac.digest ?  It may not be as
~ fun as rec.motorcycles, but it is a heck of a lot more useful. . .
~
~ The file contains two stacks, one of the 'chart of the nuclides', another
~ containing the periodic table, and they work together.  Really nicely done.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbobwhite cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.12 / John Logajan /  Mr. Neutron gets divorced
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mr. Neutron gets divorced
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:52:40 GMT

eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> any model which has enough energy to slam the nucleii together
> by force, also leads to all sorts of detectable radiation.
 
But nothing new is being proposed here.  This is just simple
Compton "agitation" by the incident gammas.  Even if no other
process occurs, we ought to expect the Co60 gamma rays to
knock things around a bit.  I believe you said something to
the same effect before -- the incident gammas *must* be
doing something, some secondary effects are *required* by the
situation.
 
And going to the hypothetical interaction, the "neutron exchange"
is still a "virtual" process because the input energy is
insufficient to produce a free neutron on its own accord.  The
energy is "borrowed" from the excess of the Pd neutron capture --
implying close proximity and nearly simultaneous neutron
emission and capture.
 
If I understand it, there are two ways to make tunneling more
probable.  One is to make some form of energy available so that
the reaction doesn't have to borrow as much from the Bank of
Uncertainty.  The other way is to make the tunnel very short.
 
Comptom agitation makes the tunnel short.  Is there reason to
doubt that 1-2 MeV kinetic deuterons can have nuclear relations
with Pd's?  Even if the probability is low for any given
approach, there is a heck of a lot of ricocheting going on.
(I know, for instance, that air molecules at standard temp and
pressure collide 10^9 times per second, and their kinetic
energy is in eV rather than MeV!)
 
And finally, as someone else pointed out, deuterons are oblong,
and therefore at a minimum, 50% of the time, they will approach
the Pd nucleus neutron first.  Add the repulsive force acting
only on the proton, and you have a tendency for the deuteron to
rotate neutron first toward the target Pd nucleus.
 
The deuteron neutron can get closer to the Pd than the deuteron
proton, which should enhance tunneling.  And at some optimum
kinetic input energy, should slow down, stop and reverse -- that
is, hang around for a bit before zooming off from the repulsive
force if capture didn't yet occur.
 
This deceleration force is felt by the proton and transmitted
to the neutron thru the internal nuclear forces.  But it is an
additional strain on the nucleus.  No?  Like stopping fast with
a box on the hood of your car.  The car stops but the box keeps
going.
 
The Henny Youngman nucleus -- "Take my neutron.  Please!"
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 / Colin UCT /  Re: Hide the neutron (or: billiards with feathers)
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hide the neutron (or: billiards with feathers)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:33:02 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <9208120306.AA10493@sleepy.network.com>, logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
> Okay, I think I understand the "virtual neutron" idea now, and how it
> allows the process to occur even though the "trigger" energy seems
> to be insufficient (which I repeat below.)
>
>  [ .... virtual neutron discussion .... ]
 
>
> And now for more speculation.
>
> Perhaps there is simple "mechanical" movement of D into the vicinity
> of Pd.  We know that D's can be Compton scattered directly (don't we?).
> We know they can be scattered indirectly by electric force "collisions"
> with Compton scattered electrons. [Note: Compton scattering merely
> means that the incident gamma ray induced physical movement in the
> particle, with a resultant deflected gamma with reduced energy.]
>
 
O.K.  As Paul Dietz says in a back of the envelope calculation, the
"range" of a virtual neutron will be in the order of fermis (10^-15 m)
Therefor you need pretty nearly contact between the deuterium and
palladium nuclei for the neutron to be transferred.  Essentially what you're
looking at is then the pickup reaction
 
Pd(d,p)Pd                              (1)
 
Now the threshold for the T(d,n)4He reaction is some 20 keV. I guess
it's pretty similar for the D(d,n)3He reaction.  The threshold for the
deuteron on palladium is going to be up by the order of Z (=46) for
palladium.  That's because the threshold arises largely from coulomb barrier
penetration requirements.
 
So by BOTE calc, threshold for reaction (1) is of the order of 1 MeV.
Sorry if this is flogging a dead horse, but that's point (1)
 
Now for Compton scattering, the other runner in this two horse race.
 
 
The photon wavelength shift is given by:
 
lambda1 - lambda0 = h/mc(1-cos(theta)), where
 
lambda1 is the scattered wavelength, lambda0 is the initial photon
wlngth, m is the mass of the particle the photon scatters off, and
theta is the angle of scattering.
 
Converting to energies, and taking the maximum energy transfer at
theta=90 deg, i.e. cos(theta)=0, we have:
 
hc/E1 - hc/E0 = h/mc
 
or
 
1/E1 - 1/E0 = 1/mc^2
 
For a deuteron, mass m = 1880 odd MeV/c^2, and a E0 = 1.5 MeV gamma,
the new gamma energy E1 will be 1.4988 MeV, i.e. the deuteron will be
given about 1 keV AT MOST, which is insignificant, even for d,d
fusion. So, forget Compton scattering as a mechanism. Nice idea,
though.
 
> And like a bullet shot into a tank, it is going to bounce around inside
 
more like a balloon flung by a kid :-)
 
> the lattice for a while, approaching many Pd nuclei in sequence,
> perhaps until probability smiles on it and it is captured.  (Heh,
> I can even envision a D caught between two Pd's like a ping-pong
> ball between the table top and a descending paddle board -- brrrrt.)
 
It will lose energy very fast due to collisions with electrons.
 [delete "brrrrt" and insert farting noise :-)]
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 /  /  CSC
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CSC
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:17:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ed Manning writes: Someone who knows Jed Rothwell should ask him to please
post the news release that he's distribution to the print media. ... "
 
Jed, I assume that those stockholders with Esq. behind their name have told
you what you can and cannot publish.
 
The only purpose that I can see to collect that list of people is in
preparation for a public offering.  Please put me on your "red herring"
list Jed.  The "News Release" reads like it was taken from a prospectus.
My guess is that the SEC does not have rules yet for publication on
electronic news media.  But be careful Jed, you do not want to screw up
the offering, or go to jail.
 
Back in the late 50's when I was at NADC Johnsville, one of my collegues
bought a nearly defunct meat packing firm, renamed it "Consollodated
Missiletronics" and took it public.  Lived off the proceeds for a few
years.  Another friend was one of the founders of Varian Ass.  So you
never know which "flier" will take off.  Those were exciting times.  My
own effort "Stony Brook Laboratories Inc." (Named after a creek in Princeton
N.J.) lasted a few years and taught me a lot.  So good luck to Jed, Gene,
and Co.  May the 90's be as exciting as the 50's.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 /  BUCK@cebaf.gov /  NUCLEON CLUSTER MODEL
     
Originally-From: BUCK@cebaf.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NUCLEON CLUSTER MODEL
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:52:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

TO THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY
 
 
In a recent press release, I discovered that my name was listed as a Supporter
of the Nucleon Cluster Model put forth by Clustron Sciences, Corp.  No
permission to use my name in that press release was given.  I am demanding that
a retraction be made and printed.
 
Furthermore, any use of my name in association with the Nucleon Cluster Model
or with the Clustron Sciences, Corp. is unauthorized.
 
 
Warren W. Buck
Professor of Physics
Hampton University
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBUCK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 /  /  A Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:01:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says: "One problem with following hunches in the design of
experiments is that, unless you have the guidance of good sense and some
experience in the field of investigation, there are too many possible avenues
to be explored."
 
In other words, do what was successful last year.  Build a Cosmotron - that
was a great machine.  Build a Bevatron - and find the anti-proton.  Now build
the AGS, then CERN, then Fermilab, and then the SSC.  (I have skipped machines
like the PPA and the ZGS that were not even on the track that Dick Blue would
follow.)  It does not take a wizard with a slide rule and APS journals to
figure out that productivity has decreased with each machine.  Measure it any
way you want, per new particle, per new idea, per technical paper, per
machine, per dollar, per student.  I think that similar things could be said
about the plasma machines, but I have not followed them as closely.  The
really great and high productivity work was done by Lawrence, Wilson & Co
building cyclotrons.  There was a lot of criticism at the time from the then
main line researchers about supporting this research with no "experience"
behind it.
 
As an exercise to the student, take any famous old building in your city that
is considered a "treasure" today.  Go back and look at the newspapers of the
day and see how it was received.  Take, for example, the Eiffel Tower.  It was
considered an ugly blotch on the Paris landscape when it was built.  The
reactionaries always oppose the new and different just because it is new and
therefore painful.
 
At some point, it is time to recognize that one should quit following last
decades path and to go out and try something new.  Anything!
 
Then Dick says: "You can p*ss away untold time and resources doing experiments
that haven't a ghost of a chance of turning up anything new or interesting."
 
I think that is what we are doing now Dick, with the SSC and the big plasma
machine.
 
Dick further says: "Just because you want cold fusion to happen doesn't make
it good prospect for extensive experimentation, especially by people who
aren't able to accept NO for an answer!"
 
Drudges who grind down the same old path adding one digit to the measurement
are useful to people like me that want to look up constants in a handbook.
But they are not of much use in exploring new territory.  Columbus ( who
somehow is no longer PC ) did not take "NO" for an answer.  It *is* true that
a lot of explorers get lost and are never heard from again.  We know the risk
we are taking.
 
But I tend to agree with Dick's specific criticism.  Dick says Takahashi does
not make a good neutron measurement.  I don't think too much of the heat
measurement.  That does not leave much for the Japanese government to invest
big Yen.  But replications seem to be coming in so either they are fooling
each other or something is there.
 
I agree with Dick.  (Putting words in his mouth!)  The government should only
fund research where the results can be guaranteed.  Those of you able to
figure out the meaning of research will be able to figure out how much money
the government spends by this rule.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 / Chuck Sites /  Deterium Resonance
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deterium Resonance
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:05:11 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

   The past couple of weeks have been a learning experience for me
because of the discussions on Ying and the the D + gamma interaction.
The focus has been that one interaction "D + gamma" and after considering
all the comments by this group, it seems like another tract must
be pursued.  I think the approach Robert Euchus is following is quite
interesting.  Paul Dietz's comments about the gamma+D cross section
are important too, however, I would like to point out, in response to
Paul, that cross sections for interaction are inherently dependent
on the energy of the interacting particles.  The only real way to
show that PdD(x) is no different from D2 with respect to a gamma+D
cross section is by experiment.  Right now, I don't know anyone
that has done that type of systematic study.
 
   My initial concept of the low energy gamma D interaction
was one of a low energy S to D state being stimulated by gamma.
Pure singlet to triplet state parity transition causing and enhancement
of the exchange potential.  The deeper one looks at the D+gamma interaction,
the deeper one is pushed into QED and high energy meson theory, for
guidance.  But then this may be a forest from the trees problem.
 
   In that vain, we know D+gamma must interact by means of electric and
magnetic moments.  The D nucleus is cigar shaped, and that appears in
scattering experiments, as the quadrupole moment. It is only the proton
within the D nuclei that has an electric moment.  So any low energy
(E<B) gamma absorption must deal with this.  However,  both n & p react
to the magnetic moment, thus to effect the nuclear exchange between the
two, the E/M wave has to be in phase with the moments of the pair.  Low
energy neutron scattering off the protons becomes important to the model
here, because ultra-low momentum energy neutrons interact with protons
by giving off gamma at 2.224MeV.  (See F.Close & D.Blue comments on
the P&F gamma spectrum a month or so back).  What this implies, is that
for the reverse to occur is the energy of the absorbed gamma must be
2.224MeV or greater for the reverse to occur.  I agree totally with that
contention.  From reading, I gather the maximum cross section for
D + gamma -> p + n occurs at close to twice that value 4.6MeV.
 
   My bit of speculation evolved around, whether there are states
in a deuteron, where gamma of (E<B) could excite a below (B = binding
energy) strong force interaction state change.  Basically in the standard
nuclear model, with D and gamma, it's all or nothing for a gamma initiated
strong force state change as J. Carr and others have pointed out. Still
I'm left wondering if there may be pertribation in the D (E<B) state, if
one considers the gamma could effect the nuclear exchange force directly.
For example, if the pion, has even the smallest magnetic or electric moment,
it might allow for an (E<B) D* state.  Also let us not forget the DeBrogle
in all this. In low momentum high energy interacting systems, like a
n -pion- p nucleus, charge can exchange. Even in quantumness, time
is important, as the coincidence of an interaction is probabilistic.
So if the electric dipole moment is exchanged with the pi meson and
happens to be caught in the exchange by a gamma, some interesting
interactions might take place.
 
   The other possibility is that a gamma doesn't stimulate a single D
by itself, but interacts with the pair.  This would be like a dipole
resonance.  Unlike D2 gas, PdD(x) has some geometrical aspects that
may allow for such a scheme.  That is, while D in Pd is pretty mobile,
it's constrained to certain directions of mobility by the lattice.
Because electron-gamma interactions are at best a small pertribation
to the overall gamma energy, there is no problem with gamma reaching
the pair. However there is the question of how strongly a D dipole
would interact and how the paired exchange forces react to the
instantaneous oscillation of a photon D pair impact.  Actually a full
description would probably require QED to describe the initial
dynamics, but then a good approximation might be had with normal
EM.  Also, if there are components of the exchange force that couple
to such a paired transition it may be do-able.  Conceptually
this would be like microwave oven, the glass cup doesn't get hot,
but the water does.
 
   Obviously, someone needs to put a good sintilation spectrometer
next to a Ying cell.  If nothing more than to satisfy this groups
curiosity ;-).
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Two other things unrelated to the above.
 
  1st.  Frank Close has a nice review of Huizenga's book in the July
23 issue Nature.  Way to go Frank!  As a TB, I may argue against some
of your positions, but I won't argue with your history of CF.
 
 2nd.  If you get a chance, see the movie "Mind Walk".  It is nothing
short of a terrific argument between a physicist, a politician, and
poet.  The physicist's argument was one of the best descriptions of
QM I've heard. The poet wasn't bad either.  Scale: weak to awesome.
Word: Awesome.
 
 
Have fun,
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Mr. Neutron gets divorced
     
Originally-From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mr. Neutron gets divorced
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:02:26 GMT

In article <9208122352.AA10587@sleepy.network.com>, logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
 |> Comptom agitation makes the tunnel short.  Is there reason to
 |> doubt that 1-2 MeV kinetic deuterons can have nuclear relations
 |> with Pd's?  Even if the probability is low for any given
 |> approach, there is a heck of a lot of ricocheting going on.
 |> (I know, for instance, that air molecules at standard temp and
 |> pressure collide 10^9 times per second, and their kinetic
 |> energy is in eV rather than MeV!)
 
 
Wrong.  There is not a "heck of a lot of ricochetting" going
on.  The behavior of an energetic deuteron in solid materials
is to lose energy very rapidly to ionization.  The chance
the deuteron comes close to a Pd nucleus is quite small.
 
Also, the maximum energy a deuteron could get from elastic
scattering of a (say) 1 MeV gamma is only about 300 eV -- and
that only if the gamma is reflected 180 degrees.  Electrons get
much more energy, but then electrons are much less massive.
 
Please, use common sense: if "ricochetting" deuterons had some
massive effect, wouldn't that have been seen years ago when people
starting bombarding things with deuteron beams?
 
 
 |> And finally, as someone else pointed out, deuterons are oblong,
 |> and therefore at a minimum, 50% of the time, they will approach
 |> the Pd nucleus neutron first.  Add the repulsive force acting
 |> only on the proton, and you have a tendency for the deuteron to
 |> rotate neutron first toward the target Pd nucleus.
 
Yippy. You gain a whole 3 or 4 fermis (10^-5 angstroms) this way.
Utterly negligible.  The last 3 or 4 fermis is not the problem!
 
I also want to add a correction to another misconception: the fact
that a neutron would liberate energy upon reaching the palladium
nucleus does not make it (much) easier for the neutron to tunnel
into the palladium.  Go look at the equations -- the exponential
term depends mainly on the height of the barrier, not on the depth
of the "hole" at the end.  In the case of this supposed neutron tunneling,
the integrated barrier is (for all but gammas very close to
threshold) *higher* than the barrier for direct cold D-D fusion (which, as
we all know, is calculated to be negligible).
 
Finally: it hasn't been explained why we wouldn't see the capture
gammas.  There's no obvious reason why the proton should get the
energy liberated by the neutron capture.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.13 / Paul Houle /  Re: Nuclear Cluster Models
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Cluster Models
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:03:00 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <geWL_Xy00UzxM3aJoR@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
 writes:
>In all this recent discussion (euphemism) on nuclear cluster models and
>a recent 'Press Release', why has no one mentioned Linus Pauling's
>nuclear cluster model?  He even has a publication out in the most recent
>issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which no
>physicist I've spoken to ever even looks at) on an explanation of
>spectra of superdeformed nuclei using his cluster model.  There are
>references to other alleged successes of his model in the paper.
 
	I really don't see why people are getting all steamed up about this.
Hundreds of bogus technology companies pop up all the time,  and hundreds of
them disappear.  These people aren't a threat to science,  since science
is self-correcting.  If they can do some reproducable experiments to show
that their model is good,  then they will be taken seriously.  If they
can't,  then they won't.  It might take quite a while for the truth to
come out,  but it will come out.
 
	Similarly,  so far as engineering goes,  if they can actually build
some useful devices on the basis of this theory,  then people will take them
seriously.  If not,  they will fade away.  The only real danger is that
many people who invest in companies like this lose money.  Some of these
people are honest and clueless,  but some of them are con artists.
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 / Ron Peterson /  Re: NUCLEON CLUSTER MODEL
     
Originally-From: ron@vicorp.com (Ron Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NUCLEON CLUSTER MODEL
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:39:49 GMT
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts

In article <01GNJGPVYVZC99E3H8@cebaf.gov> BUCK@cebaf.gov writes:
>TO THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY
>
>
>In a recent press release, I discovered that my name was listed as a Supporter
>of the Nucleon Cluster Model put forth by Clustron Sciences, Corp.  No
>permission to use my name in that press release was given.  I am demanding that
>a retraction be made and printed.
>
>Furthermore, any use of my name in association with the Nucleon Cluster Model
>or with the Clustron Sciences, Corp. is unauthorized.
>
>
>Warren W. Buck
>Professor of Physics
>Hampton University
 
Perhaps you would comment on what you know (if you know) of their model
or their claims of revolutionizing energy and materials science?  I'd be
interested to know your opinion.
ron@vicorp.com or uunet!vicorp!ron
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenron cudfnRon cudlnPeterson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 / Timothy Balraj /  Re: Periodic Table and Chart of the Nuclides (was Re: Press Release)
     
Originally-From: balraj@cs.columbia.edu (Timothy S Balraj)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Periodic Table and Chart of the Nuclides (was Re: Press Release)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:48:47 GMT
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

>From: bobwhite@nova.ta52.lanl.gov (James R. White)
>~ A handy-dandy Macintosh Hypercard stack I downloaded the
>~ other day has a combination of the chart of the nuclides as well
>~ as the periodic table.
>~
>~ Best I recall, I got it from the file named /info-mac/card/isotopes.hqx
>~ from the Mac archives at sumex-aim.stanford.edu
>~
>~ The file contains two stacks, one of the 'chart of the nuclides', another
>~ containing the periodic table, and they work together.  Really nicely done.
 
The stacks are not on sumex, but are available by anonymous ftp from
mac.archive.umich.edu in the directory mac/misc/chemistry.  There are two
similarily named files --- the one you want is called isotopes1.3.cpt.hqx. The
other one (isotope1.61) is a completely different program (an isotope pattern
calculator).
 
The stacks are "semi-freeware" written by John G. Cramer, Physics Prof at
U of Washington.
 
tsb
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbalraj cudfnTimothy cudlnBalraj cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Crazy Hunches
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crazy Hunches
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:13:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Attn: Tom Droege.  Tom you have badly misinterpreted my earlier post
about hunches.  There is a very broad choice of pathes to follow and
continuing to plod on down the same old familiar one is only one of
the options.  I did not say that is the only correct choice!  What I
said was that just crashing off through the woods in any direction
is not automatically the right thing to do either!  To comment on
your research specifically, I commend you for your efforts in tracking
down and correcting the problems with calorimetry on the Pd + D2O
system.  You have shown that neither Takahashi nor Ying have worked
any real magic.  As long as your having fun, stick with it, but on
the larger scale we all should be a bit more cautious about accepting
at face value everything the "Crazies" out there have been throwing
down the wire.  Today we hear the notion that extra gammas and/or
alphas will turn the trick.  Then comes some new corporate cluster
model, and don't forget the incredible shrinking hydrogen atoms.
Maybe tomorrow someone will ask you to hang a quartz crytal around
your calorimeter, or operate only when the astrological signs are
most favorable.  I just suggest that rational thought still has to
play some role in the screening of suggestions for experiments before
you spend a dime, whether it is your own or the tax payers.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Nuclear Facts and Fancies
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Facts and Fancies
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:13:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There have been in recent days a number of questions about nuclear physics
that have been left hanging or incorrectly answered.  Let me take a
shot at a few of them.
 
1) Nuclear shell model.  To clearify some of the most basic questions
on this forum you need to know only the first few shells.  They go as
follows: 1s1/2, 1p3/2, 1p1/2 and then the sd shell which includes
2s1/2, 1d5/2, 1d3/2.  To read this the first integer is the principle
quantum number, s indicates orbital angular momentum 0, p for 1, d for 2.
The fraction following the letter gives the total angular momentum
resulting from a combination of the orbital part and the spin which is
always 1/2.  In each orbit you can put up to 2j + 1 protons and 2j + 1
neutrons to completely fill a shell.  4He fills the first shell and that
makes a darn tight package.  Putting a 5th nucleon into next shell
or moving a nucleon up from the s shell takes lots of energy, and in
neither case can you form a bound system.  12C fills the 1p3/2 and
16O fills the 1p1/2.  If someone tries to sell you stock in a company
that is going to replace the shell model by a cluster model, demand
that they show their wares!
 
2)Gamma cross sections.  Robert Eachus seems a bit confused on this
question.  The first generalization is that a cross section is a
cross section and it is independent of the matrix in which the
nucleous is located.  That is true for nuclear processes unless some
very specific special conditions are satisfied, and MeV photons on
deuterons in a Pd lattice don't meet the conditions required for
coherent scattering.
 
3)Lattice vibration energies and nuclear reactions.  Thermal
energies at room temperature are in the electron volt energy range.
It takes several 10s of kiloelectron volts before much happens
by way of nuclear reactions.
 
4)Virtual neutrons.  The distances over which virtual particles can
roam decrease with increasing mass so when two nuclei exchange
their virtue, its photons first and pions next.  By the time neutrons
get involved its too late to coverup what has been going on.  One
of the nuclei will already have made an ash of itself.
 
5)Corporate Clusters.  Throughout the cold fusion era there has been
a tendency to use the words "nuclear model" and/or "theory" in a
very loose manner.  A few scribbles on the back of an envelope do
not constitute a proper theory of nuclear physics any more than
the plastic parts you can buy at the dime store will allow you to
construct a "model" of the space shuttle.  The recent press release
concerning the formation of a corporation to manufacture nuclear
models was loaded with lots of hype and extremely short on hard facts.
I am glad to see Warren Buck's disclaimer as to his connection to
this outfit.  Whether this is a legit business enterprise is not
for me to say, but I will say they haven't produced a legitimate
nuclear cluster model until they have shown a real calculation
which fits some real experimental data.  For the record Linus
Pauling's efforts in this area weren't so great either.  Having
won Nobel Prizes doesn't make one the universal genius.  And
having discovered an obscure isotope 40 years ago does not make
one a nuclear theorist.  Have any of these people associated
with this new CSC done any nuclear physics lately?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:43:28 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

To the community following cold fusion:
I have been asked about recent publications (Dieter Britz).  Proceedings of the
Provo meeting on "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems" is
published by the American Institute of Physics as Proceedings No. 228,
published in 1991.  Approx. 1000 pages.  A few copies are available from BYU
at $68 each, or the book can be ordered from AIP.  BYU fusion group members
contributed to 5 papers, including work on neutron and charged particle
emissions and on the geological cold fusion hypothesis.  Papers by Menlove,
Takahashi, Claytor, Miley, Chambers & Hubler & Grabowski, Wolf, Meyerhof,
Cecil, Golubnichyi, Celani, Anderson and others are included:  about 70
contributed papers are published in the AIP book.  Editors are S.E. Jones,
F. Scaramuzzi and D. Worledge.
I have 1991 publications regarding cold fusion also in
Fusion Technology, 20:915-923 (Dec 1991)
Proc. Int. Conf on Surface Modification of Metals by Ion Beams.
 
The Kamiokande experiments were also asked about.  It is not true that
"no neutrons were seen" in the experiments.  It is unfortunate that such
rumors are spread prior to publication on this net.  My response is that
a master's thesis with great detail regarding the experiment including results
will soon be distributed, pending approval by the collaboration.  Then
interested persons may review the data for themselves.  I will also be speaking
on Kamiokande and recent BYU results next week at the IUPAC meeting in Park
City, Utah, and later at the cold fusion conference in Nagoya.  Results have
already been presented at scientific meetings by myself (e.g., Uppsala, Sweden
in June 1992) and by Japanese colleagues.  We have avoided press releases.  We
are trying to go through normal scientific channels.  A paper will be submitted
for peer review about November, according to our plan.
 
Finally, BYU now has nice neutron and gamma detectors operating in a 110-m deep
tunnel in the Wasatch mountains.  There is some interest here in possible
neutron emissions from cement prepared with D2O, which cannot be explained by
photodisintegration due to gammas from daughters of the U or Th chains, for
example.  We are still (after some 8 months) looking for a conventional
explanation for the energetic neutrons.  So far, no conventional explanations
account for the magnitude nor the time dependence of observed emissions.  The
idea comes from the notion of geological cold fusion, since hydration reactions
occur both in setting cement and in the earth.  We're still having fun with
this, but quietly and with essentially no funding outside the university.
 
I read the net only occasionally, but hope that the BYU work will not be
totally forgotten.
 
Sincerely,
 
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, BYU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Nuclear Cluster Models
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Cluster Models
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:18:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug13.160300.611@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>	I really don't see why people are getting all steamed up about this.
>Hundreds of bogus technology companies pop up all the time,  and hundreds of
>them disappear.  These people aren't a threat to science,  since science
>is self-correcting.
 
Yeh, in San Francisco there was even a company founded on the
premise that you could chose winning stocks by using
parapsychology. You know about how lucky they were. :-)
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.14 / Edgar Swank /  Reply to WSJ Post
     
Originally-From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to WSJ Post
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:28:26 PDT
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

I copied the post about the WSJ article from bsherman@genome.lbl.gov
(Brad Sherman) to the RIME Science Conference. The following comment
was posted by DAVE BOONE:
=====================================================================
     It's interesting to note that a few weeks ago there was a news
     report that Dr. Pons had contacted the University of Utah in
     an attempt to buy some of the patent rights the university had
     filed when CF was a hot topic.  The university reportedly
     declined the offer.  The university spent $5 million tax
     dollars researching CF.
 
--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedgar cudfnEdgar cudlnSwank cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.15 /  Rothwell /  Home from war
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Home from war
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:11:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Greetings everyone. I am home for the weekend on R&R. Starting a company
is tough business. Thirteen years ago, I swore I would never do it again,
yet here I am. (Maybe I am a masochist?)
 
Some people have asked that I upload the two papers we submitted to
Fusion Technology. I would love to do that, but unfortunately, the main
paper is full of graphs, tables, superscripts and subscripts. Also it is
not in electronic form. So I am stuck having to mail it and fax it. We
made 200 copies of each and we have no objection whatsoever to people
passing them.
 
Here are the abstracts. If anyone wants a copy, please contact me.
Unfortunately, I have been completely out of touch in Washington, because
I cannot access E-Mail there. I feel like I have fallen down a well. I
think the telephone lines are now installed and enabled, and I bought yet
another portable computer. This one speaks English, my other one is pure
Japanese.
 
I will try to address some of the other comments and concerns raised
here, but I am in a mad rush, trying to do 60 zillion other things, as I
am sure you can imagine. On top of everything else, my car is busted and
they can't find anything wrong with it, except it won't go over 50 mph
uphill. They suggested I take it back and see if the problem has gone
away. These auto mechanics have a strange sense of humor.
 
I have not had time to read the E-Mail properly, but I think nobody here
mentioned the interesting little Science magazine article "A Yen For Cold
Fusion" I think it was.
 
 
PRE-PUBLICATION COPY
 
"The Nucleon Cluster Model and Thermal Neutron Fission"
 
Completed December 31, 1989
 
Revised March 22, 1990
 
SUBMITTED TO FUSION TECHNOLOGY, August 7, 1992
 
 
THE NUCLEON CLUSTER MODEL AND THERMAL NEUTRON FISSION
 
R.A. Brightsen, Clustron Sciences Corporation (CSC), Vienna, Virginia and
L.C. Washington, Mathematics Department, University of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland
 
NEW PHONE NUMBERS (previously listed ones at Venture America also work):
 
Tel: 703-827-4064
Fax: 703-827-4066
ABSTRACT
 
          Utilizing a new Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) of the nucleus, the
overall nature of which is summarized herein, the process of thermal
neutron fission is described. Know experimental results are explained and
quantified. Using the NCM, fission yield curves, the average number of
prompt neutrons per fission (v) and the emission of light charged particles
(LCP) are all derived. The quantitative relationships presented provide an
excellent fit to well-know data and systematically describe a framework for
the fission process. The Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) suggests that fission
takes place in four modes. This paper describes the light and heavy
fragments for each fission mode, as well as their unique and systematic
prompt neutron and light charge particle yields. Well established
experimental results for thermal neutron fission of U-235, as well as U-
233, Pu-239 and Pu-241, are accurately reproduced for the first time since
fission was discovered in 1939. These results provide support for the
validity of the Nucleon Cluster Model.
 
 
"Explanation of Cold Fusion Reactions Based on the Nucleon Cluster Model
(NCM)
 
by Ronald A. Brightsen and Eugene F. Mallove
Clustron Sciences Corporation
8230 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, VA  22182
 
ABSTRACT
 
     The applicability of the Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) to explaining
cold fusion is described, including a brief synopsis of the path that
author R.A. Brightsen followed after successfully applying the NCM to
earlier nuclear issues, such as the selection rules for beta stability of
isotopes and the precise characteristics of thermal neutron fission.  The
three most significant features of the NCM Cold Fusion Model are: (1) Its
ability to provide a unified explanation for excess heat of nuclear origin
in both dominantly D2O and dominantly H2O electrochemical cells; (2) Its
ability to explain observed reaction products: neutrons, tritium, and
helium; (3) Its ability to explain why nuclear reaction end products
commensurate with observed excess heat have not been found inside cold
fusion cells.  The explanation lies in the unsuspected structure of the
proton, which is required by the Nucleon Cluster Model of the nucleus as
the bridge between matter and antimatter.  The implications of this
realization will have profound significance for much of physics, chemistry,
and a host of power generation and other technologies.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.16 /  /  We are all Crazies on this Bus
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: We are all Crazies on this Bus
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 07:29:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says "Tom you have badly misinterpreted my earlier post about
hunches."   Yes, Dick, it was intentional exaggeration.  Forgive me.  I
thought my "putting words in his mouth" made that clear.  All done in what I
hope is good fun.  I respect Dick as a reasonable skeptic who will not go to
his grave clinging to his old ideas if we somehow find some new phenomena.
Have I noticed a softening of your tone lately Dick?
 
The good thing about experience is that it guides you to the next experiment.
The bad thing about experience is that it tends to prevent you from trying off
the wall ideas.  All this was started by P&F's off the wall idea.
 
For some reason, everyone sends me their theory papers.  I have a great stack
of them.  Just tossed the NCM model on the stack.  Name a particle and I can
give you a paper which uses it to explain "cold fusion".  I think there is
even one which used the sigma-.  Only two so far (besides P&F) have proposed
clear cut experiments.  One was Mills.  I was able to try a confirmation of
the heat and to look for the incredible shrinking hydrogen.  The second was
Ying.  So far I have only attempted "pseudo Ying" but it is beginning to look
like there might be something to look at.
 
I agree very much with Dick's comment about screening the "Crazies" ideas
before attempting replication.  What I tend to look for in the claims is an
unexpected result that would be at least one step away from a direct fake.  I
look for them to tell me something in the course of the discussion that is
unimportant to them but which does not match my ideas of the real world.  With
Ying that turned out to be the "hot ring" and "burned out geiger counter"
incident.  (I defy anyone to burn out a portable geiger counter at a distance
of a few feet with less than about 10 cu ft of high power electronics.)  When
I talked to him about these events, he was either an excellent actor playing a
naive theorist experimenter, or he was describing something very strange.
Since he checks out as a normal local businessman, it is hard to find where
his pay off might be by lying.  When I asked him for his explanation according
to his theory, he described high energy gammas pair producing and cascading
down to microwave photons.  I was quick to tell him that his theory was either
wrong, or he was dead.  My judgement was that he was not "setting me up".
Since the results were strange and it was not too hard to try (at least part
of) the experiment, I am doing "pseudo Ying".
 
On the other hand, my eyes are open.  So far we have a melted palladium cube,
an exploding calorimeter, a hot watch, a burned out geiger counter, a melted
cell, and the fantastic Brown's gas which requires less energy to produce than
it generates when burned, and which cuts Tungsten like butter.  All brought to
us by the actors in this little game.
 
It appears that Ying and Shults have had a falling out.  My brother, who was
active in the early days of the semiconductor industry, notes that whenever
something new is discovered the participants quickly fly apart and form new
companies.  I guess this is a plus for the Ying work.
 
So Dick, keep being a skeptic.  But it will be hard work.  It is already hard
for me to find anything wrong with McKubre.  You will soon have to explain my
tick-tock data if you want to maintain your skeptic qualifications.  There are
those "true believers" who seem to take the slightest hint of a positive
result out of context and use it to claim a government conspiracy.  I need to
be able to describe what I measure without having it "prove" anything.  We
need you.
 
My position is that it is worth while to make difficult measurements.  This
"anomalous heat" flap is just an excuse to try out a new kind of measurement
device.  High energy physics, (and hot fusion, I believe) have become so
complex that development of new instrumentation requires tens of years,
hundreds of researchers, and countless meetings.  This is not my idea of fun.
My beliefs are confirmed by a mid five figure retainer (most of which has gone
to patent attorneys) and two patents so far.  Just because I have tried to
make a new kind of measurement.  You could study the patents for days and not
be able to tie them to "cold fusion" in any way.  Hard work making difficult
measurements produces strange jumps of intellect which don't happen unless you
wander off the beaten path.
 
I have not gone "crashing off through the woods" - quite.  My thesis was that
if various researchers from time to time see heat in in large quantities, then
perhaps it is there all the time in very small quantities.  If this is true,
then a very sensitive apparatus will allow one to figure out how to change
conditions to locate the high power operating point.  Of course, if it is a
threshold effect, then I loose.
 
Dick, I never got into quartz crystals.  Did do an experiment involving two
containers of yogurt, an EEG, and warm milk though.  Also built some very good
lie detectors and attached them to plants.  Please consider that doing strange
experiments does not make one a "nut".  That requires claiming results from
bad experiments.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.16 /  Rothwell /  Sincere Apology from Clustron
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sincere Apology from Clustron
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:46:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dr. Warren Buck comments:
 
"In a recent press release, I discovered that my name was listed as a
Supporter of the Nucleon Cluster Model put forth by Clustron Sciences, Corp.
No permission to use my name in that press release was given.  I am demanding
that a retraction be made and printed.
 
Furthermore, any use of my name in association with the Nucleon Cluster Model
or with the Clustron Sciences, Corp. is unauthorized."
 
Dr. Brightsen and the rest of us at Clustron Sciences would like to apologize
to Dr. Buck. We are anxious to retract that part of our statement immediately.
Apparently, we got our signals crossed and we failed to contact him properly
before issuing the release. Naturally, we would never have mentioned his name
if we had know it would upset him, and give us a poor scientific reference!
 
Let me briefly explain Dr. Buck's role in this, because I want to make it
clear that he had no role whatsoever in the controversial "cold fusion" aspect
of the NCM; he had no knowledge that the NCM has been recently expanded to
explain cold fusion; and no knowledge of Clustron Sciences (because we
mistakenly failed to contact him in time).
 
Dr. Buck reviewed the NCM model in an earlier stage of it's development, in
the mid-80's, long before cold fusion came onto the scene. At that time he
made valuable and encouraging comments about the work. When we issued the
press release, we felt that we should honor his help and moral support, just
as we acknowledge and thank EPRI for the three year grant that made the work
possible during that period. Many years ago, Dr. Buck was enthusiastic about
the NCM as it existed then; but of course, that does not mean that he approves
of the present model at all, or the cold fusion extensions to the model. We
did not mean to imply that he did; we are very sorry we gave that impression.
Please remember that the NCM covers much more than just cold fusion. We hope
that the less controversial parts of it will continue to garner the support of
the scientific community, regardless of the fate of the cold fusion
extensions. We acknowledge that the model might turn out to be correct in the
aspects that Dr. Buck and others reviewed, and incorrect as an explanation for
cold fusion.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.17 / John Logajan /  News of the weird
     
Originally-From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News of the weird
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:24:56 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>You [Blue] will soon have to explain my tick-tock data if you want to
>maintain your skeptic qualifications.
 
Hoping you resume publishing your on-going data.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.17 / Dan Hoey /  Fleischmann interview in JIR
     
Originally-From: hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann interview in JIR
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:59:43 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

The latest issue of the Journal of Irreproducible Results has an
interview in which Martin Fleischmann comments on the recent rumors.
I could try to excerpt it if there is interest, though it's somewhat
difficult to find a happy medium between giving enough detail to give
you the idea of it and copying the entire article.
 
Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhoey cudfnDan cudlnHoey cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.17 /  /  Status of new experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of new experiment
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:47:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a new pseudo Ying experiment - status 17 August 92.
 
We are running with alternate application of the 2 micro curie 60Co source on
a 24 hour interval.  This is the same cell as previously run, but we are
operating on more of a Ying profile.  Sorry, we can not yet tell the details.
However, previous calibrations would indicate that the calorimeter electronic
measurement should be very stable under this type of operation.  There would
still be a correction due to ambient temperature and cooling water
temperature, see below.
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts
 
1   On      85320       23.7      1992.8        50          0.0234
2   Off     86280       24.0      1600.9        50          0.0186
3   On      86400       24.0      2657.8        50          0.0308
4   Off     86830       24.1      2323.3        50          0.0268
5   On      86330       24.0      1992.4        50          0.0231
6   Off     86040       23.9       106.3        50          0.0012
7   On      86400       24.0      1792.6        50          0.0207
8   Off     86400       24.0      2873.7        50          0.0333
 
As weather patterns change there is a contribution from the various
temperature control systems in my house.  Normally at this time of year, we
could count on continuous air conditioning.  But this seems to be a more than
usual abnormal year.  Jennifer even turned the furnace on between point 7 and
8.  For various reasons, I decided not to try to control the situation, but
just let the house conditions go where Jennifer and the weather take them.  If
I interfere, I might try to introduce a favorable bias.  The difference
between on-line and off-line calibration is about a 10 mw rms weather
variation.  If we run long enough, a real trend should show up in spite of the
variations due to weather, even in the raw data as above.
 
I do notice that we seem to be accumulating more joules when the source is in
than when out, and point 9 is unlikely to change that trend.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.17 /  /  Brigsten, Mallove Fusion Technology Draft.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brigsten, Mallove Fusion Technology Draft.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:47:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell sent me a copy of the Brigsten-Mallove Fusion Technology Paper.
They have obviously been given the word, as the abstract recently posted has
been cleaned up from the version I have.  My version reads like an MIT press
release.
 
There is not much content in the paper.  But one thing is amazing.  They
claim that we don't see the 3He and 4He products is that they come off at
"ranging up to 5.59 Gev" very high energy.  That's 5590000000 ev folks!
 
The claim is that the heat seen is due to the relatively small interaction
rate as they leave the cell.  Hmmm!  I am glad that I am only seeint a few
mw.  With watts, I would worry about the stability of the concrete in the
basement walls.
 
My problem with this is what does the alpha particle push on to leave at
5.59 Gev?  I always had the same problem with Superman.  Why didn't he
just punch a hole in the sidewalk when he tried to leap a tall building?
 
Is it possible that Brigsten-Mallove don't know that if something goes east
something else has to go west??  Am I being asked to believe in particles
that just come out of the blue with momentum?  It is just too much for a
poor engineer to contemplate.  I will therefor leave it to you QM guys to
sort out.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.17 /  /  Brigsten-Mallove paper
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brigsten-Mallove paper
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:27:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A walk down the hall and a visit with an owner of a "little blue book" more
or less straigntened me out on what woul happen with the 5.59 Gev alpha.
Most of the energy does go with the alpha.  But it still kicks a 100 Mev or
so hole in the sidewalk.  This assumes that it kicks off a single Pd atom.
 
The range of the alpha would be 1500 or so cm of water - or equivalent mass.
So still a few meters of earth/concrete.  So they have that part right.
 
But it was hard before to imagine that a few Mev particle could get away from
the lattice without making some gammas that could be seen.  It is even harder
to imagine a 100 Mev Pd atom not making some gamma noise as it comes to rest.
For gammas above read photons.  Seems to me that is the correct generic term
for gammas, x-rays, etc..
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / John Logajan /  Brigsten, Mallove
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brigsten, Mallove
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:38:15 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
[Brigsten, Mallove claim]
> 3He and 4He products ... come off at "ranging up to 5.59 Gev"
 
This is almost exactly 6 nucleon (proton or neutron) masses.
 
Now even the most massive elements have little more than 1/10th of a
mass unit in excess.  So obviously 5.59 Gev can only be accounted for
by matter/anti-matter annihilation of six nucleons.
 
Since there is no "old style" anti-matter in a P+F cell, these guys
must be claiming that the matter of nucleons is made up of both
matter and anti-matter.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / John Logajan /  Self-contained anti-matter
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self-contained anti-matter
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:53:17 GMT

The Starship Enterprise of Star Trek fame has OBSOLETE technology!
 
They kept their anti-matter in special electromagnetic flasks -- carefully
mixed with matter to drive their warp engines.
 
Brigsten and Mallove must be claiming that we don't need special bottles
to hold anti-matter, we don't even have to find a supply of anti-matter.
 
Anti-matter is contained within the matter all around us.  Given the right
conditions, the matter/anti-matter charcteristics of normal matter can
be combined to produce annihilation energy.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.17 / Richard Nelson /  Imploding Pd pellet
     
Originally-From: rick@bluemoon.rn.com (Richard Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Imploding Pd pellet
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:51:37 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

 
  This is probably a stupid idea - I'm an artist not a nuclear
physicist - but would trying to implode a pellet of Pd saturated
with d & t in one of those big Laser Fusion devices be worth
trying? It seems like the densities of the hydrogen nuclei in
the Palladium lattice are much higher than the densities in
the frozen pellets they're currently working with.  Or maybe
try adding some additional energy with a Star Wars x-ray laser..
 
                               Allowing my curiosity to over-
                               come the high potential for
                               embarassment,
 
                                Rick
 
 
 This is from
     rick@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrick cudfnRichard cudlnNelson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 /  Close /   The Cold Fusion Solution
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  The Cold Fusion Solution
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:58:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

5 GeV helium nuclei????????????
This is the best joke since the 23rd March 1989.
When I suggested that TBs proposed violation of energy and momentum
conservation I didnt expect anyone to take it seriously.
 
Jed; as you are an arts graduate you have some excuses for your naivety
but some of the other names in your list appear to have some awareness
of the nuclear and particle physics world. Perhaps you should first check
whether they are all as supportive and accurately described as your posting
suggests. You already have some egg on the face from Warren Buck. You might
also revise your incorrect and exaggerated description of Floyd Culler
as `former Director of Oak Ridge National Lab'; he never held that post.
If you really believe there are energetic helium nuclei flying around and
smashing into other material I bet you are glad that your cells arent
producing anomalous heat right now. If they are, then I suggest you have
a medical check up. Or have you been doing the experiments in your garage
and hence the problems with your car?
 
According to news reports here, many people are paying out fortunes in the
hope of taking part in the second coming which is promised in Korea in October.
I presume that this is not connected to the CF meeting in Japan around that
time? Perhaps you should include it as a side trip; people who have just
been disappointed in one venture are often surprisingly ready to subscribe
to other nonsenses.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total of 722 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:58:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
one patent and two comments. The patent is strange - I don't see why an
electron beam should cause fusion. Anyway, using D- ions is a novelty, mostly
deuterons, or D+, are used. This is self targeting, and I suspect that there
were such patents in the 1950's.
 Frank Close reviews Huizenga's book, and he likes it; no surprise there. We
do get a small surprise by the article about MITI's funding of cnf. Jed has
been bombarding us with news of all the money MITI is GOING to spend on it,
and I am sure he has used the figure of hundreds of millions of DOLLARS; it
seems that not only is that so many YENS (i.e. down by a factor of 1000 or so)
but MITI has actually only decided to APPLY for the money. Jed, you have not
been straight with us, or somebody has not been straight with you. But with
your knowledge of Japanese, I assume you read the originals, so I guess you
are your own source, nes pas? Some 1E05 dollars is about 1/10 of a NCFI - and
how much will the Japanese spend on lawyers? NCFI lasted 6 months; 1/10 of
that is - quick! - 18 days... Maybe it's all for Takahashi, for more Pd-Ag and
a large supply of D2O.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 18-Aug-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 722
 
Patents: file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iwamatsu S;                    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04 72,593, 13-Jul-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(2):35367 (1992).
**** "The fusion is performed by implanting accelerated D- to H-occluding
metal or alloy. The fusion may also be performed by implanting electron beam
to H-occluded or H-occluding metal." (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comment: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F;                                       Nature 358 (1992) 291 (23-Jul).
"The cold war remembered"
** Frank Close, himself the author of one the better books on cold fusion,
here reviews John Huizenga's "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the
Century". Close likes the book and his only criticism is on a point where he
believes Huizenga's history of events is out by a crucial few days. Close
rightly considers Huizenga's outline of the helium episodes - Walling and
Simon's publication of their paper even after P&F's helium retraction, and
Pons's sabotage of the double-blind helium study - as highlights of the book.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swinbanks D;                                   Nature 358 (1992) 268 (23-Jul).
"MITI prepares to fund cold fusion by another name".
** The Japanese organisation MITI has reported to the press its plan to apply
for money for research into cold fusion. The amounts to be asked for are not
known yet, but perhaps hundreds rather than tens of millions of yen (i.e.
about hundreds of thousands of dollars) might be on. However, because most
Japanese scientists do not believe in cold fusion, that term will not be used;
"hydrogen energy" will be substituted. In Japan, as elsewhere, most scientists
consider cold fusion an error.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 /  Britz /  Tom Droege's XS Joules
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom Droege's XS Joules
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:58:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
We have seen a flood of data from Tom. This group has been strangely low-key
on this; the latest table has:
>1   On      85320       23.7      1992.8        50          0.0234
>2   Off     86280       24.0      1600.9        50          0.0186
>3   On      86400       24.0      2657.8        50          0.0308
>4   Off     86830       24.1      2323.3        50          0.0268
>5   On      86330       24.0      1992.4        50          0.0231
>6   Off     86040       23.9       106.3        50          0.0012
>7   On      86400       24.0      1792.6        50          0.0207
>8   Off     86400       24.0      2873.7        50          0.0333
 
I disregard the "on" and "off" bits, because I refuse even to consider the
remote chance of this Ying stuff. However, am I missing something, or do I see
about 40 sigmas of excess Joules here? Why are not all the TB's jumping up and
down in a frenzy? Please tell me if I am indeed missing something.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until end of Aug-92.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  See Tom. See Dick. See us agree!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: See Tom. See Dick. See us agree!
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:53:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Keep it up, Tom.  I don't mind being your straight man (or is it vice versa).
And now we are going to come down on the same side of the issues raised by
the latest fanfare from Brigsten, Mallove, and Rothwell.  Talk about off-
the-wall ideas!  Lest you think that Jed is being a very good sport about
apologizing to Warren Buck, you should be aware of the fact that many of
the other names dropped in that press release got there under equally
doubtful circumstances.  Clearly the press release was intended to lend
an air of credibility to the Brigsten-Mallove "theory" it does not
deserve.  Now Jed is claiming that the names of Buck and others were
included for their benefit?
 
>From what I have been able to gather, several years ago Brigsten wrote
and circulated privately a paper in which he applied a nuclear cluster
model to nulcear fission.  Brigsten may have actually known something
about fission!  If the listed supporters of the Brigsten theory ever
actually saw a paper involving a nuclear cluster model, it was this
earlier work.  How about it, Jed?  Have any of the people mentioned
in the press release seen or endorsed anything written by Brigsten
that links a nuclear cluster model to cold fusion?
 
What is the Brigsten-Mallove theory?  From Tom Droege, the intrepid
experimenter, we hear that 3He and 4He are produced by a VERY ENERGETIC
reaction that sends them flying away at multi-GeV energies so they
can leave the scene without being detected, unless of course you
plan to conserve momentum.  As Tom points out, the recoil is going
to give a very healthy signal, and if anybody wants to look for them,
so will the escaping Helium nuclei.  I'd like to see what the CSC
folks are predicting for rates.  As was noted right from the beginning,
if the neutron rates had been as expected we would have had some
very dead experimenters in very radioactive laboratories.  Do you
think that GeV-type helium nucleii are going to sail right through
your bod without a trace?  WRONG!
 
So the only way this new form of magic could possibly have gone
unnoticed is if the rates a very, very low, and therein lies the
rub.  In order to put together a theory that involves low reaction
rates, you must boost the energy output per event.  Brigsten-Mallove
goes to the extreme of saying its several GeV, but then most of the
energy leaves the calorimeter without contributing to the heating.
All that remains is the recoil energy of the Pd or whatever.  If
as Tom suggests that is 100 MeV per event, the event rate is only
knocked down by a factor of 25 from the orignal estimates made
for the Pons and Fleischman experiments.  You don't have to know
much physics to know that something very much out of joint here>
Is there anyone out there ready to defend Brigsten-Mallove as
it has so far been reported?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU         "Now is not that ridiculous..." Gilbert & Sullivan
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Self-contained anti-matter
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Self-contained anti-matter
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:31:12 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

 
Hi folks,
 
In article <920815153029_72240.1256_EHL34-1@CompuServe.COM>
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> The explanation lies in the unsuspected structure of the proton,
> which is required by the Nucleon Cluster Model of the nucleus as
> the bridge between matter and antimatter...
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
In article <9208180153.AA11515@sleepy.network.com>
logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
 
> The Starship Enterprise of Star Trek fame has OBSOLETE technology!...
> ... Anti-matter is contained within the matter all around us.  Given the
> right conditions, the matter/anti-matter charcteristics of normal matter
> can be combined to produce annihilation energy...
 
 
Why Jed and Gene!  You SLY old Farfetchers, you!  ANTI-MATTER annihilations,
hmm??  And here I thought NOBODY wanted to PLAY my game with me (sob!)...
 
Old time readers will of course recall that I first proposed total matter
annihilation *in the context of a Farfetch* over a year ago in "A Twist of
Ribbon."  Glad to see that the Mallove et al crowd is finally coming around!
 
Sincere (no kidding) "best of luck" on your hypothesizing, although frankly
I could already give you several pretty good reason why your particular
TMC (total mass conversion) tact won't work.  But I don't think that will
be necessary -- as Tom Droege's points and John Logajon's already email
hint, you are very likely to get some nice, toasty feedback on your idea
in the next few days anyway.
 
....
 
Along the same TMC vein, I might note that:
 
IF
 
 a) You are truly, sincerely, and absolutely convinced that anomolous
    heat from Pd(H,D)x systems is REAL,
 
    AND
 
 b) That the levels of heat output are well (say an order of magnitude)
    outside the range permissible by plausible chemical theory,
 
    AND
 
 c) The levels and types of nuclear byproducts do not match any known
    class or nuclear reactions
 
THEN
 
 d) You really, REALLY should study "A Twist of Ribbon" very carefully.
    Mainly because it is primarily the results of an analysis of why
    most approaches to looking for new physics in a solid-state physics
    will NOT work.  "Twist" is literally just the residue left over after
    you whack out whole realms of ways in which physics *cannot* give you
    novel results without resulting in blatant contridictions with either
    well-studied physics or everyday reality.  There are no guarantees at
    all that it is right -- just that it's an approach that for various
    reasons is harder to eliminate as a possible source of new physics.
 
Obvious question:  Do I meet my own criteria?  If I'm literal about it, the
answer is simpy NO.  I'm too skeptical about the spotty results that have
been reported to date.  As Tom Droege nicely summarized recently, there
have been several intriguing isolated incidents, but that's about it.
 
Want proof that I don't take myself too seriously, despite the substantial
literature search and study I put into "Twist of Ribbon?"  Well, for one
thing I have no intention whatsoever of forming any kind of company or
promotional group to espouse the ideas in "Twist of Ribbon," *even though
I am convinced the ideas are in Twist are more sound than than the vast
majority of "cold fusion" theories that have been espoused and sometimes
extensively funded.*  If by some weird chance my ideas in Twist *are*
correct or close to correct -- well, all I can say is more power to the
people who have followed up on them and issued patents derived from them.
 
Want proof that my ideas in Twist should not be taken *too* casually?  In
Twist I predicted that atomic hydrogen and deuterium should be able to
form bands in metal lattices about a year before the existence of such
effects was described in an (unrelated, I'm sure) physics paper and later
summarized in Nature (March something 1992).  Anyone else out there had a
real, previously unknown physics effect predicted and verified as a result
of their attempts to explain Pd(H,D)x heat anomolies?
 
For myself I'm not into experimentation of the type needed, and have no
interest whatsoever in setting up any personal garage experiments.  (I do
have enormous respect for serious experimenters such who *have* done such
things, though.)
 
Even if I don't really buy my own ideas based on the evidence to date,
shouldn't I be horribly worried (like Pons et al?) that I *might*, just
*might* be right -- and thus should start patenting the living daylights
out of every word I think, breathe, or write?
 
Well... why SHOULD I?  Here's a radical idea:  How about being interested
in an idea for its own sake, without being overly concerned about whether
you or anyone else will ever make a dime off of it?
 
Or even:  If it IS real, it should belong to EVERYBODY -- not just one
small group of people?
 
And if it ISN'T real... well, can't we at least try to have some good fun
learning and using physics along the way?  Or would such a simple objective
be too disappointing for those of you who were dead set on making big bucks
out of the issue of Pd(H,D)x anomolies?
 
Maybe that is the real difference between folks like Dr. Steven Jones, for
whom I have enormous respect in how he has handled everything from his data
to the occassional carefully-set-up press attacks against him, and so many
other figures who have been inclined to view interesting Pd(H,D)x amomolies
only through the eyes of a dollar bill.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / John Logajan /  Correct spelling is Brightsen
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correct spelling is Brightsen
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:03:32 GMT

I misspelled the name Brightsen in my last two posts.  I hope
this doesn't propogate to other poster's posts.  Sorry Dr. Brightsen.
 
  -- John Logajan
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / Dan Hoey /  Re: Fleischmann interview in JIR
     
Originally-From: hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann interview in JIR
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:05:23 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

[ I hope you all don't get this message twice. ]
 
hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (I) wrote:
 
>The latest issue of the Journal of Irreproducible Results has an
>interview in which Martin Fleischmann comments on the recent rumors.
>I could try to excerpt it if there is interest, though it's somewhat
>difficult to find a happy medium between giving enough detail to give
>you the idea of it and copying the entire article.
 
I did include ``may be harmful if swallowed'' in the Keywords line,
but the Fusion Digest dropped it, so one person felt it necessary to
warn me I should take JIR with a grain of salt.  People have sent me
email asking if I could fax the interview to them.  When the long
distance phone calls started, it was clear I had better start spinning
this one down, so here's the scoop on the interview.
 
The article, by Marc Abrahams, gives a short history of the cold
fusion discovery and controversy, and shows a photo of Martin
Fleischmann holding a cold fusion cell.  It continues:
 
    During the past two years, sensational rumors have swirled abouit
    Fleischmann and Pons.  Now, in an exclusive interview with the
    _Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results_, Martin Fleischmann reveals
    the truth about the recent rumors.
 
The rest of the article is the interview proper.  I would dearly love
to include it here, but I would feel terribly guilty at reprinting
what was supposed to be an exclusive interview.  But I think I can
fairly tell you that the only question asked was, ``Are the rumors
true about you and Madonna?''  And the answer was one word long.  It
seems those rumors are not true.
 
Maybe now you see why it was so difficult to find a compromise between
excerpting and quoting in whole.
 
If you still want the JIR, here's the information from the title page.
The publisher is Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc., 238 Main
Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142.  Individual subscriptions are
US $15 in the US, $20 in Canada, and $35 overseas.  Phone
subscriptions are 1-800-759-6102.  The article is in JIR volume 37,
number 4 (August 1992) on page 8.
 
Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhoey cudfnDan cudlnHoey cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 /  /  Yes folks, they said Gev
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yes folks, they said Gev
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:57:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell, how about putting up page 4 of the Brightsen-Mallove abstract.
It will save me typing it in, and I am sure you have it in loadable form.
 
Yes, folks, they are proposing matter-antimatter annihilation.  I did not
type all those zeros because the repeat key got stuck.
 
Jed, that is page 4 of the draft you sent me dated 9 Aug.  Or you can put up
the whole thing.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Yes folks, they said Gev
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yes folks, they said Gev
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:01:27 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

Hi again,
 
In article <920818123150.2080127a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
> Yes, folks, they are proposing matter-antimatter annihilation.  I did not
> type all those zeros because the repeat key got stuck.
 
Well, let's be slightly more accurate:  Because they are starting entirely
with *ordinary* matter, what they are really proposing is what is called
baryon violation -- that is, that under certain circumstances the protons
and neutrons in an nucleus (presumably with charge-preserving participation
by the electrons) suddenly decide to go "POOF!" for no obvious reason.
 
Precisely the kind of thing, I might add, what you will find described in
the FIRST PAGE of "A Twist of Ribbon."
 
In that zero-cost-to-the-investor document I mediated baryon via a rather
bizarre "stretching" re-interpretion of wavefunctions under certain fairly
well defined (and uncommon) conditions.  Mallove et al apparently mediate
their baryon violation via a currently mysterious local conversion of some
part of a nucleus (nuclei?) into antimatter.  Baryon violation, in any case.
 
Only I like mine better, because it has at least some incredibly outlandish
chance of down-conversion to ordinary energy levels.  That's VERY hard to
do with a gamma ray of such truly elephantine proportions.  And alas, if
you are playing the Farfetch game correctly, you DO have to eliminate
your solution branch if it leads to blatant, irresolvable violations of
common sense physics -- e.g., Pd wires are lousy at stopping multi-Gev
gammas, and reseachers tend to die rather quickly from them.
 
I look forward to the clarifications.  Yes, indeedy, I surely do...
 
			Cheers,
			Terry Bollinger (Ultra-Low-Cost Fetcher of Fars)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 /  /  Error Limits of Posted Data
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Error Limits of Posted Data
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:30:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz got excited reading my error limits column.  Sorry, Dieter
the column is misleading and I will change it for the next post.  The 50
joule over 24 hours was based on calibration runs where known errors were
corrected.  This data is still uncorrected.  I just didn't think.  So the
proper error limit for this data is more like 840 joules - 10 mw rms over
24 hours.  Will change this for the next post.  In addition, after 106 days
of operation, I no longer claim to know where zero is.  But remember the
stability claimed is of order 10 mw uncorrected and less than 1 mw corrected
for the environment.  So when the operating point was changed to better
match the Ying conditions and the power level went from of order 90 mw to
of order 20 mw, I think this is a real change.  Further, it did not go
negative, an encouraging sign that I have it about right.  Still, I claim
that zero is known to no better than 150 mw until it is calibrated at the
end of this run.
 
You all are "reading my log book over my sholder".  I appreciate suggestions
that help me get it right.  I started putting the 50 joule limits to indicate
how much precision the calorimeter had.  It is certainly not the right error
for the present data.  This is not publication, more like a discussion of
current work before the "wine and cheese" talk.  I will do serious work on
the data before any publication, hopefully with the participation of you all.
 
Note that 150 mw over 24 hours is 12960 joules.  So Dieter, the in/out
effect in the data is all there is until it is corrected by end of run
calibration.  Who knows, I kind of suspect that there is a real net.  But
I don't think I could claim it even if the end of run calibration says it
is there.  I think I would want a calibration at both ends of the run to
claim a positive result, and the begining of run calibration was written to
a non-existent disk!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 / Larry Wall /  Re: The Cold Fusion Solution
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Cold Fusion Solution
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:16:14 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <199208180939.AA29638@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Frank Close
 <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
: According to news reports here, many people are paying out fortunes in
: the hope of taking part in the second coming which is promised in Korea
: in October.  I presume that this is not connected to the CF meeting in
: Japan around that time?  Perhaps you [Jed] should include it as a side
: trip; people who have just been disappointed in one venture are often
: surprisingly ready to subscribe to other nonsenses.
 
There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (Red Face Dept)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (Red Face Dept)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:54:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
Well, after posting my last update, I found out I had made two mistakes.
Firstly, the NCFI lasted 2 years, not 6 months (where did I get that idea
from?), kindly pointed out to me by Todd Green; secondly I had the exchange
rate for the yen all wrong. Swinbanks misled me here, writing "a few million
yen (US$1,000-$2000)", from which I took the ratio to be 1:1000. I have now
looked it up, and it's more like 100 (120 or so), so the figure is a few
million $ - still not in the 100 millions bandied about by Jed, though. I
grovel in embarrassment. Also, there is some disagreement (but not my mistake
in this case) between the two reports about just how firm this is; Swinbanks
reckons MITI has decided to apply for the money, Myers reckons it's
practically in the bag, barring the unlikely, and research will start next
year. We'll see.
 Another embarrassment is my posting about Tom's Joules. I guess I haven't
read Tom's postings so carefully, and I ought to know that he does not know
where his zero line is. In that case, there are some large fluctuations, many
times the Joule error - but a fluctuation does not an excess heat event make,
nor a Joules dip a hitherto unknown nuclear heat swallowing act. If you follow
me.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Addition 19-Aug-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 722
 
Comment: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myers FS;                                     Science 257 (1992) 474 (24-Jul).
"Where there's heat there's yen".
** Another report of MITI's decision to fund some cold fusion research in
Japan. Unlike the one in Nature (Swinbanks), this one is fairly certain that
this will go ahead, "barring last-minute objections by the Japanese Ministry
of Finance". MITI does not subscribe to the reality of cold fusion but is just
being pragmatic in the face of excess heat reports. This report mentions
figures of $1-$3 million, and a consortium of Universities and about 10
leading Japanese utility, electronics and metallurgical companies to do the
work, over a 5-year period.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias medb@cc.newcastle.edu.au, until further notice. Mailing
address: Mech. Eng., Newcastle University, NSW 2308, Australia.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenMEDB cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:34:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <12AUG199216475632@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>I hate to interrupt all these cool flames, but, what the heck :)
>
>The last time someone asked Paul what he was up to, he responded that, if
>all went well, they'd be testing their device sometime in August (I'm going
>from memory here, I think it was August...)
>
>Well, it's sometime in August, Paul, what's going on???
>
>Mike Jamison
 
We are have slipped 6 to eight weeks for a number of reasons.
Still the commencing of diagnostic work will require three months
before we have enough data and information (analysis) to start pulling
chains.
 
I would say to query again in around the end of January or into February.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Brigsten, Mallove Fusion Technology Draft.
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brigsten, Mallove Fusion Technology Draft.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:59:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <920817133057.20203560@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
>Jed Rothwell sent me a copy of the Brigsten-Mallove Fusion Technology Paper.
>They have obviously been given the word, as the abstract recently posted has
>been cleaned up from the version I have.  My version reads like an MIT press
>release.
>
>There is not much content in the paper.  But one thing is amazing.  They
>claim that we don't see the 3He and 4He products is that they come off at
>"ranging up to 5.59 Gev" very high energy.  That's 5590000000 ev folks!
>
>The claim is that the heat seen is due to the relatively small interaction
>rate as they leave the cell.  Hmmm!  I am glad that I am only seeint a few
>mw.  With watts, I would worry about the stability of the concrete in the
>basement walls.
 
 
Amazing!  This actually passed that journal's review process??
 
A helium nucleus that energetic will lose energy in matter primarily
by nuclear collisions.  Should it run into a heavier nucleus, you get
something called "spallation" -- the nucleus is shattered into many
small pieces, including numerous neutrons.  Indeed, spallation appears
to be the most efficient way to make neutrons with an accelerator; 1.6
GeV protons on a lead target will make about 55 neutrons per beam
proton.  Particles incident on lower-Z materials will make fewer
neutrons, but, still, 5.6 GeV is much more than the total binding
energy of any nucleus (about .2 GeV), so those nucleons will be
flying.  This secondary radiation would be unmistakable and rather
unhealthy, if one is supposing that watts of power are being produced.
 
The cross section for collision of an energetic alpha particle with a
nucleus will be roughly the cross sectional area of the nucleus -- a
few barns.  This means the mean distance to interaction will be on the
order of tens of centimeters in a liquid or solid.  There's no way to
pretend that the vast majority of alpha particles will conveniently
fly away before interacting -- a significant number would collide
before leaving the cell, or even the cathode.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 /  /  The Data
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Data
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:06:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To all who have sent me notes about the significance of the data, I do know
about coin tosses, and simple statistics.  The data posted is raw.  It is
quite likely that the "in" and "out" groups will tighten up when the
calorimeter ambiant temperature correction is applied.
 
But I agree that the data posted is of order 1 sigma or less.  There is
detail in the measurements that looks very interesting.  We shall see.  I
have not bought any more palladium contracts on the strength of this data.
 
In any case, the finished data set is apt to be a long way from 100 sigma.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 /  751kaiser@gw.w /  ITEC reactor status
     
Originally-From: 751kaiser@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ITEC reactor status
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:16:43 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

hello
 
does anyone know of the status of the ITEC reactor.
 
i hear they're building it to be the first reactor to reach the
the ignition point if i understand it correctly.
 
it's full name i believe is International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor
and that the US, Japan, EEC and what's left of the USSR are all involved.
 
thanks in advance
 
matthew						galileo
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden751kaiser cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.19 / Paul Houle /  Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:37:10 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Aug19.113435.27357@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
 
>We are have slipped 6 to eight weeks for a number of reasons.
>Still the commencing of diagnostic work will require three months
>before we have enough data and information (analysis) to start pulling
>chains.
>
>I would say to query again in around the end of January or into February.
>
>+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
>| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
>|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
>| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
>+---------------------------------------------------------************
 
	I'm curious about what sort of device you are testing.  Is it
simply a larger and more powerful PLASMAK assembler,  or is it actually
intended to produce a nuclear yield?  If so,  what kind of fuel are you
using?  Can you tell us anything else about it?
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.20 / John Logajan /  NCM and cosmic rays?
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NCM and cosmic rays?
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:32:36 GMT

So did the NCM theory predict a new explanation for cosmic rays?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.21 /  Close /   The nature of Nature
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  The nature of Nature
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:47:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am sorry that Larry Wall was offended by, or misunderstood, my posting on
the Brightsen - Mallove - Rothwell et al company and my comments about
the scam being played on gullible people who are selling up in expectation
of the second coming. It was intended as a serious warning and reminder.
 
Recall Larry that, from first hand experience, I have seen Gene Mallove
publish untruths on this net about David Worledge of EPRI and me; he has never
apologised let alone retracted these. Then we have received on several occasions
Jed Rothwell berating critics with claims that the Japanese are pouring in
vast amounts of dollars; figures which, as Dieter Britz has noticed, are 100
to 1000 times exaggerated relative to those in reports that have appeared
in the serious media.Now we have the floating of a company based on an
idiosyncratic version of nuclear physics, with some concepts that fly in the
face of experimental data, with flawed logic as Dick Blue has succinctly noted,
but apparently endorsed by scientists including a `former director' of Oak Ridge
and 15 others. Such endorsements hardly reduce the enthusiasm that some
gullible people have for emptying their pockets,(though Utah taxpayers, who
are still awaiting the dividends of an earlier investment, - though not one
associated with the present cast - are perhaps unlikely to be in the rush).
 
I knew of the following when I sent my previous message but could not publish
it then as it was embargoed.It has now appeared in Nature (p616, 20Aug) and I
abstract from it.
 
"Ten scientists cited as supporters of a nuclear theory that is the
foundation of a new cold fusion company are complaining that they do
not in fact support the theory and that their names have been used
without their knowledge"
 
    [Stuff deleted]
 
"Many physicists including some of Brightsen's alleged supporters have
dismissed [the] model". [Warren Buck is quoted in similar vein to the remarks
that he has already published on this net]. - - - - - - - - - - -
"Besides Buck, ten other "supporters" have repudiated the model.[So it seems
that the negative total is eleven rather than ten]. Of the
remaining five two could not be contacted and two - including retired Admmiral
Elmo Zumwalt, former chief of US Naval operations - are non-scientists".
 
I hope that this side of the affair and the reactions of professional
scientists on this net and elsewhere are advertised as widely as has been
the original press release. The good news perhaps is that further nonsensical
claims and attacks on the reputations of serious scientists such as Dr Huizenga
et al. emanating from the Mallove Rothwell quarter will now be recognised for
what they are. The bad news is that careful and sincere work in the wider
theatre of hydrogenated metals, some of which we hear about regularly on
this net, may be tainted by association.
 
There is a delightful quote at the end where it is claimed that "the press
release is accurate subject to interpretation".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.21 /  Rothwell /  MITI Funding Confusion
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MITI Funding Confusion
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:46:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter Britz asks from down under:
 
"Jed has been bombarding us with news of all the money MITI is GOING to spend
on it, and I am sure he has used the figure of hundreds of millions of
DOLLARS; it seems that not only is that so many YENS (i.e. down by a factor of
1000 or so) but MITI has actually only decided to APPLY for the money. Jed,
you have not been straight with us, or somebody has not been straight with
you?"
 
I posted my sources, why didn't you check them? I repeat, this news was
printed in the Yomiuri Shimbun, Nikkei Shimbun, NHK television, the Wall
Street Journal, and Science. Such sources are usually "straight." I confirmed
the story by talking with Ikegami, Takahashi, the Director of the MITI
program, the Deputy Director, several editors of science journals, the people
from EPRI who just came back from Japan, and the people in BARC, India, who
where there this spring.
 
It is possible that other news sources are not being "straight." Nobody
reports everything they know, certainly not me, but most are reporting
absolutely nothing, which amounts to a distortion, in my opinion. For example,
I have sent a great of material to the Scientific American. I have sent them
the telephone numbers of high officials in MITI, at Technova, and their own
publication in Japan. They have all of the information in its full and correct
form, and they have not published a word. It may be that the Japanese are not
telling them as much as they tell me, but that is highly unlikely. The
American and Indian scientists who recently went to Japan got red carpet
treatment. They were introduced to all of the top people, and they were told
everything they wanted to know. This openness will not surprise anyone who is
familiar with the scientific culture and atmosphere in Japan.
 
There is some confusion here with dollars, yen, budgets, and budget proposals.
Also, I have been so busy, I have not had a chance to post a more
comprehensive description of the material. Perhaps someday U.S. journals will
begin translating and publishing more information about research in Japan, but
you do not see it very often now. I did not translate every scrap from the
press (I would *really* be bombarding you if I did!), but here is an outline:
 
MITI has officially requested $2.6 million for the next fiscal year. There
will be at least another $2.6 private money going into the MITI program. I
would described as start-up money, or "walking around money." I asked them
what they are going to do with it, and they said, "hold meetings." Since most
people I talk to over there is "in a meeting" most of the time, this will not
last long. This "official request" has not been officially granted, but nobody
expects the Finance Ministry to object. The program director said the first
year pilot program has been nearly approved, and additional funding will
follow that upon meeting the conditions and milestones which have defined by
the ministry. He did not give me the impression that they expected any trouble
meeting these conditions. I have been briefed on some of their objectives, and
they seem moderate and realistic to me.
 
They only officially request and grant budgets one year at a time, so all
years after this are "planned" -- never official. However, I have seen parts
of the plan, and the headlines of the newspapers have been boldly talking
about a five year plan for $50 million. That's $50 from the government, and
$50 million in matching funds from private industry.
 
There are other sources of cold fusion funding in Japan. The primary sources
are the 20+ corporations which attended the recent Imra meeting in Sapporo,
where Pons and Fleischmann spoke. This meeting was described in the Wall
Street Journal, and I spoke to some of the attendees. Because the meeting was
closed to the press, I assume they do not want people talking it, so I have no
further comment.
 
Another source of cold fusion research funding is the Ministry of Education,
which is putting about $15 million per year into cold fusion. This "$15
million" is my informal estimate, based upon the number of people working on
cold fusion in the National Universities. There is no central accounting of
the money they spend; it is not appropriated. Ikegami reported last year at
Como, "there are more than 100 scientists a present working on cold fusion in
Japan, spanning more than 40 universities and institutions." My data base
confirms this, roughly. I know exactly how much salary these people make (it
is a matter of public record); I know how much discretionary funding they get;
and how many grad students they have hanging around the labs. Also, I know how
approximately how much "special funding" has been appropriated by NIFS. Based
on all this, I come up with a rough estimate of $15 million total, which is
conservative. $20 million might be closer to the mark. It depends on whether
you include the cost of things like the neutron detector that Takahashi is
"borrowing" from himself. He said his CF experiment cost only $6,000, but he
did not include the cost of the neutron detector, the waveform generator, the
grad student labor, or much else! He meant the box, the heavy water and a few
other miscellaneous items. The palladium, I should add, is free from Tanaka
Kikinzoku. This firm has been extraordinarily cooperative and helpful to all
cold fusion researchers, and I am sure everyone joins me in thanking them.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.21 / Barry Wise /  Curious data jump
     
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Curious data jump
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:27:12 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

While looking at the last data set published by Tom Droege, I noticed that the
eight data point (an OFF run) had an average power measurement that was higher
than the previous ON measurement. The previous data all showed ON measurements
that were above the adjacent OFF measurements for this run. I went back to the
data Tom published previously on his pseudo Ying experiment to see if there was
a similar occurence. At the tenth data point in the first run the OFF power
exceeded the previous ON value.  What struck me was that this occured in both
runs after about the same length of time from the start of the data: 550380
seconds (152 hrs) for the first run and 603600 seconds (167 hrs) on the second
run. The ON and OFF values on the previous run appear to double at this point
also. This is about seven days. Maybe there is an effect due to people being
around more on the weekend or does this coincide with bowling nite?
 
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.22 /  Rothwell /  Certainly No Orchestration
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Certainly No Orchestration
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:23:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Some people have accused us of fraud, or of attempting to manipulate public
opinion. I suspect these people have never met a real con man. Con men are
never so inept as this. No con man ever does anything so naive and so stupid as
to bring Nature down upon him like a ton of bricks.
 
I think it is fair to say that we have proven we are *not* clever manipulators,
we have no talent whatever for fooling people, and we would not last 15 minutes
in the con-man business. We were also accused of "orchestrating" the release. I
have orchestrated various events from time to time, mostly software releases
and other non-controversial things like that. I would never deliberately
orchestrate an event in a way that would invite my worst enemy to blow me out
of the water, as Nature did. You can accuse us of a lot of things, but we have
certainly demonstrated beyond any doubt that we have no talent for clever
manipulation or orchestration.
 
Now, I hope that we can close this chapter. I am always willing to confess an
error or a stupid mistake, and I remind you gentle readers that to err is
human, to forgive, divine. In particular, I sincerely hope that Dr. Buck will
accept our apology.
 
Let us please get on with a serious scientific evaluation of the theory. I will
leave that debate to Mr. Brightsen and others, but I would like to very briefly
address a few points raised here:
 
Tom Droege suggests that the paper does not provide a clear method of testing
the thesis. He overlooked two such methods: 1. Add light water to a cell; 2.
Look for GEV energy level particles.
 
Others have suggested that said GEV particles might easily be detected, or that
they might cause obvious environmental damage, or other effects. I have talked
to a number of high energy particle physicists and they say this is not the
case. These particles are similar to cosmic rays, which do not often cause
damage, and cannot be detected with ordinary equipment; certainly not with the
kind of equipment that has been used in CF experiments up until now.
Knowledgeable sources have told me that even the Kamiokande CF experiment was
not set up to detect such particles.
 
I would like to ask everyone to please reserve judgement, and wait for high
energy particle studies to be performed, before jumping to conclusions one way
or the other.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.22 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Certainly No Orchestration
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Certainly No Orchestration
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:16:21 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <920821221932_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> I would like to ask everyone to please reserve judgement, and wait for
> high energy particle studies to be performed, before jumping to
> conclusions one way or the other.
 
Apparently, in the absence of experiment, "jumping to conclusions" is
bad, but "issuing press releases trumpeting results" is not.
 
By the way, are Brightsen and Mallove aware that producing 5.59 GeV
from the reaction 1H+2H-->3He violates conservation of energy?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.22 /  Rothwell /  Typo in NCM paper
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Typo in NCM paper
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:36:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
There is a typo on page 4 of the Brightsen - Mallove paper "Explanation of
Cold Fusion Reactions Based on the Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM)." The second
equation now reads:
 
1H + 2H --> 3H + Ea
 
It should be:
 
1H + 2H --> 3He + Ea
 
Tom Droege and others have asked me to send the paper in electronic form, but
I have not been able to do that because it is in Gene's Mac. I don't speak
Mac, and I have not been able to get it into a PC intact. Sorry. Anyway, the
fission paper is essential background to understanding the CF paper. The
fission paper is not electronic, and it includes many graphs like "Fission
Yields for Thermal Neutron Fission of PU-241," so, we are stuck with paper
and fax distribution.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.22 / Larry Wall /  Re: The nature of Nature
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The nature of Nature
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:48:25 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

Frank, I wouldn't want to contradict anything you said.  And I don't
believe you've contradicted anything I said.
 
Larry
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.23 / D Danforth /  Re: Typo in NCM paper
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Typo in NCM paper
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:34:01 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

In <920822184433_72240.1256_EHL67-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
>Tom Droege and others have asked me to send the paper in electronic form, but
>I have not been able to do that because it is in Gene's Mac. I don't speak
>Mac, and I have not been able to get it into a PC intact. Sorry. Anyway, the
>fission paper is essential background to understanding the CF paper. The
>fission paper is not electronic, and it includes many graphs like "Fission
>Yields for Thermal Neutron Fission of PU-241," so, we are stuck with paper
>and fax distribution.
 
>- Jed Rothwell
 
 
I have found a nice program for transfers between Macs and Dos machines
called Mac-In-DOS from:
 
Pacific Microelectronics, Inc.
201 San Antonio Circle C250
Mountain View, CA 94040
Fax(415) 948-6296
Tel(415) 948-6200
 
Price $99.00 (tax $8.17)
 
The program runs on the DOS side and takes 3 1/2" Mac diskettes.
If your PC only takes 5 1/4 you may be out of luck (give them a call).
 
I am not affiliated with Pacific Macro.  Just a satisfied user.
 
========
Douglas Danforth
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.23 / Charles Pooley /  Re: Imploding Pd pellet
     
Originally-From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Imploding Pd pellet
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 19:50:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

 
re m. # 4163,  An ICF process based on compression of small pellets
made of U233 and D, or DT might work--if the pellets are constructed
as small reactors, the densities already reached should be enough to
allow the critical mass to be less than milligrams, with the D acting
first as a moderator, then fusion fuel....
--
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenckp cudfnCharles cudlnPooley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.24 /  /  Latest Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 23:03:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are running a new pseudo Ying experiment - status 24 August 92.
 
Saturday at 12:20 PM a little brown striped furry creature went to chipmunk
heaven.  It is reported that the last thing he saw was a blinding white flash.
(For those of you not watching US TV, the add goes "It has been reported that
the last thing seen by many surviving a near death experience was a flash of
white" - the screen goes white then pans back to show an air bag.)
 
The result for me was a 3 hour power outage, more than my back up unit will
stand.  So I decided to stop taking in/out data and do a calibration.  I
managed (in the dark) to put a battery across the cell to try to prevent it
from outgassing.  There were 13 twenty four hour points collected before the
outage.
 
The cell is now being run at reverse current.  Everything else is as much as
possible the same.  Only 10 cc of gas evolved when the current was reversed.
This represents only a .1 D/Pd ratio.  The gas evolution was a straight line
ramp, not an exponential.  Now there continues to be a gas loss.  So I have no
confidence at all that I understand the gas absorption.
 
While the zero is not yet determined, it is probably good to 50 mw.  What do
I take for zero?  The cell reversed?  The cell with electrolyte removed?  If
I open the calorimeter and remove the cell there is a known error introduced
of 8 mw one sigma.  I will do all three, but it is unlikely that I will be
able to claim any better than 20 mw.  The good calibration was the empty cell
before starting the run, but that data has been lost.  The following data has
had the first order corrections applied.  This consists of a correction for
ambient temperature and a correction for conduction through the refrigeration
thermoelectric devices.  There will be a better ambient temperature correction
after I cycle the house heating system a time or two.
 
 
Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated    Average
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules     Power - watts
 
1   On      85320       23.7      2158            0.0253
2   Off     86280       24.0      1487            0.0172
3   On      86400       24.0      1685            0.0195
4   Off     86830       24.1      1174            0.0135
5   On      86330       24.0      1298            0.0150
6   Off     86040       23.9       520            0.0060
7   On      86400       24.0      3136            0.0363
8   Off     86400       24.0      3036            0.0351
9   On      86400       24.0      3107            0.0360
10  Off     86400       24.0      1921            0.0222
11  On      86400       24.0      2751            0.0318
12  Off     86400       24.0      2437            0.0282
13  On      86400       24.0      3067            0.0355
 
Tom: "Jennifer, today I am running the air conditioning and will keep the house
at 60 F.  Tomorrow, the heat is going on, and we will keep it at 90 F for 24
hours."
 
Jennifer: "Just give me the AmEx card.  I will send you a postcard from Jamaca.
(Bad Choice)."
 
Well, I will do what I can to get good calibration data.  The plan is to run
reversed through a few source changes, but not for 13 days.  Then I will try
to suck the electrolyte out of the cell in place.  If this works, I will try
to run extensive source in/out in that state.  If this does not work, I will
open up the calorimeter and remove the cell before doing extensive in/out
running.  Comments please.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / John Logajan /  Monkey business
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monkey business
Date: 25 Aug 92 05:45:37 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
 
>There were 13 twenty-four hour points collected before the outage.
 
>The following data has had the first order corrections applied.  This
>consists of a correction for ambient temperature and a correction for
>conduction through the refrigeration thermoelectric devices.
 
Wow. Thirteen of thirteen consecutive periods with the correct (hoped for)
vector direction.  Even without zero being known precisely, such a correlation
makes a monkey out of mainstream physics.
 
In/out is starting to look like a very smart idea.  Each period becomes sort
of a "calibration run" for the periods just before and after it -- from a
relative rather than absolute point of view.   There shouldn't be any
correlation at all -- the incident radiation power levels are just too minute.
 
As was claimed before, any correlation at the levels seen by Tom *require*
some sort of multi-event reaction, chemical or nuclear.
 
  -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / Frank Smith /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 12:52:54 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <920824164701.20a00bc1@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>We are running a new pseudo Ying experiment - status 24 August 92.
>The cell is now being run at reverse current.  Everything else is as much as
>possible the same.  Only 10 cc of gas evolved when the current was reversed.
>This represents only a .1 D/Pd ratio.  The gas evolution was a straight line
>ramp, not an exponential.  Now there continues to be a gas loss.  So I have no
>confidence at all that I understand the gas absorption.
 
At reverse current deuterium will be oxidised to D+ aqueous ions at the Pd
electrode while oxygen is reduced to OD- or D2O at the platinum electrode (and
D2 gas evolved, depending on the current applied); it
is therefore not to be expected that the D which was in the palladium will
become D2 gas to be measured in your gas evolution. Escape in this manner will
require the rate of D + D combination at the Pd surface to be comparable or
faster in rate than the electrolytic oxidation to D+. So it will depend on the
relative magnitudes of out-diffusion from the Pd interior and the applied
reverse current. The linear gassing rate sounds consistent with the expected
constant D concentration gradient in the Pd. You do not say whether the
reverse current was constant but I assume it was.
 
>What do I take for zero?  The cell reversed?  The cell with electrolyte
>removed?  If
>I open the calorimeter and remove the cell there is a known error introduced
>of 8 mw one sigma.  I will do all three, but it is unlikely that I will be
>able to claim any better than 20 mw.  The good calibration was the empty cell
>before starting the run, but that data has been lost.
 
If you are to use the cell reversed for zero, could you operate at a very small
reverse current or, ideally, wait until the out-gassing has ceased and then run
at zero current: your cell is not one that is subject to corrosion currents if
I recall correctly, so I see no objection in principle to zero current
operation. All you need do is apply a potential difference equal and
opposite to the cell's
e.m.f. Next best thing is the cell with electrolyte removed.
You are right that the best calibration was the cell at the beginning of the
run, but why empty? Surely the heat capacity of the whole system is different
then?
 
Frank R. Smith
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Monkey business
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Monkey business
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:17:57 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9208250545.AA12336@sleepy.network.com> logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   > As was claimed before, any correlation at the levels seen by Tom
   > *require* some sort of multi-event reaction, chemical or nuclear.
 
   Yep.  I didn't bother to post the statistical analysis because it
might give the wrong impression.  Different tests give different
numbers but all, including tests which ignore the order of the
samples, are highly significant. The effect, whatever it is, is real
and you have to look somewhere other than random chance for an
explanation.
 
   You mention chemistry. In the past I've suggested a few chemical
explantions that might explain the bursts, but this data tends to rule
out a "simple" chemical explanation.  Even if the zero was such that
excess heat was only seen during the gamma in periods, you have a net
heat production that can't originate in a chemical reaction.  (And
Tom's data does indicate a net excess energy even during the gamma out
periods.)  I could imagine the gammas creating free radicals which
catalyze D2O2 decomposition or some such, but you have to stretch the
chemistry pretty far.
 
 
 
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / T Neustaedter /  Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:41:27 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In the 20 August issue of nature, there is an article about the
Nucleon Cluster Model and Cluster Sciences Corporation recently featured
in this group. The article is excerpted as follows:
 
Scientists deny alleged support of comany's "new nuclear science".
 
Washington - Ten scientists cited as supporters of a nuclear theory
that is the foundation of a new cold fusion company are complaining
that they do not in fact support the theory and that their names have
been used without their knowledge.
 
[...] lists 16 'Supporters of the Nucleon Cluster Model' many of them
scientists. But the ten who could be reached last week deny supporting
Brightsen's model and object to the use of their names.
 
[Quotes from Warren Buck, whom we heard from earlier on this group]
 
Besides Buck, ten other 'supporters' have repudiated the model. (Of the
remaining five, two could not be contacted, and two - including retired
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, the former chief of US naval operations - are
non-scientists).
 
[...]
 
"Perhaps 'supporters' was a bad choice of words", Brightsen admits. But
he says "we think what's in the press release is accurate, subject to
interpretation".
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / MIKE JAMISON /  Question for basement physicists
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for basement physicists
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:45 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Tom Droege's data postings suggest that *something* is going on in his CNF
cells worth looking at.  As I understand it, the radiation detector he's
using is only measuring a fraction of the total spherical surface (an
assumption here that any radiation coming from his cell is uniform w.r.t a
spherical shell surrounding the cell - new tongue twister there :))
corresponding to the distance between the detector and the CNF cell.
 
I assume the radiation intensity (here intensity is used in the same way as
it's used for describing photon intensity) is proportional to 1/d^2, where
d is the distance between the detector and the cell.  To determine the
total radiation from the cell, one must multiply the counts/unit time by:
 
4*pi*d^2/(detector area)
 
My question is simple:  Has anyone performing CNF experiments stuck a cell
in an ionization chamber?  It would seem to me (admittedly I'm lacking in
high energy physics experience) that using a couple of CCD cameras pointed
at the chamber, (at 90 degree angles, to remove *any* doubt about the
neutron source), connected to a computer which is in turn triggered to
store snapshots of the chamber when some threshold radiation level is
exceeded, would help to clear some of the mystery up.
 
I realize I'm talking about thousands of dollars (but *not* millions of
dollars) worth of equipment.  I would think that with a decent amount of
scavenging, one could reduce that cost by at least an order of magnitude.
 
This just seems like the next logical step (IMHO) in the CNF saga.
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.18 / Dan Hoey /  cancel <1130@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>
     
Originally-From: hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1130@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:06:29 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhoey cudfnDan cudlnHoey cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / Kent EECS /  Silly Questions From A Reader...
     
Originally-From: kjones@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silly Questions From A Reader...
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 22:30:30 GMT
Organization: Washington State University!

I also have a couple (possibly stupid) questions to ask. It seems that there
has been some concern about gas absorption/emission. Has anyone *weighed*
the cells on a continuing basis to see if gas is escaping the system?
 
Also, how is the temperature of the radiation source, and the dummy source
controlled so that it does not affect the energy of the cell when it is
inserted?
 
Stupid questions I am sure, but I am still curious.
 
Kent Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenkjones cudfnKent cudlnEECS cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.25 / A Palfreyman /  Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
     
Originally-From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:05:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Looks like 100% of those contacted, if I read correctly,
deny affiliation. Looks therefore also like Mr. Rothwell
is following in the CF = good PR footsteps of some other
well-known names.
 
I expect Mr. Rothwell realises his duty to the net.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | Free Tibet                                      |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlordSnooty cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak/Paul Koloc
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:47:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Aug19.153710.7498@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.113435.27357@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>We are have slipped 6 to eight weeks for a number of reasons.
>>Still the commencing of diagnostic work will require three months
 
>	I'm curious about what sort of device you are testing.  Is it
>simply a larger and more powerful PLASMAK assembler,  or is it actually
>intended to produce a nuclear yield?  If so,  what kind of fuel are you
>using?  Can you tell us anything else about it?
 
No, there is no nuclear yield sought at this juncture or expected and
certainly none that would be of interest in any commercial sense.  This
work is at a very initial level. (Mostly all due to funding limitations).
That aspect of the work is two to four years hence.
 
First we haven't completely verified with critical diagnostic
measurements that the long lived plasmoids that we can create in open
atmospheric air are indeed the physical embodiment of the PLASMAK(tm)
magnetoplasmoid (PMK) that we have conceptualized and theorized.  Even
though the special features already observed make it a likely PMK and
the formation technique used was formulated by the theorized concept, a
number of other studies must first be run to produce the data to certify
the verification and this must happen before serious thoughts of
obtaining nuclear yields come up.  These preliminary diagnostics
should be well along by January/February.
 
We expect that the air plasmoids should be emitting soft X-rays and may
upon physically induced disruption produce a fairly stiff although very
short X-ray burst, (much like that seen during the disruption of a
H or Super H mode operating tokamak.)   Consequently it is necessary to
complete building the block house in which the creatures can be formed
and studied  -- for example, stereoscopic X-ray images of the PMK's in
their own light showing an internal 3D picture of its currents.
Calorimetry can give us both total energy and a good measure, by
subtraction, of a PMK's loss rates.
 
And now back to dreams of buttering radiation blocks during heat and
humidity of tomorrow's fusion times.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Untruthes about GeV Particles
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Untruthes about GeV Particles
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:43:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell, as spokesman for the Brightsen-Mallove theory, has made
the assertion that 3He particles at multiGeV particles would not be
detected with the kinds of detection equipment that has been employed
around cold fusion experiments.  This is NOT TRUE!  To make the issue
clear cut we need a firm estimate of the flux that is supposed to have
gone undetected for lo these many years.  Information contained in
Tom Droege's note on this question leads me to an estimate of something
like 10^10 reactions per second for each watt of output.  Feel free to
revise this by several orders of magnitude as it won't effect what I
have to say.  Very energetic charged particles loose energy through
two processes, collisions with atomic electrons and nuclear collisions.
For more ordinary energies in the MeV range the atomic collisions
dominate, but the rate of slowing decreases with increasing energy so
the signal in a detector gets smaller.  That is the effect B-M-R are
counting on, but there is a clinker in their arguement.  The nuclear
collisions become relatively more significant, and believe me you
don't hide what happens when you have a nuclear collision at GeV
energies.  This is what we study here at the National Superconducting
Cyclotron Lab, in case you wondered what NSCL refers to.  Just to
mention one possible way the slow down of the "cosmic-ray-like
particles" make themselves know.  They produce a cascade of high-energy
neutrons.  We detect those suckers by putting up a block of ordinary
aluminum which in an hour at the kind of fluxes we have here will be
very radioactive such that any simple gamma detector could sense it.
'Nuff said?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The human body as a detector for Brightsen-Mallove
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The human body as a detector for Brightsen-Mallove
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:44:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The notion that GeV 3He particles will escape undetected is so far
out I can't resist ranting on a bit more.  First of all the arguement
by analogy to cosmic rays is totally off base.  The nucleon component
of cosmic rays interacts far up in the earths atmosphere such that
all that reaches us (Thank goodness for small favors!) are secondary
reaction products, mostly muons, which are puny little things compared
to a 3He with a GeV of kinetic energy.  Even though the range of
3He is larger than the dimensions of a typical calorimeter, these
things will interact in a big way with any substantial chunk of matter
such as concrete.  Lets say you had 10^5 3He at a Gev moving upward
from a basement lab a stricking the overhead concrete.  The result
would be a flux of 10^5 neutrons, also at GeV energies radiating
people upstairs.  For reference purposes, a flux of 1 neutron per
cm^2 per second, is the order of magnitude of what is "allowed".
Maybe the cold fusion experimenters would be too dim to notice
anything happening, but their near neighbors might begin to notice
some strange effects.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 / Cameron Bass /  Mindlessness for the Day
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mindlessness for the Day
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:06:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

 
     "Theoretical explanations for this phenomenon, especially
      as regards the fast time scales, is lacking.  Here we have
      reported that the spectral peak lies at photon energies which
      are higher than those required to dissociate the molecules
      comprising the medium in which energy concentration occurs."
      (Phys. Rev. Lett. 69:1182 (1992))
 
      I was reading along in an article on sonoluminescence and
      it occured to me that we could postulate a similar mechanism
      (unknown, of course) for 'anomalous phenomena in metal hydrides'.
      After all, with sonoluminescence we have cavities (bubbles)
      in which very strong (actually, miraculously strong) concentration
      of acoustical energy occurs.  In the above quoted experiment,
      field average sound energy level is about 10^-11 eV/atom and
      the spectral peak is somewhere above 6 eV (Could be far above.
      They report the spectrum to fit the tail of a 25000K blackbody,
      though there is no reason to assume an equilibrium process
      at all.).
 
      They thus find at least 12 orders of magnitude concentration
      of the imposed sound field, concentrations that actually seem
      implausible since the medium dissociates below these energies.
 
      In any case, for the Pd-D system, one could hypothesize that the
      relevant cavities are the interstitial sites and that the relevant
      excitation is the higher-order fluctuations of the power supply.
      These are, of course, increased in transient operation.
 
      Now I am of two minds about what follows next in this fantasy.
      The first thought is that the cavities are picking out very
      high frequency components from the power supply forcing, thereby
      concentrating energy deposition in the lattice (the cavities
      in sonoluminescence do this rather well).  Thus, the whole phenomenon
      would be nothing more than the relatively efficient concentration
      of high or extremely high frequency excitations unnoticed otherwise.
 
      The second thought is that the cavities act to concentrate
      such 'vibrations' in such a manner as to cause Deuterium ions
      occupying the same interstitial site to fuse (or even Pd and
      D, recalling some vaguely interesting results from a conference
      past).  Of course, this sidesteps the necessity of a second miracle to
      unconcentrate the energies in such a manner as to avoid easy detection
      of the gammas and particles that should scream out of the lattice.
      However, for the sake of the argument, we can assume
      that the 'unconcentration' mechanism is the reverse of the
      miraculous 'concentration' mechanism seen in sonoluminescence.
 
      So, something for the 'believers' in the crowd and something for
      the 'disbelievers', take your pick.
 
      I'm sure y'all will pardon me while I go down to the patent office
      to file another of dubious worth.
 
                                  dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 / A Boulanger /  Re: Mindlessness for the Day -- Theory or Mindlessness^2
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day -- Theory or Mindlessness^2
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:35:01
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
In article <1992Aug26.160631.20329@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
 
	"Theoretical explanations for this phenomenon, especially
	 as regards the fast time scales, is lacking.  Here we have
	 reported that the spectral peak lies at photon energies which
	 are higher than those required to dissociate the molecules
	 comprising the medium in which energy concentration occurs."
	 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 69:1182 (1992))
 
	 I was reading along in an article on sonoluminescence and
	 it occured to me that we could postulate a similar mechanism
	 (unknown, of course) for 'anomalous phenomena in metal hydrides'.
	 After all, with sonoluminescence we have cavities (bubbles)
	 in which very strong (actually, miraculously strong) concentration
	 of acoustical energy occurs.  In the above quoted experiment,
	 field average sound energy level is about 10^-11 eV/atom and
	 the spectral peak is somewhere above 6 eV (Could be far above.
	 They report the spectrum to fit the tail of a 25000K blackbody,
	 though there is no reason to assume an equilibrium process
	 at all.).
 
	 They thus find at least 12 orders of magnitude concentration
	 of the imposed sound field, concentrations that actually seem
	 implausible since the medium dissociates below these energies.
 
 
I have posted this reference a couple of times since I think it is a
pretty neat energy concentration theory that may play a role in
 sonoluminescence:
 
"Minimal Chaos and Stochastic Webs"
A.A. Chernikov, R.Z Sagdeev, D.A. Usikov, M Yu Zakharov, & G.M. Zaslavsky
Nature Vol 326 (9 April) 1987, 559-563
 
Abstract:
"Particles within a stochastic -- or chaotic -- web in phase space can
be accelerated to high energies even by weak magnetic fields, and the
properties of the web show similarities to the quasicrystal state.
Examples of webs with five- and sevenfold symmetries are given. The
establishment of stochastic webs and structural coverings of the phase
plane may yield new and unexpected results"
 
From the Summary:
"... Similarly, the solution of the problem of the existence of the
stochastic web allows one to establish the limits of adiabatic
invariance and analyse the origin of ultra-high energy cosmic ray
particles. ... Our results suggest the existence of a similar
stochastic web in problems of hydrodynamic structures and structural
modification of solids. ..."
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 /  /  Detectors
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Detectors
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:57:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Barry Wise asks about point 8.  As noted at the time, Jennifer turned on the
heat between point 7 and point 8.  That is she activated the controll that
caused the furnace to perform a heating cycle.  The weather has been strange.
Jennifer turns on the heat more often, but it does not seem to affect the
calorimeter.  It just may not be possible to calibrate out the environment in
a way that produces believeable data.  We will try.
 
Jed Rothwell says look for GEV level particles.  Then he goes on to say:
 
"Others have suggested that said GEV particles might easily be detected, or
that they might cause obvious environmental damage, or other effects.  I have
talked to a number of high energy particle physicists and they say this is
not the case."
 
Who did you talk to Jed?  Even money I know them, but more likely they know
me if they are in high energy particle detection business.  But I think you
really got it completely wrong.  Almost every known high energy physics
detector will detect GEV level alpha particles.  Note that Kamiokande surly
detects such particles - but you are correct in saying that "even the
Kamiokande CF experiment was not set up to detect such particles."  They vetoe
them out, that's why.  But they would only have to look at their vetoe rate
to detect them (but I am not an expert on the Kamiokande set up - it could
be that it is hard to get at the right signal).
 
Just to rub it in, I include a list of detectors you could use.  Apologies to
anyone's favorite detector that I have left out.  The ? indicate it might be
hard, and the * indicate that I am willing to call myself an expert on the
detector type.
 
Chrenkof detectors using photomultipliers or micro-channel plates.
Gas Proportional Chambers
*Magnetostrictive Spark Chambers
Narrow Gap Spark Chambers
Wide Gap Spark Chambers
*Liquid Argon Detectors
Liquid Xenon Detectors
Plastic Scintillator with photomultiplier detection
?Plastic Scintillator with PIN Diode read out
Bubble Chambers
Ge Surface Barrier Detectors
Si Strip Detectors
NaI Scintillation Detectors
?CCD Arrays
?Ionization Chambers (may need high rate)
Geiger Counters
*Flash Tubes
Drift Chambers
 
One more "exotic" detector that even a computer programmer might know about
is the computer memory chip.  They are sensitive to alpha particles and must
be made of low radiation emitters to prevent bit changes from alphas coming
to rest at just the right spot in the chip.  So Jed, if you notice while
running your experiment that your computer "dies" with a parity error, you
might have your "proof".
 
I would sure like to know what "high energy particle physicsts" you talked to
that said detecting GEV alphas was hard!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 /  /  13 out of 13 ain't bad, but it ain't 100 sigma!
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 13 out of 13 ain't bad, but it ain't 100 sigma!
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:18:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just so the skeptics know that I know, one way of looking at the data makes
it about 1.5 sigma.  You don't have to do very many experiments looking at
plain old noise to get that result from time to time.  But this is the kind
of stuff that keeps me going.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Mindlessness for the Day
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:53:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug26.160631.20329@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>
>      The second thought is that the cavities act to concentrate
>      such 'vibrations' in such a manner as to cause Deuterium ions
>      occupying the same interstitial site to fuse (or even Pd and
>      D, recalling some vaguely interesting results from a conference
>      past).  Of course, this sidesteps the necessity of a second miracle to
>      unconcentrate the energies in such a manner as to avoid easy detection
>      of the gammas and particles that should scream out of the lattice.
>      However, for the sake of the argument, we can assume
>      that the 'unconcentration' mechanism is the reverse of the
>      miraculous 'concentration' mechanism seen in sonoluminescence.
>
The problem here is that your sonoluminescent example is exactly
wrong for such a theory. It takes a very large sound flux and
converts it into a detectable form of energy. The string lately
seems to be saying that immense energies are being generated
and that the heat is only a small part of wwhat's there.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 /  /  Various
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:33:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To Frank Smith:
 
I continue to be very confused about the gas situation.  Remember, I have
back filled with D2 and there is a catalyst.  When I reverse the cell, I
expect D2 and O2 to come off in the 2/1 ratio and proportional to the
current.  I also expect out-diffusion of D2 from the cathode.  To my simple
way of looking at things, the electrolytic 2/1 D2 and O2 simply re-combine
in the catalyst.  This leaves the out-diffused D2 as a net gain in gas
volume.
 
The idea of an empty cell at run start is to make absolutely sure that there
is no chemistry going on.  Sure there is a small thermal transient if the
electrolyte fill is not at the same temperature as the inside of the
calorimeter when it is added, but this can be computed and checked.  Remember,
I keep track of integral joules, so this is not hard.  The calorimeter is
not affected by putting things in it. (at least to first order - that is the
whole idea of its design).
 
To Mike Jamison:
 
Note that I am not using a radiation detector, but a source.  Presently a
2 micro-curie 60Co source.  We are shining the source on the cell and noting
the power level with the source on and off.
 
When the time comes, and I think there is something to see, I will build a
proportional chamber to look at what might be there.  That is something I
know how to do.
 
To Kent Jones:
 
Many people have weighed cathodes.  Storms at Los Alamos has published an
extensive study on this subject.  But I know that sometimes the cathodes
outgass very quickly, so a lot of gas can be lost on the weigh to the scale.
Sometimes the cathods hold on to the gas.  Very mysterious.  One more thing
to study if "anomalous heat" does not work out.
 
The source is not inserted into the cell but put up against the wall of a
dewar which contains the cell.  Both have about the same thermal capacity -
close estimate is 1 cc of H2O.  If all the possible heat from handling some
how made it into the dewar, then is would be at most a few joules.  The
measurements are typically hundreds of joules.  But most of the heat would not
so I would put an upper limit of this kind of error at 0.1 joule.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mindlessness for the Day
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:17:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <=5bn71#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.160631.20329@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>
>>      The second thought is that the cavities act to concentrate
>>      such 'vibrations' in such a manner as to cause Deuterium ions
>>      occupying the same interstitial site to fuse (or even Pd and
>>      D, recalling some vaguely interesting results from a conference
>>      past).  Of course, this sidesteps the necessity of a second miracle to
>>      unconcentrate the energies in such a manner as to avoid easy detection
>>      of the gammas and particles that should scream out of the lattice.
>>      However, for the sake of the argument, we can assume
>>      that the 'unconcentration' mechanism is the reverse of the
>>      miraculous 'concentration' mechanism seen in sonoluminescence.
>>
>The problem here is that your sonoluminescent example is exactly
>wrong for such a theory. It takes a very large sound flux and
>converts it into a detectable form of energy. The string lately
>seems to be saying that immense energies are being generated
>and that the heat is only a small part of wwhat's there.
>
 
     Consider this, if you were just looking for photon fluxes, you would not
     see the input power of sonoluminescence at all (ignoring for the
     moment that one is probably supplying the acoustic excitation oneself).
     Also if you were looking for acoustic vibrations at 6eV/molecule,
     you would never see the excitation at roughly 12 orders of
     magnitude lower.
 
     As far as immense energies, they are only immense compared to what
     is chemically available.  The heat fluxes themselves always seem
     to be some fraction (usually not large) of input power.
 
     As far as the heat being only a small part of what's there, I
     have no idea what else you could be talking about in the context
     of 'anomalous events in metal-hydrides'.  It seems to me that heat
     is all there is.
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.27 / Barry Wise /  Re: Detectors
     
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Detectors
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:13:34 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <920826132615.20202e47@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
writes:
> Barry Wise asks about point 8.  As noted at the time, Jennifer turned on the
> heat between point 7 and point 8.  That is she activated the controll that
> caused the furnace to perform a heating cycle.
 
Yes I recognized that possibility based upon your discussion. But the real
question I had was why the same anomaly happened after about the same length of
running time (~1 week) in the first (pseudo Ying) run. I wouldn't have
mentioned it if I'd only seen the one occurence.  As I said, it could well be
an environmental effect due to the weekly activities going on in your house,
but it seemed awfully suspicious to me (without having all the facts) that it
would repeat the same way if it was a random event. Did Jennifer turn on the
heat at point ten in the first run?
 
If someone has the data from the PF or Takahashi runs is there a jump at about
1 week into the run?
 
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Mindlessness for the Day
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:43:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug26.231725.28591@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     As far as the heat being only a small part of what's there, I
>     have no idea what else you could be talking about in the context
>     of 'anomalous events in metal-hydrides'.  It seems to me that heat
>     is all there is.
>
Uh, lately there has been the thread about GeV gammas hoping about.
And although there have been several experiments that carefully looked
for radiation, there were several p[osts about people not being
able to find that sort of radiation. GeV gammas aren't going to
appear all by themselves. There would be all sorts of stuff
flying about and most of it would be detectable if by no other
means then by the 'canary effect'. :-)
 
As to heat -- it is a matter of debate whether there is any heast
at all. :-)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.08.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mindlessness for the Day
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:45:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <j6cn#9-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.231725.28591@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     As far as the heat being only a small part of what's there, I
>>     have no idea what else you could be talking about in the context
>>     of 'anomalous events in metal-hydrides'.  It seems to me that heat
>>     is all there is.
>>
>Uh, lately there has been the thread about GeV gammas hoping about.
>And although there have been several experiments that carefully looked
>for radiation, there were several p[osts about people not being
>able to find that sort of radiation. GeV gammas aren't going to
>appear all by themselves. There would be all sorts of stuff
>flying about and most of it would be detectable if by no other
>means then by the 'canary effect'. :-)
 
     I did not realize that anyone was taking that rot seriously
     (as if much of this is serious).  After all, the postulate of
     invisible high energy gammas is just another way certain
     proponents wish to avoid finding a nuclear signature.  Unfortunately,
     I don't exactly think this avoids anything since you now have
     to explain why you never see the high energy gammas, and it makes the
     momentum balance more difficult.
 
     However, my New Method (TM) avoids the necessity of experimenters
     being lightly toasted by simply postulating two miracles by analogy
     (or one if you are not fond of the whole subject) where many were
     required before.
 
     I'd have to say that this is an important advance.
 
>As to heat -- it is a matter of debate whether there is any heast
>at all. :-)
 
     Plenty of heat has been generated, especially in the debate...
 
                               dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.01 / Ian Taylor /  Current Status please
     
Originally-From: se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current Status please
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:02:44 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna

A recent report on the BBC Science in Action series stated that Martin
Fleischmann made a presentation of new(?) cold fusion results at the British
Association for the Advancement of Science last week in Southhampton.
 
Probably many non experts reading this newsgroup, including me, would like
to know where this work now stands. Can someone summarise MF's presentation
and perhaps the current status of the field?
 
+-- I -------- fax +43 1 391452 --------------------- voice +43 1 391621 169 --+
| T a y l o r  Alcatel-ELIN Research, 1-7 Ruthnergasse, Vienna A-1210 Austria  |
+-- n ---- ian@rcvie.co.at --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+
 
 All opinions subject to change without notice (Signature Release 3 Version 3)
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudense_taylo cudfnIan cudlnTaylor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.01 / Paul Schauble /  FASER theory
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FASER theory
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 21:43:38 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The author of this paper asked me to repost it to this group. He though it
might have some interesting connections with the Ying theory. He welcomes
comments.
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==========
technology/long.messages #119, from david42, 14183 chars, Sun Jun  3 21:21:45 1
990
----------
TITLE: Reposting of FASER Theory
 
 
        Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
 
 
            Copyright (C) June 4, 1989  by David H. Mitchellp
 
 
 
Introduction:
 
The recent high level of interest in fusion (1,2) has generated more questions
regarding the basic nature of the phenomenon than has been answered. Indeed,
there appears to be no present theory to explain it. Recent breakthroughs
in high temperature superconductors have again outstripped available theories.
Could there be a relation between the wave/particle nature of matter that,
when explored from the point of view of standing waves and electromagnetic
theories, could explain aspects of fusion and superconducting experiments?
It is the author's contention that the evolution of knowledge from standing
waves that led to the MASER, and later LASER, theories may point the way to
an understanding of recent breakthroughs and also indicate new areas of re-
search.
 
 
 
Background:
 
There are several different areas that should be covered in order to fully
explore the potential for finding a common explanation of newly discovered
phenomenon.
 
First, let us explore some of the recent history in Amplification by Stim-
ulated Emission of Radiation. The concept of standing waves and resonance in
solid, liquid and gaseous matter has been explored for centuries. Resonant
effects of tuning forks on various materials are used in beginning science
experiments for children. In the field of electronics, basic formulas for
transmission lines, waveguides, communications systems and analog systems
in general are well known. (The recent conversion to digital forms has
greatly reduced the general knowledge of this information - except to de-
signers of high frequency hardware which requires designing around limit-
ations imposed by wave properties.) The 1964 Nobel Prize for physics was
shared by Townes, Basov and Prochorov for maser (Microwave Amplification
by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) theory. Initially, masers operated
intermittently and had to be pumped in order to raise the energy level of
the electrons to provide a microwave emission. Bloembergen was able to use
a three level system which provided the first continuous maser. Note that
this is a method of achieving a resonance and standing wave phenomenon with
microwaves. Next, T. Maiman constructed the classic ruby Laser, which has
higher energy levels of emission. Higher energy levels mean that emission
is in the visible portion of the spectrum. A. Javan proceeded to develop
the Helium/Neon Laser. Notice that the effect can occur in either solids
rich in electrons or in gases which also allow for richness of electrons.
Chemical lasers followed and breakthroughs in Free-Electron Lasers (3) that
use magnetic fields to allow electrons to directly impart energy to light
waves. Again note that in all these devices, the basic electromagnetic
concept that a moving electron creates an electromagnetic field that pro-
pagates through space which can then move an electron is exploited. Also,
note that a moving electromagnetic wave can also be expressed as a photon.
In short, it is beneficial to be aware that the present understanding of
the universe makes it necessary for the reader to keep in mind that at any
time we may refer to particles as waves and vice versa. So, light may be
units of photons or electromagnetic waves. Likewise, an electron, proton
or neutron may be considered as a particle or a wave. By recognizing that
a particle or wave is only an approximation of reality, we may open up new
areas of thinking.
 
Second, fusion phenomenon appear to have been more abundant than previously
thought (2). Aside from stellar processes and hydrogen bombs, new areas
being explored include the work of Pons and Fleischman and Jones. Addition-
ally, the author has evidence that "ball lightning" may indeed be a fusion
phenomenon (4). Research by Tesla at his laboratory in Colorado show he
observed ball lightning on several occasions (5) but he attributed it to
hot air expansion which created a short lived plasma ball. The author has
analyzed the apparent energy output and behavior and sees evidence that a
standing wave or resonance may be occurring which enhances the fusion rate
in the "ball". Lack of positive feedback and/or fusing material prevents
long term stability and the ball lightning event collapses. Reported sight-
ings where the ball has gone through solid barriers without collapsing in-
dicates a fusion effect on an atomic scale. A plasma would either burn a
hole or self-extinguish. Reported sightings where burn-holes are present
could support either fusion or plasma. A likely explanation is that the
speed of travel through a barrier would determine the amount of heat trans-
fer from the fusing material. Hence, fusion could account for both reported
sightings while a plasma ball could not. Indeed, it is clear that sightings
would at first appear to a trained scientific observer as illusions, fab-
rications or outright mystical aberrations. However, the explanation of
ball lightning as a naturally occurring form of fusion explains the phen-
omenon in a manner consistent with the apparently incredible observations.
Also, the decrease in sightings of unusual phenomenon in general is us-
ually attributed to better ability to rule out false claims. Hence, any
item that appears to be reported less in recent years is assumed to be
folklore and/or false claims. In the case of ball lightning, this may
not be true. The migration of populations away from rural areas and the
widespread use of nitrogen based fertilizers may have reduced the number
of sightings possible. It is likely that methane is the fusing material
in ball lightning or methane in which one or more hydrogen atoms are re-
placed with deuterium. Current farming practices would prevent accum-
ulation of methane pockets where observations would be likely to take
place. It is interesting to note that experiments at Sandia Laboratories
did produce what appears to be a ball lightning event. A single experiment
that involved destruction of the test apparatus did produce a visible ball
which left the field of vision at high speed. The author does not know the
details of the experiment but did see a video tape of the resulting ball.
In naturally occurring ball lightning, sightings are almost always before,
during, or immediately after a lighting storm. In Tesla and Sandia exper-
iments, large electro-static fields were created. It is important for the
reader to know that large electro-static fields naturally occur in the
atmosphere and during electrical storms theses fields intensify and then
collapse with lightning as the result. All of these man-made and natural
events may create conditions where the electrical potential is strong
enough to propel ions together with enough force to fuse. However, the num-
ber of ions fusing is too small for any practical use.
 
Third, as demonstrated by Free-Electron Lasers and present fusion reactor
design, powerful magnetic fields do exert very large and meaningful forces
on the medium of interaction. The fact that Free-Electron Lasers exist and
work shows that standing waves of high energy content can be achieved and
controlled. The fact that high temperature containment structures where
near breakeven fusion energy is occurring indicates that controlled fusion
is possible.
 
 
 
Statement of Theory:
 
Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation is a resonant or
standing wave effect that may be created by electron injection into solids
or magnetic or electromagnetic injection into gases. As the name implies,
the purpose of a FASER device is to produce output energy greater than the
input energy by creating a resonant area at the proper wavelength to allow
for fusion of the desired material. The concept involves energy injection to
create a condition where electric field potential is sufficient to create a
fusion reaction. A properly tuned medium will then resonate, producing more
fusion. In a metallic medium, low energy photons should be produced, in
either the microwave or infra-red (heat) range; experimental evidence for
this is the Pons/Fleischman experiment. Visible light would occur in an
intermittent medium temperature plasma; evidence for this is the orange/
yellow color of ball lightning. Very high energy would occur in a high
temperature fusion explosion (gamma rays). In simple terms, the resonant
effect known in lasers is the key to high energy output in fusion. FASER
theory is therefore the theory that meaningful fusion occurs when energy
is pumped into a resonant medium for the materials to be fused. If the
wavelengths of the resonant medium and the material to be fused are pro-
perly balanced, then energy injection will create a resonant state that
results in amplification of the fusion effect. This means that energy of
any reasonable wavelength can be achieved using the proper resonant cavity,
fusion material and method of pumping. A possible corollary to this is
that superconductivity occurs when a resonant state exists due to a proper
balance between resonant cavity, material and energy pumped in. This would
explain why there are various limits to how much energy can be pumped into
a high temperature superconductor before it loses its properties. Since
superconductors can lose their properties in the presence of strong mag-
netic fields, this would indicate a loss of resonance due to pumping im-
balance. By doing calculations of an entire system using wave properties
for all materials involved, it may be possible to predict optimum combin-
ations for various fusion results. The basic concept in calculation and
design is to treat all particles as waves of a specific wavelength of
correct magnitude based on the particle's mass and energy components, then
proceed to determine the resonant frequency of the entire system. A simple
way to state the theory is that an entire system should be viewed as one
massive particle having one wavelength. Proper pumping of energy into the
system enhances resonance at the characteristic frequency of the system.
 
 
Areas of Exploration:
 
Several areas of exploration present themselves. One is the construction
of high intensity electro-static fields, modulated by microwaves, into
which CD4 or CH4 gas may be injected to test for fusion effects. Also,
injection of gases into properly tuned FEL lasers may yield positive
results. Since there may be a relation between superconductor behavior
and resonance, metallic fusion may be optimized by analysis of the system
with the intent of optimizing resonance. Also, large solar flares are a
major electro-magnetic effect. If FASER processes account for some fusion in
the stellar environment, then observable effects should manifest them-
selves in the form of areas of lesser and greater fusion due to resonant
disruption during a flare. Is this a possible cause of sun spots?
 
 
 
Conclusion:
 
Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation may be a unifying
concept to help in the development of detailed theories of various aspects
of fusion and possibly super-conductivity. Many observed phenomenon can be
accounted for by analysis of entire systems not as groups of particles but
as standing sets of waves. Optimization of fusion systems should be achieved
by resonant analysis of the entire system: fusion cavity, fusion material
and pumping method.
 
 
 
References:
 
1. Pons and Fleischman. Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of
   Deuterium. March 11, 1989
 
2. Jones. Observation of Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter.
   March 24, 1989
 
3. Freund and Parker. Free-Electron Lasers.
   Scientific American. April 1989
 
4. Mitchell. Global Impact of Small Scale Thermonuclear Fusion Furnaces.
   (Unpublished). June 8, 1986
 
5. Tesla. Colorado Springs Notes 1899-1900. (pages 368-370)
   Nolit. (Beograd, Yugoslavia). 1978
 
 
 
Appendice 1:
 
       Use of common formulas to compute the wavelength of a system.
 
   Practical considerations would dictate reducing the system to the small-
   est working unit. In a metallic fusion system, it may be possible to
   analyze only one lattice point with all its attendant particles and
   pumping energies.
 
   E  = energy
   Eo = rest energy of a particle
   M  = mass
   Mo = rest mass of a particle
   c  = speed of light
   Ep = total energy of a particle
   Ek = kinetic energy of a particle
   Ee = electropotential energy applied to a particle by pumping
        using electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
   h  = Planck's constant (6.625 x 10E-34 Js)
   W  = wavelength of particle
   Ws = wavelength of system
   f  = frequency
   Es = energy of system
 
 
   1. E = M x c^2  or  Eo = Mo x c^2 for rest energy equivalent of rest mass
                                     of a particle
 
   2. W = 1 / f  relation of wavelength to frequency
 
   3. E = h x f  relation of frequency to energy (Normally used for photon
                 energy. Used here for all particles)
 
   4. W = h / E  derived from 2 and 3 above.
 
   5. Ws= h / Es from theory.
 
   6. Ep=Eo+Ek+Ee  As the ion accelerates before fusion collision, Ee drops
                   as Ek increases. In all cases Ek+Ee is constant. Since
                   Ek is essentially zero, we can use Ee which is the energy
                   applied by pumping. Therefore, Ep is the particle's energy
                   plus the pumping energy, both of which should be relatively
                   easy to determine.
 
   7. Es=summation of Ep  for all particles in chosen system.
 
   8. Or Es= summation of rest energies of all particles plus total pumping
             energy. This allows Es to be computed in bulk.
 
   9. Once Es is obtained, then Ws is obtained using #5 above. From this
      point, current formulas for standing waves, resonant cavities and
      laser design may be used for optimal system design. It should be
      possible to generate FASER output throughout most of the electro-
      magnetic spectrum using Free-Electron laser techniques and at micro-
      wave/infra-red frequencies in metallic solids.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.02 / Mark Epperson /  Where did everybody go?
     
Originally-From: epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where did everybody go?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:44:57 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

The title says it all
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenepperson cudfnMark cudlnEpperson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.02 / D Danforth /  Re: Where did everybody go?
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where did everybody go?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:49:04 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

In <1992Sep2.184457.17530@adobe.com> epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson) writes:
 
>The title says it all
 
That's what I've been wondering.  Is the network really functioning
correctly?
===
D. Danforth
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.02 / Roy Richter /  Re: Where did everybody go?
     
Originally-From: rrichter@link.ph.gmr.com (Roy Richter PH/32)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where did everybody go?
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:28:34 GMT
Organization: GM Research and Environmental Staff

In article <1992Sep2.184457.17530@adobe.com>, epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
 writes:
|> Where did everybody go?
 
I think their cells actually started firing up according to the known natural
laws, and radiation poisoning set in.
 
--
Roy Richter                  Internet: rrichter@ph.gmr.com
Physics Dept, GM Research    UUCP:     rphroy!rrichter
        and Environmental
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrrichter cudfnRoy cudlnRichter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: FASER theory
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 01:49:06 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <65103@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
> TITLE: Reposting of FASER Theory
>
>
>         Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
>
>
>             Copyright (C) June 4, 1989  by David H. Mitchellp
 
[non theory deleted]
 
If resonant standing waves induce fusion reactions in a solid medium,
you need to explain why the medium is not ripped apart first, since
the fields required are much greater than the binding enrgy of the
material. This is the obvious problem with such 'theories', and I note
that there was no mention of how to avoid this.
 
In absence of such a mechanism, you would at least need to cite
experimental evidence that this occurs. Citing P&F hardly counts, 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:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.03 / MIKE JAMISON /  Re: FASER theory
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory
Date:  3 Sep 1992 12:39 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Touche! to Barry Merriman.
 
If ball lightning is fusion powered, why are the people who've observed it
alive to tell about it? (goes hand in hand with huge excess heat claims for
CNF observers).
 
Does leave the question of how the stuff stays together, assuming it's
really a plasma...
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.06 / John Cobb /  Re: FASER theory
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:31:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <65103@cup.portal.com>, pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
|> ...
|>        Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
|>
|>
|>            Copyright (C) June 4, 1989  by David H. Mitchellp
 
 
|>It is the author's contention that the evolution of knowledge from standing
|>waves that led to the MASER, and later LASER, theories may point the way to
|>an understanding of recent breakthroughs and also indicate new areas of re-
|>search.
 
While I find little in such ideas to resuurect Cold Fusion or Ball Lightening,
there is something to be gained from examining stimulated emission in this
vein. This however is not new. A few years ago there was some discussion about
the generation of a Gamma Ray Laser from the temporary population inversion
caused from molecular muon-catalysed fusion. Unfortunately I have not
followed this work recently and I can't give a reference at this time.
 
|> Indeed, it is clear that sightings
|>would at first appear to a trained scientific observer as illusions, fab-
|>rications or outright mystical aberrations. However, the explanation of
|>ball lightning as a naturally occurring form of fusion explains the phen-
|>omenon in a manner consistent with the apparently incredible observations.
|>Also, the decrease in sightings of unusual phenomenon in general is us-
|>ually attributed to better ability to rule out false claims. Hence, any
|>item that appears to be reported less in recent years is assumed to be
|>folklore and/or false claims. In the case of ball lightning, this may
|>not be true.
 
The problem with ball lightning seems to be that it cannot be reproduced
at will. Now I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that it is all a
figment of people's imagination, but until you can show me how to
repeatedly and reliably create these critters, I be darned if I am
going to devote my professional life to studying such a chimera. The
same criticism applies to cold fusion. Unless I find some reproducible
results, or I have some insight that gives me confidence, I will use my
talents more productively elsewhere. If you want to do otherwise, fine,
but don't expect to receive a lot of attention until something
reproducible can be found.
 
|>The fact that high temperature containment structures where
|>near breakeven fusion energy is occurring indicates that controlled fusion
|>is possible.
|>
But CTR reserach has nothing to do with coherent radiation. IT is an
approximately steady state phenomenon.
 
|> A properly tuned medium will then resonate, producing more
|>fusion. In a metallic medium, low energy photons should be produced, in
|>either the microwave or infra-red (heat) range; experimental evidence for
|>this is the Pons/Fleischman experiment. Visible light would occur in an
|>intermittent medium temperature plasma; evidence for this is the orange/
|>yellow color of ball lightning. Very high energy would occur in a high
|>temperature fusion explosion (gamma rays). In simple terms, the resonant
|>effect known in lasers is the key to high energy output in fusion. FASER
|>theory is therefore the theory that meaningful fusion occurs when energy
|>is pumped into a resonant medium for the materials to be fused. If the
|>wavelengths of the resonant medium and the material to be fused are pro-
|>perly balanced, then energy injection will create a resonant state that
|>results in amplification of the fusion effect.
 
This idea is basically flawed. Fusion is an energy release process, stimulated
emission is not. In fusion, you shuffle the nuclear structure
(i.e. D + T -> 4He + N, etc.) and live off of the margin of energy released,
in LASERS, MASERS, X-LASERS, etc. there is no net energy gain. You pay
an energy price by putting up a population inversion. Then you regain that
energy in coherent radiation by the LASing phenomenon. I.E. you trade
60 Hz Wall power for coherent 3 micron radiation. However, nobody every
runs a power plant and sells electricity to the grid from a LASER power plant.
It's a zero sum game in terms of energy.
 
But don't let me dampen your enthusiasm. In my mind there are few crimes
more heinous than stomping out enthusiastic imagination with a loud
humbug, just don't bet the farm on this idea. I mean the ideas that
are unleashed when one begins to understand waves are really neat. Let
me suggest Crawford's textbook on waves (Titleed <Waves>). It is in the
Berkeley Series. He has a lot of neat ideas here about waves (I don't
know, I may be insulting your level of expertise, if so, happy polly-lodges).
 
-john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  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: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:32:14 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The Rev. Thomas Bayes and Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Rev. Thomas Bayes and Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I stole that title from something I just ran across on page 9 of the
Jan '92 issue of Physics Today - a commentary by Phillip W. Anderson
on the application of Bayesian statistics to "needles in haystacks and
the fifth force."  For "fifth force" one may as well substitute "cold
fusion" and Prof. Anderson's commentary will remain equally valid.  I
think a few quotes will serve to convey the essence, and I will indicate
my changes in the wording by CAPS.
 
"These statistics (Bayesian) are the correct way to do inductive reason-
ing from necessarily imperfect experimental data . . . The essence of
it is to clearly identify the possible answers, assign reasonable
a priori to them and then ask which of the answers have been made more
likely by the data.  It's particularly useful for simple "null" answers."
 
"Let us take COLD FUSION.  If we assume from the outset that there is
COLD FI
USION and we need only measure its magnitude, we are assigning
the bin with zero SURPLUS HEAT an infinitesimal probability to begin
with.  Actually we should assign this bin, which is the null hypothesis
we want to test, some finite a priori probability - like 1/2 - and
share out the remaining 1/2 amoung all the other possible VALUES.
We then ask the question, does a given set of statistical measurements
increase or decrease this share of the probability?  It turns out that
when one adopts this point of view, it often takes a much larger devia-
tion of the result from zero to begin to decrease the null hypothesis's
share."
 
Having read this my conclusion is that those of you trying to make a
case for cold fusion should find a good book on Bayesian statistics
or, at the very least, read what Prof. Anderson has to say in its
entirety.
 
Correction:  The fourth line of the first quote should read a priori
probabilities to them...
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  Close /   Fleischmann at press conference and Frank Close remarks
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Fleischmann at press conference and Frank Close remarks
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Statement by Frank Close in presence of Martin Fleischmann at BAAS press
conference and transcript of ensuing remarks.
 
FC: I have made my position clear on the nuclear physics aspects of these
claims in my book. I am not a chemist; I cannot comment on the chemistry but
others have done so. I have never seen evidence that watts of fusion power
are being produced in test tubes at room temperature. On quite general grounds
of energy conservation you know that for every watt of power of the order of
10**12 nuclear events have to take place independent of what particular nuclear
process is involved. Those products are either emitted from the cell as
radiation - and have not been seen - or are left behind and can be looked for.
Some experiments that have claimed to see heat have looked for these products
and have not found anything comparable by ORDERS OF MAGTNITUDE with 10**12
per sec per watt. I said this in my book; I stand by it and everything I
said about the science, its presentation and the history.
    Much of the documentation on which my book was based will in due course
be deposited with the History of CF archive at Cornell where others will be
able to assess my claims.
 
MF. [Something like "FC remarks based upon expectation from hot fusion
pathways"]--I see no reason why nuclear processes in the lattice need
compare with those in the gas phase.
 
FC.My statement relied solely on the fact that the energy available
in nuclear reactions comes from the binding energy which is of the order
of 1 million volts independent of the process and independent of where it
goes. [1 million volts per event is equivalent to some 10**12 events per
watt every second]
 
MF then described how his device undergo temp excursions and that they are
reluctant to shut it off, for safety. So they let it expire by ceasing to
top up the liquid and let it "boil away". [This is the origin of their much
advertised boiling cell].
 
MF It may be that one will never be able to make the [heat burst (?) -
my tape noisy here] for more than a day. Frank Close is quite right; there
are enormous ehergy releases in the system and the lattice does get disrupted
[I presume he is referring here to my comments on energy storage systems
of phys-chem type] --- Frank Close does not like the Bush [helium claims]
-- I [MF] bet it will probably turn out to be helium-4.
 
He was then challenged by reporter as to why he believed nuclear and he stressed
energy release greater than 1kW/cc "Think about it; what can I say?
Several people see this. Frank, what is 1kW/cc in nuclear terms?"
 
FC. How big is your device that you are scaling up?
 
MF. Small. It generates [about] 100 watts.
 
FC. *If* it generates 100W and *if* it is going to helium-4 then there are
some 10**13 helium [produced] every second and its very easy to find that
stuff whether its inside or coming off.
 
MF. Yes; sure
 
FC.If that is what you currently believe then *every* experiment that is
producing heat from the many that you cited should be able to go and prove
the fact by finding the helium-4
 
MF. 1992 must be the year when people must put on line mass spectrometers.
 
FC. Why so long?
 
MF. Because it costs lots of money.
 
FC.I know of experiments that believed they showed heat, that looked for
helium and found none [in 89/90].
 
[Debate then moved into other areas; MF claimed that it is "well established"
that neutrons are produced at "5-50 per watt". Wilkie, science editor of
the  Independent, (daily paper), who was trained as a particle physicist,
pointed out that 5-50 is irrelevant compared to 10**12. The answer was that
other experiments see tritium, electromagnetic radiation etc. These are also
well established apparently, though the relation to Wilkie's question was
not clear to me. When pressed for citations we were referred to the 2nd Ann
Conf now published in vol33 of the Italian Phys Soc. The fact that none of
the papers in that volume claim to see 10**12 of anything was not mentioned.
Reporter then pursued the question of nuclear remnants being left behind
in the cell if not emitted as radiation]
 
MF. - - - All experiments that produce a large amount of heat should sample
the gases. I accept that it must be done.
 
FC. Whether chemical or nuclear, *assuming* that there is something
happening - and that is a very wide open question - then there must
be some products *left behind*. If one could find the products then one would
know straight away what was going on.
 
MF. The nuclear ash [sic!] must be found.
 
[I am pleased from this remark that MF is aware of the discussions that
take place on this net. I hope too that people who are seriously researching
the H-metal system will note that MF and I agree on the importance of
finding the "ash". If the Japanese are indeed putting in as much money as
others would have us believe, and if MF is correct that "many" people
can now produce power at the level of "many" watts,then we can anticipate
hearing about many reproducible definitive measurements on nuclear ash,
specifically helium at the levels of greater than 10**15 atoms, very soon.
If we do not then one or more of these claims are false.Alternatively we could
recall the null measurements of helium that have already been made and
documented e.g. in Huizenga's book (Pons' obstruction of the helium assay)
or those analysed on this net (Bush et al).]
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 734 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 734 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here we go again, with quite a pile. I have caught up with some long-standing
problems, such as the Tamayo item. I won't waste my time and yours commenting
on all the theoretical papers, except to say that the Moizhes differs from the
usual argument about the d-d distance in his speculation that this might be
as little as 0.3 A, due to D2 formation and electron overlap; and to point out
that Rambaut solves a now nonexistent problem, that of cluster-impact fusion.
 The Jones paper is interesting, as it reads like a hard-line skeptic's view.
Everything except the very low and academic neutron fluxes of Jones et al, is
wrong. The usual (and no doubt correct) arguments against a nuclear
explanation of cold fusion are mounted. Jones continues to dissociate himself
from excess heat, tritium etc.
McKee et al take a look at the problem of how long the voltage across a crack
might last - i.e. long enough for fusion by acceleration, or not? It might be
on, IF there are local changes from metallic to insulator. As claimed by the
fracto-Russians, x-rays ought to be detected, and the group will look for
them.
I got the Ikegami after the exchange between Jed Rothwell and Jon Webb, about
two months ago, and since there was no English abstract, I had to lean on
Jon's abstract out of INSPEC. Thanks, Jon, and your name is perpetuated in the
bibliography. I must say you went over the top, Jon, in interpreting the
wording of the abstract: the words "unbelievable facts" do not, in my opinion,
show that Ikegami does not believe, but are likely to be an inept translation
of something like "incredible" - as also used by Ed Storms in his review
paper. I did glean a bit more out of that paper. I really should learn
Japanese, maybe.
Ono et al looked at the Pd surface and reckon they found something of interest
but are not sure. Shirai et al used a strange twist, i.e. a large current
flowing through the anode surrounding the Pd cathode, but not going through
the electrolyte - another way of providing "nonequilibrium", I suppose. They
didn't find much, though, except for an "extraordinary" (i.e. unexpectedly
high) gamma event, and temperature rise, both single events. If I look at my
long record of Gaussian random numbers, I can find quite a few multi-sigma
"events"...
Some of you might be interested by the IR spectroscopy of the Mexicans, Tamayo
et al. This showed that H2O impurities in D2O are present in the form of DHO,
something I had long supposed but couldn't (or was too lazy to) prove. Other
than that, they didn't find anything exciting.
Yet another experimental approach was tried by Tateno et al, who thought that
if something interesting happens as you warm up deuterised Ti (e.g. neutron
emission), this might also show up as a change in internal friction. It
didn't.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 3-Sep-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 734
 
Published articles, Letters; archived files CNF-PAP1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barts BI, Barts DB, Grinenko AA;             Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 55 (1992) 45.
Originally in: Yad. Fiz. 55 (1992) 79.
"Theory of nuclear reactions with the participation of slow charged particles
in solids".
** Two aspects of the crystal environment of purported solid state cold fusion
are investigated. One is the screening of d-d pairs by valence electrons of
the crystal. It is shown that at low energies, this is very important and the
rate of fusion can be enhanced by many orders of magnitude. The other is the
possibility of two deuterons moving together into a region of minimum crystal
potential at the centre of a cell, where their wave functions might overlap
and the fusion rate can increase by one or two tens of orders of magnitude.
These effects are not enough, however, to explain experimental claims.
                                                                 Jul-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatterjee L, Chakraborty A, Das G;  Indian J. Pure Appl. Phys. 29 (1991) 781.
"Non-radiative exit channels in low energy d-d fusion".
** A theoretical look at collisional and muon-catalysed d-d fusion at low
energies (the two differ in important ways). Phase space effects might alter
the ratio of the two main exit branches t-p and (3)He-n. Indeed, calculations
support this, though deviations from unity are smallish except for muon
catalysed d-d fusion at high muon energies.                      Apr-91/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fedorovich GV;                           Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 36 (1991) 847.
Originally in: Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 61 (1991) 1.
"Coulomb interaction in an E-cell".
** If the width of the tunnelling barrier were reduced, the fusion tunnelling
rate would increase. This takes place in an E-cell, a radiation defect created
by a thermal neutron in a crystal cell of hydrides of certain light elements
such as Li or B. So in, e.g., LiD, there might be appreciable d-d fusion, as
suggested by the Soviet fractofusion results.                    Feb-90/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ikegami H;                             Oyo Buturi 60 (1991) 212 (in Japanese).
INSPEC abstract cited by Jon Webb on sci.physics.fusion (NEWS), 6-Jul-92.
"Present and future of cold fusion. Nuclear products from cold fusion".
** A review, in the context of fusion in general, of the cold fusion claims of
neutrons and tritium. The control, i.e. the reproducibility of experiments is
essential. The major results of the past few years are summarised, ranging
over about 14 orders of magnitude in intensity from the neutron emissions of
Menlove to excess heat of Pons and Fleischmann.                  Jan-91/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones SE;                               Surf. Coatings Technol. 51 (1992) 283.
"Current issues in cold fusion research: heat, helium, tritium, and energetic
particles".
** Four major issues current in cold fusion are explored in this paper.
Transfer, by some cooperative process, of released nuclear energy into the
metal hydride lattice a heat: the distances are too large, and the Moessbauer
effect is not relevant in this context. Thus, the (4)He branch, without the
accompanying commensurate radiation, is impossible. There is considerable
doubt about the China Lake results. At least two data points were thrown out,
both of some significance. The results are considered in error, the helium no
doubt coming in as contamination. The calorimetry at China Lake, too, was poor
and the excess heat well within the probable error. Thirdly, tritium
production without secondary neutrons is inconsistent. Lastly, large amounts
of heat without commensurate nuclear emissions are not possible, so excess
heat claims, too, are in error. This leaves the Jones et al findings of very
low level neutron emissions, possibly connected with geological tritium and
(3)He production; the phenomenon is of academic, rather than practical,
importance.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKee JSC, Smith GR, Durocher JJG, Johnston HL, Mathur MS, Mayer JK, Mirzai A,
Yeo YH, Hempel A, Hnatiuk H, King S;
Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. B67 (1992) 448.
"The role of fractofusion in the creation of anomalies in neutron production
from deuterium-implanted solids".
** Purely on the basis of d-d separation (389 pm in Pd, 404 pm in PdD, 74 pm
in D2 gas), cold fusion is unlikely. Here, the fracto-scenario is examined.
Can the material fracture, and might there be metal-dielectric transitions in
the deuteride? Cracks are well documented, and in an ionic crystal, the time
constant of potential decay of a 1 mu crack is long enough to support the
required acceleration. In a metallic conductor, however, the times are much
smaller, unless the region around a crack becomes a dielectric, and this is
thought to be possible. Fusion from acceleration should be accompanied by the
emission of x-rays, and work is in progress.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moizhes BYa;                             Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 17 (1991) 540.
Originally in: Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 17 (1991) 15.
"Formation of a compact D2 molecule in interstitial sites - a possible
explanation for cold nuclear fusion".
** Cold fusion has been observed, says Moizhes, and only remains to be
explained. One possibility is the statistical close approach of two deuterons
due to screening. The question is whether a stable D2 molecule can form in the
deuteride crystal, and what the d-d distance in it would be. Electron overlap
between the D2 and the Pd centres would compress the molecule to about 0.3 A
and the resulting energy makes it feasible that an electrolysis voltage of
10V or so could force two d nuclei into an interstitial site, enabling Jones
levels of fusion. More work is needed to confirm this.           Apr-91/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ono H, Takahashi S, Morisaki H, Yazawa K;
Denki Tsushin Daigaku Kiyo 4 (1991) 235 (in Japanese, English abstract).
"Absorption and desorption of hydrogen and deuterium into palladium".
** SEM was used to look at the surface morphology of Pd upon electrolysis in
0.1M LiOH and LiOD in normal and heavy water, resp. In LiOD, crater-like
features appear on the Pd, but not in LiOH, after thousands of electrolysis
hours. A neutron detector was placed into a Wada-Nishizawa-type glass bulb
containing Pd and pressurised D2 gas, with an electric discharge passed
between the Pd rods. No neutrons were observed above background.      ?/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rambaut M;                                       Phys. Lett. A 164 (1992) 155.
"Double screened Coulomb barrier accounts for neutrons productions in cluster
and other fusion experiments".
** A dense medium like Pd deuteride can be considered as a non-ideal plasma.
Assuming full ionisation, electron mobility and a Poisson ion spatial
distribution, the rate of d-d fusion is enhanced by both collisions between
d-d pairs and electron screening, and this might explain both cold fusion and
cluster impact fusion.                                           Sep-91/Apr-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shirai O, Kihara S, Sohrin Y, Matsui M;
Bull. Inst. Chem. Res., Kyoto Univ. 69 (1991) 550.
"Some experimental results relating to cold nuclear fusison".
** A 5 or 10 mm diameter, 10-15 mm long Pd rod was the cathode and a
surrounding cylindrical Pt the anode in an electrolysis in 1M LiCl in D2O;
electrolysis currents of about 500 mA were used, and an extra current of 5A
passed through the Pt net. Gamma emission was monitored with a GM counter, and
electrolyte temperature with a thermocouple. Out of about 50 runs, one showed
a rapid temperature rise, and some extraordinary gamma emission was seen. The
d-p reaction is suggested as an explanation. Some further experiments showed
that deuterium is both adsorbed on and can permeate into Pd.          Nov-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tamayo JMM, Rivas JM, Celis BZ, Garcia FPR, Penaloza ON;
Rev. Inst. Mex. Pet. 22 (1990) 42 (in Spanish).
"Experiments on cold fusion at IMP".
** A number of experiments on cold fusion were run at the Mexican Petroleum
Institute IMP, to prove or disprove the effect. IR spectra were measured for
both H2O and the D2O used; the latter showed no H2O peak, but some HDO
impurity. LiOD was prepared by electrolysis from LiCl in D2O. Gamma radiation
background was measured over 24 hours with NaI, and during electrolysis runs.
Tritium was also monitored. No significant radiation was detected, although
there was, upon magnification, a very small gamma peak at 2.224 MeV. No heat
was observed. Some tritium increases, roughly in line with electrolysis time,
was observed. No conclusions as to the reality of cnf are drawn.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tateno H, Iwashita Y;           Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Suppl. 30-1, 30 (1991) 41.
"An attempt to observe nuclear fusion in titanium by internal friction".
** The internal friction and resonant frequency of oscillation of Ti charged
with deuterium from the gas phase were measured, and compared with those using
hydrogen. The Ti was degassed at 600 C and loaded at liquid nitrogen
temperature. Upon warming up, there were changes in internal friction and
resonant frequency and some differences between deuterium and hydrogen;
however, nothing was observed at the temperature at which other workers
reported neutron emissions.                                           Jan-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  /  A Ying Result
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Ying Result
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

With apologies to Coke and Pepsi:
 
"It's the real Ying"
 
But it doesn't have any "Uh-Huh".
 
Those of you who wondered why I did not use Ying-Yang for In/Out now
know that I had something more grand in mind.  If you do not get the
pun, you live in another solar system.
 
This last weekend we completed the first real test of the Ying
experiment.  We used the same type of glass bottle as Ying used,
samples of which were provided by Gene Mallove.  The cell was fitted
with a rubber stopper with four penetrations.  One was a .5 mm dia Pd
cathode.  A second was a .25 mm dia Pt anode.  About 3 cm of the
cathode was active, the anode length was adjusted to give about equal
anode and cathode area.  Two stainless steel tubes were provided, one
to the bottom of the cell and one to the top.  The top tube
penetration was connected by a tube to a second container which held a
catalyst and which was also located inside the calorimeter.  The
outlet from the catalyst container was brought outside the calorimeter
where any excess gas was measured by a motor driven syringe.  The
bottom cell tube was kept sealed except for it use in loading the
electrolyte.  The system was operated completely sealed.
 
The configuration was that specified by Ying in his private
communication which I am pledged to keep secret until he can obtain
publication.
 
The cell was placed in the calorimeter empty and allowed to stabilize
for a few hours, then an eleven hour null measurement was made.  This
indicated a mean drift of less than +2 mw for the 11 hour measurement
period.
 
The bottom cell tube was then used to load the cell with D2O.  The
command current was adjusted (we command current not voltage) to
provide a cell voltage near 15 volts.  After another few hours to
allow the calorimeter to stabilize from the electrolyte insertion, a
run was made to look for "anomalous heat".  This run again gave a
measurement of near +2 mw.
 
The cell current was then reversed, and again after a period to allow
the cell to stabilize, another long term measurement was made.  This
measurement is still going on, but the early indication is that it
will also give a result near zero, but somewhat negative.
 
At this time, I can say that I have run the Ying experiment and the
result is consistent with zero "anomalous heat" +/- 20 mw.  The error
will likely get closer to zero when the off line calibrations are
applied.  Because of the weather (hurricanes, volcanos, etc.) the
house temperature has varied more that usual so that some study will
be required to get the most accurate measurement.
 
One thing that was troublesome was that the cell ran at a higher
current than that reported by Ying.  His 26 June press release states
that the input power was 15 milli-watts.  Private communication with
him indicated an operating point of 100 micro-amperes at 15 volts.  At
14.5 volts, we were drawing more than 25 ma.  We took reasonable care
to keep contaminants out of the cell, so I am surprised that Ying was
able to achieve such low cell current at 15 volts.  It has not been
overlooked that 15 volts and 25 ma is pretty close to the half watt of
excess power reported by Ying when he though his input power was 100
micro-amperes and 15 volts.  One possibility is that Ying's ammeter
was not accurate.  In private discussion Ying said that he only had
one ammeter but that he now had a second and that he would operate the
two in series as a check.  We note that it is very easy to damage an
ammeter.
 
Since Ying has advertised "Cold fusion on demand ..." (26 July press
release), I can say that I have demanded, and there was no heat
presented.  Unlike some of the other "cold fusion" experiments where
it was only promised that some cells show "anomalous heat", this looks
like a bona fide negative result to me.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  /  Reply to Barry Wise
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Barry Wise
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Barry Wise wonders about an apparent jump one week into the two Pseudo Ying
runs.  Point 10 on the first run was taken roughly on a Friday, and was taken
about 7 days into the run.  Point 8 on the second reported run was taken on
a Tuesday, and was actually about day 10 of that run.  I did not start
reporting points until I had settled down on a 24 hour period.
 
This leads to the problem of the inevitable bias in reporting partial data
that has not been thoroughly analyzed.  I do my best to report representative
sets of data.  My attempt is to be a "seeker of truth".  But ***of course I
want a positive result***!  So far, the experiments have not been too
cooperative.  Anyone willing to put in the month or so part time work required
to get up to speed can have raw data sets.  I collect 388,800 bytes a day.
 
So Barry, I have looked at the log book pages for the two points in question.
I do not see anything in particular.  But perhaps looking at the 60 odd items
recorded at 1 minute intervals would show something.  If you would want to
look at it, I have probably recorded it.
 
I figure it would take about a month, after getting up to speed on the data,
to just muck with the data and to try to answer Barry's question.  One problem
is that there has been no effort to take consistent data sets.  The second
in/out run being one of the closest things to a real experiment that I have
done.  I am still exploring.  When something looks interesting, then I will
attempt a controlled series of experiments.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  Rothwell /  Where be his quiddits now?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where be his quiddits now?
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I mentioned that some high energy pals of mine said GeV particles might be
elusive. Tom Droege would have me speak close to the card, lest equivocation
undo me, so let me rephrase that:
 
In the cold fusion experiments that have been performed heretofore, with the
instrumentation that has been used, in the manner in which it has deployed, GeV
particles of the type and number we predict should occur may not have been
readily detected. Even if said particles had been detected by the instruments,
they might have been vetoed, or confused with some other particle or particles.
This is not to suggest or imply that said particles could not easily be
detected with the proper type of equipment, when such equipment is used in the
prescribed manner by persons sufficiently skilled in the art of particle
detection.
 
By golly. I have been spending a lot time with the legal eagles, haven't I? Tom
wanted to know who I talked to, but since I just asked them for a preliminary,
informal reading on the subject, not a definitive opinion, let's let them mull
it over and speak for themselves.
 
In other news, Fleischmann went public in England and gave a talk at the
something like an NAS meeting. I don't have the paper yet. We had a nice chat
with him, he sounds like he is in good spirits. The BBC, Independent
Television, and the British newspapers played it up pretty well. I think they
called it the revival or rebirth of CF - I can't remember. My notes are in the
other computer, which is undergoing a diskectomy and a DOSectomy. Tom suggests
that computer errors, caused by alpha particles, may indicate that the NCM is
correct. As far as I know, I am hundreds of miles from the nearest CF
experiment, but I have had many hardware crashes lately, so it must be that
anytime anybody anywhere runs a CF experiment, my computer dies. Ha! That
proves the model definitively; these particles must be for real. They are
mighty powerful, and they are aimed right at me! Yessir, we are going to expand
this to be the NCM - ESP - CompuParanormalParanoia Model.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  Close /   Martin Fleischmann talk at British Association; part 1
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Martin Fleischmann talk at British Association; part 1
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Martin Fleischmann held a press conference at the British Association on
27 Aug. He had refused to take part in a debate with me and the advertised
debate "with a panel of experts" turned out to be no more than a talk by
him. I was in the audience as was David Williams (ex Harwell) and other
experts. It is unfortunate that none of these people was able to take
part in a genuine debate with Dr Fleischmann.
 
 
He showed a video of a cell "boiling" dated 21 June 92 (though the actual
boiling occurred when noone was present - `we had taken a visitor to the
airport'. He commented that `interesting things happen when we take visitors
to the airport or when there are lightning strikes'. Those of you who remember
the suing of Salamon in 90, where Pons claimed that cells had been producing
radiation but that Salamons instruments had been nulled `by a lightning strike'
will find this remark ironic.) The video then continued with pictures of
lump of palladium at bottom of dry cell. Then a further video was shown
of very violent bubbling that we were assured was boiling. I would have
liked to have been in a genuine debate where an electrochemist could have
commented on whether it was significant that, if the water had all disappeared,
then the Pd block could not have been submerged throughout.
 
The talk began with MF holding up a blue (or so it appeared in the dim
llighting) covered book and recommending everyone to read it. For a moment
I thought he was advertising John Huizenga's "Cold Fusion, the scientific
fiasco of the century" which was on display in the hall, however it turned
out to be the vol33 of the Italian Phys Soc, Proc of 2nd Ann Cold Fusion Conf.
He wrote the ISBN number on the chalkboard; unfortunately I was not able
to copy this down as it was written in a red chalk on a dark green background
and although a handful of people might have been able to see it, it was
invisible to most of the audience; an allegory of cold fusion perhaps.
 
MF began with claims that CNF had been found by Rutherford et al in
the 30s and also by P Dee at the same time. This was astonishing to me as
I had already pointed out (chapter 18 of THTH, second and third pages) that
the former is at 20keV incident energy and hence "hot" fusion and the Dee expt
also is in contradiction with the cold fusion claims.
The rest of the talk was full of such vague generalisations, with "proofs"
of CF that have been known on the fusion network for more than one or two years.
It generated a feeling of deja vu. It was interesting that MF claimed that
he bet that helium is being produced and that it is "well known" that "we"
produced helium in August 89; those who know the history will appreciate how
this is rather less than the whole truth. It was announced that someone (who?)
had found helium at "up to about 600 times background"; even allowing for the
"up to" it was not said that even if correct this would be several orders of
magnitude below what would be required to substantiate what was being sold.
The claims were in this mode; data from 1989/90 that have been widely
dismissed were presented as if new and significant.  He claimed he and Pons
found neutrons in 89 "but probably thought there were more than there were",
he said that they saw tritium and that "one photomultiplier didnt work
properly and we were criticised quite rightly".
 
He said that as there was no panel to debate with he would also play the
role of "contra" and so showed data from Kamiokande (Steve Jones, are you
there?) which showed neutrons but the "sceptics say its all from natural
radioactivity; that would require all the uranium etc in the cave to decay
at once but thats what they say nonetheless" (this is not an exact quote
but I was scribbling in my logbook). And here again, it was not said that
even *if* these were genuine neutrons, they offered nothing in support of
his claims of hundreds of watts of fusion power.
 
He did not say *why* there was no panel to debate with; he did not disclose that
I had been asked in 1990 to appear with him but that he had then written to the
BAAS in 91 refusing to appear on stage with me and suggesting that various well
known supporters of cold fusion should appear. There was no explanation as to
why the programme had advertised that he would be questioned by a panel of
(unnamed) experts; it was unfortunate that people arrived at the hall in
expectation of this only to find a row of seats on the stage but no panel.
 
There was so much that I would have loved to have been able to criticise
with the aid of an overhead projector but to give chapter and verse from
the body of the hall would have been confusing and counterproductive.
However, in the press conference earlier I did manage to  make a statement
and gain a response from MF about the significance of helium. I am posting
this as a separate item.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  F&P in the South of France
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: F&P in the South of France
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:37:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following was posted on CompuServe by Michael Kenward:
 
The reporter who first revealed the existance of cold fusion to the world,
Clive Cookson of the Financial Times, has another article on the subject
in today's (Aug 28?) edition of the newspaper.
 
(Headline) "Doubters of 'cold fusion' confronted"
At the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science Martin Fleischmann showed a video of recent experiments with a CF
cell.  It had a palladium electrode about 1 inch in diameter and 6 inches
high.  Cookson writes: "The cell was bubbling intensely, he said, emit-
ting 1 kilowatt of excess heat per cubic centimetre - similar to the
output of a fast breeder nuclear reactor."
 
The experiments happened in a lab in the south of France, where Fleischmann
and Pons work "for a Japanese-funded think tank."  "It takes about a week to
initiate the process and then you have about 15 minutes to observe the
phenomenon," Fleischmann is quoted as saying.  F&P haven't run a cell more
than an hour "for safety reasons".  Fl says that the CF process is not yet
controllable enough for people to start thinking about building practical
devices.
 
Fleischmann says that "There are hundreds of people working on the topic
and I would say they are spending tens of millions of pounds on it."
--------------
So now we have advanced from science by press conference to science by
video.  I find it hard to connect "bubbling intensely" with 10 kW of
heat output.  Let's see, that would be roughly 2 Kcal per second which
would vaporize 3-4 cc per second - yes, I guess that must be the
"proof" of CF we have all been waiting for.  I wonder if Fleischmann
knows about all those 6 GeV 3He steaming out of his cell?  Maybe that
is why you only have "15 minutes to observe the phenomenon."
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.06 /  asghar@ifi.uih /  Test
     
Originally-From: asghar@ifi.uih.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 12:06:38 GMT
Organization: University of Melborn

 
It is a test.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenasghar cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.06 /  amir@nora.ust. /  testing
     
Originally-From: amir@nora.ust.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: testing
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:39:30 GMT
Organization: NTC Co.

it is a test.
 
           Amir
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenamir cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.01 / Shoshana Billik /  Report on Philosophies of Physicists
     
Originally-From: billiksh@milton.u.washington.edu (Shoshana Billik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:56:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

 
	Hi again! Back in May, I posted my survey on " Philosophies of
Physicists " to this newsgroup. Thanks to all of you who took the time and
effort to respond, the survey was a great success! Your comments helped me
to gain a clearer sense of the views of physicists today on the nature of
reality and on the possible spiritual and philosophical implications of
quantum physics. I am sorry I did not post this report sooner, but, many
things came up toward the end of the school year, and, I had many of these
reports to send out.
	I also especially wanted to thank everyone for being so nice and
supportive in the questionnaire responses. I had been forewarned, that, if you
are a first - time user on Internet, and, in particular, an undergraduate
attempting to do research on the Net, you may receive negative feedback from
more seasoned users and possibly even be flamed! However, nothing of this sort
happened to me; everyone who responded to and / or expressed interest in my
survey was very supportive and helpful.
	By now, all of you who responded to the survey should have
received your own, individualized copy of this report. If, by some strange
oversight, you did not, or, if you did not respond to the questionnaire
but would like a personalized copy of the report or know someone who
would, please let me know, and, I will be happy to send you a copy, either
through e - mail or via the U. S. post office, if you include your mailing
address. Send e - mail requests to billiksh@u.washington.edu.
	My class presentation on the survey went well; I was quite pleased. The
report was well - received by both the students and the faculty.
	As a result of doing this survey and thinking about the
responses, I have come up with a career goal for myself: to be a philosopher
and to teach philosophy of science, metaphysics, and general philosophy to
college students. I am excited by this prospect and feel more secure in the
knowledge that I now have some kind of career goal toward which to work in
life.
	Many of the responses contained so much information that I regret I was
unable to go into more depth in the report. However, I do have the responses
on hand for future reference.
	Below you will find the results of my survey interlaced with the
questions. I sent the survey out to various physicists in the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Puget Sound, and on Internet, to philosophy,
philosophy of science, and physics newsgroups, such as this one. I also
interviewed physicists at Evergreen. From these various sources, I received
42 responses, which I have used to make the following report, based on
each question of the survey.
 
                             Philosophies of Physicists
 
1. Where are you currently employed, and what is your position there?
 
	For this basic, get - to - know - you - type question, I got
responses that ranged all over the place. I had physicists respond from
coast to coast, from San Jose State University, the University of San
Francisco, Reed College, Seattle Pacific University, and many others on the
West Coast to MIT, Rutgers University, and Boston University, among
others, on the East Coast. There were also responses from areas in between
the coasts: the University of Colorado, Ohio State University, and the
University of Wisconsin, among others. I even had physicists respond from
other countries: two from Canada, and one from Australia. Oh, and of
course, not to mention Evergreen.
	Most of the physicists who responded to the survey either work at
universities or are graduate students there. The rest work in business and
government sectors, in institutions such as the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Watson IBM Labs, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. There is also one medical physicist
who works in a hospital.
 
2. What other physics - related positions have you held in the past? When and
where were these jobs?
 
	This was another get - to - know - you type question. Many
physicists have been teaching assistants while in graduate school. Others
have worked in laboratories, have held previous teaching jobs, or have
worked for the government.
 
3. Have you done any work in the field of quantum physics? If so, what?
 
	I asked this question because I felt that the physicists could
offer more of an insider's view on quantum physics if they have done work
in this field. Most have either worked in the field or in related fields
which use quantum theory, have taught or have taken courses in quantum
physics, and / or have written books or papers on the subject.
 
4. Have you read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and / or seen his movie, "
Mindwalk? " If so, do you find validity in his ideas?
 
	Of the physicists who have read the book, most disagree with his
views and are fairly critical of the book. There is a wide range of
reasons within this spectrum of general dislike, a spectrum which, at its
extreme, is epitomized by such comments as, " The book is 99% trash! " One
physicist says that Capra makes an analogy between Eastern religions and
quantum physics but does nothing more than that to back it up, i. e. , he
does not make any claims which can be argued or tested. Many feel the
connections Capra draws between Eastern religions and quantum physics are
sketchy, coincidental, and contrived. One physicist feels that the book
deals too superficially with both the physics and the Eastern religions.
	Others talk about how they had initially been drawn to Capra's ideas;
indeed, for one of them, it had been a motivating force in making him want to
go into physics. However, as these physicists learned more about actual
quantum physics, they realized that Capra's arguments are fairly
sensationalized and cooled down on his ideas. Some of the basis of Capra's
ideas has also been disproven since he wrote the book, such as the bootstrap
theory.
	One physicist suggests Capra overemphasizes the subjective nature
of quantum physics when he discusses the role of the observer in
experiments.  Just because the observation is in part subject to the
observer does not mean that different people doing the same experiment
will get different results. There are limits to this subjectivity, which,
according to this physicist, Capra does not recognize. Another physicist
agrees with the previous one and berates Capra for adhering to the
subjectivist / " Primacy of Consciousness " argument, which states that
consciousness precedes existence. The physicist, who classifies himself as
a realist / objectivist, argues that Capra follows a corruption of Western
philosophy perpetrated by Immanuel Kant, a philosophy which holds that man
creates reality. It is in this manner that Capra is able to make
connections between a Kantian view of science and Eastern religions. The
problem, according to this physicist, is that this Kantian view is based
on a logical fallacy and is a self - refuting argument. Existence must
precede consciousness, he argues, in order for consciousness to exist,
because consciousness must be aware of something first in order to be
conscious.
	One physicist surveyed says he likes Capra's approach of bringing
together physics and philosophy. Another says the exact opposite and
claims that physics and philosophy should not be mixed. Another says that
Capra's idea of a holistic world view verified by quantum physics is a
valid and consistent way to interpret quantum physics but not the only
way.
 
5. Are you familiar with the holistic implications of quantum physics? These
implications include such ideas as how the universe is interconnected on a
subatomic level and the way in which you cannot observe something without
changing it. Do you find any validity in these ideas?
 
	I wondered if I jumped to conclusions too quickly after reading
The Tao of Physics that there are these actual holistic implications of
quantum physics, because most of the physicists surveyed do not see
anything holistic about the implications of quantum physics. This group
includes both those who have and have not read The Tao of Physics or
related works. One recurring argument against any holistic implications of
quantum physics involves the idea that quantum mechanics is derived from
strict mathematical formulae and therefore cannot be holistic. One states
that its basic spirit is non - holistic because quantum physics works for
two particles but for anything more than that, the form of quantum theory
does not allow for calculations to be made on an atomic level. Other
physicists state that the principle that you cannot observe something
without changing it does not necessarily seem holistic to them; it is
merely an example of the way quantum mechanics works.
	Although the majority of those polled do not view quantum physics
in a holistic manner, there are a few who do. One physicist agrees that
quantum physics is holistic in nature yet states that ecology and
dynamical systems theory deal more with this aspect than does quantum
physics. One agrees that the implications of quantum physics are holistic
but only in two areas: One states that it is interesting to contemplate
these holistic implications but is not sure if they apply to the world on
a macroscopic level.
	One physicist contends that a holistic viewpoint has more to teach
quantum physics than quantum physics has to teach holism. One contends
one's philosophies should not be drawn from physics, but that it is OK to
enhance physics with philosophy.
 
6. Do you see anything spiritual or mystical about the implications of quantum
physics?
 
	Most of the physicists surveyed do not see anything spiritual and / or
mystical about the implications of quantum physics. One main argument given
to support this view is the fact that quantum mechanics is based on strict
mathematical formulas, with numbers as its end result. Since math is a linear
function, and spirituality and mysticism are generally associated with non -
linearity, therefore math, and in turn, quantum mechanics, cannot be spiritual
or mystical.
	One physicist argues that just because science cannot explain current
phenomena, this is not an excuse to plunge into irrationality ( in the form of
mysticism ) . Another concurs with this statement, saying that he would prefer
to say he does not understand something than to invoke mystical explanations:
" As a physicist, an acceptable explanation must be a physical explanation. "
One physicist explains that quantum physics is not spiritual or mystical in any
way, but it is a good model for explaining the physical world.
	Several physicists are more favorable to the idea of quantum
theory being spiritual or mystical. One believes that the spirituality
aspect of quantum physics lies in the inherent inability to make
predictions with complete certainty. Another sees quantum physics as being
spiritual to the extent that he views all things as being spiritual and
especially those things created by spiritual beings. While one physicist
himself does not view it in this light, he contends that a spiritual
interpretation of quantum physics is valid. Since there are limits to
scientific knowledge, mysticism can come in and fill in those gaps.  One
physicist contends quantum physics is not necessarily spiritual or
mystical, but it can be interpreted as a particular world view. Another
points out that people are free to fit quantum physics into many world
views, ranging from Taoism to reductionism.
 
7. Do you follow any sort of religious or spiritual path or practice?
 
	Many of the physicists surveyed do not follow any sort of
religious path.  One physicist has rejected religion on the grounds that
the irrationality it spawns through dogmatic truths is dangerous. Others
consider themselves to be various kinds of Christians, ranging from
evangelical to theologically liberal to Unitarian. Three say they are
Jewish, there are several atheists and agnostics, and one Muslim. There
is also one physicist who considers himself to be a Zen Humanist. He
believes that reality is an illusion and physics a model of the universe
that he cannot perceive directly. This physicist is also a practicing
magician of the Aurum Solaris school and a non - practicing Wiccan who has
done several aboriginal rituals.
	Others have belief systems which they do not categorize as
belonging to a religion, such as one physicist who lives in " awe of the
richness, subtlety, and simplicity of nature, and to me this is a kind of
spirituality. "
 
8. Do you consider yourself to be more of a scientific
realist / objectivist or a relativist / subjectivist? Why? I'm defining
scientific realist / objectivist as someone who believes reality has an
absolute structure independent of thought. A relativist / subjectivist
would mean someone who believes the nature of reality is relative or
subject to the observer's influence or thought.
 
	Most of the physicists surveyed consider themselves to be
scientific realists / objectivists, according to my definitions of these
terms. They give such reasons as " The universe would be what it is were I
/ we not here to observe and interpret. ( Except, of course, that I / we
wouldn't be in it. ) . " " We don't change the way nature works by our
thoughts. The rules of nature are what they are! " " The universe is. If
the nature of reality were relative, then that would be the nature of
reality; you can't separate the fact that thought affects it from a
description of it. "
	One physicist considers it arrogant and presumptuous to assume
that humans play a significant role in the universe. Another physicist
believes in the existence of an absolute reality but states that there may
be a strange process leading from what exists to what is perceived.
	There are others who take a more subjective outlook on reality.
One of these states that believing in an absolute reality independent of
thought seems to imply a faith in an absolute reality which cannot be
tested. He believes that reality is a term created by observers in
response to their environment and that reality doesn't have a meaning
independent of the observers. In addition, the nature of science is
subjective; science exists as thoughts in people's minds. The way we think
about data determines how we interpret that data.
	Other physicists, especially those who have studied philosophy and
philosophy of science, reject the dichotomy I proposed of scientific
realist / objectivist and relativist / subjectivist as being too narrow
and confining. These physicists say that there is an interrelationship
between thought and nature which is currently little understood.
Therefore, reality has neither an existence wholly separate from thought
nor an existence solely created by thought.
 
9. What were your views on the nature of reality before you became a physicist?
What are your beliefs now?
 
10. Has your work in physics affected your views on the nature of reality?
 
11. From your work in physics, have you discovered any philosophical or
spiritual ideas which have been helpful to you in your everyday life?
 
	Responses to these three questions all seemed to be particularly
interrelated, so I decided to lump them all together as well in my report.
Many physicists recall incidences from the past to illustrate their
previously held views. Others mention that physics has helped give them a
better appreciation for nature and beauty in the natural world: " The
practice of physics has greatly refined my aesthetic sensibilities. " Many
describe their belief in the existence of an absolute, objective reality:
" Just because Heisenberg tells us that we can't know both p and x exactly
simultaneously does not mean that a given particle does not have a
specific, precise value for both at any given time. " Several state that
they had used to think that physics had all the answers but now that
they have done work in physics, they no longer believe this. Some peoples'
work in physics has led them to contemplate the nature of reality more;
for others, it has been the other way around. Many say their views have
not changed and / or that their views have been strengthened by their work
in physics.
	I came to these general conclusions after doing the survey: that
most of the physicists surveyed do not like and / or disagree with the
ideas of The Tao of Physics; that most of them do not see anything
spiritual and / or mystical about quantum physics; that most do not follow
any sort of religious practice; that most consider themselves to be
scientific realists / objectivists; and that most have learned from their
work in physics something of value which they can apply to the real world.
However, there are many exceptions to these generalizations, as there are
to all generalizations.
	I have enjoyed doing this survey, as it has given me a better feel
for who physicists are as people and what they are like. I have also
enjoyed getting a sense of what each individual physicist is about and
what he / she believes in. Thanks to all of you who participated!
 
                                                    Sincerely,
                                                    Shoshana Billik
                                                    billiksh@u.washington.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbilliksh cudfnShoshana cudlnBillik cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FASER theory --
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory --
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:25:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <79213@ut-emx.uucp> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
 writes:
|In article <65103@cup.portal.com>, pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>| ...
>| Indeed, it is clear that sightings
>|would at first appear to a trained scientific observer as illusions, fab-
>|rications or outright mystical aberrations. However, the explanation of
>|ball lightning as a naturally occurring form of fusion explains the phen-
>|omenon in a manner consistent with the apparently incredible observations.
 
Solar BL
It is likely that ball lightning formation in the sub-surface of the
sun leads to incredible FUSION burns of relatively short duration (by
comparison to the time length of the solar cycle).  They then expand
and cool adiabatically as the "solar ball lightnings" rise into the
photosphere where they become unstable and break up.  Their remnant
magnetized torus is quite apparent by virtue of its cold temperature
and strong magnetic flux emanations.  The total fusion power may
account for an added 5 to 15 percent of the minimum solar output.
 
Earth or terrestrial Ball Lightning is probably also a source of fusion,
power, but most likely on the magnitude of the power to illuminate a
gnat's door key for 10 seconds .  That's likely the total bl fusion
terrestrial output per year.  We will be endeavoring to change that
by several decades of power.
 
>The problem with ball lightning seems to be that it cannot be reproduced
>at will.
 
It now can be reproduced "at will", subject to the fact that BL
formation is potentially very dangerous endeavor and requires
sophisticated safeguards and as well as formation equipment.  At
the present time the process is closely held.
 
>    ..  Now I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that it is all a
>figment of people's imagination, but until you can show me how to
>repeatedly and reliably create these critters, I be darned if I am
>going to devote my professional life to studying such a chimera.
 
Fortunately, there are others that are willing to make such
sacrifices.
>The same criticism applies to cf. Unless I find some reproducible
>results, or I have some insight that gives me confidence, I will use my
>talents more productively elsewhere. If you want to do otherwise, fine,
>but don't expect to receive a lot of attention until something
>reproducible can be found.
 
No kidding!  What leverage on the stock will you get once the
"word is out".  Let's face it: 'Some people do original work and
others copy or clone.'
 
>|         . . .      .. .  ..         . Visible light would occur in an
>|intermittent medium temperature plasma; evidence for this is the orange/
>|yellow color of ball lightning.
 
Even if true that is not much of a temperature for a plasma.
 
The yellow color of terrestrial ball lightning is due to the
formation and trapping of ozone and nitrogen oxides in the
external Mantle.  Both can become ionized through the adhesion
of an electron.  These negative molecular ions then become tangled
in the external dipole field which is embedded in and parallel
to much of the Mantle's (BL's plasma shell) outer surface.
Nitrous oxides, especially, highly attenuate the transmissions
of blues and greens leaving a yellow or orangish yellow glow.
Consequently the color is NOT due to the Mantle's black body
thermal radiation signature.
 
>This idea is basically flawed. Fusion is an energy release process, stimulated
>emission is not.
 
Huh!! ??  I don't think HOW you say it is clear.  I sense what you
intend to say but in it's simplest read it's confusing. The fusion
process transforms mass to energy but it may not be released
(efficiently) from the fusion medium.  The laser process transforms
thermal or electronic (excitation) energy to light which releases
(tranports away) the energy and cools effectively.  Without the
application of power a lasing laser medium will always cool.
 
Consequently for fusion the temperature of the medium could rise to
the point that sufficient transport efficiency vastly improves. If
we are dealing with the core of a large new star, the temperature
required for sufficient transport could really be up there.
 
>-john w. cobb
>jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Where be his quiddits now?
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where be his quiddits now?
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:24:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <920903021853_72240.1256_EHL41-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> In the cold fusion experiments that have been performed heretofore,
> with the instrumentation that has been used, in the manner in which it
> has deployed, GeV particles of the type and number we predict should
> occur may not have been readily detected. Even if said particles had
> been detected by the instruments, they might have been vetoed, or
> confused with some other particle or particles.  This is not to
> suggest or imply that said particles could not easily be detected with
> the proper type of equipment, when such equipment is used in the
> prescribed manner by persons sufficiently skilled in the art of
> particle detection.
 
Two comments on all this...
 
  (1) Detecting that, specifically, multiGeV 3He nuclei are present may be
difficult without proper equipment.  Detecting that something is
filling your lab with a dangerous level of fast neutrons is not.
 
  (2) I've looked at the Brightsen/Mallove paper.  Simply ludicrous.
A competent student could spot multiple impossibilities, even ignoring
the creative thinking about the effects of energetic 3He nuclei.  I
was especially amused by the claim that one could get 5.6 GeV out of
the reaction 1H + 2H --> 3He.  Not only is that about 1000x the energy
you'd compute by calculating the difference in masses, it's twice the
energy of the entire rest mass of the reactants!
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.03 / MIKE JAMISON /  Waves in solids
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Waves in solids
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:52:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

The wave analogy I come up with comes from when my parents had a circular
swimming pool.  We used to stand in the center of the pool, in an inner
tube, and alternately push down/let up on it.  This set up a standing wave
which peaked in the center of the pool, and also at the edges.
 
The question to ask is:  How is the force distributed at the pool walls
compared to the pool center?  The peak/valley delta of the waves was close
to 4 ft. at the center of the pool (the pool was a 15 ft. diameter, 4 ft.
high job.  Yeah, a lot of water kinda splashed out :)).
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.08 / Preston Smith /  Potential Diagram for Tri-atomic Hydrogen ion H3+
     
Originally-From: pcsg8264@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Preston Craig Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potential Diagram for Tri-atomic Hydrogen ion H3+
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:58:39 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Our group here at U of I is doing some computer modeling for TFTR and in the
calculations, we need the potential energy diagram for H3+.  Monotomic Hydrogen
and diatomic are readily availible, but we cannot seem to find information
on H3+.  Any ideas out there?
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpcsg8264 cudfnPreston cudlnSmith cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.08 / dave pierson /  Re:  Fleischmann at press conference and Frank Close remarks
     
Originally-From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fleischmann at press conference and Frank Close remarks
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:59:50 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

 
	(half asleep, i fear) I heard mention on the BBC of an interview with
	Fleischmann and "one of his critics".  This is to be broadcast "today"
	9-Sep, 4:30(?) UTC.  (23:30 EDT, USA, 8 Sep) in the Discovery show.
 
thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass
01754				pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.07 / Paul Houle /  Re: FASER theory --
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory --
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:16:06 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Sep07.042525.21187@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>
>It now can be reproduced "at will", subject to the fact that BL
>formation is potentially very dangerous endeavor and requires
>sophisticated safeguards and as well as formation equipment.  At
>the present time the process is closely held.
 
	I am kind of curious about what your machine can do.  How big of a
ball lightning can you make and how long does it last?  I assume that the
energy involved in formation must be rather large if formation is a
"dangerous endeavor"...  About how much energy is involved?
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.04 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:04:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
 
> Looks like 100% of those contacted, if I read correctly,
> deny affiliation. Looks therefore also like Mr. Rothwell
> is following in the CF = good PR footsteps of some other
> well-known names.
 
There is a sentence in there which states (paraphrased):  "of the remaining 5,
2 could not be contacted and 2 were non-scientists."  This implies that there
was one scientist who could be contacted and did not object to his name being
used.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.005 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 05:54:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7600008@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
 Rauchfuss) writes:
>
>There is a sentence in there which states (paraphrased):  "of the remaining 5,
>2 could not be contacted and 2 were non-scientists."  This implies that there
>was one scientist who could be contacted and did not object to his name being
>used.
 
Might I point out that at least one of those quoted is apparently a
member or stockholder in this company?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 736 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 736 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:41:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
I fire off a couple of juicies, including the long-awaited "GE paper" with
Fritz Will as one of the authors. This is interesting in that Will, regarded
as a believer of cold fusion (he was Director of the NCFI), finds no excess
heat, and rubbishes FPALH's data analysis and experiments. This evoked a
strong response from F&P, as you see below. The Conway+ paper is a peripheral
but a must for anyone doing cold fusion electrolysis. It is s gold mine of
info on diffusion of hydrogen in metals and the thermodynamics and kinetics of
the reactions taking place at Pd. Among other things, the famous fugacity
argument is (a bit indirectly) squashed.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 7-Sep-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 736
 
Published articles, Letters; archived files CNF-PAP1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleischmann M, Pons S;                    J. Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 33.
"Some comments on the paper Analysis of experiments on the calorimetry of
LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells, R.H. Wilson et al., J. Electroanal. Chem.
332 (1992) 1".
** A strong rebuttal of the cited polemic paper. F&P find it full of
misconceptions and misrepresentations of their own previous reports. In
particular, F&P write that they did not neglect evaporation effects, did not
overestimate heat transfer, and that they used modern data treatment methods
such as Kalman filtering, unlike Wilson et al.                   Mar-92/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson RH, Bray JW, Kosky PG, Vakil HB, Will FG;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 1.
"Analysis of experiments on the calorimetry of LiOD-D2O electrochemical
cells".
** This paper is in two parts. The first is a detailed analysis of the
calorimetry and data treatment of Fleischmann, Pons et al (1990) (FPALH-90).
The authors conclude that FPALH-90 overestimated their excess heat, by
neglecting some crucial factors such as evaporation at high temperatures, and
overestimated the cell's heat transfer coefficient. Also the errors in the
FPALH work are likely to be in the 5-10% range, which brings most of the
excess heats, when correctly calculated, within the error. Further, the
correlation between excess heat and current reported in FPALH disappears upon
correct calculation. Short-term excess heat excursions remain apparently
valid, however.
In a smaller part of the paper, the authors' own calorimetric experiments are
described. Several kinds of cells were used and a number of palladium
cathodes, including ones as used by FPALH, with and without pretreatment,
using open and closed cells. All of these experiments resulted in zero excess
heat, i.e. excess heat within the error band, fluctuating above and below the
zero line. A Manganese nitrate solution was used to capture any possible
neutrons, and none were found; nor was any tritium, beyond that from
electrolytic enrichment.                                         Jun-91/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Peripheral papers; archived file CNF-PERI
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conway BE, Wojtowicz;                    J. Electroanal. Chem. 326 (1992) 277.
"Time-scales of electrochemical desorption and sorption of H in relation to
dimensions and geometries of host metal hydride electrodes".
** Cold fusion is mentioned only peripherally, the accent here being on a new
kind of battery, using hydrogen storage in a suitable metal. For this, large
capacity for hydrogen is desirable (and LaNi5 seems to be a favourite alloy),
and it is of vital interest to know about loading rates. This throrough paper
examines this question in minute detail for different electrode geometries
like plates, small spheres and wires. For optimum charging efficiency, a
rational charging current program is suggested.                  Jan-91/May-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Journalistic comment;   archived file CNF-CMNT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watson T;                                   Nature 358 (1992), 20-Aug, p. 616.
"Scientists deny alleged support of company's 'new nuclear science'".
** Of the sixteen scientists quoted by the new cold fusion company Clustron
Sciences Corporation, the ten that could be reached denied supporting the
theory of Dr. Brightsen, i.e. the theoretical base of that company. Another
person cited as supporter, Prof. W. Buck, has publicly stated that he does in
fact not support the theory. Of the remaining five, two could not be contacted
and two are not scientists, writes Traci Watson.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  Rothwell /  Uh-huh
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Uh-huh
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:41:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Both Tom Droege and Gene Mallove have tried the Ying experiment and gotten
negative results. I think Ying made a mistake, but since I have not seen the
secret, detailed instructions that Tom and Gene have used, I could not
venture a guess as to what kind of mistake he made. In my view, it is
interesting, but nothing to get excited about unless a lot more people
replicate it. It is like the Mills experiment.
 
The Mills experiment, by the way, is still alive and kicking. I have recently
heard from two other respectable groups who now think they have replicated
it. If they still think so in a few months, I am sure they will publish, and
we will hear from them. It is puzzling. I guess you cannot draw many
conclusions from a handful of replications, unless they are extraordinarily
dramatic, obvious, and done with good instrumentation. By the same token,
you cannot toss out Ying's work completely just because Tom and Gene failed
to replicate it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  /  Back to P&F
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Back to P&F
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:42:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After a detour to Mills, Takahashi, and Ying; we are back to doing good ol'
Pons and Fleischmann.
 
We opend up cell 4A1 and cleaned it out.  This is the cell we have geen
running for the last several months.  We found big lumps of yellowish crud.
Remember this cell started with lots of excess Lithium.  It also seemed to
soak up endless amounts of D2.  This cell contained a piece of the Storms
Carbon-Teflon-Pt catalyst.  It also contained a plastic mesh bag full of
good ol' Engelhard Palladium catalyst D.
 
My present theory is that the D2 just diffused out through all that Viton
tubing.  The cell ate the carbon from the Storms' catalyst and formed
Lithium Carbonate, making "big lumps of yellowish crud".
 
Would anyone out there like to analyze some "yellowish crud"?  How much do
you need?  I have about 1 cc.  I cleaned out the cell with HCl - readily
available at the local hardware store as muratic acid.  It attacked the
crud just fine.  Please someone respond.  Better someone in the US as
I don't know what the rules are for sending "yellowish crud" through
customs.
 
After the several thousand hours of running, the precipitate was gone fron
the cell bottom, indicating that the excess Lithium had been used up.
 
Remember also, that this cell had been run "backwards" for extended periods
of time for calibration.  The anode was cacked with the "crud" when the
cell was opened.  Don't know about the cathode, since I had to clean the
cell with HCl to get at the cathode.  After the HCl clean everything was
bright and shiny except the cathode which has a matt black finish.
 
Please, someone offer to analyze the crud.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  /  Starting a New Run
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Starting a New Run
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:43:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As stated in the last message, we cleaned out cell 4A1 and put in the
other ground cathode prepared by Cam Tibbals.  It is 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm.
Twice the size of the previous cathode which gives problems if we want
to run at high current.
 
First we calibrated several days with the cell removed and replaced with
a resistor.  Did some source in/out experiments with the resistor in the
calorimeter.  Looks like nothing to me, but we will later look at this
data in the same way as the earlier data as a control.
 
Next, the cell was filled and placed in the calorimeter with near zero
cell voltage.  (Commanding zero cell current does not guarantee zero
cell voltage.)  We filled with 30 cc of the very saturated LiOD + D2O
mixture used in the last run, plus an additional 3 cc of H2O.  Don't
ask why, this is exploration.
 
The calorimeter was closed up and run for seven hours at zero cell current.
We then started charging at 30 ma per sq cm.  Before the charging started
the calorimeter had returned to the previous calibration - within about
2 mw, but this is known to be luck.  We think good to 8 mw one sigma.
 
At this low current density, it took about 5 hours for the Pd to stop
absorbing H/D.  We backfilled this time with O2, making several cell changes.
Likely 90% or better O2.  So we are back to measuring absorption by excess
oxygen.
 
For the best measurement of the heat of absorption, it would be desirable to
balance the calorimeter running reversed, then go to forward operation.  This
makes the cell temperature about the same and reduces the thermal transient.
Because we are afraid that running backwards will somehow spoil (who knows
why!) the reaction, this run went from zero to charging current.
 
There is thus a problem in unscrambling what is going on when charging is
initiated.  It is possible we will be able to use the various thermometers
to calculate how much heat went into raising the temperature of the cell
later.
 
In any case, after an hour or so things are pretty much at steady state, and
indicated a heat of absorption of order 66 killojoules per mole D/H
absorbed.  No worse than a 20% measurement now, likely to get to 5% when
I have applied all the corrections I know about.
 
At 0.82 D/Pd ratio, the heat of absorption went through zero and turned
negative.  We topped out at a D/Pd ratio of 0.92.  I give these ratios
a 5% error limit at the moment.  Because a smaller fraction of the D is
absorbed at the high loading, the error of measurement of the heat of
absorption increases at high loading.  But it really did look like a reversal
at 0.82.
 
There is also a nice measurement of the %absorption versus D/Pd loading.  At
the start, my measurement indicated about 102% absorption.  Obviously cannot
be over 100% but it is likely that the catalyst took a while to get up to
100%.  Another reason for first operating reversed.
 
I have a scheme for doing all this right if anyone cares.  Start out running
reversed to a third electrode, which is then kept at the most negative
potential to keep from plating garbage on the the cathode.  Also use a
much larger cathode.
 
Somewhere, someone published good numbers here.  I have about 3 feet of
stuff to go through to find the numbers.  Can someone who knows where they
are put them up for me?  i.e. heat of absorption, and the loading where
it is supposed to reverse.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  Another reason for indicating > 100% absorption at the start of the
run is that the cell is heating up.  All this can be worked on, but at the
moment I am still looking for "anomalous heat".  It looks like I could spend
a month just looking at this piece of data and doing the best possible job
of correction.  But I don't plan to do it unless someone really wants it.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  /  Enthalpy
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Enthalpy
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:43:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I succeeded in finding the nice Roger Dutton article.  FD-216, 4 Mar. 92.
My 66 Killojoules per mole translates to 15.8 k cal per mole.  Roger quotes
10.2 k cal per mole.  Possibly I will be closer to his number when I really
look at the data.
 
What I measure are cc of evolved oxygen and the calorimeter balance.  I
compute that 26.35 joules are lost when one cc of oxygen and two cc of
Deuterium do not recombine.  If I postulate that the deuterium hides
somehow in the cell, and only the oxygen comes off, then I expect to see
-26.35 joules for each evolved cc of oxygen.
 
What I measured during yesterday's charging run were numbers between 18
and 22 joules (negative) for each cc of gas (presumed oxygen) evolved.
If I am doing it right, then 26.3 - 22 = 4.3 joules per 2 cc absorbed
deuterium = 2.15 joules per cc = 2.15*22,400=48,160 joules per mole / 4.18
=11.5 k cal/mole.  The 18 number gives 22.4 k cal per mole.  So I have
numbers that are about a factor of 2 over Rogers range of 4.8 to 10.2
k cal per mole.
 
Perhaps someone can point out some obvious error in my thinking.  A factor
of two would be nice.  The whole experiment involved the evolution of about
100 cc of gas and a calorimeter balance change of order 2000 joules over
5 hours.  It only takes about a 15 mw error to move my answer to match
the Roger Dutton number.  There is the added problem of the time lag of
the calorimeter response.  I guess it is just a hard measurement.
 
Could someone who has read the Flanagen paper tell me how they made the
measurement?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  /  Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:43:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  9 September 1992
 
Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 30 ma per sq cm
Duration: Now charging for 100000+ seconds
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 2.8 volts
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
 
First a correction to try to maintain my credibility.  Yesterday I said:
 
"In any case, after an hour or so things are pretty much at steady state, and
indicated a heat of absorption of order 66 killojoules per mole D/H
absorbed.  No worse than a 20% measurement now, likely to get to 5% when
I have applied all the corrections I know about."
 
Looks like I was not thinking too clearly, and the measurement error is worse
than I thought.  This was determined by looking up Roger Dutton's number.
 
What I measure is the difference between the heat of dis-association of D2O
into D2 and O2 (endothermic) and the heat of absorption of D2 into the
Palladium (exothermic - most of the time).  What I was thinking when I said
20% error was that I measure the difference to no worse than 20%.  I still
think that is true - actually I thought it was more like 10% and I thought I
was being conservative.  But a 20% error in the difference translates into a
much larger (of order 8x) error in the heat of absorption since it is much
smaller than the heat of dis-association.
 
But that is the whole purpose in sending these messages, to help me to think
straight.  Thinking about it, that is one of the purposes of publication, to
find truth through public display.
 
In any case, there is a fairly clear indication that the reaction went from
exothermic to endothermic at high loading.  A number of errors conspire to
make it a difficult measurement.  Some day I will have to do a big chunk of
Palladium to get it right.
 
For any of you out there doing closed experiments (do you hear SRI?), I
recommend the Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D.  It seems much more reliable
than the various types of Platinum catalysts that I have used.  It rarely
turns off, and works at lower temperature.  It also seem to continue to work
wet.  If someone out there has a catalog and can look it up, I would
appreciate a copy of a data sheet.  The stuff I have is on little soft ceramic
cylinders about 2 mm dia by 2 mm long.  It was given to me by someone at
Fermilab in a Dixie Cup.  The source - a bag full under someone's desk - has
disappeared in the clean up precipitated by the Tiger Team.  I would like to
buy some more as what I have has all been used several times.  I would also
like to find something similar on a stronger substrate.  The catalyst can get
very hot and sometimes this destroys the substrate.  It also melts through any
plastic it is put in.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.08 / Edward Lewis /  Periodic Dev. of Science & Economies
     
Originally-From: edward@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics.fusion,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Periodic Dev. of Science & Economies
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:20:07 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

	I am publishing the abstract of my paper on this newsgroup. I
welcome e-mail. But I probably will not answer all the mail I receive.
If you want to send e-mail to me, please state your title, the highest
degree which you have received, your approximate age, and your
research interest so that I can better know who is writing me.
 
      Copyright (c) 1992 by Edward Howard Lewis  All Rights Reserved
        				                 Sept 8, 1992
Abstract of The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and the
Past Periodic Depressions
 
	This paper is about a three generation, approximately eighty
year periodicity of the development of science and an approximately
forty year periodicity of major worldwide economic depressions since
1800.  It is written in four parts.
 
	Since the 1970s, people who apprehended the quantum mechanics
and relativity theories have experienced many phenomena which
contradict these theories.  Especially since 1985, many people have
experienced many kinds of anomalous phenomena.  According to my
theory, this occurred because after quantum mechanics was developed by
a generation of theoretical developers during the 1930s, 1940s, and
1950s, many of the next generation who apprehended a theory of this
kind experienced phenomena which contradicted their own theories as
they were experiencing phenomena according to their theories.  I
suspect that periods such as this one during which people have
experienced anomalous phenomena have occurred approximately every
eighty years and that individuals have formulated new kinds of
theories which resolved this phenomena approximately every eighty
years.  Six kinds or genres of theories have been developed since
Copernicus first formulated his theory.
 
	Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, called the periods during which people experience
anomalous phenomena which contradict what he called "paradigms,"
"crisis periods," and he wrote that these periods are ten or twenty
years long, but he never wrote that these periods occurred at eighty
year intervals.  Instead of using the word paradigm, I use the term
genre or kind of theory.  My idea of genre of theory may be
superficially similar to his idea of paradigm, but it is probably
quite a different idea, though we seem to class people's theories
according to the same groupings.  I too suspect that most anomalous
phenomena may be experienced during ten or twenty year periods which
end when a person or persons formulate a new kind of theory.
 
	There are three generational stages in the development of each
theory.  First one or more people independently formulate a theory
which resolves the phenomena which those who apprehended a theory of
the prior genre produced which are either anomalous phenomena or
phenomena which are thought to be in accord with the prior genre of
theory.  I call the people who do this, theoretical formulators.  The
anomalous phenomena constitute the first of what I call a set of
phenomena.  Then he teaches what he knows to others, but almost the
only people who apprehend his new theory are those who are born about
the time he first formulates his theory.  It has always been only the
small minority of this generation who apprehend a new theory.  I call
those who contribute to the development of theories of the genre,
theoretical developers.  Theoretical developers usually finish most of
their work of development of their theories when they are in their
late thirties or early forties.  They develop their theories by making
their theories precise and describing their theories mathematically
and resolving all the phenomena which they are able to resolve.  Then
they teach those of their children's generation the new theory.  Some
of those of this third generation experience according to the theories
which they were taught and verify the predictions of the theories, or
experience previously unknown phenomena which do not seem to them to
contradict their theories substantially which people explain by
formulating secondary postulates; and some of them experience
phenomena which contradict the basic postulates of their theories.  It
is when these people reach their late thirties and early forties, that
their production of phenomena becomes most effective.  This is why
there are what Kuhn called "crisis periods," which are ten or twenty
year periods which begin about seventy years after the formulation of
the first theory of the genre and end when someone formulates a new
kind of theory.
 
	Not all the people who contribute to the work of each of these
stages are actually members of each particular generation.  Two of the
theoretical formulators, Franklin and Gilbert, were members of the
preceding generation.  But the process of development by generations
has induced an eighty year, three generation periodicity.
 
	The first part of this paper explains why science has
developed periodically since at least 1500.  To do this I attempt to
outline what a theory about rationalized phenomena is, and what
rationalized phenomena is.  Then I try to show that the probable way
that the human mind cogitates would cause people to not be able to
implicitly comprehend theories which resolve sets of rationalized
phenomena other than the one which they have apprehended.  Whether or
not my description of cognition is accurate, this theory takes as a
postulate that people's apprehension of a genre of theory is inhibited
by prior apprehension of a theory of another genre.  Based on this
postulate and two others, that people's reason for pursuing the study
of rationalized phenomena is an acceleration to the process, and that
those who develop theories do not independently experience phenomena
is another constraint to the process, I attempt to show why an
approximately eighty year, three generation periodicity of
rationalized phenomena occurs.
 
	In the first part, I ascribe the hypothesis of formulation of
inhibiting apprehension to what is called "hard wiring" of brain
structure by cognitive scientists.  People have suspected and taught
for at least centuries that once one accepts a theory about
rationalized phenomena, that the person cannot implicitly understand
another kind of theory about phenomena or develop it themselves, and
for centuries more, people have believed that it is difficult for
someone to change his ideas to accept a new idea; however, their
reasoning and my own about this phenomena itself is probably only
superficially similar.  I hypothesize that this is the reason that
only those who had not yet apprehended a theory of a prior genre are
the formulators of a new theory.  Such people may not be children of
the third generation, the generation of the effective experimenters.
Members of the third generation have been theoretical formulators in
the past, because they were unfamiliar with the prior theory, before
they experienced a new set, according to this theory.  Knowledge of a
set of phenomena and comprehending a kind of theory is the same thing.
 
	I do not present a firm hypothetical basis to support my
second hypothesis that those who develop genres of theories do not, or
usually do not, independently produce anomalies to the theories of the
genre.  But this idea is superficially similar to the difference
between theoreticians and experimentalists, and philosophers and
craftsmen which people have defined for ages.  However, some of the
possible explanations which I present are that their society did not
have the basis of experiential (technological) skill to enable one to
test the theories until the following generation has begun their
careers, or that those who develop theories themselves lack the
ability to experience phenomena, either because of lack of
experiential training or their disinterest to contradict their own
ideas.  I do not understand this well and may not have delineated my
ideas about this well.  There may be other explanations.
 
	The basis for the third hypothesis is my experience, which is
general, that people seem to try to develop each of the stages of the
development of physics theory during their careers.  There is a
rushing, and perhaps a competition, whatever the reason that people
try to understand and produce phenomena.
 
	The second part is a description of the periodic history of
science since 1500.  I focus on the difference between people's
premises.  Copernicus formulated a general theory which comprehended
not only astronomical phenomena but terrestrial phenomena as well
about 1506.  Gilbert, Galileo, and Kepler formulated the first
theories of another genre about 1582, 1593, and 1595 respectively.
They shared remarkably similar theories because they resolved the same
set of phenomena.  Newton formulated a general theory about 1664.  It
was accepted by many people, especially the English, in the first half
of the 1700s.  Benjamin Franklin formulated a theory which idealized
fluids sometime about 1742 or 1747.  No one had formulated a theory
like his before him.  Theories which were similar to his were widely
accepted in the second half of the 1700s and the first half of the
1800s.  Faraday formulated another kind of theory about 1820, and then
Maxwell developed a theory which was similar to his.  Maxwell's
equations and theories about fields and lines of force were the most
widely accepted ideas of the last part of the 1800s.  Einstein
formulated a new kind of theory about 1905.  People formulated
theories which were called quantum mechanics which were similar to
his.  Quantum mechanics and relativity theories were the genre of
theory which superseded the earlier theory.
 
	The third part is a description of how the periodicity of
knowledge induced depressionary periods at approximately each forty
year interval since 1800, in the economies of the people who have led
in the knowledge of phenomena.  I try to explain the reasons I think
that these depressions occurred.  I distinguish two types of
depressions.  One type of depressionary period occurred during the
1830s and early 1840s, and in the 1930s in the most productive
economies when labor increased their production comparably rapidly by
automating the production of phenomena.  The other type occurred in
the 1880s and 1890s, and in the 1970s and early 1980s when labor was
increasing their production the least, when the older people innovated
little phenomena and relatively few people who apprehended theory of a
new genre had begun their careers.  If the trend of economic
development continues as it has for the past 200 years, the peoples
who lead in the production of phenomena will experience the first kind
of depressionary period about the year 2010 or 2020.
 
	The particular late stage of development of the peoples'
theory, so that they innovated fewer new categories of phenomena
during the 1820s to the 1850s, and the 1920s to the 1950s than they
did previously, was the cause for the depressions in the 1830s and the
1840s, and the 1930s in the countries that led in the production of
phenomena.  People began to produce phenomena in an unchanging
repetitive manner over longer periods of time so that the products
were standardized, so that people could replace human labor by
automation more readily than before when people changed their
productive behavior more often.  As a result of this decrease of
innovation was the relatively extremely high debt of the people, who
borrowed to automate and produce an environment for producing and who
borrowed in order to obtain the products of the types that were being
produced; and the people's increasing satiation for the types of
products they were producing as they obtained the products they
wanted, because of their limited resources; and the decreasing
productivity of the large part of the population in the leading
industrial countries at these times who were displaced from the tasks
which they knew how to do by automation.  The high debt, the
satiation, and the decreasing productivity was why a large part of the
population in the U.S. and Britain decreased their consumption of
phenomena during the 1830s and the 1840s, and the 1930s.
 
	The conjuncture of the peoples' ending of the development
of a genre of theory and the rudimentary stage of the development of
the new genre was the cause of the depressions of the 1880s and the
1890s and the 1970s in the world's leading industrial countries of
those times.  This conjuncture resulted in these peoples' relatively
low productivity increase for those times and the people's decrease of
production as they retrained and transferred to produce using new
technology and to work in other countries which were either catching
up to or surpassing the leaders in the level of technology.  Also,
these peoples could not compete with those in other countries who were
either catching up to or surpassing the former leaders, so they
produced less than they did before.
 
	The forth section is a description of the development of the
three economies which have led in the knowledge of and production of
the prior three sets of phenomena, first Great Britain, then the U.
S., and then the U. S. and Japan.  It is not well developed, but it
shows three recurring eighty year periods of development of technology
marked by the two kinds of major economic depressions alternately
occurring in the lead economy every forty years.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:55:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Sep7.191606.14371@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Sep07.042525.21187@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>It now can be reproduced "at will", subject to the fact that BL
>>formation is potentially very dangerous endeavor and requires
>>sophisticated safeguards and as well as formation equipment.  At
>>the present time the process is closely held.
>
>	I am kind of curious about what your machine can do.  How big of a
>ball lightning can you make and how long does it last?
Preliminary formation efficiencies are around 10%.  That means the larger
the input, (assuming a fast system) the larger the ball.  One possibility
would be a half of a megajoule input from a machine at NSWC-WhiteOak and
another would be 10 megajoules from a Miley's device (originally LANL) at
Urbana.  A couple of NSWC weeks plus setup) needs about 50K$ and it could
be done quickly since they already have an ideal blockhouse with plenty of
optical and instrumentation access.  The other device may require a sub
basement or tunnel or may not, depending on what our studies turn up.  I
suspect with that kind of energy it will.
 
>                        . . ..    .         . I assume that the
>energy involved in formation must be rather large if formation is a
>"dangerous endeavor"...  About how much energy is involved?
 
Relatively small.  It's just that it's such an efficient little beasty.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.09 / Robert Eachus /  Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:56:01 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I'm curious.  How fast a rise time do you need, and at what
voltage?  I remember buying 5 KV 80 microFarad Mylar capacitors from
Maxwell.  Only good for about a thousand shots, but a kilojoule you
can hold in your hand is nothing to sneeze at. (You'll break your
wrist--as I remember it they weighed about 20 pounds. :-)  They also
made larger capacitors and firing switches for them.  I remeber
pictures of a 50 Megajoule test.  We also used to buy 100 joule oil
filleds by the pallet load.  A lot more wiring, but they lasted for
years.  The only advantage of the mylar caps was an extremely low
impedence, and they weighed a tenth as much per joule.
 
     Prices have probably gone up a lot since I was playing with high
voltage, but putting together a Megajoule source (with a once per five
minutes firing rate) could be done back then for under 100 thousand
dollars.  If you can use a homopolar generator, it can be done a lot
cheaper...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  Reddy /  Ball lightning
     
Originally-From: Frank Reddy <0004847546@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball lightning
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:53:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Perhaps I missed something, but it seems that some appear to be skeptical
of the existance of ball lightning.
 
It IS a real phenomenon and has been produced in the laboratory.  A good
review of the evidence for its existence can be found in BEAD AND BALL LIGHTNING
by James Dale Barry (Plenum, 1980 --  ISBN 0-306-40272-6).  Stanley Singer
also wrote a nice piece in the News and Views section of Nature (350:108-9)
on the occasion of Japanese work in creating long-lived fireballs through
the application of radiofrequancy discharges external to the ball itself.
This was one of the early theories (by Kapitza) of BL formation.  The Japanese
work is described in Nature 350:139-141, 1991.
 
>Earth or terrestrial Ball Lightning is probably also a source of fusion,
>power . . .
 
I'm not aware of any work that suggest this (which may not mean much, I admit).
 
>The yellow color of terrestrial ball lightning is due to the formation
>and trapping of ozone and nitrogen oxides in the external Mantle.
 
Singer and Barry give the most commonly ascribed colors as "typically
orange, red-orange, or intense white, less often blue, green, or yellow."  The
ball is usually 25-30 cm wide, with much smaller (1 cm) and larger (10 m)
also occasionally being reported.  Occasionally the balls move against the
direction of the prevailing winds and penetrate window panes without making
a hole in the glass (which was also observed in lab experiments).  An
absence of warmth sometimes has been reported in incidents when the BL
passed close to observers; in others reports the ball may cause burns on
property or persons, and (rarely) disperses with a good bang.
 
Chimera it may be.  But lightning researchers class ball lightning as a
real phenomenon.  It has been videotaped forming after strikes to antennas
or TV/radio towers, although the photographic record is rife with attempted
fakes or misidentifications.  And again, it has been formed in the lab.
 
FYI,
 
Frank Reddy
0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden0004847546 cudfn cudlnReddy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.09 /  jbatka@desire. /  Ball Lightning-Fusion tie?
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Lightning-Fusion tie?
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:41:00 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

Pardon my ignorance,
 
is the discussion concerning ball lightning implying that a limited
fusion reaction is occuring?  Or is this just some sort of electrical/
magnetic field interaction with plasmas?
 
Could someone give a brief discription of the process behind ball
lightning?  (or did I miss this already?)
 
Thanks,
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ... and a   | Beatles:
              | minute is a LONG time [Includes Leap Days]!|   Yellow Submarine
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjbatka cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.09 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: FASER theory
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:24:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
 
> If ball lightning is fusion powered, why are the people who've observed it
> alive to tell about it? (goes hand in hand with huge excess heat claims for
> CNF observers).
 
I do not believe the claim is that ball lightning is fusion powered, but
rather that ball lightning is a self-compressing form of plasma, and that it
may be possible to improve the compression to the point of ordinary fusion.
 
> Mike Jamison
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:00:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

 
	FASEN; Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Neutrinos
 
In article <1992Sep3.014906.22074@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <65103@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>> TITLE: Reposting of FASER Theory
 
>>         Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
>>             Copyright (C) June 4, 1989  by David H. Mitchell
 
>[non theory deleted]
 
para Hypothesis?
 
>If resonant standing waves induce fusion reactions in a solid medium,
>you need to explain why the medium is not ripped apart first, since
>the fields required are much greater than the binding energy of the
>material. This is the obvious problem with such 'theories', and I note
>that there was no mention of how to avoid this.
 
The answer may be possible although NOT commercial. Use the old
"If your brakes fail, do your best to compensate by changing
direction."  As Barry points out Electromagnetic Radiation is
not likely the answer.
 
What is required in this case is a radiation that has little
or no cross-section for non-fusing matter, but has an
exceptionally high capture cross-section for capture by
-- and transform of -- near fusion events into fusion events.
From yesteryear, an intriging problem in astrophysics of how
to make a star pulse burn.  Could this be tied to this
hypothetical concept?  How can an exponentiating burn rate in
one portion of a star be spread within a few tens of seconds
to the whole star??  The answer could explain some of the
rhythmic energy fluctuations observed in stars.
 
If fusion stimulating radiation works with these characteristics
of fusion neutrinos, then perhaps P&F really do have a relatively
fast rise time and ultra sensitive neutrino detector. The
detector bit is pretty far fetched, but still worth thinking
about.
 
The reason I believe neutrino stimulated fusion burning may be
an important part of "real" stellar energy performance is the
following:
 
Consider an exponentially rising localized core burn, producing
a sharply rising enhanced flux of neutrinos.  If the stimulated
fusion capture works with the neutrino flux squared then a kind
of threshold level could be surpassed where the FASENeutrino
(FASEN) would trigger like exponentially rising burns elsewhere
until fuel conditions or temperatures shifted to lower capture
cross-sections and by the flux either dropping below -- or the
threshold climbing above -- so the FASEN pulse extinguishes.
In any event the stimulating flux most likely would NOT be
coherent neutrino flux but it may be more analogous to the
"super-radiance" of very strongly excited fluorescent material.
 
Now for the relatively local REAL world. (hypothesized)
 
Within our sun just such a massive neutrino pulse burn in the
core of the sun every 11 years would produce a jump in temperature
throughout the sun. Especially important here is that pulse
heating would happen at a magnetic/plasma saturation boundary.
This would cause super saturation of the flux generating little
PLASMAK(tm) like vacuum magnetoplasmoids (PMK) structures which
themselves generate an additional pulse fusion burn of relatively
short duration, but significant total additional energy.  Also
that energy is deposited much nearer the surface of the sun.
(This was discussed in another posting in sci.physics.fusion.)
As you recall, the vacuum magnetoplasmoids then cool their
central magnetized rings as they rise from buoyancy through the
sun's Mantle, and then move into the photosphere where they
become unstable due to pressure anisotropy and subsequently
break apart.  The remnants then wash to the surface and are seen
as "sunspots" with their trapped magnetic flux. This flux
releases the flux from the strongly magnetized Kernel ring's
remnants as energy which dissipates driving flares, etc.
 
>In absence of such a mechanism, you would at least need to cite
>experimental evidence that this occurs. Citing P&F hardly counts, I'd say.
 
Gee!  You are discounting the world's fastest FP neutrino detector?
                        :)
 
And just look at all that heat from 1988 solar cycle FAZEN pulse.
During this peak solar cycle a whopping sunspot count of a 55 year
high was taken.  The excess heating pulse has radiated away, except
for the extra heat absorbed by the heat trapping Pacific which
integrated the excess over the last 4 years.  A good chunk of this
heat is still stored, which is now currently sitting off California
keeping the western USA in a warm high).  However, this summer
most of the land has cooled off and the weather has come up with
more record cool days than warm ones.
                     :-)
 
Where's the green house effect??    "It's cloud cover, my boy --
	  -- enhanced  cloud cover.
 
               Does Gore really believe this stuff?
             Nope! The weather doesn't FAZEN 'em a bit.
>--
>Barry Merriman, UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma
>Research,  barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
Thanks Barry and David
 
lines by pmk@prometheus
Copyright (C) September 10, 1992 by Paul M. Koloc
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.space
Subject: Re: FASER theory -- BL aspects
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:37:44 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <EACHUS.92Sep9105601@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert
 I. Eachus) writes:
>
>     I'm curious.  How fast a rise time do you need, and at what
>voltage?
 
Later.
 
>  .. . I remember buying 5 KV 80 microFarad Mylar capacitors from
>Maxwell.  Only good for about a thousand shots, but a kilojoule you
>can hold in your hand is nothing to sneeze at. (You'll break your
>wrist--as I remember it they weighed about 20 pounds. :-)  They also
>made larger capacitors and firing switches for them.  I remeber
>pictures of a 50 Megajoule test.  We also used to buy 100 joule oil
>filleds by the pallet load.  A lot more wiring, but they lasted for
>years.  The only advantage of the mylar caps was an extremely low
>impedence, and they weighed a tenth as much per joule.
 
A BIG advantage.
 
>     Prices have probably gone up a lot since I was playing with high
>voltage, but putting together a Megajoule source (with a once per five
>minutes firing rate) could be done back then for under 100 thousand
>dollars.  If you can use a homopolar generator, it can be done a lot
>cheaper...
 
Consider also the mass.  However some inertial storage units have
high specific energy.  I would still like to see a kick CF unit to
act as an energy source refeed pulser storage for PLASMAK(tm) engines
restart.
 
PLASMAK(tm) formation and long life is energy efficient from the
standpoint of the ratio of the: (PMK energy)/(formation output
energy) --  or the in: (plasma nkT energy)/ (the total field
energy). And being so compact the total PMK energy is not much
compared to a the 6 to 20 gigajoules in the toroidal field coils of
a tokamak.
 
Relative efficiencies are by comparison to a tokamak. Cap development
at Maxwell Labs will have 10 kJ/kg specific energies.
 
Neato pulse lines may be developed to extend cap lifetimes and
optimize transfer energy.   Weights on a 10 megajoule bank would
be 1 metric ton --  what's needed for a 1 to 3 gigawatt generator.
It would be nice to have engines of 20 gigawatts with burst operation
to 25 gigawatts.  Even operating around 17 gigawatts each, a pair of
these can put a sizeable payload on the surface of Mars.  This
assumes we will burn p-^(11)B  (protium boron isotope eleven).  That
trip goes from earth's surface to the Martian surface using two
different propulsion generation modes. Trip times of 300 to 450
hours seem about right.
 
>					Robert I. Eachus
>
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 / Jon Thaler /  Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
     
Originally-From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:06:08 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) says:
 
(...lots of stuff deleted...)
 
>        FASEN; Fusion Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Neutrinos
 
> The reason I believe neutrino stimulated fusion burning may be
> an important part of "real" stellar energy performance is the
> following:
 
> Consider an exponentially rising localized core burn, producing
> a sharply rising enhanced flux of neutrinos.  If the stimulated
> fusion capture works with the neutrino flux squared then a kind
> of threshold level could be surpassed where the FASENeutrino
> (FASEN) would trigger like exponentially rising burns elsewhere
> until fuel conditions or temperatures shifted to lower capture
> cross-sections and by the flux either dropping below -- or the
> threshold climbing above -- so the FASEN pulse extinguishes.
> In any event the stimulating flux most likely would NOT be
> coherent neutrino flux but it may be more analogous to the
> "super-radiance" of very strongly excited fluorescent material.
 
Perhaps I am missing something.  Neutrinos are fermions, and I
thought that this means that they can't stimulate emission the way
photons do.  In addition, the dominant reaction, pp --> D e nu,
is not simply neutrino emission.  The pep reaction, pep --> D nu,
is only an 0.4% branch.  A strong time dependence of the pep rate
would give a strong and easily observable time dependence of the
produced 1.4 MeV neutrinos.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDOCTORJ cudfnJon cudlnThaler cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Uh-huh
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uh-huh
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:09:06 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>I think Ying made a mistake
 
Just for the record, Jed Rothwell said this same thing to me in a private
post a few days after Ying first announced his results.
 
>The Mills experiment, by the way, is still alive and kicking. I have recently
>heard from two other respectable groups who now think they have replicated
>it.
 
Tom Droege also replicated it.  However, he went beyond the Mills procedures
and coupled the thermal input and output together, which resulted in net
negative result.
 
The assumption of 1.46 volts as part of the calculation is thus shown to
be in question.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.10 /  MCCMAINT@SLACV /  ISO Ceramic Hydrogen Thyratron Info
     
Originally-From: MCCMAINT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ISO Ceramic Hydrogen Thyratron Info
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:43:30 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Would like any info on the above subject. We use many for high power fast switc
hing.
Thanks
JOHN W. KRZASZCZAK                  WHAT I SAY,IS WHAT I SAY AND THATS
STANFORD LINEAR ACCELORATOR CENTER  ALL WHAT I SAY.
MS #49 P.O.BOX 4349
STANFORD CA 94309
415.926.4050
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenMCCMAINT cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:13:07 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Sep10.050038.4393@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
Koloc) writes:
> What is required in this case is a radiation that has little
> or no cross-section for non-fusing matter, but has an
> exceptionally high capture cross-section for capture by
> -- and transform of -- near fusion events into fusion events.
 
That would do the trick, but is such really possible? As you note,
electromagnetic radiation could not be so discriminating. As for
neutrinos, its hard to image their capture cross section could be
large enough, even if there were some resonance at their frequency.
Plus, where would the neutrino's come from to drive the process? The
fusion events postulated don't release any.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 /  Rothwell /  Lecture Notice
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lecture Notice
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:49:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
M.I.T. EECS-LECTURE
THURSDAY 1-2 PM
SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
ROOM 18-490 (LANDAU BLDG.)
 
Observations of Heat in Electrochemical Studies of the Palladium/Deuterium
Systems Employing an Isothermal Flow Calorimeter
 
by M.C.H. McKubre, SRI International
 
       A three year experimental program was undertaken to determine
whether, and under what conditions, effects of anomalous heat and nuclear
products were observed in association with the electrochemical reduction of
D2O at a palladium cathode. The hypothesis tested was that such anomalous
effects occur only in the presence of a high atomic ratio (D/Pd) in the metal.
A large part of the experimental program was involved in determining the
kinetic parameters and mechanisms by which D/Pd ratios near unity could be
obtained and maintained under near ambient conditions. Attention will be
given to the role of electrolyte additives in achieving this condition.
 
       While low level detection was not attempted, energetic products of
nuclear reactions have not been observed. Unaccounted, and statistically
significant heat excesses have been observed on more than 40 occasions. The
excess energies of these observations are larger than can be accounted for by
known chemical or mechanical energy storage processes. Observations of excess
power and energy are strongly correlated with the measured D/Pd ratio, to the
imposed cathodic current density, and to a third process of unknown origin,
with an extended time constant. Potential implications of these observations
will
be discussed in terms of a phenomenological model.
 
This research program was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 738 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 738 papers, 111 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:39:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
I hurriedly fire off the items below. Gentsch and Behrisch argue about self
targeting or not. I count these as papers.
Nature gives us the amount of money MITI actually has asked for for cold
fusion, i.e. 300 million yen or a bit above 2 million $, for 1993. This is
1/1000 of its total request for 1993. The British Association had a meeting,
and Fleischmann gave a talk. It was to have been a panel discussion but, as
Frank Close has told us, this did not come about. Ian Mundell notes that
although there were distinguished chemists in the audience, none asked any
questions. We know that there was also a distinguished physicist and he didn't
either.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Sep-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 738
 
Published articles, Letters; archived files CNF-PAP1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behrisch R;             Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 96 (1992) 733 (in German).
"Comment on: H. Gentsch, DD-fusion reactions at a PdAg(D) target in a
minireactor, Ber. Bunsenges, Phys. Chem. 95, 1283 (1991)".
** A polemic. Gentsch had a hollow tube as the cathode in a cold fusion
electrolysis, with a near vacuum inside, into which he aimed a deuteron beam
and got more neutrons and tritium than expected. Behrisch writes here that
Gentsch is wrong, that the results are explained by self targeting without
invoking anomalous effects. See Gentsch's answer, ibid p.734.    Dec-91/May-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentsch H;              Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 96 (1992) 734 (in German).
"Reply to: R. Behrisch, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 96, 733 (1992)".
** Answer to Behrisch's polemic criticising Gentsch's 1991 paper. True,
Gentsch did not read all the relevant literature, but his figures are maybe
10% accurate, not totally out as Behrisch writes.                Jan-92/May-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Journalistic comment;   archived file CNF-CMNT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mundell I;                                        Nature 359 (1992) 5 (3-Sep).
"BAAS embraces role of educating public".
** Report of the recent annual meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science. Scientific outliers appear to have been on the agenda,
such as a hominid aquatic past, and a presentation by M. Fleischmann on cold
fusion, followed by a noisy press conference. No questions were asked after
F's lecture, despite the presence of distinguished chemists.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swinbanks D;                                      Nature 359 (1992) 4 (3-Sep).
"Big increase for MITI budget emphasizes energy technology".
** DS reports the MITI application for funds for 1993. Among other things,
300 million yen was requested for hydrogen energy (cold fusion), for 1993.
This is the smallest of the listed requests, totalling just over 300,000
million.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 / MIKE JAMISON /  Fusion, simulations and the net
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion, simulations and the net
Date: 11 Sep 1992 13:08 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

This doesn't *exactly* fit the subject of fusion, but, neither have a lot
of other posts to s.p.f :)
 
I've been curious as to the average number of computers connected to the
net, and their individual/combined processing power.  At NASA Lewis, we
have a scientific VAX cluster, along with the required supercomputers (Cray
YM-P, Cyber something or other).  Obviously, their time is well occupied :)
 
At home, however, I've got a 486 that just sits most of the time.  The
figures I've heard on the 486 (33 MHz) give it a FLOP rating of about 1
MFLOP or so.  Get a million of these thing together on a net (well over 1
million 486's have been sold, so this isn't entirely unreasonable) and
you've got you Teraflop computer, with enough memory to run a simulation of
just about any fusion configuration you want, in the background (we can all
send e-mail in the foreground, and barely slow the background tasks down).
 
I believe a finite-element approach to such a simulation would run fairly
well, keeping interprocessor communications down (a machine running at 1+
MFLOP isn't going to be doing much good if it has spend half its time
getting information at 9600 baud [or lower]).
 
The other consideration is that PCs aren't the only machines connected to
the net.
 
For all I know, some clever people may have written a virus that does
something *good* already.  Maybe some simulations are *already* running in
the background on the entire net, and most of us don't know it...
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:44:04 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <11SEP199213080370@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>This doesn't *exactly* fit the subject of fusion, but, neither have a lot
>of other posts to s.p.f :)
>
>I've been curious as to the average number of computers connected to the
>net, and their individual/combined processing power.  At NASA Lewis, we
>have a scientific VAX cluster, along with the required supercomputers (Cray
>YM-P, Cyber something or other).  Obviously, their time is well occupied :)
 
Here at SCRI we have a compute cluster consisting of about 900 Mips of
various models of the IBM RS-6000 machines.  Certain groups of them
are connected by a token ring that, I think, now uses fiber and their
(separate) ethernet strand is filtered from the rest of our machines.
I think something close to 2 Gflops has been achieved on a 1000x1000
LINPACK with the PVM system.  These cluster machines are "headless"; we,
like everyone else, also have some number of workstations in a heterogeneous
cluster with a distributed queueing system to do work in the background at
some non-intrusive nice level.
 
>At home, however, I've got a 486 that just sits most of the time.  The
>figures I've heard on the 486 (33 MHz) give it a FLOP rating of about 1
>MFLOP or so.  Get a million of these thing together on a net (well over 1
>million 486's have been sold, so this isn't entirely unreasonable) and
>you've got you Teraflop computer, with enough memory to run a simulation of
>just about any fusion configuration you want, in the background (we can all
>send e-mail in the foreground, and barely slow the background tasks down).
>
>I believe a finite-element approach to such a simulation would run fairly
>well, keeping interprocessor communications down (a machine running at 1+
>MFLOP isn't going to be doing much good if it has spend half its time
>getting information at 9600 baud [or lower]).
 
The problem in such applications (especially with finite element methods
where every cell talks to every other cell at every time step) is precisely
the interprocessor communication.  Many people here are exploring such
issues, particularly for very large systems where the aggregate size of
such a system of computers far exceeds the memory available in most
supercomputers.  However, 9600 baud does not cut it.  That is the
reason for a *dedicated* > Megabit network in our machine cluster.
 
I do not know if the fusion community is working on this approach, but
there are some problems where it is extremely cost effective.  There
are others, of course, where conventional big iron is best.
 
>The other consideration is that PCs aren't the only machines connected to
>the net.
 
That is an understatement.  There are gigaflop machines on the net.
 
>For all I know, some clever people may have written a virus that does
>something *good* already.  Maybe some simulations are *already* running in
>the background on the entire net, and most of us don't know it...
 
These things have been done.  A large factoring problem was done in this
way on machines across the country with the results accumulated via
mail (this was an "embarrasingly parallel" problem where no intermediate
results needed to be shared) and the final calculation done on our CM-2.
One must, of course, have an account on this machine unless you wish to
violate the law.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball lightning
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.meteorology
Subject: Re: Ball lightning
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:18:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <62920910054826/0004847546NA1EM@mcimail.com> Frank Reddy
 <0004847546@mcimail.com> writes:
>Perhaps I missed something, but it seems that some appear to be skeptical
>of the existance of ball lightning.
>
>It IS a real phenomenon and has been produced in the laboratory.  A good
>review of the evidence for its existence can be found in BEAD AND BALL
>LIGHTNING by James Dale Barry (Plenum, 1980 --  ISBN 0-306-40272-6).
>Stanley Singer also wrote a nice piece in the News and Views section of
>Nature (350:108-9) on the occasion of Japanese work in creating long-lived
>fireballs through the application of radiofrequancy discharges external
>to the ball itself. This was one of the early theories (by Kapitza) of BL
>formation.  The Japanese work is described in Nature 350:139-141, 1991.
 
The Japanese air RF plasmas were continuoulsly feed external power.
They didn't have spherical shape and they were confined to the
immediate region between or attached to the waveguide horns.  BL in
nature is free to roam and lives a long life by virtue of its stored
internal energy and conservative energy consumption.  To say that
Ohtsuki's work was ball lightning is optimistic.  I have been curious
that is such NATURAL strongly focused RF fields exist.  If it does
exist in natrue, then certainly much more numerous smaller focused
potentials do occur (although less potential than is required for air
breakdown).  However, there has never been any observation of such
even though numerous occurrances would be capable of zapping the
brains of mammals (humans) beyond a functional state.  One would
expect bodies laying out all over the place. Further BL exists in
metal skinned enclosures that would screen out the sources
of such RF radiation.
 
 
>>Earth or terrestrial Ball Lightning is probably also a source of fusion,
>>power . . .
>
>I'm not aware of any work that suggest this (which may not mean much, I admit).
>
>>The yellow color of terrestrial ball lightning is due to the formation
>>and trapping of ozone and nitrogen oxides in the external Mantle.
>
>Singer and Barry give the most commonly ascribed colors as "typically
>orange, red-orange, or intense white, less often blue, green, or yellow."  The
>ball is usually 25-30 cm wide, with much smaller (1 cm) and larger (10 m)
>also occasionally being reported.
 
The yellow to red orange is a class of citings whose color only
depends upon the amount of nitrous oxides and in the case of the
deeper redish end, it depends upon increased levels of nitrogen
pentoxide.  This red gas has been seen actually dripping off the
bottom of some ball lightnings. An exception to this is that BL
has been observed to "dye itself" red when it collides with carbon
bearing objects, i.e. leaves.  The color spreads over the surface
from the point of contact until the surface is covered briefly and
then it shortly afterwards it reverts back to its default color.
 
White BL are usually bright and rise in their enhanced self
generated convection surrounding air currents.  These BL have
suffered a loss of conductivity by a slowing of their energetic
currents and begin to dissipate their stored magnetic energy
rapidly.  Many of this type decay explosively. Conductivity
can drop by over four or five orders of magnitude.
 
Greenies likely have copper (generated in electrical equipment).
Blue Balls are a puzzle.  They tend to be seen in low light level
or inside enclosures where the air is quite dry. Ball lighting
does generate a bluish halo from the fluoresence of nitrogen
within a centimeter or two of its surface.  However this is usually
too dim to be seen.  Perhaps it seen in cases where the currents
are exceptionally energetic and the plasma is cool and
electronically excited.
 
> .   .          .   . .   Occasionally the balls move against the
>direction of the prevailing winds  .. .
 
Usually not.  However when they are coupled magnetically to nearby
iron (ferrite in the soil), current in conductors or repelled by
generating image currents in nearby conducting sheets, they can move
adversely to air currents.  For example, through image currents a
BL within an Eastern Airlines passenger jet tracked straight along
the center isle and plane's metal skin axis.  This BL was bluish.
 
> .. ... and penetrate window panes without making
>a hole in the glass (which was also observed in lab experiments).
 
BL would burn a hole through solid media.  RF plasmas do not.  A
partition slowly passed through the RF node and plasma-air break-
down region allows the breakdown simply begins to form on the
other side of the partition. To think that nebulous plasmas exist
in atmospheric pressure air for sometimes tens of seconds and
aren't capable of causing physical damage or can even pass through
membranes without making holes takes a plastic imagination.  BLs
are formed within closed structures, but this is by virtue of the
lightning stroke penetrating the wall and punching a small hole or
by flowing in through a conductor.
 
>            . .           . ..         . .   .    An
>absence of warmth sometimes has been reported in incidents when the BL
>passed close to observers; in others reports the ball may cause burns on
>property or persons,  .             ..  .  .
 
One can get quite close to an extremely hot hydrogen flame without
feeling any or much sensation of heat.  Air at atmospheric
pressure is very insulating.  Many, probably most, of the burns
from BL show up after a number hours, are slow to heal and in some
cases result in loss of hair and skin (about a week later). This
suggests the presents of high energy particles or their resulting
electromagnetic radiation.
 
> .. ..    .and (rarely) disperses with a good bang.
 
Actually this happens in about half of the reviewed cases.
Some of the detonations have leveled things, .. a storage shed,
a bathroom concrete wall leaving an enormous spherical dent in one
end of the bathtub, shattered sizeable tree trunks (not split
as from lightning but more like from brissant dynamite). .. etc.
 
>Chimera it may be.  But lightning researchers class ball lightning as a
>real phenomenon.  It has been videotaped forming after strikes to antennas
>or TV/radio towers, although the photographic record is rife with attempted
>fakes or misidentifications.  And again, it has been formed in the lab.
 
Well .. . .  continuously fed suckling air plasmas certainly have.
 
>Frank Reddy
>0004847546@MCIMAIL.COM
 
I note that Barry has been cited and there are a number of other
authors who have a BL theory of their own or strongly favor an
idea. One has to read the writings of such, guardedly.  Take my
epics, for example.
 
An excellent non-prejudice source, loaded with observations is:
 
Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FASER theory --> FASEN --- "n" (somewhat epic)
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:25:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Sep11.011307.4212@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.050038.4393@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
>Koloc) writes:
>> What is required in this case is a radiation that has little
>> or no cross-section for non-fusing matter, but has an
>> exceptionally high capture cross-section for capture by
>> -- and transform of -- near fusion events into fusion events.
>
>That would do the trick, but is such really possible? As you note,
>electromagnetic radiation could not be so discriminating. As for
>neutrinos, its hard to image their capture cross section could be
>large enough, even if there were some resonance at their frequency.
>Plus, where would the neutrino's come from to drive the process? The
>fusion events postulated don't release any.
 
I agree and for that reason it doesn't have commercial possibilities.
I certainly would be nice to efficiently generate copious and specific
neutrinos.
 
But what about its consideration as a triggering mechanism in stars??
 
 
>Barry Merriman, UCLA Dept. of Math ,UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
             barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.04 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Where did everybody go?
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where did everybody go?
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:20:07 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes:
 
> In <1992Sep2.184457.17530@adobe.com> epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson) write
>
> >The title says it all
>
> That's what I've been wondering.  Is the network really functioning
> correctly?
 
Some of the information being broadcast for free on this newsgroup could
be of a rather, uh, valuable nature.  Information is wealth.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.12 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:04:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

How does PVM handle global functions like global max, min, sum, product,
concatenate etc...?
 
On a different tangent, Can someone describe in general terms what apparatus
it takes to produce BLs?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.12 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Ball lightning
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.meteorology
Subject: Re: Ball lightning
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:02:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep11.201832.10453@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
 Koloc) writes:
>
>> .   .          .   . .   Occasionally the balls move against the
>>direction of the prevailing winds  .. .
>
>Usually not.  However when they are coupled magnetically to nearby
>iron (ferrite in the soil), current in conductors or repelled by
>generating image currents in nearby conducting sheets, they can move
>adversely to air currents.  For example, through image currents a
>BL within an Eastern Airlines passenger jet tracked straight along
>the center isle and plane's metal skin axis.  This BL was bluish.
>
>> .. ... and penetrate window panes without making
>>a hole in the glass (which was also observed in lab experiments).
>
>BL would burn a hole through solid media.  RF plasmas do not.  A
 
Around 1965 I was present at the debriefing of a B-52 crew
who realted the following story:
 
While flying at normal cruising altitude (I forget what that is,
but it's pretty high) and at cruising speed (again I forget but would
estimate above 400 knots) a ball lightning passed the aircraft off
the starboard side. It then slowed up and the aircraft repassed
the BL. Shortly thereafter the BL passed the aircraft on the port
side. It then slowed up and the aircraft repassed it again. After
that it repassed the aircraft on the starboard side again, pulled in front
of the aircraft and slowed abruptly. As the aircraft approached the
air currents carried the BL below the nose of the aircraft where it struck
and exploded with a loud bang and flash.
 
I inspected the nose of the B-52 and  there was a mark on the nose
radome of the B-52. It was shaped almost exactly like the comic book
version of a lightning bolt and must have been about 3-4 feet  long
(working from memory again). It was almost exactly down the center
of the aircraft axis. It started a foot or so from the front-most
section of the radome and was situated along the longitudinal axis
of the aircraft.
 
I would have suspected one of the many jokes the crews would play except
for one thing: the mark was _inside_ of the fiberglass layup. There
was _no_ exterior hole. The fiberglass radome was white but the outer
layers were translucent and you could see the shape inside between the
layers. There was no mark visable on the interior of the radome.
However, the inside layers were opaque.
 
The shape was slightly fuzzy and was dark gray or black. Since the
shape was inside a white translucent layup it was difficult to tell
much about it. But it was there, and the BL moved faster than the B-52 at
high altitude and it passed inside the insulating radome without
leaving a hole of any kind that was noticeable.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.12 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:16:36 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

In article <11SEP199213080370@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>At home, however, I've got a 486 that just sits most of the time.  The
>figures I've heard on the 486 (33 MHz) give it a FLOP rating of about 1
>MFLOP or so.
 
Well, Zorch (presumably well-known to s.p.f readers, at least by name)
is a 3 MIP machine, and it will flop over if pushed hard enough.  Does
that count?
 
:-)
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-254-0246/1032/9882 login newuser password public
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.12 / Larry Wall /  Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion, simulations and the net
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:21:43 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <10698@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
: One must, of course, have an account on this machine unless you wish to
: violate the law.
 
Then by all means, give me an account.  I have no desire to violate the law,
even passively.  I promise I won't use the account, if that helps...
 
:-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.12 /  Rothwell /  Mills & Ying
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills & Ying
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:50:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
John Logajan remarks:
 
"Tom Droege also replicated it [the Mills experiment]. However, he went
beyond the Mills procedures and coupled the thermal input and output together,
which resulted in net negative result."
 
Yes, and he is not the only one. Two other groups I talked to used a closed
cell and/or a separate recombiner enclosed in the calorimeter, and came to
the same conclusion. Yet several others have measured net positive heat. It
is baffling. The current density is low, so it is hard to distinguish excess
heat from recombination. I wish I had the money and the time to try it myself.
 
Regarding Ying's work: let me emphasize that I *think* he is missing something.
Perhaps he is mismeasuring the input electricity, since that appears to be the
weakest part of his experiment. However, I have not seen any papers from him,
or talked to him at length, so that is just a tentative guess.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.12 / Edward Lewis /  Test: Did you get my post about sci. and econ.?
     
Originally-From: edward@amber.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test: Did you get my post about sci. and econ.?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:47:21 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.13 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Mills & Ying
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills & Ying
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:55:09 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>Regarding Ying's work: let me emphasize that I *think* he is missing something.
>Perhaps he is mismeasuring the input electricity, since that appears to be the
>weakest part of his experiment. However, I have not seen any papers from him,
>or talked to him at length, so that is just a tentative guess.
 
It maybe that Ying has missed something but I must admit, I am some what
intrieged by the process he describes.  Along time ago Koonin had a paper
that suggested that pertribations could enhance the cold fusion rates. It
is one paper I agree with, and it seems to me that is what the Ying work
does. There is also a somewhat problematic theory problem with regard to
the cross section of external radiation on loaded PdD systems.  If someone
wants to do real science, the cross section of gamma + PdD(x) for various
energies and loading, could be extremely enlightning.  Perhaps one of
the national labs has already done this.  If the external source does
indeed increase the amount of excess heat seen in a standard CF cell,
then great, if not then that does not rule out an enhancement above the
Jones level.
 
 
>- Jed
 
Have Fun,
Chuck
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.14 / Frank Smith /  Re: Enthalpy
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Enthalpy
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:05:57 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <920908173124.20c01971@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>
>Perhaps someone can point out some obvious error in my thinking. A factor of
two would be nice.
>
>Could someone who has read the Flanagan paper tell me how they made the
>measurement?
 
Quote from Flanagan, Luo and Clewley, J. Less-Common
Metals,172-174(1991),42-55:
3.416 g 99.99% pure Pd foil cut into small pieces
was used, mixed with finely divided copper and placed in reaction cell. The
blank cell contained copper with an equal heat capacity to Pd + Cu in the
other. Pd was not activated. Sample exposed to H2 several times, then evacuated
at 445 K for 1 h and overnight at 298 K. Reaction volume was 24.33 cm3; this
was corrected for expansion of Pd by H2. Hydrogen contents were monitored from
pressure changes in the known volumes, using MKS 0-10,000 Torr gauge. D2 was
99.5% deuterium.
 
Twin-cell differential heat leak calorimeter previously employed for studies of
other metal-hydrogen systems (same authors, same journal,141(1988)103;same
authors+ S. Majorowski, J.Phys. Chem. N.F. 163(1989)81 - I suspect this may be
the German journal of similar name?). The two cells are placed in a massive,
cylindrical Al calorimeter which is within a constant temperature water bath.
Thermopiles, located adjacent to the reaction and blank sides and within the
massive block of the calorimeter, are electrically connected so that a null
signal appears when the cells are thermally equilibrated. When reaction occurs
or when a current passes through the calibration heater, the thermopiles become
unbalanced and a voltage is recorded. The areas of the voltage-time plots are
proportional to the heats evolved; these areas are converted to the heats of
reaction for the actual doses of hydrogen employed, using a heat-area
calibration relationship determined from the electrical calibrations.
 
The calibration heater is located in the blank cell; electrical calibrations
were carried out frequently and over different pressure and hydrogen content
ranges. Most of the calorimetry was at 298 K. The procedure was to open a valve
separating the dosing and calorimeter volumes allowing a given amount of
hydrogen to be absorbed (or evolved) by (or from) the sample. Before, a steady
baseline indicated thermal equilibration; after, a signal appeared which was
recorded with time until return to the baseline. The area of this deviation
yielded the heat for the amount of hydrogen absorbed or evolved. The measured
heats converted to enthalpies of reaction by dividing by half a mole of H2(D2);
no corrections for expansion work are needed in a twin-cell calorimeter.
Reaction was completed rather quickly (10 min) but 40-60 minutes were necessary
for the two cells to return to the same temperature.
 
For the alpha-beta "plateau" reaction involving D being taken up, the molar
enthalpy change was -17.27 kJ/mol D at 298 K; for the evolution of D from the
beta phase the molar enthalpy change was +17.23 kJ/mol D. The authors conclude
that hysteresis played no part in the results. The plateau region for PdD
exists up to D/Pd = 0.65 approx. At higher D contents there is a decrease in
the magnitude of the molar enthalpy of absorption from about -17 kJ to -10.83
kJ at D/Pd = 0.754, attained at 1.2 x 10*6 Pascals pressure of D2,
i.e. about 10 atmospheres. The molar
enthalpies of evolution of D from the beta phase are larger in magnitude, being
12.13 kJ at D/Pd = 0.755 but a maximum of 20.89 kJ at D/Pd = 0.650.
 
NOTE. Tom, I don't know if the above will help you by a factor of two? The
quoted enthalpies are per mole of H atoms (D atoms) not per mole of molecular
hydrogen. I haven't had enough time to look at what you have done in the
context of the above, but will do. There is one other comment from my reading
of the Flanagan paper: it does take a finite time for H or D contents to change
in their experiment - are you expecting too fast a response?
 
Frank R. Smith
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.15 / Tom DeBoni /  Sisal meeting schedule
     
Originally-From: deboni@diego.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: Sisal meeting schedule
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:17:39 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 
			     A N N O U N C E M E N T
 
			The Second Sisal Users Conference
 
			       Hyatt Islandia Hotel
 
			   	   San Diego, CA
 
				 October 4-6, 1992
 
 
				   Presented by
 
		      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 
				with support from
 
			  the US Department of Energy
 
 
Sisal (Streams and Iterations in a Single-Assignment Language) is a general-
purpose functional language that supports the development of determinate,
machine-independent parallel software. The Sisal project has achieved
significant successes over the past nine years, in many areas of computer
science and parallel computing. Among these are the development of the Sisal
language and the IF1 intermediate dataflow graph representation, the
implementation of a runtime system for parallel execution on conventional
shared memory computers, optimizations for functional languages, the
achievement of Fortran-like performance, and the establishment of the Sisal
Scientific Computing Initiative. The latter of these has involved researchers
from many areas of science and engineering in the use of Sisal as an
application programming language. In this meeting we will discuss uses of the
language, the current state of the project, and its future directions.
 
Who Should Attend?
 
All Sisal users, implementers, and researchers, and those who are interested
in the Sisal language or functional programming are invited to attend this
meeting. We also welcome those involved in the various other aspects of
parallel computing.
 
Cost
 
The cost of this conference is $150, and includes lunches both days and a
reception the first night. Guest lunch tickets are available.
 
 
Accomodations
 
Lodging is available at a special rate of $70 (US) per room, single or double
occupancy, at the Hyatt Islandia Hotel, phone (800) 233-1234. ATTENDEES MUST
ARRANGE THEIR OWN LODGING.
 
 
Transportation
 
Shuttle service is available between the San Diego airport and the Hyatt
Islandia Hotel.
 
 
                        Tentative Conference Program
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, October 4, 1992
 
Registration - 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
 
Reception - 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 5, 1992
 
Session 1 - 8:30 am to 10:00 am
 
John Feo, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Introduction
 
James McGraw, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Keynote Address
 
Break - 10:00 am to 10:30 am
 
Session 2 - 10:30 am to 12 noon - Session Chair: Richard Wolski
 
Dae-Kyun Yoon and Jean-Luc Gaudiot, University of Southern California
"Programming and Evaluating the Performance of Signal Processing Applications
in SISAL Programming Environment"
 
Dean Engelhardt and Andrew Wendelborn, University of Adelaide
"Investigating the Memory Performance of the Optimising SISAL Compiler"
 
Patrick J. Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"TWINE: A Portable, Extensible SISAL Execution Kernel and Debugger"
 
Lunch - 12 noon to 1:30 pm
 
Session 3 - 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm - Session Chair: Walter Cedeno
 
Jesus Novoa, Flor Sanmiguel, and Jaime Seguel, University of Puerto Rico at
Mayaguez
"A SISAL Code for Computing the Fourier Transform on Sn"
 
Wim Bohm, Colorado State University
Greg Egan, Swinburne University of Technology
"Five Ways to Fill Your Knapsack"
 
Arun K. Arya, David Woods, and Charles Murphy, Dr. Arun Arya and Associates
"Mathematical Syntax for SISAL"
 
Break - 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm
 
Session 4 - 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm - Session Chair: Chris Frerking
 
Marc Pantel, Marcel Gandriau, and Patrick Salle, Ecole Nationale Superieur
d'Electrotechnique d'Electronique d'Informatique et d'Hydraulique de
Toulouse
"FOL: An Object Oriented Extension to the SISAL Language"
 
David J. Raymond, New Mexico Tech
"Candis as an Interface for SISAL"
 
Steven M. Fitzgerald, University of Lowell
"An Approach for Optimizing Recursive Functions"
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, October 6, 1992
 
Session 1 - 8:30 am to 10:00 am - Session Chair: Tom DeBoni
 
A. L. Cricenti and G. K. Egan, Swinburne University of Technology
"Parallelisation and Performance of the Burg Algorithm on a Shared Memory
Multiprocessor"
 
Walter Cedeno, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Genetic Algorithms in SISAL"
 
Dorothy Bollman, Flor Sanmiguel, and Jaime Seguel, University of Puerto Rico at
Mayaguez
"Implementing FFT's in SISAL"
 
Break - 10:00 am to 10:30 am
 
Session 2 - 10:30 am to 12 noon - Session Chair: James McGraw
 
R. R. Oldehoeft, Colorado State University
"Implementing Arrays in SISAL 2.0"
 
Srdjan Mitrovic, ETH Zurich
"An IF2 Code Generator for the ADAM Architecture"
 
David Andrews, University of Arkansas
"An Approach for Performing Application Specific Analysis of Parallel
Computing Systems"
 
Lunch - 12 noon to 1:30 pm
 
Session 3 - 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm - Session Chair: Patrick Miller
 
Richard Wolski, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Program Partitioning for NUMA Architectures"
 
Santosh S. Pande, Dharma P. Agrawal, and Jon Mauney, North Carolina State
University
"Mapping Functional Parallelism on Distributed Memory Machines"
 
Paul Roe and Andrew Wendelborn, University of Adelaide
"Explicit Copying and Updating in Functional Languages"
 
Break - 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm
 
Session 4 - 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm - Session Chair: John Feo
 
Michael Strailey and Patrick Tibbits, Indiana Institute of Technology
Tom DeBoni, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Simulating Material Strain Dislocation Motion in Sisal"
 
C. Yoshikawa, U. Ghia, and G. A. Osswald, University of Cincinnati
"SISAL and Von Neumann-Based Languages: Translation and Intercommunication"
 
Vivek Sarkar, International Business Machines
"SISAL vs. FORTRAN '90 --- Contradictory or Complementary Approaches?"
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
                       The Second Sisal Users Conference
                               October 4-6, 1992
                               Registration Form
 
Name ___________________________________________________________________
 
Affiliation ____________________________________________________________
 
Address ________________________________________________________________
 
        ________________________________________________________________
 
        ________________________________________________________________
 
Badge Name _____________________________________________________________
 
Email Address __________________________________________________________
 
Telephone ______________________________________________________________
 
Fax ____________________________________________________________________
 
Fees: Conference Attendance (X $150) ___________________________________
 
         Extra Lunch Tickets (X $15) ___________________________________
 
                               Total ___________________________________
 
Preregistration is due by September 18th, 1992
Payment is due by September 26th, 1992
 
Payment by check or money order, in U.S. dollars and drawn on U.S. banks should
be made payable to:
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 
We are unable to accept credit cards.
 
Send registration and payment to:
    Judy Michels
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    P.O. Box 808, L-316
    Livermore, CA, 94551
    (510) 422-4236
    judy@diego.llnl.gov
 
Lodging can be arranged through:
    Hyatt Islandia Hotel
    1441 Quivira Road
    San Diego, CA 92109-7898
    Telephone: (800) 233-1234
    FAX: (619) 224-0348
    Telex: 697844
 
For more information contact:
    John Feo or Tom DeBoni
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    P.O. Box 808, L-306
    Livermore, CA 94550
    (510) 422-6389 or (510) 423-3793
    FAX: (510) 423-2993
    feo@diego.llnl.gov or deboni@diego.llnl.gov
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendeboni cudfnTom cudlnDeBoni cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball lightning - -  B-52 encounter
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.meteorology
Subject: Re: Ball lightning - -  B-52 encounter
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:26:26 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <56vn8fj.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.201832.10453@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul
 M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>> .   .          .   . .   Occasionally the balls move against the
>>>direction of the prevailing winds  .. .
>>
>>Usually not.  However when they are coupled magnetically to nearby
>>iron (ferrite in the soil), current in conductors or repelled by
>>generating image currents in nearby conducting sheets, they can move
>>adversely to air currents.  .. .
 
 
>Around 1965 I was present at the debriefing of a B-52 crew
>who realted the following story:
 
>While flying at normal cruising altitude (I forget what that is,
>but it's pretty high) and at cruising speed (again I forget but would
>estimate above 400 knots) a ball lightning passed the aircraft off
>the starboard side. It then slowed up and the aircraft repassed
>the BL. Shortly thereafter the BL passed the aircraft on the port
>side. It then slowed up and the aircraft repassed it again. After
>that it repassed the aircraft on the starboard side again, pulled in front
>of the aircraft and slowed abruptly. As the aircraft approached the
>air currents carried the BL below the nose of the aircraft where it struck
>and exploded with a loud bang and flash.
 
This is an interesting observation and if accurately relayed to
you, it could be explained (educated speculation) as follows:
 
The B52 likely cut through the vertical charge separation in a
thunderhead which generated a lightning stroke intercepted the
plane or at least tracked through the one of the planes eddy air
vortices, guiding the stroke channel into a heliform path.  This
can under special other conditions known to lightning strokes,
Thor and a few of us produce a Ball Lightning.  It was likely
formed very close to the wing and mid fuselage of the aircraft
when it formed so that it also generated tied flux lines into the
aircraft.  Since the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasma (PMK) topology
is streamlined and its physical embodiment has a very low viscosity
air interface surface, the the line tying forces are adequate to
tow the PMK. Furthemore, the image currents in the metal skin of
the aircraft will prevent the BL from colliding with the plane so
that it "flew intelligently " as described.  The passing and
exchange between aircraft and plasmoid are likely similar to the
same "whipping" action often undertaken by two or more ice skaters
-- also moving along with at very low drag.
 
On the one unique occasion when the "BL magnet" passed the aircraft
it probably picked up the unshielded iron within the plastic radome
at the front of the ship and disintegrated catastrophically on
impact with that plastic wind shield.  Incidentally it didn't "see"
it (no repelling image currents from the non-conducting plastic)
or it would have avoided it.    :-)
 
>I inspected the nose of the B-52 and  there was a mark on the nose
>radome of the B-52. It was shaped almost exactly like the comic book
>version of a lightning bolt and must have been about 3-4 feet  long
>(working from memory again). It was almost exactly down the center
>of the aircraft axis. It started a foot or so from the front-most
>section of the radome and was situated along the longitudinal axis
>of the aircraft.
 
>I would have suspected one of the many jokes the crews would play except
>for one thing: the mark was _inside_ of the fiberglass layup. There
>was _no_ exterior hole. The fiberglass radome was white but the outer
>layers were translucent and you could see the shape inside between the
>layers. There was no mark visable on the interior of the radome.
>However, the inside layers were opaque.
 
Note the damage location is interesting.  Apparently the radome had
two layers of plastic, the outer one which was transparent and an
inner one that was not.  The speculation here is that they may
not have been sealed together so that moisture may have condensed
between the two surfaces or some type of mildly conducting dust
may have collected there.
 
When a BL disrupts, it essentially gives back, on a microsecond/s
timescale, its entire remaining gmagnetic energy supply.  Assuming
that was half of its initial energy , this could produce an L di/dt
voltage pulse from two to five megavolts or higher.  Since it is
inductive, it easily could have produced a discharge in the slightly
more conducting translucent/ transparent plastic sheets interface.
 
>The shape was slightly fuzzy and was dark gray or black. Since the
>shape was inside a white translucent layup it was difficult to tell
>much about it. But it was there, and the BL moved faster than the
>B-52 at high altitude and it passed inside the insulating radome
>without leaving a hole of any kind that was noticeable.
 
Again, it was the local disintegration generated inductive EMF
that penetrated the plastic shell and generated the damage not
the plasma matter of the PMK.
 
IMPORTANT:  ANY encounter with BL, where it disintegrates with a
bang by impact or penetration by some other material object could
be valuable.  Please check said object for radioactivity that can
be induced by the high gamma (from 5-30) relativistic electron
currents. Electrons of this energy are capable of penetration and
capture by nucleii or knocking off of neutrons and therefore can
transmute matter.  The moderate to heavier matter should usually
be radioactive for a period of time.  IF IT IS NOT, then the
theory may have problems.  In other words unless your wearing
your lead suit, don't blast one with a shotgun firing lead shot
---  frozen hydrogen (protium) pellets .. . maybe.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.14 / Alan McConnell /  Re: Periodic Dev. of Science & Economies
     
Originally-From: alan@highlite.uucp (Alan McConnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics.fusion,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Periodic Dev. of Science & Economies
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:20:27 GMT
Organization: Gotham Communications Research

 
(after reading the first paragraph) and they say that humor is
dead in sci.econ!
Alan McConnell
--
Alan McConnell             "What wondrous life is this I lead!
Pixel Analysis              Ripe apples drop about my head . ."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnMcConnell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.14 /  /  Possible Gas Absorption Experiments
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Possible Gas Absorption Experiments
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:58:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Frank Smith has nicely typed in a lot of material from the Flanagan et al.
article on the calorimetry of Deuterium absorption in Pd.  Thank you Frank.
 
Sorry I can not yet reproduce Franks word's with all those <><>< that everyone
else seems to use.  Frank's comments were in FD-473 14 Sept 92 00:05:57 GMT.
Since the subject may have common interest is posted here instead of a private
message to Frank.
 
My interest is to try to decide if there is a useful measurement that I can
make with my machine.
 
I understand the experiment and the apparatus.  It looks very nice.
 
One thing missing from Frank's summary are error limits on the measurement.
Since by my estimate they generate about 5000 joules in 10 minutes, this is a
power level of order 10 watts and they should be able to measure this to 0.1%
with their type of calorimeter.  What I do not understand, is how they know
the D/Pd ratio very accurately since it seems to be done with a pressure
measurement.  Possibly pressure gages have kept up with electronics since I
left school, but I doubt it.  Perhaps they heat the container after the
experiment and measure the evolved D?  I do notice that they give the energy
measurements to one more decimal place than the D/Pd ratios.
 
One thing that I do not understand is the evolution half of the experiment.
How is the H/D removed from the Pd so quickly?  I assume they put a vacuum in
the dosing volume.  My experience at atmospheric pressure is that it takes
many days for a charged sample to outgas.  I guess the thin foil is the
answer.
 
While they could try to get absorption heat as a function of D/Pd ratio by
comparing evolved heat and pressure, time lags in such a system would make it
very difficult to unscramble the data.  I assume that they have done many
experiments each with a different starting pressure in the dosing volume in
order to get enthalpy of absorption as a function of D/Pd ratio.  Frank,
please, what is the highest D/Pd ratio measured?
 
One thing that I could do would be to make a continuous measurement of
enthalpy of absorption as a single sample is charged.  The Flanagan experiment
looks like it gives the Pd a sudden shock.  If this is damaging to the
structure then a slow charge might give a different answer.  It seems that
slow charging results in higher final D/Pd ratios in electrolytic cells.
 
Frank, as my last post showed, I think that I understand the "factor of two"
and it is just plain error of measurement based on the experiment not being
done right.  The measurement includes (until I study the data and attempt to
remove it) the heat required to raise the cell to a higher operating
temperature.  In response to your "are you expecting too fast a response?", I
am making the measurement much more slowly - 5 hours vs 10 min.
 
The real question is - "Can I do a better experiment?"  It will be hard to
beat their accuracy by much.  But if there are any discontinuities I might be
able to pick them up by making a continuous run.  It is also possible that
electrolytic charging will get to higher D/Pd ratios than they achieved and
that a slower charge at relatively low and constant temperature will somehow
be different than the very high temperatures that the foils undoubtedly
reached as they were suddenly exposed to high pressure D.  I assume that the
copper was there to distribute the heat.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.14 /  /  Current Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current Experiment
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:58:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jennifer says it will be an unusually cold winter.  This determined by the
much larger than usual number of soup coupons in the sunday paper.
 
Meanwhile, the weather has been bad in my basement.  There have been a number
of power failures.  The UPS has apparently decided that it will no longer
cover even a fractional second power interruption.  This is bad, since the
hard disk on the computer will no longer take a command.com file, and there
is a keyboard failure message every time the computer is turned on.  I think
running for four months without a single pause wore the whole mess out.
After three years of the exact same display, I can finally see faint pink spots
where there was yellow text when I switch to a full white screen.  Fermilab
is full of screen savers, but as near as I can tell, and by the above actual
experiment, screens are so good these days that they don't kneed saving.  I
think the computer fan has also died, but can not be sure from all the othe
r fans running.  I think it is time to replace the whole mess.  OR to quit
this crazy business.
 
In spite of all this, I occationally get a day's worth of data.  When I do,
it indicates near perfect calorimeter balance, i.e. no excess heat.  I am
running alternate source on/off when it runs two days in a row.  There has
been no indication of any difference between source in/out.  It will be very
interesting if this effect returns over time.  Stay tuned folks!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.15 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Lecture Notice
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:44:17 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920911151753_72240.1256_EHL27-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>M.I.T. EECS-LECTURE
>THURSDAY 1-2 PM
>SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
>ROOM 18-490 (LANDAU BLDG.)
>
>Observations of Heat in Electrochemical Studies of the Palladium/Deuterium
>Systems Employing an Isothermal Flow Calorimeter
>
>by M.C.H. McKubre, SRI International
********************************************
Does anyone plan to attend this seminar AND post a summary for the net??
Also, is this a preview of a talk to be given in Japan in October??
*************************************************
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.15 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 738 papers, 112 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 738 papers, 112 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:18:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I make use of this single patent posting to make a remark on patents. I was
just asked whether any of these patent APPLICATIONS have actually subsequently
been issued as real patents. I looked through my file (CNF-PAT) and note about
three "East German", one or maybe two Belgian and one South African patents
that are not clearly marked as "appl.", "Offenl.", "Demande" or whatever word
in the Japanese ones signifies (Jed: which is it??) what the rest are all
saying, i.e. that this is just an application. I don't know whether Chemical
Abstracts later follows these up, when/if they ARE issued - my guess is they
don't. There are, of course, patents data bases to look at, but I am not
interested enough to do it. So when I say 112 patents/appl., please take note
that it's anybody's guess how many actually made it through the process or are
going to.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 15-Sep-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 738
 
Patents; archived file CNF-PAT
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayd A, Meinke P, Eckert M, Koller K;    Ger. Offenl. DE 4,032,824, 16-Oct-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(8):78500 (1992).
"Method and apparatus for controlled nuclear fusion".
** "The title method comprises addn. of an unconditioned polymer with
moderator in a cold nuclear fusion process. The moderator may be a Ni salt".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.15 / John Travis /  Re: Lecture Notice
     
Originally-From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:23:15 GMT
Organization: Boston University

>>M.I.T. EECS-LECTURE
>>THURSDAY 1-2 PM
>>SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
>>ROOM 18-490 (LANDAU BLDG.)
>>
>>Observations of Heat in Electrochemical Studies of the Palladium/Deuterium
>>Systems Employing an Isothermal Flow Calorimeter
>>
>>by M.C.H. McKubre, SRI International
 
>[will some one attend and post a review]
>Also, is this a preview of a talk to be given in Japan in October??
>*************************************************
>E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
>RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
 
 
I may be able to do so. Could this be a significant talk? Is this the
first time SRI is going to discuss it's results?
 
john travis
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.17 / Frank Smith /  Re: Possible Gas Absorption Experiments
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Possible Gas Absorption Experiments
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 18:40:09 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <1992Sep15.184747.6529@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
 (Frank Smith) writes:
>In article <920914152522.24a011a8@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>>What I do not understand, is how they know the D/Pd ratio very
>>accurately since it seems to be done with a pressure measurement.
>>Possibly pressure gages have kept up with electronics since I
>>left school, but I doubt it.
>
I checked with a friend who does gas adsorption measurements. The pressure
gauge used by Flanagan and co. is based on an electrical measurement of
frequency of an oscillator which involves a parallel plate capacitor, one of
the plates being fixed and the other moving in response to the pressure of the
gas present. My friend suggests that a measurement can be made precise to 1 in
10,000 or even one more order of magnitude with some luck. The relation of
pressure of H2 or D2 to H or D content is made with the well established
pressure-composition isotherms of Sieverts and others, detailed in
Lewis's book. Another way to determine H or D content of palladium according to
Fred Lewis is to measure the resistance of a piece of known geometry: would
this be of interest to you Tom? Again the D/Pd ratio would be determinable
to about three significant figures only.
 
Frank R. Smith
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.18 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 738 papers, 113 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 738 papers, 113 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:33:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
catching up on a few smallish items. Another patent application and who knows
whether it will be granted; and a bit of to and fro in the pages of C&EN,
which seems to have become a cold fusion forum, at least in its Letters pages.
Huizenga has rubbished the helium results, and reserved special venom for
Walling and Simons who, he wrote, sent off their theory (d+d--> He + gamma),
having been told of the He retraction by Fleischmann and Pons. Not so, writes
Walling, they have never seen such a retraction and sent their paper having
in fact seen helium evidence Pons showed them. Bush then joins the fray with
venom of his own, for Huizenga, who stands firm that if it's nuclear, it must
conform with what we know already.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 15-Sep-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 738
 
Commentary; archived file CNF-CMNT
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush B;                                                C&EN p.5, Sep 7 (1992).
"(4)He studies misrepresented"
** Bush criticises Huizenga's letter, in which H alleges that no evidence for
helium production in cold fusion experiments exists, thereby implicating the
China Lake study, mentioned in Huizenga's book. Contrary to Huizenga's
rejection of this study, Bush confirms that there was a high correlation
between helium and heat, the chance of getting these results by accident being
exceedingly small.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huizenga J;                                          C&EN p.3, July 20 (1992).
"Cold fusion".
** John Huizenga's reply to the letter by Cheves Walling in C&EN, 29-Jun. He
writes that far from being exonerated of naive behaviour, Walling and Simons'
paper is even worse, now that Walling has corrected the history. Furthermore,
what they write violates known nuclear physics.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walling C;                                           C&EN p.2, June 29 (1992).
"Cold fusion".
** Cheves Walling objects to the way his and Simon's contribution is described
both by Huizenga's book, and its review by Dagani in C&EN. CW writes that it
is not true that they sent their paper, knowing about the helium retraction of
Fleischmann and Pons; rather it was written and sent upon receiving what
looked like experimental (mass spectroscopic) evidence of helium from Pons.
CW has never seen the alleged retraction.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Patents; archived file CNF-PAT
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrat F;                                 Fr. Demande FR 2,663,775, 26-Jun-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(10):99456 (1992).
"Electrolytic nuclear fusion reactor".
** "The title reactor using a solid electrolyte comprises a transparent
confinement enclosure which allows transfer of energy between electrolytes,
and a receptor equipped with a thermal or elec. converter. The reactor
requires reduced maintenance and can be used to produce energy in the kilowatt
region". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.18 /  Britz /  A comment on comments
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A comment on comments
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:33:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
You have seen me recently assigning some polemic letters to the "Articles etc"
section (e.g. Behrisch, Gentsch), and to the "Comments" one (e.g. the Walling,
Huizenga, Bush flurry). Why the difference, you might reasonably ask. Why do I
elevate the Behrisch and Gentsch letters to the rank of papers, but not the
others? My reasoning is that when a Letter contains a technical point, as the
Behrisch and the Gentsch ones do, it's a paper, while if it is just a
complaint of misrepresentation, or a defense of such, or general information
such as Bush gives in his Letter, it's a comment. The line is fairly fine and
you may feel free to disagree with me.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.18 /  E /  ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" <MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 19:30:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
                            BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
 
               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as
          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis
          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the
          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote] by Peter
          Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 1973:
 
               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same
                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]
 
               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight
                   and number.
 
               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper
                   for three or four weeks.
 
               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.
 
               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of
                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least
                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]
 
               (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for
                   mineral content.  [Some of the mineral atoms of the
                   sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier
                   mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen,
                   hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]
 
 
               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
          own bodies.
 
               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with
          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED
          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much
          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
 
               Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
          organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
          oxygen, hydrogen, etc..
 
               The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by micro-organisms,
          cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building bricks, etc..
 
               The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot iron,
          creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder operators
          and people near woodstoves (even properly sealed ones).
 
               Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
 
 
               ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
          currently accepted "laws" of physics.
 
 
 
          Footnote: Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".
                    ENTIRE BOOK is FASCINATING!
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenMCELWRE cudfn cudlnE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.18 /  doctorj@sscvx1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: doctorj@sscvx1.ssc.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 23:13:43 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
                (...that's me on another node...)
>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) says:
 
>>> The reason I believe neutrino stimulated fusion burning may be
>>> an important part of "real" stellar energy performance  ..
 
>> Perhaps I am missing something.  Neutrinos are fermions, and I
>> thought that this means that they can't stimulate emission the way
>> photons do.  In addition, the dominant reaction, pp --> D e nu,
>> is not simply neutrino emission.  The pep reaction, pep --> D nu,
>> is only an 0.4% branch.  A strong time dependence of the pep rate
>> would give a strong and easily observable time dependence of the
>> produced 1.4 MeV neutrinos.
 
> Yes very strongly observable if you are LOOKING for that kind of
> signature.  If singular pep pulse occurs in a few minutes of a
> short burst and it doesn't recur for eleven years it could be
> missed.
 
             (...stuff deleted...)
 
You haven't addressed my main point:  Fermions don't stimulate emission.
What mechanism are you proposing?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendoctorj cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.19 /  /  Some Data to Ponder
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some Data to Ponder
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 02:44:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  18 September 1992
 
Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 30 ma per sq cm
Duration: Now charging for 9 days
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 2.8 volts
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
 
After several problems where the UPS unit actually **caused** a power
interruption I replaced it with a new unit.  But this has caused several
breaks in the charging, and most recently one that seemed to cause the cathode
to outgass 20 or so cc O2 equivalent.
 
For some time I have noticed an interesting characteristic of the cell
temperature.  From time to time there are sudden increases, followed by a
decay as if there were a sudden deposit of heat in the cell.  Unfortunately, I
record data to less precsion than I can observe on line, so I see them better
while running.  Will explain why below.
 
We take data with a 16 bit ADC.  The data starts out as 16 bit binary, we
accumulate 100 samples in a FP register and this is what is observed on line.
We record the mean of 100 readings back in a 16 bit single precision integer.
It did not seem that such small differences would be important when we
designed the experiment.  I take a lot of data, and it is the difference
between a 1.2 MB disk filling in 1.5 day versus the present 3 days.  But now
at least some of the variables would be interesting if the 100 sample mean
were recorded to greater precision.  In fact, I wish I could take floating
point data at about 10 second intervals.  That would be 1.2 megabyte every 4
hours.  (I have accumulated roughly 1000 360k and 1.2 mb data disks).
 
The following is the distribution of the change of cell temperature between 1
minute readings.  Each bin is 0.0458 C wide.  Since there is about 33 gm of
D2O in the cell, each bin amounts to a 6 joule change in energy stored.  The
decay time constant for a heat impulse into the cell is about 5 minutes.
 
Here is some data taken early in the run, the first column is the change in
temperature from the previous reading in bins.  The second column is the
number of times this change occurred.  No points are out of range.
 
-3      5
-2      59
-1      579
0       1432
1       465
2       82
3       14
4       8
5       2
6       1
 
Some data taken later in the same run:
 
-4      1
-3      9
-2      82
-1      363
0       596
1       252
2       83
3       28
4       6
5       4
6       1
7       0
8       0
9       0
10      0
11      1
 
The +11 point was the one that caught my attention and caused me to look at
the data this way.  It seems to me that this data indicates that there are
sudden heat releases in these cells.  That is also what it looks like to me on
line.  It also looks to me like the effect is increasing between the two sets
of data.  The first was about day 4-6, the second was about day 8.
 
How about those of you out there that are statistically minded having a look
at this data?  Note that I make no claim about the source of the heat "bumps",
only that I think the data is consistent with heat being released as impulses.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.19 / A Boulanger /  Stochastic Web followup
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stochastic Web followup
Date: 19 Sep 92 14:46:44
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
Some of you may be interested in a book about the "weak" chaos
described as a possible method for accelerating particles to high
energies in a reference I posted several weeks ago (Zaslavsky et al).
I just noticed this in my book club catalog:
 
 "Weak Chaos and Quasi-Regular Patterns"
 G.M. Zaslavsky, R.Z. Sagdeev, D.A. Usikov, and A.A. Cernikov
 Cambridge Nonlinear Science Series
 
 
(This is in the combined Newbridge Book Clubs catalog.)
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.19 / mitchell swartz /  50 versus 10**12
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 50 versus 10**12
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 23:47:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
   A question regarding the absolute number of putative products expected to be
 produced in a successful cold fusion experiment.  In Usenet  3695 [7 Sep 1992]
 Frank Close reported that (at a conference "in presence of Martin
 Fleischmann"):
 
  "On quite general grounds of energy conservation you know that for every watt
 of power of the order of 10**12 nuclear events have to take place independent
 of what particular nuclear process is involved. Those products are either
 emitted from the cell as radiation - and have not been seen - or are left
 behind and can be looked for. Some experiments that have claimed to see heat
 have looked for these products and have not found anything comparable by ORDERS
 OF MAGNITUDE with 10**12 per sec per watt."
 
 
 
 
   ***
  "[Debate then moved into other areas; MF claimed that it is "well established"
 that neutrons are produced at "5-50 per watt"."
 
 
   Although 50 neutrons per watt-second is a normalized output level remarkably
 different from 1,000,000,000,000, how fair is it to compare these numbers?
 
   Is the former level of "5-50" a measured value?  Is the latter number
 theoretically calculated or measured?  Is it based upon any premise that solid
 state nuclear event(s) proceed in a similar fashion to those which occur in the
 plasma state?
 
   Is there any experimental data to support predicted claims that there must be
 such copious production of neutrons (&tc) in the solid state at these
 temperatures in palladium loaded with deuterons?   at other temperatures?  with
 other isotopes of hydrogen?
 
  Given that several experimentalists report dynamic increases  of products
 created during these experiments on some occasions in the ranges between these
 cited levels, and that some experimentalists also report neutrons at the lower
 cited range,  perhaps it may be important to consider the solid-state
 experimental data supporting the 10**12 number.
 
                                Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.20 / mitchell swartz /  50 versus 10**12
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 50 versus 10**12
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 02:28:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

[[ ** I have been asked to repost the previous message at a format of
less than 80 characters per line.  My apologies for the inconvenience.
                                                   M.S.]
 
 
 
   A question regarding the absolute number of putative products expected
 to be produced in a successful cold fusion experiment.
   In Usenet  3695  [7 Sep 1992]  Frank Close reported that
 (at a conference "in presence of Martin Fleischmann"):
 
  "On quite general grounds of energy conservation you know that for
 every watt of power of the order of 10**12 nuclear events have to
 take place independent of what particular nuclear process is
 involved. Those products are either emitted from the cell as radiation
 - and have not been seen - or are left behind and can be looked for.
 Some experiments that have claimed to see heat have looked for
 these products and have not found anything comparable by
ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE with 10**12 per sec per watt."
                ***
  "[Debate then moved into other areas; MF claimed that it
 is "well established" that neutrons are produced at "5-50 per watt"."
 
 
   Although 50 neutrons per watt-second is a normalized output
level remarkably  different from 1,000,000,000,000, how fair
is it to compare these numbers?
 
   Is the former level of "5-50" a measured value?
   Is the latter number theoretically calculated or measured?
   Is it based upon any premise that solid state nuclear event(s)
 proceed in a similar fashion to those which occur in the plasma state?
 
   Is there any experimental data to support predicted claims that
 there must be such copious production of neutrons (&tc) in the solid-state
 at these temperatures in palladium loaded with deuterons?
   at other temperatures?  with other isotopes of hydrogen?
 
  Given that several experimentalists report dynamic increases  of products
 created during these experiments on some occasions in the ranges between
 these cited levels, and that some experimentalists also report neutrons at
 the lower cited range,  perhaps it may be important to consider the
 solid-state experimental data supporting the 10**12 number.
 
                                Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: 50 versus 10**12
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 50 versus 10**12
Date: 20 Sep 92 18:30:14 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Buuuv4.9Es@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>
>   A question regarding the absolute number of putative products expected
> to be produced in a successful cold fusion experiment.
>   In Usenet  3695  [7 Sep 1992]  Frank Close reported that
> (at a conference "in presence of Martin Fleischmann"):
>
>  "On quite general grounds of energy conservation you know that for
> every watt of power of the order of 10**12 nuclear events have to
> take place independent of what particular nuclear process is
> involved. Those products are either emitted from the cell as radiation
> - and have not been seen - or are left behind and can be looked for.
> Some experiments that have claimed to see heat have looked for
> these products and have not found anything comparable by
> ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE with 10**12 per sec per watt."
>                ***
>  "[Debate then moved into other areas; MF claimed that it
> is "well established" that neutrons are produced at "5-50 per watt"."
>
>   Although 50 neutrons per watt-second is a normalized output
>level remarkably  different from 1,000,000,000,000, how fair
>is it to compare these numbers?
 
Extremely fair.  It is alleged that the neutrons come from normal,
well known, nuclear fusion processes that would produce 10^{12} or
so neutrons per watt.  The process of establishing the detection
efficiency of your neutron detector is also straightforward, so it
is reasonable to conclude that the numbers of neutrons are not
comensurate with standard nuclear processes as a source for the heat.
 
>   Is the former level of "5-50" a measured value?
 
Allegedly so.  I have not seen a paper that presents evidence that would
get by a nuclear physics reviewer, but there are such claims.  Such a
value is very close to background levels, and requires care to observe.
Steve Jones has seen bursts of ~ few hundred neutrons, but not associated
with watts of heat.
 
>   Is the latter number theoretically calculated or measured?
 
Both.  Calculations and data agree.
 
>   Is it based upon any premise that solid state nuclear event(s)
> proceed in a similar fashion to those which occur in the plasma state?
 
Yes and no.  It is based on the premise that solid state nuclear events
are nuclear events; the calculation of the number of events required of
a particular type (d+d --> He-4 + phonon energy, for example) to release
a particular amount of energy is independent of how the reaction proceeds.
The energy release in plasma reactions or a reaction initiated in a
reactor or with a beam from an accelerator is calculated the same way also.
 
>   Is there any experimental data to support predicted claims that
> there must be such copious production of neutrons (&tc) in the solid-state
> at these temperatures in palladium loaded with deuterons?
>   at other temperatures?  with other isotopes of hydrogen?
 
If I understand the question behind your question, that is not what Close
is saying.  Close does not, in the statement quoted above, say that the
10^{12} products per watt are neutrons.  They could be He-4 nuclei, for
example.  He merely states that the products must be there in direct
proportion to the energy produced by nuclear processes.  The number
expected depends on reaction, but the order of magnitude of the power
of 10 expected does not change very much.  Only d+d has a final state
(He-4) that can be difficult to detect if the energy is not carried
away by a photon; all of the others have energetic charged particles
or neutrons emitted that are easy to detect.
 
>  Given that several experimentalists report dynamic increases  of products
> created during these experiments on some occasions in the ranges between
> these cited levels, and that some experimentalists also report neutrons at
> the lower cited range,  perhaps it may be important to consider the
> solid-state experimental data supporting the 10**12 number.
 
I am not sure what data you refer to here.  The only experiments that
I know of that claim to see He-4, and then not anywhere near the
necessary amount, suffer from poor controls.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / Eric Taylor /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 05:45:38 GMT
Organization: Eric Taylor & Associates, Inc.

In article <01GOXHXMETA8000EFV@cnsvax.uwec.edu> "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\""
 <MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET> writes:
>
>
>                            BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
>
>               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
>          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
>          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as
>          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis
>          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the
>          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote] by Peter
>          Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 1973:
>[...]
>               ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
>          currently accepted "laws" of physics.
>[...]
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
In Skeptical Inquirer, V16#2, Winter 1992, p122-123, Bill Malcolm and
Phil Garnock-Jones explain how this is impossible. My complaint is that
they do so using "currently accepted laws of physics".
 
My question is has anyone seriously tried to replicate Kevran's experiments?
Or has anyone show what Kevran's mistakes were? (other than expecting
that "currently accepted physicists" are intelligent?)
 
I'm not going to mince words here. Skeptical Inquirer is totally bogus.
Sure, the math and so on is correct. The point is that they have the
editorial tendancy to debunk, disprove, and display extreme bias without
so much as a single serious consideration. Mostly, they do a great job
at protecting us from true hoaxes. The problem is that they have failed
miserably to disprove Kevran, in this case. (as an example of the
miserableness of the article, they quote from "Growing Today" (and that
quotes Kevran), but they show neither in the references listed at
the end of the article. In other words, they didn't even bother
to check Kevran's work. Really now, how can you disprove something
when you haven't even read it?)
 
UNTIL SOMEONE CAN SHOW US WHAT KEVRAN'S EXPERIMENTAL FLAWS ARE (BUT NOT
THEORETICAL FLAWS) THEN WE ARE OBLIGATED TO LISTEN TO BOTH KEVRAN AND
MCELWAINE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, THEN EXPOSE THE
HOAX *OR* REPLICATE THE EXPERIMENT. BUT SHUT YOUR EARS TO YOUR OWN
DETRIMENT.
 
Disclaimer: I haven't researched this myself, so if you have any
valid references that do an appropriate job of exposing Kevran I'd like
to see them. Otherwise; so sorry if you think my post is uncalled for.
However, both Skeptical Inquirer and McElwaine piss me off equally. What
we really need is an intelligent discussion somewhere in the middle of
the two extremes.
 
ET
"A carpe a day keeps the seizures at bay"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenet cudfnEric cudlnTaylor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / T Neustaedter /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: 21 Sep 92 12:16:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

This chain properly belongs in alt.sci.physics.new-theories, where it
has been discussed before (for those of you in a.s.p.nt, the article
I am responding to is in sci.physics.fusion). Please note the followup-to:.
 
In article <Buwyo2.Gon@csn.org>, et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
> >                            BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
> [...]
> >                                   Robert E. McElwaine
 
Wow. A blast from the past.
 
> In Skeptical Inquirer, V16#2, Winter 1992, p122-123, Bill Malcolm and
> Phil Garnock-Jones explain how this is impossible. My complaint is that
> they do so using "currently accepted laws of physics".
>
> My question is has anyone seriously tried to replicate Kevran's experiments?
> Or has anyone show what Kevran's mistakes were? (other than expecting
> that "currently accepted physicists" are intelligent?)
 
I don't have a copy of the skeptical enquirer (I let my subscription lapse
about a year ago), so I don't know what their specific comments are. BUT,
we have discussed Mr. Kervram's experiments in great detail before, and
his experimental methods were simply unacceptably sloppy. He didn't show
that anything had happened - his data was lost in the noise of his
sloppiness.
 
From what I've have seen on the subject, Mr. Kervram had an agenda (he wanted
to prove that french agricultural policy with respect to fertilizers was in
error), and concocted a series of experiments to prove this. He appears to
have made fundamental errors in terms of controls and isolation of his
expiremental apparatus (In one experiment of plant transmutation, he was
measuring micrograms of trace elements and he didn't bother to keep his
containers sealed. Dust, microbes, ect could have produced the traces.).
 
> UNTIL SOMEONE CAN SHOW US WHAT KEVRAN'S EXPERIMENTAL FLAWS ARE (BUT NOT
> THEORETICAL FLAWS) THEN WE ARE OBLIGATED TO LISTEN TO BOTH KEVRAN AND
> MCELWAINE.
 
You misunderstand the nature of science. If you find his data interesting
and persuasive, replicate his experiment yourself, and publish your results.
It is well established that even well-trained scientific experimentors can
make systematic errors appearing to show results when none are there - so
no data is useful until replicated by other researchers.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / MIKE JAMISON /  RE: Another form of CNF (was Nuclear Chickens on other groups)
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Another form of CNF (was Nuclear Chickens on other groups)
Date: 21 Sep 92 16:43:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I think the problem with this guy's work was:
 
1)  Control experiments:  i.e. Dirt.  Any idea of how many of the alleged
"fusion products" are in the dirt in which the plants grow???
 
2)  Air:  Was the experiment isolated, environmentally, from the normal air
in the lab (was it a closed system?)
 
I suspect the answer is "no" to both 1 and 2.  Just reading the simple "how
to verify plant fusion" experiment yields the following:
 
a)  The air to which the plant is exposed while growing is not controlled.
 
b)  The germinated seeds weigh "several times more" than the ones that
haven't.
 
c)  Mineral water isn't pure H2O.  (It may well contain ALL of the supposed
fusion products seen).
 
d)  Plants/seeds are NOT identical.  In other words, one seed may contain
an impurity that others don't contain.  The only way to control this would
be to grow N generations of a plant in a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.
 
e)  I don't believe we emit more radiation than can be accounted for by the
radioactive stuff we eat (Potassium, etc.), unless you count infrared
radiation (heat).  Otherwise, we'd self-mutate :)
 
I haven't read the book.  Have these issues been addressed by the
experimenter?  If so, please enlighten me.
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / Godfrey Nolan /  Query on the use of software packages in physics
     
Originally-From: masgn@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Godfrey Nolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Query on the use of software packages in physics
Date: 21 Sep 92 16:19:47 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

 
 
It seems to us that different software systems are being used
to solve different aspects of problems in physics.
 
Recently some "integrated" packages have appeared which can tackle
all aspects of a problem from numerical analysis to computer
algebra to visualisation.
 
In connection with some work we are doing on linking symbolic and
numerical computer packages, we would like to know
 
a) the requirements (if any!) physicists have for integrated (software)
   systems,
 
b) what possible applications have such systems in physics,
 
c) whether the packages available at the moment are used widely and whether
   they satisfy current needs.
 
We would welcome a response to any of these questions, by posting to
this group or by e-mail to
 
                 masmm@gdr.bath.ac.uk
             or  masgn@gdr.bath.ac.uk
 
Thanks!
 
Michael Mc Gettrick,
Godfrey Nolan,
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Bath, England.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmasgn cudfnGodfrey cudlnNolan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  Britz /  RE: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 18:37:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Fusion Digest 477, Robert E. McElwaine alias MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET writes:
 
>                            BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
>
>               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
>          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
>          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as
>          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis
>          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the
>          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote] by Peter
>          Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 1973:
>...
>               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
>          own bodies.
>               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with
>          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED
>          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much
>          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
 
etc. FASCINATING stuff indeed. In MY BIBLIOGRAPHY, there have been TWO
mentions of this, one by Yaroslavskii (1989) and one by Dragan (91), CITING
Kevran. This WOULD explain A LOT! Why, e.g., do some people SEEM to have MORE
ENERGY than other people? Why are there some, who seem to RADIATE that CERTAIN
SOMETHING? Fusion, THAT'S WHY.  Especially if they're laying down Ca in bones.
SEVERAL MOLES are of course INVOLVED here, and the responsible FUSION REACTION
would of course release many THOUSANDS of megajoules. Personal auras, "WARM"
PERSONALITIES, Kirlian photography, MELTING into each other's ARMS  - WHY, all
these are EXPLAINED in one hit.
Amazing.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Biological Transmutation Silliness
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biological Transmutation Silliness
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 18:38:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert E. McElwaine has presented a claim for a new form of nuclear fusion
which he says is presented in writings of Louis Kervran (?).  I can only
suggest to you, Robert, that you be a bit more skeptical about things you
read.  Basically you need to dig very deeply into what the nature of the
experiments are that have shown evidence for nuclear transmutations.  You
describe a "simple" experiment which, you say, shows an increase by
several percent of the ratio of heavier elements to lighter ones.  Some
of the questions you should ask are whether the processes applied to
the different sample will in fact preserve such ratios.  For example,
a sprouted seed no doubt contains more water than an unsprouted seed.
The process of driving off that extra water may have other effects not
taken into account.  For definitive evidence, and nuclear physicist, would
ask that the isotopic ratios of the product nuclei be compared with
those occuring in nature.  If you look at the abundances for the various
isotopes of silicon (masses 28,29,30) and then add mass 12 you would
expect to see calcium masses 40,41,42 in corresponding ratios.  That is
unless you allow for the emission of one or more neutrons as part of
the transmutation process.  Come to think of it, maybe those are the
neutrons that get detected around cold fusion experiments.  Hence forth
all CF labs should be checked for biological activity!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 741 papers, 113 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 741 papers, 113 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 18:38:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here are three more real papers. Jones once again joins with the ultras in
rejecting all but the very low-level emission results, such as his group's,
and dissociates himself from excess heat unaccompanied by "commensurate
amounts of nuclear products" (where have I read these words...? Hmm.). The
Russians suggest phase changes plus fracto-, and Shaheen and Ragheb tie in the
Oklo phenomenon with cold fusion, by invoking the disintegration of deuterium
into a proton and a neutron, which then bang into whatever is nearby. I
believe it was Dick Forman who first brought up Oklo in this list, I couldn't
understand at the time what it might have to do with cnf.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-Sep-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 741
 
Journal articles; archived files CNF-PAP1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones SE;                                       Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 915.
"Nuclear reactions in deuterated solids versus excess heat claims".
** Jones has collected a great number of cnf results and tabulated them, along
a vertical scale for neutrons/cp's or watts, for one group of searches for
nuclear emissions, and one of searches for excess heat. There is a ten-order
difference between the two. Jones writes that excess heat must accompany a
commensurate emission of nuclear products, if it is to be a product of a
nuclear reaction, and it clearly is not. Claims for helium or tritium must
also show secondary emissions; the one study claiming (4)He commensurate with
excess heat does not show the necessary tritium or (3)He, and is therefore
likely to be a result of contamination. Lattice absorption of high energies by
some Moessbauer-like effect is not possible.                          ?/Dec-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krasnoshchekov YuI, Larionov LV, Makovei VA, Muryshev EYu, Syrenkov GI;
Sov. Phys. Dokl. 36 (1991) 705.
Orig. Russian: Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 320 (1991) 1358.
"Possibility of nuclear reaction during phase transitions".
** Phase transitions in metal hydrides are considered here. In Fe at high
temperature, for example, a gamma-alpha PhT is known in which pressures of
hydrogen, thousands of times the equilibrium state are observed. Also, the
release of hydrogen from the metal upon PhT is impulsive. As the phase
boundary moves through titanium deuteride, reorganisation of the crystal
structure and thus displacement of deuterium should occur. This, and the
possibility of charge separation upon cleavage, might be a clue to the
understanding of cold fusion.                                    May-91/Oct-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaheen M, Ragheb M;                 J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 158 (1992) 323.
"Anomalous deuteron to hydrogen ratio in naturally occurring fission reactions
and the possibility of deuteron disintegration".
** This paper chiefly addresses the Oklo phenomenon, i.e., anomalous
(235)U/(238)U ratios in geological samples from that region in Gabon, Africa,
and an anomalous D/H ratio. A theory is deuteron disintegration, followed by
reaction with metal nuclei, is described and quantified.It can explain the
anomalies. The authors then go on to speculate that a similar disintegration
might be at the base of cnf in metals, and suggest that isotopic changes be
searched for.                                                         Jun-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / Jim Carr /  Inertial Confinement Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inertial Confinement Fusion
Date: 21 Sep 92 19:11:29 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

It may be of interest that the new (Sept. 1992) issue of Physics Today
contains two feature articles on inertial confinement fusion.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  /  Reply to Frank Smith
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Frank Smith
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 23:11:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Frank R. Smith for looking up how Flanagan did the gas measurements.
Wow!  I am impressed.  Pressure to 1 in 10000.  Frank, I do know about the
resistance method, and used it in the first calorimeter.  The big problem
with making the resistance measurement is that it requires a lot of leads
into the cell.  Big chance for leaks.  It would also be hard to do well with
a flat plate.  But resistance is not a primary measurement, and it may not
be well known how it varies at high loadings.  Per the Moore thesis
(Princeton 1939) it does not seem like a very good thing to use at high
loadings.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  /  Some Questions to Ask McKubre
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some Questions to Ask McKubre
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 23:11:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here are some questions to be asked if anyone attends the McKubre talk at MIT
on 24 September.  Obviously there are too many questions, but I would
appreciate an answer to any item.  I would not be adverse to someone giving
Mike a copy of this list before his talk.
 
First I would like to complement Dr. McKubre for a very nice job of
calorimetry and of instrumentation of the calorimetry.  There are many little
details in the Como Proceedings paper that show that the instrumentation is
first class.  I must say that this is the only paper I have read where there
is sufficient detail of the procedure to convince me that the results
presented are either real, or the result of some very obscure artifact.
 
Preparation:
 
1) Cathode Alloy
 
What is your preferred alloy?
Do you find that all cathodes from some batches produce "anomalous heat"
while all cathodes from other batches fail?
 
2) Cathode Surface Treatment
 
Are you still using the ion implantation mentioned in the Como paper?
Have you tried highly polished cathodes?
 
3) Electrolyte
 
Are you using pure D2O or D2O/H2O mixtures?
If so what percentage of H2O is used?
Are you presently using D2O + LiOH, D2SO4, D2SO4+Li2SO4, etc?
Are you putting anything "magic" in the electrolyte? Polymers?
Wetting Agents?
 
4) Cleanliness
 
Do small amounts of contaminants affect operation?
Are ultra clean laboratory procedures necessary?
Must I really keep the cat hair out of my cells?
 
Operation:
 
4)Time to power
 
What is the distribution of times to the first observation of "anomalous
heat"?
Have you made any attempt to correlate time of first "anomalous heat" with the
sun spot cycle, phase of the moon, or position of your sign in the zodiac
cycle (little joke)?
Is there anything that seems to speed up the first heat event?
Is there any indication that "anomalous heat" is about to be seen?
Is there any indication that "anomalous heat" will not be seen?
 
5) Cell Voltage
 
Does dropping cell voltage ( as indicated by some P&F papers ) indicate that
an "anomalous heat" event is more likely?
Does a rising cell voltage (P&F) indicate that a cell is finished?
Do you find that the Lithium wants to migrate around the cell, thus weakening
the electrolyte?
Do you see pulses (normally brief increases of voltage for several minutes) on
the cell voltage (assuming operation at constant current and which are not
explained by bubbles) which come and go?
 
6) Radiation Induced Power
 
Have you tried using radiation (per Ying) to induce an "anomalous heat" event?
If so, what was the effect?
 
7) Temperature
 
Have you tried temperature shocks, cycling, etc., (per Scott) to induce an
"anomalous heat" event?
 
8) Charging Procedure
 
What charging procedure have you found to give the highest cathode loading?
Have you observed that loading is related to "anomalous heat"?
If the loading is related to "anomalous heat" is it a threshold effect or is
"anomalous heat" independent of loading above some minimum value?
Have you used the Takahashi saw tooth, hi-low, charging procedure with a
positive effect?
Does the saw tooth charging procedure help to restore an unloaded cathode?
 
9) Absorbed gas
 
Do you monitor the absorbed gas on line?
Do you observe that some gas is absorbed prior to a heat event?
We observe a "fast out - slow in" gas absorption "breathing" which we do not
believe to be caused by the catalyst.  Have you seen this?
Have you seen any "creeping unload" of an initially charged cathode?
 
10) Initiation of Heat
 
What are the very first indications that a cell will display "anomalous heat"?
What is the form of the arrival of "anomalous heat"?
Is it a step function?
Is is a linear increase?  If so what is the time taken for first visible heat
to full heat?
Is it some power function?  If so what sort of time constant?
Is the observed heat continuous or does it arrive in pulses?
If pulses, is it a continuum or are the pulses uniform?
 
Miscellaneous Observations
 
11) Get Cold then Get Hot Phenomena
 
We sometimes observe that the cell gets cold just before it gets hot.  Have
you observed this?  (This is typically only a few joules in magnitude - we
attribute this to a high negative heat of absorption at high D/Pd ratios and
is another indication that additional gas absorption causes an event.)
 
12) Heat Pulses
 
Careful observation of the cell temperature indicates that the heat events are
likely a spectrum of small pulses.  This is observed by many instances where
the cell temperature suddenly gets hot then cools with a characteristic time
constant.  It is confirmed by a skew in the distribution of change of cell
temperature between samples.  Have you observed this?
 
13) Pressure Change Induced Events
 
We sometimes use a syringe to inject of remove gas from the cell.  This
procedure causes a small change in cell pressure and sometimes induces a large
heat pulse.  Thermometers in the cell and catalyst and the gas volume
monitoring suggest that this is a real pulse, and not a catalyst artifact.
Have you observed anything like this?
 
14) Unloading
 
Have you observed spontaneous unloading of the cathode?
Does anything in particular bring this on?
Are you ever able to reload so that "anomalous heat" is seen after such an
event?
 
15) Accident
 
Was the accident chemistry?
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / William Johnson /  Re: Biological Transmutation Silliness
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Biological Transmutation Silliness
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 22:59:14 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <00960F26.69838800.18506@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
 blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Robert E. McElwaine has presented a claim for a new form of nuclear fusion
>which he says is presented in writings of Louis Kervran (?).  I can only
>suggest to you, Robert, that you be a bit more skeptical about things you
>read.
 
Wholehearted agreement ... but now, when we get to the tongue-in-cheek part:
 
>Hence forth
>all CF labs should be checked for biological activity!
 
I got a chuckle out of this, because it's been done -- seriously (sort of).
Back in the initial post-FPH days, when we were running various FPH-style
cells instrumented out the wazoo (and with quite negative results), we were
approached by this odd little fellow from a life-sciences group somewhere
(name and affiliation will remain unmentioned).  Seems he wanted to surround
one of the cells with little flasks containing, if I remember correctly,
hamster red blood cells (!?) to see if whatever Mysterious Physics underlay
cold fusion also had some manner of bizarre biological activity, type unknown.
We tried to accommodate him with a straight face, while keeping ourselves
between him and any sharp objects.  The hamster cells were duly emplaced in
the experiment.  Some days later they were removed, and I have no idea what
became of them.  Certainly no science-fiction scenes of hairy monsters crawling
out of the flasks were acted out in our lab.  Of course, neither was any
observation of neutrons...
 
One of the entertaining things about cold fusion has been that no experiment
has appeared too silly for someone to try it.  I'll spin the yarn about
arrowroot starch and turkey blood some other time.
 
--
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Compressing data samples
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Compressing data samples
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 16:30:14 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

In a recent message, Tom Droege describes the distribution of
data from a recent experiment.  The data is recorded as 16-
bit integer "bin numbers", each representing a delta of
0.0458 C.  He wishes he could take more data without having
to change disks so often.
 
Since successive samples are often identical or very close, a
simple compression algorithm could be used to gather more
data without using more disk space.
 
The algorithm would work like this:  Assign each sample an N-
bit number which gives the delta value from the previous
sample.  If the change from the previous sample is more than
the N-bit number can express, use a special symbol to
indicate that the full 16-bit value will follow.
 
To be more specific, if N=3, each sample would be a three-bit
2's complement number ranging from -4 (100) to +3 (011).  The
numbers from -3 to +3 are used to express the change from the
previous sample.  -4 is used as a special symbol to indicate
that the next 16-bits hold the exact sample.
 
As long as most samples fit within the allowed range, each
sample takes only 3-bits rather than 16, occupying 19% as
much of the disk.  For N=2, the lower bound is 13%, and for
N=4 the lower bound is 25%.  Note that if the data changes
too fast for the given N, disk space is more than without
compression.  If each sample is a new value, with N=3, each
sample takes 19 bits, or 119%.
 
Given the two examples from Droege's message, my spreadsheet
shows that the compressions works out as follows:
          Example 1       Example 2
N = 2        28%             19%
N = 3        20%             19%
N = 4        25%             25%
 
If the data in the message is typical, it looks like N=3 is
the best trade-off.  Although if the compression allows the
data to be sampled more frequently, then the delta between
samples may be smaller, favoring smaller N.
 
This algorithm is not the most efficient possible for this
data, but gives a good 5:1 ratio while requiring negligible
run-time computation overhead.  I imagine it would be fairly
easy to hack into the code.
 
-- Bob Horst
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 / Nick Haines /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: 21 Sep 92 21:39:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <01GOXHXMETA8000EFV@cnsvax.uwec.edu> MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET
(NAME "Robert E. McElwaine") writes a whole BUNCH of fascinating
stuff, all ABOUT how plants and animals transmute THE elements in
their food and environment into NEW and WONDERFUL things.
 
Right, so I'll JUST perSUADE this PETUNIA to start eXUDing pLUTonIUm
and sOOn I'll be riCH.
 
Nick
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.21 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 21 Sep 92 16:42:27 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
 
               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
          violate the "laws" of physics.   All of the "experts" and
          "authorities" said so.
 
               For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901:  "The
          demonstration that no possible combination of known
          substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
          force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
          shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
          as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
          physical fact to be."
 
               Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright
          Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final
          word.  Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they
          crash).
 
               Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are
          saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy'
          Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science"
          and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which
          assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law
          of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful
          energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics").  The physicists do not
          know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare
          that those things cannot be done.  Such PRINCIPLES OF
          IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to
          cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox
          modern theories.
 
               Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a
          seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
          OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT
          SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated
          pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.
 
               Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy,
          but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by
          various forms of induction.  UNLIKE solar or wind devices,
          they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they
          can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed.  Solar energy
          has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by
          clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced
          by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and
          high latitudes.  Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and
          often non-existent.  Neither solar nor wind power are
          suitable to directly power cars and airplanes.  Properly
          designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations.
 
               For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,
          #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for
          motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly
          tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic
          field.  The first two require a feedback network in order to
          be self-running.  The third one, (as described in detail in
          "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980), requires
          critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of
          magnets, but NO feedback.  Such a motor could drive an
          electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR
          ROUND, FOR FREE.  [Complete descriptive copies of U.S.
          patents were $1.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, correct
          7-digit patent numbers required.]
 
               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
          unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO-
          MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12
          cycles per second plus harmonics).  They typically have a
          'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the
          energy in the coils with the energy being tapped.  It is
          important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of
          the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as
          'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output.
          This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP
          at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent
          magnet.  In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID
          CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output
          power.  ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems",
          by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70,
          Mokelumne Hill, CA  95245.]
 
               During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named
          Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an
          'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after
          analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped
          waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical
          equations to explain it.  As described in the book "A
          Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson,
          1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a
          LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a
          CRITICAL VELOCITY.  The water then IMPLODES, no longer
          touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump,
          which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC
          GENERATOR.  The device seems to be tapping energy from that
          of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A
          TORNADO.
 
               A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock
          Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between
          a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression
          ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and
          planetary gears).  It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running
          by driving its own air compressor.  This engine also
          generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat
          buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large
          trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.
          [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the
          automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.]
 
               Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown
          in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between
          metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of
          particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a
          common household smoke detector.
 
               One other energy source should be mentioned here,
          despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
          Energy.  A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
          Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
          reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
          deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
          from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
          converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
          steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
          a house or large enough to power a city.  And UNLIKE the
          "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
          Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
          for every watt put in.  ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
          pages 32-40.]
 
               And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that
          have been in the news lately, originally conducted by
          University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin
          Fleischmann.  Some U.S. Navy researchers finally took the
          trouble to collect the bubbles coming from such an apparatus,
          had them analyzed with mass-spectrometry techniques, and
          found HELIUM 4, which PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed
          take place, and enough of it to explain the excess heat
          generated.
 
               There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws"
          of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute".  For example, the
          late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
          calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail
          in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The
          Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe
          has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter
          half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing
          between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by
          thermodynamic "laws".  His Theory explains the universe MUCH
          BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena
          that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching
          their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way.  Some
          Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow,
          seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality
          energy".
 
               Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat'
          and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe
          is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of
          existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV
          channels, as described in books like "The Path of the
          Masters", by Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to
          Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969.  For example,
          the next level up from the physical universe is commonly
          called the 'Astral Plane'.  Long-time Members of these groups
          have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and
          report on conditions there.  It seems plausible that energy
          could flow down from these higher levels into the physical
          universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given
          the right configuration of matter to channel it.  This is
          supported by many successful laboratory-controlled
          experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as
          those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the
          Iron Curtain".
 
               In terms of economics, the market has FAILED.  Inventors
          do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop
          and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional
          energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their
          VE$TED INTERE$T$.  The government is needed to intervene.  If
          the government does not intervene, then the total supply of
          energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and
          will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and
          pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE
          EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil
          spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue
          to increase.
 
               The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development
          of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize
          private production (until the producers can make it on their
          own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of
          Free Energy Hardware.
 
               The long-range effects of such government intervention
          would be wide-spread and profound.  The quantity of energy
          demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining
          companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$,
          etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to
          seek work elsewhere.  Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil,
          and gas) would be left in the ground.  Prices for
          conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero,
          while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high
          but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's,
          personal computers, etc.).  Costs of producing products that
          require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease,
          along with their prices to consumers.  Consumers would be
          able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric
          utility bills or buying home heating fuel.  Tourism would
          benefit and increase because travelers would not have to
          spend their money for gasoline for their cars.  Government
          tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be
          obtained in some other way.  And energy could no longer be
          used as a MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR.
 
               Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of
          business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment
          and ecosystems, would benefit greatly.  It is the People,
          that government should serve, rather than the big
          corporation$ and bank$.
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmcelwre cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 05:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep21.164227.1312@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 writes:
>
>                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
>                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
>
>               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
>          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
>          violate the "laws" of physics.   All of the "experts" and
>          "authorities" said so.
>
>               For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901:  "The
>          demonstration that no possible combination of known
>          substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
>          force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
>          shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
>          as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
>          physical fact to be."
 
     I don't recall Simon Newcomb being an expert on the mechanics of
     flight.   By the way, this statement seems supportable given
     technology of 1901.  It even seems supportable immediately after
     the Wright brothers first flight.  Their achievement was hardly
     'a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through
     air'.
 
     I would like to reiterate that at no point does he say such flight
     is 'impossible', simply that it was not feasible in 1901.
 
                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / B Bartholomew /  Remarks to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Remarks to Tom Droege
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 06:57:09 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

<I tried to send this note to Tom Droege via Email, but our server got
confused.>
	Tom, let me say right off the bat that I am not
a mathematician, physicist, or anything else.  As a matter of
infor, I don't have any degrees at all.  I am also not a TB,
but really hope there is something in there.
	What I do have is 20+ years experience in A/D conversion
and such.
	1. IMO, (?Dr.?) Bernard Gordon, of ANALOGIC corporation,
near Boston, is the only expert on A/D worth listening to.  He
calls 'em like he sees 'em, and has published several papers
on things that go bump in the night in the data conversion world.
Give Analogic a call (??ThreeBody??  (They pronounce it trib'dy,
accent on 1st sylable), Mass.)
	Sumpin that worrys me about your observation is that
most 16bit converters have an input range of 5-10 volts, while
most thermocouples have outputs in the milivolt range.  Ponder for
a moment that you must put some kind of amplifier in between, and
then ask what is the noise rating of the amp. vs. 16-bit resolution.
	In one of his papers, Bernie says, in effect, that if you
want a good 8-bit converter, use the upper 8 bits of a good 12-bit
converter.  Note also that the way manufacturers spec converters,
there is a fair ammount of error built in.  Never mind all the
problems with dissimilar metals connections, there are other
errors that can hurt you even worse.
	Give the folks at Analogic a call and (you should get so
lucky) try to get in touch with Bernie, or at least get his
papers.  Sorry that I don't have the numbers here, but the
infomation operator for the Boston area has come through for me
in the recent past.
	Finally, (<std.disclaimer> assumed) I note that a company
called Computer Labs sells a lot of A/D equipment; the products
from this outfit that I have examined are somewhat less than optimum.
	Luck
	Bart
--
 If there's one thing I just can't stand, it's intolerance.
*No One* is responsible for my views, I'm a committee. Please do not
infer that which I do not imply.  hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenhcbarth cudfnBart cudlnBartholomew cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Eliot Moss /  Re: Remarks to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Remarks to Tom Droege
Date: 22 Sep 92 13:10:37 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 1992 06:57:09 GMT, hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart
>>>>> Bartholomew) said:
 
Bart> 	1. IMO, (?Dr.?) Bernard Gordon, of ANALOGIC corporation, near Boston,
Bart> is the only expert on A/D worth listening to.  He calls 'em like he sees
Bart> 'em, and has published several papers on things that go bump in the
Bart> night in the data conversion world.  Give Analogic a call (??ThreeBody??
Bart> (They pronounce it trib'dy, accent on 1st sylable), Mass.)
 
Can't say for sure, but sounds like Peabody, MA to me. It is pronounced
PEE-b'dee. (Mass. has a number of town names pronounced in ways that surprise
the non-native, such as Haverhill (HAY-ver-ill) and Quincy (QUIN-zee, not
QUINT-see).
--
 
J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor	Visiting Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science		School of Computer Science
Lederle Graduate Research Center	Carnegie Mellon University
University of Massachusetts		5000 Forbes Avenue
Amherst, MA  01003			Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3891
(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax)		(412) 268-6767, 681-5739 (fax)
Moss@cs.umass.edu			Moss@cs.cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Some Questions to Ask McKubre
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Questions to Ask McKubre
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 13:27:12 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920921141641.20e02844@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>
>7) Temperature
>
>Have you tried temperature shocks, cycling, etc., (per Scott) to induce an
>"anomalous heat" event?
>
>11) Get Cold then Get Hot Phenomena
>
>We sometimes observe that the cell gets cold just before it gets hot.  Have
>you observed this?  (This is typically only a few joules in magnitude - we
>attribute this to a high negative heat of absorption at high D/Pd ratios and
>is another indication that additional gas absorption causes an event.)
>
>12) Heat Pulses
>
>Careful observation of the cell temperature indicates that the heat events are
>likely a spectrum of small pulses.  This is observed by many instances where
>the cell temperature suddenly gets hot then cools with a characteristic time
>constant.  It is confirmed by a skew in the distribution of change of cell
>temperature between samples.  Have you observed this?
>Tom Droege
>
Dick Forman adds: Of the above I think these are the ones that are the most
amenable to a complete answer.  I hope that John Travis will attend this talk
as he earlier suggested he might. For those of you who do not know him, his
B.S. Thesis was a history of cold fusion work and he also did some recent
internships in science journalism before going back to journalism.
My own added question:  Did you do any experiments involving quasi-static
temperature scans of the cells to see if a particular temperature range was
best for a particular deuterium loading?  I am implying that for a given
lattice constant for the PdD(sub x) there will be a best cell temperature
that will vary with (sub x).   At least that is what I want for my "theoretical
musings" to be a correct step toward an explanation of the heat pulses.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Bryan Carpenter /  Re: Inertial Confinement Fusion
     
Originally-From: dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inertial Confinement Fusion
Date: 22 Sep 92 13:55:12 GMT

In <10817@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>It may be of interest that the new (Sept. 1992) issue of Physics Today
>contains two feature articles on inertial confinement fusion.
 
This sounds as if it could have some connection with reality.
What's it doing on this board?
 
>--
>J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
>jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
>Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
>Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
 
Bryan
 
(Sorry, everyone)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendbc cudfnBryan cudlnCarpenter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 22 Sep 92 14:00:28 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1992Sep21.164227.1312@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 writes:
 
>               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
>          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
>          violate the "laws" of physics.   All of the "experts" and
>          "authorities" said so.
 
Balderdash!  People have known otherwise ever since man first saw
birds fly.  Yeah, some naysayer may have made an intemperate
statement but your blanket statement that *all* of the experts and
authorities said so is pure rubbish.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Sea Wasp /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 22 Sep 92 14:56:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <10392@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
 writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.164227.1312@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 writes:
>>               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
>>          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
 
>Balderdash!  People have known otherwise ever since man first saw
>birds fly.  Yeah, some naysayer may have made an intemperate
 
 
	Relax, people. This dude is the same guy who posted the plant
fusion article. He's obviously escaped from alt.alien.visitors or
alt.newage. Or maybe he's from rec.humor and is off laughing at the
flames...
 
	You don't really think his posts are going to FOOL anyone,
do you?? At least, not on THIS board?
 
 
                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Remarks to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Remarks to Tom Droege
Date: 22 Sep 92 13:43:26 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Sep22.065709.6942@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew) writes:
 
>        Sumpin that worrys me about your observation is that
>most 16bit converters have an input range of 5-10 volts, while
>most thermocouples have outputs in the milivolt range.  Ponder for
>a moment that you must put some kind of amplifier in between, and
>then ask what is the noise rating of the amp. vs. 16-bit resolution.
Dick Forman comments:  The reasons for using thermocouples are they are cheap,
small, low thermal mass, and hold their calibration.  If sensitivity is the
only issue then nothing beats thermistor thermometry.  Fenwal was the type I
always used when I was a lab scientist. For bigger bucks back biased silicon
or germanium diodes are nice and Lake Shore Cryotronics in Ohio or upper
New York state makes nice boxes. All of the semiconductor systems I used
showed aging with (?) thermal cycling to 4K.  Maybe they have gotten better.
If size is no object Allen-Bradley carbon resistors were the best. Lots of
info. out there on their use. More details available by direct mail to:
dick@mitre.org
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Heiner Biesel /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:29:20 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
 
>In Fusion Digest 477, Robert E. McElwaine alias MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET writes:
 
>>                            BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
>>
>>               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
>>          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
>>          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as
>>          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis
>>          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the
>>          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote] by Peter
>>          Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 1973:
>>...
>>               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
>>          own bodies.
>>               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with
>>          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED
>>          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much
>>          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
 
>etc. FASCINATING stuff indeed. In MY BIBLIOGRAPHY, there have been TWO
>mentions of this, one by Yaroslavskii (1989) and one by Dragan (91), CITING
>Kevran. This WOULD explain A LOT! Why, e.g., do some people SEEM to have MORE
>ENERGY than other people? Why are there some, who seem to RADIATE that CERTAIN
>SOMETHING? Fusion, THAT'S WHY.  Especially if they're laying down Ca in bones.
>SEVERAL MOLES are of course INVOLVED here, and the responsible FUSION REACTION
>would of course release many THOUSANDS of megajoules. Personal auras, "WARM"
>PERSONALITIES, Kirlian photography, MELTING into each other's ARMS  - WHY, all
>these are EXPLAINED in one hit.
>Amazing.
 
Amazing indeed. Also, finally, the explanation of the mystery of spontaneous
human combustion: simply another fusion reaction gone out of control.
 
Regards,
       H. Biesel
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbiesel cudfnHeiner cudlnBiesel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 /  E /  FREE-ENERGY Technologies (including 2 re. Fusion)
     
Originally-From: "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" <MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (including 2 re. Fusion)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 22:47:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
 
               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
          violate the "laws" of physics.   All of the "experts" and
          "authorities" said so.
 
               For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901:  "The
          demonstration that no possible combination of known
          substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
          force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
          shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
          as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
          physical fact to be."
 
               Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright
          Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final
          word.  Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they
          crash).
 
               Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are
          saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy'
          Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science"
          and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which
          assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law
          of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful
          energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics").  The physicists do not
          know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare
          that those things cannot be done.  Such PRINCIPLES OF
          IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to
          cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox
          modern theories.
 
               Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a
          seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
          OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT
          SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated
          pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.
 
               Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy,
          but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by
          various forms of induction.  UNLIKE solar or wind devices,
          they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they
          can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed.  Solar energy
          has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by
          clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced
          by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and
          high latitudes.  Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and
          often non-existent.  Neither solar nor wind power are
          suitable to directly power cars and airplanes.  Properly
          designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations.
 
               For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,
          #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for
          motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly
          tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic
          field.  The first two require a feedback network in order to
          be self-running.  The third one, (as described in detail in
          "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980), requires
          critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of
          magnets, but NO feedback.  Such a motor could drive an
          electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR
          ROUND, FOR FREE.  [Complete descriptive copies of U.S.
          patents were $1.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, correct
          7-digit patent numbers required.]
 
               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
          unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO-
          MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12
          cycles per second plus harmonics).  They typically have a
          'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the
          energy in the coils with the energy being tapped.  It is
          important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of
          the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as
          'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output.
          This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP
          at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent
          magnet.  In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID
          CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output
          power.  ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems",
          by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70,
          Mokelumne Hill, CA  95245.]
 
               During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named
          Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an
          'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after
          analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped
          waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical
          equations to explain it.  As described in the book "A
          Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson,
          1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a
          LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a
          CRITICAL VELOCITY.  The water then IMPLODES, no longer
          touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump,
          which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC
          GENERATOR.  The device seems to be tapping energy from that
          of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A
          TORNADO.
 
               A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock
          Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between
          a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression
          ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and
          planetary gears).  It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running
          by driving its own air compressor.  This engine also
          generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat
          buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large
          trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.
          [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the
          automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.]
 
               Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown
          in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between
          metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of
          particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a
          common household smoke detector.
 
               One other energy source should be mentioned here,
          despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
          Energy.  A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
          Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
          reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
          deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
          from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
          converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
          steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
          a house or large enough to power a city.  And UNLIKE the
          "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
          Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
          for every watt put in.  ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
          pages 32-40.]
 
               And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that
          have been in the news lately, originally conducted by
          University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin
          Fleischmann.  Some U.S. Navy researchers finally took the
          trouble to collect the bubbles coming from such an apparatus,
          had them analyzed with mass-spectrometry techniques, and
          found HELIUM 4, which PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed
          take place, and enough of it to explain the excess heat
          generated.
 
               There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws"
          of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute".  For example, the
          late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
          calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail
          in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The
          Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe
          has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter
          half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing
          between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by
          thermodynamic "laws".  His Theory explains the universe MUCH
          BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena
          that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching
          their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way.  Some
          Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow,
          seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality
          energy".
 
               Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat'
          and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe
          is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of
          existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV
          channels, as described in books like "The Path of the
          Masters", by Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to
          Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969.  For example,
          the next level up from the physical universe is commonly
          called the 'Astral Plane'.  Long-time Members of these groups
          have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and
          report on conditions there.  It seems plausible that energy
          could flow down from these higher levels into the physical
          universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given
          the right configuration of matter to channel it.  This is
          supported by many successful laboratory-controlled
          experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as
          those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the
          Iron Curtain".
 
               In terms of economics, the market has FAILED.  Inventors
          do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop
          and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional
          energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their
          VE$TED INTERE$T$.  The government is needed to intervene.  If
          the government does not intervene, then the total supply of
          energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and
          will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and
          pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE
          EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil
          spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue
          to increase.
 
               The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development
          of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize
          private production (until the producers can make it on their
          own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of
          Free Energy Hardware.
 
               The long-range effects of such government intervention
          would be wide-spread and profound.  The quantity of energy
          demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining
          companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$,
          etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to
          seek work elsewhere.  Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil,
          and gas) would be left in the ground.  Prices for
          conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero,
          while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high
          but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's,
          personal computers, etc.).  Costs of producing products that
          require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease,
          along with their prices to consumers.  Consumers would be
          able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric
          utility bills or buying home heating fuel.  Tourism would
          benefit and increase because travelers would not have to
          spend their money for gasoline for their cars.  Government
          tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be
          obtained in some other way.  And energy could no longer be
          used as a MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR.
 
               Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of
          business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment
          and ecosystems, would benefit greatly.  It is the People,
          that government should serve, rather than the big
          corporation$ and bank$.
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenMCELWRE cudfn cudlnE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 22 Sep 92 16:57:13 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

>>In article <1992Sep21.164227.1312@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 writes:
>>>               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
>>>          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
 
>In article <10392@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
 writes:
>>Balderdash!  People have known otherwise ever since man first saw
>>birds fly.  Yeah, some naysayer may have made an intemperate
 
In article <6117@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
 writes:
>	Relax, people. This dude is the same guy who posted the plant
> fusion article. He's obviously escaped from alt.alien.visitors or ...
 
Right.  And he also posted an article about some sort of water-witching
type device for locating lost persons (and MIAs) to rec.backpacking,
where it got a similar reception.
 
I wonder what other newsgroups are getting similar enlightenment.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 22 Sep 92 16:22:00 GMT
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Most power utilities are required by law to buy power from
alternative sources. You will need a synchronizer to match the
frequency and phase of the power you generate to the grid, but such
are available. Set your system up and sell the power to the utility.
Use the money you get to build more power systems. Keep repeating the
process and you should be the richest man in America in a couple of
years.
 
Chris Kostanick
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchris cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 /  /  Government support of Free Energy Technology
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Government support of Free Energy Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 20:37:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

"     FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
"  by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
 
Please, please, don't give this work government support.  This is one of
the last bastions of pure nuttiness.  Given government support they would
become dull and boring just like the rest of us.
 
>From time to time those of us in the "established scientific community" get
tricked into reviewing one of these devices by political pressure or some
such thing.  It is always a lose-lose proposition.  I have found that the
only defense is to giggle uncontrolably when such a device is presented for
review.  Any logical scientific argument just causes presentation of an
illogical counter argument.  The process is unending.
 
I would consider any funding of these ideas to be a conspiracy by the
establishment to get rid of a constant irritation.  Nothing destroys
nuttiness like giving it money.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / D Swartzendrube /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: 22 Sep 92 19:00:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

I'm afraid you are all the victims of a cruel hoax.  Analysis of the ratio of
upper-case to lower-case letters in these alleged postings of Mr McElwaine
conclusively contradicts any claim that he was the author...
 
--
 
Dan S.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendswartz cudfnDan cudlnSwartzendruber cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 22:09:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

(Regarding "free energy machines" And signed
	Robert E. McElwine
	B.S., Physics, UW-EC
)
 
I had an entirely uneducated uncle that was always inventing perpetual
motion machines. He often got entirely insanely mad when I insisted
that the laws of thermodynamics were immutable.
 
Now, some of these perpetual motion machines take some looking at to
figure out why the _almost_ work. It turns out that some very good
technicians can build machines with such low friction that they
will often operate for very long times without external energy sources.
I don't doubt that some of these machines that contain very large
flywheel effect could operate for days at a time.
 
The unique feature of all these machines is, of course, that they cannot
produce any _excess_ energy.
 
One of the local perpetual machine nuts kept quoting from materials
from the "Tesla Society". Now Nicolai Tesla is probably one of the most
mistreated of all of the early inventors in electricity (he worked for
Edison and later developed A.C. current with Westinghouse.) But in his
later years his visions outstripped his understanding of physics -- or
so it would seem. I have yet to read a definitive book abou the man.
 
Anyway, I ordered some of the publications from the Tesla Society,
including something called "The Badini Free Energy Machine" or
something of that nature. The author freely advertised his credentials
so apparently he actually was an educated man.
 
However, the "science" behind this "free energy machine" was so embarrassing
that a _grade_school_ student of moderate talent would have seen the
errors. As I recall the whole thing was a motor connected mechanically to
a generator. The generator was used to charge a battery which was used
to run the motor. :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.22 / T Neustaedter /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 22 Sep 92 22:42:18 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <10838@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> >	Relax, people. This dude is the same guy who posted the plant
> > fusion article. He's obviously escaped from alt.alien.visitors or ...
> [...]
> I wonder what other newsgroups are getting similar enlightenment.
 
We got to know him well in alt.sci.physics.new-theories last year. As for
the speculation that it's a joke - I received correspondence from people
at the same site who confirm that he not only exists, but he is likely to
believe the type of stuff he is posting.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 / Ad aspera /  Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (including 2 re. Fusion)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (including 2 re. Fusion)
Date: 23 Sep 92 01:08:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

I won't dignify this NONSENSE with a thorough DEBUNKING for fear of
wearing out my SHIFT KEY.  But let me just poke a little hole in the
(irrelevant) opening argument about how "everyone" knew 90-100
years ago that heavier-than-air machines violated the laws of physics
and could not fly.  Read a history book, man!  Those who cared to
look -- and the Wright Brothers were hardly the only ones doing so --
could and did determine that such machines would be possible, given a
decent power-to-weight ratio and some inspiration regarding airfoils
and controls.
 
Now, could we take the postings about Free Energy Equipment, Eckankar,
and the Starship Enterprise to a more appropriate newsgroup?  Like
alt.well-meaning-crackpots (not to be confused with alt.scary-crackpots,
another group that would get a lot of traffic)?  Or, failing that, at
least post more concisely?
 
Maglich, Tesla, and CNF itself deserve better than this...
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 / mitchell swartz /  general awareness ca. 100 years ago
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: general awareness ca. 100 years ago
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 03:06:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  Regarding the common knowledge and science alleged
 to be present a century ago:
 
    "...   after a few more flashes in the pan, we shall hear
 very little more of Edison or his electric lamp.  Every claim
 he makes has been tested and proved impracticable."
          [New York Times, January 16, 1880]
 
 
   "Professor Goddard  ...  does not know the relation of
 action to reaction  ...  he only seems to lack the knowledge
 ladled out daily in our high schools"
          [New York Times, January 13, 1920]
 
 
 
   RES IPSE LOQUITUR
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 /  Britz /  RE: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 14:03:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
In my last posting, I forgot SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION - how could I?
Robert McElwaine, it has been fun, now let's get back to cold fusion, please.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 / Alex Orenshteyn /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
     
Originally-From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD Fusion
Date: 23 Sep 92 10:53:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
>
>>In Fusion Digest 477, Robert E. McElwaine alias MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET writes:
>
>>>                            BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
>>>
>       H. Biesel
 
 
 
Can we, please, get one of those chickens to stand next to Tom's apparatus?
Are there going to be new employment opportunities? The economy is pretty
bad here, I wonder if I can get a job producing rare-earth exrement? In fact,
this is so exciting an oppotunity, I am going call Dan Quayle competitiveness
counsel and convince him to put all the unemployed into production of gold.
If this kind of innovative thinking does not get us out of depression, I do
not know what will. Dieter, do you have a warm personality? If so, Mrs Fields'
cookies company wants to meet you.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnAlex cudlnOrenshteyn cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (.. .) Maglich
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (.. .) Maglich
Date: 23 Sep 92 14:51:19 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <01GP3A7J1P78000AX9@cnsvax.uwec.edu> "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\""
 <MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET> writes:
>
>               One other energy source should be mentioned here,
>          despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
>          Energy.  A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
>          Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
>          reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
>          deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
>          from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
>          converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
>          steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
>          a house or large enough to power a city.  And UNLIKE the
>          "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
>          Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
>          for every watt put in.  ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
>          pages 32-40.]
>
 
The name is "Bogdan" Maglich -not Joseph. The MIGMA contraption is at
least two orders of magnitude in achieved density away from BEF.  If
it can be made "large enough" it is only accomplished through ganging
many of the small units together until the appropriate power level is
achieved.  Also, it doesn't yet "work" in any useful commercial sense
and scientific breakeven for a "particle beam device" such as this is
very, very far from the more critical engineering break even.   Still
such a device, like a working cold fusion electric generator, will be
nice to have around, just to charge batteries if for no other reason.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 23:57:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bart Bartholemew recommends me to an Analogic "expert".  Some people, including
a number of Nobel prize winners, might even recommend me as an expert.
Possibly even Bogden Maglich would remember me as an expert.  See later.
 
Bart, I think that I have done most of the right things.  But I don't call
myself an expert at anything.  We use instrumentation amplifiers where the
signals are small to transform the signal levels.  We have about 5 different
ground systems to make sure there are no "ground loops".  (By the way, I have
claimed for many years to be the custodian of the world's reference ground
point.  I have never had anyone dispute my claim.)  I built (from scratch) my
first A/D converter in 1959, and completly changed the way Analog computaion
was done at the U.S. Navy Aeronautical Instruments Laboratory by building
hundreds of A/D/A conversion systems.  All done with tubes and +/- 300 volt
power supplies.  Have been doing similar things ever since.
 
Dick Forman comments on thermisters.  We actually use mostly the AD-590
temperature to current convertes.  This has the nice feature that since it
converts temperature to current it is easy to reference a remote reading to
a local ground without worring about differences in ground potential.  But
it has a poorer signal to noise ration than a good thermister.  At one time
or another I have used all the devices mentioned by Dick.  Yellow springs
seems to be the best source today for accurately matched thermisters.  You
can buy them right out of the Newark catalog with your credit card.
 
I am glad that Dieter Britz inspired Heiner Biesel to come to his revelation
about spontaneous human combustion.  Tell me Heiner, what is there about
the metabolism of little old ladies that makes them so suceptable?
 
I note that McElwain seems to have Maglich's name wrong.  It was Bogden
Maglich when I worked with him at the Princeton Penn Accelerator in the
sixties.  Did some A/D converter work for him which I believe he later used
at Brookhaven to "find" the split A2.  Now you know why I do not call myself
an expert.  But I think the A/D stuff was OK.
 
Suddenly I have the answer.  Somewhere in these posting, Calcium was mentioned
as a fuel.  So the LOL are burning the Ca in their bones.  Thus the source
of osteoporesis.  From time to time the reaction gets out of control.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 / Bob Hale /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: hale@btree.uucp (Bob Hale)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 23 Sep 92 15:14:36 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation

In article <10838@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
[ comments about biological fusion, etc. deleted ]
>Right.  And he also posted an article about some sort of water-witching
>type device for locating lost persons (and MIAs) to rec.backpacking,
>where it got a similar reception.
>
>I wonder what other newsgroups are getting similar enlightenment.
 
Probably quite a few.  It's that time of the school year :-(.
 
Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
..!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhale cudfnBob cudlnHale cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / Heiner Biesel /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 15:42:17 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>I am glad that Dieter Britz inspired Heiner Biesel to come to his revelation
>about spontaneous human combustion.  Tell me Heiner, what is there about
>the metabolism of little old ladies that makes them so suceptable?
 
..[ ]...
 
>Suddenly I have the answer.  Somewhere in these posting, Calcium was mentioned
>as a fuel.  So the LOL are burning the Ca in their bones.  Thus the source
>of osteoporesis.  From time to time the reaction gets out of control.
 
Yes, I think you have the essence of the reaction. I'm still trying to figure
out what causes the run-away. Perhaps Ying has a clue here: as everyone knows
LOL's have a fondness for cats, said fondness increasing roughly linearly
with age. Consequently on can expect the number of cats - and more importantly
the number of direct physical contacts with cats - to increase with time.
 
This leads presumably to larger and larger electrostatic charges on LOL's,
especially during cold and dry periods. Said charge probably acts
catalytically to stimulate the fusion of selected calcium isotopes. I shall
leave the elucidation of the precise reaction mechanism as an exercise to
the readers.
 
Perhaps Tom will be inspired to use the facilities of the national research
laboratories, particularly the Van de Graff accelerators, to investigate
this theory. I shall be glad to supply calico cats (the best kind for this
work) if he will supply the grannies.
 
Regards,
       H. Biesel
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbiesel cudfnHeiner cudlnBiesel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.23 / Paul Houle /  Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (including 2 re. Fusion)
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies (including 2 re. Fusion)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:10:31 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <01GP3A7J1P78000AX9@cnsvax.uwec.edu> "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\""
 <MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET> writes:
>
>               For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,
>          #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for
>          motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly
>          tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic
>          field.  The first two require a feedback network in order to
>          be self-running.  The third one, (as described in detail in
>          "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980), requires
>          critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of
>          magnets, but NO feedback.  Such a motor could drive an
>          electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR
>          ROUND, FOR FREE.  [Complete descriptive copies of U.S.
>          patents were $1.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, correct
>          7-digit patent numbers required.]
 
	I've found that many of the people who get patents for miracle motors
based on magnets have never built a working prototype.  These just start
thinking about magnets,  and since the details of the forces involved with
magnets are really kinda complicated,  they get confused and think that they
can build a miracle motor.
 
>               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
>          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
>          unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO-
>          MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12
>          cycles per second plus harmonics).  They typically have a
>          'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the
>          energy in the coils with the energy being tapped.  It is
>          important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of
>          the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as
>          'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output.
>          This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP
>          at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent
>          magnet.  In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID
>          CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output
>          power.  ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems",
>          by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70,
>          Mokelumne Hill, CA  95245.]
 
	Well,  according to Mr. Newman,  unless he's changed his story,  the
Newman motor works by converting "gyromagnetic particles" into energy.  The
motor turns the copper wire in it into energy.  There are several ways that
one can build "free energy" devices that are powered by the Earth's electric
field.  The most obvious one is to build a very (!) efficient electrostatic
motor and connect it between ground and a metal plate on top of a flagpole.
People have built real microhorsepower free-energy motors this way;  maybe you
could use one to pick up a fly if you had really good gearing,  but I don't
think that this kind of motor could generate the torque to overcome the
backlash.  Even so,  one can get speeds in the range of about 1000 rpm with
such devices.
 
	Another approach to this is to line the edge of a wheel with magnets
and put a coil in the base.  This device is powered by an antenna which is
connected to a resonant circuit at 60 hertz,  which then rectifies the current
and charges a capacitor.  Once the capacitor charges up enough,  a littlew
current is run through the coil at the right time to keep the wheel spinning.
The electronics for this is a little tricky,  but not all that bad.  It's
also very important to have low friction on that wheel bearing!
 
>               During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named
>          Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an
>          'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after
>          analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped
>          waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical
>          equations to explain it.  As described in the book "A
>          Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson,
>          1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a
>          LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a
>          CRITICAL VELOCITY.  The water then IMPLODES, no longer
>          touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump,
>          which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC
>          GENERATOR.  The device seems to be tapping energy from that
>          of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A
>          TORNADO.
 
	This really seems to make sense.  Actually,  I wonder if there is
any reasonable way to make a 'flypower' motor based on the Coriolis effect.
Most of the devices that I can think of that do this require either a
penduleum or a gyroscope,  either of which needs a source of power to make
up for frictional loss.  Might be neat to build a gyroscope that keeps
spinning by tapping the Earth's rotation.  Probably would cost alot and
wouldn't have any good applications (couldn't use it as an orientation
reference since it will have to precess).
 
>               A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock
>          Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between
>          a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression
>          ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and
>          planetary gears).  It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running
>          by driving its own air compressor.  This engine also
>          generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat
>          buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large
>          trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.
>          [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the
>          automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.]
 
	Somehow this one seems particularly amusing.  BTW,  is the
automatic transmission that great of an invention?  Anything that wastes gas
and hurts performance has little to say for it.
 
>               Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown
>          in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between
>          metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of
>          particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a
>          common household smoke detector.
 
	I can just imagine some people up in Santa Fe trying to do this with
a smoke detector and some quartz crystals.  I was thinking of buying some
blank silicon wafers up in Albuquerque and making some nice log-spiral antennas
out of copper (maybe copper on one side and silver on the other to generate
'galvanic energy') on each side and putting a few SMD microwave components in
between the edges of the spiral antennae ("to tune in exactly to the 21cm
microwave band for long-range interstellar communications with extra-galactic
civilizations");  Of course the spiral antenna "tune in a wide spectrum of
natural electromagnetic energies".  I couldn't think of a good way to make
it resonant to the Schumann resonance though;  anyway,  the idea was to make
these things out of $20 worth of materials and sell them up in Santa "New
Age" Fe for $500 for necklaces.  After all,  each one would be a "pure
silicon crystal",  "the same kind used to make computers with the blank
capacity of 2 billion transistors".
 
>               One other energy source should be mentioned here,
>          despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
>          Energy.  A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
>          Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
>          reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
>          deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
>          from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
>          converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
>          steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
>          a house or large enough to power a city.  And UNLIKE the
>          "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
>          Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
>          for every watt put in.  ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
>          pages 32-40.]
 
	This is really upsetting,  because I have heard that Maglich might
actually be working on something worthwhile.  So far as I know,  he's tested
some prototypes and is still pretty far from break-even.
--
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / John Logajan /  Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technologies
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 16:59:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

The delightful "Robert E. McElwaine\"" <MCELWRE@uwec.BITNET> has also just
posted an expose of the monetary system of the US to the Libernet
(Libertarian interest group) e-mail list.
 
He calls for a system of egalitarian distribution by the means of newly
printed money issued by the government -- to cover the needs and wants of
all individuals.
 
He also calls for an immediate 32 hour work week and an eventual mandated
14 hour work week.
 
You knew that if the laws of physics were no match for him, the laws of
economics were certainly not going to factor into any of his thinking.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / matthew hacker /  >Free-Energy Techs...
     
Originally-From: mh001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (matthew wain hacker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: 24 Sep 92 19:27:43 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

 
   I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
"free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
seems that way.  For intance, take the idea of tapping the earth's magnetic
field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
recently on the space shuttle?)  BUT, I have the ask myself...
   OK, so something produces energy using the
differring protentals in the earth's magnetic.  It does this by stealing
kinetic energy from the rotation of the earth.  A couple of milliwatts
to run a small demo isn't going to make a big difference.  What happens
if we could tap this on a commerical scale, say a couple of terrawatts?
It just might have unpleasant side effects.  Same sort of thing goes for
many of the other ideas.
  I'm sure the first people who installed water wheels to run their
flour mills thought that was free energy, too.
  Just a thought to think about....     :-)
 
 
--
"""""
Matthew W. Hacker               mh001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmh001b cudfnmatthew cudlnhacker cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / Glenn Berg /  Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
     
Originally-From: berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: 24 Sep 92 15:27:51
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

mh001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (matthew wain hacker) writes:
 
      I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
   of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
   some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
   "free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
   seems that way.  For intance, take the idea of tapping the earth's magnetic
   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
   recently on the space shuttle?) ...
 
This was hardly "free" energy.  The energy was extracted from the motion of the
satellite and shuttle NOT from the earth's magnetic field.  Getting the shuttle
into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
--
Glenn A. Berg                        CASS
berg@logan.cass.usu.edu              Utah State University
Phone: (801)-750-2987                UMC 4405
Fax: (801)-750-2992                  Logan, UT  84322
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenberg cudfnGlenn cudlnBerg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / mitchell swartz /  excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 20:31:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  Very interesting talk on "cf" experimental work, reported to the MIT community
 by Michael McKubre, this afternoon.
 
  Aluminum (and silicon) appears to have an important role, as an in-situ
 gelatinous (amphoteric, I think) layer upon the cathode thereby increasing the
 likelihood of successful generation of baseline excess heat (range 1-30%).  The
 aluminum modified cathode is reported to create a "relatively causal,
 reproducible" system.
 
  His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess more than thirty times.
  Heat burst, generating >300% excess power, initiate spontaneously, but much
 more rarely.  I think he reported that these have occurred three times.
 
 
Summary:  Excellent presentation, well received.
          More than a score of experiments demonstrating baseline excess heat
 using a much more reproducible system than originally reported by FP.
          Aspects of loading, and other factors, appear to continue to control
 these phenomena.
 
 
 
           Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.25 /  /  Could This Be a Positive "Anomalous Heat" Result?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Could This Be a Positive "Anomalous Heat" Result?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 04:30:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  24 September 1992
 
Executive summary: A sequence of experimental data is presented which seems
to indicate the presence of "anomalous heat" in Pt-Pd electrolysis experiments
using a mixture of D2O and H2O.
 
Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 170 ma per sq cm
Duration: Now charging for 15 days
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 3.2 volts
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
Accumulated "anomalous heat":15,000+ joules
 
I would like to remind everyone that I am running an "anomalous heat"
experiment, not a "cold fusion" experiment.  This means that I use for a
control an empty cell, or one replaced with a resistor.  If any one out
there wants me to run with H2O then you have to explain to me why I should
not better run with Mazola oil, Gerbil blood, or holy water from Lourds.
Besides, he says in a pique, I *am* running with H2O, see above.
 
I am beginning to think that the experiment is producing "anomalous heat".
 
We started the present run with several days calibration using an empty cell.
This data showed a net calorimeter balance of 0.0008 watts.  We also did
source in/out changes during this time with no observed effect.  The cell
temperature distribution was quite tight, 15% of the width of the
distributions shown in the last post, and does not seem to be skewed.  During
one 24 hour stretch, the maximum change in balance during any one hour period
was 35 joules, the minimum change in balance was -26 joules.  The changes in
balance appear random, and in particular do not have a strong correlation to
the ambient temperature, the most likely cause of balance drift.  There is a
small effect due to time of day.  For this reason, we generally take
measurements every day at the same time.  In any case no component of drift
observed exceeds 0.010 watts.  This includes earlier tests where the
calorimeter was opened and closed multiple times.  This experiment gave a 1
sigma change due to opening and closing the calorimeter of 0.008 watts.
 
7 Sept. 1992 Next we put the cell described above in the calorimeter and set
the servo for zero cell current.  After the closing transient had subsided,
the calorimeter balance was -0.001 watts.  Again the cell temperature change
distribution was tight and symmetrical.
 
We now set the current to 35 ma per cm sq for charging.  During the three
hours during which most of the gas absorption took place, the balance was
-1892 joules.  During this time 91 cc of (presumed) oxygen appeared,
indicating that 182 cc of D2 were absorbed.  (For those new to these notes,
the calorimeter balance is negative here because the D2 that hides in the
Palladium does not get burned in the catalyst and thus there is missing heat.
The reason it does not match the energy of a burned cc of D2 is that the
Palladium gives up heat when it absorbes D2.) Average calorimeter balance
during this time was -0.1902 watts.  The cell temperature distribution was
still relatively narrow, but there is some indication that the skew was
starting to appear.
 
During the next three hours, the cathode continued to charge but at a slower
rate.  We have a nice charging rate curve vs D/Pd ratio.  The average
calorimeter balance during this time was -0.1086 watts with the balance
getting down to -0.0163 watts during the last half hour of this period.  The
cell temperature distributions during this time were relatively symmetrical.
 
We now suffered several power outages and the next good data is a day later.
During this outage we were able to keep the cell polarized with a battery.
 
9 Sept. 1992.  We started by switching to high current, 760 ma or about 170 ma
per cm sq considering edges.  Only four hours of running were up and balanced
for 9 Sept.  This period shows a calorimeter balance of -0.0040 watts.
 
10 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of -0.0004 watts.
This data shows the skew in the temperature change distribution previously
reported.
 
11 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0002 watts.
This is the second set of skew data previously reported.
 
Now there is a second period of lost data due to the UPS unit deciding to
become an IPS unit.  This lost more than a day of data.  In any case from here
on only good full data days are reported.
 
14 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0092 watts.
The cell temperature data is strongly skewed.
 
15 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0130 watts.
The cell temperature data is skewed.
 
16 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0158 watts.
The cell temperature data is skewed.
 
Now there is one more power failure, and we replaced the UPS unit.
Fortunately we knew the thunderstorm was coming, and we ended the previous
data disk, so the only loss was the time required to restabilize the
calorimeter.
 
17 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0173 watts.
The cell temperature skew has almost disappeared.
 
18 Sept. 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0239 watts.
Little temperature differential skew.
 
19 Sept. 1992.  Switched to 20 second data collection from 60 second to try to
see more detail in the heat data.  Data confusion during the switch over
reduces good data to 15 hours.  (It is there, just hard to analyze.)
Calorimeter balance for this period is 0.0204 but suspect.
 
20 Sept 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0251 watts.
No obvious skew.
 
21 Sept 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0271 watts.
No obvious skew.
 
23 Sept 1992.  Full 24 hour data shows a calorimeter balance of 0.0312 watts.
 
Balance this morning with about half a full day was of order 0.036 watts.
 
I think the balance before the run was near zero and conservative.  The
calorimeter balance with the cell installed but operated at zero cell current
confirmed a good balance, probably good to the indicated 1 mw.  The data of
Sept. 10-11 indicates that the cell remained in balance to less than a
milliwatt at the present high current operating point during the first several
days of operation.  Previous long runs indicate that under the present
conditions of operation, the calorimeter is good to one mw one sigma if the
readings are taken at the same time each day.
 
The trend seems to be quite large compared to the one sigma calorimeter drift,
which has been measured at 1 mw under these conditions.  We monitor a lot of
things, in particular the basement ambient temperature.  If anything, the
latest trend would under measure the "anomalous heat".  15000 joules have been
accumulated since 17 September.  This is 800000 joules per mole of Pd.  It is
9000 joules per mole of D2O/H2O.  I think that the heat comes in pulses with
a wide range of values.  For the early parts of this run, this shows up as the
observed skew in the sample to sample cell temperature change distribution.
Later in the run as the pulses are more frequent and run into each other, the
distribution smooths out and there is less of an effect.
 
What will more data bring?  Stay tuned folks for the next exciting installment
of "Data of Our Lives".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.25 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: McKubre's talk
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's talk
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:50:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

\1cw
\U1STANDARD
\U2SMALL
\U3ITALIC
\U5CIRI2-VJ
\U!UNDERLIN
\FD
\+
\+
\+
\^\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \@\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \^\,
\=
\+
Some Remarks on Dr. M. \ McKubre's \ presentation \ at \ MIT \ on
\+
\^\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ September 24, 1992\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \^\,
\+
\,
\+
This was a presentation \ of \ the \ SRI \ calorimetric \ results
\+
obtained during the last few years. \ I \ attended \ this \ talk
\+
because aside from the mere curiosity, for various reasons I
\+
am very much interested that this effect proves to be \ real.
\+
I have followed closely from the very beginning \ the \ debate
\+
but so far I have not seen in any of \ the \ published \ papers
\+
convincing results either way. Unfortunately, this talk \ was
\+
of very little assistance \ to \ me \ in \ assuring \ me \ in \ the
\+
reality of the \ effect. \ My \ impression \ also \ is \ that \ the
\+
scientific outcome is not the main concern to \ McKubre. \ Not
\+
only once he mentioned the sponsors of his project \ and \ the
\+
implication was that these sponsors set the \ goals \ for \ the
\+
research. My understanding \ is \ that \ this \ is \ only \ to \ be
\+
regretted \ since \ the \ true \ scientific \ endeavour \ (not \ to
\+
mention such a \ controversial \ one) \ is \ to \ obey \ only \ the
\+
internal logic of the very science even if this goes against
\+
the interests of some private investors. \,
\+
\,
\+
In this talk one could feel \ reiteration \ of \ several \ myths
\+
that are alive among the proponents and \ that \ have \ already
\+
become \3deja vu \1in this field (critics have also \ their \ \3deja
\+
vu\1s). As an example \ I \ would \ mention \ the \ myths \ for \ the
\+
importance of loading with D\ . This myth appeared \ from \ the
\-                            \22
\+
\1very beginning of the \ debate. \ Even \ the \ research \ in \ the
\+
National Cold Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City was \ mainly
\+
directed to \ study \ this \ problem \ (instead \ of \ facing \ the
\+
vitally important question for the reality of the effect; \ I
\+
think the "loading syndrom" was one of the major causes \ for
\+
the institute's failure -- inability of \ this \ institute \ to
\+
convince the science world in \ the \ reality \ of \ the \ effect
\+
could not be saved by the intensive research on the \ loading
\+
of Pd). I would note that the published \ experimental \ data,
\+
wherever such is available, (even in the \ papers \ concluding
\+
negatively) \ clearly \ shows \ that \ the \ effect \ \ (difference
\+
between calibration \ and \ working \ cells) \ has \ always \ been
\+
reproduced. Thus, it is not the loading that determines \ the
\+
appearance of the effect, if any. In this context \ McKubre's
\+
claims for turning the effect off and on are \ also \ strange.
\+
As \ examples \ for \ published \ confirming \ data, \ incorrectly
\+
discussed by the authors, I \ would \ mention \ the \ papers \ of
\+
N.Lewis et al (\!Nature\1, \!342\1, 525 (1989), \ \!Science\1, \ \!246\1, \ 793
\+
(1989)) \ and \ that \ of \ R. \ R. \ Parker, \ M. \ \ Wrighton \ \ and
\+
collaborators (\!J.Fusion Energy\1, \!9\1, 133 (1990)). I would also
\+
mention that we had an extensive correspondence with \ \!Nature \/
\+
\1concerning these papers that continued more than \ two \ years
\+
(our first submission was on August 30, \ 1989) \ and \ despite
\+
the fact that no arguments were given in \ defense \ of \ those
\+
papers our critical remarks are still unpublished. N. Lewis'
\+
papers contain crucial errors but discussing \ them \ here \ is
\+
beyond the scope of the present remarks. The \ correspondence
\+
with \!Nature \1is available with me and everyone \ knowledgeable
\+
in the field would be able to see that \ the \ replies \ of \ N.
\+
Lewis (chosen by \!Nature \1to be the reviewer of his own \ work)
\+
are irrelevant. A critique of  the paper by R. R. Parker, M.
\+
Wrighton \ and \ collaborators \ is \ \ published \ \ in \ \ \!J.Fusion
\+
Technology\1, \!19\1, 579 (1991). \ I \ would \ also \ note \ that \ the
\+
critique of the same paper made afterwards by E. Mallove and
\+
mentioned in the popular press is incorrect and I agree with
\+
the reply given by R. R. Parker. \,
\+
\,
\+
I also think that referring to this effect as "anomaly", \ As
\+
McKubre did, is very inappropriate. If this \!is \ not \ \1a \ real
\+
effect it cannot be called anomaly. In case \ it \ \!is \ \1a \ real
\+
effect, how can it be \ an \ anomaly \ (have \ e.g. \ the \ Wien's
\+
displacement law, Compton effect, photoelectric effect \ etc.
\+
ever been referred to as anomalies since their \ reality \ has
\+
been confirmed; they were not called anomalies even when \ it
\+
was found that they contradict the existing knowledge) ?\,
\+
\,
\+
There was an evident \ effort \ on \ the \ side \ of \ McKubre \ to
\+
convince the audience that all \ possible \ systematic \ errors
\+
have been \ eliminated \ -- \ only \ very \ subtle \ such \ may \ be
\+
existing but it is \ not \ very \ likely. \ There \ was \ also \ an
\+
implication (in contradiction to the previous sentence) that
\+
no matter what precautions we undertake \ against \ systematic
\+
errors, calorimetry will always \ contain \ such \ and \ we \ can
\+
approach the true value only asymptotically. This \ assertion
\+
is incorrect. \ Properly \ conducted \ calorimetry \ is \ a \ very
\+
accurate technique and the systematic errors can be entirely
\+
eliminated \ (within \ the \ usually \ required \ error \ limits).
\+
Otherwise we would not \ have \ such \ an \ amount \ of \ reliable
\+
calorimetric data in the chemistry and physics handbooks. It
\+
is true, however, that McKubre's calorimetry \ contains \ very
\+
obvious \ (not \ so \ subtle) \ sources \ of \ systematic \ errors,
\+
unnoticed by him. I pointed three of those: \,
\+
      a) \ \ application \ \ of \ \ flow-calorimetry \ \ (cf. \ \ e.g.
\+
W.Hemminger, G.Hohne, Calorimetry. Fundamental and Practice,
\+
1984, p.239, for the problems in using flow-calorimetry)\,
\+
      b) use \ of \ recombiner \ (some \ comments \ on \ that \ are
\+
published \ \ in \ \ \ V.C.Noninski, \ \ \ C.I.Noninski, \ \ \ \!J.Fusion
\+
Technology\1, \!19\1, 364 (1991) and V.Noninski, \!21 \1163 (1992))\,
\+
      c) heat-transfer problems connected with the evolution \/
\+
of gas bubbles enhancing the heat transfer (the \ calibration
\+
resistor lacks such bubbles). Since I do not agree with \ the
\+
argument McKubre gave to defend his position I am willing to
\+
discuss \ with \ him \ this \ problem \ \ in \ \ the \ \ peer-reviewed
\+
literature. This \ is \ a \ major \ unresolved \ problem \ in \ all
\+
heat-loss calorimeters used to study CF. \ For \ now \ I \ would
\+
refer the interested colleagues to the papers \ of \ F.O.Mixon
\+
et al, \!Chem.Eng.Progr.\1, \!55\1, 49 (1959) or \ R.G.Edkie \ et \ al,
\+
\!Int.J.Heat Mass Transfer\1, \!15\1, 261 (1972).\,
\+
\,
\+
At the end I would mention that the efforts of prof. Smullin
\+
to encourage MIT to invite scientists working in \ the \ field
\+
of electrochemistry are to be admired. Regretfully, \ neither
\+
Takahashi's nor McKubre's \ presentations \ give \ grounds \ for
\+
much optimism.\,
\+
\,
\+
Vesselin Noninski                        September 24, 1992\,
\+
\,
\+
\,
\+
\,
\=
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenvnoninski cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.25 / N Redington /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:16:31 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 
As I understood Dr. McKubre's talk, the aluminum or silicon
layer serves to prevent deuterium from escaping from the cathode,
which he likened to a "leaky bucket". He emphasized the importance
of very high (.9+) D/Pd ratios and of a long (300 hr) waiting period
before the action starts. He claimed that Li is absolutely necessary
and remarked that it found its way into the lattice; I had the
sense he was being evasive about its precise role, but maybe not.
(For example, he remarked in passing that 300 hrs is closer to the
diffusion constant of Li than of H, and also mentioned doing an
isotopic analysis of the lithium as well as the palladium.)
He also remarked that boron, (added after loading, which it would
kill), encourages the big heat excursions.
 
His claim that the baseline excess heat effect is completely repro-
ducible and controllable seemed very forceful. He could observe it
for as long as 8 days. All his effects are with heavy water only;
light water not only shows no effect, but its addition supposedly
will end excess heat production.
 
In spite of the importance of D, and the claim that the excess
energy of 450eV/atom are 1-2 orders of magnitude beyond chemistry,
he reported no evidence of any nuclear effects. Interestingly, this
suggestion that we are on the verge of new physics was also made by
Prof. Hagelstein in introducing him...
 
N. Redington
redingtn@athena.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.25 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: McKubre's talk
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's talk (repost)
Subject: Re: McKubre's talk
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 19:00:23 GMT
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:50:23 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

 
From sci.physics.fusion Fri Sep 25 11:24:21 1992
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:50:23 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's talk
 
Some Remarks on Dr. M. McKubre's presentation at MIT
 
on September 24, 1992
 
 
This was a presentation of the SRI calorimetric results
 
obtained during the last few years. I attended this talk
 
because aside from the mere curiosity, for various reasons I
 
am very much interested that this effect proves to be real.
 
I have followed closely from the very beginning the debate
 
but so far I have not seen in any of the published papers
 
convincing results either way. Unfortunately, this talk was
 
of very little assistance to me in assuring me in the
 
reality of the effect. My impression also is that the
 
scientific outcome is not the main concern to McKubre. Not
 
only once he mentioned the sponsors of his project and the
 
implication was that these sponsors set the goals for the
 
research. My understanding is that this is only to be
 
regretted since the true scientific endeavour (not to
 
mention such a controversial one) is to obey only the
 
internal logic of the very science even if this goes against
 
the interests of some private investors.
 
 
 
In this talk one could feel reiteration of several myths
 
that are alive among the proponents and that have already
 
become deja vu in this field (critics have also their deja
 
vus). As an example I would mention the myths for the
 
importance of loading with D . This myth appeared from the
                            2
 
very beginning of the debate. Even the research in the
 
National Cold Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City was mainly
 
directed to study this problem (instead of facing the
 
vitally important question for the reality of the effect; I
 
think the "loading syndrom" was one of the major causes for
 
the institute's failure -- inability of this institute to
 
convince the science world in the reality of the effect
 
could not be saved by the intensive research on the loading
 
of Pd). I would note that the published experimental data,
 
wherever such is available, (even in the papers concluding
 
negatively) clearly shows that the effect (difference
 
between calibration and working cells) has always been
 
reproduced. Thus, it is not the loading that determines the
 
appearance of the effect, if any. In this context McKubre's
 
claims for turning the effect off and on are also strange.
 
As examples for published confirming data, incorrectly
 
discussed by the authors, I would mention the papers of
 
N.Lewis et al (Nature, 342, 525 (1989), Science, 246, 793
 
(1989)) and that of R. R. Parker, M. Wrighton and
 
collaborators (J.Fusion Energy, 9, 133 (1990)). I would also
 
mention that we had an extensive correspondence with Nature
 
concerning these papers that continued more than two years
 
(our first submission was on August 30, 1989) and despite
 
the fact that no arguments were given in defense of those
 
papers our critical remarks are still unpublished. N. Lewis'
 
papers contain crucial errors but discussing them here is
 
beyond the scope of the present remarks. The correspondence
 
with Nature is available with me and everyone knowledgeable
 
in the field would be able to see that the replies of N.
 
Lewis (chosen by Nature to be the reviewer of his own work)
 
are irrelevant. A critique of  the paper by R. R. Parker, M.
 
Wrighton and collaborators is published in J.Fusion
 
Technology, 19, 579 (1991). I would also note that the
 
critique of the same paper made afterwards by E. Mallove and
 
mentioned in the popular press is incorrect and I agree with
 
the reply given by R. R. Parker.
 
 
 
I also think that referring to this effect as "anomaly", As
 
McKubre did, is very inappropriate. If this is not a real
 
effect it cannot be called anomaly. In case it is a real
 
effect, how can it be an anomaly (have e.g. the Wien's
 
displacement law, Compton effect, photoelectric effect etc.
 
ever been referred to as anomalies since their reality has
 
been confirmed; they were not called anomalies even when it
 
was found that they contradict the existing knowledge) ?
 
 
 
There was an evident effort on the side of McKubre to
 
convince the audience that all possible systematic errors
 
have been eliminated -- only very subtle such may be
 
existing but it is not very likely. There was also an
 
implication (in contradiction to the previous sentence) that
 
no matter what precautions we undertake against systematic
 
errors, calorimetry will always contain such and we can
 
approach the true value only asymptotically. This assertion
 
is incorrect. Properly conducted calorimetry is a very
 
accurate technique and the systematic errors can be entirely
 
eliminated (within the usually required error limits).
 
Otherwise we would not have such an amount of reliable
 
calorimetric data in the chemistry and physics handbooks. It
 
is true, however, that McKubre's calorimetry contains very
 
obvious (not so subtle) sources of systematic errors,
 
unnoticed by him. I pointed three of those:
 
      a) application of flow-calorimetry (cf. e.g.
 
W.Hemminger, G.Hohne, Calorimetry. Fundamental and Practice,
 
1984, p.239, for the problems in using flow-calorimetry)
 
      b) use of recombiner (some comments on that are
 
published in V.C.Noninski, C.I.Noninski, J.Fusion
 
Technology, 19, 364 (1991) and V.Noninski, 21 163 (1992))
 
      c) heat-transfer problems connected with the evolution
 
of gas bubbles enhancing the heat transfer (the calibration
 
resistor lacks such bubbles).
 
 
Since I do not agree with the argument McKubre gave to defend his
 
position I am willing to discuss with him this problem in the
 
peer-reviewed literature. This is a major unresolved problem in
 
all heat-loss calorimeters used to study CF. For now I would
 
refer the interested colleagues to the papers of F.O.Mixon et al,
 
Chem.Eng.Progr., 55, 49 (1959) or R.G.Edkie et al, Int.J.Heat
 
Mass Transfer, 15, 261 (1972).
 
 
 
At the end I would mention that the efforts of prof. Smullin
 
to encourage MIT to invite scientists working in the field
 
of electrochemistry are to be admired. Regretfully, neither
 
Takahashi's nor McKubre's presentations give grounds for
 
much optimism.
 
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                        September 24, 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenvnoninski cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.25 /  cse_stu@memstv /  Cryogenic fusion
     
Originally-From: cse_stu@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cryogenic fusion
Date: 25 Sep 92 15:35:50 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

Does anyone know if there is any research being do in the area of cyrogenic
fusion?
=========
Video Man
cse_test@memstvx1.memst.edu
=========
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencse_stu cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.26 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: McKubre's talk
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's talk
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 02:52:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some Remarks on Dr. McKubre's Presentation at MIT on September 24, 1992
 
This was a presentation of the SRI calorimetric results obtained during
the last few years. I attended this talk because, aside from the mere
curiosity, for various reasons I am very much interested that this effect
proves to be real. I have followed closely from the very beginning the
debate but so far I have not seen in any of the published papers
convincing results either way. Unfortunately, this talk was of very
little assistance to me in assuring me in the reality of the effect.
My impression also is that the scientific outcome is not the main
concern to McKubre. Not only once he mentioned the sponsors of his project
and the implication was that these sponsors set the goals for the
research. My understanding is that this is only to be regretted since
the true scientific endeavor (not to mention such a controversial one)
is to obey only the internal logic of the very science even if it
goes against the interests of some private investors.
 
In this talk one could feel reiteration of several myths that are alive
among the proponents and that have already become deja vu in this
field (critics have also their deja vu-s). As an example I would mention
the myths for the importance of loading with D2. This myth appeared
from the very beginning of the debate. Even the research in the
National Cold Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City was mainly directed to
study this problem (instead of facing the vitally important question for
the reality of the effect; I think the "loading syndrome" was one of the
major causes for the institute's failure -- the inability of this
institute to convince the science world in the reality of the effect
could not be saved by the intensive research on the loading of Pd).
I would note that that the published experimental data, wherever such
are available, (even in the papers concluding negatively) clearly shows
that the effect (difference between calibration and working cells) has
always been reproduced. Thus, it is not the loading that determines
the appearance of the effect, if any. In this context McKubre's claims
for turning the effect on and off are also strange. As examples for
published confirming data, incorrectly discussed by the authors, I
would mention the papers of N.Lewis et al (Nature, 246, 793 (1989),
Science, 246, 793 (1989)) and that of R.R.Parker, M.Wrighton and
collaborators (J.Fusion Energy, 9, 133 (1990)). I would also mention
that we had an extensive correspondence with Nature concernin these
papers that continued more than two years (our first submission was on
August 30, 1989) and despite the fact that no arguments were given in
defense of those papers our critical remarks are still unpublished.
N.Lewis' papers contain crucial errors but discussing them here is
beyond the scope of the present remarks. The correspondence with Nature
is available with me and everyone knowledgeable in the field would
be able to see that the replies of N.Lewis (chosen by Nature to be
the reviewer of his own work) are irrelevant. A critique of the
paper by R.R.Parker, M.Wrighton and collaborators is published in J.
Fusion Technology, 19, 579 (1991). I would also note that the critique
of the same paper made afterwards by E.Mallove and mentioned in the
popular press is incorrect and I agree with the reply given by
R.R.Parker.
 
I also think that referring to this effect as "anomaly", as McKubre
did, is very inappropriate. If this is not a real effect it cannot be
called anomaly. In case it is a real effect, how can it be an anomaly
(have e.g. Wien's displacement law, Compton effect, photoelectric
effect etc. ever been referred to as anomalies since their reality has
been confirmed; they were not called anomalies even when it was found
that that they contradict the existing knowledge) ?
 
There was an evident effort on the side of McKubre to convince the
audience that all possible systematic errors have been eliminated --
only very subtle such may be existing but it is not very likely.
There was also an implication (in contradiction with the previous
sentence) that no matter what precautions we undertake against
systematic errors, calorimetry will always contain such and we can
the true value only asymptotically. This assertion is incorrect.
Properly conducted calorimetry is a very accurate technique and
the systematic errors can be entirely eliminated (within the usually
required error limits). Otherwise we would not have such an amount of
reliable calorimetric data in the chemistry and physics handbooks. It
is true, however, that McKubre's calorimetry contains very obvious
(not so subtle) sources of systematic errors, unnoticed by him. I
pointed three of those:
      a) application of flow-calorimetry (cf. e.g. W.Hemminger, G.Hohne,
Calorimetry. Fundamentals and Practice, 1984, p239, for the problems
in using flow-calorimetry).
      b) use of recombiner (some comments on that are published in: V.
Noninski, C.Noninski, J.Fusion Technology, 19, 364 (1991) and V.
Noninski, J. Fusion Technology, 21, 163 (1992).
      c) heat-transfer problems connected with the evolution of gas
bubbles enhancing the heat transfer (the calibration resistor lacks
such bubbles). Since I do not agree with the argument McKubre gave
to defend his position I am willing to discuss with him this problem
in the peer-reviewed literature. This is a major unresolved problem
in all heat-loss calorimeters used to study CF. For now I would refer
the interested colleagues to the papers of F.O.Mixon et al, Chem.Eng.
Progr., 55, 49 (1959) or R.G.Edkie et al, Int.J.Heat Mass Transfer,
15, 261 (1972).
 
At the end I would mention that the efforts of prof. Smullin to
encourage MIT to invite scientists working in the field of
electrochemistry are to be admired. Regretfully, neither Takahashi's
nor McKubre's presentations give grounds for much optimism.
 
Vesselin Noninski				 September 24, 1992
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenvnoninski cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.26 / Todd Green /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 26 Sep 92 06:28:03 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1992Sep25.141631.22228@athena.mit.edu>, redingtn@athena.mit.edu
 (Norman H Redington) writes:
>
> As I understood Dr. McKubre's talk, the aluminum or silicon
> layer serves to prevent deuterium from escaping from the cathode,
> which he likened to a "leaky bucket". He emphasized the importance
> of very high (.9+) D/Pd ratios and of a long (300 hr) waiting period
> before the action starts. He claimed that Li is absolutely necessary
> and remarked that it found its way into the lattice; I had the
> sense he was being evasive about its precise role, but maybe not.
> (For example, he remarked in passing that 300 hrs is closer to the
> diffusion constant of Li than of H, and also mentioned doing an
> isotopic analysis of the lithium as well as the palladium.)
> He also remarked that boron, (added after loading, which it would
> kill), encourages the big heat excursions.
 
This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
experiments are in progress?
 
BTW, because the cathode reaction is D2O + e- --> D + OD-, you would expect
that the pH in the vicinity of the electrode to be much more alkaline than
the bulk solution and the likely place for hydroxides to precipitate. And
increasing the current would increase the pH gradient further. I recall that
McKubre uses 1 M LiOD rather than 0.1 M LiOD so his electrolyte is much more
alkaline than most in any case.
 
---
todd
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Could This Be a Positive "Anomalous Heat" Result?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Could This Be a Positive "Anomalous Heat" Result?
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:44:06 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>If any one out
>there wants me to run with H2O then you have to explain to me why I should
>not better run with Mazola oil, Gerbil blood, or holy water from Lourds.
 
You *should* be running with polywater -- for obvious reasons. :-)
 
 
>We also did source in/out changes during this time with no observed effect.
 
This meant something in your Ying days, but what do you mean now?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.26 / mitchell swartz /  anomolous heat &tc.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: anomolous heat &tc.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:59:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  Dr. Vesselin Noninski [Subject: Re: McKubre's talk;
     26 Sep 1992]  states:   {  quotes at << }
 
<< "I also think that referring to this effect as "anomaly",
<<  as McKubre did, is very inappropriate. If this is not a
<<  real effect it cannot be called anomaly. In case it is a
<<  real effect, how can it be an anomaly (have e.g.
<< Wien's displacement law, Compton effect, photoelectric
<< effect etc. ever been referred to as anomalies since
<< their reality has been confirmed; they were not
<< called anomalies even when it was found that that
<< they contradict the existing knowledge)?"
 
 
    We respectfully submit that "anomal(o)-" [or "anomo-"] is
prefix arising from the Greek "anomalos" which as a dictionary
 will denote [eg. Scientific Words, W. E. Flood, Duell, Sloan
 &   Pearce, NY (1960)]) means -- irregular, uneven, not even,
 or lawless.
 
   Are not anomophyllous plants (with irregularly placed
 leaves) real?
 
  Were not anomodonts (albeit extinct reptilians with
 mandibles containing irregular teeth) real?
 
   Therefore, perhaps "anomolous" ought to connote a spatial
 (or in this case, temporal)  characterization rather the
 describe if some phenomena are real.
 
  Regarding the discussed interactions of electromagnetic
 energy with materials: since beam interactions can be
 characterized by the superposition of the separate
 now-well-described radiation-material
 interactions, and as such photoelectric effects dominate only
 until photon energies of ca. 200 keV, whereupon the Compton
 effect has its significant appearance and dominates the
 photon-material interactions until a few MeV when the
 pair [and triplet when appropriate] productions
 arise, it hardly makes much sense to consider such routine
 photon-material interactions as "irregular".  These are not
 anomalies because the repeatably follow patterns over the
 electromagnetic spectrum.
 
  Therefore, it seems that the use of the word "anomolous", to
 describe these temperature parameter by which these systems
 are followed, is correct.
 
  Furthermore, given the dichotomy of types of excess heats
  now noted, these phenomena should be further subdivided
  into:
 
    "regular anomolous" (ie. the steady state excess heat) and
 
    "irregular anomolous" (ie. referring to the bursts).
 
<< "There was an evident effort on the side of McKubre
<<  to convince the audience that all possible systematic
<<  errors have been eliminated -- only very subtle such may
<<  be existing .... "
 
  My notes indicate that he may have stated that all of his
 laboratory's  measurements which demonstrated significant
 deviations from the control were characterized by 'positive'
 excess heats.  This being salient because if systematic
 errors  were an etiology, given the large number of
 experiments showing a significant effect, then to the degree
 that such systematic error would be important, one of them
 ought to have created a result with a 'negative' excess heat.
 
  In summary, using the terminology above, some of the results
 Dr. McKubre reported (in the above-cited lecture) were:
 
  -  regular anomolous heat  "baseline"   to 50% above input
 
  - irregular anomolous heat "bursts"     >350%
 
  -   >45 MJ/mole Pd   [ reportedly implying 450eV/atom ].
 
  -    Pxs     >   200 watts/cc    {presumably palladium).
 
  -    No excess heat observed for light water.
 
 
                    Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.26 / Jim Bowery /  Plasmas in Solids
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmas in Solids
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:02:19 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

An excerpt from the Scientific American article "Plasmas in Solids"
by Raymod Bowers (this photocopy looks like it was from the 60's):
 
This article will describe some experiments involving plasma waves in
solids and will show how they resemble similar waves in a gas plasma.
In these experiments the plasma consists of the carriers of electricity
to be found in any metal or other solid conductor.  The carriers can
have  either negative or positive charge, and in certain semiconductors
the two carriers can exist simultaneously, just as they do in gas
plasma.
 
One might reasonably ask:  What is the point of such experiments?
No one cazn hope to create a thermonuclear reaction in the plasma
of a solid, nor can one remotely approach the scale of phenomena
that is the crucial element in astrophysical problems.  This is
quite true.  Yet plasma experiments in solids offer a unique
opportunity to observe plasma behavior under well-defined and
accurately known conditions.  In a solid, one can usually
determine quite precisely the number of charge carriers, their
masses, their random heat energy and the boundaries of the plasma.
Such a degree of knowledge and control is rarely attainable in
gas-plasma experiments, which often take place in transient
discharges where conditions are subject to rapid change.  Consequently
certain aspects of plasma theory can be tested better in solid than
a gas.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.27 / John Travis /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:44:36 GMT
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
 (Todd Green) writes:
 
>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>experiments are in progress?
 
 
In a comment after the talk, Mckubre explained that he was doing just that.
With detail i missed, he explained a complicated setup in which he
was able to "hypodermically inject" (that's what i thought i heard)
Si or Al into the cell with out compromising its closed nature. If I
find time, I'll try to post a more detailed summary of the talk but
I'm swamped at the moment.--so don't count on it. Sorry.
 
Brief comment--excellent presentation but of little comfort to
those who think a power source could emerge forom this research.
He ran his cells for 1-3 months and got modest excess energy if
you factor in all th energy he pumped into the system. Still, there's
priobably some neat physics/chemistry going on. I still
reserve judgement on the affair.
 
john travis
p.s. slight correction to dick forman: my thesis compared the press
coverage of cf to that of high temp supreconductivity--not exactly
a history of cf. i leave that to close, mallove, et al.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 /  /  Latest Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:04:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

***************************************************************************
* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
***************************************************************************
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / MIKE JAMISON /  Fusion Musings
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Musings
Date: 28 Sep 1992 12:01 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

My latest issue of NASA Tech Briefs (September, 1992, Vol 16 No. 9) has an
article on a Four-sector Cylindrical Radio-Frequency Ion Trap.
 
According to the article, the device would be able to store a "relatively
large" quantity of ions.  (I've asked for more info, but won't get it for a
month or so).
 
The device pictured is shaped basically like a can, with two ends which can
be biased w.r.t. the four RF sectors, to move the ions towards the center
of the trap.
 
To give you all an idea of where I'm coming from, an idea for using a
charged, rather than electrically neutral, plasma for fusion has been
kicking around in my brain for about ten years now.
 
The idea progressed from something like the Migma machine to its present
state, which is basically similar to a Tokamak with charged beams injected
tangentially and in opposite directions.
 
Problems with the idea include:
 
1)  Centrifugal force.  The ions will smash into the outer walls of the
vessel if nothing is there to stop them.  A B field will cause them to
migrate up or down.  This can be compensated for by use of an electrostatic
field opposing the centrifugal force.
 
The problem here is that the electrostatic field exerts a constant pressure
on the ions, but the centrifugal force is a 1/Radius force.  i.e. not a
stable situation.
 
BTW, Tokamaks should have a similar problem.  The centrifugal force should
cause the positive and negative ions to separate.  A simple model will
involve two "cylinders" of charge, one positive, the other negative.  As
the cylinders move apart, the attraction between them increases.
Eventually the attractive force between the cylinders of charge balances
the centrifugal/magnetic pressure pulling them apart.
 
I've been meaning to simulate this, but haven't yet :(
 
2)  Because the plasma is charged, it will try to dissipate.  Again, the B
field comes to the rescue.  As the charged particles try to move apart,
they will experience an opposing force from the B field (the B field is
concentric with the toroid, like in a Tokamak).  The final result is that
the particles "swirl" in circles perpendicular to the B field, as well as
travelling along parallel to it.
 
3)  Plasma density:  Using only electrostatic forces to counteract combined
centrifugal force and electrostatic repulsion, I came up with a density of
about 10^12 ions/cc maximum, given a 1 meter radius toroid and 1 MeV/meter E
field.  The centrifugal force would keep the ions away from the inner wall,
and the electrostatic field would keep them away from the outer wall,
leaving the upper and lower parts of the toroid as the problem...  (That's
where the B field comes in).
 
The latest configuration of my "reactor" takes the form of an octagon, for
two reasons:
 
1)  It's easier to go to a tubing store and buy a bunch of straight pipe,
along with eight 45 degree elbows, than it is to buy a toroid  (I think the
plumbing guys would look at me *very* strangely if I asked for 50 feet of
curved 6" tubing, as opposed to 8 equal sections of tubing and eight 45
degree angles.  That would be bad enough :)).
 
2)  Most of the distance travelled by the ions is straight.  The "new" plan
would be to have the B field along the straight runs be at a given value (a
few Tesla).  The B field in the bends would be several times the strength
of this.  The ions would tend to scrunch together travelling through the
bends.  The electrostatic field used in the bends, to compensate for the
centrifugal force, would be more effective, since the delta of 1/Radius for
the ions would be minimized.
 
3)  It might be possible to use the ion trap configuration, at least in the
straight runs of the machine, to help to focus the ions, keeping them away
from the walls of the machine.  With luck, the ions would stay trapped (i.e
 wouldn't diffuse to the walls) long enough to fuse.
 
A few notes:
 
a)  This machine (if it works) could be used to burn D-T, or H-B, or
whatever two fuels you want, very easily.  Inject one fuel in one direction
, the other in the other direction.
 
b)  With a density of 10^12 ions/cc, the probability of one ion hitting
another is something like 1/several million per meter travelled.
Sufficient trapping time is on the order of 1 second or more for any
appreciable amount of fusing to occur, given an initial energy of about 20
keV.
 
c)  The reaction isn't self-perpetuating.  This means that ions will have
to be continually injected at ~20 keV (depends on which fuel you're burning
).  I don't see this as a big deal, as long as the output can accomodate
the additional input requirement.
 
Uh, sorry to bend your "ears" (eyes, actually) with this long, rambling
post...
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / Roger Books /  Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
     
Originally-From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:56:33 GMT
Organization: FSU nuclear physics

In article <BERG.92Sep24152751@malice.cass.usu.edu> berg@malice.cass.usu.edu
 (Glenn Berg) writes:
 
>      I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
>   of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
>   some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
>   "free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
>   seems that way.  For intance, take the idea of tapping the earth's magnetic
>   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
>   recently on the space shuttle?) ...
>
>This was hardly "free" energy.  The energy was extracted from the motion of the
>satellite and shuttle NOT from the earth's magnetic field.  Getting the shuttle
>into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
>--
>Glenn A. Berg                        CASS
 
After talking to the Physicists around here (I'm just a data acquisition
programmer) it seems the use for the shuttle experiment is reversing it and
using batteries to help maintain orbit.
 
Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbooks cudfnRoger cudlnBooks cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / Matt Kennel /  The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 28 Sep 1992 17:08:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
 
I'll get right down to it.
 
NYT:
 
  "The hydrogen bomb was invented in 1951 by Dr. Edward Teller and Dr.
Stanislaw M. Ulam after Dr. Teller suggested that radiation from an
exploding atomic bomb could generate sufficient heat and pressure to
ignite fusion fuel.
   Dr Kidder{senior physicist at LANL} said Government officials thought
the concept of radiation implotsion was so novel that it would be
extremely difficult for foreign scientists to come up with it on
their own."
 
The essential idea is that they have a "hohlraum" (german for hollow
room) made out of an unspecified "high-Z" material (nudge nudge wink
wink say no more) which reradiates X-rays that implode the pellet.
 
So yes, it *is* radiation pressure, and X-rays that do it.
 
This is known as "indirect drive" in ICF.
 
Some quotes from Physics Today now...(This article is about ICF, but
they admit some details in the article have only recently been declassified.)
 
"High gain ICF targets have features similar to those shown in figure
1.{a round circle}  These capsules consist of a spherical shell filled with
low-density (<1.0 mg/cm^3) equimolar D-T *gas*. The shell is composed of an
ablator and an inner region of D-T which forms the main fuel.  Energy
from a driver is rapidly delivered to the ablator which heats up and expands.
As the ablator expands outward, the rest of the shell is forced inward to
conserve momentum.  The capsule behaves as a spherical, ablation-driven
rocket."
 
"The fusion fuel is imploded with typical efficiency of 5-15%.  That is,
5-15% of the total absorbed energy goes into the fuel.  In its final
configuration the fuel is nearly isobaric at pressures up to about 200
gigabars but consists of two effectively distinct regions: a central
hot spot, containing 2-5% of the fuel, and a dense main fuel region
(the "cold fuel pusher").  Fusion begins in the central hot spot, and
a thermonuclear burn front propagates rapidly outward into the main fuel,
producing high gain.
 
"The efficient arrangement of the fuel places stringent requirements on the
details of the driver coupling, including the time history of the irradiance
and the hydrodynamics of the implosion.  {goes on to talk about
Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities a bit}  The peak values of pressure and
irradiance during a pulse must reach about 100 megabars and 10^15 W/cm^2
respectively.   The required pressure depends on the required implosion
velocity, which is determined by the capsule size.  Minimum velocities
are in the range of 3-4 * 10^7 cm/sec. {!!!}
.
"In general only the charged particle reaction products are available to
heat the fuel because most of the neutrons escape the plasma."
 
{Which means of D+T -> 14.06Mev neutron + 3.52 Mev alpha, only the alpha
counts}
 
"The fuel compression is energetically efficient if the D-T remains nearly
Fermi degenerate.  Only 6.5*10^4 J is required to compress 5 mg of fuel to
400 g/cm^3 in this case, but the fuel remains too cold to burn during
the inertial confinement time.  Thus high-gain also requires hot-spot
ignition.
 
.
 
"Direct drive is more efficient in transporting driver energy to the fusion
capsule but is sensitive to the spatial quality of the illuminating
radiation.  Inderect drive has the advantage of being less sensitive
to the details of the irradiating beams.  In addition, implosins using
x-ray driven ablation are more stable hydrodynamically."  {Than what?
I guess compared to ion beams...}
 
"As discussed above, to efficiently compress D-T to several hudred g/cm^3,
the compression must be near Fermi degenerate.  To ensure this, the entropy
generated in the main fuel must be limited to that which would be generated
by a 1-Mbar shock passing through solid density D-T.  Because the peak
pressures in the implosion must be about 100 Mbar, the pressure in the shell
must be increased from an initial shock of 1 Mbar to 100 Mbar in such a way
that little additional entropy is generated.  {A nice trick!} Various types
of irradiating pulse shapes can accomplish this objective. {I.e. how you
make the A-bomb part of an H-bomb makes a big difference in detail}"
 
 
The article goes on alot longer.  One thing was conspicious by its absence,
lithium was never mentioned.
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / Matt Austern /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:22:14
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
> They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
> countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
 
A number of years back, _Progressive_ magazine published a cover story
which purported to reveal the secret of the hydrogen bomb.  (They said
that they had deduced it from unclassified material.)  The government
neither confirmed nor denied that _Progressive_ got it right, but they
did try to censor that issue, so a great many people thought that
there was probably something to it.
 
Now that the government is finally revealing some information about
H-bomb construction, I'm curious: Does anyone out there happen to know
how close what _Progressive_ said is to what the government is now
saying?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / D Danforth /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:17:10 GMT
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center

In <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>***************************************************************************
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>***************************************************************************
 
>Tom Droege
 
I hope you are regularly checking your radiation badge.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendanforth cudfnDouglas cudlnDanforth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:33:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>***************************************************************************
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>***************************************************************************
>
>Tom Droege
>
 
     This is wonderfully enigmatic.  Is this the experiment of 18 September?
 
                            dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 /  /  Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:23:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  28 September 1992
 
Executive summary:  Average power levels have increased above the previous
report, but seem to have stabilized.  The mean power levels are of order 100
times the calibrated drift.
 
Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 170 ma per sq cm
Duration: Now charging for 19 days
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 3.4 volts
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
Accumulated "anomalous heat": 36,000+ joules
 
Date    Power    Source     Notes
        Watts
 
7 Sept   0.0008   Out/In     Empty cell calibration.  No source effect.
9 Sept  -0.0010   Out        Cell in, zero current calibration
9 Sept  -0.1902   Out        Charging Palladium.
9 Sept  -0.0163   Out        Late Charging, almost balanced.
10 Sept -0.0004   Out        Full Current Operation
11 Sept  0.0002   In         Start Source Out/In at Full Operating Current
12 Sept                      Data Lost
13 Sept                      Data Lost
14 Sept  0.0092   In         Full 24 hour data
15 Sept  0.0130   Out        Full 24 hour data
16 Sept  0.0158   In         Some data lost due to UPS failure.
17 Sept  0.0173   In         Replaced UPS
18 Sept  0.0239   Out
19 Sept  0.0204   In         Partial data is suspect.  Switch to 20 second
20 Sept  0.0251   Out        data collection interval.
21 Sept  0.0271   In
22 Sept  0.0312   Out
23 Sept  0.0372   In
24 Sept  0.0409   Out
25 Sept  0.0497   In
26 Sept  0.0840   Out
 
The dates are for running periods which started at roughly 22:15 on the
indicated date.  As of 28 Sept 10 AM we had accumulated 36 killojoules since
17 Sept when the data collection program was restarted.  We continue the
source In/Out experiment even though there does not seem to be a large effect
on the energy accumulation.  When the source was added on the evening of 25
September, there was an immediate jump in power level to the 72 mw level
followed by several "after spikes" of successively smaller size.  When the
source was installed on 27 Sept., nothing particular happened.  No spikes of
this magnitude above the average power level have been observed before or
since.
 
There have been a number of occasions when the cathode was observed to absorb
a cc or so of D2.  This was followed by an increase in power level.  There
have also been more occasions when gas absorption was not followed by a power
level increase.  But some of these events have been very persuasive.  During
the entire time that the power level has been increasing, there has been
continued absorption of gas as indicated by an increase of gas in the
measurement syringe (we think we measure the excess oxygen when D is
absorbed).  Due to the several power outages, we have lost track of the
absorbed gas level.  We may be able to reconstruct this later.
 
The current data is bumping around a long term average value of 85 mw.  The
increase in power level seems to have stopped.  There have been a number of
hour long periods where the power level was above 100 mw.
 
The calibrations on 7 and 9 Sept indicate a drift of less than one milliwatt.
The early operation on 10 - 11 Sept. indicates that the cell stayed in
balance within one milliwatt during several days of charging at the high
power operating point.  Since then the calorimeter balance point has changed
two orders of magnitude to the 85 milliwatt area.  The 7-9, 10-11 data, and
many other calibration runs indicate that the calorimeter is stable to the 1
mw (peak to peak variation) area when run over long time periods, and when the
balance is taken at the same time each day.  For less careful runs, including
opening and closing the calorimeter, 8 mw one sigma has been measured.
 
Now that we know what to expect, we think that "anomalous heat" can be
detected within one week by a sufficiently sensitive calorimeter.  Going back
and examining the very first heavy water cell attempted in the late summer of
89 we find that the data was similar to what we observe today.  I now think
that the correct way to proceed is to build a bank of very sensitive
calorimeters and to attempt to optimize this reaction by simultaneous runs
with different parameter changes.  The null cells should be detectable within
a week, allowing allocation of the calorimeter to the next parameter on the
list.
 
Barring someone correcting my minimal knowledge of statistics, this looks like
it meets my "100 sigma" requirement.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 21:40:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>***************************************************************************
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>***************************************************************************
 
Here we wait, breath abated, for details. You are the only person posting here
that is running real experiments. Let's get some real DETAILS!
 
Good going Tom.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.28 / Jeff Bytof /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:07:09 GMT
Organization: sio

 
>> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
>> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
 
Are these some of the secrets the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians,
for which they were executed?
 
Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrabjab cudfnJeff cudlnBytof cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:49:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
 
Four days ago, Tom Droege was reporting 15,000 joules excess accumulated over
an eight day period.  He also implied he had 1.6 moles of D2O/H2O and 1/50th
of a mole of Pd.
 
From this we can estimate 0.25 electron volts per D2O/H2O, or 20 electron
volts per Pd, or, assuming .95 loading, 21 electron volts per loaded D.
 
If there is chemical "ash", then, it is probably outside the Pd electrode, as
20eV's per atom is quite unusually high for chemical energies, I believe.
 
0.24eV's is nothing special, but it does imply a goodly fraction of the
electrolyte has undergone the anomolous chemistry -- if that is what it is,
and therefore, should be easily detectable in post chemical analysis.
 
For those who want to make their own calculations, there are:
 
1.6E19 electron volts per joule.
 
6.02E23 atoms per mole.
 
Therefore, eV's per atom is found by inserting joules (J) and moles (M):
 
( J * 1.6E19 ) / ( M * 6.02E23 ) = eV per atom
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / Glenn Berg /  Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
     
Originally-From: Glenn.Berg@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Glenn Berg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: 24 Sep 92 19:27:51 CST
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT
 
mh001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (matthew wain hacker) writes:
 
      I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
   of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
   some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
   "free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
   seems that way.  For intance, take the idea of tapping the earth's magnetic
   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
   recently on the space shuttle?) ...
 
This was hardly "free" energy.  The energy was extracted from the motion of the
satellite and shuttle NOT from the earth's magnetic field.  Getting the shuttle
into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
--
Glenn A. Berg                        CASS
berg@logan.cass.usu.edu              Utah State University
Phone: (801)-750-2987                UMC 4405
Fax: (801)-750-2992                  Logan, UT  84322
 
 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBerg cudfnGlenn cudlnBerg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.24 / mitchell swartz /  excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: mitchell.swartz@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 24 Sep 92 20:31:21 CST
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
 
 
 
 
  Very interesting talk on "cf" experimental work, reported to the MIT community
 by Michael McKubre, this afternoon.
 
  Aluminum (and silicon) appears to have an important role, as an in-situ
 gelatinous (amphoteric, I think) layer upon the cathode thereby increasing the
 likelihood of successful generation of baseline excess heat (range 1-30%).  The
 aluminum modified cathode is reported to create a "relatively causal,
 reproducible" system.
 
  His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess more than thirty times.
  Heat burst, generating >300% excess power, initiate spontaneously, but much
 more rarely.  I think he reported that these have occurred three times.
 
 
Summary:  Excellent presentation, well received.
          More than a score of experiments demonstrating baseline excess heat
 using a much more reproducible system than originally reported by FP.
          Aspects of loading, and other factors, appear to continue to control
 these phenomena.
 
 
 
           Mitchell Swartz
 
 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenswartz cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  Rothwell /  Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:28:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
There was a splendid article in the September 28, 1992 edition of the Wall
Street Journal, page B3: "Predictable Heat Source Reported From 'Heavy'
Water Electrolysis." It was about the September 24 lecture given at M.I.T.
by Dr. M.C.H. McKubre, of SRI International. It begins: "A California
scientist funded by the electric power industry reported he has repeatedly
and predictably gotten excess heat from the electrolysis of 'heavy' water."
 
The article also talks about Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos, who has
"replicated a Japanese experiment that produced more power, as heat, than it
consumes." It says that the Japanese experiment (Takahashi's) was "a major
factor in prompting the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and
Industry to earmark 2.7 billion yen ($22.4 million) for 'cold fusion'
experiments over the next few years." The article quotes McKubre, "we are
unable to account for the excess temperatures by any artifact or to account
for the excess heat by any mechanical or chemical process of which we are
aware," and adds, "Ruling out mechanical and chemical processes leaves only
nuclear processes of some sort to explain the experiment."
 
The article says there is a "growing suspicion" among CF researchers that CF
is not the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, but some other "mysterious process"
instead.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:09:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>From this we can estimate 0.25 electron volts per D2O/H2O, or 20 electron
>volts per Pd, or, assuming .95 loading, 21 electron volts per loaded D.
 
Using Droege's Sept 28 data, everything increases by 2.4.
 
So now we have 0.6eV per D2O/H2O atom, or 48eV per Pd, or, at .94 loading,
51eV per loaded D.
 
At what eV per atom do we agree it is no longer chemcial?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Status
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:22:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>We continue the source In/Out experiment even though there does not seem
>to be a large effect on the energy accumulation.
 
It seems you must be talking about a Ying source.  I must have mis-read
your post of several weeks ago when you said you were done with Ying and
Takahashi.  I presume you aren't using sawtooth charging, however, since
there seems to be no mention of it in your latest posts.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:19:35 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <920928195537_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> The [Wall Street Journal] article says there is a "growing suspicion"
> among CF researchers that CF is not the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, but
> some other "mysterious process" instead.
 
Hee hee ho ho.  Wagers, anyone?  How long until an article comes out in
which the concept of "total mass conversion" is clearly and understandably
applied to such experiments?  Any REALLY brave reporters out there?
 
I would personally strongly advice against any public reference to TMC
unless and until the level of easy reproducibility of such experiments
is worldwide and absolutely unequivical.  Without that TMC is the silliest
bleeping idea ever proposed on this net, and should be taken in exactly
that light.
 
With such reproducibility...  Well, most likely I'd just fall off my
chair laughing.
 
			Cheers,
			Terry "still here" Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Johan Wevers /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:02:41 GMT

mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
>inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
 
This ``secret'' was known for a long time: one of the syllaby I use,
written in 1986, gives already the explaination of the principle of the
H-bomb.
--
**********************************************************
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    *
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   *
**********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohan cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:37:22 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <96900@bu.edu>
jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
 (Todd Green) writes:
>
>>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>>experiments are in progress?
>
>
>In a comment after the talk, Mckubre explained that he was doing just that.
>With detail i missed, he explained a complicated setup in which he
>was able to "hypodermically inject" (that's what i thought i heard)
>Si or Al into the cell with out compromising its closed nature. If I
>find time, I'll try to post a more detailed summary of the talk but
>I'm swamped at the moment.--so don't count on it. Sorry.
>
>Brief comment--excellent presentation but of little comfort to
>those who think a power source could emerge forom this research.
>He ran his cells for 1-3 months and got modest excess energy if
>you factor in all th energy he pumped into the system. Still, there's
>priobably some neat physics/chemistry going on. I still
>reserve judgement on the affair.
>
>john travis
>p.s. slight correction to dick forman: my thesis compared the press
>coverage of cf to that of high temp supreconductivity--not exactly
>a history of cf. i leave that to close, mallove, et al.
********************************************************
No John, we cannot leave that to close, mallove, etc. They are not disintereste
d parties.  Since you made the choice to give up physics, and to become a
science writer, you do not have any ego involvement with the physics.  This pas
t weekend there was a very nice piece on science journalism on the Op-Ed
page of the New York Times. The situation you are now in, attending graduate
school after attaining a good solid MIT education in science is ideal.  You
can get the facts straight.  In the town I live in, Washington, DC, the "nation
al newspaper" considered by some to be a newpaper of record has a group of
science writers who can't get the facts straight.  Unless I am mistaken, the ed
itor is a biology major that occassionally writes on physics.  That's why I
have had home delivery of the daily and Sunday New York Times for the past 23
years.  I gave yout thesis copy, a loan really not a true gift, to Michael
Skolar and Richard Harris at NPR to help them try to improve their reporting
on catalyzed nuclear reactions.  For your next internship I suggest that you
call Richard. You have always done your job of journalism very well.  If you do
 not want to see what live news is like, (very high deadline pressure), I would
 be happy to recommend you to one of my friends at the NY Times for a
permanent position there when you get your degree.  The reason this is again op
en mail is that I hope others will read and think about my comment. Colin Norma
n promised me the citation for the Op-Ed piece mentioned above. He and I are
on the same wavelength on science journalism.
GET SOMEONE WITH A SCIENCE BACKGROUND TO LEARN JOURNALISM. That is the only was
y.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Latest Status
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Status
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:12:22 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Sep28.201710.13594@riacs.edu>
danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes:
 
>
>In <920928120420.20800356@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>
>>***************************************************************************
>>* We have observed "anomalous heat" in an electrolytic cell of the type   *
>>* described by Pons and Fleischmann.  Preliminary analysis indicates that *
>>* the result has surpassed the 100 sigma requirement previously set.      *
>>***************************************************************************
>
>>Tom Droege
>
>I hope you are regularly checking your radiation badge.
Dick Forman comments: As Tom and I have discussed privately there is no
radiation danger. There remains the serious hazard of a nuclear reaction
based thermal explosion.  That is: DO THESE EXPERIMENTS IN A BLOCKHOUSE
WITH YOU AND YOUR EXPENSIVE GEAR OUTSIDE AND THE CELL INSIDE.
In a phone conversation yesterday with Mike McKubre he confimed the LACK
of radiation hazard for the particular nuclear processes that occur in these
experiments.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:18:39 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <books.2.0@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu>
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:
>>      I've been following this rather, ummm, interesting thread for a couple
>>   of days now.  Although some of these 'devices' are clearly fraudulant,
>>   some others are reasonable.  Problem is they aren't creating
>>   "free energy" but rather tapping sources that are so large that it
>>   field.  It should work.  (Didn't they just try something like that
>>   recently on the space shuttle?) ...
>>
>>into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
>>--
>>Glenn A. Berg                        CASS
>
>After talking to the Physicists around here (I'm just a data acquisition
>programmer) it seems the use for the shuttle experiment is reversing it and
>using batteries to help maintain orbit.
>
>Roger
>books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
Dick Forman comments: while you of course are correct. BUT you've let the cat o
ut of the bag. The only way mere physicists can tread in the techie environment
of Space Shuttle expts. is by hiding their true motives. By the way there is
a nice article on new fishing reel technology which could be useful for winding
up the wire in the New York Times in the past week or so. The company that
makes the reel is AB? Garcia of Sweden and it uses a new method of laying down
the layers that they call Hard-X technology.  Physicists, who else, have commen
ted on some possible low tech failure modes of the Shuttle's fishing reel.  Whi
le I could be accused of bias because I am also a physicist, their explanation
which I suggested to a colleague the day after the failure, sound good.
I would nevere have gone public with it though. Since they did, I feel it is fa
ir to comment and to suggest a fix. Since I gave up guided spooling for
surf casting reels about 40 years ago I would love to know how the Hard-X techn
ology works; unfortunately the NYT article did not have a picture that was usef
ul.  Finally I would be able to get rid of my ancient Penn Squider reels and
show those spinning reel freaks how casting should be done.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:37:09 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920928195537_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>There was a splendid article in the September 28, 1992 edition of the Wall
>Street Journal, page B3: "Predictable Heat Source Reported From 'Heavy'
>Water Electrolysis." It was about the September 24 lecture given at M.I.T.
>by Dr. M.C.H. McKubre, of SRI International. It begins: "A California
>scientist funded by the electric power industry reported he has repeatedly
>and predictably gotten excess heat from the electrolysis of 'heavy' water."
>                                    " The article quotes McKubre, "we are
>unable to account for the excess temperatures by any artifact or to account
>for the excess heat by any mechanical or chemical process of which we are
>aware," and adds, "Ruling out mechanical and chemical processes leaves only
>nuclear processes of some sort to explain the experiment."
>
>The article says there is a "growing suspicion" among CF researchers that CF
>is not the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, but some other "mysterious process"
>instead.
>
>- Jed
>
Dick Forman requests info:
Does anyone who follows the publication of that pulp journal "Science"
know if they have yet rescinded their NO RESUBMISSIONS Rule? I would like to
resubmit my manuscript titled: On the Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions of
Palladium and Deuterium.  The rejected it on 10 May 1989 and I would like to
retain the submission date. I would be willing to add a note added in proof
covering the useful data since that date, and detailing those predictions in
the original manuscript that have been subsequently confirmed by expts.
My apologies to Colin Norman for describing the place where he and his people p
ublish as a pulp journal. It is the journal part that is a rag. His section
represents the second best science journalism in the world.
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
 
Thanks for any help you netters can give.
Dick.
P.S.: George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush's mini-recession has left me in the
unenviable position of looking for a new job. My termination notice at MITRE
is dated 1 October 1992.  I'll be here for a while after that time as part
of their severence/out-placement package.  But sometime soon I will lose
access to Internet. Notice of appropriate job opportunities within 30 minutes
drive of Potomac, MD ( a Washington, DC suburb) will be greatly appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:52:56 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Sep29.061935.18534@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>In article <920928195537_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>
>Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>> The [Wall Street Journal] article says there is a "growing suspicion"
>> among CF researchers that CF is not the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, but
>> some other "mysterious process" instead.
>
>Hee hee ho ho.  Wagers, anyone?  How long until an article comes out in
>which the concept of "total mass conversion" is clearly and understandably
>applied to such experiments?  Any REALLY brave reporters out there?
>
>I would personally strongly advice against any public reference to TMC
>unless and until the level of easy reproducibility of such experiments
>is worldwide and absolutely unequivical.  Without that TMC is the silliest
>bleeping idea ever proposed on this net, and should be taken in exactly
>that light.
>
>With such reproducibility...  Well, most likely I'd just fall off my
>chair laughing.
>
>                        Cheers,
>                        Terry "still here" Bollinger
>
Dick Forman says: Wagers huh---Put your money where your mouth is.
                   Define the bet and suggest your bet size.
                     Sometimes losing money is the only thing that
                      teaches someone a lesson. Since I am so far in the
                       hole by someting similar to what Tom D. has spent
                        AND YOU ARE SO SURE IN YOUR ANALYSIS---Give me odds
                         that indicate your level of belief in your own
                          analysis or stop cluttering the thread.
     Is there a netter that will volunteer to hold the bet (when terms and
         odds) are finalized.
Where I come from this is the long form of:
      PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
 
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Stanley Chow /  Wagers (was Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: schow@bcarh2d8.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wagers (was Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:36:14 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <168717CF2.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>Dick Forman says: Wagers huh---Put your money where your mouth is.
>                   Define the bet and suggest your bet size.
>                     Sometimes losing money is the only thing that
>                      teaches someone a lesson. Since I am so far in the
>                       hole by someting similar to what Tom D. has spent
>                        AND YOU ARE SO SURE IN YOUR ANALYSIS---Give me odds
>                         that indicate your level of belief in your own
>                          analysis or stop cluttering the thread.
>     Is there a netter that will volunteer to hold the bet (when terms and
>         odds) are finalized.
 
I will be glad to referee any such bets.
 
I am not choosy about what kinds of topics, you can bet on the outcome of
Tom's experiments, anyone's theory, or just press accounts. (Some readers
may recall that I proposed some bets even before there was a sci.physics.
fusion group).
 
Just to show that I am experienced and qualified - I am the referree for a
long standing bet made in the early 80's that will mature in 2020 (the bet
is whether fusion power will be real by then, in particular, whether *any*
fusion powered generators are on line on any power grid in the world,
generating revenue as well as power).
 
Clearly, the bet was made in the context of hot fusion, but the wording
does allow cold fusion. So, Tom, your experiments (if succesful) may lead
to someone losing a significant bet.
 
--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Nick Haines /  Re: Status
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:27:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Way cool. The only reason I read this group is for Tom Droege's status
reports, and now, _finally_, after years of patient, careful,
disappointing work he's got his 100 sigmas.
 
I'd like to buy him a beer.
 
Hell, a case of beer.
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / David Knapp /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:38:06 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
>inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
>They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
>countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
 
This is obviously a concern for  countries who have a hard time getting their
hands on much of the right materials.
 
 
 
 
--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenknapp cudfnDavid cudlnKnapp cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  /  Latest Result
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest Result
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:34:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First, I think I have really gone over the edge into "believerland".  I am
not really a believer by trade in anything.  But at some point, one begins
to act seriously on what has been measured, and I now find myself making
production calorimeter sketches.
 
In response to several queries for more information, I hope the last post
was useful.  I have spent many hours observing the 60 odd variables that
I record, and have seen a lot of very interesting events.  Particularly
interesting are reactions between the power level, the absorbed gas, the
temperature of the cell, the temperature of the catalyst, and the cell
voltage.  I would like to be able to put up a set of data points and say:
"Wow, look at this!".  But the detail is too fine to show anything with
typed in graphs.  For example, explain an event where the cell gets hot,
the catalyst gets cold, and there is a small accumulation of energy over
the previous trend - all with no particular change in cell gas volume.
 
Jim Bowery, "reply" did not work to you.  But you reminded me to call and
place an order for a March Palladium contract.  Presently have a small gain
in the two December contracts that I hold.
 
To John Logajan, we charged at about 30 ma per sq cm for about a day, then
went to the present 170 ma per sq cm.  We have faithfully continued the
2 microcurie source in/out on alternate days.  As with the earlier source
with Takahashi experiment, the source is placed on the outside of the
Dewar, about 5 cm from the cathode.
 
At present the power level seems to be slowly decreasing.  We are at about
60 mw average.  So far about 42 killojoules accumulated.  The present plan
is to run this cell until it quits putting out power, or we have run so long
(about two more weeks) that we think it is just drift.  It the cell does
not stop by itself, we will reverse the cell current and try to make it stop.
I am pretty sure about the starting calibration, but it is best to have on
a zeri measurement at each end of the run.  My belief level will be greatly
reduced if I cannot get an ending zero.
 
Will answer a reasonable number of questions like "what is the cell voltage
doing" -- etc.  I have observed a lot more than what gets put up here.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 /  /  A who?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A who?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:34:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hey guys, how do I put a gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer on my cathode?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:17:59
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
 (David Knapp) writes:
 
 
   In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
   >
   >Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
   >inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
   >They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
   >countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
 
   Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
   intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
   amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
 
Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
 
There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
design after some very smart people pondered the problem
for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
the essence of the problem can be pieced together by
a _smart_ graduate student with a decent computer in
6-12 months, and a _good_ student should be able to
solve the problem given the hints in unclassified literature,
as opposed to fission bombs which are designable by an
average physics grad.
 
*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 20:29:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
 (David Knapp) writes:
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
>intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
>amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
 
You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
of commonly available hardware store components.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / John Travis /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:40:28 GMT
Organization: Boston University

 
>GET SOMEONE WITH A SCIENCE BACKGROUND TO LEARN JOURNALISM. That is the only
 was
 
>E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
>RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
>DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
 
 brief, i hope, interruption from this group's topic. yes dick, i do have
a physics background but i still wonder about your above statement. it's
a question most science journalists argue about at one point or n another.
for instance, in the last month i've written about deafness research,
making antihydrogen, and spinal cord research--and i don't know
if my "background" helped in any of them. jerry bishop, for instance,
has no real science background. the grad programs, however, now seem
to require a science background and then try to turn you into
a journalist. enough of an interruption--just wanted to remark that
your comment is provocative and debatable issue.
 
cheers,
john travis
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjstravis cudfnJohn cudlnTravis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Deac UGC /  Re: Status
     
Originally-From: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU (Deac Moo of the UGC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:19:02 GMT
Organization: The University of Maryland, University College

In article <NICKH.92Sep29122734@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick
 Haines) writes:
>Way cool. The only reason I read this group is for Tom Droege's status
>reports, and now, _finally_, after years of patient, careful,
>disappointing work he's got his 100 sigmas.
>
>I'd like to buy him a beer.
>
>Hell, a case of beer.
 
It's only a verifiable experiment if he can do it all over again :)...
 
Hopefully verifable real soon :)
 
 
                               ******
   Net postings: Demonstrating the lack of quality psychotherapy in the world.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendoug cudfnDeac cudlnUGC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Jeff Bennion /  Little Old Ladies and Spontaneous Combustion (was Various Replies)
     
Originally-From: jsb9718@cc.utah.edu (Jeff Bennion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Little Old Ladies and Spontaneous Combustion (was Various Replies)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 16:23 MST
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

In article <1992Sep24.154217.10794@javelin.sim.es.com>,
 biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes...
{ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
{>I am glad that Dieter Britz
[...]
 
Messrs Droege, Britz, and Biesel:  I laughed very hard at your spurious and
hilarious elucidations on link between calcium, LOL's, and Spontaneous
Combustion.  In all seriousness (sort of), I think you three should get
together and submit it for all posterity to enjoy in _The Journal of
Irreproducible Results_
 
Jeff Bennion
University of Utah
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjsb9718 cudfnJeff cudlnBennion cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Latest Result
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:47:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>we charged at about 30 ma per sq cm for about a day, then went to the
>present 170 ma per sq cm.
 
I take it that the Pd electrode was virgin (not used in previous experiments)
and therefore you did not have the Pd repetitively "breath" D in and out in
an attempt to purge gaseous contaminants pre-existing in the Pd.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Latest Result
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:56:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>We have faithfully continued the 2 microcurie source in/out on alternate days.
 
It occurs to me that there is something else that correlates to in or out
besides radiation levels -- vibration from the clunking around of moving the
source in or out.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / T Neustaedter /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:01:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
> of commonly available hardware store components.
 
I'm sure there are some on this newsgroup who know far more than I do on
the subject, but they probably can't say anything. What I recall from the
various unclassified sources I've read is:
 
   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
      produces enough loose neutrons that you don't really need a trigger
      to get things going - you just need a critical mass (produced in
      1945 by firing a plug of U-235 through a ring of U-235 at the
      end of a howitzer piece). However, producing U-235 is the well known
      pain in the nether regions.
 
   2) Building an implosion fission bomb of Pu-239 is supposedly a lot
      harder. You need to produce the critical Pu-239 and at the same time
      have a source of loose neutrons. Unclassified reports indicate that
      this trigger is produced by using an alpha source on beryllium foil.
      Imploding the Pu-239 (increasing the density to produce criticality)
      is certainly an exacting process, which involves a lot of knowledge
      of explosives and ability to simulate shock waves through various
      chemicals in 3D. Or the resources to experiment repetitively on
      metals of density similar to Pu-239 while x-raying the results.
 
      Getting enough loose neutrons at the same time is supposedly less
      than trivial.
 
   3) Producing a fusion bomb requires solving the above problems PLUS
      figuring out how to contain a mass of fusible (?) isotopes at
      megakelvins long enough to generate more energy than you put into
      it. Said isotopes may be 2D, 3T, 6Li, 7Li or others, depending on
      who you believe. A design which handles this correctly is unlikely
      to be produced ab-initio. A certain amount of trial and error is
      apt to be necessary.
 
      If the "secret" is reportedly out, you can believe as much of it
      as you want. The DOE has been known to occasionally supply some
      disinformation - and I find it interesting that these revelations
      come at the very time we're worried that Iran may be looking into
      such research. (Trust me; you don't need to have the revolutionary
      guards do their own design, just do it this way . . .)
 
      Information on the above falls into three categories:
        1) You take it on faith. (e.g., this article)
        2) You've tried it. (I don't know you, I never met you, and I
           didn't know you were a communist, white supremacist and
           also a pedophile).
        3) You've worked with enough related subjects that you don't need
           to try it. In which case your security clearance prevents you
           from talking.
 
By the way, if you decide to try it, and happen to buy some of your equipment
from overseas, remember to get your Federal Firearms License and import permit
for items on the U.S. Munitions Import List - Category XVI, Nuclear Weapons
Design and Test Equipment. (I'm not kidding; see U.S.C. title 27, part 47,
subpart C, section 21. Or ask the Department of State for 22 CFR 121.1).
 
Oh, and let me know first. I want to be scarce when the BATF, DOE, SS, FBI,
and CIA all decide to start asking questions.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Mr band /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: dschleef@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Mr Zeppelin and his band)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:50:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
 writes:
> (deleted)
>      to be produced ab-initio. A certain amount of trial and error is
>      apt to be necessary.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
To any prospective bomob builders:
 
Please note that trial and error is not an option.  Trials are certainly
detectable by the major countries of the world, (namely the US, who would
be certain to follow it up...) and errors would certainly not be well
recieved, especially in a major metropolitan area.  Sucesses, I might
add, would not be well recieved, either...
 
dave.
 
David Schleef
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendschleef cudfnMr cudlnband cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:17:47 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <168717CF2.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
> In article <1992Sep29.061935.18534@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>
> | Hee hee ho ho.  Wagers, anyone?  How long until an article comes out in
> | which the concept of "total mass conversion" is clearly and understandably
> | applied to such experiments?  Any REALLY brave reporters out there?
>
> Dick Forman says: Wagers huh---Put your money where your mouth is.  Define
> the bet and suggest your bet size... AND YOU ARE SO SURE IN YOUR ANALYSIS...
> stop cluttering the thread... PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
 
(golly, if I'd known ya'll missed me so badly I would have dropped back
by earlier!)
 
Er, I hate to be a spoilsport, but the wager in question was simply whether
some reporter would be brave enough to broach the idea of TMC in a highly
public medium.  Net-conscious reporters are clearly aware of the discussion
a couple of months ago on the Rothwell/Menlove et al TMC theory, so I figure
that sooner or later someone will dare to mention it in something like the
Wall Street Journal.  I'll wager a figurative plugged nickel on 1-to-1 odds,
but that's about it.  I don't make a hobby of trying to predict the press.
 
Did you think I was the only one who has ever proposed a TMC mechanism?
Nope.  I was just the FIRST one to do it, and I assure you I received my
share of flames for having had such audacity.  But I absolutely stand by
the logic of that argument.  Nothing else fits.  And I remain as confident
as I was two years ago (more so in fact) that there is genuinely some room
for novel physics in my proposed mechanism of heavy-particle band solitons,
which by a rather bizarre coincidence appear to be most likely to exist in
Pd(Hx,Dy) media.  Heavy particle (H,D) banding in transition metal crystal
lattices was not identified as a real phenomenon until about a year after
I sent out Twist, so who knows?  I must have been doing *something* right.
 
Anywho, why not lighten up a bit?  Twist cost me months of intensive study
in some very obsure topics of solid state and quantum physics.  Are you
going to whack me for making the perplexing results of that analysis freely
available to anyone who might find them interesting?
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:07:45 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Johan Wevers /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:26:03 GMT

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
 
>3) You've worked with enough related subjects that you don't need
>   to try it. In which case your security clearance prevents you
>   from talking.
 
This is maybe not quite true: there are stories that Lybia and Iran are
offering much money ($20000/month) to Russian nuclear engeneers.
--
**********************************************************
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    *
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   *
**********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjohan cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:36:30 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter. Since I receive my
termination notice from MITRE tomorrow, and will lose access to Internet
on 30 October 1992 (the last day I will have an office at MITRE), or possibly
earlier (they might need my PC for someone else), I cannot be the moderator.
I nominate Dieter Britz who is ideal for this job. His time shift from the US
provides perfect timing. He has moderated the previous days' stuff by the time
those of in the US get up. He reads it all anyway. He knows the wheat from the
chaff.
Besides, I think I still owe him one (in the argot of my country) for the way h
e handled my published work from Fusion Facts.
DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO SET UP A NEW NEWSGROUP????
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Internet address good until 30 October 1992.
After 30 October 1992 by MCIMAIL to Dick Forman, Maryland, USA
If I find a new job with INTERNET access I will update above addresses.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Latest Result
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:03:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <920929125437.208007bf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>For example, explain an event where the cell gets hot,
>the catalyst gets cold, and there is a small accumulation of energy over
>the previous trend - all with no particular change in cell gas volume.
 
I don't understand the "catalyst gets cold" part Tom. Could you clear
that part up?
>
>At present the power level seems to be slowly decreasing.  We are at about
>60 mw average.  So far about 42 killojoules accumulated.  The present plan
>is to run this cell until it quits putting out power, or we have run so long
>(about two more weeks) that we think it is just drift.  It the cell does
>not stop by itself, we will reverse the cell current and try to make it stop.
>I am pretty sure about the starting calibration, but it is best to have on
>a zeri measurement at each end of the run.  My belief level will be greatly
>reduced if I cannot get an ending zero.
 
Didn't Pons say that once started the reaction would boil off all of the
liquid? I think I remember him writing that he wouldn't replenish the
levels after boiling started and that 'fear' (??) prevented him from
doing so. After the liquid boiled off the reaction would stop.
 
If this is the case you reaction appears to be a bit more, uh, subtle
then his.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:06:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep30.160534.16744@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
>>The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter.
>
>By most measures, this is a low clutter newsgroup already, and would
>be a low clutter e-mail group.  My guess is that what you want is
>pretty specialized and would be most efficiently served by an e-mail
>reflector.
 
I agree with John. As sci.nanotech shows, moderated newsgroups reflect
the ideas of the moderator and stiffle true discussion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Latest Result
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:39:37 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <920929125437.208007bf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>First, I think I have really gone over the edge into "believerland".  I am
>not really a believer by trade in anything.  But at some point, one begins
>to act seriously on what has been measured, and I now find myself making
>production calorimeter sketches.
>place an order for a March Palladium contract.  Presently have a small gain
>in the two December contracts that I hold.
>
>Tom Droege
Dick Forman says: Please let's be nice to Tom and not blow his contract.
Some guy posted the true use for the thethered satellite that some physicists
had in mind when they put one over on someone.  Let me assure you sometime
soon palladium futures contracts will drop back to "normal." Based upon informa
tion provided to me by another sucessful experimenter, I know the "next
generation" experiments won't be on palladium.  Since he and I won't be able to
 get together until the week of Columbus Day, you wild-ass speculators on the
metals market might get rich by then. No bets after that unless you totally
lose your minds and do short sales on the options market. If that is not what t
hey are called I'm sorry I did options never commodities.
Tom: Leave that week free and plan to be seeing me and several other friends of
yours that week.  I'm shooting for DC but Johnny, who is the most important pla
yer in this game, will be away for the next week and a half.  He didn't tell me
where and I didn't yet have your post or the return call from the other guy.
It will make a nice surprise on top of his two recent successes.
Sorry to be cryptic, but my e-mail is on another part of the system and
I'm late for dinner.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:54:26 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <97082@bu.edu>
jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>>GET SOMEONE WITH A SCIENCE BACKGROUND TO LEARN JOURNALISM. That is the only
>
> brief, i hope, interruption from this group's topic. yes dick, i do have
>a physics background but i still wonder about your above statement. it's
>a question most science journalists argue about at one point or n another.
>for instance, in the last month i've written about deafness research,
>making antihydrogen, and spinal cord research--and i don't know
>if my "background" helped in any of them. jerry bishop, for instance,
>has no real science background. the grad programs, however, now seem
>to require a science background and then try to turn you into
>a journalist. enough of an interruption--just wanted to remark that
>your comment is provocative and debatable issue.
>
>cheers,
>john travis
I guess you're right. I remember what my friend Earl Callen used to say.
But he made people so angry.  I don't like making people angry.
As I remember it John your specialty was physics.
Earl Callen at an APS meeting in the early '70 said that:  "Physicists
can work in any field and do it better than people trained for the field."
Last I knew after Earl left NOL, now something else that is the next
successor to Naval Surface Weapons Center, he went to American University.
Check with him to see if I have been accurate. I think it was quoted in the
abstract printed in the Bulletin of the APS.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Radiation danger?
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radiation danger?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:08:02 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Sep30.194008.18482@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>
>Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>As Tom and I have discussed privately there is no radiation danger.
>
>If you just meant to say that there has been no measured radiation, then
>you are probably right -- I mean, if it doesn't effect the geiger counter,
>it probably won't effect the human body.
>
That is NOT what I meant.
 
>But if you meant that there are theoretical reasons to feel confident that
>there is no radiation danger -- then you aren't telling us all you know. :-)
>
That's true.  There is still plenty of danger and in a dirty enough set up
even the possibility of radiation.  But then I could be wrong.
 
>--
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / L BATTIN /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:13:12 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <1992Sep30.204514.12015@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H.
 Kunich) writes...
>In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
 writes:
>>
>>   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
>>      produces enough loose neutrons that you don't really need a trigger
>>      to get things going - you just need a critical mass (produced in
>>      1945 by firing a plug of U-235 through a ring of U-235 at the
>>      end of a howitzer piece). However, producing U-235 is the well known
>>      pain in the nether regions.
>
>Need I remind you that it took the Russians 4 years (!) to develop a
>fission bomb and that was with leaked information and all of their
>scientific force behind the project? Jeez, you'd think that all there
>is to making a bomb is saying it's easy.
 
Question: was this four years _after_ they had developed the ability to
enrich uranium in "sizeable" quantities?
 
If the four years includes the time it takes to produce enough fissionable
material for a bomb, then I don't see why this an indication of the difficulty
under question. (Bomb design, that is.)  Getting a good working enrichment
program going would certainly eat up some of that time.  (Assuming they
were using U235 and not Plutonium.  I imagine that getting Plutonium would
take even longer than that.)  (But I'm no expert, so Flame Away if you
are and my argument is full of it! :-) )
 
If the four years does _not_ include the time to get enrichment working
good enough, then it_does_ seem to be longer than you'd think it ought to
take to do something that seems to be so easy on the face of it.
 
Gene
Battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Latest Result
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Result
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:36:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Tom:
 
        I am enjoying your postings, and appreciate your careful work.  I and
probably others would appreciate a posting describing the calorimeter setup.
You may well have done this before, but if so I missed it.  What I have in
mind is not what is in the cell, but how the calorimeter itself works.  I
have the impression that you have a cooling circuit and a heater, but the
rest is vague.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:13:09 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
: In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
 (David Knapp) writes:
:
:
:    In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
:    >
:    >Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
:    >inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
:    >They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
:    >countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
:
:    Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
:    intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
:    amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
:
: Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
:
: There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
: and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
: design after some very smart people pondered the problem
: for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
: the essence of the problem can be pieced together by
: a _smart_ graduate student with a decent computer in
: 6-12 months, and a _good_ student should be able to
: solve the problem given the hints in unclassified literature,
: as opposed to fission bombs which are designable by an
: average physics grad.
 
So can we figure it out online?  Let's figure out what the subtlety
is, and how to solve it.
 
:
: *  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
: *  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
: *  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
: *  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
:
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Pathway Question
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 00:54:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
>
>D + D -> T + P + energy
 
I make the total energy to be about 3.84 Mev, with about 0.96 Mev's going
into the T and 2.88 Mev's going into the P.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / John Logajan /  Tongues hanging out
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tongues hanging out
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 00:58:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dick Forman  M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>Based upon information provided to me by another sucessful experimenter,
>I know the "next generation" experiments won't be on palladium.
 
Why must you torment us so??  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:00:30 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

First, the two statements below are in conflict because of a problem in
language usage.  It seems clear that the first person uses "make" in
the sense of "conceptual design" or perhaps in "engineering plans".
The second person is using "make" in the more normal sense of "build".
 
>In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
 (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
>>intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
>>amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
 
The *design* of a U-235 fission bomb was trivial.  A solution existed
before they ever got to Los Alamos, as Serber's Los Alamos Primer
makes clear.  (I hope to hear more about this and the summer of '42
in a few weeks at the DNP meeting.)  No tests were needed.
 
Plutonium proved more difficult, but the first test worked.
 
Fusion was difficult.  Very smart people had, history shows, some
very wrong ideas.  Now it is true that calculation showed them to
be wrong, but they proceeded with a (pointless) test anyway.  In
the meantime (after working on the problem for almost a decade),
a solution was found that worked on the first try.  This suggests
that it is more a matter of creative invention (where the invention
is not immediately obvious from one's experience) than engineering.
 
In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
>is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
>some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
>of commonly available hardware store components.
 
I think this must be referring to the very real problems of building
a fission bomb.  I think there was a story in Analog that parodied
the process.  The problem in the case of both weapons is assembling
the "special nuclear materials".  Not easily done unless your basement
is the size of the Hanford reservation.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.29 / Paul Houle /  Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: >Free-Energy Techs...
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:16:04 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <717712154.6@mailbox.bison.mb> Glenn.Berg@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Glenn
 Berg) writes:
 
>This was hardly "free" energy.  The energy was extracted from the motion of the
>satellite and shuttle NOT from the earth's magnetic field.  Getting the shuttle
>into its orbital motion was hardly "free".
 
	Yes,  but everybody I talked to,  except for a friend of mine who
wants to build rockets and my boss who does work with satellites seemed to
think that this experiment was really going to solve the energy crisis
or something.  I don't blame this at all on NASA's press coverage,  but
I do blame it on the fact that there are lots of people who are even going
to get degrees in physics who don't understand a damn thing about it.
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:37:16 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <1992Sep30.051747.26324@asl.dl.nec.com> I said:
 
> But I absolutely stand by the logic of [my TMC vs. CNF] argument.
> Nothing else fits...
 
Just it case:  Be it known that I really have no interest in inviting any
further discussion on Twist.  My emphasis in the above sentence is on the
absurdity of proposing nuclear mechanisms that leave no nuclear products.
If you find Twist absurd yet insist on dabbling with bizarre distortions
of established nuclear theory, then you need to think carefully about who
is really proposing weirder theories (farfetches, actually) than whom.
 
> And I remain as confident as I was two years ago (more so in fact) that
> there is genuinely some room for novel physics in my proposed mechanism
> of heavy-particle band solitons...
 
New physics, but not necessarily TMC!  The heavy-particle soliton is a
fascinating little problem (if somewhat obscure) that I would love to do
a real paper on someday, quite independent of whether there is anything
to palladium heat anomolies or not.  The prerequisite for really radical
new physics is massive, world-wide replication of a pointedly non-chemical,
non-nuclear heat production effect.  Haven't seen that yet, have you?
 
				Later gaters,
				Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:07:51 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
 writes:
>In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
 writes:
>> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
>> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
>> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
>> of commonly available hardware store components.
>
>I'm sure there are some on this newsgroup who know far more than I do on
>the subject, but they probably can't say anything. What I recall from the
>various unclassified sources I've read is:
>
>   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
 
The gun method is described in some detail in DoD publications.
 
>      However, producing U-235 is the well known pain in the nether regions.
 
Actually it is quite easy.  First, get all the silver from Fort Knox...
 
>   2) Building an implosion fission bomb of Pu-239 is supposedly a lot
>      harder. You need to produce the critical Pu-239 ...
 
That was said rather easily.  This is industrial process chemistry on
a truly heroic scale.  Don't forget you have to *machine* the Plutonium
into the right shapes ...
 
>      Getting enough loose neutrons at the same time is supposedly less
>      than trivial.
 
I think memory says Bethe solved this problem.  I recall an interview
where he said that he was most concerned when watching the test with
whether he had made any mistakes.  (Bethe rarely makes mistakes.)
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / M Williams /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mrw9e@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:22:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

I've been following this thread, and I'd like to recommend a couple of
books on the subject that I'm sure will be of interest.
 
"The Curve of Binding Energy" a biography of a fission bomb designer,
      Edward (?) Taylor. In it he gives helpful hints on how to build
      a bomb in your basement, including good places to steal the
      fissionables from, refinement techniques, and even a list of good
      targets. Taylor was apparently appalled by the lack of security
      regarding nuclear materials, so he had this book written to
      call attention to this fact.  A very thought-provoking book.
 
"The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" is a must-
      read for all of you nuclear terrorists out there. It deals with
      the mathematics behind detonating thermonuclear weapons, and it
      is quite engrossing. My favorite chapter was one called something
      like "On Detonating Thermonuclear Explosives of Arbitrary Size"
      and goes on to describe how you too can quite literally blow the
      atmosphere off of the planet with a suprisingly small weapon.
 
In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :mrw9e@virginia.edu|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
The probability of something happening is inversely proportional
to its desirability
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmrw9e cudfnMichael cudlnWilliams cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / John Logajan /  Radiation danger?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radiation danger?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:40:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>As Tom and I have discussed privately there is no radiation danger.
 
If you just meant to say that there has been no measured radiation, then
you are probably right -- I mean, if it doesn't effect the geiger counter,
it probably won't effect the human body.
 
But if you meant that there are theoretical reasons to feel confident that
there is no radiation danger -- then you aren't telling us all you know. :-)
 
--
- 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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / John Logajan /  Energy per atom, so far
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy per atom, so far
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:02:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Using Droege's Sept 29 data and anticipating another 5000 joules today gives:
 
 0.8eV per D2O/H2O atom
63.0eV per Pd
67.0eV per D loaded (0.94 loading)
 
--
- 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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Thomas Clarke /  Pathway Question
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pathway Question
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:14:07 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

Now that Tom Droege seems to be zeroing in, I am moved
to suggest a reaction pathway that I don't recall having been
discussed.  In my mathematician's ignorance of matters
nuclear, there are probably many reasons why it won't work,
but then cold fusion is impossible anyway.  Right?
 
Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
 
D + D -> T + P + energy
 
energy is less than fusion to helium by decay energy of tritium+
an electron mass, but should still be well positive.  The proton
and triton although, high energy, will be be rapidly stopped in
the Pd lattice and so produce no external radiation.  The T can
chemically hide in the aboundance of D, and its fairly low energy
decay may not have been noticed.  T probably contaminates everthing
anyway.
 
This suggests looking for an excess of T in the cell products.
Perhaps the discussion about the Pd absorbing a neutron suggests
a mechanism whereby some sort of neutron-Pd resonance can mediate
the 2D to T+P fusion.
 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Pathway Question
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:37:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep30.201407.23663@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
 Clarke) writes:
 
> Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
>
> D + D -> T + P + energy
>
> energy is less than fusion to helium by decay energy of tritium+
> an electron mass, but should still be well positive.  The proton
> and triton although, high energy, will be be rapidly stopped in
> the Pd lattice and so produce no external radiation.
 
This last statement is not true.  The tritium will sometimes undergo
secondary reactions with deuterium before slowing down, each reaction
producing one 14 MeV neutron.  If I recall correctly, about 2 x 10^-5
neutrons get produced per tritium nucleus.  This would be easily
detectable.
 
This is all well known.  See Huizenga's book, for example.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:45:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
 writes:
>
>   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
>      produces enough loose neutrons that you don't really need a trigger
>      to get things going - you just need a critical mass (produced in
>      1945 by firing a plug of U-235 through a ring of U-235 at the
>      end of a howitzer piece). However, producing U-235 is the well known
>      pain in the nether regions.
 
Need I remind you that it took the Russians 4 years (!) to develop a
fission bomb and that was with leaked information and all of their
scientific force behind the project? Jeez, you'd think that all there
is to making a bomb is saying it's easy.
>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / T Neustaedter /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:01:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
> of commonly available hardware store components.
 
I'm sure there are some on this newsgroup who know far more than I do on
the subject, but they probably can't say anything. What I recall from the
various unclassified sources I've read is:
 
   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
      produces enough loose neutrons that you don't really need a trigger
      to get things going - you just need a critical mass (produced in
      1945 by firing a plug of U-235 through a ring of U-235 at the
      end of a howitzer piece). However, producing U-235 is the well known
      pain in the nether regions.
 
   2) Building an implosion fission bomb of Pu-239 is supposedly a lot
      harder. You need to produce the critical Pu-239 and at the same time
      have a source of loose neutrons. Unclassified reports indicate that
      this trigger is produced by using an alpha source on beryllium foil.
      Imploding the Pu-239 (increasing the density to produce criticality)
      is certainly an exacting process, which involves a lot of knowledge
      of explosives and ability to simulate shock waves through various
      chemicals in 3D. Or the resources to experiment repetitively on
      metals of density similar to Pu-239 while x-raying the results.
 
      Getting enough loose neutrons at the same time is supposedly less
      than trivial.
 
   3) Producing a fusion bomb requires solving the above problems PLUS
      figuring out how to contain a mass of fusible (?) isotopes at
      megakelvins long enough to generate more energy than you put into
      it. Said isotopes may be 2D, 3T, 6Li, 7Li or others, depending on
      who you believe. A design which handles this correctly is unlikely
      to be produced ab-initio. A certain amount of trial and error is
      apt to be necessary.
 
      If the "secret" is reportedly out, you can believe as much of it
      as you want. The DOE has been known to occasionally supply some
      disinformation - and I find it interesting that these revelations
      come at the very time we're worried that Iran may be looking into
      such research. (Trust me; you don't need to have the revolutionary
      guards do their own design, just do it this way . . .)
 
      Information on the above falls into three categories:
        1) You take it on faith. (e.g., this article)
        2) You've tried it. (I don't know you, I never met you, and I
           didn't know you were a communist, white supremacist and
           also a pedophile).
        3) You've worked with enough related subjects that you don't need
           to try it. In which case your security clearance prevents you
           from talking.
 
By the way, if you decide to try it, and happen to buy some of your equipment
from overseas, remember to get your Federal Firearms License and import permit
for items on the U.S. Munitions Import List - Category XVI, Nuclear Weapons
Design and Test Equipment. (I'm not kidding; see U.S.C. title 27, part 47,
subpart C, section 21. Or ask the Department of State for 22 CFR 121.1).
 
Oh, and let me know first. I want to be scarce when the BATF, DOE, SS, FBI,
and CIA all decide to start asking questions.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Mr band /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: dschleef@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Mr Zeppelin and his band)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:50:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
 writes:
> (deleted)
>      to be produced ab-initio. A certain amount of trial and error is
>      apt to be necessary.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
To any prospective bomob builders:
 
Please note that trial and error is not an option.  Trials are certainly
detectable by the major countries of the world, (namely the US, who would
be certain to follow it up...) and errors would certainly not be well
recieved, especially in a major metropolitan area.  Sucesses, I might
add, would not be well recieved, either...
 
dave.
 
David Schleef
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendschleef cudfnMr cudlnband cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:17:47 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <168717CF2.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org> M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
> In article <1992Sep29.061935.18534@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>
> | Hee hee ho ho.  Wagers, anyone?  How long until an article comes out in
> | which the concept of "total mass conversion" is clearly and understandably
> | applied to such experiments?  Any REALLY brave reporters out there?
>
> Dick Forman says: Wagers huh---Put your money where your mouth is.  Define
> the bet and suggest your bet size... AND YOU ARE SO SURE IN YOUR ANALYSIS...
> stop cluttering the thread... PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
 
(golly, if I'd known ya'll missed me so badly I would have dropped back
by earlier!)
 
Er, I hate to be a spoilsport, but the wager in question was simply whether
some reporter would be brave enough to broach the idea of TMC in a highly
public medium.  Net-conscious reporters are clearly aware of the discussion
a couple of months ago on the Rothwell/Menlove et al TMC theory, so I figure
that sooner or later someone will dare to mention it in something like the
Wall Street Journal.  I'll wager a figurative plugged nickel on 1-to-1 odds,
but that's about it.  I don't make a hobby of trying to predict the press.
 
Did you think I was the only one who has ever proposed a TMC mechanism?
Nope.  I was just the FIRST one to do it, and I assure you I received my
share of flames for having had such audacity.  But I absolutely stand by
the logic of that argument.  Nothing else fits.  And I remain as confident
as I was two years ago (more so in fact) that there is genuinely some room
for novel physics in my proposed mechanism of heavy-particle band solitons,
which by a rather bizarre coincidence appear to be most likely to exist in
Pd(Hx,Dy) media.  Heavy particle (H,D) banding in transition metal crystal
lattices was not identified as a real phenomenon until about a year after
I sent out Twist, so who knows?  I must have been doing *something* right.
 
Anywho, why not lighten up a bit?  Twist cost me months of intensive study
in some very obsure topics of solid state and quantum physics.  Are you
going to whack me for making the perplexing results of that analysis freely
available to anyone who might find them interesting?
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:07:45 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Johan Wevers /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:26:03 GMT

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
 
>3) You've worked with enough related subjects that you don't need
>   to try it. In which case your security clearance prevents you
>   from talking.
 
This is maybe not quite true: there are stories that Lybia and Iran are
offering much money ($20000/month) to Russian nuclear engeneers.
--
**********************************************************
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    *
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   *
**********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjohan cudfnJohan cudlnWevers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:36:30 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter. Since I receive my
termination notice from MITRE tomorrow, and will lose access to Internet
on 30 October 1992 (the last day I will have an office at MITRE), or possibly
earlier (they might need my PC for someone else), I cannot be the moderator.
I nominate Dieter Britz who is ideal for this job. His time shift from the US
provides perfect timing. He has moderated the previous days' stuff by the time
those of in the US get up. He reads it all anyway. He knows the wheat from the
chaff.
Besides, I think I still owe him one (in the argot of my country) for the way h
e handled my published work from Fusion Facts.
DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO SET UP A NEW NEWSGROUP????
Dick Forman.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
Internet address good until 30 October 1992.
After 30 October 1992 by MCIMAIL to Dick Forman, Maryland, USA
If I find a new job with INTERNET access I will update above addresses.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenM21742 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed MODERATED newsgroup
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:05:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dick Forman M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>I would like to propose a new Internet newsgroup: sci.nuclear.energy
>The newsgroup would be moderated to delete the clutter.
 
By most measures, this is a low clutter newsgroup already, and would
be a low clutter e-mail group.  My guess is that what you want is
pretty specialized and would be most efficiently served by an e-mail
reflector.
 
--
- 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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:02:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
: Plutonium proved more difficult, but the first test worked.
:
: Fusion was difficult.  Very smart people had, history shows, some
: very wrong ideas.  Now it is true that calculation showed them to
: be wrong, but they proceeded with a (pointless) test anyway.  In
: the meantime (after working on the problem for almost a decade),
: a solution was found that worked on the first try.  This suggests
: that it is more a matter of creative invention (where the invention
: is not immediately obvious from one's experience) than engineering.
 
All the documents that I've seen say that there was in fact a
"new insight" into the design of an H-Bomb between say 1950 and 1954.
 
Remember, there was an original thermonuclear bomb exploded in something
like 1951, and nothing else for a few years more.
 
Here's a few comments from an article Bethe wrote in 1954, but which
wasn't declassified until 82.
 
"The H-bomb was suggested by teller in 1942.  Active work on it was pursed
in the summer of 1942 by Oppenheimer, Teller, myself and others...."
 
"Teller, working on the H-bomb at Los Alamos discovered a major difficulty.
This discovery made it clear that it would be a very hard problem to
make a 'classical super work' as this type of H-bomb was called.  I shall
refer to the classical super as Method A."
 
.
 
"Two new methods of designing a thermonuclear weapon were invented (Methods
B and C).  Both inventions were due to Teller.  Method B was invented
in 1946, Method C in 1947....  However at the time, there seemed to
be no way of putting Method B into practice.  Teller himself wrote
a most pessimistic report on the feasibility of this method.
 
Method C is different from all the others in that themonuclear reactions
are used in only a minor way, for weapons of relatively small yield.
This method seemed quite primising from the start, and as early as
the summer of 1948 it was added to the devices to be tested in the
Greenhouse tests."  {This is simply the adding of fusion materials
to the core of an implosion fusion weapon as a booster to make more neutrons.}
 
"Theoretical work on the classical super, Method A, proceeded continually,
since this method was considered the most important of all thermonuclear
devices."  {Goes on to say how the calculations were very difficult
and they didn't have good enough computers}.
 
"To accomplish Method A, two major problems had to be solved which I shall
call Part 1 and Part 2.  Part 1 seemed to be reasonably well in hand
according to calculations by Teller's group from 1944 to 1946 although
nobody had been able to perform a really convicing calculation, as
discussed in the paragraph above.  Teller now believed he had a solution for
Part 2."
 
.
 
The major feature of the year 1950, was however, the discover that Part 1
of Method A was by no means under control.  While Teller and
most the LANL were busy preparing the Greenhouse test, a number of
persons in the theoretical division had continued to consider the various
problems posed by Part 1.  In particular, Dr. Ulam on his own initiative
had decided to check the feasibilty of aspects of Part 1 without the
aid of high speed computing euqipment.  He and Dr Everett who assisted
him soon found that the calculations of Teller's group of 1946 were wrong.
Ulam's calculations showed that an extraordinarily large amount of
tritium would be necessary... In the summer of 1950 further calculations
by Ulam and Fermi showed further difficulties with part 1."
 
.
 
"Between January and May 1951, the 'new concept was devveloped'."
 
"On March 9, 1951...Teller and Ulam published a paper which contained one-half
of the new concept.  Ulam, by the way, made his discovery while studying
some aspects of fission weapons.  This shows once more how the
important ideas may not come from a straightfoward attack on the
main problem."
 
"Within a month, the very important second half occured to Teller...This
immediately became the main focus of attention of the thermonuclear
design program."
 
{Here's where it gets good}
 
"It is difficult to describe to a non-scientist the novelty of the new
concept.  I was entirely unexpected from the previous development.
It was also not anticipated by Teller, as witness his despair immediately
preceeding the new concept.  ....  The new concept was to me, who
had been rather closely associated with the program, about as surprising
as the discovery of fission had been to physicists in 1939.  Before 1939
scientists had a vague idea that it might be possible to release
nuclear energy but nobody could even thing remotely of a way to do it.
If physicists had tried to discover a way to release nuclear energy before
1939, they would have worked on anything else rather than the field which
finally led to the discovery of fission, namely radio chemistry.  At that
time, concentrated work on any 'likely' way of releasing nuclear energy
would have led nowhere.  Similarly concentrated work on method A would
have never led to method D.  The Greenhouse test had a vague connection with
method D but one that nobody, including Teller, could have forseen or
did forsee when that test was planned ....  .. The scientists who had
shown good judgement concerning the technical feasibility of method A
were now suddenly proved wrong, whereas Teller, who had been wrong in
interpreting his own calculations was suddenly right."
 
: I think this must be referring to the very real problems of building
: a fission bomb.  I think there was a story in Analog that parodied
: the process.  The problem in the case of both weapons is assembling
: the "special nuclear materials".  Not easily done unless your basement
: is the size of the Hanford reservation.
 
 
Apparently there is more than that to fusion bombs.
 
 
So, who else besides the U.S. has fusion bombs, and how do *theirs* work?
 
:
: --
: J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
: jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of
 promises
: Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of
 challenges."
: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Little Old Ladies and Spontaneous Combustion (was Various Replies)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Little Old Ladies and Spontaneous Combustion (was Various Replies)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:29:50 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <29SEP199216232111@cc.utah.edu> jsb9718@cc.utah.edu (Jeff Bennion)
 writes:
>Messrs Droege, Britz, and Biesel:  I laughed very hard at your spurious and
>hilarious elucidations on link between calcium, LOL's, and Spontaneous
>Combustion.
 
The 12th September issue of the New Scientist contains a review of the
book "Spontaneous Human Combustion". I chuckled when I read that one
theory considered was, da da!!!!!!, BALL LIGHTNING.  I quote "... what if
a small example of ball lightning could form inside a human being? Could
it discharge its energy over time, generating tremendous heat?"
 
What a way to go!
 
Dick Jackson (and congratulations to Tom Droege )
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 /  /  Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:52:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Deac Moo writes:
 
"It's only a verifiable experiment if he can do it all over again  :)..."
 
Not quite so.  I have spent the last couple of days reading old log books.  It
is a strange sort of self torture.  It seems that only irrelevant things are
written in log books, the really important things are always left out.  But
then I have almost everything on all those disks.  But I warn anyone who
wants to help out by writing a data viewing program that it is a big job.
Actually two big jobs as there is the old calorimeter data format and the new
format.
 
The very first D2O run done in July 89 looks just like the present run.  Many,
many runs in between are the same.  But I have been determined not to publish
a really positive result until I was quite sure of my calibration.  I am now.
 
I quote from our ACCF1 (Utah Proceedings - March 1990) paper:
 
"We find the evidence for "anomalous heat" to be persuasive but not absolutely
convincing.  We have presented data that we believe to be representative.
Still there are enough calibration runs which show too much heat and D2O runs
which show little or not heat that the whole process could be noise."
 
This is the quote that Huizinga liked so much that he included it three times
in his book.
 
So Deak Moo, I have done it over, and over, and over.  What was 3 sigma in
1989 is 100 sigma now.  I must say that there are still lingering doubts.  But
only a fool is sure of anything.  And that is certain!
 
Does anyone want to speculate on the chance for getting funding to investigate
spontaneous combustion of LOL vs getting funding for "anomalous heat"
research?
 
To John Logajan.  This run was made with the cell of the previous Takahashi
style run.  It was cleaned with a succession of HCl, Joy, H2SO4, Cheap Shampoo
(no perfume), and finally many changes of distilled water (from supermarket -
but finally last week I got my hands on some good water courtesy of Nalco
Corp.).  It was then dried out over night under a heat lamp.  The cathode was
new, and was cut from an Engelhard bar with a final finish with a surface
grinder.  This run was started by loading the cell with the D2O/H2O mix, then
immediately (5 min) putting it into the calorimeter at a commanded zero
current (+/- 0.5 ma).  It was held there about 10 hours while a calibration
was taken, then we went to the charging current of about 32 ma per sq cm.
 
I am pretty careful about putting the source in and out.  If I bump into
anything it is foam.  But I do worry about the cat purring.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: Pathway Question
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:09:28 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Sep30.201407.23663@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
 Clarke) writes:
>Now that Tom Droege seems to be zeroing in, I am moved
>to suggest a reaction pathway that I don't recall having been
>discussed.  In my mathematician's ignorance of matters
>nuclear, there are probably many reasons why it won't work,
 
To the contrary, this pathway is one of the two (nearly equal) dominant
pathways for d+d fusion and was actually the first thing that two of us
at FSU considered when discussing what should be done after the FP&H
announcement many moons ago.
 
>Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
>
>D + D -> T + P + energy
>
>energy is less than fusion to helium by decay energy of tritium+
>an electron mass, but should still be well positive.  The proton
 
It is positive.  Several MeV of kinetic energy are carried away
by each of the final products, with the lighter proton carrying
the most by virtue of momentum conservation.
 
>and triton although, high energy, will be be rapidly stopped in
>the Pd lattice and so produce no external radiation.  The T can
 
To the contrary, stopping of a few MeV triton or proton causes the
ionization of the atoms they interact with, and these ionized
species will emit X-rays.  The ~ 3 MeV proton is, in fact, just
about right for PIXE (Proton Induced X-ray Emission, a common
method for identification of what elements might be in a sample)
on materials like Palladium.  Copious X-rays (in proportion to
the protons and hence to the heat released) are expected.
 
An experiment based on this work was done here at FSU by a
collaboration of electrochemists, nuclear physicists, and
atomic physicists.  They saw nothing.  [see Phys. Rev. C 40,
1851(R) (1989).]  Interesting side note: it is not very common
for an electrochemist to be first author on a paper in the
Physical Review C!
 
>chemically hide in the aboundance of D, and its fairly low energy
>decay may not have been noticed.  T probably contaminates everthing
>anyway.
>
>This suggests looking for an excess of T in the cell products.
>Perhaps the discussion about the Pd absorbing a neutron suggests
>a mechanism whereby some sort of neutron-Pd resonance can mediate
>the 2D to T+P fusion.
 
The sensitivity of nuclear detection methods is many *many* powers
of 10 better than the best chemical, or even mass-spectrometer,
methods of detecting the "ash" from a reaction.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:04:56
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <1adca5INNllh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
 
   steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   : In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
 knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
 
   :    In article <1a7e6qINN4rj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
 
   :    >Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
   :    >inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
   :    >They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
   :    >countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
   :
   :    Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that
 difficult,
   :    intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
   :    amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
   :
   : Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
   :
   : There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
   : and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
   : design after some very smart people pondered the problem
   : for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
   : the essence of the problem can be pieced together by
   : a _smart_ graduate student with a decent computer in
   : 6-12 months, and a _good_ student should be able to
   : solve the problem given the hints in unclassified literature,
   : as opposed to fission bombs which are designable by an
   : average physics grad.
 
   So can we figure it out online?  Let's figure out what the subtlety
   is, and how to solve it.
 
Let's not!
 
|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.09.30 / Paul Houle /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:00:52 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Sep30.162217.11910@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 mrw9e@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams) writes:
>I've been following this thread, and I'd like to recommend a couple of
>books on the subject that I'm sure will be of interest.
>
>"The Curve of Binding Energy" a biography of a fission bomb designer,
>      Edward (?) Taylor. In it he gives helpful hints on how to build
>      a bomb in your basement, including good places to steal the
>      fissionables from, refinement techniques, and even a list of good
>      targets. Taylor was apparently appalled by the lack of security
>      regarding nuclear materials, so he had this book written to
>      call attention to this fact.  A very thought-provoking book.
 
	The author of this is John McPhee and like all of his books this is
really a good read.
 
>"The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" is a must-
>      read for all of you nuclear terrorists out there. It deals with
>      the mathematics behind detonating thermonuclear weapons, and it
>      is quite engrossing. My favorite chapter was one called something
>      like "On Detonating Thermonuclear Explosives of Arbitrary Size"
>      and goes on to describe how you too can quite literally blow the
>      atmosphere off of the planet with a suprisingly small weapon.
 
	This sounds interesting.  Do you have an author/publisher/etc on
it?
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Tongues hanging out
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tongues hanging out
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:03:35 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct1.005856.20816@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>
>Dick Forman  M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>Based upon information provided to me by another sucessful experimenter,
>>I know the "next generation" experiments won't be on palladium.
>Why must you torment us so??  :-)
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Dick Forman hints: I think I out someting on the net back in June that this
experimentalist would like to see and understand in detail.
Also: THIS IS NOT AN ARCHIVAL JOURNAL
      I COULD NOT "PUBLISH" HERE SOMEONES EXPERIMENTAL RESULT.
BUT; If you got Lotus Magellan, copied the entire Cornell archive onto your
hard disk, and read all my postings from that era. You would be very far along.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:45:50 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <BvF2Ks.2pD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
 writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.204514.12015@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H.
 Kunich) writes...
>>In article <6867@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
 writes:
>>>
>>>   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
>>>      ....
>>
>>Need I remind you that it took the Russians 4 years (!) to develop a
>>fission bomb and that was with leaked information and all of their
>>scientific force behind the project? Jeez, you'd think that all there
>>is to making a bomb is saying it's easy.
>
>Question: was this four years _after_ they had developed the ability to
>enrich uranium in "sizeable" quantities?
 
The Soviets exploded a fission device about 4 years after we did.  (This
made Szilard's estimate of 'within 5 years' famous and shocked those who
thought the Soviets would be 5-years-awar for decades to come.)  That is,
about 4 years after learning that it was feasible, they designed, acquired
the materials, constructed, and detonated the weapon.  It took the US,
with all of its scientific force that wasn't working on radar or codes,
less than 3 years *without* knowing that a Plutonium bomb was doable.
The difference was probably (1) we were richer and (2) we had not been
affected by the war.
 
I would guess that a large part of that time was spend building their
plutonium production plant and getting it into full production.  (I doubt
they put any resources in a U-235 bomb since it must have been as obvious
to them as to us that they could not be made in large quantities.)
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 /  Rothwell /  Who is who
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who is who
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:31:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
There has been some confusion about people's names and theories, and about the
theory referenced by Jerry Bishop in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 28. Terry
Bollinger writes:
 
"...the wager in question was simply whether some reporter would be brave
enough to broach the idea of TMC in a highly public medium.  Net-conscious
reporters are clearly aware of the discussion a couple of months ago on the
Rothwell/Menlove et al TMC theory, so I figure that sooner or later someone
will dare to mention it in something like the Wall Street Journal."
 
I believe that refers to the Brightsen NCM (nuclear clustron model, not
theory), which was presented Rothwell and Mallove, not Menlove. Eugene Mallove
is with Clustron Sciences Corporation. Howard Menlove is Los Alamos National
Lab.
 
The WSJ article says that Peter Hagelstein of M.I.T. "said the mysterious
phenomenon producing the excess power in the experiments 'probably is not
fusion.'" Hagelstein does not believe that CF is caused by total annihilation,
or antimatter; he thinks CF is a neutron transfer reaction.
 
I believe it is fair to say that there has been a general consensus among all
CF researchers for a very long time that CF is not fusion. Nobody knows what it
is, but it is definitely not the kind of reaction that occurs in the sun,
because it does not generate a large neutron flux. On the other hand, it is
definitely a nuclear reaction of some sort because it generates massive heat,
neutrons, tritium and helium 4 in quantities that are far, far above the
minimum threshold of detectibility. A reaction that generates these products,
in *any* amounts, is nuclear by definition. The argument that the products are
not "commensurate" is specious nonsense. Any confirmed amount of product is
proof of a nuclear reaction, the fact that it is not "commensurate" with know
reactions simply proves that CF has not been seen before, and cannot be
accounted for by conventional theory.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 /  /  How it works
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How it works
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:31:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I note that Dieter Britz has to periodically put up a note on how to get stuff
from his bibliography.  Since the followers of this group change, this will
answer several current questions about how my machine works.
 
The calorimeter is a true null balance device, like a Wheatstome bridge.  As
far as I know, the only thing like it for heat.  I consciously did not patent
it, and the designs are published in ACCF1 and ICCF2 proceedings, so I believe
the design concept to be in the public domain for all to use.  I am not an
altruist, I just did not see a market.
 
A two liter dewar is fitted with a large puck shaped plug of aluminum in its
mouth.  The idea is that any heat coming out of the dewar must pass through
the puck and so develop a uniform gradient.  The puck is connected to a copper
plate by two arrays of thermoelectric devices (TED).  One array (378
junctions) operates in the Peltier (current through a junction moves heat from
one junction to the other) mode and is driven by a constant current source.
The second array (93 junctions) operates in the Seabeck (temperature
difference produces a voltage) mode and measures the temperature difference
between the puck and the plate.  A third very large set (762 junctions)
operates in the Peltier mode and is servoed to control the temperature of the
plate.  One face of this set contacts the plate, and the other face contacts a
water cooled base plate.  We use multiple devices in a symmetrical arrangement
for each of these sets to assure a uniform distribution of the thermal
gradients.
 
Several different sized TED are used.  The large ones are about an inch square
and an tenth inch thick.  They contain 63 junction pairs.  They are made from
Bismuth Telluride semiconductor like material.  The crystalline chunks of
material are soldered between two ceramic plates so that the junction pairs
are electrically in series but in thermal parallel.  One amp and 10 volts will
pump about 30 watts between the two faces if they are at the same temperature.
One of these junction pairs puts out about three times the voltage of one of
the better thermocouple combinations.  So one of the big devices is a
wonderful device to measure the temperature difference between two flat
plates.  This is the "DD" that I sent Jed Rothwell.  From memory, I think
about 15 millivolts per degree C temperature difference for the 63 junction
pair device, and it goes right through zero - to no more than a microvolt - so
such a device can measure a temperature difference of 1/15000 degree C with
microvolt stability electronics.  It is also very low impedance and thus low
noise.
 
The way we operate the calorimeter is to drive the large set between the puck
and the plate with a constant current source.  This driver uses temperature
controlled shunts and temperature controlled electronics to assure that it is
constant.  We estimate it is good to at least 1 part in 100,000.  We do not
have anything good enough to (Only a 6 digit Keithley microvoltmeter/ammeter)
say for sure.  We then drive the big set between the plate and the water
cooled base to hold the temperature between the puck and the plate to zero as
measured by the small puck-plate set.  A third servo drives a heater inside
the dewar to hold whatever temperature is set for the experiment.  Under these
conditions, the puck - plate set is driven at constant current.  The puck and
the plate are at the same temperature - we successfully hold to a millidegree
rms with an operating (and thus noise producing) experiment.  The puck and the
plate are at constant temperature.  We claim, and have many calibration
experiments to prove it, that under these conditions the puck plate set
removes a constant amount of heat from the calorimeter.  At the present
operating point this is 10.151 watts.
 
Because of the large radiation losses from the dewar (in school I was taught
that you never had to consider the radiation losses from a dewar as other
losses were much higher), it is covered with 1 1/2" of foam, then an aluminum
shell then 1 1/2" more of foam.  The shell is connected to another set of
TED which are air cooled and which hold the shell to the same temperature as
the inside of the dewar.  This "large" radiation loss is of order 0.010 watts
per degree C.  So it is well worth operating this servo in this experiment.
 
Leads going into the calorimeter are brought through the puck plate interface.
They pass through a long copper tube connected to the plate, and so any heat
that they carry is given up to the plate, which is servo driven and can thus
stand the heat load.  Their potential is measured as they pas through the puck
plate interface.  This makes sure that lead loss inside the calorimeter is
included in the energy computation correctly.  It does make a difference.  We
compute a voltage current product for each lead going into the calorimeter and
add up the powers in a Kirchoff sense.  Every lead has a shunt on it which
makes a redundant current measurement.  We can thus add up all the currents
and demand that they sum to zero.  We worry a lot that we sample the voltages
and currents correctly.  In general, we sample much more often than the
bandwith of the measured variable.
 
We measure "anomalous heat" when the E*I products of the calorimeter leads
add up to less than the refrigerator constant determined by experiment.
 
The calorimeter has an internal thermal capacity of 2500 joules per degree C.
It can thus soak up a large thermal transient without error.  We could stand
a 25,000 joule pulse.  The largest seen so far is about 300 joules.  The
inside of the calorimeter simply gets hotter, and the plate and the shell
servo follow to hold radiation losses to zero.  Gradually the heater servo
backs off and the value of a heat impulse can be measured by the integral of
the reduced heater power input over time.
 
We always operate with a closed system and so do not have to be concerned
about the electrolyte "boiling away".  There is a catalyst in the cell.  Any
net gas unbalance is measured by a servo driven syringe which holds the cell
pressure to ambient with great accuracy - usually less than 0.1" H2O.
 
There is more information in the two "cold Fusion " proceedings papers.  I
have a longer version of the second paper for real fans.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Lorenzo Sadun /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: sadun@quack.ma.utexas.edu (Lorenzo Sadun)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:14:09 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
>In article <1adca5INNllh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
 
 
>   : Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
>   :
>   : There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
>   : and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
>   : design after some very smart people pondered the problem
>   : for 10 years
 
This isn't credible.  The first fission bomb was in 1945, and the
first fusion bomb was less than 10 years later (1953, I think).
Moreover, the US didn't seriously try to develop a fusion bomb until
the late 40s, when the Cold War was in full force, and when it became
likely that the Russians would soon have a fission bomb.
 
In short, the design process was relatively quick (and the parallel Soviet
effort was even quicker, taking only a couple of years to go from A-bomb
to H-bomb).   Waiting for Ulam's breakthrough (whatever
it was) may have held things up for a couple of years, but nowhere
near 10.
 
Lorenzo Sadun
sadun@math.utexas.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensadun cudfnLorenzo cudlnSadun cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 /  /  Reply on cell configuration
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply on cell configuration
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:21:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thomas Kunich writes:
 
"I don't understand the "catalyst gets cold" part Tom.  Could you clear
that part up?"
 
I have a number of "events" that I puzzle over.  I would love to be able to
share them, but they usually involve several curves.  This media needs a good
(simple) graphical expression mechanism.
 
The cell is a 100 ml centrifuge tube.  It has a teflon plug in the top which
supports a 8 mm glass tube.  The end of the tube down in the cell holds a
teflon structure which supports the anode windings.  The cathode plate slides
in a groove between the anode supports.  The bottom of the glass tube is below
the electrolyte surface and has a thermometer (AD-590) located there.  The
tube is  then filled with chunks of foam, till there is another thermometer
where the tube is in gas in the vicinity of the catalyst.  The catalyst is in
a polypropylene mesh bag, wedged in the top of the cell tube.  A gas vent is
brought out to a motor driven syringe which holds constant pressure.  Thus any
changes in the gas volume indicate either that some gas has been produced (as
when some disassociated D is absorbed by the Pd leaving behind oxygen) or that
the gas volume has become hotter.
 
At the present 800 ma, the catalyst thermometer reads approximately 50 C.  The
cell temperature runs 30 C, and the calorimeter puck (see the calorimeter
posting made today) is set at 24 C.
 
Now to the puzzle presented which caused the question about the cell
configuration.  How can the cell get hotter and the catalyst get colder with
no change in the gas volume?  There was no change in the cell E*I product.  So
that is not the cause.  There was also an apparent release of energy.
 
I have lots more of these puzzles.  Sometimes after a while I generate an
explanation.  It usually leads to an insight into the system operation.  I
would really like to share these events.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / A Boulanger /  Re: Replies
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Replies
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:15:20
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <920930125146.2160067e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
 
   I am pretty careful about putting the source in and out.  If I bump into
   anything it is foam.  But I do worry about the cat purring.
 
Or perhaps you should be worried about it *not* purring? Is your cat
like the bird in the mine?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / John Cobb /  Re: Cryogenic fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cryogenic fusion
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:26:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992Sep25.153551.3393@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
cse_stu@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
|>Does anyone know if there is any research being do in the area of cyrogenic
|>fusion?
 
 
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "cyrogenic fusion". However,
I am familiar with some work that could fit that category. However, I
usually hear it referred to as a "Dense Z Pinch".
 
Z Pinches have been known for a long time. However they are unstable on
MHD time scales (very rapid). The idea in the Dense Z pinch is to freeze
some deuterium ice and rapidly extrude it into a experimental chamber. Then
is a pulsed power supply to cram huge currents down the fiber and almost
instantly create a Z-pinch. Since it starts out as ice the density is
really high, so there is hope to reach Lawson's Criterion before the
instability kills you.
 
As I remember, the big center for doing this work was Los Alamos. The
name Shlacter comes to mind. I think there was a recent AIP conference
on the subject. If your local library has a full set you might run
through the titles for the last 3 years and see.
 
Oh yea, I just put my hands on a set of abstracts. Jack Shlacter gave a
talk at the U.S.-Japan Workshop on Nuclear Fusion in Dense Plasmas held
here at Texas in October of Last year. I don't know if proceedings were
published (will be published?).
 
Here are some notes from Shlachter's abstract: The work has been going
on for 6 years. Simple Linear Z pinch fibers are extruded across 5 cm
anode-cathode gap. Current = 1 Mega-Amp with a 100 nano-second rise
time. Total stored energy is 200 kJ in a MArx bank generator. Result:
column expands rapidly in first 10 ns due to m=0 sausage instabilities.
Neutron Yield is lower than expected. Only 1e9 - 1e10 neutrons per pulse.*
Points to reduced density.
 
 
I don't know where the work is going from here. I don't evene know if
LANL is still working on it. Anybody out there know anthing more?
 
 
* Eat you heart out CF-fellas.
 
john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:17:28
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <sadun.717966849@quack.ma.utexas.edu> sadun@quack.ma.utexas.edu
 (Lorenzo Sadun) writes:
 
   steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
   >In article <1adca5INNllh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt
 Kennel) writes:
 
 
   >   : Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
   >   :
   >   : There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
   >   : and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
   >   : design after some very smart people pondered the problem
   >   : for 10 years
 
   This isn't credible.  The first fission bomb was in 1945, and the
   first fusion bomb was less than 10 years later (1953, I think).
   Moreover, the US didn't seriously try to develop a fusion bomb until
   the late 40s, when the Cold War was in full force, and when it became
   likely that the Russians would soon have a fission bomb.
 
   In short, the design process was relatively quick (and the parallel Soviet
   effort was even quicker, taking only a couple of years to go from A-bomb
   to H-bomb).   Waiting for Ulam's breakthrough (whatever
   it was) may have held things up for a couple of years, but nowhere
   near 10.
 
Read Ulam's autobiography, the design details and process are still
classified but theory was being done on small scale in the early 40's,
it is true that full scale development only started in the 50's but
it seems clear from comments made by people who were there that
there was no workable design until Ulam made a conceptual
breakthrough, I don't know if the Soviets made the same breakthrough
independently, they had a couple of very good people working on it,
or if they "borrowed" the design. Moot point, no one here discussing
the issue _knows_ one way or the other.
 
*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  /  Gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:08:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to all who offered suggestions for making a geladinous amphoteric
aluminum layer.
 
I don't always get around to answering each message.  It does not mean that
they are not appreciated.  Sometimes the pile just gets too high.
 
Looks like we are up over 50 killojoules.  For a frantic day I thought I had
found a big error in the heat computation.  The shell servo got hung and I
did not notice it immediately.  So there are two days where the heat was
over reported.  Looks like a total of 4 killojoules or so.
 
So the two largest power days have to be reduced.  When this is done there is
a steady upward trend in the net heat.
 
There was a large heat pulse last night.  Over 200 mw for over a minute.
About 23 joules total.  It was a clear sudden increase with an exponential
decay.  Have about 20 measurement on the curve.  We do not see these with
a resistor in the cell or with H2O (but not much data) or with D2O running
backwards!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  /  Explanation
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Explanation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:09:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I actually have an explanation for the cell gets hot and the catalyst gets
cold with no change in gas volume.  But the electrochemists won't like it
as it is not supposed to happen.  Besides there is the problem of the net
heat gain.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Who is who
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who is who
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:45:20 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

Hi ya'll,
 
In article <921001170759_72240.1256_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> There has been some confusion about people's names and theories, and
> about the theory referenced by Jerry Bishop in the Wall Street Journal
> on Sept. 28.  Terry Bollinger writes:
>
> | "...the wager in question was simply whether some reporter would be
> | brave enough to broach the idea of TMC in a highly public medium.
> | Net-conscious reporters are clearly aware of the discussion a couple
> | of months ago on the Rothwell/Menlove et al TMC theory...
>                                 ^^^^^^^
> I believe that refers to the Brightsen NCM (nuclear clustron model, not
> theory), which was presented Rothwell and Mallove, not Menlove.
 
OWWWWCH!  My sincere apologies to both parties.  I knew this quite well,
having communicated will Bill Johnson enough to know darned well that
Menlove and Mallove are most certainly not the same people.  Thanks for
the correction.
 
> ...Hagelstein does not believe that CF is caused by total annihilation,
> or antimatter; he thinks CF is a neutron transfer reaction.
 
More power to him.  It doesn't work.  (Yes, I'm being arrogant again...)
 
> The argument that the products are not "commensurate" is specious nonsense.
> Any confirmed amount of product is proof of a nuclear reaction, the fact
> that it is not "commensurate" with know reactions simply proves that CF
> has not been seen before, and cannot be accounted for by conventional
> theory.
 
Wow, that's interesting logic.  An analogy:  I discover a form of fire that
burns in a vacuum.  But very, very, VERY careful examination shows that my
new form of fire does in fact manage to catch a very small number of oxygen
and hydrogen atoms from the imperfect vacuum and combine them into water.
 
Therefore any claim that New Fire is not a form of combustion is specious
nonsense.  Any confirmed amount of water produces is proof of a combustion
reaction, the fact that it is not "commensurate" with known combustion
reactions simply proving that my New Fire has not been seen before, and
cannot be accounted for by conventional combustion theory.   :-)
 
....
 
Misinterpretation or not, I've decided to take Mr. Forman up on his wager.
More later.  It will be a carefully restricted wager between myself and
him only, if he can spare the $1 (vs. my $500) that I will be proposing.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 1 Oct 1992 20:40:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

sadun@quack.ma.utexas.edu (Lorenzo Sadun) writes:
: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
:
: >In article <1adca5INNllh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt
 Kennel) writes:
:
:
: >   : Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
: >   :
: >   : There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
: >   : and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
: >   : design after some very smart people pondered the problem
: >   : for 10 years
:
: This isn't credible.  The first fission bomb was in 1945, and the
: first fusion bomb was less than 10 years later (1953, I think).
: Moreover, the US didn't seriously try to develop a fusion bomb until
: the late 40s, when the Cold War was in full force, and when it became
: likely that the Russians would soon have a fission bomb.
 
No I don't think so.  Bethe's article describes some people working on the
principles of a fusion bomb ('classical super') during the war.  There
certainly wasn't any serious try at *manufacturing* a fusion bomb until the
late 40s, but even then there were indications that the basic design (from
1946 or so) was flawed.  Specifically, in 1950, it was in serious doubt that
any fusion bomb was even possible.
 
Of course a group of theorists doing calculations and lab experiments is not
necessarily "seriously developing" compared to the industrial resources
necessary to produce one, so from the governmental & beauracratic position
you're right.  But from the physicists, I disagree.
 
: In short, the design process was relatively quick (and the parallel Soviet
: effort was even quicker, taking only a couple of years to go from A-bomb
: to H-bomb).
 
Yeah, Sakharov's a pretty smart puppy.  I don't remember for sure, but
didn't the soviets have a practical h-bomb before the U.S.? (I.e. the
U.S. had a singular, but impractical, test in 1951, but nothing else until
1954).
 
:   Waiting for Ulam's breakthrough (whatever
: it was) may have held things up for a couple of years, but nowhere
: near 10.
 
After the trick was discovered, Bethe says it was remarkably quick to actually
make the thing, an achievement on the same order as the original fission
bomb design.
 
:
: Lorenzo Sadun
: sadun@math.utexas.edu
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply on cell configuration
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply on cell configuration
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 04:58:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>This media needs a good (simple) graphical expression mechanism.
 
PostScript is universal, many print shops will output your PostScript
file if you don't have your own PostScript printer.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Steven Finberg /  Re: A who?
     
Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A who?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:31:56 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <920929130343.208007bf@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>Hey guys, how do I put a gelatinous amphoteric aluminum layer on my cathode?
>
>Tom Droege
 
 
Tom
 
First congratulations on getting your apparent 100 sigma result.
 
I had hoped the someone who was taking notes would post a more
detailed account.  He was working from your posted list of
questions,  between the two of us at the discussion after the talk
McKubre answered most of them.
 
In response to my question
 
How do you add the Si Al or Boron into your closed system after
finishing the loading with out disturbing the seal?
 
We bring the pressure measuring line out.  There is a catheter
threaded thru it.  We can inject tiny foil ( ? powder ?) using
a hypodermic needle.
 
 
*******************************************************************************
Steve Finberg			W1GSL			w1gsl@athena.mit.edu
PO Box 82 MIT Br 	  Cambridge MA  02139		    617 258 3754
*******************************************************************************
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenw1gsl cudfnSteven cudlnFinberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Steven Finberg /  Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:42:24 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <96900@bu.edu> jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
 (Todd Green) writes:
>
>>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>>experiments are in progress?
>
 
Cell is Quartz and Teflon.   Yes he is adding the inpurties after the loading
is done.
 
>
>Brief comment--excellent presentation but of little comfort to
>those who think a power source could emerge forom this research.
>He ran his cells for 1-3 months and got modest excess energy if
>you factor in all th energy he pumped into the system. Still, there's
>priobably some neat physics/chemistry going on. I still
>reserve judgement on the affair.
>
>john travis
 
John
 
I disagree, from discussion after the talk I really think Mike
McKubre thinks of the effect as a realizable heat source.
 
He explained most of the time as soon as they see excess heat,
they start disturbing the system.  He seemed to feel their
disturbances were responsible for stoping each run.
 
One of their first experiments was the one that showed excess
heat the longest.  It ran over eight days with out disturbance.
The only reason it was allowed to run so long was everyone was
away at a conference when the excess started.  Apparently only a
technician was left monitoring the setup.
 
 
*******************************************************************************
Steve Finberg			W1GSL			w1gsl@athena.mit.edu
PO Box 82 MIT Br 	  Cambridge MA  02139		    617 258 3754
*******************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenw1gsl cudfnSteven cudlnFinberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  Rothwell /  Fast Typing Syndrome
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fast Typing Syndrome
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:36:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I often type too quickly and post incomplete sentences with unintended
comical effects, but I outdid myself this time by saying:
 
"Howard Menlove is Los Alamos National Lab."
 
He is a great fellow and we like him very much but he is *with* Los Alamos,
he is not the whole show.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Who is who
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who is who
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:42:31 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921001170759_72240.1256_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>I believe it is fair to say that there has been a general consensus among all
>CF researchers for a very long time that CF is not fusion.  ...
 
>                            ....            The argument that the products are
>not "commensurate" is specious nonsense. Any confirmed amount of product is
>proof of a nuclear reaction, the fact that it is not "commensurate" with know
>reactions simply proves that CF has not been seen before, and cannot be
>accounted for by conventional theory.
 
It must, however, be accounted for by *some* theory or model, and if the
products come from the reaction that produces the heat then the products
must appear in direct proportion to the heat generated.
 
This is what I mean by "commensurate".
 
One cannot argue that product X has been seen in such-and-so an amount
and that Y kiloJoules (note spelling, Tom, your "l" stutters) are
produced, and then ignore the fact that you are claiming that 10^5 TeV
of energy came from every reaction that produced that product.
 
I approach the analysis of these data with the explicit assumption that
this is a result of some (unspecified, perhaps unknown) nuclear reaction.
This means I assume that some a+A --> b+B reaction occurs with the
release of energy.  I therefore expect to find b and B in direct proportion
to the energy release.  The number to be found clearly depends on the
amout of energy expected from the reaction, but certain limits can be
imposed on the top end.  This establishes a lower limit on the numbers
to be expected, since less energy per reaction means *more* ash.
 
Then, if the nuclear ash is not found, it becomes time to reexamine the
orginal hypothesis that the energy is of nuclear origin -- or look into
the experimental design with more care paid to the ash.  The latter is
easier if there is a system that will produce heat in predictable
amounts on demand.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:03:05 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <sadun.717966849@quack.ma.utexas.edu> sadun@quack.ma.utexas.edu
 (Lorenzo Sadun) writes:
 
 [I know I cut this quote correctly, but I am sure *I* (jac) wrote
  the material quoted with a ":" below ... I certainly said something
  similar, but the inspirations (plural) were those of Ulam and Teller.
 
>>In article <1adca5INNllh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
 writes:
>
>>   : Ok, you're wrong. ;-)
>>   :
>>   : There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
>>   : and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
>>   : design after some very smart people pondered the problem
>>   : for 10 years
>
>This isn't credible.  The first fission bomb was in 1945, and the
>first fusion bomb was less than 10 years later (1953, I think).
>Moreover, the US didn't seriously try to develop a fusion bomb until
>the late 40s, when the Cold War was in full force, and when it became
>likely that the Russians would soon have a fission bomb.
 
Bad history.  The development of the "super" started in parallel with
the so-called A-bomb and the record is clear that work in the late
40's was an elaboration of the ideas developed during the war.
 
The big push to build the "super" came in about 1950, but history
also seems to make it clear that 'big push' meant doing some experiments
that most thought would not work.  The invention was not a result of a
massive industrial research program, but rather of insight developed
by what was basically a 2-man plus assistant research group.
 
>In short, the design process was relatively quick (and the parallel Soviet
>effort was even quicker, taking only a couple of years to go from A-bomb
>to H-bomb).   Waiting for Ulam's breakthrough (whatever
>it was) may have held things up for a couple of years, but nowhere
>near 10.
 
Actually, the Soviet effort should have been of about the same duration.
They were fully informed of the original Teller designs via Klaus Fuchs,
so they were thinking about the same issues at about the same time.  It
can be argued that it took about 5 years to prove the first guess was
wrong and then, if one is sufficiently creative, invent a workable
concept shortly thereafter.
 
It will be most interesting, someday, to compare the classified histories
of the Soviet and American programs and see if there were any similarities
in how the solution was found.  Did Sakharov hit on the right idea the
first time, perhaps before seeing the first Teller concept, or did he
go through the same steps from the obvious to the subtle?
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Bomb Plans and Duelling Servos
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bomb Plans and Duelling Servos
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:49:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My question for those who think building nuclear weapons is just a matter
of knowing how it was done is: "Given a complete set of drawings could
you build an Oldsmobile?"  Pardon the home-town reference, but having
witnessed what it took to turn an a blob of uranium into a rod and then
draw that rod into wire I have come to believe that the ingredients and the
 planaren't equivalent to having a bomb.
 
My other question(s) have to do with Tom Droege's marvelous calorimeter.
If I were to pick on two features of these Pd plus D2O sytems that may
make calorimetry especially difficult they are the relatively large
capacity to store chemical energy and a tendency to release energy in
"bursts".  My sense is that most calorimeters (including Tom's) are
designed to work well under quasistatic conditions and are generally
calibrated and tested that way.  So I would like to ask Tom how his
device copes with energy pulses.
 
>From his recent post, my reading of his descriptions is that there are
two servo loops which are doing the same thing.  As I understand it
the puke-plate sytem is servoed to maintain constant heat flux out of
the dewar.  (Oops that is puck-plate sytem...)  If a source in the
dewar sends a heat pulse to the puck the servo drives the temperature
of the puck up to provide a return pulse.  Meanwhile there is also
a heat pulse delivered to temperature sensor in the dewar which
through another servo loop also drives the temperature of the puck-
plate up.  Finally the whole system is returned to its original
temperature by a lowering of the power to the heater.  Did you
happen to notice that there may have been a net heat input into
the dewar during this excursion?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 744 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 744 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:49:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
a weekend packet. We have a Moessbauer study, using the Fe-Zr alloy (which
also absorbs hydrogen), finding no evidence of cold fusion; another self-
targeting experiment from Russia, all quite well known and nothing really to
do with COLD fusion but they seem to think it has; and a Japanese neutron
measurement at low background, also finding nothing above background. A
negative week, you might say. Well, we do have an old patent applicn, no doubt
claiming that this works, but again they only aDsorb, rather aBsorb, the
hydrogen isotope. Ahem.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 2-Oct-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                           Total in Section 2: 744
 
Journal articles; archived files CNF-PAP1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuzmann E, Varsanyi M, Korecz L, Vertes A, Masumoto T, Ujihira Y, Kiss A,
Kiss L;                                 Hyperfine Interactions 71 (1992) 1417.
"Moessbauer study of cold nuclear fusion in Fe-Zr alloy".
** Amorphous Fe89Zr11 ribbon was used as cathode and deuterised
electrolytically both "in air and nitrogen" (i.e. in the cell head space), in
an electrolyte of D2O or H2O and 0.005 M D2SO4 (or H2SO4) + 0.495 M Na2SO4,
for 5000 s at constant potential. A plastic scintillator and a BF3 tube
detected neutrons, a Ge-Li device detected gamma emissions, and Moessbauer
spectra were taken in transmission geometry using a 1E09 Bq activity
(57)Co(Pd) gamma source. No dependence of the neutron emissions on cathode
potential was found. Moessbauer spectrum changes with loading could be
explained simply by changes in deuterium (hydrogen) occupancy in the alloy.
Spectrum changes due to the gas in the cell head space were likely due to the
gas'es effect on loading. So no cold fusion effects were seen.        ?/Apr-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romodanov VA, Savin VI, Shakhurin MV, Chernyavskii VT, Pustovit AE;
Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 36(5) (1991) 572.
Original Russian in: Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 61 (1991) 122.
"Nuclear fusion in the solid state".
** A glow discharge of deuterium gas was allowed to act on a Pd sample, and
neutrons were monitored, as well as tritium by mass spectrometry. It was found
that the neutron detector responded to the random oscillations of the glow
discharge current, giving spurious counts. The MS measurements showed some
increase of tritium upon bombardment of the metal with D-ions at voltages up
to 1 kV.                                                         Sep-89/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shibata T, Imamura M, Shibata S, Uwamino Y, Ohkubo T, Satoh S, Yamakoshi K,
Oyama N, Ohsaka T, Yamamoto N, Hatozaki O, Niimura N;
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A316 (1992) 337.
"A low background neutron measuring system and its application to the
detection of neutrons produced by the D2O electrolysis".
** For cold fusion experiments as well as others, it is important to be able
to measure low-level neutron emission and distinguish it from the background,
largely due to cosmic rays and natural radioactivity. A suitable system was
developed and tested in an underground lab, on a cold fusion electrolysis. The
choice was two spherical (3)He detectors at 10 atm pressure, 5 cm diameter and
buried in polyethylene moderator, with another (background) detector in
another part of the moderator block. The block was shielded by paraffin blocks
containing boric acid. Counts and discriminator counts were stored on a floppy
disk. The lab's temperature was kept constant at about 23 C, humidity at 65%.
An air flow prevented radon accumulation. The detector's efficiency was 4% or
so, and the background was 1/20 that at sea level, depending on the material
placed into the cell (i.e. its atomic mass). For pure Cu, it was about
0.3E-04 n/s/mol. A number of Pd cathodes were tried for D2O electrolysis, and
the measured neutron emission did not deviate, either in intensity or in
count frequency distribution, from the background. There was also analysis of
the electrolyte for tritium before and after, with none found.        Aug-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents; archived file CNF-PAT
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taniguchi N, Gamo K, Baba M, Niikura J, Hado K, Kawamura K;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04 84,797 26-Jul-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(12):120298 (1992).
"Cold-nuclear-fusion apparatus".
** "A cold nuclear-fusion app. is based on moving and reacting a H isotope
(e.g. D) between an alpha phase (in which movement of an H isotope is easy)
and beta phase (in which movement of H isotope is difficult) in all the
H-isotope-adsorbing substances (e.g. Pd)." (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  Britz /  Update change: 743, not 744;                  bombs away.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Update change: 743, not 744;                  bombs away.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:50:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello,
1.
^^
in my update just now, I included the item starting with
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Romodanov VA, Savin VI, Shakhurin MV, Chernyavskii VT, Pustovit AE;
>Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 36(5) (1991) 572.
>Original Russian in: Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 61 (1991) 122.
>"Nuclear fusion in the solid state".
>** A glow discharge of deuterium gas was allowed to act on a Pd sample, and
 
etc; well, I then found that I already had it in the big file. So my count is
not 744 but 743. This will be correct in the archive. Sorry about that, it's
a result of scanning both Phys. AND Chem. Abstracts, and not always watching
out.
 
2.
^^
All you hydrogen bomb lovers: we've had this disease before. I reckon most of
those following this group - even some of you lot - would agree that fusion,
mainly cold but occasionally hot, is the main object here, but not fusion as
in bombs. Please take this bomb stuff elsewhere, it lowers S/N. Thank you.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / John Cobb /  Re: Plasmas in Solids
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmas in Solids
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:03:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <kaXqRB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim
Bowery) writes:
|>An excerpt from the Scientific American article "Plasmas in Solids"
|>by Raymod Bowers (this photocopy looks like it was from the 60's):
|>
|>This article will describe some experiments involving plasma waves in
|>solids and will show how they resemble similar waves in a gas plasma.
|>...
|>One might reasonably ask:  What is the point of such experiments?
|>No one cazn hope to create a thermonuclear reaction in the plasma
|>of a solid, nor can one remotely approach the scale of phenomena
|>that is the crucial element in astrophysical problems.  This is
|>quite true.  Yet plasma experiments in solids offer a unique
|>opportunity to observe plasma behavior under well-defined and
|>accurately known conditions.
 
I agree, but I believe you are a little timid in how useful this line
of study is. Solid state plasmas offer a glimpse into something that
normal Astrophysics, or magnetic fusion, or even inertial fusion don't
usually have to deal with --- Quantum Mechanics. Solid state plasmas
can be cooled to a low temp. and are very high density. Effects of
quantum degeneracy can be investigated. Thus solid state plasmas (along
with the new and exciting field of single component confined plasma
traps) are the only ways (that I know about) to look at these effects.
This quantum plasma physics is important. It may have a good deal to
say about steller cores (and maybe even planetary cores) as well as
dynamics of neutron stars. Watch closely and you will see some papers
from some of the precision labs talking about what is the crystal
structure of an electron gas confined in a axial electric potential
and a cylindrically symmetric magnetic field. --- Neat stuff.
 
Finally, IF CF is real, then the explanation for the effect will probably
have to involve some theory about quantum effects of solid-state
plasmas.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / John Logajan /  Commensurate
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Commensurate
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 17:35:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>I assume that some a+A --> b+B reaction occurs with the
>release of energy.  I therefore expect to find b and B in direct proportion
>to the energy release.
 
This is true -- but there are some (wild-ass:-) reactions in which detecting
the "ash" is very hard.
 
If, for instance, the 1H1 (protium) is being converted into 1H2 (deuterium)
it would be very difficult to find the "ash" in a sea of pre-existing 1H2.
You would have to be a very good bean counter from the git-go.
 
Similarly, if the Pd is being fuso-fizzed into lighter elements, it would
take very sensistive and dedicated assaying to discover the minute
impurities -- and you'd had to have pre-assayed it to eliminate the
possibility of pre-existing impurities.
 
Finally, TMC (total matter conversion) is the hardest to detect, since
there are no useful ratio changes.  Accounting for such minute amounts
of mass are, I suspect, nearly beyond the means of laboratory practice.
 
The ash could be there in commensurate amounts, yet still be devilishly
hard to detect.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:06:07 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: <This is Hans Bethe writing>
: "It is difficult to describe to a non-scientist the novelty of the new
: concept.  I was entirely unexpected from the previous development.
: It was also not anticipated by Teller, as witness his despair immediately
: preceeding the new concept.  ....  The new concept was to me, who
: had been rather closely associated with the program, about as surprising
: as the discovery of fission had been to physicists in 1939.
 
If this is the case, there must be something besides just
``radiation pressure'' involved.  I can't imagine them sitting around
in 1951, and slapping their head and saying ``Oh my god, we forgot
about the photons!''
 
In fact in 1942 they were probably thinking, "Ok we need to squeeze the stuff
together.  What do we have?   Let's see, we have neutrons, but they probably
won't interact enough to do the trick.  We have fluid(matter), which is surely
going to press on things, and we have photons."
 
So, what would be really surprising?  Here's a couple totally off
the wall guesses (i.e. almost certainly wrong, but you get the idea)
 
1)  Neutrino physics.  The detonation wave in a supernova is driven
by neutrino pressure...no bull!
I think this is extremely unlikely though.
 
2) <slightly more realistically>.  In ICF literature it's stated that it's
necessary to squeeze the fusion fuel to nearly Fermi degeneracy.  Certainly
in an H-bomb, that can be accomplished.  So what happens when something
becomes Fermi degenerate?  Anything really odd happens with the equation
of state?
 
Now, once this big wad of stuff becomes Fermi degenerate (which means the
electrons, of course), it won't want to be compressed any more.  Or will
it?  I think that once that happens, the electrons will become *transparent*
to the photons, and not interact at all.  I.e., if you hit an electron with
a photon (x-ray) you'd have to put it in a new state, but all the states
(below some large cutoff energy) are already filled!  So, now all the
radiation pressure is acting solely on the nuclei.  (this is where
"radiation pressure" is important, as fluid pressure {electrons from matter}
can't get through because there's nowhere to put the electrons) The nuclei
are now being squeezed by the radiation, in addition to flying together
because they carry almost all the inertia from the implosion.  And remember
their electrostatic repulsion is screened by negative charge with density of
a white dwarf star.
 
What happens if you keep on squeezing them?  Hmm.  Deuterium nuclei
are bosons, and not fermions, and if you squeeze them enough, some might
Bose condense, in which case their wavefunctions will overlap the
bejeezus with each other, and ...
 
 
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Commensurate
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Commensurate
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:28:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct2.173523.3913@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>
>This is true -- but there are some (wild-ass:-) reactions in which detecting
>the "ash" is very hard.
>
>If, for instance, the 1H1 (protium) is being converted into 1H2 (deuterium)
>it would be very difficult to find the "ash" in a sea of pre-existing 1H2.
>You would have to be a very good bean counter from the git-go.
>
>Similarly, if the Pd is being fuso-fizzed into lighter elements, it would
>take very sensistive and dedicated assaying to discover the minute
>impurities -- and you'd had to have pre-assayed it to eliminate the
>possibility of pre-existing impurities.
>
>Finally, TMC (total matter conversion) is the hardest to detect, since
>there are no useful ratio changes.  Accounting for such minute amounts
>of mass are, I suspect, nearly beyond the means of laboratory practice.
>
>The ash could be there in commensurate amounts, yet still be devilishly
>hard to detect.
 
What about energy being released only as heat? You seem to be
insinuating that regular nuclear processes are not involved.
Certainly there is energy coming off processes (except protium
to deuterium??) that is released as harder energy than IR.
 
As a critisizm of Tom D's work I can only say that he has a _very_
complicated set-up and is working with very small amounts of
material. I'm not at all sure that his set-up can reliably discount
other sources of errors, though I can't think of anything off-hand
and I respect his abilities.
 
My experience with Peltier devices tells me that they are liable to
sustain fracturing in the crystal structures if the temperature is
cycled more than 20 degrees. Whether this occurs over time at lower
deviations I can't say. But that would certainly change the efficiency
of the Peltier junctions and possibly the apparent data.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  /  October 2 Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: October 2 Experiment Status
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:37:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  2 October 1992
 
Executive summary:  More data is presented.  The "anomalous heat" level
continues to increase.
 
Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 170 ma per sq cm
Duration: Now charging for 23 days
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 3.4 volts
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
Accumulated "anomalous heat": 58,000+ joules
 
Date    Power    Source     Notes
        Watts
 
7 Sept   0.0008   Out/In     Empty cell calibration.  No source effect.
9 Sept  -0.0010   Out        Cell in, zero current calibration
9 Sept  -0.1902   Out        Charging Palladium.
9 Sept  -0.0163   Out        Late Charging, almost balanced.
10 Sept -0.0004   Out        Full Current Operation
11 Sept  0.0002   In         Start Source Out/In at Full Operating Current
12 Sept                      Data Lost
13 Sept                      Data Lost
14 Sept  0.0092   In         Full 24 hour data
15 Sept  0.0130   Out        Full 24 hour data
16 Sept  0.0158   In         Some data lost due to UPS failure.
17 Sept  0.0173   In         Replaced UPS
18 Sept  0.0239   Out
19 Sept  0.0204   In         Partial data is suspect.  Switch to 20 second
20 Sept  0.0251   Out        data collection interval.
21 Sept  0.0271   In
22 Sept  0.0312   Out
23 Sept  0.0372   In
24 Sept  0.0409   Out
25 Sept  0.0497   In
26 Sept  0.0513   Out        Corrected last point, shell servo sick
27 Sept  0.0551   In         Corrected data, shell servo sick
28 Sept  0.0570   Out        Partial correction, shell servo fixed
29 Sept  0.0608   In
30 Sept  0.0649   Out
 
The dates are for running periods which started at roughly 22:15 on the
indicated date.  As of 2 October 10 AM we had accumulated 58 killojoules since
17 Sept when the data collection program was restarted.  About 6 killojoules
will have to be subtracted from this total for the shell servo incident, but I
also need to add something for the period before 17 September.  So the 58
killojoule number is not far off.
 
Early in the morning on 27 September, the shell servo hung.  Thermoelectric
coolers pump more heat as more current is put through them.  To a point, then
they heat everything.  So early in the morning the shell servo tried too hard
to cool the shell and as a result heated the shell 4 C above ambient.  This
caused the addition of about 40 mw to the measured "anomalous heat".  For the
most part, I have been able to reconstruct everything, and the 26, 27, and 28
Sept power numbers should be good to a few mw.  I put a limiter on the
current, so this won't happen again.  This makes the data more interesting as
now there is a steady increase.
 
We have had a number of "big" "anomalous heat" pulses.  The largest seen so
far was 200 mw for 2 minutes.  Since the rms noise of the 20 second data
points is 15 mw, a 200 mw pulse sticks out like a sore thumb.  Since I only
see what is going on about 10 hours a day, I could miss a lot of these pulses.
So far I have not written code to scan for them.  I could almost argue that
the increase in power level is due to the increasing frequency of these
pulses.
 
It is of some concern that the power level shows such a steady increase.  I
keep looking at all that data for something that is changing.  But sometimes,
as with the shell servo hang, it takes a few days.
 
Otis Port tells me I made the "In Business This Week" page of Business Week.
I have not yet seen it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Mark Epperson /  Re: Reply on cell configuration
     
Originally-From: epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply on cell configuration
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:09:47 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct2.045823.857@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>>This media needs a good (simple) graphical expression mechanism.
>
>PostScript is universal, many print shops will output your PostScript
>file if you don't have your own PostScript printer.
 
Try using something like Adobe Illustrator (mac, Windows or, Unix). It
can be used to make the graphs that you need (and it is a 7bit ascii format)
Mark Epperson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenepperson cudfnMark cudlnEpperson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Dick Jackson /  A Really Crazy Idea?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Really Crazy Idea?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:28:09 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.

 
Here is an idea on the fringe of looniness, I hope I can rely on the
gross errros being pointed out in a reasonably tolerant manner.
 
A couple of years ago I came upon a proposal that ball lightning was
caused by a grain of antimatter, presumably from outer space, coming to
rest in the atmosphere. The resulting visible light comes from electron
stripping as the grain annihilates -- of course there is a lot of gamma
also.
 
Well, you don't have to believe this, but it is nice try I think.  Anyway,
supposing that there is some antimatter around.  Consider a bare
anti-proton.  The whole point of my idea for "cold fusion" is that a bare
anti-proton might be meta-stable, viz.  A. it will repel the electron
clouds of its neighbouring atoms, and B.  I don't think it can react with
a normal electron because of baryonic conservation (if it can please tell
me, I will shut up and go away).
 
The rest is easy, i.e. the Palladium deuterid/hydride system provides a
way for these (rare) anti-protons to get together with a real proton and
ker-pow!  Oh well, I suppose there would be gamma rays, but maybe no ash?
With so much energy per event the radiation level might be low for the
energy outputs actually observed.  Presumably these anti-protons exist in
water, maybe somehow preferentially in heavy water, and have to be carried
into the Palladium lattice as part of the electroysis system, along with
the deuterons/protons.
 
I apologise A. for not working numbers re. radiation levels (I am not a
working high energy physicist with handbooks at my side) , and B. for the
half-baked nature of this idea.  But who knows??
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Thomas Clarke /  Re: Pathway Question
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:45:02 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1992Sep30.203715.20844@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.201407.23663@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
Clarke) writes:
>
> > Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
> >
> > D + D -> T + P + energy
> >
> > energy is less than fusion to helium by decay energy of tritium+
> > an electron mass, but should still be well positive.  The proton
> > and triton although, high energy, will be be rapidly stopped in
> > the Pd lattice and so produce no external radiation.
>
> This last statement is not true.  The tritium will sometimes undergo
> secondary reactions with deuterium before slowing down, each reaction
> producing one 14 MeV neutron.  If I recall correctly, about 2 x 10^-5
> neutrons get produced per tritium nucleus.  This would be easily
> detectable.
>
> This is all well known.  See Huizenga's book, for example.
>
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
Mea Culpa.  Fools rush in ...
Thought the idea was probably too easy :-)
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Thomas Clarke /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:53:51 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1ai32gINNpfn@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
writes:
> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> : <This is Hans Bethe writing>
> : "It is difficult to describe to a non-scientist the novelty of the new
> : concept.  I was entirely unexpected from the previous development.
> : It was also not anticipated by Teller, as witness his despair immediately
> : preceeding the new concept.  ....  The new concept was to me, who
> : had been rather closely associated with the program, about as surprising
> : as the discovery of fission had been to physicists in 1939.
>
> If this is the case, there must be something besides just
> ``radiation pressure'' involved.  I can't imagine them sitting around
> in 1951, and slapping their head and saying ``Oh my god, we forgot
> about the photons!''
>
I have to try a WAG (wild ass guess):
A fusion gun.
U235 was exploded with a clunky gun, then elegant physics was
used to fission plutonium.  So the mind set was probably to
look for elegant solutions - ellipsoidal reflectors and the like.
 
It might be that a fission explosion accelerating a slug of matter
which collides with a fusionable mass results in enough compression
to start the fusion reaction.  Realization of this might be
startling since the gun concept was long ago rejected.
 
Also, I seem to remember some pictures of aerial fusion weapons
being long and slender.  Easy shape for a gun, but not for
ellipsoidal reflector, or secondary x-ray driven implosion etc.
 
 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Andrew Pierce /  Re: Radiation danger?
     
Originally-From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radiation danger?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:07:33 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1992Sep30.194008.18482@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>If you just meant to say that there has been no measured radiation, then
>you are probably right -- I mean, if it doesn't effect the geiger counter,
>it probably won't effect the human body.
 
   I don't know about your geiger counter, but our geiger counter is
notoriously poor at detecting gamma rays.  It does fine on high energy
betas but doesn't find low energy betas either.  You may want to get a
gamma counter and/or wear a detector badge of some kind just to be sure.
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenajpierce cudfnAndrew cudlnPierce cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 /  Rothwell /  Products and proportionality
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Products and proportionality
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:41:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
J. A. Carr writes:
 
"I approach the analysis of these data with the explicit assumption that this
is a result of some (unspecified, perhaps unknown) nuclear reaction. This means
I assume that some a+A --> b+B reaction occurs with the release of energy.  I
therefore expect to find b and B in direct proportion to the energy release.
The number to be found clearly depends on the amount of energy expected from
the reaction, but certain limits can be imposed on the top end.  This
establishes a lower limit on the numbers to be expected, since less energy per
reaction means *more* ash. "
 
I believe this model is much too simple. I think the evidence already at hand
disproves it. In my view, nuclear products like neutrons and tritium stand in
relation to CF the way smoke relates to flame. Sometimes, you get a lot of
smoke, and very little open flame, but other times, you get all flame and no
smoke. I think that in the end, we will discover that "CF" is not one unified
phenomenon, it is a complex series of different reactions or phases, that occur
in different ways, and produce different products.
 
To put this in concrete terms:
 
Mizuno talks about the different "phases" the CF reaction goes through as the
D:Pd ratio changes. He believes that as the loading increases, we first see a
lot of tritium produced, then that effect dies away and we begin to see a
neutrons and a little heat. As the loading goes higher, the neutrons fade away,
and the heat becomes intense. Unfortunately, these phases are difficult to
separate out from one another, because palladium does not load in a precisely
even fashion. One part of the sample may be at 0.85, while another is at 0.90,
so several phases go on simultaneously.
 
What this means is not that there is 'no ash,' but that you can never be quite
sure whether you are going to get lots of one type of ash, or only a little
bit, while the rest goes up the flue as smoke (as it were). Since we don't know
how to build fires yet, every one of them burns differently. We cannot expect b
and B in direct proportion to the energy release; we have to look for some
complex, unknown mixture of A, B, C, D and who knows what else, which sometimes
show up in the gas, and sometimes remains in the palladium. The proportions of
A, B, C and D in relation to the heat vary from 0% to 100%, depending on
unknown factors. Okay, loading is known, but what other factors are there, and
how do they work?
 
Another source of complexity would be if my colleague Brightsen is correct, in
which case some portion of the product is now halfway to Alpha Centuri,
having missed the detectors altogether.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Dick Jackson /  My Stupid Idea re Antimatter
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My Stupid Idea re Antimatter
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:02:38 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.

 
After I sent my far out idea about anti-protons I realised that there
would have to be hell of a lot of gammas, there presumably being no
other path for the energy of anihilation.
 
Sorry,  Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Cryogenic fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cryogenic fusion
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:10:09 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <80893@ut-emx.uucp> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
 writes:
 
   Z Pinches have been known for a long time. However they are unstable on
   MHD time scales (very rapid). The idea in the Dense Z pinch is to freeze
   some deuterium ice and rapidly extrude it into a experimental chamber. Then
   is a pulsed power supply to cram huge currents down the fiber and almost
   instantly create a Z-pinch. Since it starts out as ice the density is
   really high, so there is hope to reach Lawson's Criterion before the
   instability kills you.
   ...
   Here are some notes from Shlachter's abstract: The work has been going
   on for 6 years. Simple Linear Z pinch fibers are extruded across 5 cm
   anode-cathode gap. Current = 1 Mega-Amp with a 100 nano-second rise
   time. Total stored energy is 200 kJ in a MArx bank generator. Result:
   column expands rapidly in first 10 ns due to m=0 sausage instabilities.
   Neutron Yield is lower than expected. Only 1e9 - 1e10 neutrons per pulse.*
   Points to reduced density.
 
   Neat! But why aren't they using a wall stabilized plasma?  If the
plasma is contained in a non-conducting tube, the confinement slows or
inhibits (I assume slows in this case) the development of instabilities.
Clever design would use a glass for the tube that enhanced the energy
output as it disintegrates. :-)  Also, the rise time sounds a little
low to me for playing this type of games.  Getting down to 10 ns rise
would get a lot more energy into the plasma before it starts fighting
back.  (The reverse voltage created by the collapsing field usually
doesn't affect the current waveform through the plasma, but it can
drastically decrease the amount of energy you get in while it can do
some good.)
 
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Commensurate
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Commensurate
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:55:19 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct2.173523.3913@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>I assume that some a+A --> b+B reaction occurs with the
>>release of energy.  I therefore expect to find b and B in direct proportion
>>to the energy release.
>
>This is true -- but there are some (wild-ass:-) reactions in which detecting
>the "ash" is very hard.
 
Of course, which is why I was careful to point out elsewhere in my post
that it is important to have some idea of what the possible ingredients
in your model might be.  Experiments can be designed to test them, and
existing reliable information can be used to constrain them.  A big
problem has been the unreliability of the conventional wisdom about
this phenomenon.
 
>If, for instance, the 1H1 (protium) is being converted into 1H2 (deuterium)
>it would be very difficult to find the "ash" in a sea of pre-existing 1H2.
>You would have to be a very good bean counter from the git-go.
 
This would say that the light-water null tests were wrong.  If they
were wrong, a different design could give you a shot at seeing this,
or whatever else is assumed to happen in such a reaction.
 
>Similarly, if the Pd is being fuso-fizzed into lighter elements, it would
>take very sensistive and dedicated assaying to discover the minute
>impurities -- and you'd had to have pre-assayed it to eliminate the
>possibility of pre-existing impurities.
 
I think you would say fuso-fished, to pronounce it right!
 
If the Pd is going to lighter elements, the chance that you could
avoid making any of the many possible radioactive daughters is small.
 
>Finally, TMC (total matter conversion) is the hardest to detect, since
>there are no useful ratio changes.  Accounting for such minute amounts
>of mass are, I suspect, nearly beyond the means of laboratory practice.
 
Not sure what you mean here.  Are you talking about something that
violates baryon number conservation?  That would be a *major*
discovery.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Status
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:41:03 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Audit:  sci.physics.fusion,JBowery,1
>Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
 
Do you know anyone at Batavia who could do a quantitative isotopic
analysis of your Li reagent?
 
It would be nice to know whether or not the bomb guys got their hands
on your Li before you used it.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / John Moore /  Re: Tongues hanging out
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tongues hanging out
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:09:02 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1992Oct1.005856.20816@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
]Dick Forman  M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
]>Based upon information provided to me by another sucessful experimenter,
]>I know the "next generation" experiments won't be on palladium.
]
]Why must you torment us so??  :-)
 
Go long on nickel ;-)
 
 
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 /  Britz /  EX: Explanation AND Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EX: Explanation AND Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr. McKubre
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:57:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>I actually have an explanation for the cell gets hot and the catalyst gets
>cold with no change in gas volume.  But the electrochemists won't like it
>as it is not supposed to happen.  Besides there is the problem of the net
>heat gain.
 
I'm an electrochemist, Tom, but I'm game to read something that I might not
like. What is your explanation?
 
 
Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
 
>In article <96900@bu.edu> jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
> (Todd Green) writes:
>>
>>>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>>>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>>>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>>>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>>>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>>>experiments are in progress?
>
>Cell is Quartz and Teflon.   Yes he is adding the inpurties after the loading
>is done.
 
There is nothing odd about using a super-clean cell, and yet adding some gunk;
you might want YOUR gunk, not any old gunk coming out of the cell walls. The
use of poisons is a respectable technique. In the present context, they can
either suppress the recombination reaction of adsorbed deuterium atoms with
each other to form D2, and thus favour the ingress of deuterium into the Pd;
other poisons will prevent the ingress. So choose your poison wisely.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.003 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Wall Street Journal Article
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Article
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 07:16:54 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> Dick Forman requests info:
> Does anyone who follows the publication of that pulp journal "Science"
> know if they have yet rescinded their NO RESUBMISSIONS Rule? I would like to
> resubmit my manuscript titled: On the Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions of
> Palladium and Deuterium.  The rejected it on 10 May 1989 and I would like to
P&F derived researchers should boycott "Science" and "Nature".
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 /  Harrison /  Cell hot, catalyst cold; in Droege calorimeter
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell hot, catalyst cold; in Droege calorimeter
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:57:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD502, Tom Droege describes his reaction cell and two temperature
sensors within the cell.  He reports events in which the temperature at
the top of the cell (catalyst region) drops while the temperature at
the bottom of the cell (submerged in electrolyte) rises.
 
I guess that at the catalyst
       D2 + 1/2 O2 -> D2O(gas) + 59.56 kcal/mol  [ = 1.29 eV/(D atom)]
produces hot water vapor.  This condenses into droplets on some cooler
part of the cell (releasing more energy), and the droplets run down
into the electrolyte.  Droplets of hot water may occasionally form in
odd places or run down special pathways that would show up as events
something like this.
 
I have seen that water droplets grow to about 40 mg before they break
off the end of a dripping tube.  I compute that this .002 mol
represents approx
   498  joules   reaction energy    @ 59.560 kcal/mol (ref 25C 1 atm)
    91  joules   condensation       @ 10.851 kcal/mol (ref 25C 1 atm)
     ...correcting to 50 C 1 atm reaction conditions...
   1.5  joules   for  D2 gas        @ 6.978 cal/mol/K
    .7  joules   for  O2 gas        @ 7.016 cal/mol/K
  -4.2  joules   for  D2O liq       @ 20.16  cal/mol/K
     ...and then cooling the droplet from 50 C to 30 C...
   3.4  joules                      @ 20.16 cal/mol/K
 
I think it's those 3.4 joules/drop that could be running around
uncontrolled.  If little puddles form, then drain suddenly, the energy
"quanta" could be even bigger.
 
  -Chuck Harrison
 
PS: This is near-forgotten high-school chemistry & the CRC handbook
talking, so someone tell me whether we're making sense here.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 /  Harrison /  Droege calorimeter
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege calorimeter
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:57:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD502, Tom Droege writes
> Thus any changes in the gas volume indicate either that some gas has
> been produced (as when some disassociated D is absorbed by the Pd
> leaving behind oxygen) or that the gas volume has become hotter...
 
Knowing that Tom knows it, Chuck Harrison adds
  ... or that the barometric pressure has changed.
 
>From an earlier post of Tom's I believe that pressure is servo'd to
within 0.1 inch H2O of _ambient_.
 
Note that normal barometric variations (e.g. 29 - 31 inch Hg) represent
+/- 3 percent change.  3% * 2 liter = 60 cc.  If some of the enclosed
space in the dewar has porous material (foam?) with a tight cell
structure, there might even be some disconcertingly long time constants
involved in this.
 
 
Tom also discusses the dewar leakage:
> Because of the large radiation losses... [the dewar] is covered with
> 1 1/2" of foam, then an aluminum shell then 1 1/2" more of foam.
> ... [More thermoelectrics] hold the shell to the same temperature as
> the inside of the dewar.  This "large" radiation loss is of order
> 0.010 watts per degree C.
 
Chuck Harrison asks:
What is the temperature of "the inside of the dewar"?  There are high
thermal resistances, significant heat flows, and therefore the
possibility of relatively large thermal gradients within the dewar.
Clearly the radiating surfaces of the dewar will be hotter than the
puck, with some places hotter than others.  There is undoubtedly
an "ideal" temperature for the outer dewar wall which will reduce
the net heat transfer to zero.  However, this ideal temperature will
depend on the details of the temperature distribution on the inner
dewar wall, which could change during the experiment (e.g. if there
is convection in the calorimeter chamber).  So, what is the servo
reference for the shell servo?
 
  -Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / Todd Green /  Re: EX: Explanation AND Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr.
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: EX: Explanation AND Re: excess heat experiments reported by Dr.
 McKubre
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:46:07 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <E765B603B39F22F76E@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
> Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
>
>>I actually have an explanation for the cell gets hot and the catalyst gets
>>cold with no change in gas volume.  But the electrochemists won't like it
>>as it is not supposed to happen.  Besides there is the problem of the net
>>heat gain.
>
> I'm an electrochemist, Tom, but I'm game to read something that I might not
> like. What is your explanation?
 
Yeah, Tom, lets hear the worst - we are not easily shocked. BTW  you realise
that, because of the isotopic H/D separation factor for Pd versus the solvent
is 9 or 10, your electrode should contain roughly equal amounts of H and D. I
assume that this is intentional but some people claim that small amounts of
light water reduce XS heat and there is even some experimental evidence (e.g.
by Scott and also by Cravens) supporting this view.
 
> Originally-From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
>
>>In article <96900@bu.edu> jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep26.142803.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
>> (Todd Green) writes:
>>>
>>>>This all seems a bit odd  - I thought McKubre advocated running a very
>>>>clean system so as to avoid poisoning of the cathode surface, and hence the
>>>>use of a teflon cell etc. If he were using a glass cell then the Si, Al
>>>>and B would be leached from the cell walls by the LiOD, but where are they
>>>>coming from in a teflon cell? Is he deliberately adding Si and Al once the
>>>>experiments are in progress?
>>
>>Cell is Quartz and Teflon.   Yes he is adding the inpurties after the loading
>>is done.
>
> There is nothing odd about using a super-clean cell, and yet adding some gunk;
> you might want YOUR gunk, not any old gunk coming out of the cell walls. The
> use of poisons is a respectable technique. In the present context, they can
> either suppress the recombination reaction of adsorbed deuterium atoms with
> each other to form D2, and thus favour the ingress of deuterium into the Pd;
> other poisons will prevent the ingress. So choose your poison wisely.
 
Fair enough, but why Al and Si? The classic inhibitors of D2 formation are
compounds like thiourea, KI and As2O3 so why not use these? In any case, the
Al appears to have been added to form a layer of Al(OH)3 rather than to inhibit
D2 formation. Elsewhere McKubre recommends against the use of recombination
poisons because their effect in enhancing loading is typically short lived.
I guess if it works then "who cares?" but I wish there was a more rational
basis  for adding these things. Reminds me of the LANL group who added wheat
flour to their cells to try and stimulate tritium production...
 
todd
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.02 / Steven Hoell /  Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:59:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

During the Manhatten Project there was concern that the bomb
would ignite the atmosphere. After some calculations (according
to Ulam, "Adventures of a Mathematician") this fear was put to
rest.
 
Does anyone know if these results are declassified and published
somewhere?
 
Thanks,
Steve Hoell		seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenseh cudfnSteven cudlnHoell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / John Logajan /  LiOD and energy per molecule so far
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LiOD and energy per molecule so far
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:59:01 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>Cell 4A2
>Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
 
If I recall in cell 4A1, LiOD was added in excess to the effect that there
was a large portion of it saturated out of solution.  And this, if I recall,
was purely for anticipated long term runs, to cover gunk losses, etc.
 
Are you now, or will you in the future, run with less "excess" LiOD, since you
now seem to think you can detect duds within a week.
 
Actually, I just want to know how many moles of LiOD you have in your cell :-)
It seems like that is the only electron volts per atom calculation I don't
have sufficient info on to make.
 
Using Droege's Oct 2 data and anticipating another 2000 joules (a half day
or so) to and even 60,000 excess joules gives:
 
 1.0eV per D2O/H2O molecule (1.6 moles)
80.0eV per Pd atom (0.02 moles)
85.0eV per loaded D atom (0.94 loading)
 x.xeV per LiDO molecule (quantity unknown)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / John Logajan /  Re: What mystery?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What mystery?
Date: 4 Oct 1992 16:31:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
Tom Droege wrote:
>>There was no change in the cell E*I product.
 
Then I wrote:
>I presume you would have mentioned if your input electrolysis voltage
>changed much at the same time
 
Sorry -- I am obviously going senile.
 
Rule out the electrical short unless it just happened to be the same
impedance as the electrolysis load -- unlikely.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / John Logajan /  What mystery?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What mystery?
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:26:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
>How can the cell get hotter and the catalyst get colder with
>no change in the gas volume?  There was no change in the cell E*I product.
>So that is not the cause.  There was also an apparent release of energy.
 
I'm sure there are many possibilities, but I'd suspect a heat drop at the
catalyst to be caused by a reduction in free D2 or O2.
 
You said that there was no apparent change in gas volume -- so D2 and O2
production have either ceased or are being recombined elsewhere.
 
I presume you would have mentioned if your input electrolysis voltage
changed much at the same time, but just in case it did, I have two
paths to pursue:
 
Path #1: No significant input voltage change -- O2 and D2 production are
likely to be continuing, but local recombination moves the "center of heat"
away from the more distant catalyst toward the anode/cathode structure.
 
Path #2: A significant input voltage change, most likely downward -- A short
between the anode and cathode has occured, O2 and D2 production drops off,
but the resistance of the short times the current flow produces more local
heat than the O2 and D2 generation would (they represent stored energy.)
 
Actually, both paths represent a "short".  One is direct electrical, and
the other is through a chemical mediator (i.e. energy-->chem-->energy)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / John Logajan /  Re: October 2 Experiment Status
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: October 2 Experiment Status
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:36:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
>It is of some concern that the power level shows such a steady increase.
 
It does seem to be one of the most constant slopes I've seen in
experimental data. :-)   Thank heaven for bursts.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / William Dechent /  Re: Two questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:40:06 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri -- Rolla

I have two questions which I hope have simple answers:
 
	1:  I've gathered that Tom's latest results duplicate earlier
experiments.  Could someone (possibly Tom?) post a value for the excess
heat (i.e. 100 joules in, 300 joules out= a 200% excess)?
 
	2:  How much excess is necessary to be considered above experimental
error?
 
--
wdechent@clciris.chem.umr.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwdechent cudfnWilliam cudlnDechent cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Two questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:09:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent) says:
>	1:  I've gathered that Tom's latest results duplicate earlier
>experiments.  Could someone (possibly Tom?) post a value for the excess
>heat (i.e. 100 joules in, 300 joules out= a 200% excess)?
 
Including everything, Droege was puting in 10.151 watts and getting out
approx 10.216.  Of course, you don't need all the heaters and what not
if you aren't trying to make precise measurements -- so let us just look
at electrolysis energy input, about 2.66 watts in and about 2.73 watts
out -- for a gain of about 2.6%
 
>	2:  How much excess is necessary to be considered above experimental
>error?
 
That depends upon the experiment, and Tom tells us he can estimate balance
to about 1/1250th of a watt.  As of Sept 30 he was reading a sustained power
output about 80 times his resolution, with occasional bursts about 250 times
his base resolution (though I think he rates bursts on a more conservative
standard than long term average power out.)
 
As an editorial aside, there is *NO* level of sophistication that guarantees
against pilot error -- so I'm still half expecting Droege to announce he has
found an age-degraded gizmoid is responsible for a false measurement.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / Steve Crocker /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 5 Oct 1992 00:39:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

 
The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices
Freidwardt Winterberg
(pub) Fusion Energy Foundation, New York 1981
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / Terry Bollinger /  Proposed Forman/Bollinger $1/$500 CF/TMC Bet
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed Forman/Bollinger $1/$500 CF/TMC Bet
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:46:19 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

 
Hi folks,
 
Below is my proposed response to Richard Forman's challenge.  It is detailed,
but it also is pretty blunt.  I'm saying that if high levels of anomolous
heat exist at all in Pd(Hx,Dy) systems that it is not just TMC, but a form
of TMC that is absolutely dependent on delocalization of deuterium and/or
hydrogen atoms in some type of (transition) metal lattice for its existence,
Richard Forman gets "everything else" (assuming widespread reproduction).
 
If no such phenomena are ever made massively and easily reproducible, the
bet becomes void after two years.
 
				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                 PROPOSED FORMAN/BOLLINGER $1/$500 CF/TMC BET
 
                          DRAFT 1 - October 4, 1992
                              Terry B. Bollinger
 
The following bet is proposed:
 
 o  Richard Forman (of "sci.physics.fusion") shall win $500 from Terry B.
    Bollinger if heat production in excess of that possible by any known
    chemical mechanism is shown to exist in transition metal deuterides and/or
    hydride systems, AND the mechanism by which heat is produced is shown to
    be something other than "total mass conversion" (TMC).  "TMC"means the
    conversion of deutrium and/or hydrogen into energy with flagrant violation
    of baryon conservation.  Production of heat without baryon violation shall
    be considered "cold fusion," regardless of the exact process details.
    Richard Forman shall also win in the event that TMC is demonstrated, but
    the mechanism is show to be unrelated to band delocalization of deuterium
    and/or hydrogen in metal lattices.
 
 o  Terry B. Bollinger (of "sci.physics.fusion") shall win $1 from Richard
    Forman if heat production of the type described above is shown to be
    real and reproducible; and TMC with massive violation of baryon number
    is demonstrated to be the cause; and the TMC mechanism is demonstrated
    to be causally dependent on delocalization of hydrogen and/or deuterium
    in metal lattices.
 
The details of how the bet is to be won are given below.
 
PRECONDITION.  The following precondition must be met before the bet is to
be considered active.  In the absence of the following precondition, the
bet shall be considered void and neither party shall owe the other party
any funds.  The precondition for the bet is:
 
    Acceptance by the majority of the scientific community that there exist
    well-defined, readily reproducible "recipes" by which room-temperature,
    room-pressure experiments based on one or more compounds of the form
    [Transition Metal](Hx,Dy) are capable of generating net energy outputs
    well in excess of that possible by any type of chemical reaction that
    could be postulated using the same total mass of reactants.  "Based on"
    in this context means that the results cannot be reproduced if all of
    the [Transition Metal](Hx,Dy) compounds are removed from the system.
 
CONDITIONS BY WHICH THE PARTY TERRY B. BOLLINGER SHALL WIN THE BET.  The
party Terry B. Bollinger shall be considered the winner of the bet if and
only if: 1) the precondition has been met, and  2) all of the following
additional conditions are demonstrated by the scientific community to be
necessary for the generation of energy outputs in excess of those possible
for any conceivable chemical reaction:
 
 1. Delocalization of the wavefunctions of some portion of the (Hx,Dy) part
    of the [TM](Hx,Dy) compound, as demonstrated by the formation of "bands"
    of some fraction of the (Hx,Dy) component.  Band delocalization shall
    be defined as for electron band formation in metals.  That is, some set
    or sets of otherwise identical (Hx,Dy) fermions shall be shown to take
    on a spectrum(s) of momentum values, and can be shown to demonstrate a
    distinct Fermi surface(s).
 
 2. Demonstration that there exists at least one example of [TM](Hx,Dy)
    constructions in which 95% or more of the energy generated is:
 
     a. In the form of low-energy heat and/or neutrinos, and
 
     b. Is causally linked to the "disappearance" of some fraction of the
        delocalized Fermi band (Hx,Dy) component.  That is, that the energy
        generation process effectively disappears whenever delocalization
        of any part of the (Hx,Dy) component is eliminated, and that the
        95% heat/neutrino energy and mass loss measured for the system
        shall never exceed the total mass/energy available from that part
        of the (Hx,Dy) component shown to "disappear."
 
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RICHARD FORMAN SHALL WIN THE BET.  If the precondition
for the bet has been met and neither of the conditions (1) and (2) listed
above for how Terry B. Bollinger shall win the bet, Richard Forman shall be
considered the winner of the bet.
 
LIMITATIONS.  This bet shall be active for a maximum of two years from the
day on which Richard Forman formally accepts it, as demonstrated by public
acceptance of the bet on the UseNet group known as "sci.physics.fusion".
 
JUDGING.  As described in the bet, judging of who wins the bet shall be
determined primarily by publically available information as to the acceptance
of existence of [TM](Hx,Dy) energy production phenomena, and similar acceptance
of the conditions required for such heat production.  In the event that such
information becomes classified or otherwise unavailable, the participants shall
wait until the end of the two year bet period and then declare the bet void if
no adequate information for resolving the bet is available by that time.
 
PAYMENT.  Payment to the winner shall be made no later than 30 days after
mutual agreement by Richard Forman and Terry B. Bollinger that sufficient
information has become publically available to make a determination of the
winner of the bet.
 
ARBITRATION.  In the event of disagreement about whether any preconditions or
conditions have been met, it is suggested that Dieter Britz of the UseNet
group "sci.phyics.fusion" be asked to take on the role of arbitrator.  If
Dr. Britz is not mutually acceptable in such an arbitration role, Richard
Forman and Terry B. Bollinger shall negotiate another mutually acceptable
arbitrator.  If no such arbitrator can be agreed to, both parties shall
forfit the amounts of their bets to a charity of their own choosing and the
bet shall be declared void.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Two questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:40:08 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

John Logajan writes:
>
>Including everything, Droege was puting in 10.151 watts and getting out
>approx 10.216.  Of course, you don't need all the heaters and what not
>if you aren't trying to make precise measurements -- so let us just look
>at electrolysis energy input, about 2.66 watts in and about 2.73 watts
>out -- for a gain of about 2.6%
 
Let me ask if I understand this correctly.  This is apparently net
excess power coming from somewhere of approx 0.07 W, or about 6000 J
of energy if the experiment runs for 24 hours.  Now, my impression is
that the energies released by common exothermic chemical reactions are
on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 J per gram of "fuel" used in the
reaction (is this correct?).  If this is true, than the excess energy
in Droege's experiments could be entirely accounted for by the
chemical reaction of a few grams, or at most a few tens of grams, of
some kind of purely chemical fuel per day of operation.
 
If this is true, is it not a very serious (and difficult) concern that
the excess energy could be coming from the chemical reaction (or state
change) of some very small amount of "fuel" in the setup, perhaps in
the form of an impurity, which could be very difficult to identify or
test for?
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 / Paul Houle /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:58:18 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

>Actually, the Soviet effort should have been of about the same duration.
>They were fully informed of the original Teller designs via Klaus Fuchs,
>so they were thinking about the same issues at about the same time.  It
>can be argued that it took about 5 years to prove the first guess was
>wrong and then, if one is sufficiently creative, invent a workable
>concept shortly thereafter.
 
	I just recently borrowed a copy of the recently published ~Los
Alamos Primer~ from the library,  and the author claims that Hans Bethe
pointed out a problem with Teller's idea of the "classical super" around
1942-1943.  The essential idea of the classical super is to use an
atomic bomb to start a detonation wave that is hot enough and strong
enough to cause fusion and propagate through an entire charge of D fuel.
Bethe pointed out that it wouldn't work because too much energy would be
lost by the shock through radiation.
 
	I was talking to a friend the other day who wrote a paper about
the history of the hydrogen bomb and he brought out a few interesting
points.  One of them is that the hydrogen bomb is based on a linear
instead of spherical implosion.  This does explain the fact that fusion
weapons tend to be long and relatively thin.  The other is that a
"neutron channel" is placed in the middle of the Li-D charge,  which is
a rod of plutonium:  the general design involves having a fission device
at one end surrounded by a shell designed to reflect x-rays from the
explosion in such a way to cause a linear implosion.  The end of the
fusion charge that faces the bomb is made of U238 or some other heavy
material to prevent the direct x-rays from disrupting the implosion.  The
x-rays start the implosion process,  and neutrons are multiplied in the
neutron channel,  which causes the breeding of T from the Li.
 
	This guy also told me that the particular greenhouse test involving
tritium boosting (the purpose of the greenhouse series was to test advanced
fission weapon cocepts) actually did not work as well as planned,  which
seemed to provide data which invalidated at least one of the designs being
worked on at the time.
 
>It will be most interesting, someday, to compare the classified histories
>of the Soviet and American programs and see if there were any similarities
>in how the solution was found.  Did Sakharov hit on the right idea the
>first time, perhaps before seeing the first Teller concept, or did he
>go through the same steps from the obvious to the subtle?
 
	From what I read in Sahkarov's autobiography,  he developed something
called "the third idea" which led to the possibility of fusion weapons of
arbitrary size.  I think that this is analagous to the Teller-Ulam discovery.
Before the device based on the "the third idea" was tested,  a smaller device
was fired which incorporated a fusion component.  I seem to think that from
the info in the book I was able to estimate the yield of that one to be
something like ~200 kt;  which would be consistent with a heavily tritium-
boosted weapon.
 
	A neat story from this book was when Sahkarov and a friend heard about
an American nuclear test and there was a snowfall around the time that the
material from it was likely to be drifting overhead,  so they got into a car
and drove into the country and filled a cardboard box with snow and drove
back and delivered it to laboratory.  It seems that the lab technician lost
the meltwater and it was never analyzed.
 
>J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
>jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
>Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
>Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / John Logajan /  Lame answers to layman's questions
     
Originally-From: logajan@SLEEPY.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lame answers to layman's questions
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:43:45 GMT

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>excess power coming from somewhere of approx 0.07 W, or about 6000 J
>of energy if the experiment runs for 24 hours.
 
>energies released by common exothermic chemical reactions are
>on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 J per gram of "fuel"
 
>If this is true, than the excess energy
>in Droege's experiments could be entirely accounted for by the
>chemical reaction of a few grams, or at most a few tens of grams, of
>some kind of purely chemical fuel per day of operation.
 
Droege's cathode consists of about 2 grams of Pd (if I did my calculations
correctly.)  He also has about 30 grams of D2O.  He has an unknown (by me)
amount of LiOD, teflon, foam chunks, and glass??? all in immediate contact
with the active portion of the cell.
 
Cell 4A2 has been running for 20+ days with a rather linear continuous
increase in power output, so it is easy to find the average power over
twenty days -- take the current power and divide by 2.  Thus the system
has produced about 3000J a day for the last 20 days.  In just the first
7 days, chemical energies accounted for by the Pd or the loaded D exceeded
your stated high limits.
 
That leaves D2O, LiOD, teflon, foam chunks and glass as the remaining
potentially significant unknowns.  I suppose the free oxygen could combine
with the foam -- burn it, so to speak, but I think that would effect his
gas volume measurements.
 
I don't know the quantities of any of the other occupants (except for the
30 cc's of D2O) and so can't hazard a guess.  But I think that it is
unlikely that D2O represents a source of chemical "fuel" in the 1000-10000J
per gram range :-)
 
 -- John Logajan
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Hiding the Ashes. NOT!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hiding the Ashes. NOT!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:35:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajon suggests two nuclear reactions as being more difficult to
detect:  First is the converstion of 2 protons to a deuteron, which is
hidden by the presence of large quantities of those species.  I guess
I'll give him that one if he really wants it.  Of course it's hard to
see what role all the deuterium in the cell is playing except to hide
the ash, and most physicists would doubt that weak interactions could
be driven at the required rate.  Second try is Pd fuso-fizzle to lighter
elements, and there John strikes out because of the large change in
neutron-to-proton ratio required.  For Pd it is 60 neutrons to 46 protons
while all stable light nuclei are very close to a 1 to 1 ratio.  The
excess neutrons might be emitted directly or else the fission products
beta decay.  Either way the ashes are easy to detect.  Also note that
no one wants a CF process that uses Pd as the fuel, and finding what
is wanted is an essential feature of cold fusion research to date.
 
Jed Rothwell now proposes to hide the ashes by inventing lots of different
reaction pathways.  Let's see how well that is going to work if we
can detect nuclear reactions with a sensitivity of say 10^5 bellow
what is commensurate with the "heat".  Have you got 100,000 different
reactions in mind, Jed?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / Jim Carr /  Reaction rates -- dimensional analysis
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reaction rates -- dimensional analysis
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:07:43 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

After seeing some discussion of the amounts of heat reported by
Tom Droege (thanks for keeping us up to date) relative to chemical
sources, I thought I should remind everyone of some numbers.
 
1 Joule is about 6.24 x 10^{12} MeV.
 
 (I use MeV because that is a typical scale for nuclear energies.)
 
  -----------
 
Tom reports an accumulation of 36 kJ = 2.25 x 10^{17} MeV.
                               58 kJ = 3.62 x 10^{17} MeV
 
This corresponds to quite a bit of "ash" or "smoke"
 
  -----------
 
It happens to be convenient to do the rate conversion for a power
level of 80 mW, since it comes out to be a nice round number:
 
    0.08 Watts = 5 x 10^{11} MeV/s.
 
Now if about 4-5 MeV came from each reaction, we are talking about
the equivalent of about 3 Curies.  If even a tiny fraction of this
reaction produced radioactive products, they could be detected easily
and, most importantly, the lab could be a dangerous place to work.
 
You old timers will recall that such estimates were the source of
concern about the health of Pons and Fleischman.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.04 / Paul Houle /  Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:41:19 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Oct2.185932.12719@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
 seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell) writes:
>During the Manhatten Project there was concern that the bomb
>would ignite the atmosphere. After some calculations (according
>to Ulam, "Adventures of a Mathematician") this fear was put to
>rest.
>
>Does anyone know if these results are declassified and published
>somewhere?
 
	Yes,  this is one of those things that became a legend among military
technology poseurs.  (Just like the one about FAE devices killing people by
sucking all the air out of their lungs).  There was some concern about this,
the idea was that an atomic bomb might create high enough temperatures to start
a fusion reaction in the atmosphere;  that this would create a detonation wave
(a la the classical "super") that would spread around the world.
 
	Hans Bethe,  rather quickly,  did some calculations that showed that
this could not happen around the early days of Los Alamos.  His recent book
"The Road from Los Alamos" contains a short article that talks about his
calculation.  If you look at the height of the coulomb barrier for any
reaction that can happen in the atmosphere,  you'll see that an atomic
bomb (50-80 MK) doesn't produce high enough temperatures to make any fusion
go at more than infinitesimal rates,  and it shouldn't be all that hard to
work the problem out in detail.  It turns out that you actually could start
a detonation wave similar to this,  but you need very high pressures (like
stellar cores) and even then they still don't seem to work very well.  If
you did manage to start atmospheric fusion on Earth (very hard!), the reaction
would quickly blow itself out.
 
	There is also no reasonable exothermic chemical reaction that you can
make go here either.  The only thing that would be reasonable would be N2+O2->
NxOy,  and all of those reaction have a huge activation energy...  And yes,  a
bomb could activate these but the reaction would not produce enough heat to
break up the N2 in any kind of propagative way.
 
	Even in stellar cores,  thermonuclear detonation waves do not propagate
well.  In most scenarios for supernovae,  the detonation wave cannot outrace
the core collapse,  so the shock ends up being stationary,  and the outer parts
of the star would fall through the shock and quietly collapse to a singularity
if it were not for the fact that the extreme compression of matter (p+e -> n +
neutrino) causes the emission of neutrinos which actually have a fairly good
cross-section to interact with the shock and to restart it.  This "good" cross
section is really pretty bad since probably about 1% of a supernovae's
energy output is in the form of light and heat and kinetic energy of ejected
matter.  Almost all of it goes out in neutrinos.
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  /  Replys to calorimeter questions.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replys to calorimeter questions.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:31:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is reply to all the calorimeter questions:
 
Dick Blue is worried that the calorimeter response will not be good for
pulses.  Thanks to fellow electrical engineer David Cyganski for coming to my
rescue here.  David has it right.  Not only did we design the calorimeter to
absorb a large pulse, but we tested it with pulses.  I think we could stand a
10,000 joule or so pulse with little transient induced error if it just made
things hot and did not do physical damage.  The internal heat capacity is 2500
joules per C.  There is a nice curve to look at on page 247 of the Como
proceedings.  In figure 4 we show the drift for 10 hours, then show the effect
of 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 joule impulses.  There have also been some
improvements since figure 3 which shows 50 joules drift over 10 hours.
Principally the shell servo was added since the data of this figure.
 
Dick, you need to read the description again.  There are four servos of
interest, not two.  They all do different things.  Two servos doing the same
thing is the closest thing to a guaranteed oscillator that I know.  The puck-
plate TEC servo just holds constant current.  The plate base servo holds the
puck-plate temperature difference to zero - it does not care what the
temperature is.  The heater servo, a very slow servo, drives the heaters to
maintain a constant puck temperature.  The shell servo drives an aluminum
shell outside the dewar to hold the same temperature as the inside of the
dewar.  The shell and plate-base servos are relatively fast.  Thus if the
inside of the calorimeter gets hot from an impulse, the outside environment of
the calorimeter just tracks it.  This reduces greatly the radiation losses
which would otherwise occur.  There are actually more servos in the system.
A fifth holds constant cell current.  A sixth is usually used for the dummy.
In fact, there are 12 things we could call servos in the system if we call
closed loop power amplifiers ( good for about 50 watts ) servos.  For example
two others hold the electronics and the shunts at constant temperature.
 
Dick, it is hard to understand how the whole thing works without the picture.
There is a very nice engineering drawing made by Cam Tibbals on his fancy CAD
machine in the Como proceedings ISBN 88-7794-045-X.  Send me your address and
I will send you a paper.  But give me some time.  It may be faster to get the
Como proceedings from your library as I do not have a convenient secretary to
give a note to.
 
Sorry, I cannot follow your logic as you have it all wrong.  We measure
everything so if "there may have been a net heat input into the calorimeter
during this excursion" we measure it.  If after reading the Como paper you
think my calorimeter still has a problem I have a nice bet for you.  At
$10,000 a crack, even money, I will bet you that I can tell when you are
putting 10 mw into my calorimeter.  You will be given two sets of leads into
heaters in the calorimeter.  One set which I will measure, will allow you to
insert a background "noise" to try to confuse the calorimeter, any value up to
one watt, changed any time except that the last 3 hours before the measurement
is taken must be fixed.  On the other leads you will be allowed to apply any
fixed power level up to 1 watt.  After a 24 hour test period I will tell you
the input power to 10 mw or you will win the bet.  We can repeat this bet
every 24 hours.  I will guarantee you at least 10 shots at me.  Runs void if
power fails over 5 minutes, or for power failure in last 3 hours of a bet.
Please come, bring lots of money.  Room and board included as long as you are
willing to keep betting.  About two weeks of calibration time with the planned
heaters will be required before starting the betting.
 
Thomas H. Kunich worries about such a complicated system working.  I do too.
But if we allow complexity to negate experimental results, then we better
throw out all high energy physics since they stopped using cloud chambers.  I
too worry about damage to the Peltier devices.  I broke a few on the early
calorimeter.  Now I do my best to mount them in a configuration that provides
strain relief.  I give up some on efficiency to provide a soft mounting.  But
that is what calibration detects.  We have been able to use the same
calorimeter constant for about a year.  So either the shunts and the ADC is
tracking the refrigerator TED or they are not drifting.
 
Chuck Harrison worries about barometric pressure changes affection the gas
measurement.  The cell is inside the 2 liter dewar, and is sealed.  The dewar
is also partially sealed, to that it is hard for it to breathe gas in and out.
There is only about 50 cc of gas in the 100 cc cell after we subtract the
space taken up by the 33 cc of electrolyte, the catalyst, the plug, and the
support structure.  So 3% * 50 cc is 1.5 cc.  We measured about 108 cc of
left over O2 during charging.  I would be happy with a 1.5% D/Pd measurement.
There is also anywhere between 0 and 60 cc in the motor driven syringe.  This
suffers from both barometric and temperature effects.  We can indeed see the
effect on the gas measurement when the furnace turns on.  But all these
effects are small compared to what we typically measure.  Something else
causes gas volume changes over long time periods.  We keep looking.
 
Chuck Harrison asks "What is the temperature of the "inside of the dewar"?
You have to look at the drawing, Chuck, to really answer your question.  I
will send you paper copies, just have not got to it yet.  There is a 1/16"
copper inner heat shell that follows the inside surface of the dewar.  It
makes thermal contact only with the puck.  The paper shows a layer of
insulation between this heat shell and the inside of the dewar, we now leave
this out as it is a pain in the neck to install each time a change is made.
The whole idea is to try to keep a uniform temperature over the inside of the
dewar.  If all 10 watts were injected at the top of the heat shield, there
would be about a 10 C drop between the top of the shell and the puck.  So much
for copper being a "good" thermal conductor.  But most of the power goes into
the spool which holds the cell, it is 5/8" thick aluminum and makes direct
thermal contact with the puck.  So in practice, only the catalyst heat is seen
by the inner heat shield, and it is about 1 watt.  So in the very worst case,
I would expect about 1 C between the top and the bottom of this shield.  We
have not measured the inner shield but we did measure the gradient over the
shell.  This inner shield gradient will cause small changes only with large
changes of electrolysis current.  For the most part, we expect this error to
calibrate out.  The radiation loss is not all that large to start with as the
dewar has an inner radiation shield. (Made in Japan.  I actually had my
Japanese colleague call and check up on how the dewar was made.)
 
John Logajan worries about the long term failure modes of gismoids.  I am
being straigt up with all of you, so you will note that recently when the
shell servo failure caused several days data to be larger, it was put up here
immediately.  I keep looking and worrying.  But I have began to notice that I
have a lot of runs just like the current one.  These going back as far as the
summer of 1989.  So it is not new stuff that I am getting excited about.  It
is the same old stuff that is breaking through my skepticism.  So when I
finally decipher that gizmiod fracture is the cause of all of this, you will
hear it.  Meantime, I have started to act as if "anomalous heat" exists.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  /  Hot and Cold
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot and Cold
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:31:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To Dieter Britz and others who asked about my observation that I sometimes see
the thermometer in the cell get hot while the thermometer near the catalyst
gets cold while there is no change in the gas volume.
 
Looks like recombination in the cell to me.  Re-combination in the cell makes
it hotter.  The catalyst sees less gas to convert so it gets colder.  The
catalyst re-combines all the gas available, so there is no volume change.  Only
problem is that these events seem to be accompanied by a little excess heat.
 
Remember all the early reports that this could not happen?  I do not believe
anyone who runs an open system.  I have run too many experiments now where
the gas does not have the assumed heating value.  My next calorimeter will
allow separate measurement of the cell heat and the catalyst heat.  The plan
is to put two Seebeck calorimeters inside my nul-balance calorimeter.  The
big one will take care of the over all energy balance.  The Seebeck units will
have fast response and lower noise for their measurements.  Who knows, maybee
the cell makes "Browns gas" and the catalyst will be hotter than I expect.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  Harrison /  Gotta see those graphs
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gotta see those graphs
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:20:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some possibilities for graphics formats to pass around here,
specifically for line plots of measured data.  I have marked my opinion
of pluses + and minuses - :
 HPGL (Hewlett-Packard Graphics Language -- for plotters)
   + Most plotting software will output it
   + Vectors - fairly small files
   + 7-bit ASCII (I think) = easy mailing
   - Screen display software hard to find (?)
 TEKTRONIX 4010 (for an ancient graphics display terminal)
   + Vectors with some compression - very small files
   + 7-bit ASCII
   + Screen display by public-domain terminal emulators on many CPUs
   - Not a common output format from modern software
 GIF (Graphics Interchange Format -- Compuserve)
   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
   + Display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
   + LZH compression - reasonably compact (for raster graphics!)
   - big files, compared to vector formats
   - 8-bit data, may require arcane uuencode treatment for mail
 TIF (Tagged Image File -- desktop publishing)
   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
   + display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
   + Common output format for PC-based graphics programs
   - big files
   - limited standardization -- several "dialects" exist
   - 8-bit data, may need arcane treatment
 
Comments encouraged.
  -chuck
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  Close /   Cold Fusion Oxymoron
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Cold Fusion Oxymoron
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:24:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re: this week's ideas on nuclear ash
 
 
Jed Rothwell tells us that cold fusion isnt fusion (glad that we agree on
something at last).
 
Jed: Have you managed to convince your guru Martin Fleischmann of this?
Recall that he insisted, under questioning from me as recently as August,
that it *is* fusion, that *helium* is the ash and that it is "well known"
that he and Pons found it in 1989. As five weeks is a long time in
CNF (cold not-fusion)  it is possible that the axioms of August have since been
replaced by one or more alternatives. Has Fleischmann,having realised that
helium ash is eliminated, withdrawn his claim in favour of Jed's (implicit)
100,000+ unspecified pathways  or was Jed merely posting his personal opinion
in which case we can rate it accordingly?
 
If Jed, or anyone, wishes to check the latest "official" position on
CN-F, the fax number for the "secret" laboratory in Sofia Antipolis
(France) is (33)- 93 65 38 26. Mark it attn M Fleischmann and share
the results with Tom Droege so that some of his HEP colleagues can
help assay for the nuclear ash (though hopefully not the ones masquerading
as HEPs that Jed once consulted on helium at Gev energies).
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  Britz /  RE: Products and proportionality
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Products and proportionality
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:24:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>I believe this model is much too simple. I think the evidence already at hand
>disproves it. In my view, nuclear products like neutrons and tritium stand in
>relation to CF the way smoke relates to flame. Sometimes, you get a lot of
>smoke, and very little open flame, but other times, you get all flame and no
>smoke. I think that in the end, we will discover that "CF" is not one unified
>phenomenon, it is a complex series of different reactions or phases, that occur
>in different ways, and produce different products.
 
>To put this in concrete terms:
 
>Mizuno talks about the different "phases" the CF reaction goes through as the
>D:Pd ratio changes. He believes that as the loading increases, we first see a
>lot of tritium produced, then that effect dies away and we begin to see a
>neutrons and a little heat. As the loading goes higher, the neutrons fade away,
>and the heat becomes intense. Unfortunately, these phases are difficult to
>separate out from one another, because palladium does not load in a precisely
>even fashion. One part of the sample may be at 0.85, while another is at 0.90,
>so several phases go on simultaneously.
 
>What this means is not that there is 'no ash,' but that you can never be quite
>sure whether you are going to get lots of one type of ash, or only a little
>bit, while the rest goes up the flue as smoke (as it were). Since we don't know
>how to build fires yet, every one of them burns differently. We cannot expect b
>and B in direct proportion to the energy release; we have to look for some
>complex, unknown mixture of A, B, C, D and who knows what else, which sometimes
>show up in the gas, and sometimes remains in the palladium. The proportions of
>A, B, C and D in relation to the heat vary from 0% to 100%, depending on
>unknown factors. Okay, loading is known, but what other factors are there, and
>how do they work?
 
Jed, I have been, and am willing to bend over backwards a bit and admit to the
possibility that some exotic, perhaps even nuclear, process is responsible for
what many people regard as "the observations"; I do not push the pathological
science line. But if you mean the above, i.e. you are now going to propose a
multitude of new, hitherto unknown (nuclear?) processes, you are approaching
pathological science, by needlessly multiplying entities. Each time you pile
on a new entity, your science looks more pathological.
 
The final test will still be: show us the heat; show us those kW/cm**3 that
F&P are now claiming. If this is real, THEN there is a real observation to try
to explain by some theory. Right now, we have a great heap of marginal and
doubtful observations, plus evasions and shifting ground, as well as strong
claims without evidence. That might be because this is a terribly difficult
area to work in, OK. But that also makes it terribly difficult to convince
the skeptics, and it makes it simply wrong to claim that there is lots of
evidence that this thing is real.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 743 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 743 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:25:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
since the item below seems appropriate right now, I send it off by itself. As
you see, this is a report of the BA meeting, already commented on by Frank
Close on this group. Fleischmann, like Jed, wants it every way: it's not a
normal fusion reaction, which explains why it doesn't behave like one; on the
other hand, when others find evidence of normal behaviour like helium and
neutrons at 2.45 MeV, this, too, proves that it is - what? A normal fusion
reaction, or what? I am confused.
Show me the apparatus producing those kilowatts of heat, and I'll go for it.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 6-Oct-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 743
 
Journalistic comment: archived file CNF-CMNT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coghlan A;                               New Scientist 135 (1837) 8, 5-Sep-92.
"Test-tube fusion lives on in exile".
** Andy Coghlan was at the British Association meeting and reports here on
Fleischmann, who was also there. He and Pons are working in a secret lab in
France, financed mainly by the Japanese think-tank, Technova. Fleischmann once
again quotes a number of groups around the world for positive results, and
claims up to 3000 W/cm**3. He says it is not normal fusion, because it's not
happening in the gas phase, but in a solid. However, he also quotes others who
have found helium, and even neutrons at 2.45 MeV.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / Nick Haines /  Re: Two questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two questions from a layman
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:47:03 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992Oct5.024008.20040@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU
 (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
   [...]
 
   Let me ask if I understand this correctly.  This is apparently net
   excess power coming from somewhere of approx 0.07 W, or about 6000 J
   of energy if the experiment runs for 24 hours.  Now, my impression is
   that the energies released by common exothermic chemical reactions are
   on the order of 1,000 to 10,000 J per gram of "fuel" used in the
   reaction (is this correct?).  If this is true, than the excess energy
   in Droege's experiments could be entirely accounted for by the
   chemical reaction of a few grams, or at most a few tens of grams, of
   some kind of purely chemical fuel per day of operation.
 
   If this is true, is it not a very serious (and difficult) concern that
   the excess energy could be coming from the chemical reaction (or state
   change) of some very small amount of "fuel" in the setup, perhaps in
   the form of an impurity, which could be very difficult to identify or
   test for?
 
Yes, this is all true. But the whole point of Tom Droege's rig is that
there _aren't_ grams, let alone tens of grams, of "fuel": the whole
cell is controlled in great detail (think about what it means to
control the heat transfer of the cell to within a milliwatt).
 
Also I'm sure that everything in the cell will be analyzed for state
changes when he strips it down.
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 / John McCauley /  Fusion Energy Foundation...(was H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Energy Foundation...(was H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:10:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1ao2s3INN2o4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve
 Crocker) writes:
>
>The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices
>Freidwardt Winterberg
>(pub) Fusion Energy Foundation, New York 1981
**** LAROUCHE ALERT! ****
 
Speaking of the FEF, has anyone heard of them lately? The FEF was the
'science' arm of jailed right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche's organization.
They published ``Fusion'' magazine and 'Executive Intelligence Review'.
 
Much of the FEF stuff is utter bunk. They had a few cracked scientists on
their staff (i.e. people who once did respectible work but then snapped).
 
I recently saw one of Lyndon's 30-minute campaign ads. Yes, he is trying
to run for US President (again) from jail. It was the same one he used in
his 1988 campaign but it included a taped statement from his cell in the
Federal Pen.
 
	Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Who is who
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who is who
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:46:50 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>.....                                                      >
>Misinterpretation or not, I've decided to take Mr. Forman up on his wager.
>More later.  It will be a carefully restricted wager between myself and
>him only, if he can spare the $1 (vs. my $500) that I will be proposing.
>
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
My name is Dick. Since I did not graduate from Harvard, if you feel that
you must use a title please use the correct one.
My title derives from Piled Higher and Deeper. The only other title I have
is B.S., and everyone knows what that is.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Forman/Bollinger $1/$500 TMC Bet
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forman/Bollinger $1/$500 TMC Bet
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:31:13 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct5.004619.7424@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
 
>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>Below is my proposed response to Richard Forman's challenge.  It is detailed,
>but it also is pretty blunt.  I'm saying that if high levels of anomolous
>heat exist at all in Pd(Hx,Dy) systems that it is not just TMC, but a form
>of TMC that is absolutely dependent on delocalization of deuterium and/or
>hydrogen atoms in some type of (transition) metal lattice for its existence,
>Richard Forman gets "everything else" (assuming widespread reproduction).
>
>If no such phenomena are ever made massively and easily reproducible, the
>bet becomes void after two years.
>
>                                Cheers,
>                                Terry Bollinger
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 PROPOSED FORMAN/BOLLINGER $1/$500 CF/TMC BET
>
>                          DRAFT 1 - October 4, 1992
>                              Terry B. Bollinger
>
>The following bet is proposed:
>
> o  Richard Forman (of "sci.physics.fusion") shall win $500 from Terry B.
>    Bollinger if heat production in excess of that possible by any known
>    chemical mechanism is shown to exist in transition metal deuterides and/or
>    hydride systems, AND the mechanism by which heat is produced is shown to
>    be something other than "total mass conversion" (TMC).  "TMC"means the
>    conversion of deutrium and/or hydrogen into energy with flagrant violation
>    of baryon conservation.  Production of heat without baryon violation shall
>    be considered "cold fusion," regardless of the exact process details.
>    Richard Forman shall also win in the event that TMC is demonstrated, but
>    the mechanism is show to be unrelated to band delocalization of deuterium
>    and/or hydrogen in metal lattices.
>
> o  Terry B. Bollinger (of "sci.physics.fusion") shall win $1 from Richard
>    Forman if heat production of the type described above is shown to be
>    real and reproducible; and TMC with massive violation of baryon number
>    is demonstrated to be the cause; and the TMC mechanism is demonstrated
>    to be causally dependent on delocalization of hydrogen and/or deuterium
>    in metal lattices.
>
>The details of how the bet is to be won are given below.
>
>PRECONDITION.  The following precondition must be met before the bet is to
>be considered active.  In the absence of the following precondition, the
>bet shall be considered void and neither party shall owe the other party
>any funds.  The precondition for the bet is:
>
>    Acceptance by the majority of the scientific community that there exist
>    well-defined, readily reproducible "recipes" by which room-temperature,
>    room-pressure experiments based on one or more compounds of the form
>    [Transition Metal](Hx,Dy) are capable of generating net energy outputs
>    well in excess of that possible by any type of chemical reaction that
>    could be postulated using the same total mass of reactants.  "Based on"
>    in this context means that the results cannot be reproduced if all of
>    the [Transition Metal](Hx,Dy) compounds are removed from the system.
>
>CONDITIONS BY WHICH THE PARTY TERRY B. BOLLINGER SHALL WIN THE BET.  The
>party Terry B. Bollinger shall be considered the winner of the bet if and
>only if: 1) the precondition has been met, and  2) all of the following
>additional conditions are demonstrated by the scientific community to be
>necessary for the generation of energy outputs in excess of those possible
>for any conceivable chemical reaction:
>
> 1. Delocalization of the wavefunctions of some portion of the (Hx,Dy) part
>    of the [TM](Hx,Dy) compound, as demonstrated by the formation of "bands"
>    of some fraction of the (Hx,Dy) component.  Band delocalization shall
>    be defined as for electron band formation in metals.  That is, some set
>    or sets of otherwise identical (Hx,Dy) fermions shall be shown to take
>    on a spectrum(s) of momentum values, and can be shown to demonstrate a
>    distinct Fermi surface(s).
>
> 2. Demonstration that there exists at least one example of [TM](Hx,Dy)
>    constructions in which 95% or more of the energy generated is:
>
>     a. In the form of low-energy heat and/or neutrinos, and
>
>     b. Is causally linked to the "disappearance" of some fraction of the
>        delocalized Fermi band (Hx,Dy) component.  That is, that the energy
>        generation process effectively disappears whenever delocalization
>        of any part of the (Hx,Dy) component is eliminated, and that the
>        95% heat/neutrino energy and mass loss measured for the system
>        shall never exceed the total mass/energy available from that part
>        of the (Hx,Dy) component shown to "disappear."
>
>CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RICHARD FORMAN SHALL WIN THE BET.  If the precondition
>for the bet has been met and neither of the conditions (1) and (2) listed
>above for how Terry B. Bollinger shall win the bet, Richard Forman shall be
>considered the winner of the bet.
>
>LIMITATIONS.  This bet shall be active for a maximum of two years from the
>day on which Richard Forman formally accepts it, as demonstrated by public
>acceptance of the bet on the UseNet group known as "sci.physics.fusion".
>
>JUDGING.  As described in the bet, judging of who wins the bet shall be
>determined primarily by publically available information as to the acceptance
>of existence of [TM](Hx,Dy) energy production phenomena, and similar acceptance
>of the conditions required for such heat production.  In the event that such
>information becomes classified or otherwise unavailable, the participants shall
>wait until the end of the two year bet period and then declare the bet void if
>no adequate information for resolving the bet is available by that time.
>
>PAYMENT.  Payment to the winner shall be made no later than 30 days after
>mutual agreement by Richard Forman and Terry B. Bollinger that sufficient
>information has become publically available to make a determination of the
>winner of the bet.
>
>ARBITRATION.  In the event of disagreement about whether any preconditions or
>conditions have been met, it is suggested that Dieter Britz of the UseNet
>group "sci.phyics.fusion" be asked to take on the role of arbitrator.  If
>Dr. Britz is not mutually acceptable in such an arbitration role, Richard
>Forman and Terry B. Bollinger shall negotiate another mutually acceptable
>arbitrator.  If no such arbitrator can be agreed to, both parties shall
>forfit the amounts of their bets to a charity of their own choosing and the
>bet shall be declared void.
A very minor point, I hope. As I have said on the net many times--what about
the dirt in the system?  Do I still win if "native" dirt si responsible
for the effect? By that I mean--the dirt in Tom's or Takahashi's or
McKubre's cell. It might be going on an impurity in the palladium in the
electrolyte the gases, etc. If the answer is YES, Terry, the bet is on!
Dick Forman, Piled Higher and Deeper, (no More of the Same) and B.S.
Never Mr.--That is reserved for Professors at Harvard.
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:26:28 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Gentlemen,
I have been following with interest the heat-generation work of Droege and the
discussion by Carr, Rothwell, Britz, Blue and others regarding the need for
nuclear "ash" to accompany nuclear reactions.  The principle question seems to
be:  "Is the heat due to nuclear reactions?"  (Tabelling for the moment the
question "Is the heat real?")
Since the nuclear reactions at work are not known, can one hide forever by
saying that the correct nuclear products have not been searched for?  Or, as in
the case of P+P --> D, cannot be found due to low S/N?
I would like to put forth a way around these problems, and see if anyone can
shoot holes in my proposal/challenge to heat producers:
1-  Nuclear reactions are of the order of MeV's.
2-  At a power of 1 watt, the rate of nuclear reactions is 6 X 10**12/Q,
where Q is the energy released per reaction.
3-  Combining points 1 and 2 - retaining generality in not specifying a
particular nuclear reaction - we deduce that 1 watt of excess power requires of
the order of a trillion reactions per second.
4-  The primary products may hide, but at these rates, secondary X-rays cannot
hide.
5-  For instance, in palladium, the k-alpha x-ray has 20 keV, which is quite
penetrating.  In heavy water, approximately 20% of these X-rays survive after
40 mm.  The palladium is a better attenuator, but with either a volumetric or
(better) a surface reaction, significant X-rays ought to get out:  a few
percent survive 300 microns of Pd by montecarlo calculation.
6-  MeV-energy charged particles produce excitations which lead to copious
X-ray production.  My colleague Larry Rees estimates, for example, 3X10**-8 k
x-rays per 3-MeV-proton.  With a trillion or a billion nuclear reactions per
second, the 20 keV x-ray yield ought to be easily detectable.
 
Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in origin?
 
P.S.  In nickel, the 7.4 keV line should be readily detectable if nuclear
reactions are occurring in the metal at rates claimed.
 
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
P.P.S.  One should use spectroscopy, of course, to determine the x-ray
energies, in order to get a clearer picture of what is going on.  I would not
be satisfied with exposures of x-ray film.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.005 / Jim Bowery /  Early Plasmoid Article
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Early Plasmoid Article
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 09:52:39 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Audit:  sci.physics.fusion,JBowery,2
 
Here's another Scientific American article from the 60's.  Someone
got to the article before I did and put circles around certain key
sections.  I've delimited those sections with < text >:
 
PLASMOIDS
 
These little pieces of plasma(a gas of electrons and ions)
are created in the laboratory with an electrical gun.  They
have an unexpected capacity for maintaining their identity.
 
by Winston H. Bostick
 
In physics laboratories of several countries -- notably the US,
Great Britain and the USSR -- man is feeling his way gingerly toward
harnessing thermonuclear power.  The studies are centered on small
"bottles" of hot gas which correspond to tiny samples of the sun
(though they are not nearly so hot or dense).  The gas is called a
plasma.  It is a collection of electrons and ions (electrically
charged atoms).  The behavior of this assemblage of particles is at
once very simple and very complex.  It challenges all the mathematical
and experimental ingenuity of modern physics, and it has ushered us
into a world of unexpected and exciting phenomena.  This article is an
account of some recent experiments which have generated remarkable
bodies that we call plasmoids.
 
The properties of these bodies stem basically from two familiar
phenomena of nature, both of which, oddly enough, go back to the same
discoverer -- William Gilbert, Queen Elizabeth's physician, who will
forever be a great name in physics.  In 1600 this imaginative
experimenter placed an electrically charged knob of metal close to a
flame and found that the metal lost its charge:  the heated air had
carried it away.  Thus Gilbert discovered that a gas (an ionized gas,
as we know now) can conduct electricity.  The other physical
phenomenon that governs the behavior of plasmoids is magnetism -- a
field in which Gilbert was also the first experimenter.  Ionization
and magnetism combine to produce what have recently become known as
magnetohydrodynamic effects, and plasmoids are magnetohydrodynamic
phenomenon [see "Electricity in Space," by Hannes Alfven: Sci Am May,
1952].
 
The late Irving Langmuir of the General Electric Company began to
study plasmas as long ago as 1921.  Plasmas, of course, are nothing
new:  whenever we look at a neon sign we see a plasma.  It is produced
by an electric discharge which knocks electrons fro the gas atoms in
the tube; the released electrons collide with other atoms and produce
more ions.  This process continues until there are enough liberated
electrons to make the gas a good electrical conductor.
 
Langmuir was interested in learning, among other things, the energy of
agitation, or "temperature," of the electrons.  The wall of the neon
tube is cool, and so are the ions and gas atoms in the tube, because
comparitively few atoms are ionized and the ions quickly distribute
their energy among the neutral atoms.  But the electrons are so much
lighter that they lose little energy in rebounding from the more
massive atoms or the tube wall.  By ingenious experiments Langmuir
measured the electrons' temperature and found that it amounted to
about 20,000 degrees Fahrenheit -- about twice as hot as the sun's
surface.
 
This high figure explains the interest in plasmas on the part of
physicists who are now studying the possibilities for achieving
controlled thermonuclear fusion.  To fuse atoms of deuterium
(heavy-hydrogen) on a large scale requires temperatures of about 300
million
degrees centigrade.  Such a temperature is far beyond our reach in the
laboratory, nor could a dense gas at this temperature be contained by
any method we know at present.  But for exploratory experiments it
should at least be possible to reaise a plasma to a temperature of
scores ofthousands of degrees, and the plasma can be contained if its
density is sufficiently low.
 
The difficulty is that ina low-density gas, energized ions and
electrons do not collide with one another often enough to raise the
temperature greatly; instead they lose their energy in collisions with
the walls of the container.  But as everyone who has followed events
knows, a beautiful solution to this problem has been found.  It is the
magnetic "bottle."  Within a magnetic field, which swings the
electrified particles in circular orbits, the plasma can temporarily
be held in thrall as tightly as by any material container.  The
electrons and atoms collide only with one another, and the plasma
becomes fully ionized.
 
In the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Livermore and
at the Stevens Institute of Technology we have been studying
magnetically confined plasmas with the help of a special plasma gun.
It generates a plasma of deuterium, the potential fuel of
thermonuclear fusion.  There are two electrodes, made of titanium with
deuterium atoms absorbed in them.  A pulsed arc current of several
thousand amperes, each pulse lasting about half a microsecond, is
passed across the gap between the electrodes.  This high current
evaporates electrons and ions from the two electrodes.  It also
generates a magnetic field which, like a girdle, pinches the plasma
into a slender column.  The special feature of our gun is that the
plasma emerging from the two "mouths" is bent ito a loop, and it fires
doughnut-shapped blobs of plasma.  Just as, when a spring is bent, the
turns of the wire are crowded closer on the inside of the loop than on
the outside, so the magnetic field lines of the loop of plasma
emerging from our gun are more crowded on the inside than on the
outside.  The strong magnetic pressure on the inside of the loop blows
the plasma forward at high speed -- up to 120 miles per second!
Considering that the gun smaller than a thimble and that the driving
energy stored in the capacitor is only six joules -- no more than is
needed to light a six-watt bulb for one second -- this is a truly
remarkable performance.  A velocity of 120 miles per second for
deuterium ions represents a temperature of four million degrees.  <It
suggests that with larger plasma guns of this kind we might begin to
approach thermonuclear termperatures.
 
The velocities of the plasma bodies shot from our gun are comparable
to the speed of stars in galaxies and of flares shooting out from the
sun.  It seemed worthwhile to follow up the analogy.  Would the
high-speed plasma serve as a kind of laboratory model to throw light on
the
magnetohydrodynamic processes operating in the universe?  We have
studied it from this point of view, with what seem to me interesting
and significant results.>
 
Let us see first what happens when we fire a piece of plasma into a
vacuum under an external magnetic field (that is a field applied from
outside the plasma itself, which is bottled within its own self-excited
field).  Although the plasma darts through our chamber at a
speed in the neighborhood of 120 miles a second, fortunately it leaves
a luminous wake which can be photographed with a high speed camera, so
that we can see its track.  Now we would expect the electrons and ions
in the plasma to be thrown into circular orbits as soon as they enter
the externally applied magnetic field, so that the plasma would not
move more than a very short distance from the gun.  But the camera
discloses the somewhat shocking fact that thte plasma crosses the
magnetic field with ease!  How does it get through the field?
 
To follow our explanation the reader is advised to consult the
accompanying diagrams. [jb: sorry folks -- go get the original].  As
the plasma starts to move across the magnetic field, the electrons
move upward and the positive ions downward.  This effect essentially
produces an electromotive force, <just as copper wirs moving across a
magnetic field do in anordinary dynamo.  An electromotive force can be
thought of as the electric pressure exerted by an electric pump.  If
there is no outlet (such as an electric toaster) for the pump, no
curent will flow.  Similarly this little piece of plasma has no outlet
in the vacuum chamber and no current can flow.  Its pump pushes aainst
closed valves, so to speak, and merely creates an electrical pressure
opposing that of the pump.  Within the plasma frame of reference the
direct and opposing electric fields cancel each other, and the
magnetic field swings the electrons and ions in perfectly circular
orbits.  But from our outside point of view we can see that the
opposing electric field (E2), in conjunction with the magnetic field,
moves the orbits, so that the plasma travels across the magnetic
field.  The particle orbits trace a track such as a marker at one
point on the edge of a merry-go-round would leave the ground if the
merry-go-round were dragged along by a tractor while it was turning.
 
Apparently some ions and electrons in the plasma, escaping the full
effect of electric field E2, stay behind in stationary circular
orbits.  These ions and electrons recombine and give off light.  Their
luminous tracks are in a manner of speaking, the funeral pyres of the
particles which were sacrificed in laying down the electric field E2
so that the main body of the plasma might pass across the magnetic
field.
 
We can actually draw current from the primary electric field produced
by the little dynamo contained in this plasma.  If we put two small
stationary probes connected by a resistance in the chamber (equivalent
to plugging in a toaster), we get a pulse of current of about one
ampere as the two regions of the plasma pass simultaneously over the
probes.
 
Further measurements with probes show that the plasma forms an ever
elongating hollow cylinder as it proceeds across the magnetic field
[see upper diagram at left].  It is to this type of plasma -- a
self-generating, shaped body -- that we have given the name plasmoid.
And
plasmoids, under laboratory manipulation, display some fascinating
behavior.
 
 
What will happen if we fire two plasmoids at each other from opposite
directions?  We might suppose that when they meet their transverse
electric fields will cancel each other so that both plasmoids stop
dead.  But in fact they bounce off each other like billiard balls!
Apparently each dynamo acts as an outlet or short-circuit for the
other, and a substantial current (several amperes) flows briefly.  The
current gives rise to a "cushion" of high magnetic-field pressure
between the two plasmoids which pushes them away from each other.
 
Occasionally two plasmoids crashing head on break into fragments, but
even these fragments seem to behave as entities.  In other words, we
appear to be dealing with bodies which have strong powers of
self-organization and preservation.  We find these powers still more
strikingly demonstrated when we go on to further experiments.
 
Suppose we fire a plasmoid not into a vacuum but into a thin gas.  We
introduce into the chamber a little deuterium gas, amounting to a
pressure of about one micron.  Now when a plasmoid is fired into the
chamber through a magnetic field, the gas, which becomes somewhat
ionized by the firing, allows current to flow.  The current slows the
movement of the plasmoid and also twists its path and its shape.  When
we fire four (or eight) plasmoids at one another from different
directions, upon meeting near the center they whirl and form a ring
with spiral arms [see photogrph above].  The formation looks
strinkingly like a photograph of a spiral galaxy.  If we fire two
plasmoids at each other head on, they form an S-shaped figure
resembling a "barrel" spiral galaxy [see photograph below].
 
Just how are these interesting shapes formed?  We can explain them on
the basis of complicated interactions between the plasmoids and the
magnetic field, which are diagrammed here for readers versed in
electricity and magnetism who may be interested in the mechanism [see
diagrams on page 91].
 
A barrel spiral, it appears, may be formed by plasmoids joining head
to head; a ring spiral, by plasmoids joining head to tail.  When the
ring is oval shapped, part of it flips over and forms a figure eight.
 
Photographs of plasmoids in three diensions show that as a plasmoid
moves across the magnetic field it is twisted into the shape of a
left-handed screw [see diagram at top of page 91].  It is amusing to
speculate on the possible relation of this fact to the recent
breakdown of the parity principle, when it was found by particle
experiments that the matter of our universe has a preferred left-handed
spin [see "The Overthrow of Parity", by Philip Morrison;
Scientific American, April].  If we reversed the poles of the magnetic
field and the sign of the curren tin our plasma gun, our plasmoids
would be right-handed instead of left-handed.  The tempting
speculation is that the matter of our galaxies may have been formed
under the influence of vast galactic magnetic fields of one
predominant orientation, which gave our matter a left-handed bias.
 
 
Under certain conditions our plasmoids form a pair of rings, which do
not stay in the center of the chamber but move away from each other in
opposite directions [see diagrams at left].  We believe that these
rings are basically similar to magnetohydrodynamic whirls which,
according to Alfven, are apparently formed in pairs in the interior of
the sun and may be responsible for sunspots.  However, our plasma
rings are not whirls in a flud but are sparate, independent "bodies."
As such they represent a form of ordred organization by nature of
which we have not been fully aware until now.  Here is a case of
electrons and ions collaborating with a magnetic field to form bodies
which, though inanimate, assume orderly, characteristic shapes and
possess a firm integrity.
 
<We can look upon the combination of plasma and magnetic field as a
kind of self-shaping putty.  Perhaps study of the forms assumed by
this putty may help us to u nderstand configurations such as the stars
and galaxies.  It may also through light, at the other end of the
scale, on the construction of fundamental particles such as the
electron, the proton, mesons and neutrinos.  They too may be made of a
self-organizating putty:  a putty composed of the electromagnetic
field and its own gravitational forces, which, working togeher, create
the bodies we know as particles.>
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:12:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct5.172629.152@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
 
> Since the nuclear reactions at work are not known, can one hide
> forever by saying that the correct nuclear products have not been
> searched for?  Or, as in the case of P+P --> D, cannot be found due to
> low S/N?
 
> [ argument about X-rays omitted ]
 
Also, don't forget Coulomb excitation of the palladium nuclei.  This
should produce gamma rays at characteristic energies.
 
In a spirit of playfulness, though, I can imagine some loopholes.
 
p+p+e-->d+nu:  Conservation of momentum says the neutrino
carries off most of the energy, so the deuteron is left with only
about 1.1 keV.  This is too little to excite K or L shell electrons
in palladium.
 
Another bizarre possibility would be to imagine that the heavy water
is contaminated with some exotic stable massive charged particles,
and that -- somehow -- these particles end up carrying off the energy
from some kind of nuclear reaction.  Such particles would masquerade
as superheavy isotopes of hydrogen (if positively charged).  Even
carrying MeV of energy, such particles, if sufficiently massive, could
not cause inner shell excitations upon collision with a palladium
atom, as the energy in the center of mass frame would be too small.
 
By the way, there are stringent limits on the abundance of exotic
superheavy isotopes of hydrogen of mass < 1200 AMU (Nuc. Phys. B,
1982).  Smith et. al. electrolyzed 6000 liters of commercial heavy
water down to a few tens of microliters, then used a time of flight
mass spectrometer.  Upper bounds of ratio of exotic isotopes to 1H of
10^-28 to 10^-29 were found in the range 12 AMU to 1200 AMU.  However,
at higher masses, the limits were much less tight; around 10^-15 at
about 5000 AMU, with lower limits at higher masses (this bound was
from a measurement of the density of the sample.)  I don't know if
anyone has tried to better these bounds since then; there might be
astrophysical bounds.  Concentrations in heavy water would be roughly
5000 times higher, as the exotic isotopes would be concentrated along
with the deuterium.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 02:27:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>(Tabling for the moment the question "Is the heat real?")
 
Okay, but Droege himself has explicitly taken his "theoretician's" hat off,
and is only wearing a "technician's" hat.  As such his results (and those
of others, of course) seem to be forcing a conundrum -- too much energy
for conventional chemistry, too little "ash" for conventional nuclear
reactions.  Only those who choose to put on the theoreticians hat have
taken it upon themselves to unravel the engima.
 
>Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
>experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in origin?
 
Ah, you are asking if anomalous heat results should be ignored on the basis
of known physics, no matter how apparently reliable the heat measurements
are.  For if the heat continues to be measured in excess of known chemistry,
and simultaneously does not reach your criteria of X-ray emission, you are
forced either to abandon the criteria, or ignore the heat measurements.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / John Gallant /  Close and Fleischmann on Australian Science Show
     
Originally-From: johng@cres1.anu.edu.au (John Gallant)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Close and Fleischmann on Australian Science Show
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 00:43:55 GMT
Organization: Centre for Resource and Environment Studies, Australian National
 University

 
Just for interest's sake:
 
Interviews with Frank Close and Martin Fleischmann (sp?) were broadcast
on the Australian radio "Science Show" this weekend. There was (as far
as I could tell) no new information from either party - new to this
group that is. Fleischmann sounded optimistic but somewhat bitter - he
quoted Max Planck (I think) saying that he doesn't expect to convince
his critics, he's just waiting for them to die out.
 
 
--
    John Gallant           johng@cres.anu.edu.au  "Every \item command in
Centre for Resource and      ph: +61 6 249 0666    item_list must have an
 Environmental Studies      fax: +61 6 249 0757    optional argument".
Australian National University                     Leslie Lamport, LaTeX
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjohng cudfnJohn cudlnGallant cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion Energy Foundation...(was H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Energy Foundation...(was H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 05:06:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) writes:
>The FEF was the 'science' arm of jailed right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche
 
LaRouche is so bizarre that people are always trying to paint him as being
in the enemy's camp.  LaRouche, however, was formerly a Marxist.  He was most
recently a Democrat.
 
He is actually neither left, right, or Libertarian.  He is just some eclectic
combination of bizarre beliefs.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Graphs of Droege experiment data
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Graphs of Droege experiment data
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:41:43 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The data from Tom Droege's recent experiments show up some
interesting trends when graphed.  Below is the graph of his
latest experiment:
 
Data from Droege Cell 4A2 as reported in Oct 2, 1992 status.
Watts
0.0660    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0630    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
0.0600    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * .
0.0570    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . .
0.0540    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . .
0.0510    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . .
0.0480    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . .
0.0450    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0420    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0390    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . .
0.0360    | . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . .
0.0330    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0300    | . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . .
0.0270    | . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . .
0.0240    | . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . .
0.0210    | . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0180    | . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0150    | . . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0120    | . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0090    | . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0060    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0030    | . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0000    | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
              Days since first excess heat
 
At first is seems that the points are nearly linear, but when a
four-day moving average is plotted, it is clearer that something
interesting happened around day 8 and day 14:
 
4-day moving average of the same data (cell 4A2)
Watts
0.0630    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0600    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0570    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
0.0540    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * .
0.0510    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . .
0.0480    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . .
0.0450    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0420    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . .
0.0390    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . .
0.0360    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0330    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . .
0.0300    | . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . .
0.0270    | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0240    | . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . . . .
0.0210    | . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . .
0.0180    | . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0150    | . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0120    | . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0090    | . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0060    | . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0030    | . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0000    | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
              Days since first excess heat
 
When this is plotted with better resolution, it appears that the
first portion of the curve is concave downward (like an
exponential reaching an asymptote), then a new exponential
begins.  Day 10 is Sept 19, the day he switched to 20 second
recording intervals.  Maybe the changes in the curves are
related to that, or maybe not.
 
I also graphed a previously reported experiment:
 
Data from Droege "pseudo Ying experiment - status 24 August 92"
4-day moving average.
Watts
0.0330    | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0300    | . . . . . . . . . * * . .
0.0270    | . . . . . . . . * . . * *
0.0240    | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0210    | . . . . . . . * . . . . .
0.0180    | . . . * . . . . . . . . .
0.0150    | . . . . * . * . . . . . .
0.0120    | . . . . . * . . . . . . .
0.0090    | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0060    | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0030    | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0000    | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
                     Days
 
This one has a very curious shape.  But note that in the linear
region the slope is similar to the latest experiment.
 
One thing I get from these graphs is that the system may have
some very long time constants, either in the servos or in the
CNF device itself.  Both graphs show some interesting events at
around 5-day intervals.  This might suggest running the
experiments for a bit longer, and perhaps reducing th e frequency
of the source in/out cycles.
 
-- Bob Horst
 
(By the way, Tom, I now have a semi-automatic way of producing
graphs like these from spreadsheet data.  It is certainly not as
good as real graphics, but it beats just numbers.  If you are
interested in posting graphs like this, I can send you a copy of
the spreadsheet.  Or you could post more X-Y data and I could
occasionally post some graphs.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  /  Analysis
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Analysis
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Bowery writes:
 
"Do you know anyone at Batavia who could od a quantitative isotopic
analysis of your Li reagent?"
 
One of the reasons that I put up these posts is the forlorn hope that
some one will say "let me do this for you - it may have a neat result".
But mostly people say "why don't ***you*** do this or that."
 
Thank you, I am doing all I can.  But some of you out there are helping.
And doing real neat things.  So occcationally Henny Penny gets someone to
help with the grinding or the baking.  But everyone shows up to eat.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  /  Additives
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Additives
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tod Green says "inhibitors of D2 formation are compounds like thiourea,..."
 
On the advice of Hawkins, we added thiourea to a cell about 2 years ago.  No
special effect.  The best thing we have found for loading is a highy polished
surface.  Two cell in a row with a polished cathode got to the vicinity of
0.94 D/Pd.  This has a rational basis - or at least it did in 1902.
 
And not a "great" finish either.  We will soon try a cell with a really
polished surface.  But all these things take time.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  /  Misc.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Jim Carr for correcting my spelling of Kilojoules.  In graduate
school, I had a German student next door.  Sort of average guy.  He once
amazed us all by wondering what a spelling bee was.  It seems that even
an average German thinks he can spell every word in the dictionary.  Since
my name is Droege, I really belong in Germany.  I try, but the logic of
spelling eludes me.
 
John Logajan wants to know the number of moles of LiOd in the cell.  I don't
know, the solution was made up so there is about a 5% layer of precipitate
in the bottom of the cell.  Guess is one to two cc of LiOD.  While my brother
has a record of the grams of Li added to make the mix, I can't say for sure
the percentage of the precipitate that went into each of two runs.
 
John will be interested that the total is over 70 kilojoules for his
computation.  I agree with John on his Path #1.  Local recombination in the
cell.  But this is not supposed to happen, and if it does, **** a lot of
people who think they are getting results from open cells have something
to learn ****.
 
William L. Dechent asks about output to input power ratio.  It is very small.
A typical number is 1.0059.  A little shy of what is needed for our race car.
But when I smoke the right stuff, I still claim an error on that number of
+/- 0.0001
 
Anthony E. Siegman asks about the possibility that contaminants are producing
the heat.  True, it is not much heat.  But there is only about 50 grams of
stuff in the whole set up.  For the most part, at the end of the run we see
the same stuff as at the start, so I would put an extreme upper limit on
contaminants at say 100 mg.  We are using reasonably pure chemical reagents.
But if 100 mg of stuff produces 70,000 joules, then I figure a gallon of the
same stuff would drive my car 3000 miles.  Bring on the contaminant.  We will
patent it and make a fortune.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  /  Big News
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Big News
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:29:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The big news is that I made some effort to turn the cell off this weekent.  It
did not stop producing power in spite of the fact that almost all the gas
appeared to come out.  Enough gas for a D/Pd of about .84 was evolved.  So
I turned it back on and the cell is now running around 90 mw.  So either my
zero has shifted, or something really strange is going on.  This would be a
very large zero shift.  Like 100 times anything seen before under similar
conditions.
 
Just looked up contaminates.  I once misspelled "area" 46 times in a sophamore
class on the planimeter.  The instructor circled every one.  He completely
failed to notice that the experiment was done with the greatest care, and that
the measurement achieved everything possible with the apparatus.  I got
terrible grades in all my lab courses.  But my group was the only one *ever*
to get the entire motor generator experiment done in the alloted time at the
University of Cincinnati.  And the data was first class.  But I probably got
a C or a D.  So much for the american educational system.  But the Japanese
have it worse.  At least we don't have to learn Japanese.  It is my theory
that Japanese students spend so much time copying characters in school, and
trying to get them perfect, that a set is taken which explains why they look
to others for original work, and why they are so good at achieving perfection.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Chuck Sites /  Hydrogen banding and gamma
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrogen banding and gamma
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:27:26 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
  When Ying and Shultz announced thier work, and later Tom announced his
psueodo-Ying cell, I became curious about D+gamma interaction with the
first objective being to understand d+gamma -> d* (where d* is a nuclear
excited state of deterium, d=ionized D atom).  To me, the suggestions
that Ying made that he was modifying probability space, sounded wierd.
So, I made the assumtion that d* + d would follow the normal fusion tracts
but additionally realeasing the initial stimulating gamma. Thus, d* + d
-> He3 + n gamma, d* + d -> t + p + gamma and weakly, d* + d -> He4 + gamma.
Lastly I assumed d* + d would have an enhanced fusion rate over d+d fusion.
With gamma striking a PdD(x) electrode, the skeem uses the gamma photon as
a transport of a perturbing energy across the system. A fusion catalyst
so to speak.   So I've been researching those assumtions. One, the fusion
rate is higher for d* + d, and second, d + gamma-> d* is dominate and not
d + gamma -> n + p (ie. there exist some low energy gamma resonace in d that
does not cause photodisintegration but does increase the fusability d*+d
interactions).
 
    Now, you would obviously think that such a low energy state would
have already been described by theory, but the best I can tell it has not.
This is why. When researchers look at the d + gamma interaction they
have been looking for a nuclear state change, not increases in fusability.
Because D is the simplest of the nuclear force bound nuclei, the only
state change that becomes `obvious` by D + gamma experiments are those
from photo-disentegration. Current d + gamma theories could be misleading
since they are based on this effect. Thus a nuclear sub-state changes
could be missed both by theory and D photodisentegration experiments.
It's from this point of view I consider Ying's work important as a method
to explore a new state of D + gamma.  If only Ying had taken a gamma
spectrum.
 
    Paul Dietz sent me on a quest of sorts to understand the D+gamma
cross section and the problem above was one result.  But that aside,
another problem came up.  PdD is a solid state system and one needs
to consider those effects to the nuclear state as well. T. Bollinger
an I proposed (serindeptisly) that D with some metals could form
band structures similar to electron band states found in solid state
systems. Heavy particle banding (HPB) is what we are calling it. While
there is a significant difference in mass and charge between electronic
banding and hydrogen banding, the most obvious difference is that one
transports the nuclear force, and the other does not.  With respect to
gamma interactions, you have to wonder if the cross section changes
due to solid state effects.  Second, if an interaction occurs what form
do they take.
 
  The gamma+D cross section is described by Blatt & Weisskopf ("Theoretical
Nuclear Physics") as the coupling of the photon's electrical & magnetic
fields with the electric quadripole and magnetic dipole of the D nucleus,
and is described by somewhat detailed formulas of D(gamma,n)p.  While
reading this I could not help but think of what effect a delocalized
D band state have on a low energy gamma cross section.  From my initial
work, It looks to me like the width of the cross section energies would
increases, and potentially a low energy photon catalytic reaction might
occur like d_e->gamma<-d_m in a HPB, (where d_e, d_m are the electric,
and magnectic dipoles of the delocalized deterium nuclei).  This would
not be a photodisintegration resonace between the neutron and proton,
but a fusion resonace between two d's in a n+p->gamma<-n+p.  That is
what I see initially.
 
   Anyway, I realize this is speculative, but I hope the long term
readers of this group will consider the concept of gamma effects
on the band hydrogen model. I think you will find it quite different
from the norm.  If the hydrogen band model is really driving this
effect (and I think it is), It's time to get this info out.
 
Have fun,
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 \   Klein bottle for sale.  Inquire within.    |it gets. / O O O O O
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:45:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Oct6.022730.25720@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
 
>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>>Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
>>experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in
>> origin?
 
>Ah, you are asking if anomalous heat results should be ignored on the basis
>of known physics, no matter how apparently reliable the heat measurements
>are.  For if the heat continues to be measured in excess of known chemistry,
>and simultaneously does not reach your criteria of X-ray emission, you are
>forced either to abandon the criteria, or ignore the heat measurements.
 
                            **OR**:
                           to enter,
                     close the closet door,
                     turn out the light and
                             THINK.
 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222         |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M. Koloc) |
| (301) 445-1075  ********  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Gotta see those graphs
     
Originally-From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gotta see those graphs
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:32:08 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
To add postscript to the list:
 
 Postscript
   + most laser printers will print it.
   + 7-bit ASCII
   + Vectors - fairly small files, but:
   - Verbose - larger than necessary so that it is human readable.
   - Not easily displayable on most terminals.
 
--
 
					Robert I. Eachus
 
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / rodney price /  Re: Gotta see those graphs
     
Originally-From: rprice@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rodney.price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gotta see those graphs
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:46:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <921006033359_73770.1337_EHA25-1@CompuServe.COM> Chuck Harrison
 <73770.1337@compuserve.com> writes:
>Some possibilities for graphics formats to pass around here,
>specifically for line plots of measured data.  I have marked my opinion
>of pluses + and minuses - :
> HPGL (Hewlett-Packard Graphics Language -- for plotters)
>   + Most plotting software will output it
>   + Vectors - fairly small files
>   + 7-bit ASCII (I think) = easy mailing
>   - Screen display software hard to find (?)
> TEKTRONIX 4010 (for an ancient graphics display terminal)
>   + Vectors with some compression - very small files
>   + 7-bit ASCII
>   + Screen display by public-domain terminal emulators on many CPUs
>   - Not a common output format from modern software
> GIF (Graphics Interchange Format -- Compuserve)
>   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
>   + Display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
>   + LZH compression - reasonably compact (for raster graphics!)
>   - big files, compared to vector formats
>   - 8-bit data, may require arcane uuencode treatment for mail
> TIF (Tagged Image File -- desktop publishing)
>   + Raster graphics - arbitrary images
>   + display software and format interchange software for many CPUs
>   + Common output format for PC-based graphics programs
>   - big files
>   - limited standardization -- several "dialects" exist
>   - 8-bit data, may need arcane treatment
>
>Comments encouraged.
>  -chuck
>
You've left out PostScript!  Everyone (just about) can print out
a PostScript file, the format is ascii to begin with, there are no
built-in limitations on the type of image, and file size can be
reasonable if you're careful not to include too much detail.  I've
sent graphs back and forth over the Internet many times without
any problem.  And I should point out that the editors of Physical
Review A...E and Physical Review Letters accept electronic
submissions with PostScript figures now.  I sent one off there a
week ago and they reproduced it without any trouble.  If it works
for them it ought to work for you guys as well.
 
Rod Price
rprice@physics.att.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrprice cudfnrodney cudlnprice cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:19:23 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct5.172629.152@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>                    ...                        The principle question seems to
>be:  "Is the heat due to nuclear reactions?"  (Tabelling for the moment the
>question "Is the heat real?")
 
Agreed.  Otherwise, why would it be in sci.physics.fusion?  However, I
do want to emphasize my view that a big part of the problem is getting
a setup that provides heat reliably so that the products can be looked
for in a controlled experiment.  It would be nice if Droege has such
an experimental design.
 
>3-  Combining points 1 and 2 - retaining generality in not specifying a
>particular nuclear reaction - we deduce that 1 watt of excess power requires of
>the order of a trillion reactions per second.
>4-  The primary products may hide, but at these rates, secondary X-rays cannot
>hide.
>5-  For instance, in palladium, the k-alpha x-ray has 20 keV, which is quite
>penetrating.  In heavy water, approximately 20% of these X-rays survive after
>40 mm.  The palladium is a better attenuator, but with either a volumetric or
>(better) a surface reaction, significant X-rays ought to get out:  a few
>percent survive 300 microns of Pd by montecarlo calculation.
 
Yes, and this has been looked for, and not found (Phys. Rev. C 40, 1851)
in a cell of the FP&H type, although it is more likely the cell was also
not producing heat.  When Robson and I were discussing this experiment
(then in the planning stage) over breakfast at a conference, we were
mainly concerned about self-absorption by the Pd.  This is probably
compensated for by the fact that the characteristic energy helps you
pick them out from background.  At the time, the claim was that we
should expect reactons on or near the surface.  We were also concerned
that there could be shadowing of the detector if the reaction location
depended in some unknown way on the anode/cathode arrangement.
 
Of course, they were looking for PIXE x-rays from the proton in the
p+t final state, so the range of the proton on Pd will act to spread
the effective source size and reduce the significance of ones ignorance
of the specific location of the reaction.
 
>6-  MeV-energy charged particles produce excitations which lead to copious
>X-ray production.  My colleague Larry Rees estimates, for example, 3X10**-8 k
>x-rays per 3-MeV-proton.  With a trillion or a billion nuclear reactions per
>second, the 20 keV x-ray yield ought to be easily detectable.
>
>Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
>experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in origin?
 
I do not think so.  We lost interest in detailed model calculations when
the experiment came up null and there were no indications that anyone
could replicate the original work so better experiments would be worth
the investment of our time in thinking about them.
 
If Tom Droege finds that he can build a new cell that works just as
well as his current cell, it might be time to take it on a road trip
to some of the nuclear facilities that can look for these things.  Yale
and Steve's mine shaft and the mini-ball at FSU could all be useful.
 
Perhaps it is time to think real hard about nuclear reactions that release
only a fraction of a keV and that might have a lower coulomb barrier than
what we have considered so far....
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  /  How many sigma can dance on the head of a pin?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How many sigma can dance on the head of a pin?
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:36:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just used the nice procedure sent by Topher Cooper and the previous data
to calculate sigma for the experiment.
 
I used the 7, 10, and 11 Sept points as the calibration.  One can argue that
the 10 and 11 Sept. points should not be used.  I am open to debate.  I like
them because they are points taken at exactly the same operating point as
later shows heat.
 
So if these points are used for the calibration experiment, and the rest of
the points are used for the experiment, then we get
 
sigma = 361
 
If I use another calibration point of 0.0008 taken September 3 I get:
 
sigma = 450
 
Use the 2 Oct posting for data, and the extra Sept 3 point if you like, and
compute your own sigma.
 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the problem is to get the darn thing to turn
off.  I will run for a while here, then start injecting stuff.  I think I
will stop at the drug store on the way home for some boric acid.  But first
to disolve some aluminum foil in some left over electrolyte.  No need for
a clean controlled experiment at this point, what I need now is for it to
turn off or blow up.  Either will do nicely.  I always get the calibration
point after the cell is opened and removed.  But I cannot claim as much
accuracy for it.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Graphs of Droege experiment data
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Graphs of Droege experiment data
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:52:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <67243@cup.portal.com> Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
>Or you could post more X-Y data and I could occasionally post some graphs.)
 
Good point, except that everyone here who can understand the meaning of
the graphs also probably has the smarts to take the published data tables
and produce their own graphs.   Heck, I don't understand the graphs, but
have been producing them in color (green lines for source-in, red lines
for source-out) since Droege began publishing them two months ago.
 
So maybe just publish the data points and let the end user worry about
transforming them into a picture.  If so, just aim for a little consistency
between column arrangements so that we don't have to re-program the parser
for each "update."
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Bradley Sherman /  Two more questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two more questions from a layman
Date: 6 Oct 1992 23:05:29 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase

 
While waiting for more signal on this channel here are two more
questions from a layman:
 
   1) Should one worry about Tom Droege's problems with his UPS?
      When considering buying one of these circa 1984, I
      was told that it did an excellent job of conditioning
      the power coming out, but could have bad effects on
      other devices attached to the circuit "behind" the UPS.
 
   2) Tom made some remarks about how he liked BASIC as he
      was able to go in and tinker with the programs (paraphrase!).
      As someone who gets paid to do this sort of tinkering, I
      was a bit put off by these statements --though I agree that
      interpreted languages _are_ easier to tinker with.  Any
      possibility that the tinkering caused anomalies?
 
I have the highest regard for Tom Droege.  His "real-time" publishing
is incredibly refreshing compared with the usual post facto polishing
of results that passes for scientific publication.
 
    --Brad Sherman
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Two more questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two more questions from a layman
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:43:38 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>   2) Tom made some remarks about how he liked BASIC as he
>      was able to go in and tinker with the programs (paraphrase!).
>      As someone who gets paid to do this sort of tinkering, I
>      was a bit put off by these statements --though I agree that
>      interpreted languages _are_ easier to tinker with.  Any
>      possibility that the tinkering caused anomalies?
 
Just for the record (and not to argue either pro or con with the main
thrust of this statement):
 
* A modern BASIC in general will NOT be (just) an "interpreted
language" (and will NOT have line numbers, and WILL have all the
modern structured programming concepts, and WILL have local as well as
global variables, and so forth and so on).
 
Microsoft QuickBASIC for the Mac, as just one example, can be either
interpreted or compiled (and when compiled will do standard numerical
calculations as rapidly as a good compiled Pascal or C on the same
machine -- and access with ease all the Toolbox and graphics
capabilities of the Macintosh OS besides).
 
I know very well the esteem in which BASIC is held by "real
programmers"; but anyone who is really "put off" by the very idea of
programming in BASIC should IMHO update or broaden their view.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / John Ritz /  Examples of Statistical Experim. Designs ?? Anyone ?
     
Originally-From: jrtz@stat1.bst.rochester.edu (John Ritz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Examples of Statistical Experim. Designs ?? Anyone ?
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:28:56 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

 
 
 
	Examples of Statistical Experim. Designs ?? Anyone ?
 
 
	I would be interested in seeing some explicit examples
        of people using Statistical Experimental Designs :
        One - and Two - way ANOVA , Randomized Block ,
        Mixed effets , Latin Squares , Factorial etc. ,
        in this area of science. If you have any , please
        email me at jrtz@stat1.bst.rochester.edu . You
        can give a reference to a Journaltogether with
        volume , no. and pagenr. ( e.g. Technometrics , vol.11 ,
        no.1 .. ) .
 
        Thx !
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjrtz cudfnJohn cudlnRitz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Ethan Bradford /  Re: Graphs of Droege experiment data
     
Originally-From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Graphs of Droege experiment data
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:41:12 GMT
Organization: U. of Washington

In article <1992Oct6.205234.2059@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
 
   Good point, except that everyone here who can understand the meaning of
   the graphs also probably has the smarts to take the published data tables
   and produce their own graphs.
 
Perhaps we have the smarts, but not all of us have the time or the
software; I appreciated Robert Horst's graphs.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenethanb cudfnEthan cudlnBradford cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:19:21 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks for the feedback.
The suggestion of Dietz that a neutrino may carry off the energy seems to
violate the criterion that the crucial experiment be conducted with  heat
producing cells, since the neutrino will not deposit energy in a cell.  The
same problem exists for other highly penetrating radiations, such as GeV-energy
particles and high-energy gammas:  how can these deposit enough power in a cell
without producing copious secondary x-rays?
The suggestion that a massive charged particle picks up most of the energy
seems to be ruled out by the need for momentum conservation:  the lighter
particle carries most of the kinetic energy.
To Logajan I would point out that (to my knowledge) no experiment to look at
x-ray spectra has yet been performed with a cell that is claimed to be
producing excess power at the time.  I would not presuppose the results of such
an experiment.  However, I would like to see such an experiment done since if
the heat is indeed nuclear, then I have argued that secondary x-rays must be
present.
Further efforts to shoot holes in my argument are welcomed.
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:15:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct6.151921.155@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
 > The suggestion of Dietz that a neutrino may carry off the energy seems to
 > violate the criterion that the crucial experiment be conducted with  heat
 > producing cells, since the neutrino will not deposit energy in a cell.
 
You misunderstand: the neutrino's share of the energy would indeed be
lost, but the recoil would leave the deuteron with about .6 kev (sorry, I
miscalculated before), which would be safely deposited as heat without
x rays.  1 watt of heat would now require about about 10^16 events per
second; at this rate a mole of protons would last a year.
 
 > The suggestion that a massive charged particle picks up most of the energy
 > seems to be ruled out by the need for momentum conservation:  the lighter
 > particle carries most of the kinetic energy.
 
So we imagine *two* massive particles are required, and that their
momenta come out equal and opposite.  This does seem unlikely, yes,
but is not logically impossible, and would imply that these supposed
particles would not do much unless concentrated (say, near the surface
of an electrode).
 
Very massive particles might get concentrated inside the earth, by
gravity; perhaps this would be of interest if you want to try to make
things happen in the core.
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Gary Promhouse /  Re: Gotta see those graphs
     
Originally-From: prom@gleep.world (Gary Promhouse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gotta see those graphs
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:55:36 GMT
Organization: /u3/thesis/prom/.organization

 
Several public domain packages are available for analyzing and displaying data
supplied as text files. All the packages I will list are available for DOS,
UNIX and most other widespread operating systems. They are all easily
downloaded by anyone on the internet via anonymous ftp. The text files used by
these systems have the additional advantage that they could easily be posted
to this newsgroup for analysis by others.
 
- gnuplot is able to generate very good looking 2D and 3D plots from text
formated numeric data. It can create output in postscript, or LaTeX, or other
formats required by many plotters, printers and interactive display devices.
The command language for gnuplot is very easy to use and the system provides
good help. For example, one demo provided with the system produces a plot of
three different data sets on the same graph using the following :
 
plot [-19:19] '1.dat'with impulses ,'2.dat' ,'3.dat' with lines
 
The notation for adding titles, line labels, adjusting symbols, etc. are
equally transparent. After displaying data on a screen one could output it in
postscript with two simple commands. In additional, to being public domain,
and have ports for most systems, there is now a gnuplot newsgroup so help is
probably easy to obtain.
 
- a package called "xlisp-stat" provides a statistical analysis and data
visualization package which runs on most available GUIs (e.g. windows 3.1,
X11, Macintosh, amiga). The system is built on an object-oriented extension of
common lisp. The primitives it provides for analysis and visualization are
very powerful. For example various regresssion systems are supported, while
others can easily be constructed using its vectorized arithmetic ops. It
further provides primitives for easily adding or extending menus, dialog boxes
and other GUI components to customize the interface for specific applications.
There is a good reference book written by the creator which provides many
examples of how to use the system. Again it reads text input.
 
- a package called "statv53" provides an extensive set of statistical analysis
tools (such as linear and non-linear reqressions) given textual input data.
Although I am only aware of a DOS version of these tools, I suspect that it,
or something better is available for other systems. I am not sure if it is
public domain or not.
 
- awk or perl scripts can be easily created to
  - look for specific types of behavior in the data
  - extract specific fields and format the data as required by any of the
    other packages listed above
  - both packages have extensive documentation, perl has a newsgroup which is
    very responsive to queries
 
If desired I will summarize ftp sites where these packages may be obtained.
 
The following is a sample of the 2D data used by gnuplot or any of the other
systems mentioned above
 
#
# $Id: 1.dat,v 3.26 92/03/24 22:32:15 woo Exp Locker: woo $
#
-20.000000 -3.041676
-19.000000 -3.036427
-18.000000 -3.030596
-17.000000 -3.024081
-16.000000 -3.016755
-15.000000 -3.008456
-14.000000 -2.998978
-13.000000 -2.988049
-12.000000 -2.975310
-11.000000 -2.960273
-10.000000 -2.942255
-9.000000 -2.920278
-8.000000 -2.892883
-7.000000 -2.857799
-6.000000 -2.811295
-5.000000 -2.746802
-4.000000 -2.651635
-3.000000 -2.498092
-2.000000 -2.214297
-1.000000 -1.570796
0.000000 0.000000
1.000000 1.570796
2.000000 2.214297
3.000000 2.498092
 
Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenprom cudfnGary cudlnPromhouse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: 7 Oct 1992 04:03:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
>(to my knowledge) no experiment to look at
>x-ray spectra has yet been performed with a cell that is claimed to be
>producing excess power at the time.
 
I was just "testing" the test.   It seems to be good in one direction, but not
the other. X-rays and heat make everybody happy.  Heat without x-rays leaves
us searching for a new test.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Two more questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two more questions from a layman
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:23:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1at63pINNq6j@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K.
 Sherman) writes:
>
>   1) Should one worry about Tom Droege's problems with his UPS?
>      When considering buying one of these circa 1984, I
>      was told that it did an excellent job of conditioning
>      the power coming out, but could have bad effects on
>      other devices attached to the circuit "behind" the UPS.
 
Cheap UPS's have cheaply designed frequency stabilizers. This can but isn't
likely to, cause trouble in some sorts of downstream devices that could be
frequency sensitive. I wouldn't put a clock downstream, but for what Tom
is doing he should have no trouble.
>
>   2) Tom made some remarks about how he liked BASIC as he
>      was able to go in and tinker with the programs (paraphrase!).
>      As someone who gets paid to do this sort of tinkering, I
>      was a bit put off by these statements --though I agree that
>      interpreted languages _are_ easier to tinker with.  Any
>      possibility that the tinkering caused anomalies?
 
There is the possibility for errors in every single step of the
procedure. I don't think we need worry any more about Tom's
programming skill than his technical expertise. :-) In other words,
if there is an error, it's up to him to find it or to supply sufficient
information to someone else to spot the problems.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Two more questions from a layman
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two more questions from a layman
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:28:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct6.234338.18822@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU
 (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>* A modern BASIC in general will NOT be (just) an "interpreted
>language" (and will NOT have line numbers, and WILL have all the
>modern structured programming concepts, and WILL have local as well as
>global variables, and so forth and so on).
>
Just as a point of reference, any _complete_ programming language will
accomplish pretty much what any other programming language will do.
Terminology and syntax may vary, but the final code will compile to
basically the same size and speed.
 
There really isn't any legitimate arguments left that support BASIC over
Pascal of C or even LISP -- except the ease of programming any specific
task in a particular language. (i.e. Artificial Intellegence projects
are easier to program in LISP than C, yet many LISP compilers are written
in C. :-))
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / COLIN HENDERSON /  re: Hydrogen bands and excited deuterons
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Hydrogen bands and excited deuterons
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 08:26:21 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

Chuck Sites speculates about excited states in deuterons which have escaped
detection.
 
When looking at Photodisintegration the inverse ("time reversed") reaction
 
 n + p -> d + gamma
 
is often looked at.  Thus far, a monoenergetic beam of neutron has only been
seen to produce a monoenergetic (for a given angle) set of gammas.  If there
were an excited state in deuterons, we'd almost certainly have seen two
different gammas, as the deuterons will be formed in the excited state at
times.  Also, we'd see a resonance structure in the neutron capture cross
section around the deuteron excited state. This hasn't been seen either.
The same goes for the gammas.  The first photodis. experiments looked at the
gamma attenuation as well, I think.
 
However, *IF* a deuteron can be excited, and *IF* it can decay only by
fusing with another deuteron, we'd probably have seen some rather strange
signatures in deuterated organic liquid and anthracene crystal
scintillation detectors.  For a start, when exposing such a detector to
gammas, we'd see events which pulse shape discrimination would tag as
neutrons, from the energetic charged particles produced in the fusion
reactions. We ain't seen none, and we have done *lots* of gamma calibrations
on our scintillators.  Of course, we haven't really looked for them, but I
think the numbers would have been sufficient for it to be as obvious as a
slap in the face with a cold fish.  I think I'll go and peer through some
event tapes soon.
 
How valid is your heavy band soliton model for organic crystals, Terry?
(This is my total ignorance of your theory speaking)  Does it rely on the
delocalised electrons in the metal lattice?  Lots of those in the organic
molecules, with all those lovely double and triple bonds.
 
Event tapes... Tom, if you can dump your data from your floppies onto
magtape or onto a mainframe, no need to write a data reduction package. How
about using something like XSYS, which can be tailored to analyse all sorts
of parameter configurations?  Then the only job is that of writing a routine
to translate your data into XSYS format. (which might be the headache).
 
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  Rothwell /  Not Quite What I Had In Mind
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not Quite What I Had In Mind
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:27:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Richard Blue writes:
 
"Jed Rothwell now proposes to hide the ashes by inventing lots of different
reaction pathways. Let's see how well that is going to work if we can
detect nuclear reactions with a sensitivity of say 10^5 bellow what is
commensurate with the "heat". Have you got 100,000 different reactions in
mind, Jed?"
 
No, I was thinking more in terms of setting up a large scale experiment
that simultaneously monitors the electrolyte, the gas, and a wide spectrum
of particles that might be emitted by the cell. We might even want to check
for GeV particles; you never know. I am not sure if there is any practical
method of monitoring the cathode in real time.
 
The problem up until now has been that different experiments monitored
different products, but no single experiment monitored them all, in real
time. We know already that tritium and neutron production turns on, and
then turns off again at different loading levels, so perhaps the other
products come and go, and appear in the gas, and then are stored in the
cathode. If one experiment was to look in all imaginable places
simultaneously, perhaps it would see the mix of products change, and move
to different locations. This is an analogy, but as a fire consumes a log,
it emits many different products, at different intensities, in solid, gas
and even liquid form. Perhaps the CF reaction is as complicated as a fire
burning a log.
 
Have you got a better plan, Richard?
 
The program I have outlined above has one obvious drawback. It would cost
a great deal of money. Far more than anyone in the U.S. has got, except
McKubre. Because you, Huizenga, and the other so called "skeptics" oppose
all funding for cold fusion research, and would like to see all experiments
stamped out everywhere (I gather), this sort of experiment is out of the
question. I asked you some time ago, "how much funding do *you* want to
see." Since you never answered, and you never signed my Petition, I presume
you think that $10 million is far too much. A program like the one I
describe here would cost several million dollars.
 
We shall have to wait for the Japanese to do this for us.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  Rothwell /  Shifting ground
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shifting ground
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:27:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
D.B. writes:
 
"Jed, I have been, and am willing to bend over backwards a bit and admit to
the possibility that some exotic, perhaps even nuclear, process is responsible
for what many people regard as "the observations"; I do not push the
pathological science line. But if you mean the above, i.e. you are now going
to propose a multitude of new, hitherto unknown (nuclear?) processes, you are
approaching pathological science, by needlessly multiplying entities. Each
time you pile on a new entity, your science looks more pathological."
 
Dieter,
 
I did not say anything about multiplying entities. Not one word. I just
pointed out that Mizuno and many others have found that the ratios of each
product to the heat is not consistent. Sometimes you get a lot of tritium, and
sometimes you get practically none. Sometimes you get lots of neutrons, and
sometimes you don't. This is the most elementary and firm observation cold
fusion has yielded so far. What is so controversial about it? Hot fusion
always gives X number of neutrons for each watt of heat, and cold fusion does
not. That's all there is to it, and the experimental evidence supporting that
statement is overwhelming.
 
I will grant, it is a surprising fact, and nobody understands it yet, but
facts are facts.
 
Let me add that *I* did not propose anything, I am merely reporting, in my own
words, what many others like Mizuno have written.
 
Why don't you forget about your multiplying entities for a second and tell us
whether you agree with what *I* said. Based upon the evidence you have seen,
do you or do you not think that each type of CF product must always exist in
some exact and fixed proportion to the heat. Don't tell us that God will not
allow any possibility other than a fixed, exact proportion. Tell us what you
think the experiments say.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  Rothwell /  Magic Spell
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magic Spell
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:27:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tom Droege, writes: "I try, but the logic of spelling eludes me."
 
Me too. In the spirit of political correctness, Tom and I will be referred
to as 'spelling impaired' from now on. Thank Goodness they invented spell
check programs!
 
Tom also write: "But the Japanese have it worse.  At least we don't have to
learn Japanese.  It is my theory that Japanese students spend so much time
copying characters in school, and trying to get them perfect..."
 
And THANK GOODNESS they invented automatic character selection word
processors! I would be illiterate without them. It is interesting that a
whole generation of Japanese kids are now coming of age who are also
illiterate without their handy, portable, addictive little word processors.
The older generation thinks kids who cannot write "by hand" are going to
Hell in a Handbasket, just as some older Americans think kids should not
use calculators to do math.
 
In the early '70s people used to say, "computers will never learn to cope
with all of those characters, so as Japan becomes more computerized, they
will finally have to abandon characters." Many people said that, including
the Scientific American Japanese Edition special issue on the Future Of
Computing. Fifteen years later, you could not sell a computer in Japan
unless it displayed and automatically selected at least 2000 characters. If
anything, it looks to me as if computers will prolong and extend the use of
characters, and allow people to revive a number of dying, seldom used
characters that have been replaced with kana syllabary. The moral of the
story is: you can never tell how things will turn out. Technology often
affects things is ways that are utterly different from those we predict.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:36:26 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>
> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
> They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
> countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
>
> I'll get right down to it.
>
> NYT:
>
>   "The hydrogen bomb was invented in 1951 by Dr. Edward Teller and Dr.
> Stanislaw M. Ulam after Dr. Teller suggested that radiation from an
> exploding atomic bomb could generate sufficient heat and pressure to
> ignite fusion fuel.
>    Dr Kidder{senior physicist at LANL} said Government officials thought
> the concept of radiation implotsion was so novel that it would be
> extremely difficult for foreign scientists to come up with it on
> their own."
>
> The essential idea is that they have a "hohlraum" (german for hollow
> room) made out of an unspecified "high-Z" material (nudge nudge wink
> wink say no more) which reradiates X-rays that implode the pellet.
 
Matt,
 
        There is an even simpler explanation as to how H-bombs
work.  Simply put, the core is an atomic bomb, around this bomb is
loaded a sphere of tritium or deuterium (the fusionable fuel).
Around all of this is placed a jacket of plutonium enriched
uranium, usually made from spent reactor rods.
 
        How this all works is simple, the A-bomb explodes causing
trillions of degrees of localized heat.  Faster than this
expanding heat is the neutrons which flow right through the heavy
hydrogens and cause fission reactions in the jacket.  Essentially
you will simultaneously have a bomb in the core blowing outward,
and the neutrons cause the jacket to explode both away from the
bomb and toward the center of the bomb (picture it in your mind).
You now have a nuclear bottle containing fusible fuel, being
squeezed with the force of two atom bombs, raised to temperatures
where fusion is now possible.  Result, great amounts of energy
released as the contents of the "nuclear bottle" break the
confines of the forces holding them in, resulting in an explosion.
 
        Of course I have not gone into details about how fission
works, everyone reading this sig already knows those details.  The
nuclear bottle works with amazing efficiency.  Given fixed amounts
of energy from fission core and jacket, you can have seemingly
unlimited amounts of fusion energy by simply adding more tritium.
The more fusible fuel you have, the bigger the bomb- the only
thing that changes is the diameter of the jacket of course.  The
core fission bomb remains the same always...............sq
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:53:31 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
 
>
> >> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
> >> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
>
> Are these some of the secrets the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians,
> for which they were executed?
>
> Jeff Bytof
> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
 
 
Jeff,
 
        The Rosenbergs did not give anything to the russians that
they did not already know.  As "Americans", our government was too
cocky and proud to admit that the russians were able or even
capable of doing something that we did.  They figured it out on
their own, because contrary to the belief at the time, they were
NOT as stupid as our childish government led us to believe.  Their
premiers in the space race proved that.
 
        I believe the Rosenbergs truly were spies, but were used
as scape goats to aid our egos that only *WE* are smart enough to
build a hydrogen bomb.  As a result, America was the only country
smart enough to design and build a bomb, and the russians had to
resort to stealing the technology.  This was simply not true, for
the russians have had quite a few brilliant scientists over the
years- and even today are not given the credit they deserve.
 
        For example, I have a periodic chart that lists proposed
russian names for elements that they "claim" to have synthesized,
but only in fine print.  The actual names are generic and labeled
by americans pending "verification" that they actually *WERE* the
first to synthesize them.  And so it continues............sq
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:04:50 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
> There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
> and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
> design after some very smart people pondered the problem
> for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
> the essence of the problem can be pieced together by
> a _smart_ graduate student with a decent computer in
> 6-12 months, and a _good_ student should be able to
> solve the problem given the hints in unclassified literature,
> as opposed to fission bombs which are designable by an
> average physics grad.
>
 
Steinn,
 
        Why must everyone make everything overly complex!  ;)
 
        We as scientists designed the H-bomb back in the fifties,
before the advent of transistors, before the advent of IC's,
before the advent of the 8088 processor and WAY before the advent
of the 80486.
 
        The actual design of the bomb is simple as I have
previously stated.  The only complexity is the procurement of the
spent fuel for the jacket, the plutonium for the fissionable core
and the tritium for the fusible fuel.  Given the simplicity of
reactor design, I for one am suprised that nobody has ever built a
small enrichment chamber, enriching natural uranium as
hexafluoride gas, and then using this 235 enriched uranium, built
a small reactor to breed plutonium for a bomb.  Natural uranium
238 absorbs neutrons as well as being split by them- resulting in
plutonium 239, which can be extracted chemically.  This plutonium
could then be used to build a bomb, or as the core bomb to a much
bigger fusion bomb.
 
        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard"
nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear
superiority"....sq
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.03 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:15:28 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> In article <1992Sep29.173806.11257@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong but making a fusion bomb was never that difficult,
> >intellectually or in design. It was simply how to make it from a minimal
> >amount of fissionable and fusionable materials that was the real issue.
>
> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
> of commonly available hardware store components.
>
 
 
Thomas,
 
        If someone were to "GIVE" a physicist the controlled
materials used in construcion, one *could* build either a fission
or fusion bomb for from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars
using commercially available supplies.
 
        Nukes really are simple devices, just labor intensive to
build customized hardware (but not impossible), and the
procurement of tritium in large quantities as well as plutonium
239 make the task a bit of a chore.
 
        The russians are selling millitary items for hard cash-
wonder if they are selling bomb parts, plutonium, tritium, or
maybe even the genuine article for hard cash?
 
        Everyone, you just have to remember.  We weren't even
using fuel injected engines when the nuclear bombs were being
invented!  THEY ARE BLOODY SIMPLE DEVICES!  A television set is
many times more complex than a fusion or fission bomb......sq
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Larry Wall /  Aspect aspect
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aspect aspect
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:15:00 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

I can't help but think that if Terry is right and this is some kind of
macroscopic quantum mechanical sort of thing, the attempt to observe
nuclear ash might preclude the production of heat.  Hmm.  Is the
observation of heat a real observation in the QM sense, or is entropy
somehow priviledged, like in black holes?  Can one cheat by measuring
the temperature of Shroedinger's Cat's Box?  Does the universe observe
black bodies without our help?  If a tree falls in the forest and...
 
Oh, never mind.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  /  Help!
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help!
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:02:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To whom it may concern:
 
What is a sure fire way to kill the heat output of a cell?  Please put answer
in a plain unmarked envelope if you do not want me to know the source.  You
can mail it from Japan so that I don't see the Stanford post mark.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  /  Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:02:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Why I like QuickBASIC
 
An example will demonstrate.  A while back while running the Takahashi
experiment, it seemed appropriate to try running the saw tooth on the other
side of zero.  Now I know that completely general code would have anticipated
that need, but mine did not.  With BASIC I was able to break into the running
experiment, make the fix, and continue without missing a data taking tick.
 
Dieter Britz says "show us those kW/cm**3".  Heck, I think 500 mw a cm**3
is enough.  We just have to make it so anyone can repeat it, then we have a
problem that science can cope with.  But I don't think getting to that point
is science - it is more "Adventure"!
 
Nick Hanes writes "Also I'm sure that everything in the cell will be analyzed
for state change when he strips it down."  Not unless you do it Nick.  Chuck
Sites has been looking at the cathodes with an electron microscope, but other
than that my offers of stuff from the cells have gone unanswered.  To all of
you out there, you don't have to be able to do the thing, you can just grab
the ball and run.  Some of you have offered money.  So take your money, and
my gunk and go get it analyzed.  My problem is that I don't even know the
language to use to request a commercial lab to do what should be done.
 
To all those discussing kev gamma rays.  Back in the early days I had a NaI(Tl)
counter hooked up and mounted over the apparatus.  It was run at very high
voltage on the PM and with a very low noise high speed amplifier of the type
we use for liquid argon systems at Fermilab.  It was run right down into the
tube noise, so that tube noise counts were about 10x background.  Not the usual
place one would run such a counter.  We just counted events - no PHA. (I can
build a PHA from scratch, but had other things to do).  There was nothing
obvious in the data.  I then separated the counts when the cathode was
outgassing from the rest of the counts.  There was about a 7 sigma effect.
My idea was that if an "event" made the cathode hot it would outgas a little.
So I used the space around outgas events in the measured bin and the rest as
the control.  This seemed to work with the data where I thought I saw excess
heat but not in other data.  The problem with this was that I was not very
good at detecting excess heat at the time, so the selection of the data
involved my "opinion" as to which data to use.  We all know that if you have
enough data (I do) you can find some set of it to follow any thing that you
want to predict.  So I put these experiments aside until I could produce heat
reliably.  If anyone wonders about the counter configuration it was my idea of
how to detect low energy x-rays.  Someone out there may know better.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:33:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <wJ73RB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>>
>> >> Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
>> >> inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
>>
>> Are these some of the secrets the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians,
>> for which they were executed?
>>
>> Jeff Bytof
>> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
>
>
>Jeff,
>
>        The Rosenbergs did not give anything to the russians that
>they did not already know.  As "Americans", our government was too
>cocky and proud to admit that the russians were able or even
>capable of doing something that we did.  They figured it out on
>their own, because contrary to the belief at the time, they were
>NOT as stupid as our childish government led us to believe.  Their
>premiers in the space race proved that.
 
     Recent reports from Russia indicate that the Soviets actually
     had a spy at Los Alamos, judging from their access to classified
     documents of the time.  To suggest that espionage did not
     immeasurably aid the Soviets in the acquisition of western
     technology is incorrect and naive.   At one time, the Soviets
     had a huge institution that existed for the sole purpose of
     reverse-engineering IBM mainframes.  You generally don't
     reverse-engineer systems if you know how to build them in
     the first place.
 
>        I believe the Rosenbergs truly were spies, but were used
>as scape goats to aid our egos that only *WE* are smart enough to
>build a hydrogen bomb.  As a result, America was the only country
>smart enough to design and build a bomb, and the russians had to
>resort to stealing the technology.  This was simply not true, for
>the russians have had quite a few brilliant scientists over the
>years- and even today are not given the credit they deserve.
 
      No, but we were (with the Brits) the only ones that made the massive
      effort necessary to solve all of the first-time problems.
      It may well not be a matter of intellegence.  I suspect even
      Uganda has bright people who could develop thermonuclear
      weaponry given the right setting.  However, this setting
      requires a certain national technological competence combined
      with a national effort and expenditure on a massive scale.
 
      Most everybody else relied on the original research, a reliance
      that would have been impossible without espionage.  Keep in
      mind that the Soviets had suffered nearly catastropic losses
      in WWII while we were hardly touched.  It took a massive
      effort in the US, an effort that it would have been difficult
      for the Soviets to reproduce.  Do you actually think that the Soviets
      were *better* than us at military-scientific research?
 
      Finally, the Rosenbergs were executed because they were convicted as
      traitors.  If Stalin had managed to attain control of the
      world through treachery, I suspect you would not feel so
      benignly about traitors.  I put selling out this country
      with mass murder as one of the most abhorent and intolerable of
      crimes.
 
>        For example, I have a periodic chart that lists proposed
>russian names for elements that they "claim" to have synthesized,
>but only in fine print.  The actual names are generic and labeled
>by americans pending "verification" that they actually *WERE* the
>first to synthesize them.  And so it continues............sq
 
      Controversy notwithstanding, fabrication of transuranic elements
      in accelerators pales in comparison with the military-scientific
      achievements necessary in constructing atomic weaponry for the
      first time.
 
                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 /  /  Misc.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:20:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Before everyone gets grumpy, Chuch Sites is not the only one who has been
helpful to me, he is just the only one who has said "I can look at that"
with the fancy machine that he can access.
 
To the one who is going to send the secret cell killer,
 
Thomas F. Droege
2 S. 942 Thornecrest La.
Batavia, IL 60510
 
or
Fermilab, MS 331
PO Box 500
Batavia, IL 60510
 
Thanks to Robert W. Horst for the graphs.  What I really have in mind is
some of the detailed stuff.  Thousands of high resolution points if any
sense is to be made of it.  I have a number of very interesting events.
But sense can only be made of these if 5 or six curves are plotted together
as they are on my on line code.  I usually watch about 12 at a time.  This
uses up most of the colors that can be distinguished from each other.
Robert suggests that something happened at day 8 and day 14.  Day 8 was where
the shell servo went nuts.  Day 9 and 10 are corrected estimates.  Nothing
special about day 14 except the log book is full of entries like "Wow that
wat a big pulse - mark that one for later analysis".  But to sort out things
like whether the cell got hot first or the catalyst got hot first etc., you
need high resolution graphics in color!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Jon Webb /  Re: Not Quite What I Had In Mind
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not Quite What I Had In Mind
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:23:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <921006162831_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   No, I was thinking more in terms of setting up a large scale experiment
   that simultaneously monitors the electrolyte, the gas, and a wide spectrum
   of particles that might be emitted by the cell...
 
   The program I have outlined above has one obvious drawback. It would cost
   a great deal of money...
 
   [Thanks to cold fusion skeptics] we shall have to wait for the
   Japanese to do this for us.
 
Jed, I understand that your background is not in science, so you
probably don't know this, but the Japanese will never do this, either.
The trick in science is to find a neat, simple experiment that
measures a few things and demonstrates or refutes a theory.  Setting
up an experiment that measures everything you can think of is never
done, because it's too expensive (even for well-funded research) and
anyway you can never think of everything.
 
And anyway, I advocate Bollinger's total mass conversion theory (or
farfetch if you prefer), and if that theory is correct, all your
measurements wouldn't show anything, just some heat coming out.
 
-- J
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Aspect aspect
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aspect aspect
Date: 7 Oct 1992 22:41:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) says:
>I can't help but think that if Terry is right and this is some kind of
>macroscopic quantum mechanical sort of thing, the attempt to observe
>nuclear ash might preclude the production of heat.
 
Or the ability to reproduce the experiment will always be one less than
the number needed to convince you it is real. :-)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / John Cobb /  Re: Pathway Question
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathway Question
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:42:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992Oct1.005424.20730@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
|>clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
|>>Suppose two deutrons fuse to give a triton and a proton:
|>>
|>>D + D -> T + P + energy
|>
 
Actually, this reaction has a 50% branching ratio. So you would expect
to see equal numbers of 3He and T in the reaction products (unless you
invoke some exotic reaction).
 
|>I make the total energy to be about 3.84 Mev, with about 0.96 Mev's going
|>into the T and 2.88 Mev's going into the P.
 
Well, just to split hairs. I have:
D + D -> T(1.01MeV) + p(3.02MeV)
 
These are from the plasma formulary rev. 1990. Logajan what source are
you using? (Of course we probably needn't worry about 5% descrepencies
when we see no products at all.)
 
 
As others have noted, such T's should not go unnoticed by properly
designed experiments. T's decay fairly rapidly. More than 1E11 such
reactions will have to occur before you get 1 Joule of heat (remember
folks, 1 Joule = 6.2 E18 eV). Therefore, unless your calorimeter leaks
badly, you should measure several Tritium decays each second. It is
for this reason that exotic mechanisms must be invoked. If the reactions
were the ordinary ones, then you should see alot of reactants. Of course,
in my opinion, none of these "alternative" reaction ideas have much
credibility at this time. They are cooked up to "explain" cold-fusion.
They need to also predict some experimental fact.
 
john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / John Whitmore /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:05:39 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <wJ73RB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
 
>> Are these some of the secrets the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians,
>> for which they were executed?
 
>        The Rosenbergs did not give anything to the russians that
>they did not already know.  As "Americans", our government was too
>cocky and proud to admit that the russians were able or even
>capable of doing something that we did.  They figured it out on
>their own
 
	While it is true that the Soviet bomb effort would have
yielded results without the Rosenbergs' help, it is ALSO true
that the effort would have taken significantly more time.
Russia didn't have to back up after reaching any dead ends.
Khrushchev is very clear on this point, in his memoirs
(and Nikita Khrushchev was neither cocky nor American).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenwhit cudfnJohn cudlnWhitmore cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:39:18
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <R373RB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
 
   steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
   > There is apparently a subtlety to fusion bomb design
   > and an inspiration by Ulam was required to get a workable
   > design after some very smart people pondered the problem
   > for 10 years - someone who knows the answer told me that
 
   Steinn,
 
	   Why must everyone make everything overly complex!  ;)
 
	   We as scientists designed the H-bomb back in the fifties,
 ..
 
 
	   The actual design of the bomb is simple as I have
   previously stated.  The only complexity is the procurement of the
 
You have so stated. Do you _know_? I don't, but I know people
who do, they have assured me it is not simple do design a
thermonuclear device - knowing me well enough to be able to
judge my knowledge of nuclear physics and my ability to
figure out unknowns.
 
	   I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard"
   nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear
   superiority"....sq
 
Ha! Everybody knows that the second nuclear power was actually
Blacker House (1946) ;-)
 
*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.07 / Paul Houle /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:18:48 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <R373RB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
 
>        The actual design of the bomb is simple as I have
>previously stated.  The only complexity is the procurement of the
>spent fuel for the jacket, the plutonium for the fissionable core
>and the tritium for the fusible fuel.  Given the simplicity of
>reactor design, I for one am suprised that nobody has ever built a
>small enrichment chamber, enriching natural uranium as
>hexafluoride gas, and then using this 235 enriched uranium, built
>a small reactor to breed plutonium for a bomb.  Natural uranium
>238 absorbs neutrons as well as being split by them- resulting in
>plutonium 239, which can be extracted chemically.  This plutonium
>could then be used to build a bomb, or as the core bomb to a much
>bigger fusion bomb.
>
>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard"
>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear
>superiority"....sq
 
	This would actually be a pretty amusing home project.  Get several tons
of natural uranium.  Process it into uranium hexaflouride and hope that you
don't spill any nasty chemicals.  Probably would do much better using laser
enrichment in your basement.  (Or maybe steal electricity from the local
baseball stadium to run caultrons).  Maybe you build your own reactor,  which
you can do with natural uranium if you can find heavy water.  Maybe fill your
swimming pool with heavy water,  and use a fire hose from the hydrant across
the street for cooling.  Hope that the neighbors,  the police,  the NRC,  the
EPA and Greenpeace don't think that you're doing anything suspicious.
(Wouldn't you just love to see a supplement to the WASH-1200 report about
the safety concerns of backyard sub-boiling D2O natural uranium reactors
without confinement structures?)
 
	Anyway,  let's suppose that you actually get away with this and
pull your fuel rods after you get good burnup...  Say a year.  Now you need to
worry about radiation protection and need to do the Purex process in your
basement (nah,  maybe it's safer to do it in an outbuilding like the garage)
and figure out what you're going to do with all the rest of the actinides and
other waste components (Answer: vent the gases into the atmosphere and keep
the rest in oil drums.  Surround your bomb with the crap so it will at
least spread radiation around if it fizzles)
 
	When you actually get the plutonium,  you then need to machine it,
which I suppose would also be a pain since the dust and filings produced would
be very poisionous.  Just remember to wear your paper mask and to wash your
hands before you eat.  It might also be a pain to actually machine a
(barely) subcritical sphere from a larger piece of plutonium,  but I think
that this can be accomplished by cutting it out of a cylinder that has
certain dimensions.  Once you've done all this,  without your neighbors
finding out,  the rest would be pretty easy.
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / John Logajan /  Off topic drift
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off topic drift
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:46:24 GMT

I like to chatter as much as the next guy, but we are now into third and
fourth rounds in the battle whether nukes are easy to invent and build.
 
Some people recieve this particular group as e-mails and I don't think
they appreciate all this volume of off topic material.   Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  Britz /  RE: Shifting ground
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Shifting ground
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:16:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>D.B. writes:
>
>"Jed, I have been, and am willing to bend over backwards a bit and admit to
>the possibility that some exotic, perhaps even nuclear, process is responsible
>for what many people regard as "the observations"; I do not push the
>pathological science line. But if you mean the above, i.e. you are now going
>to propose a multitude of new, hitherto unknown (nuclear?) processes, you are
>approaching pathological science, by needlessly multiplying entities. Each
>time you pile on a new entity, your science looks more pathological."
>
>Dieter,
>
>I did not say anything about multiplying entities. Not one word. I just
>pointed out that Mizuno and many others have found that the ratios of each
>product to the heat is not consistent. Sometimes you get a lot of tritium, and
>sometimes you get practically none. Sometimes you get lots of neutrons, and
>sometimes you don't. This is the most elementary and firm observation cold
>fusion has yielded so far. What is so controversial about it? Hot fusion
>always gives X number of neutrons for each watt of heat, and cold fusion does
>not. That's all there is to it, and the experimental evidence supporting that
>statement is overwhelming.
>
>I will grant, it is a surprising fact, and nobody understands it yet, but
>facts are facts.
>
>Let me add that *I* did not propose anything, I am merely reporting, in my own
>words, what many others like Mizuno have written.
>
>Why don't you forget about your multiplying entities for a second and tell us
>whether you agree with what *I* said. Based upon the evidence you have seen,
>do you or do you not think that each type of CF product must always exist in
>some exact and fixed proportion to the heat. Don't tell us that God will not
>allow any possibility other than a fixed, exact proportion. Tell us what you
>think the experiments say.
 
You did indeed multiply entities, with more than one word, by proposing that
there are several processes responsible for "cold fusion".
Facts are facts, true. But what ARE the facts? You and I will have to agree
to disagree here. You see a multitude of results that support cold fusion.
Like so many supporters of CNF, you grab at every straw, and have decided that
the weight of all these straws is overwhelming. Someone observes XS heat,
nothing else: that's CNF. Someone else observes tritium: fine, it's d-d
fusion, no doubt about it. Elsewhere they find (4)He: you beauty, the small
branch, greatly enhanced. And so it goes. I, on the other hand, say that the
"evidence" I have seen so far is unconvincing. I do not, mind you, totally
reject some exotic phenomenon maybe producing heat from somewhere. If only I
were to see a reproducible experiment producing a positive result well outside
its error limits, I'd have to believe it. So my "facts" are not the same as
yours. They say nothing to me.
 From all we (i.e. scientists) know, cnf should not happen. Someone says it
does so; OK, so we entertain the possibility of some exotic, maybe even
nuclear, process. That's already a big step, a sort of temporary suspension
of disbelief. The available evidence does not fit any known process, but
each bit of evidence can be believed to fit, just barely maybe, one known
process; the process varies from one set of evidence to another. The natural
conclusion, if you want to be conservative, is that there is indeed no effect
at all. If you really WANT to believe it, though, you can imagine a new
process for each bit of evidence. The first one (normal d-d fusion) was
extremely audacious; the second, third, etc, become exponentially worse and
worse, i.e. less and less likely, more and more pathological.
 As for Tom's results, they are very low-level, in fact down at the level
where you cannot rule out a chemical origin. If the Belzner et al results
are true (i.e. can be repeated), then a chemical origin would be ruled out
because they found about 10% XS heat, and this is comparable with the heat of
water formation from its elements. Anyone would be hard put to come up with
a chemical reaction in the cell yielding so much energy. Unfortunately, the
Belzner et al (alias "Huggins") results are a one-off, a great pity. I still
include them in my small list of "quality positives". With all respect for
Tom, his XS is at a level that most people would regard as being well within
experimental error, despite his assurances that it's 100 sigma. We tend to
scoff at FPH's claim of 0.1% accuracy in XS heat, and some practiced
electrochemical calorimetrists have written that one can expect about 3% if
one knows the business. If not, the error is larger. If Tom now has outdone
them, this should be reproducible elsewhere - if he publishes a description
of his gear. How about it, Tom?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  Britz /  RE: Help!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Help!
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:17:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>To whom it may concern:
>
>What is a sure fire way to kill the heat output of a cell?  Please put answer
>in a plain unmarked envelope if you do not want me to know the source.  You
>can mail it from Japan so that I don't see the Stanford post mark.
>
>Tom Droege
 
How about a bucket of cold water? {:]
 
In a more serious vein, are you saying that a turned-off cell, in which the
cathode is losing its deuterium, continues to output excess heat? In other
words, even at the much smaller loadings, The Hitherto Unknown Process still
goes on? How about the deuterium burning at the catalyst? Is there oxygen
enough for that? The cnf-ites are mostly agreed that you must have a high
loading for cnf, so this must surely be chemical, even according to a TB?
There are, I know, some groups who reckon that there exists an optimum
loading, below maximum, so are you maybe passing through this optimum? With
that theory, the process should stop again when you pass outside this optimum
range. No cold water required.
 Tom, I admire your spirit and enterprise but I must say that if I have the
numbers right about your excess heat, this is well within what most people
would take as the error limits. Are you sure about your errors? As well as
that, the excess is at a level where a chemical effect might suffice. As the
cell changes temperature, for example, you might dissolve more of the
precipitate at the bottom (I take it you work with a saturated LiOD solution,
with excess solid LiOD present?), so don't forget the heat of solution of
that. I suspect you've thought of that too, though.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Accepting Results at Face Value
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Accepting Results at Face Value
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell continues to struggle to find a way to wrap up a collection
of miscellaneaous conflicting experimental results in a way that will
come out in the end supporting the reality of Cold Fusion.  There has,
however, always been one valid logical choice to make in evaluating
the result of each of the experiments that gave an indication of a
positive result.  It is alway possible that the experiment is wrong!
In fact darned few of the experimental results put forward in support
of cold fusion were worthy of being given a second thought.  I believe
that supporters of cold fusion do their cause a disservice by failing
to drop from further consideration the obviously poorly founded claims
for positive results.  It is too easy to shoot down Ying's experiment
and the crazy ideas that were attached to it so just forget it and
the multitude of others that had gone before.  The whole notion of
reactions turning on and off under the influence of a variety of
unknown perturbing influences to change the detectible reaction products
from tritium to neutrons to helium to GeV particles to shrinking
atoms to. . .whatever, is pathological with a capital P.  Make a
hypothesis, put it to the test of experiment, and then accept the
result (after making an honest assessment of possible errors).
 
So where should we go form here?  Launch another multimillion dollar
research program?  I don't see that 10 million dollars or even 1 million
dollars can be well spent on cold fusion.  McKubre has plenty of funding
to expand his efforts to include a basic nuclear radiation detection
system to his experiments.  If he has a cell that is truly producing
heat from a nuclear reaction it will take only a few hours with a basic
NaI gamma detector and MCA to show that nothing is happening.  If
he wants to pay someone $1 million to get that result I am sure he
would get some volunteers right off this net.  For low budget operations
I recommendation would be the NaI approach.  Neutrons, as we all know by
now, will produce 2.225 MeV gammas upon capture by hydrogen.  Assorted
other things, including the GeV helium ions, will also register.  Even
the p + p -> d + positron + neutrino that I passed on previously will
be easy to detect because positrons produce 0.511 MeV gammas.  Thanks
to Mike Jamison for pointing that out to me.  If you want to extend
the search down to X-ray energies you will have to take some care to
keep the effective window thickness of the detector low, but if that
is done NaI would cover that possibility as well.  Just remember, if
it isn't clearly above background by a huge factor, you have a nul
result as far as cold fusion at the watt level is concerned.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:44:09 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <wJ73RB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
>        For example, I have a periodic chart that lists proposed
>russian names for elements that they "claim" to have synthesized,
>but only in fine print.  The actual names are generic and labeled
>by americans pending "verification" that they actually *WERE* the
>first to synthesize them.  And so it continues............sq
 
This is a matter of some scientific as well as "polititcal" interest.
International nomenclature rules give the right to name a new element
to the first person to observe it.  (Hence the folks at the Hahn-Meitner
institute got to name Z=109 after Lise Meitner.  What did they name
Z=107, since Hahn was already honored with 105?)  More accurately, I
think their proposed name is given more weight by the committee, who
might reject a name that did not fit with their standards.  Your
assumption that the names are "american" is wrong; they are assigned
by an international committee following policies that go back many
many years.
 
Back in the 50's and 60's there was a bit of a race between Berkeley and
Dubna to make new heavy elements.  The problem was that the observations
from the two labs were not always consistent with one another -- one
had erred.  For some time there were places on the chart of nuclides
where contradictory decay energies, decay chains and lifetimes were
claimed.  In most cases, the Dubna people were proved wrong.  Only
Mendelevium came out with a russian name, although it was discovered
in Berkeley by Seaborg's group.
 
Those experiments were ones where you blasted a heavy target with a
heavy beam and did fast chemistry on the trash hoping to find something.
Lately, the folks in Germany have used "cold" reactions to make 107, 108,
and 109 -- and were able to characterize 109 by watching the entire decay
sequence of a single atom.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:32:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <00961C7C.86684060.22022@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
 blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>  Even
> the p + p -> d + positron + neutrino that I passed on previously will
> be easy to detect because positrons produce 0.511 MeV gammas.  Thanks
> to Mike Jamison for pointing that out to me.
 
Actually, the idea was p + p + e- -> d + neutrino.  There's no reason
to expect this to be happening (or, if it was, to expect the channel
making positrons to not be happening); it's only given in a playful
spirit as an example of a channel that would not produce much if any
detectable radiation.
 
	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  /  Misc.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:12:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thomas H. Kunich comments on the UPS problem.  The type of UPS I use takes
advantage of the holding time in the power supplies and only switches in when
the line drops out.  Everything in my ststem stands this just fine.  The
computer is the most sensitive thing.
 
Conin Henderson attempts therapy for my floppy disk collection.  Most of the
disks are never looked at.  So it is not so bad.  It is a good way to store
data, nice written label that is keyed to my log book.  This way I do not have
to learn what XSYS means.  If any of you ever want a pile of data then I can
send you a pile of floppies and you can worry about XSYS.  I am sorry I ever
griped!
 
I suppose I am as close to a radiation instrumentation expert as there is.  I
have certainly built electrons for just about every known type of detector, and
in the process had to learn a little about the fundamental process.  If there
is as much as 100 mw of heat, then the required radiation flux is so large that
something should be seen.  (that should be electronics above - I have not yet
built an electron).  Possibly if all the energy escaped as neutrinos they
would not be noticed, but the flux would have to be so large that enough of
them would probably interract in the basement walls so that secondary particles
could be seen.  Everything else but very low energy photons and neutrons is
easy.  But enogh neutrons would leave me with a stiff cat.  So we are left with
low energy photons.  As I posted before, I have a small suspicion that there
might be some.  But certainly not enough to explain the heat.  So I am left
with the conclustion that any radiation that is see i.e. tritium, must be an
accident from some obscure branch from the primary process.  So what I am
saying is that it looks like there "ain't no ash".  This in turn means that
either there "ain't no heat", or that something new and wonderful is
happening.  I vote for the latter.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S. Remember that low energy photons are IR and thus heat.  Eventually we
will have to build detectors to look for light and heat in a cell.  Enough
people have run open cells to pretty well rule out light.  This leaves us
with trying to put IR scanners in a cell.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  /  Our Government At Work
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Our Government At Work
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just got a mail message from Bruce Lewenstein who is co-director of the
Cold Fusion Archive at Cornell University.  He wants to interview me.
I did not before know that such a thing existed.
 
Since he is co-director, then there are at least two participants in this
NSF sponsored orginization.  He is going to Nagoya, so there must be an
expense budget.
 
As far as I know, there no official budgeted cold fusion work going on in the
US.  Ed Storms, for example, has taken early retirement, and is given only
space, and what he can beg from other budgets.
 
So it is not hard to imagine that the wonderful US government is spending
more on documenting the cold fusion research than it is spending (even extra
budget) on the research itself.
 
Further, while I don't have funds to take a trip to Nagoya, the NSF is sending
someone there to record the progres.  Sorry Bruce, there would be more progress
to report if I went and you stayed home.  (Please, at this late date, don't
anyone offer to pay my way.  I have enough money to go - though the fare would
be better spent on the next generation calorimeter.  Such a trip takes
preparation, and at the time I needed to make the decision I did not have
enough experimental evidence to want to pay for the trip.)
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:07:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct7.201848.5499@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard"
>>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear
>>superiority"....sq
>
>	This would actually be a pretty amusing home project.  Get several tons
>of natural uranium.  Process it into uranium hexaflouride and hope that you
>don't spill any nasty chemicals.  Probably would do much better using laser
 
(additional humorous and insightful discussion about how "easy" it is
to build a nuclear bomb.)
 
Don't forget that the entire point here was to build a _fusion_ weapon
and the claim was that it was easy. Even after you've gotten the nuclear
fuel the rest of it makes this portion look like child's play. Contrary
to what some people think, the accuracy of some of the _details_ is beyond
what most _countries_ are able to produce.
 
Remember that the U.S.S.R. required machines to produce the 'silent'
propellors for their submarines that were available only from the west
and they obtained them through espianage.
 
But this whole string has gotten completely away from the original intent
of the conference. Let's chop it off here.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Stanley Chow /  Re: Help!
     
Originally-From: schow@bcarh2d8.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Help!
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:54:29 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <921007133837.204006b3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>To whom it may concern:
>
>What is a sure fire way to kill the heat output of a cell?  Please put answer
>in a plain unmarked envelope if you do not want me to know the source.  You
>can mail it from Japan so that I don't see the Stanford post mark.
 
 
Just in case, I hope you have put your data disks in a safe place. Hopefully
duplicated safe places.  It would be really ashame if run away cells end with
a big bang :-)
 
 
--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / John Logajan /  Falsify
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Falsify
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:11:42 GMT

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
>if an idea or field cannot be falsified by any experiments, then this is
>not good science.
 
Agreed.  But heat measurements are attempts to falsify the interpretation
of the event too -- else they would have no point at all.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:27:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9210081701.AA28218@anubis.network.com> logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>But Droege is seeing heat through the lense of thermal-mechanical low pass
>filters.  If the source of the heat is more intense but shorter lived, it
>is likely unseen as such at Droege's thermometers.
 
The excess heat does not _disappear_ John. All the pulses are still there
but band-broadened from a temperature pulse to a temperature increase.
 
>For instance, a 200 mw burst for 2 minutes could just as easily have been
>created by a source event that ran at 400mw for 1 minute or 24w for 1
>second, or 24 MegaWatts for one micro-second, or 24 GigaWatts for one
>pico-second.
>
>As the time gets shorter, the event gets hotter.
>
>This has implications for detection.
 
The only implication is that if you get too big a heat reservoir,
you cannot see the actual pulses.
>
>My Geiger counter cannot distinquish multiple events happening within a
>short period of time.  I don't have the specs of it handy, but let's say
>that two events within less than 1/100th of a second will register as
>one "click."
 
This is _not_ the same problem. The second event _still_ ionizes the
gas in the Geiger tube and the resulting current _still_ has to be recharged
by the power supply. If you look at these events as current drain instead
of as a 'click' you can still measure them as separate events after a
fashion.
>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  Rothwell /  New Think
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Think
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:46:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter, give me a break. What is this supposed to mean?
 
"The available evidence does not fit any known process, but each bit of
evidence can be believed to fit, just barely maybe, one known process; the
process varies from one set of evidence to another. The natural conclusion, if
you want to be conservative, is that there is indeed no effect at all."
 
Good Lord! The natural conclusion, if you want to be a scientist, is that
there is something new is going on that you don't understand. Some process or
set of processes are occuring that look sort of like know nuclear reactions,
but obviously are not quite like them. What in the world are you thinking? You
cannot throw away exerimental evidence just because it does not fit any known
model or theory! That is crazy!
 
You never did address my point. I said there is no fixed, exact
proportionality between heat and neutrons, or heat and tritium. I mentioned
that many people think the reason for this is that CF goes through phases. You
went off on some tangent about multiplying entities, and never came back to
earth again. Is this such a revolutionary idea? Are there not other physical
processes that manifest different charactoristics depending on circumstances
like heat, pressure, dopants and so on? You would think I have proposed that
the world was flat.
 
I am glad to see that Richard Blue has finally laid out his agenda:
 
"So where should we go form here?  Launch another multimillion dollar research
program?  I don't see that 10 million dollars or even 1 million dollars can be
well spent on cold fusion.  McKubre has plenty of funding to expand his
efforts to include a basic nuclear radiation detection system to his
experiments.  If he has a cell that is truly producing heat from a nuclear
reaction it will take only a few hours with a basic NaI gamma detector and MCA
to show that nothing is happening."
 
The last sentance is contradictory.
 
This is another, very interesting view of how science should proceed. Anything
new, or anything that does not fit the existing dogma of science is obviously
wretched heresy that must be stamped out, right? Not one one person should be
allowed to study it, because we all know it is wrong, and free inquiry -- or
God Forbid, mistakes! -- will destroy science. We must only perform
experiments that everyone agrees in advance will work. One million dollars can
not be spared to replicate the work of the Japanese. Not even one hundred
thousand. No matter how many reports come in from places like the Japanese
phone company, or Osaka University, or Hitachi -- nobody in the U.S. will be
allowed to try a single one of these experiments because we are CERTAIN that
EVERY ONE OF THEM must be wrong.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:40:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct8.120533.159@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
 > Thanks for the input on secondary x-rays as a probe of possible
 > nuclear reactions in a heat producing cell.  So far, I have only heard
 > of two ways out of x-ray-monitoring as a crucial test:
 
 > 1.  p + p --> d + e+  + neutrino + 0.42 MeV
 
No: p + p + e- --> d + neutrino + 1.44 MeV.  The reaction you describe
would be easily seen when the positron annihilates.
 
 > second for a watt of excess power.  Since the p-p reaction proceeds via weak
 > interaction, the reaction
 > cross section is tiny -- this is why the sun burns as slowly as it does.
 
Of course.  A Miracle is required.  But I thought miracles were de rigeur
in P&F-style Cold Fusionology.
 
 > Plus, we have conducted experiments of this type in the Kamiokande
 > detector, which is a sensitive neutrino detector.  If copious
 > neutrinos were being produced, the Kamiokande would have seen them,
 > but such were absent.  (We did see some neutrons.)  This escape route
 > seems to be ruled out.
 
What's the cross section for a 1.44 MeV neutrino to scatter off
electrons?  I do understand that Kamiokande was not sensitive to the
pp solar neutrinos, but rather saw the rather uncommon high energy
neutrinos from 8B and such.  What's the upper bound on 1.44 MeV
neutrino emission obtained from the CF experiments there?
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:01:51 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <R373RB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
   ... regarding Steinn Sigurdsson's comments about the apparent
       subtlety in the design of a fusion bomb ...
 
>        Why must everyone make everything overly complex!  ;)
>
>        We as scientists designed the H-bomb back in the fifties,
>before the advent of transistors, before the advent of IC's,
>before the advent of the 8088 processor and WAY before the advent
>of the 80486.
 
But not before the advent of computers.  One of the LANL news magazines
had a story about the MANIAC and the earlier machines used to do the
necessary compututations.  I think that article said that one of the
early calculations for the "super" required about a billion operations.
They were willing to wait a few months to get the answer.
 
>        The actual design of the bomb is simple as I have
>previously stated.  The only complexity is the procurement of the
>spent fuel for the jacket, the plutonium for the fissionable core
>and the tritium for the fusible fuel.
 
I liked your design.  I think that is what I came up with when I
was about 10 years old.  I doubt that it took years of puzzlement
by brilliant men to invent it, and I doubt that equally smart
physicists would admit surprise at its invention.  All of this is
quite clear from the public record related to the debate concerning
whether we should procede with a program to develop the "super".
 
>                                       Given the simplicity of
>reactor design, I for one am suprised that nobody has ever built a
>small enrichment chamber, enriching natural uranium as
>hexafluoride gas, and then using this 235 enriched uranium, built
>a small reactor to breed plutonium for a bomb.  Natural uranium
>238 absorbs neutrons as well as being split by them- resulting in
>plutonium 239, which can be extracted chemically.  This plutonium
>could then be used to build a bomb, or as the core bomb to a much
>bigger fusion bomb.
 
Now I begin to question your sincerity.  People have done this.
Quite a few, in quite a few different places.  And in each case,
they were able to make simple order-of-magnitude estimates of
exactly how big a "basement" or "back yard" they needed to do this
work, especially the enrichment of U-235 and chemical separation
of Pu-239.  I suggest you do the same.  If your answer does not
come out to be about the size of a small town  ;-)  try again.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / John Logajan /  Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:01:02 GMT

Droege reports bursts (a common phenomena in CF, apparently.)  Droege tells
of several minutes long bursts reaching several hundred milliwatts at peak.
 
But Droege is seeing heat through the lense of thermal-mechanical low pass
filters.  If the source of the heat is more intense but shorter lived, it
is likely unseen as such at Droege's thermometers.
 
For instance, a 200 mw burst for 2 minutes could just as easily have been
created by a source event that ran at 400mw for 1 minute or 24w for 1
second, or 24 MegaWatts for one micro-second, or 24 GigaWatts for one
pico-second.
 
As the time gets shorter, the event gets hotter.
 
This has implications for detection.
 
My Geiger counter cannot distinquish multiple events happening within a
short period of time.  I don't have the specs of it handy, but let's say
that two events within less than 1/100th of a second will register as
one "click."
 
If these high energy bursts are shorter than 1/100th of a second, no matter
how radioactively intense they are, I get but one click out of my Geiger
counter -- not much to go on when it tends to click about 10-20 times
a minute from background radiation.
 
I don't completely understand dosiometers (or know how to spell it) but
I'd get a couple and place them around the active test cell.
 
Short bursts might also generate EM pulses.
 
How about neutron counters.  Suppose it gets a blast of neutrons lasting
a few pico-seconds.  Does it count just one?  Or can it count the trillions
that have flashed by in the pico-second wide burst?
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:08:11 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Hk83RB6w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
>        The russians are selling millitary items for hard cash-
>wonder if they are selling bomb parts, plutonium, tritium, or
>maybe even the genuine article for hard cash?
 
This is a major concern of those concerned about proliferation,
including russians, ukrainians, kazakhs and azerbaijanis as well
as europeans and americans.  Control of tactical weapons is the
biggest concern, but the US is (I think) buying large quantities
of weapons grade material for conversion to civilian use to help
circumvent the economic forces at work.
 
>        Everyone, you just have to remember.  We weren't even
>using fuel injected engines when the nuclear bombs were being
>invented!  THEY ARE BLOODY SIMPLE DEVICES!  A television set is
>many times more complex than a fusion or fission bomb......sq
 
We were using fuel injected engines and had demonstrated television
before nuclear devices were developed.  They could not have been
developed without electronics or delivered without those engines.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Nick Haines /  Re: Help!
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Help!
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:55:19 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Tom Droege writes:
 
   To whom it may concern:
 
   What is a sure fire way to kill the heat output of a cell?  Please
   put answer in a plain unmarked envelope if you do not want me to
   know the source.  You can mail it from Japan so that I don't see
   the Stanford post mark.
 
Don't you just let the electrolyte boil away? :-)
 
Hope you get help.
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  Rothwell /  My fantastic imagination again
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My fantastic imagination again
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:45:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jon Webb writes:
 
"Jed, I understand that your background is not in science, so you probably don't
know this, but the Japanese will never do this, either. The trick in science is
to find a neat, simple experiment that measures a few things and demonstrates
or refutes a theory.  Setting up an experiment that measures everything you can
think of is never done..."
 
I am not sure whether Jon is being patronizing, or whether he is praising my
vivid imagination; my ability to dream up wild, unlikely scientific projects.
I shall assume the latter, and I must respond: you give me far too much credit
for these ideas, Jon. I am not so imaginative, and I am certainly not the first
person to propose such a project. In fact, it is entirely possible that I know
people who are actually doing things like this, and others who are getting ready
to.
 
The experiment I proposed does not measure "everything" I can think of. Not by
a long shot. I did not even mention Pd loading, for example. I mentioned
measuring three main parameters in real time: the chemical composition of the
gas and electrolyte; various high energy particles; and of course, heat, since
you never can tell whether you have an intense CF reaction or not unless you
look for heat.
 
This proposal is not a radical or new approach to science. When you do not know
what you are looking for, it is common practice to do a wide ranging experiment
that looks in several places at once, rather than to second guess Mother Nature
about where she is hiding her secrets. Before dreaming up one theory after
another, it is common practice to do some broad, basic research, gather some
data, and to describe what is happening. The way to fit a jigswaw puzzle
together is take the pieces out of the box first, and arrange them on the table
for all to see.
 
I know of DOZENS and DOZENS of scientific projects and experiments that are far
more complex than the one I just outlined. So I think your statement was rather
silly. I also think you don't know enough about my "background" to make any firm
judgement about my ability, or my knowledge of what kind of experiments are
possible, or indeed, my knowledge of what kind are now underway. I think you
have stepped out of line, and I am always happy to show people where the line
forms: Nagoya, Japan, in two weeks.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  Mcirvin /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:16:12 GMT

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
 
[highly amusing description of backyard nuclear industry deleted]
 
>Once you've done all this,  without your neighbors
>finding out,  the rest would be pretty easy.
 
Don't forget the construction of the explosive lenses, if you've
decided to wimp out and use plutonium!  And that's just the
fission trigger, if you really want an H-bomb...
--
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmcirvin cudlnMcirvin cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Secondary x-rays as crucial test
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:05:33 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks for the input on secondary x-rays as a probe of possible nuclear
reactions in a heat producing cell.  So far, I have only heard of two ways out
of x-ray-monitoring as a crucial test:
1.  p + p --> d + e+  + neutrino + 0.42 MeV
Since the neutrino carries off nearly all the energy without heating the cell,
this requires truly enormous reaction rates, something exceeding 10**16 per
second for a watt of excess power.  Since the p-p reaction proceeds via weak
interaction, the reaction
cross section is tiny -- this is why the sun burns as slowly as it does.  Plus,
we have conducted experiments of this type in the Kamiokande detector, which is
a sensitive neutrino detector.  If copious neutrinos were being produced, the
Kamiokande would have seen them, but such were absent.  (We did see some
neutrons.)  This escape route seems to be ruled out.
 
2.  Perhaps massive particles are involved in the nuclear process.
This idea postulates the existence of new particles which have the property of
inducing nuclear reactions without being themselves consumed.  Such a catalyst
would seem to require a lepton, since hadrons react strongly and would be lost.
Two such hypothetical particles would have to be present in order to preserve
momentum conservation, without having a light particle carry off energy which
would in turn result in secondary x-rays.  Having worked extensively with muon
catalyzed fusion (an irrefutable example of cold fusion), I find the idea of
two heavy leptons required to catalyze a nuclear reaction to be quite
impossible.  In any case, the particles postulated remain hypothetical.
 
Jon Webb suggests that Bollinger's total mass conversion idea would make
measurements of nuclear particles impossible in a recent posting.  Please
explain how in such a model heat could be produced in a cell without producing
secondary x-rays.
 
I am serious about this.  I want to know why looking for secondary x-rays could
not be a crucial experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is nuclear
or not.
 
I can accept difficulty of reproducibility in a new field as representative of
nascent science (as opposed to pathological science).  But if an idea or field
cannot be falsified by any experiments, then this is not good science.  It is
metaphysics.
 
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 1992 23:15:51 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
:
: >
: > Today's New York Times, and this month's issue of Physics Today, (about
: > inertial confined fusion) reveal the 'secrets' of the hydrogen bomb.
: > They were declassified since other civilian scientists working in other
: > countries on inertial confined fusion already figured them out.
: >
: > I'll get right down to it.
: >
: > NYT:
: >
: >   "The hydrogen bomb was invented in 1951 by Dr. Edward Teller and Dr.
: > Stanislaw M. Ulam after Dr. Teller suggested that radiation from an
: > exploding atomic bomb could generate sufficient heat and pressure to
: > ignite fusion fuel.
: >    Dr Kidder{senior physicist at LANL} said Government officials thought
: > the concept of radiation implosion was so novel that it would be
: > extremely difficult for foreign scientists to come up with it on
: > their own."
: >
: > The essential idea is that they have a "hohlraum" (german for hollow
: > room) made out of an unspecified "high-Z" material (nudge nudge wink
: > wink say no more) which reradiates X-rays that implode the pellet.
:
: Matt,
:
:         There is an even simpler explanation as to how H-bombs
: work.  Simply put, the core is an atomic bomb, around this bomb is
: loaded a sphere of tritium or deuterium (the fusionable fuel).
: Around all of this is placed a jacket of plutonium enriched
: uranium, usually made from spent reactor rods.
:
:         How this all works is simple, the A-bomb explodes causing
: trillions of degrees of localized heat.  Faster than this
: expanding heat is the neutrons which flow right through the heavy
: hydrogens and cause fission reactions in the jacket.  Essentially
: you will simultaneously have a bomb in the core blowing outward,
: and the neutrons cause the jacket to explode both away from the
: bomb and toward the center of the bomb (picture it in your mind).
: You now have a nuclear bottle containing fusible fuel, being
: squeezed with the force of two atom bombs, raised to temperatures
: where fusion is now possible.
 
The question, does this really happen?
 
:  Result, great amounts of energy
: released as the contents of the "nuclear bottle" break the
: confines of the forces holding them in, resulting in an explosion.
 
I don't think this is how they work.  This sounds very much like
what the "classical super" design would be, i.e., it's the obvious
design.  I.e. start a thermonuclear detonation wave from the heat
& pressure from the fission explosion.
 
It's now well known (from public disclosures of the physical orientation of
the weapons, and the recent 'diagram' in the New York Times, and my old
nuclear physics textbook) that the fusion sections of weapons are not in
fact surrounding the fission section, but rather *adjacent* to it.
 
A design that would use the direct heat and pressure created by the fission
explosion, it would seem, would work best surrounding the fission section, I
would think, otherwise you're wasting most of your effort.  Only if
something can be "reflected" somehow, in this case x-rays, could I imagine
an advantage in not putting the fusion section surrounding the fission
section.
 
Remember, the NYT quotes scientists at LLNL who said it's the x-rays:
 
: >    Dr Kidder{senior physicist at LANL} said Government officials thought
: > the concept of radiation implosion was so novel that it would be
: > extremely difficult for foreign scientists to come up with it on
: > their own."
 
"Radiation implosion", and not a fission-triggered explosive shock wave.
 
I personally believe that there is still some more very important
tricks not yet revealed.
 
:         Of course I have not gone into details about how fission
: works, everyone reading this sig already knows those details.  The
: nuclear bottle works with amazing efficiency.
 
Are you really sure?  Somebody here said that they think that
it was Bethe who discovered that the shock wave would radiate too much
energy (it's plasma, remember) to be efficient.
 
If a shock wave can radiate alot of EM energy, that means that it can
*absorb* EM energy too, right?
 
: Given fixed amounts
: of energy from fission core and jacket, you can have seemingly
: unlimited amounts of fusion energy by simply adding more tritium.
: The more fusible fuel you have, the bigger the bomb- the only
: thing that changes is the diameter of the jacket of course.  The
: core fission bomb remains the same always...............sq
 
Does the detonation wave really maintain itself?
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:44:07 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tom Droege asks for help in turning off his heat-producting cell.
Reversing the current may do it, since this will drive deuterium out of the
cathode.
Before he does this, however, I would like to propose an experiment to Henny
Penny.
At BYU, we have a laboratory in a tunnel in the Wasatch mountains just 10 km
from campus which is dedicated to "cold fusion" measurements.  We currently
have three neutron detectors operating in the laboratory, two of the type
described in our Nature paper in April 1989.  The third is of the type
developed by Howard Menlove at Los Alamos, with 16 helium-3 filled proportional
counter tubes embedded in polyethylene moderator.  We have added a cylindrical
plastic scintillator in the core as a fast neutron counter.  And we have added
cosmic-ray veto paddles.  All signals are digitized using fast transient
digitizers.  We are tring to eliminate ways in which we could be fooled by
spurious signals.  The background in the modified Menlove counter is about 0.4
neutron-like signals per hour (singles), while the efficiency for single
neutron detection is about 15% for 2.5 MeV neutrons.  By comparison, the
Kamiokande neutron-detection system has a background of 0.25 h-1 with neutron
detection efficiency of 20%.  We feel confident that the Provo Canyon Lab is
the most sensitive in the western hemisphere for low-level neutron studies.
 
I would like to invite Tom to come here for experiments.  We can also look for
x-rays, gamma-rays, energetic particles.  The invitation is open to other
serious researchers as well.
 
This trip asks much of Henny Penny (Tom's term), so I add another offer to
help:  I would like to learn whether the heat is nuclear in origin or not.  We
are completing a PORTABLE (pardon the capital letters) x-ray detector with
about 10% intrinsic efficiency and 20% resolution at 21 keV (the energy of the
k-alpha x-ray from palladium).  It runs at room temperature and the detector
and pre-amp fit into a 3cm diam X 3cm long can, that may fit next to or even
INTO an electrolytic cell which is producing heat.  (Doing so may also be a way
to turn off the cell, if the quantum mechanicians on the net have their way.)
Better x-ray detectors are available, when liquid-nitrogren cooled, etc.  This
one is designed to permit intrusion into a working cell hopefully.  And it is
lunch-box-size computer-based and portable.
 
What do you think, Tom?
 
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Roger Books /  Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
     
Originally-From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 00:29:21 GMT
Organization: FSU nuclear physics

In article <9210081701.AA28218@anubis.network.com> logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
>Droege reports bursts (a common phenomena in CF, apparently.)  Droege tells
>of several minutes long bursts reaching several hundred milliwatts at peak.
>
>But Droege is seeing heat through the lense of thermal-mechanical low pass
>filters.  If the source of the heat is more intense but shorter lived, it
>is likely unseen as such at Droege's thermometers.
>
>For instance, a 200 mw burst for 2 minutes could just as easily have been
>created by a source event that ran at 400mw for 1 minute or 24w for 1
>second, or 24 MegaWatts for one micro-second, or 24 GigaWatts for one
>pico-second.
>
>As the time gets shorter, the event gets hotter.
>
>This has implications for detection.
>
>My Geiger counter cannot distinquish multiple events happening within a
>short period of time.  I don't have the specs of it handy, but let's say
>that two events within less than 1/100th of a second will register as
>one "click."
>
>If these high energy bursts are shorter than 1/100th of a second, no matter
>how radioactively intense they are, I get but one click out of my Geiger
>counter -- not much to go on when it tends to click about 10-20 times
>a minute from background radiation.
>
>I don't completely understand dosiometers (or know how to spell it) but
>I'd get a couple and place them around the active test cell.
 
If you are worried about detecting an intense burst of ionizing radiation,
you could place a charged electroscope near the cell. An intense burst would
collapse the leaves instantly. If they fall slowly, then either there is
lower intensity radiation or you live in a humid climate like Florida. This
method has the advantage of being very cheap compared to dosimeters which
require a high voltage charging station.
 
>
>Short bursts might also generate EM pulses.
>
>How about neutron counters.  Suppose it gets a blast of neutrons lasting
>a few pico-seconds.  Does it count just one?  Or can it count the trillions
>that have flashed by in the pico-second wide burst?
>
>
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Posted by Kline@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbooks cudfnRoger cudlnBooks cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 1992 23:50:27 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <1992Oct7.201848.5499@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
: >>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard"
: >>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear
: >>superiority"....sq
: >
: >	This would actually be a pretty amusing home project.  Get several tons
: >of natural uranium.  Process it into uranium hexaflouride and hope that you
: >don't spill any nasty chemicals.  Probably would do much better using laser
:
: (additional humorous and insightful discussion about how "easy" it is
: to build a nuclear bomb.)
:
: Don't forget that the entire point here was to build a _fusion_ weapon
: and the claim was that it was easy. Even after you've gotten the nuclear
: fuel the rest of it makes this portion look like child's play. Contrary
: to what some people think, the accuracy of some of the _details_ is beyond
: what most _countries_ are able to produce.
 
I think there are two issues.  There is an enormous engineering and
capital investment needed to build both fission and fusion bombs.  I
know that and I'm not interested in its details.
 
For fusion bombs, specifically and not fission bombs, there are apparently
very unobvious physical principles and effects that do sound interesting,
and worthy of speculation on the net.
 
In both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. there are *physicists* who are called
the "fathers" of the hydrogen-bomb (i.e. Ulam & Teller, and Sakharov).
 
For the fission bomb, many physicists worked on calculating the details,
but the fundmental physics and principles were basic knowledge to all,
and so there isn't any one single "discoverer".
 
That's what of interest here.  Knowing what really goes on is good for
controlled fusion as well.
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:16:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
: So where should we go form here?  Launch another multimillion dollar
: research program?  I don't see that 10 million dollars or even 1 million
: dollars can be well spent on cold fusion.
 
There are plenty of worthwhile ideas in ordinary controlled hot fusion that
are certain to produce 1 billion sigmas of measurable neutrons, radiation,
and ash, gigawatts of fusion power (and maybe some excess), that aren't
getting funded.
 
I would rather have people work on those first.
 
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:58:18 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <11024@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Oct5.172629.152@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>
>>                    ...                        The principle question seems to
>>be:  "Is the heat due to nuclear reactions?"  (Tabelling for the moment the
>>question "Is the heat real?")
>
>Agreed.  Otherwise, why would it be in sci.physics.fusion?  However, I
>do want to emphasize my view that a big part of the problem is getting
>a setup that provides heat reliably so that the products can be looked
>for in a controlled experiment.  It would be nice if Droege has such
>an experimental design.
>
>>3-  Combining points 1 and 2 - retaining generality in not specifying a
>>particular nuclear reaction - we deduce that 1 watt of excess power requires
 of
>>the order of a trillion reactions per second.
>>4-  The primary products may hide, but at these rates, secondary X-rays cannot
>>hide.
>>5-  For instance, in palladium, the k-alpha x-ray has 20 keV, which is quite
>>penetrating.  In heavy water, approximately 20% of these X-rays survive after
>>40 mm.  The palladium is a better attenuator, but with either a volumetric or
>>(better) a surface reaction, significant X-rays ought to get out:  a few
>>percent survive 300 microns of Pd by montecarlo calculation.
>
>Yes, and this has been looked for, and not found (Phys. Rev. C 40, 1851)
>in a cell of the FP&H type, although it is more likely the cell was also
>not producing heat.  When Robson and I were discussing this experiment
>(then in the planning stage) over breakfast at a conference, we were
>mainly concerned about self-absorption by the Pd.  This is probably
>compensated for by the fact that the characteristic energy helps you
>pick them out from background.  At the time, the claim was that we
>should expect reactons on or near the surface.  We were also concerned
>that there could be shadowing of the detector if the reaction location
>depended in some unknown way on the anode/cathode arrangement.
>
>Of course, they were looking for PIXE x-rays from the proton in the
>p+t final state, so the range of the proton on Pd will act to spread
>the effective source size and reduce the significance of ones ignorance
>of the specific location of the reaction.
>
>>6-  MeV-energy charged particles produce excitations which lead to copious
>>X-ray production.  My colleague Larry Rees estimates, for example, 3X10**-8 k
>>x-rays per 3-MeV-proton.  With a trillion or a billion nuclear reactions per
>>second, the 20 keV x-ray yield ought to be easily detectable.
>>
>>Have I missed something, or should secondary X-rays provide for a crucial
>>experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is in fact nuclear in
 origin?
>
>I do not think so.  We lost interest in detailed model calculations when
>the experiment came up null and there were no indications that anyone
>could replicate the original work so better experiments would be worth
>the investment of our time in thinking about them.
>
>If Tom Droege finds that he can build a new cell that works just as
>well as his current cell, it might be time to take it on a road trip
>to some of the nuclear facilities that can look for these things.  Yale
>and Steve's mine shaft and the mini-ball at FSU could all be useful.
>
>Perhaps it is time to think real hard about nuclear reactions that release
>only a fraction of a keV and that might have a lower coulomb barrier than
>what we have considered so far....
>
>--
>J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
**************************************
Dick Forman apoligizes to netters for lack of cleanup and deletions.
     But:  If you look at some of my papers with Chuck Bouldin on x-ray
fluorescence detection you will note this is a nasy field.  There is so-called
near edge structure called a white line that can mess up all naive guesses
on what radiation comes out. Remember that the secondary x-ray is a line at
some unknown energy. Two points: the terminology secondary x-ray is incorrect,
the energy is "unknown" on the scale of eV out of keV.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear test
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:11:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct6.151921.155@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>
>Thanks for the feedback.
>The suggestion of Dietz that a neutrino may carry off the energy seems to
>violate the criterion that the crucial experiment be conducted with  heat
>producing cells, since the neutrino will not deposit energy in a cell.  The
>same problem exists for other highly penetrating radiations, such as GeV-energy
>particles and high-energy gammas:  how can these deposit enough power in a cell
>without producing copious secondary x-rays?
>The suggestion that a massive charged particle picks up most of the energy
>seems to be ruled out by the need for momentum conservation:  the lighter
>particle carries most of the kinetic energy.
>To Logajan I would point out that (to my knowledge) no experiment to look at
>x-ray spectra has yet been performed with a cell that is claimed to be
>producing excess power at the time.  I would not presuppose the results of such
>an experiment.  However, I would like to see such an experiment done since if
>the heat is indeed nuclear, then I have argued that secondary x-rays must be
>present.
>Further efforts to shoot holes in my argument are welcomed.
>Steven E. Jones
>Brigham Young University
>
Hard experiment to design as combining the calorimeter with an x-ray window
means using Be or thin aluminized mylar. I would suggest the thin aluminized
mylar approach.  See paper by Charles E. Bouldin and others in RSI and
where for designs that could be made to work for this purpose. Those cells
were used for other types or x-ray work at CHESS, SSRL, and NSLS.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / MIKE JAMISON /  conservation of momentum
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: conservation of momentum
Date:  9 Oct 1992 12:28 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

The reaction:  p + p + e-  --> d + n~ + 1.44 MeV
 
of course requires conservation of momentum.  Is not the 1.44 MeV equal to
momentum, in a sense.  i.e., no matter what the mass of the neutrino is,
won't the d have to recoil by:  1.44 MeV/(~2 GeV) or greater?
 
In other words, pretend the neutrino is a photon.  The recoil of the
nucleus from emitting a 1.44 MeV photon should be about 740 eV, right?
 
(OK, I'm admitting my ignorance of nuclear physics here.  Please correct me
if I'm wrong...)
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  Rothwell /  If that fails, what's next
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If that fails, what's next
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:14:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Steven Jones writes:
 
"I want to know why looking for secondary x-rays could not be a crucial
experiment to determine whether the "excess heat" is nuclear or not.
 
I can accept difficulty of reproducibility in a new field as representative of
nascent science (as opposed to pathological science). But if an idea or field
cannot be falsified by any experiments, then this is not good science. It is
metaphysics."
 
Amen. I agree with all points. Let me add that X-rays may be a little tricky
to look for, but I knows some people who are using a fresh approach, not
dental film. I hope that I can persuade them to share their ideas. Let me
outline where I feel we would stand if a concerted effort to find secondary x-
rays was to fail:
 
1.   We would know that CF is not due to experimental error because it has
been too widely replicated for that to be possible. The basis of science, and
the history of science, demonstrates that when experimental evidence is widely
replicated at very high levels of confidence, is must be real.
 
2.   We would know that CF is not chemical, because it has been shown to
output thousands of times more heat than any possible chemical reaction.
 
3.   We would know that CF is "somewhat" nuclear. Obviously, it triggers some
nuclear reactions, because nuclear products and radiation have been measured
at high levels in many laboratories; again, this cannot be all due to
experimental error.
 
4.   By the same token, we would know it is "somewhat" not nuclear, because
there are no x-rays.
 
It would add up to a very weird mystery. The strangest thing I have ever heard
of. But it would not go away! We cannot back down, rewind, and erase point #3,
#2 and #1. We cannot throw away superb experimental results, like McKubre's,
just because they don't make any sense. It is too late, the results are too
firm. This phenomenon is not going to pop and vanish like a soapbubble, or
like polywater. If there are insufficient x-rays, all we can do is add that to
the pile of unsolved mysteries, and press on. Another new mystery will not
make the old ones void, or make them automatically, retroactively,
experimental errors.
 
In other words, if you don't find x-rays, that will not mean that CF is false,
it will mean that CF is not a mistake, not chemistry, not nuclear, and your
work is not finished.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.08 / Paul Houle /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:34:04 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <mcirvin.718568172@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>Don't forget the construction of the explosive lenses, if you've
>decided to wimp out and use plutonium!  And that's just the
>fission trigger, if you really want an H-bomb...
 
	Well,  I don't think that fabricating the lenses would be all that
hard,  presuming that you have access to explosive materials that are not
highly sensitive (which you wouldn't want to use in an A-bomb anyway) and
that are machinable).  I think that the very best people with basement
workshops could accomplish this.  (Just look it up in ~The poor man's
James Bond~ :-)
 
	Chances are,  one bomb is enough for neighborhood nuclear superiority,
and many kinds of terrorist actions (We figured that George Hayduke could
take out the Glen Canyon dam with a few kT;  we haven't tested Abbey's
claim that nobody downstream would get killed -- that's a really hard
computational physics problem:  an open-channel problem involving the
Grand Canyon! ) especially if you can shoot one off in some place that wouldn't
be missed:  Detroit,  Pittsburg,  Plattsburg,  Socorro.  If you really need
it to be an H-bomb,  then you need to figure out a design.
 
	Judging from what I've read from people who actually built the damn
things,  there are probably two or three ways to make an H-bomb.  One of
them is better than all the rest (the Teller-Ulam or Sahkarov's "Third Idea").
From what I've seen on the net (and in ~The Atlantic~) there are two hundred
ways to build an H-bomb that doesn't work.  :-)
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accepting Results at Face Value
Date: 9 Oct 1992 04:53:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) says:
>There are plenty of worthwhile ideas in ordinary controlled hot fusion that
>are certain to produce 1 billion sigmas of measurable neutrons, radiation,
>and ash, gigawatts of fusion power (and maybe some excess), that aren't
>getting funded.
>
>I would rather have people work on those first.
 
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist (:-)) to see that there are very real
difference in leverage between the two cases.
 
Fortuately this isn't an all or nothing world.  It looks to me like
cold fusion is cheap enough to research that it'll get developed without
any government money -- fitting, really.  I mean governments have nearly
a perfect track record at betting on the wrong horse.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Hydrogen bands and excited deuterons
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen bands and excited deuterons
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:17:35 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON) writes:
 
>Chuck Sites speculates about excited states in deuterons which have escaped
>detection.
 
>When looking at Photodisintegration the inverse ("time reversed") reaction
 
> n + p -> d + gamma
 
>is often looked at.  Thus far, a monoenergetic beam of neutron has only been
>seen to produce a monoenergetic (for a given angle) set of gammas.  If there
>were an excited state in deuterons, we'd almost certainly have seen two
>different gammas, as the deuterons will be formed in the excited state at
>times.  Also, we'd see a resonance structure in the neutron capture cross
>section around the deuteron excited state. This hasn't been seen either.
>The same goes for the gammas.  The first photodis. experiments looked at the
>gamma attenuation as well, I think.
 
 
   The time reversal of the reaction D + gamma -> n + p is a good
arguement against such a sub-photodesintegration D+gamma interaction.
It does shine some light on the interworkings of the strong force;-)
The gamma realeased from the n+p->d+gamma can be considers as the
*snap* of the strong force as the charged particles are accelerated
towards the D ground state.  Since accelerated charge particles
radiate, the result is the release of gamma.  This is also a system
guilded by quantum mechanical rules, so you would think *if* there are
QM states for the d-nucleus below the energy of photodisintrigration
these would show up in the photon spectrum.  But I can see an argument
why this would not be seen.  The strong force can impart so much
force to binding n+p that the momentum of these massive particles
causes a collapse direct to ground state, basically skipping past
any quantum states in between.  One telling factoid that suggests
there may be more to D+gamma->n+p is that the maximum cross section
for photodisintegration occurs not at 2.224Mev binding energy of n+p,
but at twice that value near 4.448Mev.  If the photon emmision was
purely a perfectly reversable state transition like that of atomic
physics then this difference wouldn't exist.  This suggest that the
physics behind the mix of the strong interaction and the E-M forces
the nucleons in interaction with a photon are complicated indeed,
and poorly understood.
 
    What I'm trying to suggest with the D+gamma->D* is that some low
energy gamma interactions could tie up the photon far longer in the
nucleus than one would expect in comparison to the atomic models.
Because the tied up photon is interacting with the currents of the np
guage, other photons do not interact, the result to gamma spectroscopy
is that at low energies D+gamma, gamma energy in = gamma energy out
but with a time delay.  The only way I can think of to test this idea
is to blast D with a monochromatic beam of gamma, shut it off, and look
for the after glow.  Perhaps a simpiler way would be to backscatter an
large spectra switchable gamma source on a D target and look for gamma
energies with an after glow.  Be warned, I expect the after glow to
be fairly short lived.
 
   Anyway, while I agree p(n,gamma)D ought to reveal any D sub-photo-
disintegration states, like a "slap in the face with cold fish", but I'm
not sure that it will.  I think the effect I'm describing is a "I didn't
get slaped in the face with a cold fish until I looked" type thing.
Anybody care to site the anti-thesis? Anyone for sushi?
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com  (502) 9688495
 
>--
 
>Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
>Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  Britz /  RE: Our Government At Work
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Our Government At Work
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:27:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>So it is not hard to imagine that the wonderful US government is spending
>more on documenting the cold fusion research than it is spending (even extra
>budget) on the research itself.
 
Tom, here you are, echoing Jed's repeated cry for more money from the
government. I have tried to point out to Jed that his ravings against the
Bad Guys (like Huizenga) miss the point: what he is asking is what very few
people get, i.e. special massive block funding. I am sure that there are
groups spread all over the USA who ARE getting research money for cnf-related
work. E.g. McKubre et al, the Bockris group, the Jones group, and a lot of
others, you all know the names. What is not being provided is massive block
funding - and why should it? Propose a sensible, feasible research project,
and you'll get the money.
 The sort of massive funding we're talking about comes forth if and only if
the work is "safe", i.e. more or less all concerned experts agree. I can
think of, e.g. AIDS, a recognised serious problem; or HTSC, all are agreed
on its reality (easy to demonstrate) AND its potential importance. If you
were sitting on the money, you'd be ultraconservative in handing it out, too.
Here is CNF, where every expert disagrees with every other, and even the
experimental evidence is in considerable doubt, no matter what some say.
Clearly a case for playing it safe. You don't need any Bad Guys, just sensible
decisions. The potential importance is secondary; first you have convince
a lot of people of the reality. Antigravity or telepathy would be of great
potential importance, too, but should one fund them massively just for that?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  Britz /  RE: New Think
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: New Think
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:27:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>Dieter, give me a break. What is this supposed to mean?
>
>"The available evidence does not fit any known process, but each bit of
>evidence can be believed to fit, just barely maybe, one known process; the
>process varies from one set of evidence to another. The natural conclusion, if
>you want to be conservative, is that there is indeed no effect at all."
 
>Good Lord! The natural conclusion, if you want to be a scientist, is that
>there is something new is going on that you don't understand. Some process or
>set of processes are occuring that look sort of like know nuclear reactions,
>but obviously are not quite like them. What in the world are you thinking? You
>cannot throw away exerimental evidence just because it does not fit any known
>model or theory! That is crazy!
 
No, mate. I'm a scientist, and my natural conclusion is that there are too
many new and unknown processes required to fit these "facts", so they are
likely not to BE facts, but errors. Yes, even if "hundreds, literally
hundreds, all over the world" believe they have made such observations. If
there were a consistent thread among these observations, one could go for it,
but as it is, it is a mess. Remember polywater; all over the world, there were
people who appeared to replicate the "observations", and were sure that there
was no contamination. In the end, there was, and it fell apart.
 
>You never did address my point. I said there is no fixed, exact
>proportionality between heat and neutrons, or heat and tritium. I mentioned
>that many people think the reason for this is that CF goes through phases. You
>went off on some tangent about multiplying entities, and never came back to
>earth again. Is this such a revolutionary idea? Are there not other physical
>processes that manifest different charactoristics depending on circumstances
>like heat, pressure, dopants and so on? You would think I have proposed that
>the world was flat.
 
Proposing a series of new processes "as CNF goes through phases" is in fact
multiplying entities, i.e. you're piling on new explanations. I say that if
the process does not behave in a fixed manner, then - again - it's likely not
to BE a process, but an error. I can barely bring myself to believe in one new
exotic process, and it would have to behave in some regular manner. This has
not appeared. And the fact that, everytime someone points out a contradiction,
the TB's dodge and weave and come up with another new process, does them no
credit at all.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Benjamin Weiner /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:29:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle @ New Mexico Tech) writes:
>especially if you can shoot one [bomb] off in some place that wouldn't
>be missed:  Detroit,  Pittsburg,  Plattsburg,  Socorro.
 
As a native of Pittsburgh, I object to this.  Better to shoot them
off in New Mexico ... wait, that's already been tried ;)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbweiner cudfnBenjamin cudlnWeiner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Jon Webb /  Re: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as crucial test
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:58:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992Oct8.120533.159@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
   Jon Webb suggests that Bollinger's total mass conversion idea would make
   measurements of nuclear particles impossible in a recent posting.  Please
   explain how in such a model heat could be produced in a cell
   without producing secondary x-rays.
 
Bollinger's idea is this: deuterium atoms atoms act as fermions and
get delocalized within the palladium, just as electrons acting as
fermions get delocalized.  They get so delocalized, in fact, that they
extend over a larger region of space than the strong force.  One of
the deuterium atoms then interacts with a soliton and decays into
low-energy photons (low energy because they are distributed over the
extension of the atom) and a neutrino.  There's no conservation of
baryons because of the limited range of the strong force.
 
Steve, I'll send you a copy of Bollinger's "A Twist of Ribbon" under
separate cover.  I don't know if there's anything to this idea, not
being a physicist; but I like its elegance.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:15:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says fuso-fizzel is not interesting because it is not the kind of
reaction that we want.  Some of us, Dick, are just looking to see what we can
find.  Fossil fuels will not be exhausted in my lifetime so I don't care if
this is a practical heat source.  I keep looking at the March 1990 Scientific
American article on exotic fission. If we could somehow get Pd+D > Ag to
happen, then Ag fission> Va + Cr might happen.  At least all the protons and
neutrons add up correctly for the right Pd isotope.  And it does put out some
energy.  As far as I know, no one has looked for Va and Cr.  It is also not
clear that the fission could proceed without bumping something hard enough to
produce a few gammas.  I class this as "only" a two miracle reaction.
 
John Logajan is correct.  There just isn't enough stuff in the cell to produce
the 90 odd kilojoules seen so far.  There is no foam in the cell, John.  The
foam I mentioned is inside the glass tube which is inside the cell, and is
there to keep the two thermometers separate from each other.  Everything in
the cell at the start is there at the end.  There is almost nothing added.  I
say almost, because I add or remove gas as the motor driven syringe
fills/empties.  This is at most an unbalance of 100 cc over an experiment.
Let us say that I add 100 cc of pure oxygen and it found 200 cc (I don't know
where) of free D or H.  This would produce 2600 joules.  Just not enough.  The
only other explanation is to say that my calorimeter has drifted.  I could
certainly believe that.  Everything possible has happened at one time or
another during these experiments.  But I think not.  And the longer that the
skeptics scare others away from this research, the longer I get to work
without competition.
 
J. A. Carr again does a calculation that demonstrates that even 80 mw should
produce a dangerous level of radiation.  But my geiger counter continues to
click away at background, except when the Co60 source is in place and then it
is about twice background.  I have not yet seen any radiation detection
reports that I can believe.  I think that there is *no* radiation.  But I do
think there is heat, or I would quit.
 
Jon Webb writes:
 
"Jed, I understand that your background is not in science, so
you probably don't know this, but the Japanese will never do this, either.
The trick in science is to find a neat, simple experiment that
measures a few things and demonstrates or refutes a theory.  Setting
up an experiment that measures everything you can think of is never
done, because it's too expensive (even for well-funded research) and
anyway you can never think of everything."
 
Sorry, Jon, you have not followed high energy physics research.  That is
exactly what is done.  Detectors like the CDF at Fermilab are just 10,000 tons
of cramming every known type of detector in the assembly hall.  Clever people
like Jim Cronin are frozen out of such monster efforts.  (Jim is a nobel prize
winner to those who don't know - he said to me shortly after winning the prize
-"if I just keep quiet and and don't give interviews it will all blow over and
I can get back to science.")  Jim was appointed to be head of the CDF effort.
He lasted about 6 months and then he resigned because he wanted to do physics.
He has left the field as near as I can determine and is doing cosmic ray work.
There one can still do a clever experiment.  That is also why I find it hard
to do work on the next generation experiment here at Fermilab.  I think the
same things could be said about the "hot fusion" research.  It is not entirely
the fault of the researchers.  When you are planning to spend a billion
dollars on a detector, as is likely at the SSC, the clever people must spend
all their time drawing PERT charts, and attending meetings.
 
Dieter Britz notes that the best one can expect for calorimetry is 3% and that
my results are well within that number.  He also says "Are you sure about your
errors?"  Well Dieter, I would not want you to miss out on the splendid
opportunity that I have offered Dick Blue.  So come and bring lots of money.
I do think that I have outdone the standard calorimetry.  I am somewhere
between 0.1% and 0.01% and plan to get better.  Sorry Dieter that you cannot
read proceedings as I have published the designs in the ACCF1 and ICCF2.  I
guess if you go to the beach you do not look at girls who are not wearing
bathing suits.  If I get a reasonable ending calibration and H2O run I will
publish in Fusion Technology, and then you can see the design.  Unfortunately
I don't think there will be many out there who both want to do calorimetry and
who have enough electronic experience to build my kludge so I do not expect
many replications.  I am close to deciding to go into production of 10 or so
units.  While I have no plans to sell them, I will probably find someone who
wants to try one, who then may make an independent publication.
 
How about this.  If anyone out there wants to do precise calorimetry, and has
a **non** cold fusion experiment that he wants to do, send me a note.  It will
help me to decide whether I want to build a row of calorimeters.  The next
design will be more or less moveable.  The next design should be able to do a
20 to 30 watt experiment at room temperature.  I will look for accuracy of
the larger of 0.01% of the operating power or 1 mw.  There will be about 2
liter of space for the experiment.  I will furnish the unit at no cost, but
would expect to be a collaborator, at least on any instrumentation papers.
It will take about a year to get the next design out.
 
Dieter also worries about heat of solution of the LiOD.  On the average, the
cell is held constant to under a 0.001 C with an rms of 0.02 C.  So it does
change temperature a little, but what goes up must come down, so I think the
net energy contribution of the LiOD should be zero.  Dieter says that "the
excess is at a level where a chemical effect might suffice."  I don't think so
Dieter, if nuclear processes must leave nuclear ash, then chemical processes
must leave chemical ash.  I don't find enough.
 
Dick Blue says: "Make a hypothesis, put it to the test of experiment, and then
accept the result (after making an honest assessment of possible errors)." OK
Dick, I accept.  My hypothesis is simple - there is excess heat produced in
these reactions.  I have tested it.  I find heat.  I have studied my errors a
lot.  I have not been hasty.  I have had essentially these same results for
three years.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 /  /  The Truth About Government Support Cold Fusion History
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Truth About Government Support Cold Fusion History
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:15:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce Lewenstein sent a note with a rebuttal of my "nasty" remarks about
just what the government was supporting.
 
It seems the NSF gave Bruce enough funds to buy a file cabined, and some
file folders back in 1989 and has not supported him since.  He is sort of
hitch-hiking to Nagoya.  He has not put up anything on the net in his own
defense as he does not want to disturb that which he is studying.  Seems
like the right approach to me.
 
Even the co-director barb is not true.  All other co's seem to have left
the field to Bruce.
 
With my Libertarian hat on, I would more have the government fund a history
effort like this than the work itself, on the premise that the government
should only sponsor work thatn no one else would have motive to do.  But it
looks like they did not even get this right.
 
Be kind to your biographer.  Keep you papers orgainzed.  Don't throw out that
first experiment sitting under the bench.  Some day Bruce will want it for
his museum.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Larry Wall /  Re: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:57:26 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.124409.161@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
: (Doing so may also be a way to turn off the cell, if the quantum
: mechanicians on the net have their way.)
 
Well, the real problem is that nobody has checked the researchers to
see if they're dead.  As soon as somebody does, the whole CF wavefunction
will collapse, one way or another.
 
:-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Nick Haines /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:49:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Benjamin Weiner writes:
 
   houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle @ New Mexico Tech) writes:
   >especially if you can shoot one [bomb] off in some place that wouldn't
   >be missed:  Detroit,  Pittsburg,  Plattsburg,  Socorro.
 
   As a native of Pittsburgh, I object to this.  Better to shoot them
   off in New Mexico ... wait, that's already been tried ;)
 
But he said "Pittsburg", not "Pittsburgh". I think he must mean that
place near San Francisco. :-)
 
Nick Haines, another 'burgher (and proud of the `H', which took some keeping).
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Misc.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:49:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <921008141730.202004d4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>But enogh neutrons would leave me with a stiff cat.  So we are left with
>low energy photons.  As I posted before, I have a small suspicion that there
>might be some.  But certainly not enough to explain the heat.  So I am left
>
>P.S. Remember that low energy photons are IR and thus heat.  Eventually we
>will have to build detectors to look for light and heat in a cell.  Enough
>people have run open cells to pretty well rule out light.  This leaves us
>with trying to put IR scanners in a cell.
 
P&F speak of boiling off the D2O. You are measuring heat. IR couples very
poorly to water -- where is the IR reacting to either transfer enough of
a small amount of energy to the D2O or there must be very large amounts
of IR so that poor coupling can still demonstrate heat like this?
 
In other words -- if it's coming off as IR something else is going on.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.09 / ELIASEN BRUCE /  Latest Lawson Numbers?
     
Originally-From: eliasen@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ELIASEN  ALAN BRUCE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:05:44 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

 
I'm writing a terrible paper about nuclear fusion and comparing it
with nuclear fission.  I was wondering if someone could help me with a couple
of questions:
 
1.  What is the usual percentage of rest-mass released in a D-D fusion
   reaction (assuming Helium-4 output)?  What am I asking? D-T is hard enough!
 
2.  What is the percent of rest-mass released in the most common decay
   modes of U-238?  And what are those decay modes?
 
3.  What Lawson numbers are being achieved by fusion researchers?  And, please,
   for my reference, could somebody refresh me on the break-even and burn
   points at the relevant temperatures? Units, too, please?  My subscription to
   that old LaRoucheite rag "Fusion" has long since expired.  :)
 
4.  What is the most probable method for obtaining usable energy from the
   resultant plasma?  Or is the answer, "hell, we'll cross that bridge when
   we come to it?"
 
5.  Big speculative question:  when do YOU predict that we'll see feasible
   fusion as a power source?  Remember, it's been right around the corner since
   1955.  And what is the greatest holdback?  Maintaining containment?
 
Please e-mail replies to:
 eliasen@ucsu.colorado.edu
 
P.S.  I know I'm too lazy to look the first two up.  You don't need to tell me.
      I'm really interested in the up-to-the-minute state of the art.  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudeneliasen cudfnELIASEN cudlnBRUCE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:59:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <11024@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>Perhaps it is time to think real hard about nuclear reactions that release
>only a fraction of a keV and that might have a lower coulomb barrier than
>what we have considered so far....
 
     This potential lowering of the coulomb barrier (pun recognized)
     in the appropriate situations has always intrigued me (though I
     hadn't before considered reactions that might be in the low keV's.
     Are there any suitable ones?)
 
     I hark back to interesting and basically unexplanable results
     by Cecil /etal from the Colorado School of Mines (reported at the
     early conference on 'cold fusion phenomena' at Los Alamos).  They
     implanted D ions into a thin foil of Pd (95 keV implantation I believe).
     They then turned off the beam, turned on a current (roughly 2 A/cm^2
     in case it matters), and saw a particle spectrum that included a
     reproducable broad feature around 5 MeV correlated with the current
     and the implantation with better than 4 sigma statistics.
     The interesting thing is that this is around the reaction
 
           Pd(isotopes) + D -> Pd(isotope+1) + P + ~4-5 MeV
 
     for the Pd isotopes 110 (11%), 108 (26%), 106 (27%), 104 (15%),
     102 (1.02%) (The percentages are nominal abundances).  Cecil
     mentioned that this might account for the rather broad feature since
     the individual lines fit rather nicely in the broad feature.
 
     Of course, this would not directly help explain things since one would
     see 5 MeV stuff whizzing around in the lattice, and one would
     presumably see consequences of the decay of Pd^111, Pd^109, Pd^107 etc.
     However, if this does happen in this ion implantation setting (the big
     if), the rather massive coulomb barrier (10^-4000 penetration factor
     comes to mind) has been breached by some process.   So, maybe such
     thoughts are applicable to other, lower energy, reactions.
 
     Does anyone know what has become of Cecil's research, and can anyone think
     of suitable reactions?  The only ones I can think of are in the MeV
     range.
 
                                 dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: New Think
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Think
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:53:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <921008222225_72240.1256_EHL33-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>This is another, very interesting view of how science should proceed. Anything
>new, or anything that does not fit the existing dogma of science is obviously
>wretched heresy that must be stamped out, right? Not one one person should be
>allowed to study it, because we all know it is wrong, and free inquiry -- or
>God Forbid, mistakes! -- will destroy science. We must only perform
>experiments that everyone agrees in advance will work. One million dollars can
>not be spared to replicate the work of the Japanese. Not even one hundred
>thousand. No matter how many reports come in from places like the Japanese
>phone company, or Osaka University, or Hitachi -- nobody in the U.S. will be
>allowed to try a single one of these experiments because we are CERTAIN that
>EVERY ONE OF THEM must be wrong.
>
(Yawn) Get off of it Jed. There is no such thing as _free_ inquiry if
what you're talking about is spending _my_ tax dollars.
 
If you have this unquenchable thirst for knowledge it is still there
with your own money. Try using that.
 
Theory tells us that if there is a nuclear reaction of some sort going
on it will leave all sorts of telltale traces. There are no traces -- only
an unexplained heat. And most of the theories to support the production
of this heat either deny reality (there _is_ no ash) or are so wildly
improbable under present theory that it is a waste of sorely needed capital
to waste any of it chasing this willo-the-wisp (gee there's a theory for
you -- willo-the-wisp is a total matter conversion caused my swamp gas.)
 
Now, if there is something to cold nuclear fusion all of the inquiries
by private parties will find a reproducable result sooner or later and
that will be the time to start talking about megabuck research projects.
 
Unless and until that happens, don't be suprised if other people rebel
against research projects that will short other more promising
enquiry.
 
Tom D. says there is heat. If he reproduces his results and has
a null control cell we can start believing that there is heat there.
If there is heat there we then have to convince ourselves that it
couldn't come from chemical means -- geez, a long charging time
followed by a short period of output makes me suspicious that any
heat source couldn't possibly be nuclear in nature.
 
So let's wait until there is some sort of proof of a real phenomena
before we fly off the handle accusing others of non-patriotism,
or being Ludites, or not understanding the possibilities.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / John Logajan /  Chemical energies
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chemical energies
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:42:03 GMT

I was scanning the CRC HCP heat of formation tables for chemical reactions and
the most energetic chemical reactions I saw were those associated with flourine,
the hottest being a liberation of about 100 kcal/mol, which is just under 4ev
per atom.
 
I may have missed some that were "hotter", since it was a many page table and
an incomplete table, and I had to mentally divide the total energy by the
number of atoms in the molecule (to get the energy per atom, since multi-
atomed molecule's kcal/mol is the sum of many atom's energy of formation.)
 
So compare this "hot" 4ev reaction with Droege's Pd or loaded D rates which
must be over 100ev by now, or his D2O rates which must be nearing 2ev, and
you can see that chemistry is either already out of the question, or that
Droege et al have found a way to use water as a high-power fuel.  Either
way, it is a discovery of note.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 /  Britz /  No bathing suits?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No bathing suits?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:42:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Dieter Britz notes that the best one can expect for calorimetry is 3% and that
>my results are well within that number.  He also says "Are you sure about your
>errors?"  Well Dieter, I would not want you to miss out on the splendid
>opportunity that I have offered Dick Blue.  So come and bring lots of money.
>I do think that I have outdone the standard calorimetry.  I am somewhere
>between 0.1% and 0.01% and plan to get better.  Sorry Dieter that you cannot
>read proceedings as I have published the designs in the ACCF1 and ICCF2.  I
>guess if you go to the beach you do not look at girls who are not wearing
>bathing suits.  If I get a reasonable ending calibration and H2O run I will
 
I certainly do look at them, with and without bathing suits - here in Denmark
you see lots of both. Very nice, too. I can't take you up on your offer to
show me your set-up, though, especially the bit about lots of money. Don't
have it. I look forward to seeing your paper in FT. I do, by the way, read
conference proceedings, I just don't let them into my bibliography. The cnf
ones, however, are too expensive for me to get hold of, someone is raking it
in with these.
 I don't think, by the way, that I put it in quite the way you quote me. I
said that expert calorimetrists generally feel that 3% is about it. It is of
course quite possible that you have outdone them all - even that FPH have done
the same thing and actually got 0.1%, although there I am much more skeptical.
 
>Dieter also worries about heat of solution of the LiOD.  On the average, the
>cell is held constant to under a 0.001 C with an rms of 0.02 C.  So it does
>change temperature a little, but what goes up must come down, so I think the
>net energy contribution of the LiOD should be zero.  Dieter says that "the
>excess is at a level where a chemical effect might suffice."  I don't think so
>Dieter, if nuclear processes must leave nuclear ash, then chemical processes
>must leave chemical ash.  I don't find enough.
 
Fair enough; I hadn't noticed that you run at constant cell temperature. I do
agree, of course, that a chemical process would leave chemical products. My
point is that until you came along, people have claimed so much heat that they
could reasonably say that it can't be chemical, ash or no ash. Your small
levels of excess heat are down at the level where a chemical process is not
quite ruled out - I think. I haven't looked at your numbers lately but I guess
your accumulated excess Joules would still require a few grams of product, so
again we're in trouble, maybe. I will also admit that I seem to be backing off
a condition I made a while ago: that an effect has to be somewhere around 100
sigmas, rather than the usual piddling 3, to be convincing. Well, here you are
with 100 sigmas, and I'm still skeptical. Not fair, I know. I guess I am
waiting for you to tell us that you've found an error (knowing that you're
doing your damndest to find one, just like Paneth et al in 1926), and it all
balances now...
 Let me also say, however, that I'd be delighted if it is you, Tom, who comes
up with real, incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of new effect
here.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / John Logajan /  The Myth of Long Charging Times -- Debunked
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Myth of Long Charging Times -- Debunked
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:44:31 GMT

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>a long charging time followed by a short period of output makes me suspicious
 
Look at Droege's data.  His "charging" time was under 48 hours, he started
charging on Sept 9th and it went positive anomalous by Sept 11.  Most of that
"charging" heat went into the enthalpy of D absorbtion into the Pd -- and
he'll get that heat back when he cuts power and all the D comes bubbling
back out.  So you can't borrow all the "charging" energy to account for
the anomalous heat -- that'd be double billing.
 
In any event, he has long since recouped the "charging" energy lost to
enthalpy -- so the "charging" argument flounders on all counts.
 
Which brings me to today's **point**
 
There is revealed a new thread of consistency between all these anomalous
heat reports.  I think we agree that few or none of the other experimenters
matched Droege's micro-precision or accuracy.  In addition, people running
open systems had to throw in a bunch of fudge factors to nail down the
degrees of freedom -- and they had to be conservative in doing so to please
their skeptics.
 
Therefore, less resolution combined with overly conservative open systems
corrections had the effect of delaying the detection of anomalous heat --
giving rise to the notion of the need for long charging times.
 
I think this false notion is now laid to rest (as I believe Droege suggested
when he said he could now detect a dud within a few days.)  Anomalous heat
starts very soon, but at low levels.  It then builds slowly.  In most cases
this is initially below the threshold of detection or is attributed to the
slack of the estimated fudge factors.  Only after the anomalous heat level
climbs high enough do these less precise less accurate systems give an
unambiguous signal -- which has heretofore been falsely attributed to the
need for long charging times.
 
It is clear that Droege's stated intention of doing small but precise
experiments has laid this myth six feet under.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / John Logajan /  And High Loading is Scrutinized
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: And High Loading is Scrutinized
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:13:53 GMT

I wrote:
> less resolution combined with overly conservative open systems
> corrections had the effect of delaying the detection of anomalous heat --
> giving rise to the notion of the need for long charging times.
 
Similarly, such factors could have misled one to the conclusion that super
high loading factors were needed for onset -- though this is less certain.
 
If super high loading was achieved by extended periods of high current
operation, this would have masked the low level early onset of anomalous
heat.  The growth of anomalous heat would not have been noticed until it
had been maturing for some time.  Its detection would therefore likely
have been attributed, post hoc ergo propter hoc, to the concurrent level
of D loading.
 
However, if high levels of loading are achieved quickly, and if this does
correlate to faster and more energetic levels of anomalous heat onset, then
my above suggestion may be incomplete to the point of being misleading.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: No bathing suits?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No bathing suits?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:41:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <E1C0D848A19F233353@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>Fair enough; I hadn't noticed that you run at constant cell temperature. I do
>agree, of course, that a chemical process would leave chemical products. My
>point is that until you came along, people have claimed so much heat that they
>could reasonably say that it can't be chemical, ash or no ash. Your small
>levels of excess heat are down at the level where a chemical process is not
>quite ruled out - I think. I haven't looked at your numbers lately but I guess
>your accumulated excess Joules would still require a few grams of product, so
>again we're in trouble, maybe. I will also admit that I seem to be backing off
>a condition I made a while ago: that an effect has to be somewhere around 100
>sigmas, rather than the usual piddling 3, to be convincing. Well, here you are
>with 100 sigmas, and I'm still skeptical. Not fair, I know. I guess I am
>waiting for you to tell us that you've found an error (knowing that you're
>doing your damndest to find one, just like Paneth et al in 1926), and it all
>balances now...
 
The problem that bothers me is that, if I understand Tom correctly, he is
determining heat by Power*in - Power*out - K (should = 0). It is the K
(the efficiency of the heaters and coolers) that seems to me to be the
sticking point. Apparently he runs a curve to determine this figure by using
a resistance heater. I can't think of a better way to do this but if does
give me a nagging worry about unknown factors that effect efficiency.
 
> Let me also say, however, that I'd be delighted if it is you, Tom, who comes
>up with real, incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of new effect
>here.
 
And that goes for me also.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 /  Rothwell /  Talking Theories
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Talking Theories
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:11:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Thomas H. Kunich writes:
 
"Theory tells us that if there is a nuclear reaction of some sort going on it
will leave all sorts of telltale traces. There are no traces -- only an
unexplained heat. And most of the theories to support the production of this
heat either deny reality (there _is_ no ash) or are so wildly improbable under
present theory..."
 
Well, of course if present theory "tells us" that there must be ash, then a
theory that denies ash is "wildly improbable under present theory." If theory
#1 "tells us" A, and theory #2 says B, NOT A, theory #2 is wildly improbable
under theory #1. And visa-versa.
 
So what does that prove?
 
Anyway, I never said there was no ash. I said we have not found it yet for
some reason, maybe it is half way to Alpha Centuri by now. Who knows? That's
what we need a couple of million bucks to find out.
 
I suggest you tell your talking theories to shut up for a while. They should
stop "telling" you things. They should just pipe down. Talk back to them. Look
at what the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is telling you, instead. That is how you
make progress in science, you look at evidence first, theory next. Also, if
there is conflict between the two, evidence always wins, and theory always
loses.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:00:45 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
 
> 	This would actually be a pretty amusing home project.  Get several tons
> of natural uranium.  Process it into uranium hexaflouride and hope that you
> don't spill any nasty chemicals.  Probably would do much better using laser
> enrichment in your basement.  (Or maybe steal electricity from the local
> baseball stadium to run caultrons).  Maybe you build your own reactor,  which
>
> 	Anyway,  let's suppose that you actually get away with this and
> pull your fuel rods after you get good burnup...  Say a year.  Now you need t
> worry about radiation protection and need to do the Purex process in your
> basement (nah,  maybe it's safer to do it in an outbuilding like the garage)
> and figure out what you're going to do with all the rest of the actinides and
> other waste components (Answer: vent the gases into the atmosphere and keep
> the rest in oil drums.  Surround your bomb with the crap so it will at
> least spread radiation around if it fizzles)
>
> 	When you actually get the plutonium,  you then need to machine it,
> which I suppose would also be a pain since the dust and filings produced woul
> be very poisionous.  Just remember to wear your paper mask and to wash your
> hands before you eat.  It might also be a pain to actually machine a
> (barely) subcritical sphere from a larger piece of plutonium,  but I think
> that this can be accomplished by cutting it out of a cylinder that has
> certain dimensions.  Once you've done all this,  without your neighbors
> finding out,  the rest would be pretty easy.
 
Paul,
 
        I didn't say it would be "EASY", I only said it would be
possible.  Take for example, when I rebuilt my automatic
transmission.  I had never done this before, so I bought a
Chiltons manual on it, a rebuild kit, and set to work.  Once I had
the information I needed as well as the materials, all I needed
was the effort.  Initially, I thought I might be in over my head,
because if you have ever seen the insides to an automatic
transmission, it is a mechanical nightmare!
 
        I took a deep breath, and began my work- piece by piece,
taking undue amounts of time.  Finally, I was finished- and now in
reflection I can truly say, it was really quite simple (but going
in I thought I was over my head).  I can even do it again, only
much faster the second time around as I now know what I am doing.
 
        You see, building a nuke is like anything else you do, it
is hard the first time- but since you and I both know it can be
done, and *HAS* been done, that part makes the task that much
easier.  The pioneers did not have that luxury- they weren't sure
if it would even work, or what the effects would be..........sq
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:24:08 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
> Now I begin to question your sincerity.  People have done this.
> Quite a few, in quite a few different places.  And in each case,
> they were able to make simple order-of-magnitude estimates of
> exactly how big a "basement" or "back yard" they needed to do this
> work, especially the enrichment of U-235 and chemical separation
> of Pu-239.  I suggest you do the same.  If your answer does not
> come out to be about the size of a small town  ;-)  try again.
>
 
Jim,
 
        Enrichment of large (ton) quantaties of U235 for reactors
DOES take a diffusion chamber the size of a small town, in fact
the one they built for the early enrichment was at that time the
largest single building ever built.  Now, I didn't say someone
would need tons of U235, just a little over 3 kilos (to be sure
and have a bit extra).
 
        I realize that I am oversimplifying the bomb in my
descriptions.  Let me oversimplify in another way- the automatic
transmission (which I have discussed earlier in a post on
sci.physics).  To simplify, an automatic transmission couples
mechanical rotational energy through a "torque converter", or
"doughnut" as the guy at the junk yard calls it.  This is a
mechanical to hydraulic couple, where all of the mechanical energy
must go through a hydraulic medium (thus the "clutch" is always
slipping- there is your reduced gas economy, mechanical energy
converted to heat).  To get back to the point (sorry, my mind
wanders) the torque converter is connected mechanically to a
series of cluches (similar to motorcycle bands) which engage and
disengage a series of decending order gears, and thus your gear
ratio is changed.  The time for change is sensed by a mechanical
connection to the carburator (where is your throttle position?) as
well as how fast the torque converter is spinning (centrifugal
force).  Finally, the ratioed rotational energy is delivered out
the back of the transmission to the differential (junk yard label,
the pumpkin) and out to the wheels.
 
        Is this an oversimplification?  Yes it is, because it is
not definate enough to build a transmission based upon the
information given here- but at least you now have fundamental
knowledge in transmission operation- which was what my goal all
along was.  Fundamental knowledge of how a bomb works, not step-by
step how-to build one..............sq
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:42:36 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>
> Does the detonation wave really maintain itself?
>
 
Matt,
 
        The fusion reaction continues so long as the energy does
not exceed that of the "nuclear bottle".  At that point, the
bottle starts to give way to the superior energies of the fusion
reaction, and the whole thing blows itself apart, thus halting the
reaction.  During this directional energy reversal, considerable
more (unregulated) fusion reactions occur, and that is the net
gain of the fusion device over the fission device...........sq
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:14:28 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
> In article <Hk83RB6w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) wr
> >
> >        Everyone, you just have to remember.  We weren't even
> >using fuel injected engines when the nuclear bombs were being
> >invented!  THEY ARE BLOODY SIMPLE DEVICES!  A television set is
> >many times more complex than a fusion or fission bomb......sq
>
> We were using fuel injected engines and had demonstrated television
> before nuclear devices were developed.  They could not have been
> developed without electronics or delivered without those engines.
>
> --
 
Jim,
 
        Maybe I should have clarified my definitions- we weren't
using MODERN fuel injection (e.g. Electronic Fuel Injection, EFI)
which is based upon a microprocessor to drive the atomizer in the
throttle body.  You see, diesel is fuel injected (per se) and the
Germans invented that before WWII.  What I was trying to say was
simply that an atomic bomb is an example of "old technology", like
electric toasters.  Yes, they are still in use today, but they are
not that "high tech", as they were invented long ago.  The
computer terminal you are reading this from right now was
impossible technology at the time the bomb was developed.  That
alone should reiterate my point in a tangible terms...........sq
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.10 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:40:36 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>       for the Soviets to reproduce.  Do you actually think that the Soviets
>       were *better* than us at military-scientific research?
>
>       Finally, the Rosenbergs were executed because they were convicted as
>       traitors.  If Stalin had managed to attain control of the
>       world through treachery, I suspect you would not feel so
>       benignly about traitors.  I put selling out this country
>       with mass murder as one of the most abhorent and intolerable of
>       crimes.
>
> >        For example, I have a periodic chart that lists proposed
> >russian names for elements that they "claim" to have synthesized,
> >but only in fine print.  The actual names are generic and labeled
> >by americans pending "verification" that they actually *WERE* the
> >first to synthesize them.  And so it continues............sq
>
>       Controversy notwithstanding, fabrication of transuranic elements
>       in accelerators pales in comparison with the military-scientific
>       achievements necessary in constructing atomic weaponry for the
>       first time.
>
>                               dale bass
 
Dale,
 
        I don't necessarily feel that the soviets are "better"
than we are, just that given the same money to spend on equipment,
they are EQUAL in intelligence as we.  We are not "genetically"
superior, only financially superior to other countries.  The
soviets have been the originators of many industrial ideas which
WE have taken without credit- which is also unfair (e.g. Titanium
plating technique on twist-steel drill bits).
 
        I have to say that no matter WHO is in control, bad as
well as good things will happen.  It doesn't seem to make much
sense, but to an american Vietnam vet, Ho Che Minh (sp?) was NOT a
good fellow- but to the north Vietnameese, he is a hero.  Saigon
was renamed after him to prove this is so.  America considered him
a terrorist and likened him to Hitler, but to the Viet Cong, he
was a god!  By the way, Hitler was loved by HIS people too...
 
        Don't you just love politics?  The winner always writes
the history books to THEIR slant!  My history teacher loved me
when I spoke glowingly of Hitler, the man who took Germany out of
economic chaos, and made it (for a short number of years) the most
powerful country in the world!  I view the world through unbiased
eyes.
 
        We refuse to give the Soviets credit for elements 104
through 106 (I believe) and if I remember correctly, we have
proposed OUR OWN AMERICAN names for these elements should we one
day "catch up" and synthesize them ourselves (this may have
already taken place however).  American equates with ego,
something that is very very hard to swallow..............sq
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 06:34:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <DawFsB3w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>       Controversy notwithstanding, fabrication of transuranic elements
>>       in accelerators pales in comparison with the military-scientific
>>       achievements necessary in constructing atomic weaponry for the
>>       first time.
>>                               dale bass
>
>
>        I don't necessarily feel that the soviets are "better"
>than we are, just that given the same money to spend on equipment,
>they are EQUAL in intelligence as we.  We are not "genetically"
>superior, only financially superior to other countries.  The
>soviets have been the originators of many industrial ideas which
>WE have taken without credit- which is also unfair (e.g. Titanium
>plating technique on twist-steel drill bits).
 
     But they did not have the same money, or the same technological
     base.  Half their country was lying in ruins and millions of
     their men were dead.  Immediately before that happened, Stalin
     had managed to kill large numbers of the people necessary to
     build those weapons.  This 'financially superior' stuff is
     nontrivial, especially when building nontrivial things like
     fusion weapons.
 
>        I have to say that no matter WHO is in control, bad as
>well as good things will happen.  It doesn't seem to make much
>sense, but to an american Vietnam vet, Ho Che Minh (sp?) was NOT a
>good fellow- but to the north Vietnameese, he is a hero.  Saigon
>was renamed after him to prove this is so.  America considered him
>a terrorist and likened him to Hitler, but to the Viet Cong, he
>was a god!  By the way, Hitler was loved by HIS people too...
 
     Relativism of the basest sort.  Am I to take it Hitler is to
     be equated to Ho Chi Mihn who is equated to Eisenhower?  However,
     how is this related to this newsgroup or anything that
     preceeded it?
 
>        We refuse to give the Soviets credit for elements 104
>through 106 (I believe) and if I remember correctly, we have
>proposed OUR OWN AMERICAN names for these elements should we one
>day "catch up" and synthesize them ourselves (this may have
>already taken place however).  American equates with ego,
>something that is very very hard to swallow..............sq
 
     I believe that Mr. Carr has given an accurate picture
     of the controversy surrounding the synthesis of these elements,
     devoid of 'American ego' (though I suspect he is a US citizen
     and I suspect that he, like most of us, has an ego).
 
                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 06:43:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <y8wFsB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
>        I didn't say it would be "EASY", I only said it would be
>possible.  Take for example, when I rebuilt my automatic
>transmission.  I had never done this before, so I bought a
>Chiltons manual on it, a rebuild kit, and set to work.  Once I had
 ...
>        You see, building a nuke is like anything else you do, it
>is hard the first time- but since you and I both know it can be
>done, and *HAS* been done, that part makes the task that much
>easier.  The pioneers did not have that luxury- they weren't sure
>if it would even work, or what the effects would be..........sq
 
     Is there a Chiltons' for nuclear weaponry?  Boy, those folks think
     of everything.
 
     Seriously, I'd love to see you rebuild your transmission without
     being able to see one nor ever having seen one, not being
     able to have any parts, not knowing what metals it is made of,
     and having no manual.
 
     It'd take you decades just to figure out how one should work,
     not to mention the time learning how to fabricate the parts.
 
                                 dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 07:00:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <XayFsB6w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>> Now I begin to question your sincerity.  People have done this.
>> Quite a few, in quite a few different places.  And in each case,
>> they were able to make simple order-of-magnitude estimates of
>> exactly how big a "basement" or "back yard" they needed to do this
>> work, especially the enrichment of U-235 and chemical separation
>> of Pu-239.  I suggest you do the same.  If your answer does not
>> come out to be about the size of a small town  ;-)  try again.
>>
>
>Jim,
>
>        Enrichment of large (ton) quantaties of U235 for reactors
>DOES take a diffusion chamber the size of a small town, in fact
>the one they built for the early enrichment was at that time the
>largest single building ever built.  Now, I didn't say someone
>would need tons of U235, just a little over 3 kilos (to be sure
>and have a bit extra).
 
     Au contraire mon ami.  Enriching *one ounce* to weapons grade
     by gaseous diffusion takes a plant the size of a small town.
     You don't do better by only having to do a little.  Also,
     the natural abundance of U-235 is about 0.7%.  Even if you
     only want 3 kilos of product, you're talking many tons of feedstock.
     You might want to invest in a calutron.  The only problem is that
     you'll need a rather large electrical substation nearby since those
     babies really draw the juice, and you'll have to wait quite a
     while for your 3 kilos.
 
     I don't think that you seem to recognize that you are talking about
     *industrial* processes.  These are things that cannot, by their
     very nature, fit in your basement.  Do you think that you could
     cast and build a tractor in your basement?  How about your vaunted
     transmission?
 
                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / John Logajan /  Artist's conception
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Artist's conception
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:22:01 GMT

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> responded to this apparent post by:
 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
>Sorry Dieter that you cannot
>read proceedings as I have published the designs in the ACCF1 and ICCF2.
 
I checked at four different USENET sites and cannot find any trace of this
post from Droege -- did anybody else see it?  I have suspicions that we
may be suffering from a fractured net.
 
If anyone has access to the drawings, if any, in the above mentioned
publications and cares to FAX them to me at the number below, I will
hand redraw them (thus avoiding copyright stickyness) in PostScript form and
publish them as PostScript language files -- suitable for printing at
your local PostScript compatible printer.
 
This offer is also open to submissions of drawings direct from the source
HIMSELF as well :-)
 
You all might want to contact me by e-mail first to save on unnecessary
duplicate submissions and their long distance phone charges.  (Not that I
expect anybody to respond :-)
 
John Logajan MS010
Fax# 612-424-2853
 
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: If that fails, what's next
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If that fails, what's next
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:26:37 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921009142417_72240.1256_EHL48-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>3.   We would know that CF is "somewhat" nuclear. Obviously, it triggers some
>nuclear reactions, because nuclear products and radiation have been measured
>at high levels in many laboratories; again, this cannot be all due to
>experimental error.
 
Why not?  These measurements have *not* been at the 100 sigma level.  One
of the claimed "nuclear" products is tritium, which begs the question of
why one has not seen the x-rays from the fast proton if d+d or the
photon from p+d.  The possibility of contamination of D2O is real, and
the probability of concentration of contaminants by electrolisis is high.
 
>4.   By the same token, we would know it is "somewhat" not nuclear, because
>there are no x-rays.
 
I think Steve's point is that it is *not* nuclear fusion if you cannot
see x-rays from the effects of the recoiling charged products.  That
was what motivated the work by Deakin et al here at FSU, and his point
is well taken.
 
What remains to be done is to put a 10 mW (or 10 W) cell that operates
under known and predicatable conditions into a sophisticated system
that will measure a variety of nuclear observables simultaneously; in
particular where any heat bursts can be matched to nuclear effects that
appear in coincidence with them.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:44:11 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <DawFsB3w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
>        We refuse to give the Soviets credit for elements 104
>through 106 (I believe) and if I remember correctly, we have
>proposed OUR OWN AMERICAN names for these elements should we one
>day "catch up" and synthesize them ourselves (this may have
>already taken place however).  American equates with ego,
>something that is very very hard to swallow..............sq
 
Catch up and finally make them.  Really rich.  FYI there are 10 isotopes
of Rf(104), 10 more of Ha(105), and 5 isotopes of 106 known well enough
to get mass and lifetime entries in the 7/92 nuclear wallet cards.
People have done chemistry on the longer-lived (several seconds) ones.
 
Discovery of an element is more than making a report or publishing a
paper, although both contribute to priority.  What matters is that the
properties in those reports stand up to later scrutiny as more measurements
are made at other labs.  Confirmation is essential before the results
are accepted as official and names handed out.
 
What I like about your post is that you are still so centered on american
versus soviet issues that you completely ignore the european role.  There
are many fine labs in europe, which spends more on nuclear physics than
the US by several different measures.  And since when was Mendeleev (or
Curie or Einstein or Fermi or Nobel or Rutherford or Hahn or Meitner) an
AMERICAN name?  Only Bk, Cf, Lr and Am fit that description.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:07:39 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

 
 [... description wherein Steven J Quest compares extracting Pu-239
      from used fuel rods and machining same into parts for a fission
      weapon to rebuilding his automatic transmission deleted ...]
 
 heh heh heh
 
 Can you spell R-A-D-I-A-T-I-O-N ?
 
 There is a difference between the technical difficulty of certain steps
 in a procedure and the difficulty of doing something very dangerous on
 an industrial scale.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:23:50 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct9.210544.10674@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> eliasen@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
 (ELIASEN  ALAN BRUCE) writes:
>
>I'm writing a terrible paper about nuclear fusion and comparing it
>with nuclear fission.  I was wondering if someone could help me with a couple
>of questions:
>
>1.  What is the usual percentage of rest-mass released in a D-D fusion
>   reaction (assuming Helium-4 output)?  What am I asking? D-T is hard enough!
 
About 20 MeV (out of rest mass of about 4*931 MeV) but this is the rarest
of the d+d fusion channels.  The p+t and n+He-3 channels are in the 5 MeV
range (out of the same rest mass).
 
Fusion reactors will probably burn d+t to alpha+n.
 
>2.  What is the percent of rest-mass released in the most common decay
>   modes of U-238?  And what are those decay modes?
 
Most common is alpha decay (95%, about 4 MeV).  Rest is electron capture.
 
>P.S.  I know I'm too lazy to look the first two up.  You don't need to tell me.
>      I'm really interested in the up-to-the-minute state of the art.  Thanks.
 
The numbers above are order of magnitude.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 11 Oct 1992 21:04:23 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: >        I don't necessarily feel that the soviets are "better"
: >than we are, just that given the same money to spend on equipment,
: >they are EQUAL in intelligence as we.  We are not "genetically"
: >superior, only financially superior to other countries.  The
: >soviets have been the originators of many industrial ideas which
: >WE have taken without credit- which is also unfair (e.g. Titanium
: >plating technique on twist-steel drill bits).
:
:      But they did not have the same money, or the same technological
:      base.  Half their country was lying in ruins and millions of
:      their men were dead.
 
Though by the end they had managed to marshal enough of their industrial
resources to defeat at least part of the German army.
 
:  Immediately before that happened, Stalin
:      had managed to kill large numbers of the people necessary to
:      build those weapons.  This 'financially superior' stuff is
:      nontrivial, especially when building nontrivial things like
:      fusion weapons.
 
Yes.
 
I think it's clear that espionage aided the soviet's efforts.  (As
well as analyzing the fallout products and other observations of our
tests.)
 
I also believe that if they did NOT have top-rate physicists and
mathemeticians, on the level of Sakharov, Kurchatov, Landau and Kolmogorov,
they couldn't have done it at all, considering all the above.  It's
exceedingly unlikely that they could have stolen enough to render the task
trivial.
 
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short lived events, can we see their granularity?
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:48:18 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9210081701.AA28218@anubis.network.com> logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>As the time gets shorter, the event gets hotter.
>
>This has implications for detection.
 
 ...
 
>How about neutron counters.  Suppose it gets a blast of neutrons lasting
>a few pico-seconds.  Does it count just one?  Or can it count the trillions
>that have flashed by in the pico-second wide burst?
 
This does not have a simple answer, since it depends a lot on the setup
(number of detectors), the detector (its refractory time), the electronics
(computer dead time), and the detection efficiency.  One can usually
design a system to detect neutrons (or whatever) with a known efficiency
under a wide range of circumstances, but no one system will work under
all circumstances.  There are always tradeoffs.
 
Now I am a theorist, but I do spend my leisure hours hassling my more
numerous experimental colleagues about their detection systems.  I mean,
how else can I take them seriously when they tell me they can measure
the spin of a neutron after it has traveled 100 m through air!  These
sorts of problems can be dealt with by segmenting the detector (Steve
Jones can tell you about how his system detects bursts of several
hundred neutrons with zero background).  Granted, a system designed
to see a single neutron would, in the presence of lots of neutrons,
have some pileup that would look like very energetic neutrons -- but
this would be a sign that would be hard to miss.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  Britz /  Drop all bombs please
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Drop all bombs please
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:21:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I came in this morning, specially and only to look at my email - being on
holidays this week - and there are three spf Digests. I find, however, that
the cnf content could be compressed into a single one, the rest is all about
H-bombs. Please, all you bomb crazies, go away, you are cluttering up this
group. The volume of your verbiage suggests that you could run a special
news group on that fascinating topic for a long time - so start one. Then we
can focus once more on non-bomb fusion.
Thank you in anticipation of a higher S/N level.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Michael Zedeler /  Newly started college project
     
Originally-From: mike@ruc.dk (Michael Zedeler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Newly started college project
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:08:17 GMT
Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark

Hi everyone!
 
I am writing on behalf of a group of students from Roskilde University Centre
in Denmark.
 
We have decided to work with problems concerning the enviromental impact of
fusion power. (Mostly the Tokamak-reactor-type.)
 
If you are presently working with fusion power, we'd be glad to hear from you.
 
More letters and questions will follow>>> Michael Zedeler.
 
Failure is human, absolute breakdown requires a computer!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmike cudfnMichael cudlnZedeler cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Don Roberts /  Fusion vs. Fission (was: Drop nuc waste into sun)
     
Originally-From: roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion vs. Fission (was: Drop nuc waste into sun)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:26:59 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

[I'm cross-posting to sci.physics.fusion--DWR]
 
stanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Stan Bischof) writes:
 
>Last I saw, one of the goals was to eventually get to a D-D reaction
>so that the only byproduct is an energetic alpha, as opposed to the
>14MEV neutron from the easier D-T fusion.
 
D-D reactors won't happen any time soon (read: 50 years). The reaction
cross section for D-D fusion at 30keV ("typical best" ion temp in a big
tokamak) is about two orders of magnitude lower than the cross section for
D-T. We can't even manage a Q (the ratio of power *in* to power *out*)
better than about 0.5 with D-T in the present machines (TFTR and JET).
 
Besides, D-D doesn't produce an alpha (directly). The two D-D fusion
reactions are:
 
D + D --   T(1.01MeV) + p(3.02MeV) 50%
      -- 3He(0.82MeV) + n(2.45MeV) 50%
 
Because of the cross section difference, the Tritium instantly burns up:
 
D + T -- 4He(3.5MeV) + n(14.1Mev)  [here's where the alpha appears]
 
So, on average, for each five deuterons consumed, two high energy neutrons
are produced (one at 2.45MeV, one at 14.1MeV). An improvement over D-T
fusion (two neutrons per two deuterons plus two tritons), but not much.
 
>It's that hot neutron that causes the problems you are referring to, and
>which indeed creates some nasty byproducts in the reaction chamber walls.
 
Yup.
 
>At the worst, however, a D-T reactor should produce much less waste
>than a fission reactor.
 
True. And most of its radioactivity lasts hours, days, or years rather than
decades, centuries, or millenia. (Fission has the distinct advantage of
*actually working*, however).
 
>Long time off in any case, which is a shame.
 
Right now, the only way we know how to lick the problem is by throwing
money at it. A big tokamak like ITER might just work: as they say in the
fusion biz, "Size Buys." It's probably a good idea to keep the funding a
bit tight to encourage the physicists to come up with a few more bright
ideas (I like "second stability regime" tokamaks, but that's just 'cuz I
did my thesis on one).
 
>Stan Bischof
>HPSR
--
 Dr. Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                     Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory        Recreational Bodybuilder
   dwr@llnl.gov                                          Renaissance Dude
 
 The ideas and opinions expressed here do not represent official policies
 of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,  the University of California,
                or the United States Department of Energy.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenroberts cudfnDon cudlnRoberts cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.11 / Paul Houle /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:41:22 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Oct11.070033.4704@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     Au contraire mon ami.  Enriching *one ounce* to weapons grade
>     by gaseous diffusion takes a plant the size of a small town.
>     You don't do better by only having to do a little.  Also,
>     the natural abundance of U-235 is about 0.7%.  Even if you
>     only want 3 kilos of product, you're talking many tons of feedstock.
>     You might want to invest in a calutron.  The only problem is that
>     you'll need a rather large electrical substation nearby since those
>     babies really draw the juice, and you'll have to wait quite a
>     while for your 3 kilos.
>
>     I don't think that you seem to recognize that you are talking about
>     *industrial* processes.  These are things that cannot, by their
>     very nature, fit in your basement.  Do you think that you could
>     cast and build a tractor in your basement?  How about your vaunted
>     transmission?
>
>                               dale bass
 
	For once I'll have to agree with you.  Fission energy technology
has poor scalability down to the basement-operation size.  Assuming that
this guy wants to make 3 kilos (and I think that he will actually want
quite a bit more.  He will either need about 35 kg to actually construct
a gun-type device,  or he will need to manufacture 5-10 kg of plutonium;
which if I remember correctly will require that he actually burns up
about that mass in uranium (and will need much more to keep the mass
critical all the way through).  Then again,  it might be possible to make
a ~very~ efficient reactor that uses moderation that needs only 3 kg of
highly enriched uranium.  Might be good for a swimming pool heater or
neighborhood cogeneration system (both! :-)
 
	Probably the only isotope separation technology that should scale
down well is laser isotope separation,  but that is still kinda blue-skyish.
Yet,  if it could be made to work,  there is no reason why one couldn't
build a rather small isotope separation system that might even scale to
basement operation size.  Now,  it might take you forever to make enough
high-enriched U235 to do anything interesting with it.  If we assume that
35 kg is "enough",  and that U235 is about %1 by weight,  then we would
need something like 3.5 metric tons of uranium to get it.  I suppose that
you could fit all that in a basement,  but it would be hard.  A really
high-tech laser enrichment system might continuously process metallic
natural U (most efficient for storage) into UF6,  run one-pass separation
to ~90% U235,  and then recycle the F at the end of the cycle which
might barely make this into something you could run at home.  Building
it in your basement might be harder;  and it all depends on developments
in technology which are certainly not known to the public...  Although it
is almost certain that somebody has done classified work on it.
 
	Then again,  laser isotope separation might become very handy
for other elements.  Diamonds that contain isotopically pure C12 have
about an order of magnitude better heat conductivity than regular
diamonds...  And C13 diamonds should be harder.
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:56:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct11.204122.14733@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>       Probably the only isotope separation technology that should scale
>down well is laser isotope separation,  but that is still kinda blue-skyish.
>Yet,  if it could be made to work,  there is no reason why one couldn't
>build a rather small isotope separation system that might even scale to
>basement operation size.  Now,  it might take you forever to make enough
 
     The lasers do not scale at all.  They take up rooms the size of industrial
     plants.  And once again, you're talking about a rather large power
     drain.
 
>       Then again,  laser isotope separation might become very handy
>for other elements.  Diamonds that contain isotopically pure C12 have
>about an order of magnitude better heat conductivity than regular
>diamonds...  And C13 diamonds should be harder.
 
     This is probably not the best way to pursue C-13, C12 separation.
     It would be a mite expensive.  Usually, higher mass differential
     isotopes than U-238, U-235 are most easily separated by chemical
     means.
 
                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Jon Noring /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:03:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>       Probably the only isotope separation technology that should scale
>down well is laser isotope separation,  but that is still kinda blue-skyish.
>Yet,  if it could be made to work,  there is no reason why one couldn't
>build a rather small isotope separation system that might even scale to
>basement operation size.  Now,  it might take you forever to make enough
>high-enriched U235 to do anything interesting with it.  If we assume that
>35 kg is "enough",  and that U235 is about %1 by weight,  then we would
>need something like 3.5 metric tons of uranium to get it.  I suppose that
>you could fit all that in a basement,  but it would be hard.  A really
>high-tech laser enrichment system might continuously process metallic
>natural U (most efficient for storage) into UF6,  run one-pass separation
>to ~90% U235,  and then recycle the F at the end of the cycle which
>might barely make this into something you could run at home.  Building
>it in your basement might be harder;  and it all depends on developments
>in technology which are certainly not known to the public...  Although it
>is almost certain that somebody has done classified work on it.
 
It is true that LIS (Laser Isotope Separation) could be scaled down in size
and still work efficiently.  However, it requires VERY precisely tuned lasers
of high power (even for small sizes), which are (at the present) VERY
expensive.  At this time, I do not see anybody tinkering in their basement
and build a cheap and workable LIS (even a micro-LIS in a test-tube).  And
you're right, there's been a lot of classified work done on it, and, like the
H-bomb, there are many not-so-obvious subtleties in the design of a working
LIS system that even a well-funded program ($100+ million/year) would take
several years to find them all out.  LIS, though simple at first glance, is
not a trivial process to implement.
 
 
>       Then again,  laser isotope separation might become very handy
>for other elements.  Diamonds that contain isotopically pure C12 have
>about an order of magnitude better heat conductivity than regular
>diamonds...  And C13 diamonds should be harder.
 
This is an interesting field.  Another area that I've been involved with is
the isotopic purification of silicon.  Just like diamond, we should find an
improvement in the thermal conductivity of single crystaline silicon when
isotopically pure (there may be other property changes as well.)  We believe
there could be a lot of practical uses for t.c.-enhanced silicon, for
example, in high power devices employing large silicon chips, photovoltaic
cells, etc.
 
Isotopic purification of mercury using LIS has also been studied since
isotopically pure mercury significantly boosts the efficiency of fluorescent
lights.  I don't recall the particular physics as to why this is so - maybe
one of the net.readers can fill all of us in on the physics involved here.
 
Jon Noring
 
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:11:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct12.190350.24311@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
 writes:
>In article houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>>
>>      Probably the only isotope separation technology that should scale
>>down well is laser isotope separation,  but that is still kinda blue-skyish.
>>Yet,  if it could be made to work,  there is no reason why one couldn't
>>build a rather small isotope separation system that might even scale to
>>basement operation size.  Now,  it might take you forever to make enough
>>high-enriched U235 to do anything interesting with it.  If we assume that
>>35 kg is "enough",  and that U235 is about %1 by weight,  then we would
>>need something like 3.5 metric tons of uranium to get it.  I suppose that
>>you could fit all that in a basement,  but it would be hard.  A really
>>high-tech laser enrichment system might continuously process metallic
>>natural U (most efficient for storage) into UF6,  run one-pass separation
>>to ~90% U235,  and then recycle the F at the end of the cycle which
>>might barely make this into something you could run at home.  Building
>>it in your basement might be harder;  and it all depends on developments
>>in technology which are certainly not known to the public...  Although it
>>is almost certain that somebody has done classified work on it.
>
>It is true that LIS (Laser Isotope Separation) could be scaled down in size
>and still work efficiently.  However, it requires VERY precisely tuned lasers
>of high power (even for small sizes), which are (at the present) VERY
>expensive.  At this time, I do not see anybody tinkering in their basement
>and build a cheap and workable LIS (even a micro-LIS in a test-tube).  And
>you're right, there's been a lot of classified work done on it, and, like the
>H-bomb, there are many not-so-obvious subtleties in the design of a working
>LIS system that even a well-funded program ($100+ million/year) would take
>several years to find them all out.  LIS, though simple at first glance, is
>not a trivial process to implement.
 
      Expensive?    Do you know of a scalable, reasonably efficient laser
      for LIS work at any price that offers enough throughput to produce
      kilogram quantities of U-235 (unless you're willing to wait a hundred
      years for the isotopic product) ?
 
      By the way, your numbers for developing LIS are a mite low without
      preexisting national technical means.   As far as I know no one has
      production facilities, and the most promising one as far as
      production goes (in Europe) will lose its funding in 1993.
 
                             dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:51:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <y8wFsB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
>        I didn't say it would be "EASY", I only said it would be
>possible.  Take for example, when I rebuilt my automatic
>transmission.  I had never done this before, so I bought a
>Chiltons manual on it, a rebuild kit, and set to work.  Once I had
>the information I needed as well as the materials, all I needed
>was the effort.  Initially, I thought I might be in over my head,
>because if you have ever seen the insides to an automatic
>transmission, it is a mechanical nightmare!
 
Now if you want to compare this to your automatic experience let's just
put this into proper perspective: try to completely build an automatic
transmission without ever having seen one and with only the knowledge of
how one would theoretically work. You have to cast and machine all of the
pieces, obtain all of the required material and put it together and bolt
it in a car and then try it out.
 
This _is_ the problem of backyard fusion device makers. Enough of this
stupid conversation.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / Mark Hittinger /  ash
     
Originally-From: an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ash
Date: 13 Oct 1992 00:48:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
 
Suppose that the ash is something ordinary that is already present?
 
You'd miss it.
 
It would probably be enviro-friendly - wouldn't that be great?  And if
Tom has a party and buys beer with the profits on his futures contracts?
--
--------
NO DAD!! You're supposed to type it in with downer case letters!
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenan288 cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:40:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
It is of no doubt that the wide interest in the so called 'cold fusion'
was provoked by the claims for observation of excess heat (EH)(ovecoming
the energy breakeven). There is also no doubt that a significant interest,
beyond just academic, in the neutrons, tritium, gamma-rays and other
emissions expected if *known* nuclear reactions are taking place will be
reasonable only if the main claim (production of excess heat) proves to
be real. Why discuss the claim for EH in sci.physics.fusion then ?
Because for those who wish to discuss what might cause EH to appear,
nuclear fusion is the only viable possibility to hypothesize about
EH, if real. Other speculation about the origin of EH such as
violation of the first and the second principles of thermodynamics are
outside the realm of contemporary professional science. Of course, these
principles are also not sacred since we have accepted them solely based on
experimental evidence and only solid experimental evidence should be the
criteria for accepting exceptions to these principles.
 
It seems bizzare to me, however, to try to conjecture far out possibilities
like 'cold fusion', not to speak about violation of the principles of
thermodynamics, before the clear experimental determination of the reality
of EH is carried out. This is putting the cart before the horse. Can you
imagine in what position all those "theorists" would be if the claimed EH
turns out to be a subtle triviality -- say due to unaccounted for
heat-transfer problems ? The situation would be similar to that with
"polywater" -- some people were creating theories to explain that
"phenomenon".
 
Thus, we face a situation where there is an extraordinary claim
(production of EH)  whose reality is to be determined
and a working hypothesis (cold nuclear fusion) to explain this eventual
phenomenon. Unfortunately, from the very beginning a significant confusion
occured as to which to come first -- explanation of the eventual phenomenon
or determination of the reality of this same phenomenon. The things were
muddled even further by trying to prove that EH is not real by showing that
it does not fit the explanation (e.g. overwhelming majority of the scientists
looking into this problem found no netrons or other products from known
nuclear reactions and some take this as enough proof against the reality
of EH).
 
It cannot be emphasized too strongly, however, that whether
the claimed excess heat is real or not can (and should !) be proved solely
by calorimetry no matter how unattractive, non-prestigious and old-fashioned
this technique may seem to some (science is not a fashion show).
Refuting the existence of excess heat e.g. by calculations
based on known nuclear reactions is irrelevant. Such arguments for refuting EH
are similar to any attempts to question the reality of the Wien's displacement
law,  Davison Germer's experiments, Compton effect, photoelectric effect etc.
using calculations based on classical physics. The 'ultraviolet
catastrophy' is one of the well known results from such calculations.
Such 'catastrophic' results from calculations based on classical physics,
however, did not suffice to reject the experimental reality of the mentioned
phenomena. Further, the opinion created that calorimetry is somehow an
approximate technique since innumerable parameters should be controlled is
incorrect. Also, the opinion expressed by some physicists that calorimetry is
a technique that only the chemists should meddle with can only cause eyebrows
to raise. Is not calorimetry used to determine physical changes as well ? Are
thermodynamics, statistical mechanics or heat-transfer used only in chemistry ?
In other words all kinds of excuses and explanations were created to present
calorimetry as too difficult, too complex, too approximate and so forth (which
itis not) in order to bypass it and direct all the attention towards the nuclear
measurements. Thus the attention of the community was redirected from the
real problem -- determination of the reality of excess heat through calorimetry
-- to marginal problems (detection of products of nuclear reactions)
concerning the cause of the EH phenomenon (a phenomenon that may not even be
there !?).
 
As a result an impression was created that reputable labs have been unable to
replicate the claims for EH and somehow this impression is always sneaked when
discussions concerning CF in general take place. It should be stated very
clearly, however, that despite the impression that some may have that there
is a clear experimental evidence against the reality of EH, the facts presented
in the literature so far show that there is no such evidence. I agree with one
critic saying that "darned few of the experimental results ... [are] worthy
of giving of second thought". And that applies not only to the "experimental
results put forward in support of CF". Most of the widely cited "negative"
papers are not worthy a second thought. For instance, if one is not willing
to just take the word of the authors that their experimental results were
negative with regard to EH, but wants to look and analyse for himself those
results papers like:
 
G.Kreysa et al, J.Electroana.Chem., 266, 437 (1989)
T.R.Jow et al, J.Electrochem.Soc., 137, 2473 (1990)
R.D.Armstrong et al, J.Electroanal.Chem., 272, 293 (1989)
R.H.Wilson et al, J.Electroanal.Chem., 332, 1 (1992)
G. Olofsson et al, J. Chem. Thermodyn., 23, 95 (1991)
M. Chemla et al, J.Electroanal.Chem., 277, 93 (1990).
V.L.Shapovalov, Pisma Zh. Eksp.Teor. Fiz., 50, 109 (1989)
 
and many others
 
can be of little assistance. Such papers report no raw data and there are
evident problems with the experiments and the analysis. I do not consider it
worthwhile to go into more detais here. No appropriate raw data contains
also the paper from the Harwell lab:
 
D.E.Williams et al, Nature, 342, 375 (1989).
 
Try to obtain the raw data for the D2O cells from Dr. Williams. I have tried
without success. Do not forget that Harwell lab's results together with
those from the Caltech group had the greatest negative impact on the scientific
world. You may also wish to contact Dr. Worledge from EPRI who has made a
critical analysis of Harwell's results. I agree with Worledge's comments and
find out (in the correspondence between Williams and Worledge which David
Worledge kindly allowed me to look at) that Williams is unable to answer some
serious questions concerning his calorimetric resullts. Other notorious examples
of badly performed experiments and analysis found in papers coming
from well-established and equipped labs are those from the Caltech group
and the MIT group:
 
N.Lewis et al, Nature, 340, 525 (1989)
N.Lewis and collaborators, Science, 246, 793 (1989)
R.R.Parker, M.Wrighton and collaborators, J.Fusion Energy, 9, 133 (1990)
 
Comments on R.R.Parker, M.Wrighton and coworkers' paper are already published in
 
V.C.Noninski, C.I.Noninski, J.Fusion Technology, 19, 579 (1991)
 
and another exchange is forthcoming in another journal. I will notify you
promptly upon its publication. As it concerns N.Lewis et al's papers we
submitted to Nature still on August 30, 1989 a commentary on this
paper. The discussion with Nature continued more than
two years and the result is that N.Lewis is unable to come out with answers to
the questions we are addressing. Unfortunately, Nature still is refusing to
publish our commentary (despite the fact that at a certain point there was a
verbal promise to do so; in connection with this I was asked to shorten our
note which I did -- neverhteless, without further explanation, it was not
published). When a second look is taken at Lewis' paper one
can easily see that the very method of investigation chosen by Lewis is
fundamentally inappropriate for the studies he has undertaken. The method of
calibration which Lewis uses contains the same unknown which he wants to
determine. Despite the inappropriate calibration which makes his method
inapplicable there are further arguments that can be given, based on the
presented data, which lead to conclusions different from those stated by
the authors. For instance, from the scant data presented one sees a clear
difference, unnoticed by the authors,
in the thermal behavior of the D2O and the H2O cell despite the
verbal asserion to the contrary from the authors. Even further, analysis of
the data presented by Lewis (if we are to believe them) show that the
they are in fact reproducing F&P claims and apparent EH of the F&P order of
magnitude has been produced by the Lewis' group.
 
I do not want to be understood erroneously. There are many sloppy papers
among the "positive" ones too (contrary to some opinions, however, I do
not consider the initial publication of F&P as sloppy; never forget that
it was only a preliminary note). It is very clear, however, that flaws in
the "negative" papers are of greater importance and should be emphasized
more energetically since namely these papers are considered respectable
and representative of the field by most of the scientific community.
 
Especially discouraging, however, is that groups with proven record
in scientific research have dropped the subject before reaching a conclusive
answer one way or the other or are continuing driven by other than scientific
motives. I know of no serious effort here, in Japan or elsewhere,
at present (except for dabbling by some enthusiasts having little or no
expertise in the field) to get to the bottom of the EH problem. Of what I hear
is mostly incompetence and battle of words among journalists ('science writers')
and enthusiasts. There is also an evident fear among both camps ('critics' and
'advocates') to face the truth about EH. Noone wants to be a loser and therefore
noone really wants to get to the bottom of the problem ("what if the answer is
the opposite to what I have already committed myself to ?"). This kind of
intelectual slavery does a great disservice to science and violates one of the
fundamental freedoms of the scientist -- the freedom to be wrong while honestly
pursuing the truth.
 
I feel also that the driving force in this field is less the money factor and
more the proper atmosphere and conviction among scientists (especially outside
the mentioned two camps of "advocates" and "critics") that such studies are
really necessary to be performed. Therefore, I do not sympathise with those
complaining about the lack of financial support and explaining the failures
in the field with such lack. I know that most of those complaining about lack
of financial support do have enough money to carry out conclusive experiments
if they really have the expertise and determination to do so.
 
Truly yours,
 
Vesselin Noninski                                   Otober 11, 1992
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvnoninski cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:10:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark Hittinger wonders if there could be a simple reaction product like H2O.
I will settle for anything that gives up heat.
 
The calorimeter is not as slow as you all seem to think.  The main beast has a
time constant of 14 minutes it is true.  But if we consider the cell as a
conduction calorimeter inside of the null-balance calorimeter, then if we just
look at the temperature change rate, the quantity of water in the cell, the
specific heat of water, etc., we can get a power estimate for a pulse.  This
way we have a measurement with about a 1 minute time constant.  Not so bad.
There are a lot of heat pulses where the cell temperature jumps up in 2 or 3
20 second data ticks, then comes down with a one minute time constant.
 
Thomas Kunich says:
 
"This is_not_the same problem.  The second event_still_ionizes the
gas in the Geiger tube and the resulting current_still_has to be recharged
by the power supply. ..."
 
Sorry, Thomas you are confusing a Geiger counter with a proportional counter.
An ionizing particle makes a few primary ionized molecules in either type of
detector.  In the proportional counter, these ionized molecules are avalanched
in a controlled way to produce more ionized pairs, seldom with a gain of more
than 10,000.  This means that with a proportional chamber we can just barely
see single tracks with the best electronics that we can build. (Best
sensitivity of order 600 electrons without looking it up.)   The Geiger tube
is an entirely different beast.  Here the amplification is allowed to go to
near infinity.  The avalanche is allowed to propagate down the entire length
of the central wire.  So the answer is that if you look at the current drain
of a Geiger tube, you will *miss* multiple hits since the second event only
adds 20 or so ion pairs to the zillions produced by the first one.  To see
closely spaced hits (millisecond or so) you need to operate in the
*proportional* mode, or use an ion chamber for an average value.
 
Thomas Kunich also worries that IR will not couple very well to water.  That
is good news (if true, does anyone know for sure?), as it lets us look for it
outside the cell.  But it would stay in the calorimeter as there is 5/8" of
aluminum around the cell.
 
Nick Haines wants me to let the electrolyte boil away to stop my cell.
Sorry, this won't work as it is a closed system.
 
Steven Jones says reverse the cell.  We have done that now twice.  The gas
comes out but the heat does not stop (yet).  It does reduce.  I will try to
get together with Steve, and have sent him a note.  I think it is time for me
to build a wall of calorimeters so that I can do more than one thing at a
time.  I like Steve's little x-ray counter and am anxious to put it in my
device.  But I really need to design a calorimeter around it to make a proper
experiment.  Don't worry about me turning off the cell Steve, I think I have
seen heat at a low level almost every time.  It has just taken a while for me
to accept it.
 
If these cells put out low energy x-rays, then it is going to be really tough
to find them.  There is some chance that there is enough of them so that a few
make it through all the cell material.  But we may end up having to do
something like building a proportional counter inside a hollow cathode!  Not
easy!
 
Roger Books suggests putting an electrometer near the cell to detect an
intense burst of ionizing radiation.  Such a burst would set off the geiger
counter - and fry my cat.  But low energy x-rays would neither make it through
the calorimeter walls (5/8" of Aluminum) or into the electrometer or Geiger
counter.  So I count on the Geiger counter to tell me when to run, and my
Fermilab film badge to provide evidence for the inquest.
 
Dieter, I think you have me wrong.  I am not "echoing Jed's repeated cry for
more money" just expressing amusement at the way the government works.  It
also turns out that I was wrong, the government is not even supporting the
documentation of this affair.  Something that my Libertarian view would allow.
As to constantly invoking new processes, I only see one.  Excess heat.  I now
think that I have seen it from the beginning.  All my experiments have given
about the same result.  About 0.1 to 1 watt per cc excess heat.  So now the
problem is to set up a row of devices and to start in with my Thomas Edison
approach, something that I am at least 50% equipped to do.  No money needed,
just shouts of encouragement.  I am getting those.  Dieter says that he can't
afford the Cold Fusion Proceedings.  If someone out there will figure out how
to buy ACCF1 and ICCF2 and send them to Dieter, I will pay the cost.  We want
to keep Dieter's nose stuck in a good book, no telling what might happen if he
looks up at those topless Dainish girls.
 
Dieter, you bet that I am skeptical too.  I keep looking for problems.  But my
recent revelation is that I have been looking at experiments just like this
one for three years.  I don't have some experiments that drift positive and
some that drift negative.  They all drift positive.  Now one of the funny
science rules that Douglas Morrison keeps reminding us of is that it takes
more and more sensitive apparatus to see the effect.  To me, the effect seems
to be staying the same size, but my confidence builds as my apparatus becomes
more accurate.  Not quite a fit for funny science.  I see, however, at least
two more years of work before I can do enough experiments to make a strong
claim.
 
J.R. Bass reminds us of the good work of Cecil.  Would also like to hear of
follow up work.
 
To those worrying about the "charging energy", we keep an energy balance from
the start of the run.  If some energy is lost in the charging process, as it
is, I can properly add it back in to the balance if I have some evidence to do
so based for example on the gas absorption measurements.  But this is only 2
or so kilojoules out of 120.  For the skeptics, I am presently claiming an
accumulation of 120 kilojoules out of 30 megajoules that have passed through
the calorimeter.  It should be obvious that I have taken the difference of
some pretty big numbers to get the total.  But since it is so hard to believe,
I get all the more time to play.  I agree with John Logajan's comments on the
heat start up.  That is why I am still working.
 
Just Faxed John Logajan the original of the Como paper.  I did *not* sign a
copyright license to the Como people, they did not ask for it.  I do not give
up my copyright to any conference.  It is OK to me if they copyright the
complete work, as they have put out an effort to compile and distribute, but I
never sign away my right to distribute the original.  So John, you have it now
and can copy it to any one who wants it.  I will also send several papers to
anyone who sends me a stamped 8 1/2 by 11 envelope.  It is not the money I
care about, it is getting to the post office.  So if I have the envelope, I
just have to copy, insert, and throw into the out basket and I get around to
it.  Otherwise I procrastinate.  Thomas F. Droege, Fermilab MS331, P.O. Box
500, Batavia, IL 60510.
 
Jim Carr says "What remains to be done is to put a 10 mW (or 10 W) cell that
operates under known and predictable conditions ..."
 
You bet, Jim.  That is what I am working toward.  I think there is no nuclear
detection equipment that I cannot build or borrow once I get a sniff of what
to measure.  You can bet that I know a few physicists at Fermilab that will
show up with their favorite detectors once they believe there is something to
detect.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Efficiency of Droege TEC?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Efficiency of Droege TEC?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:54:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been trying to digest everything Tom Droege has been telling us
about the course of his current experiment.  As I recall the present
run started Sept 7 with a day or two to determine the balance of an
empty calorimeter, a day with the cell in but not operating, and then
a chargeing period which showed a negative heat.  There followed 2
days in which the data was lost and then a long period indicating
a gradually increasing positive heat averaging to some 80 mW
surplus relative to 10.151 W flow across the TEC device which is
servoed to remain with a zero temperature difference.  I have two
questions: (1)What is the efficiency of the TEC in the sense of
how much heat is generated by the current flow relative to the
10.151 W transported, and (2)What happens to the calorimeter balance
if that efficiency should change during the course of an experiment?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Still playing hide and seek
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still playing hide and seek
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:54:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege may be content to measure anomolous heat and feel no need to
seek an explaination, but to establish the reality of cold fusion requires
just a bit more.  Lack of observed nuclear reaction products is data that
cannot be ignored.  So what are the latest suggestions for hiding the
needed ashes?  Tom puts forward a Pd + d fusion followed by fission to
V and Cr.  I presume we are talking about going from stable isotope to
stable isotopes so what does that give us according to the little blue
book. Pd + d gives a total of 47 protons and 59-61,63 neutrons. V has
23 protons and 28 neutrons and Cr 24 protons and 26,28-30 neutrons to
give a total of 47 protons and 54,56-58 neutrons.  So even going from the
lightest Pd isotope (1% abundance) to the heaviest Cr isotope there is
one surplus neutron.  Tom, I don't thing you have to do an analysis
for Cr and V to rule this one out.
 
Now those of you who are fond of X-rays being the "definitive" test
shouldn't be too eager to accept the that notion.  There haven't yet
been many solid suggestions as to how you get the energy release of
a nuclear process degraded to that level without some other detectable
reaction product, even if it takes two steps.  Remember there is
still the tremendous sensitivity factor to be considered.
 
Now as far as calorimetry goes, I probably misunderstood some aspects
of the description Tom Droege gave of his device.  One concern was
whether two servos were involved in setting the temperature of the
base plate.  I thought I read that the shell and the base plate were
both driven up in temperature in response to a rise in the cell
temperature.  Yes, I could use a picture, Tom.  My mail drop is:
Michigan State University, Cyclotron Lab., E. Lansing, MI 48824.
As to your challange, I'll pass, but do remember that your calorimeter
and your geiger counter are in disagreement.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  /  Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:41:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  13 October 1992
 
Executive summary:  After end of run calibration it looks like a null
experiment.
 
Charging Profile: Resistor equal to 170 ma per sq cm on cathode
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 3 volts
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
 
Date    Power    Source     Notes
        Watts
 
7 Sept   0.0008   Out/In     Empty cell calibration.  No source effect.
9 Sept  -0.0010   Out        Cell in, zero current calibration
9 Sept  -0.1902   Out        Charging Palladium.
9 Sept  -0.0163   Out        Late Charging, almost balanced.
10 Sept -0.0004   Out        Full Current Operation
11 Sept  0.0002   In         Start Source Out/In at Full Operating Current
12 Sept                      Data Lost
13 Sept                      Data Lost
14 Sept  0.0092   In         Full 24 hour data
15 Sept  0.0130   Out        Full 24 hour data
16 Sept  0.0158   In         Some data lost due to UPS failure.
17 Sept  0.0173   In         Replaced UPS
18 Sept  0.0239   Out
19 Sept  0.0204   In         Partial data is suspect.  Switch to 20 second
20 Sept  0.0251   Out        data collection interval.
21 Sept  0.0271   In
22 Sept  0.0312   Out
23 Sept  0.0372   In
24 Sept  0.0409   Out
25 Sept  0.0497   In
26 Sept  0.0513   Out        Corrected last point, shell servo sick
27 Sept  0.0551   In         Corrected data, shell servo sick
28 Sept  0.0570   Out        Partial correction, shell servo fixed
29 Sept  0.0608   In
30 Sept  0.0649   Out
 
After several problems, one of which blew a fuse, the cell was removed and
replaced by a resistor.  The calorimeter is now humming along with an
indicated net heat of 80 mw.  This is quite consistent with a steady
calorimeter drift since 16 September.
 
After opening the calorimeter and replacing the cell with a resistor, the
calorimeter came right back to where it was with the cell, to about 5 mw,
which is well within previous calorimeter opening experiments.
 
So I must conclude that there was no anomalous heat.  Sorry, everybody, I
really thought that the experiment was going as indicated.  I think I will go
out and get drunk.  Meanwhile, we will run the calorimeter a while and see if
it drifts with a resistor.  Note that we did this for 5 days before this run,
and it was steady as a rock.  We have also done many other of order week long
drift runs.  The calorimeter has had the same constant to a few mw for at
least six months.
 
Most likely problem would be the series of power failures around 17 September.
The calorimeter depends on the thermoelectric devices (TED) pumping constant
power if they are operated at constant temperature and constant current.  I
have not seen a slow drift before in any of the long calibration runs.  Thomas
Kunich has said that he has had trouble with thermoelectric devices losing
capacity when they were temperature cycled.  I am very gentle with the TED and
have had no previous drift problem.  But perhaps something unusual happened
during the power outage that caused stress on the TED.  I was not there.  In
any case, I would not expect a slow steady drift from fractured TED.  Have not
found any other cause yet.  All the usual problem temperatures seem to be OK.
 
The fuse blowing problem is also a possibility.  But not too likely.  It was a
short to ground from the cell anode.  It must have been just a sudden short.
Insulation finally gave way where it rubbed on the inner copper heat shield.
A slowly developing short would have been detected by the current sum which
would detect any unbalanced current to ground.
 
My bet at the moment is the heater servo, which does have a pot.  But this is
a tiny correction.  Tough business this calorimetry.
 
So Dick Blue and Dieter Britz, you should have taken me up on my bet.  (Be
careful, this may be a plot to get you to bite after I have all the problems
cured.)
 
I will put up the details of the last two weeks if anyone wants to see them.
At the moment, I just don't want to look at the data.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  /  A ray of Hope
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A ray of Hope
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:07:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Perhaps the "hydrinos" or "N-rays" given off by the cell cause loss of
efficiency of the thermoelectric devices.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  /  Psychic Experiment?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Psychic Experiment?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:39:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Possibly this is psychic phenomena after all.  I have always been open to
that possibility.  While typing the "hydrino" message, I got a message from
Don Beal who suggested that hydrogen was affecting the TED efficiency.  No way
he could know what I was typing as I had not sent it yet.
 
But I think this is not the problem.  The TED are well away from the cell, in
a different space, and covered with epoxy.  The hydrogen would have to some
how want to burrow through epoxy instead of diffusion out into all that empty
space.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / COLIN HENDERSON /  For Tom Droege - doctoring the floppies
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For Tom Droege - doctoring the floppies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:37:33 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

For T. Droege.
 
Sorry, Guys - I tried to email this but obviously I don't understand fnald's
mailing protocol.
 
O.K. - if you want this data analysed, send me a couple of your disks which
are unimportant, along with a description of the parameters, format, some
ideas of what you want graphed/plotted, any 2-d plots of one variable
against the other, etc.  I'll see how easy/hard it is to convert your disks
to the required format and if it's viable, I volunteer to do some data
processing.  Though it might be only at the end of the year, when the
undergrads are gone. (I'll do the preliminary tests immediately.) I'm afraid
I only know how to work IBM clones, though, although we do have a couple of
Archimedeses around. My snail address is:
 
Colin Henderson
Physics Department
University of Cape Town
Private Bag
Rondebosch
7700
Cape
South Africa.
 
Otherwise, I suppose a sample can be emailed.
 
I hope you get some good results with SEJ.
 
p.s. XSYS is a data reduction/collection/analysis package for modest scale
nuclear physics experiments. I think it comes from TRIUMF originally.
 
4004 Westbrook Mall
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada
V6T 2A3
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  Ryan /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:43:49 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In article <R373RB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writ
es:
 
>        The actual design of the bomb is simple as I have
>previously stated.  The only complexity is the procurement of the
>spent fuel for the jacket, the plutonium for the fissionable core
>and the tritium for the fusible fuel.  Given the simplicity of
>reactor design, I for one am suprised that nobody has ever built a
>small enrichment chamber, enriching natural uranium as
>hexafluoride gas, and then using this 235 enriched uranium, built
>a small reactor to breed plutonium for a bomb.  Natural uranium
>238 absorbs neutrons as well as being split by them- resulting in
>plutonium 239, which can be extracted chemically.  This plutonium
>could then be used to build a bomb, or as the core bomb to a much
>bigger fusion bomb.
>
>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard"
>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear
>superiority"....sq
 
    One of these days I will have to dig out my old Analog issue where
this sort of thing was discussed.
 
    The article (some 10 years ago) gave a quite functional A-bomb
design that could be build by the average plumber. Take an old house,
run a pipe from the third floor 5" gun to the basement which is
otherwise filled with concrete, and fire one fissionable hemisphere down
into the other. If you are using plutonium, add a neutron source half
way down the pipe. The kinetic energy of the gun and the concrete will
hold the fissionables together long enough for a reasonable percentage
to fission.
 
    Lousy efficiency, but quite workable. Same principle as the Thin Man bomb.
 
    The article then went into the difficulties of the materials
involved. (heh heh heh.) First, machining plutonium without (1) getting
too much together at any one time, (2) using a lead lined wheelchair
with manipulators to handle the machining, and (3) lots of suicidal
volunteers as you will lose several during fuel processing.
 
    Or perhaps you want to use U235? It's not generally available, so
you will probably have to process some U238 to enrich to a fissionable
U235 quantity. Obtain a large refinement facility, one with lots of
power and a reasonable stream for cooling, and spend a couple of years
getting up to speed and refining the uranium with the hexafluoride
process. Note that uranium hexafluoride is _nasty_ stuff: it is
literally the reason Teflon was invented. The refinement process is also
very slow: the plants in Oak Ridge are mucking huge for a reason, and
that reason is so that a lot of uranium can be processed at once.
 
    Before then, of course, you have to obtain some large quantity of
fissionables. Mining it would be rather obvious, so perhaps you would
like to steal it, say as spent rods from a commercial nuclear reactor?
Bring your multi-ton lead and graphite lined tractor trailer along on
the heist, and be prepared to risk the entire assembly melting through
the floor and leaving a radioactive trail of breadcrumbs to your
hideout: you will have severe problems fitting enough spent rods into
one truck without building a rather poor reactor in the trailer. Oh, and
the driver will have to be one more of those disposable volunteers...
 
    The article went on in this vein for some length. Basically, the
fission bomb is simple to build (complicated if you want it to be
efficient), but the materials are a beast. The article finished by
recommending that the best way to build a bomb would be to simply steal
one of the ones some government had already made, as the materials
facilities would be a big ticket item for most nations.
 
                                                    kwr
 
Internet: kevin.ryan@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfn cudlnRyan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  /  Net Slow Down Explained
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Net Slow Down Explained
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:50:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Many comments have come back to me that indicate it is taking longer than usual
for messages to get aroung.
 
What did you all expect.  With all that bomb stuff, the net is probably
the best "jobs" program in recent history for the CIA and the NSA.  Lets
send the bomb stuff somewhere else and get this media back to high speed
operation.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / Paul Houle /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:48:37 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Oct12.190350.24311@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
 writes:
 
>It is true that LIS (Laser Isotope Separation) could be scaled down in size
>and still work efficiently.  However, it requires VERY precisely tuned lasers
>of high power (even for small sizes), which are (at the present) VERY
>expensive.  At this time, I do not see anybody tinkering in their basement
>and build a cheap and workable LIS (even a micro-LIS in a test-tube).  And
>you're right, there's been a lot of classified work done on it, and, like the
>H-bomb, there are many not-so-obvious subtleties in the design of a working
>LIS system that even a well-funded program ($100+ million/year) would take
>several years to find them all out.  LIS, though simple at first glance, is
>not a trivial process to implement.
 
        Actually I wasn't thinking of this being done in the near future.
I was thinking of this on an anticipatory level;  as something that might
be possible ~100 years from now.  It seems impossible that advancements in
technology will shrink a gas diffusion plant to home size...  There would
be hard physical limits in the way,  but if diode-pumped dye lasers become
powerful,  efficient,  and inexpensive.  I don't see any physical limits
to scaling the technology down to that size,  but it certainly isn't something
that is likely to happen soon.
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / John McCauley /  Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
     
Originally-From: jsm@shade.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:51:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1992Oct9.210544.10674@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> eliasen@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
 (ELIASEN  ALAN BRUCE) writes:
>
>I'm writing a terrible paper about nuclear fusion and comparing it
>with nuclear fission.  I was wondering if someone could help me with a couple
>of questions:
[stuff deleted]
>3.  What Lawson numbers are being achieved by fusion researchers?  And, please,
>   for my reference, could somebody refresh me on the break-even and burn
>   points at the relevant temperatures? Units, too, please?  My subscription to
>   that old LaRoucheite rag "Fusion" has long since expired.  :)
>
 
There are two major categories of Lawson numbers, the 'Lawson Tripple Product'
(n tau T_i) and Q, a ratio of fusion heat out versus heat in.
 
The 'tripple product' is the product of the peak ion density, an energy
``confinement'' time, and the peak ion temperature. Typical high values from
JET (shot 26087) are a density of n=2.9E19 m^-3, tau = 1.2 s, and T_i of about
20 keV, with a tripple product of 9.0E20 m^-3 keV s.
 
You need to look at a Lawson diagram of n tau vs T_i to interpret these
parameters -- even an old copy of Fusion might have one. Usually, the higher
the number the better. However, the ``breakeven'' curve has a minima near
20 keV so you actaully start doing worse if you exceed 20 keV. I think
for breakeven at 20 keV,  n tau approx 3E19 m^-3 s and ignition about
4E20 m^-3 s.
 
The other number, Q, is unitless. Unfortunately, there are many ``types''
of Q. JET and TFTR uses different accounting methods. From what I understand,
JET defines Q to be the ratio of fusion power produced to the
heating power that actually heated the plasma. TFTR usually uses
a different accounting method: they use the ratio of fusion power to
heating power injected into the plasma. Typically to convert Q from JET
accounting to TFTR accounting you divide by two as perhaps 50% or so
of the heating power actually heats the plasma in a useful way, the rest
might actually cool it down. The JET method is somewhat justified if
you can find ideal heating sources.
 
To further complicate things, as tokmaks usually use 100% Deuterium rather
than a 50% Deuterium-50% Tritium mixture, people frequently ``extrapolate''
from DD to DT, i.e.  to estimate the Q from a DD shot they calculate the Q
from a DT shot that has the same parameters as the DD shot. Typically
this increases Q by a factor of around 200.
 
So, here are some Q numbers (using JET accounting). The highest unextrapolated
Q (i.e. using some tritium) is about 0.15. The highest extrapolated Q (using
DD) is about 1.15. TFTR's highest Q is about 0.4 using TFTR accounting and
perhaps as high as 0.8 using JET accounting.
 
>4.  What is the most probable method for obtaining usable energy from the
>   resultant plasma?  Or is the answer, "hell, we'll cross that bridge when
>   we come to it?"
 
Burning the paperwork required to put tritium in a tokamak might be able to
heat a small town for a few years...
 
        Scott
 
P.S. A fusion textbook such as Miyamoto will probably clarify some of these
issues. The JET results were published in Nuclear Fusion, vol 32 p 187, 1992.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: ash
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ash
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:05:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1bd6dbINN86n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark
 Hittinger) writes:
>
>
>Suppose that the ash is something ordinary that is already present?
>
>You'd miss it.
>
>It would probably be enviro-friendly - wouldn't that be great?  And if
>Tom has a party and buys beer with the profits on his futures contracts?
 
Yeh, let's say that duterium is being converted to duterium and that
all of the energy being released is from this reaction! Why didn't
we all think of this! :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear detection offer to Henny Penny
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:10:15 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct8.124409.161@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I would like to invite Tom to come here for experiments.  We can also look for
>x-rays, gamma-rays, energetic particles.  The invitation is open to other
>serious researchers as well.
>
>This trip asks much of Henny Penny (Tom's term), so I add another offer to
>help:  I would like to learn whether the heat is nuclear in origin or not.  We
>are completing a PORTABLE (pardon the capital letters) x-ray detector with
>about 10% intrinsic efficiency and 20% resolution at 21 keV (the energy of the
>k-alpha x-ray from palladium).  It runs at room temperature and the detector
>and pre-amp fit into a 3cm diam X 3cm long can, that may fit next to or even
>INTO an electrolytic cell which is producing heat.  (Doing so may also be a way
>to turn off the cell, if the quantum mechanicians on the net have their way.)
>Better x-ray detectors are available, when liquid-nitrogren cooled, etc.  This
>one is designed to permit intrusion into a working cell hopefully.  And it is
>lunch-box-size computer-based and portable.
>
>What do you think, Tom?
>
>Sincerely,
>Steven E. Jones
>Brigham Young University
>
Dick Forman comments: Those are the words of a true scientist. Unfortunately,
I have "proprietary" information that indicates to me that the excess heat
may be related to something other than palladium. Since I was possibly the firs
t one to push for palladium fusion-fission reaction I would like to request
that the cost of the trip might be better used for some other experiment
that might be better defined after Nagoya. Since I am about to be unemployed,
I will not be at Nagoya, but the reports from others should be enough. For thos
e of you who do not follow this thread too closely I would like to remind the s
keptics that as a comment to Professor Takehashi at MIT, I offered the suggesti
on that his next experiment should be time resolved IR images of the cell while
it was undergoing excess heat. I'm told it was on the distributed video tape.
My current suggestion is to wait about a month before spending a lot of time an
d money on what I currently believe is the WRONG experiment. A month ago I
would have said run with it.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: If that fails, what's next
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If that fails, what's next
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:22:14 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <921009142417_72240.1256_EHL48-2@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>4.   By the same token, we would know it is "somewhat" not nuclear, because
>there are no x-rays.
>- Jed
>
Dick Forman comments: 4 is wrong.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Cold Fusion Oxymoron
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Oxymoron
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:50:34 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <199210060843.AA25411@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> writes:
>Re: this week's ideas on nuclear ash
>
>If Jed, or anyone, wishes to check the latest "official" position on
>CN-F, the fax number for the "secret" laboratory in Sofia Antipolis
>(France) is (33)- 93 65 38 26. Mark it attn M Fleischmann and share
>the results with Tom Droege so that some of his HEP colleagues can
>help assay for the nuclear ash (though hopefully not the ones masquerading
>as HEPs that Jed once consulted on helium at Gev energies).
>
>
Dick Forman comments: Until the reacting species have been identified
it will be impossible to identify the ash unless one is lucky enough
to have a radioactive by-product.  As I said in the paper that Dieter
archived: the first step is to identify the reactants. The soups that
are around compound the problems. Do super-clean experiments and then
see if you can get excess heat. Let's just suppose that one of the
ash products is silicon.  Unless it is not a natural silicon isotope, there is
no hope of finding such a product if the cell contains any glass. Not that
I beleive that silicon is involved, but I wanted to use the dirt from the glass
as an example.
I really see no point in trying to find out anything from F&P. They are too
confused by lawyers and are apparently still doing cookbook type work. If they
really understood the process they would be doing something different enough fo
r all of us to have heard.
It's a pity that their lawyers have not told them the meaning of the Atomic Ene
rgy Act of 1947.  When I got my patent on isotope separation, I learned that on
e.  Oh well, maybe they have different laws in France.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Misc.
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:24:49 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct9.214932.7072@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
>
>In article <921008141730.202004d4@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>>But enogh neutrons would leave me with a stiff cat.  So we are left with
>>low energy photons.  As I posted before, I have a small suspicion that there
>>might be some.  But certainly not enough to explain the heat.  So I am left
>>
>>P.S. Remember that low energy photons are IR and thus heat.  Eventually we
>>will have to build detectors to look for light and heat in a cell.  Enough
>>people have run open cells to pretty well rule out light.  This leaves us
>>with trying to put IR scanners in a cell.
>
>P&F speak of boiling off the D2O. You are measuring heat. IR couples very
>poorly to water -- where is the IR reacting to either transfer enough of
>a small amount of energy to the D2O or there must be very large amounts
>of IR so that poor coupling can still demonstrate heat like this?
>
>In other words -- if it's coming off as IR something else is going on.
>
Dick Forman comments: What wavelength IR are you talking about. I've always
believed that the water filters I used absorbed IR. Not all wavelenths of
course. Look in Landolt-Bornstein (spelling uncertain) tables on filter solutio
ns for optical spectra.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Secondary x-rays as nuclear evidence
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:29:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Oct10.005913.8105@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>
>In article <11024@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>Perhaps it is time to think real hard about nuclear reactions that release
>>only a fraction of a keV and that might have a lower coulomb barrier than
>>what we have considered so far....
>
>     This potential lowering of the coulomb barrier (pun recognized)
>     in the appropriate situations has always intrigued me (though I
>     hadn't before considered reactions that might be in the low keV's.
>     Are there any suitable ones?)
>
>     I hark back to interesting and basically unexplanable results
>     by Cecil /etal from the Colorado School of Mines (reported at the
>     early conference on 'cold fusion phenomena' at Los Alamos).  They
>     implanted D ions into a thin foil of Pd (95 keV implantation I believe).
>     They then turned off the beam, turned on a current (roughly 2 A/cm^2
>     in case it matters), and saw a particle spectrum that included a
>     reproducable broad feature around 5 MeV correlated with the current
>     and the implantation with better than 4 sigma statistics.
>     The interesting thing is that this is around the reaction
>
>           Pd(isotopes) + D -> Pd(isotope+1) + P + ~4-5 MeV
>
>     for the Pd isotopes 110 (11%), 108 (26%), 106 (27%), 104 (15%),
>     102 (1.02%) (The percentages are nominal abundances).  Cecil
>     mentioned that this might account for the rather broad feature since
>     the individual lines fit rather nicely in the broad feature.
>
>     Of course, this would not directly help explain things since one would
>     see 5 MeV stuff whizzing around in the lattice, and one would
>     presumably see consequences of the decay of Pd^111, Pd^109, Pd^107 etc.
>     However, if this does happen in this ion implantation setting (the big
>     if), the rather massive coulomb barrier (10^-4000 penetration factor
>     comes to mind) has been breached by some process.   So, maybe such
>     thoughts are applicable to other, lower energy, reactions.
>
>     Does anyone know what has become of Cecil's research, and can anyone think
>     of suitable reactions?  The only ones I can think of are in the MeV
>     range.
>
>                                 dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
I second the request for followup by knowledgable persons. Just because
some of the knock-on experiments may have been contaminated, they all may not b
e.  Help please!
Dick Forman
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Talking Theories
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Talking Theories
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:38:27 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <921011024224_72240.1256_EHL55-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Well, of course if present theory "tells us" that there must be ash, then a
>theory that denies ash is "wildly improbable under present theory." If theory
>#1 "tells us" A, and theory #2 says B, NOT A, theory #2 is wildly improbable
>under theory #1. And visa-versa.
>
>So what does that prove?
>
>
>I suggest you tell your talking theories to shut up for a while. They should
>stop "telling" you things. They should just pipe down. Talk back to them. Look
>at what the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is telling you, instead. That is how you
>make progress in science, you look at evidence first, theory next. Also, if
>there is conflict between the two, evidence always wins, and theory always
>loses.
>
>- Jed
>
From one of the old folks: Right on Baby.  That's what I quoted P.W.
Bridgman as saying.  Dieter still doesn't want to call that paper a
publication though. He may recant (nice word, eh bloke) someday.
--Dick Forman--
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.12 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Chemical energies
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chemical energies
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:33:10 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <9210101442.AA08191@anubis.network.com>
logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
 
>
>I was scanning the CRC HCP heat of formation tables for chemical reactions and
>the most energetic chemical reactions I saw were those associated with
 flourine,
>the hottest being a liberation of about 100 kcal/mol, which is just under 4ev
>per atom.
>
>I may have missed some that were "hotter", since it was a many page table and
>an incomplete table, and I had to mentally divide the total energy by the
>number of atoms in the molecule (to get the energy per atom, since multi-
>atomed molecule's kcal/mol is the sum of many atom's energy of formation.)
>
>So compare this "hot" 4ev reaction with Droege's Pd or loaded D rates which
>must be over 100ev by now, or his D2O rates which must be nearing 2ev, and
>you can see that chemistry is either already out of the question, or that
>Droege et al have found a way to use water as a high-power fuel.  Either
>way, it is a discovery of note.
>
Dick Forman comments: the hottest reactions that I know are are either the heav
ier borances (decaborane) or some funny nitrogen reactions. I worked on azides
once upon a time (early '60s) and they are pretty hot but I think other
nitrogen reactions are hotter.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:51:07 GMT
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Tom, excuse the stupid suggestion, but could the cat sleeping
on the equipment be causing a difference? My cats like to sleep
on warm things like the vcr and the computer. Could you equipment
be seeing kitty insulation transients?
 
Levity aside I am really glad to see some high quality work.
Keep up the good work!
 
Chris Kostanick
Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend,
inside of a dog it is too dark to read - Groucho Marx
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchris cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / John Logajan /  Columbus didn't know where he was either :-)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Columbus didn't know where he was either :-)
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:59:07 GMT

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>So I must conclude that there was no anomalous heat.
 
The problem must be more systemic than power failures circa Sept 17, since
you indicated previously that you saw similar signatures in data going
back to 1989.
 
>Sorry, everybody, I really thought that the experiment was going as indicated.
 
We knew what we were getting into when we took up your invitation to look
over your shoulder as you did your lab work.
 
 
- 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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / Terry Bollinger /  Various responses + Twist of Ribbon physics
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various responses + Twist of Ribbon physics
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:56:44 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

Hi folks,
 
Well, our system types finally got "rn" back up.  Never knew how dependent
I'd become on this excellent little program by Larry Wall until I had to
do without it for a week.
 
(Larry: We're all waiting for you to write an "aspect_rn" program to provide
instantaneous non-information-carrying Bell Inequality correlations between
readers of sci.physics.fusion at multiple sites.  What's your planned
release date??)
 
This one is long, so I've included headers for quick visual scanning.
I've also taken the trouble to actually defend "Twist" a bit.
 
 
CHUCK SITES AND HYDROGEN BANDING
 
Some comments and questions I've accumulated since "rn" went out on us:
 
In <1992Oct6.072726.110@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) says:
 
> ... T. Bollinger and I proposed (serendipitously) that D with some
> metals could form band structures similar to electron band states found
> in solid state systems. Heavy particle banding (HPB) is what we are
> calling it...
 
As he mentions, Chuck Sites came up with the heavy-particle banding idea
on his own (and took it in a somewhat different direction, I believe).
 
My mouth dropped six inches when he put that idea on the net, because it
had taken me a couple of months of digging at the Library of Congress to
eventually come up with the same idea, and even then it was via a very
indirect route of a chemical-to-nuclear domain communication argument.
 
Bravo to Chuck for using some great "farfetching" to hit on an idea that
was subsequently verified to to be real, at least for surface phenomena,
in transition metal lattices (March something 1992 of Nature).
 
 
TERRY GETS AN ADVOCATE
 
In <WEBB+.92Oct7152352@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> and
<WEBB+.92Oct9095837@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) says:
 
> And anyway, I advocate Bollinger's total mass conversion theory (or
> farfetch if you prefer), and if that theory is correct, all your
> measurements wouldn't show anything, just some heat coming out.
..
> [Dr. Steve Jones], I'll send you a copy of Bollinger's "A Twist of
> Ribbon" under separate cover.  I don't know if there's anything to
> this idea, not being a physicist; but I like its elegance.
 
Wow.  The support is appreciated, Jon, but I have to be adamant that Twist
does NOT qualify as a physics theory.  Physics theories are mathematically
quantified.  Twist is not.  (Yes, much of it can be and perhaps should be,
but there is very little quantification in "A Twist of Ribbon.")
 
 
DR. JONES VOTES "X-RAYS ARE A MUST"
 
In <1992Oct8.120533.159@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven E. Jones) says:
 
> Jon Webb suggests that Bollinger's total mass conversion idea would make
> measurements of nuclear particles impossible in a recent posting.  Please
> explain how in such a model heat could be produced in a cell without
> producing secondary x-rays.
>
> I am serious about this.  I want to know why looking for secondary x-rays
> could not be a crucial experiment to determine whether the "excess heat"
> is nuclear or not.
 
Hmm.  Well, if it works at all, my own TMC idea is highly unlikely to make
X-rays.  I know of no clear-cut way to quantify what it *would* produce, but
I doubt you'd get much higher than UV distributed throughout the matrix.
 
 
IN DEFENSE OF TWIST: LOOKING FOR "BORN VIOLATIONS"
 
I probably need to explain something: if Twist works at all, it requires
a *major* violation of the usual interpretation of the wavefunction as
defining the probability distribution for where to find the particle.
This (Born) interpretation of Schroedinger's original wave equation has
been very successful, and clearly is correct for just about every set of
circumstances imaginable.  (I happen to be quite fond of the Born inter-
pretation myself, which is another reason why I'm not overly gonzo about
calling Twist a theory without very good experimental reasons to do so.)
 
However, the "Born Violation" implied by Twist would only be invoked for
certain extrema in the range of possible wavefunctions for a particle,
extrema that would occur only under a very narrow range of conditions.
The standard analogy, I guess, would be Newtonian vs. relativistic physics.
Newtonian works for 99.99% of everyday human-scale phenomena, but begins
to fall apart when things get too small, too big, too fast, or too heavy.
 
BAND SOLITONS AND WAVEFUNCTION EXTREMA
 
Band solitons are capable of doing some distinctly strange and unusual
things to wavefunctions, and represent about a good of a class of wave-
function extrema as I'm aware of.  Plus they're not as well explored as
you might expect, since the phenomenon is notoriously difficult to model
mathematically (the density of states goes to infinity, making things
a tad messy).
 
Let me give a specific example.  Depending on whose interpretation
you accept, it appears that band solitons are capable of splitting a
particle wavefunction into two distinct and separate "nodes" that may be
separated by distances of many centimeters or more.  As R. Feynman notes
in Physics Lectures Volume III, there is nothing in QM that requires a
wavefunction to be contiguous.  Non-contiguous forms can be constructed
just as readily as contiguous forms, but are seldom used because there
are very few problems that require them.
 
Well, band solitons appear to be one of those problems.  It's important
to note that the "splitting" of a particle wavefunction by band solitons
is not at all like the ephemeral splitting seen in electron two-slit
(self-interference) experiments.  It's a real, measurable splitting in
which each of the locations can have *fractional* quantum numbers.  If
I take Larry Wall's Aspect aspect question seriously (?), the answer is
quite simply "No, it doesn't apply.  Both ends of a wavefunction split
by solitons are real and can be observed locally as if they were real
particles (called quasiparticles)."
 
For example, if you split an electron with polyacetylene band solitons,
you get two quite real charge centers, each with a charge of 1/2 e.
This is a really strange effect, and requires a rather precise setup to
achieve it.  But once you have it, the resulting charges can be seen
and measured.  (Incidentally, the 1/2 charges are not directly observed
in the case of polyacetylene due to spin degeneracy.  Visible fractional
charges have been observered in other similar systems, however.)
 
LOOKING FOR BORN VIOLATIONS IN DISCONTINUOUS WAVEFUNCTIONS
 
Now here's a little question for you.  A discontinuous wavefunction that
"splits" a particle into two widely (possibly very widely) separated
regions of space and allows them to persist there as real, measurable
quasiparticles is clearly a doggone good candidate if you are looking
for wavefunction extrema.  If it is postulated ("farfetched") that such
a wavefunction configuration would be a good place to look for Born
Violations, how might one go about looking for them?
 
Polyacetylene and other electron band-soliton compounds would clearly
be one such starting place, and in fact I would argue that there are a
few isolated indications that the physics of electrons in the presence
of band solitons are not fully understood.  That is a far cry from
having to invoke a Born Violation to explain such anomalies, but on
the other hand it's also a nice place to start looking.  Examples?
Well, the high-temperature superconductors remain basically unexplained,
despite the incredible amounts of experimental and theoretical attention
that has been applied to them.  They are also electron band media for
which I'm pretty sure that quasiparticles such as solitons have been
proposed from time.  Farfetching the idea that some sort of Born
Violation could be involved in such intractable solid state phenomena
could be a most interesting line of pursuit for someone willing to
postulate that some unknown physics are involved in such superconductors.
 
On the other hand, electrons are simple particles -- there is nothing
they can decay into without violating the major global symmetries of
space itself.  That is, spin, charge, and mass must all be preserved
in any low-energy event involving electrons, and the only way that can
happen is for the electron to remain, well, an electron.  This places
some significant limitation on the nature of any postulated Born
Violation, because it means that *even if the violation was of a very
drastic nature*, it would probably show up in electron band systems
only as a some set of rather odd, hard-to-explain correlations in the
way the affected electrons behave.
 
LOOKING FOR BORN VIOLATIONS USING "NON-BASEMENT" PARTICLES
 
Thus is would be nice if a real experiment in which a more complex
particle could be "split" by something like a band soliton, *just in
case* the postulated Born Violation involved more than simple particle
correlations.
 
Candidates for an extended Born Violation search?  Very few.  The
particle must be a fermion, and it must be capable of significant
delocalization in some form of solid-state matter.  Neutrons would
be nice, but are generally incompatible with the stability of solid-
state matter -- they are absorbed too quickly by most isotopes of
most materials.  Muons are an interesting possibility, but are almost
certainly too unstable for conceivable experiments.
 
That pretty much leaves the fermion species of the three hydrogen
isotopes (H, D, and T) and their ionized forms.  Anything heavier has
little chance of delocalizing sufficiently.
 
Fortunately, it turns out that these species are highly soluble in some
transition metals, and that such TM hydrides show a range of unusual
chemical and even room-temperature quantum effects that indicate rather
complex behavior in such media.  Example include palladium, nickel, and
tantalum hydroxide, all of which require explicit modeling of how H
isotopes can "tunnel" from site to site.  Tunneling of this sort is
not synonymous with band behavior, but is very definitely a prerequisite
for it.  Recent results indicate that such hydrogen banding, as first
proposed to the best of my knowledge by Chuck Sites and myself on this
net group, really does occur in some transitions metals.
 
SO WHY NOT AT LEAST LOOK?
 
So...  The original postulate or farfetch was that the wavefunction
configuration extrema made possible by band solitons, such as multi-
node wavefunctions, would be a good place to look for Born Violations,
should any such effect exist.  Furthermore, there is some possibility
that currently unexplained or incompletely explained electron band
phenomena such as high-temperature superconductivity could at least
accommodate (or conceivably even depend on) such violations.
 
Finally, the best media in which to perform a full-fledged experiment
Born Violation search would probably be in hydrogen or deuterium that
has been delocalized to form a (preferably full) band in some highly
permeable transition metal or transition metal hydride.  Palladium
deuteride would be a very good starting point, since palladium has
the highest permeability and deuterium should form a neutral atomic
fermion species within it.
 
One highly specific (put probably hard to implement) route for trying
to verify the Born interpretation for one class of wavefunction extrema
would be to arrange the atomic equivalent splitting an electron wave-
function into two distinct nodes separated by a distance of, say, at
least a centimeter.  (Other extrema experiments using solitons are
also possible.)  The behavior of the system would then be compared to
the standard Born prediction that the wavefunction would still be
nothing more than definition of the probability function for finding
the atom in one or the other of the two distinct nodes.  If any sign
of a Born Violation was found, it would need to be quantified and
verified experimentally.
 
THE "TWIST OF RIBBON" BORN VIOLATION POSTULATE
 
"A Twist of Ribbon" postulates that Born Violations exist in these and
other related wavefunction extrema (particularly in highly discontinuous
"multi-node" wavefunctions extrema), and these violations are sufficiently
severe to lead in what amounts to evaporation of the involved particle
subject only preservation of the quantum numbers implied by the global
symmetries of space -- that is, preservation of mass (energy), spin, and
charge.
 
 
Other than that, I'm not proposing anything really radical...   :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:35:47 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <921013123345.228018c2@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
> This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  13 October 1992
>
> Executive summary:  After end of run calibration it looks like a null
> experiment.
> ... perhaps something unusual happened during the power outage ...
> ... My bet at the moment is the heater servo, which does have a pot...
> ... At the moment, I just don't want to look at the data ...
 
Tom, I hope you get things straightened out, and thanks for your honesty
to everyone on the net about having encountered some difficulties.
 
Changes nothing from this end, however.  I'd still like to see some
explicit exploration of the idea of Born Violations, and would have
gone ahead and posted my last item whether even if you had posted
yours first.  Hang in there.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / John Logajan /  This *IS* Calorimeter Postscript file -- long
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: This *IS* Calorimeter Postscript file -- long
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:00:23 GMT

The following is a PostScript page description language file containing the
schematic representation, on three pages, of the Droege Zero Gradient
Calorimeter.  You must use a PostScript printer or viewer to get the
desired output.  Between the delimiter lines are 1907 text lines containing
34922 bytes.  You can use these as a crude transmission checksum.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-= Delete this line, and all above -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
%!
%%BoundingBox: (atend)
%%Pages: (atend)
%%DocumentFonts: (atend)
%%EndComments
%
% FrameMaker PostScript Prolog 3.0, for use with FrameMaker 3.0
% Copyright (c) 1986,87,89,90,91 by Frame Technology Corporation.
% All rights reserved.
%
% Known Problems:
%       Due to bugs in Transcript, the 'PS-Adobe-' is omitted from line 1
/FMversion (3.0) def
% Set up Color vs. Black-and-White
        /FMPrintInColor systemdict /colorimage known
                systemdict /currentcolortransfer known or def
% Uncomment this line to force b&w on color printer
%   /FMPrintInColor false def
/FrameDict 195 dict def
systemdict /errordict known not {/errordict 10 dict def
                errordict /rangecheck {stop} put} if
% The readline in 23.0 doesn't recognize cr's as nl's on AppleTalk
FrameDict /tmprangecheck errordict /rangecheck get put
errordict /rangecheck {FrameDict /bug true put} put
FrameDict /bug false put
mark
% Some PS machines read past the CR, so keep the following 3 lines together!
currentfile 5 string readline
00
0000000000
cleartomark
errordict /rangecheck FrameDict /tmprangecheck get put
FrameDict /bug get {
        /readline {
                /gstring exch def
                /gfile exch def
                /gindex 0 def
                {
                        gfile read pop
                        dup 10 eq {exit} if
                        dup 13 eq {exit} if
                        gstring exch gindex exch put
                        /gindex gindex 1 add def
                } loop
                pop
                gstring 0 gindex getinterval true
                } def
        } if
/FMVERSION {
        FMversion ne {
                /Times-Roman findfont 18 scalefont setfont
                100 100 moveto
                (FrameMaker version does not match postscript_prolog!)
                dup =
                show showpage
                } if
        } def
/FMLOCAL {
        FrameDict begin
        0 def
        end
        } def
        /gstring FMLOCAL
        /gfile FMLOCAL
        /gindex FMLOCAL
        /orgxfer FMLOCAL
        /orgproc FMLOCAL
        /organgle FMLOCAL
        /orgfreq FMLOCAL
        /yscale FMLOCAL
        /xscale FMLOCAL
        /manualfeed FMLOCAL
        /paperheight FMLOCAL
        /paperwidth FMLOCAL
/FMDOCUMENT {
        array /FMfonts exch def
        /#copies exch def
        FrameDict begin
        0 ne dup {setmanualfeed} if
        /manualfeed exch def
        /paperheight exch def
        /paperwidth exch def
        /yscale exch def
        /xscale exch def
        currenttransfer cvlit /orgxfer exch def
        currentscreen cvlit /orgproc exch def
        /organgle exch def /orgfreq exch def
        setpapername
        manualfeed {true} {papersize} ifelse
        {manualpapersize} {false} ifelse
        {desperatepapersize} if
        end
        } def
        /pagesave FMLOCAL
        /orgmatrix FMLOCAL
        /landscape FMLOCAL
/FMBEGINPAGE {
        FrameDict begin
        /pagesave save def
        3.86 setmiterlimit
        /landscape exch 0 ne def
        landscape {
                90 rotate 0 exch neg translate pop
                }
                {pop pop}
                ifelse
        xscale yscale scale
        /orgmatrix matrix def
        gsave
        } def
/FMENDPAGE {
        grestore
        pagesave restore
        end
        showpage
        } def
/FMFONTDEFINE {
        FrameDict begin
        findfont
        ReEncode
        1 index exch
        definefont
        FMfonts 3 1 roll
        put
        end
        } def
/FMFILLS {
        FrameDict begin
        array /fillvals exch def
        end
        } def
/FMFILL {
        FrameDict begin
         fillvals 3 1 roll put
        end
        } def
/FMNORMALIZEGRAPHICS {
        newpath
        0.0 0.0 moveto
        1 setlinewidth
        0 setlinecap
        0 0 0 sethsbcolor
        0 setgray
        } bind def
        /fx FMLOCAL
        /fy FMLOCAL
        /fh FMLOCAL
        /fw FMLOCAL
        /llx FMLOCAL
        /lly FMLOCAL
        /urx FMLOCAL
        /ury FMLOCAL
/FMBEGINEPSF {
        end
        /FMEPSF save def
        /showpage {} def
        FMNORMALIZEGRAPHICS
        [/fy /fx /fh /fw /ury /urx /lly /llx] {exch def} forall
        fx fy translate
        rotate
        fw urx llx sub div fh ury lly sub div scale
        llx neg lly neg translate
        } bind def
/FMENDEPSF {
        FMEPSF restore
        FrameDict begin
        } bind def
FrameDict begin
/setmanualfeed {
%%BeginFeature *ManualFeed True
         statusdict /manualfeed true put
%%EndFeature
        } def
/max {2 copy lt {exch} if pop} bind def
/min {2 copy gt {exch} if pop} bind def
/inch {72 mul} def
/pagedimen {
        paperheight sub abs 16 lt exch
        paperwidth sub abs 16 lt and
        {/papername exch def} {pop} ifelse
        } def
        /papersizedict FMLOCAL
/setpapername {
        /papersizedict 14 dict def
        papersizedict begin
        /papername /unknown def
                /Letter 8.5 inch 11.0 inch pagedimen
                /LetterSmall 7.68 inch 10.16 inch pagedimen
                /Tabloid 11.0 inch 17.0 inch pagedimen
                /Ledger 17.0 inch 11.0 inch pagedimen
                /Legal 8.5 inch 14.0 inch pagedimen
                /Statement 5.5 inch 8.5 inch pagedimen
                /Executive 7.5 inch 10.0 inch pagedimen
                /A3 11.69 inch 16.5 inch pagedimen
                /A4 8.26 inch 11.69 inch pagedimen
                /A4Small 7.47 inch 10.85 inch pagedimen
                /B4 10.125 inch 14.33 inch pagedimen
                /B5 7.16 inch 10.125 inch pagedimen
        end
        } def
/papersize {
        papersizedict begin
                /Letter {lettertray letter} def
                /LetterSmall {lettertray lettersmall} def
                /Tabloid {11x17tray 11x17} def
                /Ledger {ledgertray ledger} def
                /Legal {legaltray legal} def
                /Statement {statementtray statement} def
                /Executive {executivetray executive} def
                /A3 {a3tray a3} def
                /A4 {a4tray a4} def
                /A4Small {a4tray a4small} def
                /B4 {b4tray b4} def
                /B5 {b5tray b5} def
                /unknown {unknown} def
        papersizedict dup papername known {papername} {/unknown} ifelse get
        end
        /FMdicttop countdictstack 1 add def
        statusdict begin stopped end
        countdictstack -1 FMdicttop {pop end} for
        } def
/manualpapersize {
        papersizedict begin
                /Letter {letter} def
                /LetterSmall {lettersmall} def
                /Tabloid {11x17} def
                /Ledger {ledger} def
                /Legal {legal} def
                /Statement {statement} def
                /Executive {executive} def
                /A3 {a3} def
                /A4 {a4} def
                /A4Small {a4small} def
                /B4 {b4} def
                /B5 {b5} def
                /unknown {unknown} def
        papersizedict dup papername known {papername} {/unknown} ifelse get
        end
        stopped
        } def
/desperatepapersize {
        statusdict /setpageparams known
                {
                paperwidth paperheight 0 1
                statusdict begin
                {setpageparams} stopped pop
                end
                } if
        } def
/savematrix {
        orgmatrix currentmatrix pop
        } bind def
/restorematrix {
        orgmatrix setmatrix
        } bind def
/dmatrix matrix def
/dpi    72 0 dmatrix defaultmatrix dtransform
    dup mul exch   dup mul add   sqrt def
/freq dpi 18.75 div 8 div round dup 0 eq {pop 1} if 8 mul dpi exch div def
/sangle 1 0 dmatrix defaultmatrix dtransform exch atan def
/DiacriticEncoding [
/.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef
/.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef
/.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef
/.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef
/.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /space /exclam /quotedbl
/numbersign /dollar /percent /ampersand /quotesingle /parenleft
/parenright /asterisk /plus /comma /hyphen /period /slash /zero /one
/two /three /four /five /six /seven /eight /nine /colon /semicolon
/less /equal /greater /question /at /A /B /C /D /E /F /G /H /I /J /K
/L /M /N /O /P /Q /R /S /T /U /V /W /X /Y /Z /bracketleft /backslash
/bracketright /asciicircum /underscore /grave /a /b /c /d /e /f /g /h
/i /j /k /l /m /n /o /p /q /r /s /t /u /v /w /x /y /z /braceleft /bar
/braceright /asciitilde /.notdef /Adieresis /Aring /Ccedilla /Eacute
/Ntilde /Odieresis /Udieresis /aacute /agrave /acircumflex /adieresis
/atilde /aring /ccedilla /eacute /egrave /ecircumflex /edieresis
/iacute /igrave /icircumflex /idieresis /ntilde /oacute /ograve
/ocircumflex /odieresis /otilde /uacute /ugrave /ucircumflex
/udieresis /dagger /.notdef /cent /sterling /section /bullet
/paragraph /germandbls /registered /copyright /trademark /acute
/dieresis /.notdef /AE /Oslash /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef
/yen /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef
/ordfeminine /ordmasculine /.notdef /ae /oslash /questiondown
/exclamdown /logicalnot /.notdef /florin /.notdef /.notdef
/guillemotleft /guillemotright /ellipsis /.notdef /Agrave /Atilde
/Otilde /OE /oe /endash /emdash /quotedblleft /quotedblright
/quoteleft /quoteright /.notdef /.notdef /ydieresis /Ydieresis
/fraction /currency /guilsinglleft /guilsinglright /fi /fl /daggerdbl
/periodcentered /quotesinglbase /quotedblbase /perthousand
/Acircumflex /Ecircumflex /Aacute /Edieresis /Egrave /Iacute
/Icircumflex /Idieresis /Igrave /Oacute /Ocircumflex /.notdef /Ograve
/Uacute /Ucircumflex /Ugrave /dotlessi /circumflex /tilde /macron
/breve /dotaccent /ring /cedilla /hungarumlaut /ogonek /caron
] def
/ReEncode {
        dup
        length
        dict begin
        {
        1 index /FID ne
                {def}
                {pop pop} ifelse
        } forall
        0 eq {/Encoding DiacriticEncoding def} if
        currentdict
        end
        } bind def
/graymode true def
        /bwidth FMLOCAL
        /bpside FMLOCAL
        /bstring FMLOCAL
        /onbits FMLOCAL
        /offbits FMLOCAL
        /xindex FMLOCAL
        /yindex FMLOCAL
        /x FMLOCAL
        /y FMLOCAL
/setpattern {
         /bwidth  exch def
         /bpside  exch def
         /bstring exch def
         /onbits 0 def  /offbits 0 def
         freq sangle landscape {90 add} if
                {/y exch def
                 /x exch def
                 /xindex x 1 add 2 div bpside mul cvi def
                 /yindex y 1 add 2 div bpside mul cvi def
                 bstring yindex bwidth mul xindex 8 idiv add get
                 1 7 xindex 8 mod sub bitshift and 0 ne
                 {/onbits  onbits  1 add def 1}
                 {/offbits offbits 1 add def 0}
                 ifelse
                }
                setscreen
         {} settransfer
         offbits offbits onbits add div FMsetgray
        /graymode false def
        } bind def
/grayness {
        FMsetgray
        graymode not {
                /graymode true def
                orgxfer cvx settransfer
                orgfreq organgle orgproc cvx setscreen
                } if
        } bind def
        /HUE FMLOCAL
        /SAT FMLOCAL
        /BRIGHT FMLOCAL
        /Colors FMLOCAL
FMPrintInColor
 
        {
        /HUE 0 def
        /SAT 0 def
        /BRIGHT 0 def
        % array of arrays Hue and Sat values for the separations [HUE BRIGHT]
        /Colors
        [[0    0  ]    % black
         [0    0  ]    % white
         [0.00 1.0]    % red
         [0.37 1.0]    % green
         [0.60 1.0]    % blue
         [0.50 1.0]    % cyan
         [0.83 1.0]    % magenta
         [0.16 1.0]    % comment / yellow
         ] def
 
        /BEGINBITMAPCOLOR {
                BITMAPCOLOR} def
        /BEGINBITMAPCOLORc {
                BITMAPCOLORc} def
        /BEGINBITMAPTRUECOLOR {
                BITMAPTRUECOLOR } def
        /BEGINBITMAPTRUECOLORc {
                BITMAPTRUECOLORc } def
        /K {
                Colors exch get dup
                0 get /HUE exch store
                1 get /BRIGHT exch store
                  HUE 0 eq BRIGHT 0 eq and
                        {1.0 SAT sub setgray}
                        {HUE SAT BRIGHT sethsbcolor}
                  ifelse
                } def
        /FMsetgray {
                /SAT exch 1.0 exch sub store
                  HUE 0 eq BRIGHT 0 eq and
                        {1.0 SAT sub setgray}
                        {HUE SAT BRIGHT sethsbcolor}
                  ifelse
                } bind def
        }
 
        {
        /BEGINBITMAPCOLOR {
                BITMAPGRAY} def
        /BEGINBITMAPCOLORc {
                BITMAPGRAYc} def
        /BEGINBITMAPTRUECOLOR {
                BITMAPTRUEGRAY } def
        /BEGINBITMAPTRUECOLORc {
                BITMAPTRUEGRAYc } def
        /FMsetgray {setgray} bind def
        /K {
                pop
                } def
        }
ifelse
/normalize {
        transform round exch round exch itransform
        } bind def
/dnormalize {
        dtransform round exch round exch idtransform
        } bind def
/lnormalize {
        0 dtransform exch cvi 2 idiv 2 mul 1 add exch idtransform pop
        } bind def
/H {
        lnormalize setlinewidth
        } bind def
/Z {
        setlinecap
        } bind def
        /fillvals FMLOCAL
/X {
        fillvals exch get
        dup type /stringtype eq
        {8 1 setpattern}
        {grayness}
        ifelse
        } bind def
/V {
        gsave eofill grestore
        } bind def
/N {
        stroke
        } bind def
/M {newpath moveto} bind def
/E {lineto} bind def
/D {curveto} bind def
/O {closepath} bind def
        /n FMLOCAL
/L {
        /n exch def
        newpath
        normalize
        moveto
        2 1 n {pop normalize lineto} for
        } bind def
/Y {
        L
        closepath
        } bind def
        /x1 FMLOCAL
        /x2 FMLOCAL
        /y1 FMLOCAL
        /y2 FMLOCAL
        /rad FMLOCAL
/R {
        /y2 exch def
        /x2 exch def
        /y1 exch def
        /x1 exch def
        x1 y1
        x2 y1
        x2 y2
        x1 y2
        4 Y
        } bind def
/RR {
        /rad exch def
        normalize
        /y2 exch def
        /x2 exch def
        normalize
        /y1 exch def
        /x1 exch def
        newpath
        x1 y1 rad add moveto
        x1 y2 x2 y2 rad arcto
        x2 y2 x2 y1 rad arcto
        x2 y1 x1 y1 rad arcto
        x1 y1 x1 y2 rad arcto
        closepath
        16 {pop} repeat
        } bind def
/C {
        grestore
        gsave
        R
        clip
        } bind def
        /FMpointsize FMLOCAL
/F {
        FMfonts exch get
        FMpointsize scalefont
        setfont
        } bind def
/Q {
        /FMpointsize exch def
        F
        } bind def
/T {
        moveto show
        } bind def
/RF {
        rotate
        0 ne {-1 1 scale} if
        } bind def
/TF {
        gsave
        moveto
        RF
        show
        grestore
        } bind def
/P {
        moveto
        0 32 3 2 roll widthshow
        } bind def
/PF {
        gsave
        moveto
        RF
        0 32 3 2 roll widthshow
        grestore
        } bind def
/S {
        moveto
        0 exch ashow
        } bind def
/SF {
        gsave
        moveto
        RF
        0 exch ashow
        grestore
        } bind def
/B {
        moveto
        0 32 4 2 roll 0 exch awidthshow
        } bind def
/BF {
        gsave
        moveto
        RF
        0 32 4 2 roll 0 exch awidthshow
        grestore
        } bind def
/G {
        gsave
        newpath
        normalize translate 0.0 0.0 moveto
        dnormalize scale
        0.0 0.0 1.0 5 3 roll arc
        closepath fill
        grestore
        } bind def
/A {
        gsave
        savematrix
        newpath
        2 index 2 div add exch 3 index 2 div sub exch
        normalize 2 index 2 div sub exch 3 index 2 div add exch
        translate
        scale
        0.0 0.0 1.0 5 3 roll arc
        restorematrix
        stroke
        grestore
        } bind def
        /x FMLOCAL
        /y FMLOCAL
        /w FMLOCAL
        /h FMLOCAL
        /xx FMLOCAL
        /yy FMLOCAL
        /ww FMLOCAL
        /hh FMLOCAL
        /FMsaveobject FMLOCAL
        /FMoptop FMLOCAL
        /FMdicttop FMLOCAL
/BEGINPRINTCODE {
        /FMdicttop countdictstack 1 add def
        /FMoptop count 4 sub def
        /FMsaveobject save def
        userdict begin
        /showpage {} def
        FMNORMALIZEGRAPHICS
        3 index neg 3 index neg translate
        } bind def
/ENDPRINTCODE {
        count -1 FMoptop {pop pop} for
        countdictstack -1 FMdicttop {pop end} for
        FMsaveobject restore
        } bind def
/gn {
        0
        {       46 mul
                cf read pop
                32 sub
                dup 46 lt {exit} if
                46 sub add
                } loop
        add
        } bind def
        /str FMLOCAL
/cfs {
        /str sl string def
        0 1 sl 1 sub {str exch val put} for
        str def
        } bind def
/ic [
        0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0223
        0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0223
        0
        {0 hx} {1 hx} {2 hx} {3 hx} {4 hx} {5 hx} {6 hx} {7 hx} {8 hx} {9 hx}
        {10 hx} {11 hx} {12 hx} {13 hx} {14 hx} {15 hx} {16 hx} {17 hx} {18 hx}
        {19 hx} {gn hx} {0} {1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6} {7} {8} {9} {10} {11} {12}
        {13} {14} {15} {16} {17} {18} {19} {gn} {0 wh} {1 wh} {2 wh} {3 wh}
        {4 wh} {5 wh} {6 wh} {7 wh} {8 wh} {9 wh} {10 wh} {11 wh} {12 wh}
        {13 wh} {14 wh} {gn wh} {0 bl} {1 bl} {2 bl} {3 bl} {4 bl} {5 bl} {6 bl}
        {7 bl} {8 bl} {9 bl} {10 bl} {11 bl} {12 bl} {13 bl} {14 bl} {gn bl}
        {0 fl} {1 fl} {2 fl} {3 fl} {4 fl} {5 fl} {6 fl} {7 fl} {8 fl} {9 fl}
        {10 fl} {11 fl} {12 fl} {13 fl} {14 fl} {gn fl}
        ] def
        /sl FMLOCAL
        /val FMLOCAL
        /ws FMLOCAL
        /im FMLOCAL
        /bs FMLOCAL
        /cs FMLOCAL
        /len FMLOCAL
        /pos FMLOCAL
/ms {
        /sl exch def
        /val 255 def
        /ws cfs
        /im cfs
        /val 0 def
        /bs cfs
        /cs cfs
        } bind def
400 ms
/ip {
        is
        0
        cf cs readline pop
        {       ic exch get exec
                add
                } forall
        pop
 
        } bind def
/wh {
        /len exch def
        /pos exch def
        ws 0 len getinterval im pos len getinterval copy pop
        pos len
        } bind def
/bl {
        /len exch def
        /pos exch def
        bs 0 len getinterval im pos len getinterval copy pop
        pos len
        } bind def
/s1 1 string def
/fl {
        /len exch def
        /pos exch def
        /val cf s1 readhexstring pop 0 get def
        pos 1 pos len add 1 sub {im exch val put} for
        pos len
        } bind def
/hx {
        3 copy getinterval
        cf exch readhexstring pop pop
        } bind def
        /h FMLOCAL
        /w FMLOCAL
        /d FMLOCAL
        /lb FMLOCAL
        /bitmapsave FMLOCAL
        /is FMLOCAL
        /cf FMLOCAL
/wbytes {
        dup
        8 eq {pop} {1 eq {7 add 8 idiv} {3 add 4 idiv} ifelse} ifelse
        } bind def
/BEGINBITMAPBWc {
        1 {} COMMONBITMAPc
        } bind def
/BEGINBITMAPGRAYc {
        8 {} COMMONBITMAPc
        } bind def
/BEGINBITMAP2BITc {
        2 {} COMMONBITMAPc
        } bind def
/COMMONBITMAPc {
        /r exch def
        /d exch def
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /lb w d wbytes def
        sl lb lt {lb ms} if
        /bitmapsave save def
        r
        /is im 0 lb getinterval def
        ws 0 lb getinterval is copy pop
        /cf currentfile def
        w h d [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        {ip} image
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/BEGINBITMAPBW {
        1 {} COMMONBITMAP
        } bind def
/BEGINBITMAPGRAY {
        8 {} COMMONBITMAP
        } bind def
/BEGINBITMAP2BIT {
        2 {} COMMONBITMAP
        } bind def
/COMMONBITMAP {
        /r exch def
        /d exch def
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /bitmapsave save def
        r
        /is w d wbytes string def
        /cf currentfile def
        w h d [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        {cf is readhexstring pop} image
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
        /proc1 FMLOCAL
        /proc2 FMLOCAL
        /newproc FMLOCAL
/Fmcc {
    /proc2 exch cvlit def
    /proc1 exch cvlit def
    /newproc proc1 length proc2 length add array def
    newproc 0 proc1 putinterval
    newproc proc1 length proc2 putinterval
    newproc cvx
} bind def
/ngrayt 256 array def
/nredt 256 array def
/nbluet 256 array def
/ngreent 256 array def
        /gryt FMLOCAL
        /blut FMLOCAL
        /grnt FMLOCAL
        /redt FMLOCAL
        /indx FMLOCAL
        /cynu FMLOCAL
        /magu FMLOCAL
        /yelu FMLOCAL
        /k FMLOCAL
        /u FMLOCAL
/colorsetup {
        currentcolortransfer
        /gryt exch def
        /blut exch def
        /grnt exch def
        /redt exch def
        0 1 255 {
                /indx exch def
                /cynu 1 red indx get 255 div sub def
                /magu 1 green indx get 255 div sub def
                /yelu 1 blue indx get 255 div sub def
                /k cynu magu min yelu min def
                /u k currentundercolorremoval exec def
                nredt indx 1 0 cynu u sub max sub redt exec put
                ngreent indx 1 0 magu u sub max sub grnt exec put
                nbluet indx 1 0 yelu u sub max sub blut exec put
                ngrayt indx 1 k currentblackgeneration exec sub gryt exec put
        } for
        {255 mul cvi nredt exch get}
        {255 mul cvi ngreent exch get}
        {255 mul cvi nbluet exch get}
        {255 mul cvi ngrayt exch get}
        setcolortransfer
        {pop 0} setundercolorremoval
        {} setblackgeneration
        } bind def
        /tran FMLOCAL
/fakecolorsetup {
        /tran 256 string def
        0 1 255 {/indx exch def
                tran indx
                red indx get 77 mul
                green indx get 151 mul
                blue indx get 28 mul
                add add 256 idiv put} for
        currenttransfer
        {255 mul cvi tran exch get 255.0 div}
        exch Fmcc settransfer
} bind def
/BITMAPCOLOR {
        /d 8 def
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /bitmapsave save def
        colorsetup
        /is w d wbytes string def
        /cf currentfile def
        w h d [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        {cf is readhexstring pop} {is} {is} true 3 colorimage
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/BITMAPCOLORc {
        /d 8 def
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /lb w d wbytes def
        sl lb lt {lb ms} if
        /bitmapsave save def
        colorsetup
        /is im 0 lb getinterval def
        ws 0 lb getinterval is copy pop
        /cf currentfile def
        w h d [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        {ip} {is} {is} true 3 colorimage
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/BITMAPTRUECOLORc {
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /bitmapsave save def
 
        /is w string def
 
        ws 0 w getinterval is copy pop
        /cf currentfile def
        w h 8 [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        {ip} {gip} {bip} true 3 colorimage
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/BITMAPTRUECOLOR {
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /bitmapsave save def
        /is w string def
        /gis w string def
        /bis w string def
        /cf currentfile def
        w h 8 [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        { cf is readhexstring pop }
        { cf gis readhexstring pop }
        { cf bis readhexstring pop }
        true 3 colorimage
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/BITMAPTRUEGRAYc {
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /bitmapsave save def
 
        /is w string def
 
        ws 0 w getinterval is copy pop
        /cf currentfile def
        w h 8 [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        {ip gip bip w gray} image
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/ww FMLOCAL
/r FMLOCAL
/g FMLOCAL
/b FMLOCAL
/i FMLOCAL
/gray {
        /ww exch def
        /b exch def
        /g exch def
        /r exch def
        0 1 ww 1 sub { /i exch def r i get .299 mul g i get .587 mul
                        b i get .114 mul add add r i 3 -1 roll floor cvi put } for
        r
        } bind def
/BITMAPTRUEGRAY {
        gsave
        translate rotate scale /h exch def /w exch def
        /bitmapsave save def
        /is w string def
        /gis w string def
        /bis w string def
        /cf currentfile def
        w h 8 [w 0 0 h neg 0 h]
        { cf is readhexstring pop
          cf gis readhexstring pop
          cf bis readhexstring pop w gray}  image
        bitmapsave restore
        grestore
        } bind def
/BITMAPGRAY {
        8 {fakecolorsetup} COMMONBITMAP
        } bind def
/BITMAPGRAYc {
        8 {fakecolorsetup} COMMONBITMAPc
        } bind def
/ENDBITMAP {
        } bind def
end
        /ALDsave FMLOCAL
        /ALDmatrix matrix def ALDmatrix currentmatrix pop
/StartALD {
        /ALDsave save def
         savematrix
         ALDmatrix setmatrix
        } bind def
/InALD {
         restorematrix
        } bind def
/DoneALD {
         ALDsave restore
        } bind def
%%EndProlog
%%BeginSetup
(3.0) FMVERSION
1 1 612 792 0 1 3 FMDOCUMENT
0 0 /Times-Roman FMFONTDEFINE
32 FMFILLS
0 0 FMFILL
1 0.1 FMFILL
2 0.3 FMFILL
3 0.5 FMFILL
4 0.7 FMFILL
5 0.9 FMFILL
6 0.97 FMFILL
7 1 FMFILL
8 <0f1e3c78f0e1c387> FMFILL
9 <0f87c3e1f0783c1e> FMFILL
10 <cccccccccccccccc> FMFILL
11 <ffff0000ffff0000> FMFILL
12 <8142241818244281> FMFILL
13 <03060c183060c081> FMFILL
14 <8040201008040201> FMFILL
16 1 FMFILL
17 0.9 FMFILL
18 0.7 FMFILL
19 0.5 FMFILL
20 0.3 FMFILL
21 0.1 FMFILL
22 0.03 FMFILL
23 0 FMFILL
24 <f0e1c3870f1e3c78> FMFILL
25 <f0783c1e0f87c3e1> FMFILL
26 <3333333333333333> FMFILL
27 <0000ffff0000ffff> FMFILL
28 <7ebddbe7e7dbbd7e> FMFILL
29 <fcf9f3e7cf9f3f7e> FMFILL
30 <7fbfdfeff7fbfdfe> FMFILL
%%EndSetup
%%Page: "3" 3
%%BeginPaperSize: Letter
%%EndPaperSize
612 792 0 FMBEGINPAGE
234 585 M
 234 621 234 621 301.5 621 D
 369 621 369 621 369 585 D
 369 549 369 549 301.5 549 D
 234 549 234 549 234 585 D
O
11 X
0 K
V
0.5 H
2 Z
0 X
N
234 387 369 495 R
12 X
V
0 X
N
234 747 369 747 357.75 693 245.25 693 4 Y
3 X
V
0 X
N
112.5 94.5 153 94.5 2 L
1 H
N
180 459 180 94.5 207 94.5 207 459 207 459 5 L
7 X
V
0 X
N
396 459 396 94.5 423 94.5 423 459 423 459 5 L
7 X
V
0 X
N
234 459 234 162 2 L
4 H
N
369 459 369 162 2 L
N
180 270 67.5 67.5 301.5 162 A
270 360 67.5 67.5 301.5 162 A
112.5 94.5 112.5 54 2 L
0.5 H
N
490.5 94.5 490.5 54 2 L
N
450 94.5 490.5 94.5 2 L
1 H
N
112.5 54 490.5 54 2 L
0.5 H
N
99 459 99 405 2 L
N
99 405 153 405 2 L
N
153 405 153 94.5 2 L
N
504 459 504 405 2 L
N
504 405 450 405 2 L
N
449 93.5 449 404 2 L
N
490.5 94.5 490.5 94.5 2 L
N
234 459 234 729 2 L
4 H
N
369 459 369 729 2 L
N
0 18 Q
(Figure 3 -- Generic \322Cell\323 Construction) 162 27 T
99 459 180 459 2 L
0.5 H
N
423 459 504 459 2 L
N
396 459 369 459 2 L
N
207 459 234 459 2 L
N
243 153 360 288 R
6 X
V
0 X
N
261 180 324 270 R
3 X
V
0 X
N
252 225 333 225 2 L
N
252 252 333 252 2 L
N
252 243 333 243 2 L
N
252 234 333 234 2 L
N
252 216 333 216 2 L
N
252 207 333 207 2 L
N
252 198 333 198 2 L
N
261 270 324 288 R
7 X
V
0 X
N
234 336.23 M
 275 351 320 324 365 331.23 D
N
342 135 351 765 R
7 X
V
3 H
0 X
N
270 693 279 747 R
7 X
V
0.5 H
0 X
N
225 729 378 729 2 L
4 H
N
0 12 Q
(Thomas F. Droege and) 32.85 748.17 T
(Zero Gradient Calorimeter) 34.1 724.64 T
(2 S. 942 Thorncrest Lane) 33.85 712.17 T
(Batavia, IL 60510 USA) 33.6 699.67 T
( Lee John Droege\325s) 31.35 736.17 T
141.03 369.96 153 369.01 142.35 363.48 141.69 366.72 4 Y
V
141.7 366.71 108 360 2 L
0.5 H
N
192.12 415.49 197.99 405.02 187.46 410.79 189.79 413.14 4 Y
V
189.8 413.12 117 486 2 L
N
361.51 660.24 350.98 666.01 362.96 666.69 362.23 663.46 4 Y
V
362.25 663.46 432 648 2 L
N
379.94 697.09 368.99 702 380.88 703.63 380.41 700.36 4 Y
V
380.42 700.36 432 693 2 L
N
380.82 735.99 368.99 738 380.08 742.57 380.45 739.28 4 Y
V
380.46 739.28 450 747 2 L
N
276.06 718.76 287.99 720 278.53 712.63 277.29 715.69 4 Y
V
277.3 715.69 198 684 2 L
N
213.46 579.31 225 576 213.46 572.69 213.46 576 4 Y
V
213.46 576 180 576 2 L
N
326.99 459.08 315 459 325.13 465.43 326.06 462.26 4 Y
V
326.07 462.25 441 495 2 L
N
326.79 357.88 314.98 360.02 326.13 364.46 326.46 361.17 4 Y
V
326.48 361.15 495 378 2 L
N
326.13 310.58 314.98 315.02 326.79 317.16 326.46 313.87 4 Y
V
326.48 313.85 495 297 2 L
N
258.16 164.03 269.99 162.02 258.89 157.46 258.53 160.74 4 Y
V
258.54 160.72 108 144 2 L
N
259.09 266 270 261 258.1 259.46 258.59 262.73 4 Y
V
258.59 262.72 90 288 2 L
N
240.7 229.09 251.99 225.03 240.26 222.49 240.48 225.79 4 Y
V
240.49 225.77 117 234 2 L
N
(Teflon \322Cork\323) 450 747.82 T
(8mm glass tube) 441 639 T
(Foam \322chunks\323) 450 495 T
(Gas space) 504 378 T
(Electrolyte) 504 297 T
(\050D) 504 285 T
0 10 Q
(2) 516.65 282 T
0 12 Q
(O + LiDO\051) 521.65 285 T
(D) 118.33 585.82 T
0 10 Q
(2) 126.99 582.82 T
0 12 Q
( + O) 131.98 585.82 T
0 10 Q
(2) 153.4 582.82 T
0 12 Q
( ==> 2D) 158.4 585.82 T
0 10 Q
(2) 199.35 582.82 T
0 12 Q
(O) 204.34 585.82 T
(Catalyst) 118.33 573.82 T
(\050D) 504 366 T
0 10 Q
(2) 516.65 363 T
0 12 Q
( + O) 521.65 366 T
0 10 Q
(2) 543.07 363 T
0 12 Q
(\051) 548.07 366 T
(Misc. accesses) 154.4 671.6 T
(Heater bore holes) 77.41 495.82 T
(Aluminum) 47.02 360.82 T
(\322Spool\323) 47.02 348.82 T
(Palladium cathode) 45 297 T
(Platinum anode) 45 243.82 T
(wire windings) 45 231.82 T
(Teflon support) 45 153 T
(structure) 45 141 T
(Glass test-tube 100 ml) 441 693 T
(\050air tight\051) 154.4 659.6 T
90 450 9 4.5 306 517.5 G
90 450 9 4.5 306 517.5 A
90 450 9 4.5 306 112.5 G
90 450 9 4.5 306 112.5 A
326.99 522.53 315 522 324.89 528.8 325.93 525.67 4 Y
V
325.94 525.66 423 558 2 L
N
335.98 116.48 324 117.01 334.44 122.91 335.21 119.7 4 Y
V
335.22 119.69 477 153 2 L
N
(Thermometer ~ 50) 436.24 560.6 T
0 10 Q
(o) 526 565.4 T
0 12 Q
(C) 531 560.6 T
(Thermometer ~ 30) 463.24 164.6 T
0 10 Q
(o) 553 169.4 T
0 12 Q
(C) 558 164.6 T
276.01 657.79 287.99 657.01 277.42 651.32 276.72 654.55 4 Y
V
276.73 654.55 162 630 2 L
N
(Motor driven syringe) 58.08 639.82 T
(maintains constant) 58.08 627.82 T
(closed system pressure.) 58.08 615.82 T
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 279 328.38 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 279 328.38 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 307.25 285.88 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 307.25 285.88 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 294 257.63 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 294 257.63 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 298.75 322.63 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 298.75 322.63 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 311.5 306.38 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 311.5 306.38 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 287.75 236.88 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 287.75 236.88 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 269.5 292.63 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 269.5 292.63 A
7 X
90 450 2.5 1.38 297.25 299.88 G
0 X
90 450 2.5 1.38 297.25 299.88 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 276.5 306.13 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 276.5 306.13 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 281.75 281.63 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 281.75 281.63 A
7 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 313.25 265.88 G
0 X
90 450 1.5 1.38 313.25 265.88 A
FMENDPAGE
%%EndPage: "3" 2
%%Page: "2" 2
612 792 0 FMBEGINPAGE
108 171 117 234 R
3 X
0 K
V
0.5 H
2 Z
0 X
N
495 171 504 234 R
3 X
V
0 X
N
351 170 414 189 R
10 X
V
0 X
N
27 99 585 126 R
4 X
V
1 H
0 X
N
270 99 342 126 R
7 X
V
0 X
N
108 144 504 171 R
3 X
V
0 X
N
288 144 324 171 R
7 X
V
0 X
N
171 189 441 531 R
6 X
V
7 X
N
171 288 207 495 R
V
0.5 H
N
405 290 441 495 R
V
N
171 207 171 648 2 L
3 H
0 X
N
441 207 441 648 2 L
N
171 756 441 756 2 L
N
171 288 171 189 2 L
1 H
N
171 288 207 288 2 L
N
207 261 207 243 2 L
N
171 189 441 189 2 L
N
441 288 441 189 2 L
N
405 261 405 243 2 L
N
207 243 405 243 2 L
N
225 531 225 288 243 288 243 531 243 531 5 L
7 X
V
0 X
N
369 531 369 288 387 288 387 531 387 531 5 L
7 X
V
0 X
N
7 X
90 450 45 51 306 339 G
0.5 H
90 450 45 51 306 339 A
261 350.51 349.84 531 R
V
N
171 531 441 531 2 L
0 X
N
261 531 261 333 2 L
N
351 531 351 333 2 L
N
180 270 45 45 306 333 A
270 360 45 45 306 333 A
207 243 405 261 R
7 X
V
0 X
N
180 288 180 261 2 L
N
432 288 432 261 2 L
N
405 288 441 288 2 L
1 H
N
180 261 432 261 2 L
0.5 H
N
171 531 171 493 2 L
N
171 495 207 495 2 L
N
207 495 207 288 2 L
N
441 531 441 495 2 L
N
441 495 405 495 2 L
N
405 288 405 495 2 L
N
288 189 324 243 R
7 X
V
0 X
N
432 288 432 288 2 L
N
385.44 633.07 386.98 657.01 398.36 635.89 391.9 634.48 4 Y
V
306 45 M
 315 72 293.7 202.15 302.04 227.69 D
 311.38 256.28 343.53 253.03 366.72 252.51 D
 391.49 251.96 414.91 278.03 415.17 301.78 D
 415.54 336.67 421.68 375.69 422.39 406.31 D
 423 432.27 422.54 457.77 420.2 483.45 D
 418.25 504.93 401.18 590.17 391.87 634.46 D
4 H
0 Z
N
198 171 261 189 R
10 X
V
0.5 H
2 Z
0 X
N
378 126 441 144 R
10 X
V
0 X
N
171 126 234 144 R
10 X
V
0 X
N
117 54 180 99 R
4 X
V
1 H
0 X
N
7 X
90 450 13.5 13.5 148.5 76.5 G
0 X
90 450 13.5 13.5 148.5 76.5 A
423 54 486 99 R
4 X
V
0 X
N
7 X
90 450 13.5 13.5 454.5 76.5 G
0 X
90 450 13.5 13.5 454.5 76.5 A
441 756 441 675 2 L
3 H
N
171 756 171 675 2 L
N
90 450 4.5 9 166.5 216 G
90 450 4.5 9 166.5 216 A
90 450 4.5 9 445.5 216 G
90 450 4.5 9 445.5 216 A
504 126 540 234 R
1 X
V
0.5 H
0 X
N
72 126 108 234 R
1 X
V
0 X
N
3 H
180 270 22.5 27 139.5 207 A
270 360 22.5 27 139.5 207 A
162 207 162 387 2 L
N
117 207 117 378 2 L
N
180 270 22.5 27 472.5 212 A
270 360 22.5 27 472.5 212 A
450 212 450 392 2 L
N
495 212 495 383 2 L
N
432 675 M
 441 666 441 666 445.5 670.5 D
 450 675 450 675 459 666 D
0.5 H
N
432 666 M
 441 657 441 657 445.5 661.5 D
 450 666 450 666 459 657 D
N
162 675 M
 171 666 171 666 175.5 670.5 D
 180 675 180 675 189 666 D
N
162 666 M
 171 657 171 657 175.5 661.5 D
 180 666 180 666 189 657 D
N
279 45 288 171 R
1 X
V
3 H
0 X
N
324 45 333 171 R
1 X
V
0 X
N
0 18 Q
(Figure 2 -- Base and Inner Layers) 171 23.73 T
162.84 611.82 170.99 603.01 159.41 606.16 161.13 608.99 4 Y
V
161.13 608.98 126 630 2 L
0.5 H
N
235.63 515.89 234 504.01 229.08 514.95 232.35 515.42 4 Y
V
232.36 515.42 225 567 2 L
N
179.53 520.39 188.99 513.01 177.06 514.25 178.29 517.32 4 Y
V
178.3 517.31 144 531 2 L
N
106.53 366.39 116 359.01 104.06 360.25 105.3 363.32 4 Y
V
105.3 363.31 71 377 2 L
N
308.25 434.23 303.99 423.02 301.66 434.79 304.95 434.51 4 Y
V
304.96 434.49 320 614 2 L
N
368.11 654.8 378 648 366.01 648.53 367.06 651.66 4 Y
V
367.06 651.66 324 666 2 L
N
62.3 233.44 66 222.02 56.81 229.74 59.56 231.59 4 Y
V
59.56 231.57 48 249 2 L
N
53.47 137.99 54 126.01 47.2 135.89 50.34 136.94 4 Y
V
50.34 136.94 36 180 2 L
N
201.61 230.18 207.99 220.02 197.2 225.25 199.4 227.72 4 Y
V
199.41 227.7 84 331 2 L
N
443.97 152.43 431.99 153.02 442.46 158.88 443.22 155.66 4 Y
V
443.23 155.64 549 180 2 L
N
401.63 190.61 395.99 180.02 395.16 191.99 398.4 191.3 4 Y
V
398.41 191.28 468 522 2 L
N
155.5 226.11 161.99 216.02 151.14 221.14 153.32 223.63 4 Y
V
153.33 223.61 90 279 2 L
N
409.95 141.43 403.98 131.03 403.53 143.02 406.74 142.23 4 Y
V
406.76 142.2 468 396 2 L
N
123.46 84.31 135 81 123.46 77.69 123.46 81 4 Y
V
123.46 81 99 81 2 L
N
267 90.37 278.99 90.02 268.64 83.96 267.82 87.16 4 Y
V
267.82 87.15 243 81 2 L
N
0 12 Q
(Wire \322races\323) 288 675.82 T
(\322Cell\323 test-tube holder) 258 626.82 T
(Spool heaters are) 183.38 599.82 T
(Copper temperature) 45 644.6 T
(gradient reducer shield) 45 632.6 T
(Aluminum) 92.02 540.82 T
(\322Spool\323) 92.02 528.28 T
(Dewar) 54.04 381.82 T
(O-Ring) 54 288.82 T
(Ring) 36 254.6 T
(Base) 27 189 T
(Cooling) 51.35 81.82 T
(Water) 51.35 69.82 T
(Wire) 198 81 T
(\322stabilization\323) 198 69 T
(copper tube) 198 57 T
(Plate - Base TED) 468 467.6 T
(Puck - Plate TED) 459 567.64 T
(Copper) 549 189 T
(Plate) 549 177 T
(Aluminum) 33.02 348.82 T
(\322Puck\323 ~ 24) 33.02 336.82 T
0 10 Q
(o) 92.14 341.62 T
0 12 Q
(C) 97.13 336.82 T
(See Figure 3) 279 360 T
(for \322Cell\323) 279 348 T
(contents.) 279 336 T
(Thomas F. Droege and) 28.5 744.1 T
(Zero Gradient Calorimeter) 29.75 720.57 T
(2 S. 942 Thorncrest Lane) 29.5 708.1 T
(Batavia, IL 60510 USA) 29.25 695.6 T
( Lee John Droege\325s) 27 732.1 T
(driven to maintain) 183.38 587.82 T
(desired cell temperature.) 183.38 575.82 T
(Constant current driven.) 460 555.64 T
(Moves heat from puck) 460 543.64 T
(to plate.) 460 531.64 T
(Servo driven. Trys to) 468 455.6 T
(keep puck and plate at) 468 443.6 T
(same temperature by) 468 431.6 T
(modulating heat) 468 419.6 T
(transport.) 468 407.6 T
495 234 540 243 R
V
N
72 234 117 243 R
V
N
495 243 504 279 R
V
N
108 243 117 279 R
V
N
FMENDPAGE
%%EndPage: "2" 1
%%Page: "1" 1
612 792 0 FMBEGINPAGE
126 72 477 666 R
5 X
0 K
V
3 H
2 Z
0 X
N
162 72 445 612 R
6 X
V
0 X
N
216 702 225 765 234 702 3 L
3 X
V
0.5 H
0 X
N
198 702 207 765 216 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
234 702 243 765 252 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
252 702 261.29 765 270.57 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
270 702 279 765 288 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
396 702 405 765 414 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
288 702 297 765 306 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
306 702 315 765 324 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
324 702 333 765 342 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
342 702 351 765 360 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
360 702 369 765 378 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
378 702 387 765 396 702 3 L
3 X
V
0 X
N
198 684 414 702 R
3 X
V
0 X
N
207 72 405 549 R
7 X
V
3 H
0 X
N
216 612 396 639 R
7 X
V
0.5 H
0 X
N
222 612 387 639 R
7 X
V
N
277 639 333 684 R
3 X
V
0 X
N
222 621 387 639 R
3 X
V
0 X
N
225 612 369 612 2 L
3 H
N
234 612 270 621 R
10 X
V
0.5 H
0 X
N
342 612 378 621 R
10 X
V
0 X
N
288 612 325 621 R
10 X
V
0 X
N
225 612 387 612 2 L
3 H
N
178 612 423 612 2 L
N
234 63 378 504 18 RR
N
189 54 423 117 R
7 X
V
0.5 H
N
180 270 13.5 18 220.5 117 G
3 H
0 X
180 270 13.5 18 220.5 117 A
7 X
270 360 13.5 18 220.5 117 G
0 X
270 360 13.5 18 220.5 117 A
7 X
180 270 13.5 19 391.5 117 G
0 X
180 270 13.5 19 391.5 117 A
7 X
270 360 13.5 19 391.5 117 G
0 X
270 360 13.5 19 391.5 117 A
405 117 423 117 2 L
0.5 H
N
423 117 423 72 2 L
N
207 117 189 117 2 L
N
189 117 189 72 2 L
N
423.99 716.22 412 716 422.06 722.54 423.02 719.38 4 Y
V
423.03 719.38 486 738 2 L
N
388.04 596.44 377.99 603.01 389.99 602.76 389.01 599.6 4 Y
V
389.02 599.6 495 567 2 L
N
141 629.76 152.99 630.01 142.95 623.44 141.97 626.6 4 Y
V
141.98 626.59 63 603 2 L
N
178.05 589.92 189 585 177.11 583.37 177.58 586.65 4 Y
V
177.58 586.64 63 603 2 L
N
232.17 536.18 243 531 231.08 529.65 231.62 532.91 4 Y
V
231.63 532.91 81 558 2 L
N
488.99 617.12 476.99 617 487.11 623.46 488.05 620.29 4 Y
V
488.06 620.29 522 630 2 L
N
461.88 448.37 449.99 450.01 460.94 454.92 461.41 451.65 4 Y
V
461.42 451.64 513 459 2 L
N
416.92 295.65 405 297 415.83 302.18 416.37 298.92 4 Y
V
416.38 298.91 513 315 2 L
N
0 12 Q
(Foam) 27 596.6 T
(Dewar Vacuum) 36 560.6 T
(Convection Cooler) 441 747.82 T
(\322TEDs\323) 502.74 577.64 T
(Outer Shell) 504 639.82 T
495 396 585 513 R
7 X
V
0 X
(5/8\323 Aluminum) 495 505 T
(\322anti-radiation-) 495 491 T
(loss\323 shield is) 495 477 T
-0.09 (driven by \322TEDs\323) 495 463 P
(above to be the) 495 449 T
(same temperature) 495 435 T
-0.59 (as the inside of the) 495 421 P
(Dewar) 495 407 T
(.) 526.3 407 T
(Dewar) 517.04 317.6 T
389.97 282.97 377.99 283.52 388.45 289.4 389.21 286.18 4 Y
V
389.22 286.17 513 315 2 L
N
(See Figure 2) 279 198.82 T
(for Dewar) 279 186.82 T
(contents.) 279 174.82 T
0 18 Q
(Figure 1 -- The Outer Layers) 207 41.73 T
0 12 Q
(\050Thermo Electric) 502.74 565.64 T
(Devices\051) 502.74 553.64 T
(Thomas F. Droege and) 27.25 756.35 T
(Zero Gradient Calorimeter) 28.5 732.82 T
(2 S. 942 Thorncrest Lane) 28.25 720.35 T
(Batavia, IL 60510 USA) 28 707.85 T
( Lee John Droege\325s) 25.75 744.35 T
(1.5\323 each) 27 584.6 T
(2 liter) 517.04 305.6 T
126 198 160 225 R
7 X
V
0 X
N
134.11 213.8 144 207.01 132.01 207.53 133.06 210.67 4 Y
V
133.06 210.66 90 225 2 L
N
(Radioactive) 50.72 243.82 T
(\322Source\323 port) 50.72 231.82 T
189 117 207 123.75 R
V
N
201.25 124 206.75 142 R
V
N
406.25 123.75 411.75 141.75 R
V
N
404.75 117.25 422.75 124 R
V
N
FMENDPAGE
%%EndPage: "1" 0
%%Trailer
%%BoundingBox: 0 0 612 792
%%Pages: 3 -1
%%DocumentFonts: Times-Roman
% =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Delete this line, and all below -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszXL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / Jon Noring /  Perots Economic Plan
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups:
 sci.econ,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.res
 earch
Subject: Perot's "Platform" Posted to the Usenet
Subject: Perots Economic Plan
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:00:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

 
Perot's detailed stand on many issues was posted today in four parts to the
following newsgroups:
 
     alt.politics.perot
     alt.politics.elections
     talk.politics.misc
 
Subject: Perots Economic Plan
 
 
It apparently was excerpted from his best-selling book.  It is fairly long
when the four parts are combined, over 170K.  I'll admit that I am not sure
that the poster (it was not me) had permission to post this to Usenet, but
the "damage" has been done.  I'm sure Perot would like his views disseminated
to as large of an audience as possible, and the electronic ether is one of
Perot's more favored means of communication, bypassing the interpretation and
vagaries of the Press (tm).
 
 
Note:  I'm posting this notification here since Perot touches upon issues
pertinent to this newsgroup.
 
 
*****************************************************************************
IF (note the 'if') you cannot access the above newsgroups, I can e-mail the
document to you - just send me your request.  Please share it with others.
*****************************************************************************
 
Carefully read this document before deciding on who you will vote for
President come Election Day.  And of course, get off your kaziski (a.k.a.
butt) and VOTE!
 
Jon Noring
 
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
 
------->   VOTE FOR PEROT IN '92
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Chemical energies
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chemical energies
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:05:36 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Dick Forman writes:
>
> The hottest reactions that I know are are either the heavier borances
> (decaborane) or some funny nitrogen reactions. I worked on azides once upon
> a time (early '60s) and they are pretty hot but I think other nitrogen
> reactions are hotter.
 
 
        The concept of "how much energy can you possibly get from a chemical
reaction" has been gone over throughly by those interested in rocket
propellants.  Several standard works on chemical rocket propellants give
plots of the heat of combustion of various elements with various oxidizers.
To summarize some data taken by eye from a graph in "The Performance of
Chemical Propellants" by Glassman and Sawyer, only a few reactions are
capable of generating more than 4 kcal/gram total reactants.
 
Oxidizer           Fuel      Energy (kcal)
O2                 Li        4.8
O2                 Be        5.6
O2                 B         4.3
O2                 B5H9      4.0
O2                 Al        4.0
F2                 Li        5.6
F2                 Be        4.8
F2                 Mg        4.1
F2                 Al        4.2
 
        All other chemical reactions fall under these values on a per gram
basis.  Hydrogen, oxidized with O2 or F2, yields only about 3.2 kcal/gram,
but is a favored rocket fuel with either oxidizer because the low molecular
weight of the product more than makes up for the modest energy release.
Ozone, as an oxidizer, yields a bit more energy than oxygen because of the
energy tied up in the ozone molecule.  Liquid ozone however is subject to
spontaneous explosion, and is not usually considered a practical oxidizer so
doesn't usually appear in compilations of this type.
        Boranes (boron and hydrogen compounds) are good rocket fuels, with
B5H9 (pentaborane) and O2 just barely yielding 4.0 kcal/gram.  Hydrazine
(N2H4) is the most energetic common "nitrogen" fuel, and yields only 2.5
kcal/gram with F2.  Strangely, a usable rocket can be produced by using
pentaborane and hydrazine.  The formation of BN provides heat, and all the
hydrogen provides a low molecular weight exhaust.
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  Close /   wrong number
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  wrong number
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:27:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I gave (33)-93653826 as the fax number for Martin Fleischmann. He has asked
 
that this number not be used as it is a local office and not the direct
number which is 93958225.
I agree with Dick Forman's conclusion that there is little point and am
amused that he took my post seriously. Or maybe you caught me out Dick
by having me take your seriously:-)
 
Dont be too upset Tom. Your ongoing description of an experiment in real time
 
may turn out to be most useful to people like Bruce Lewenstein; such "unedited"
records are rare. Perhaps too the new students reading this net can also
learn from this: that real science, as all activities, are 99 percent
 perspirati1 percent inspiration and of the 99 percent, 98 percent is moving
 sideways
 
bacwards, anyways but where you thought you were trying to get to. Then after
 
the problem is solved we write it up in a smooth form as if it the experiment
 wawas a logical series of executed steps, each neatly fitting like jigsaw
 pieces
 
into what preceded and followed. In reality it is not like that but we manage
to hide the dross away and publish the nuggets. Every professional researcher
 
has experienced the frustrations that Tom has advertised in public. We also
know that getting things right is a painful business, sometimes very much
so.
 
Having obtained what appeared to be definitive results, it can be a temptation
(unconscious) to overlook the negative signals and reinterpret the
data to fit in with ones increasingly strong beliefs that "this is it".
For Tom, at this stage, to have identified a possibly serious problem
and not to have fudged it shows high integrity. This may read as if patronising
but it is not intended to be. It was intended to offer support; I would
probably ont have had the courage to display all the warts of my own
research as openly but I recognise the "down" that Tom has expressed
so clearly. I also guess that Tom's methodology may have much to teach
about the more general question of this calorimetry. If someday Tom
comes out with a clear positive result, his track record will demand
that one take it seriously. In the meantime, Tom, there is much support
for your work so keep at it.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Cold Fusion Oxymoron
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Oxymoron
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:39:00 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1687E108FF.M21742@mwvm.mitre.org>, by M21742@mwvm.mitre.org:
> In article <199210060843.AA25411@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
 
>It's a pity that their lawyers have not told them the meaning of the
>Atomic Ene rgy Act of 1947.  When I got my patent on isotope
>separation, I learned that one.  Oh well, maybe they have different
>laws in France.
 
US Citizens are subject to US law. But, I don't know about this one,
any one want to fill us in?
 
                                Bob P.
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / John Logajan /  Coming soon: PostScripted drawing of the Droege Calorimeter
     
Originally-From: logajan@LOCALHOST.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coming soon: PostScripted drawing of the Droege Calorimeter
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:56:06 GMT

Tom Droege's FAXed calorimetery paper made it here before the copy Chuck
Harrison is sending via tire-net. So in about 5-6 hours from now (1:50pm
CDT current time) I will post the PostScript command language file.
 
It'll be about 32k bytes, about 1800 lines.  When printed it will be three
pages long, containing a layered view of the caliormeter with terse
explanations of various functions.  The drawing is "schematic" in nature
and does not attempt to show dimensions or nuts and bolts accurately.
 
There is no picture of all three layer groups combined together, but
I believe people of average skills should be able to visualize the
three as one -- there are some visual "clues" to aid in this task.
 
To view it, you will either have to find a PostScript printer or
find a PostScript viewer.  I believe many print shops will produce
PostScripted data (delivered to them on floppy, of course) for you
for a slight charge.
 
P.S.  Don't bother with any complaints about wasting net bandwidth,
you'll just be teasing my anarchical nature :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  /  Studying Calibration Problems
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Studying Calibration Problems
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:51:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to all of you for the expressions of sympathy.  I did actually not get
drunk as previous experience has taught me that that is not a good solution.
I did pet the cat a lot.
 
Don Beal has suggested that diffusing D/H from the cell might be getting to
the Bismuth Telluride thermoelectric devices (TED) and causing a change in
their refrigeration coefficient.  I at first said that I did not think so as
they were behind about 1/2" of aluminum and a lot of epoxy.  I have since
studied the design of the calorimeter and found that if there is excess
hydrogen produced inside the dewar (remember it has to diffuse through a mm of
polycarbonate cell wall to get there) that its path to the outside not only
takes it by the TED but *through* them.  (A TED looks like a lot of little
pillars of crystalline stuff supported between two ceramic plates.  There is
lots of open space between the pillars.)  If I had wanted to expose the TED to
gas diffusing out of the cell, I could not have done a better job.
 
But I still think this is straw grasping.  It is hard to imagine that the D/H
will hang around long enough to diffuse into the Bismuth Telluride unless it
somehow really wants to do so.  How about it out there, does any one know if
Bismuth Telluride would want to absorb H/D?  What is a good Hydrogen barrier?
i.e. Gold Plating?  Nickel Plating?  Palladium Plating (Ha!)?  We could do any
of these.  What plastics are good Hydrogen barriers?
 
By the way, the cell (polycarobonate) developed a crack well above the
electrolyte line and in the vicinity of the catalyst.  But I know that this
happened near the end of the run between the addition of the Al solution and
the Boric Acid solution.  It looks like a stress crack, and may have been
promoted by my running at high current (and thus high catalyst heat) near the
end of the run.  Or it may have been weakened by the hot hydrogen (max 75 C)
environment.  The alternative cell material is polypropylene and I will
probably use that for near future runs.  Since I am planning a next generation
device, I need all the advice I can get at this time.  Likely design to use
teflon cells for the next run.  Teflon tubes do not seem to come in the size
that the present calorimeter is designed to use.
 
To all of you who will say why don't you just expose a TED to hydrogen and
measure its change in efficiency, it is not so easy.  My device is probably
the one thing that could do the experiment.  Remember we are considering the
possibility of a 0.8% change in a month.  From time to time I have thought of
peddling my machine to TED makers as a means of testing their devices.  But it
is not a big industry.  I will probably try to do the experiment.
 
Please remember out there, if I find something wrong with an experiment I
scrap it.  I am taking a conservative position.  But I am allowing you all to
look over my shoulder.  If you act on my preliminary results you do so at your
own risk.  I would have published this result if the ending calibration had
indicated that the calorimeter was drift free.  I have still seen enough
positive looking results to keep working.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:51:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue asks:
1) Waht is the efficiency of the TEC...
2) What ... if that efficiency should change.
 
When 10 watts come out of the dewar, about 15 go into the plate.  When the
15 come out of the plate, about 50 go into the base.  It is a two stage
device.  The reason the first stage is more efficient is that it is operated
at zero temperature differential.
 
We are absolute dependent on this efficiency remaining constant to one part in
10,000.  We have done a lot of tests.  But per the previous note, there is
always the possibility for problems when something new is attempted.
 
Note that the Whetstone bridge has the same problem.  It depends on the
stability of its resistors.  But we have 100 or so years experience learning
how to make resistors stable.
 
We do what we can to encourage stable operation of the critical device.  It is
operated at constant temperature.  It is operated with zero temperature
differential between the two faces.  It is operated at constant current.  It is
operated at about 12% of it's rated current.
 
So we do what we can to produce a stable heat flow.  But there is always the
possibility that we are not doing enough.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / John Logajan /  Verified "soundness" of PostScript posting
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Verified "soundness" of PostScript posting
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:23:50 GMT

I retrieved the PostScript file from a remote news site, and printed it
again to see if all was well -- it worked, though the line count was 1906
rather than 1907, but the byte count remained at 34922.  No problemo.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  jbatka@desire. /  The value of failed experiments
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The value of failed experiments
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:26:07 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

I am mostly one of the silent majority of this group that only read the
group but I thought this might be inspirational or at least informative
to the scientists here.
 
As an engineer, I've been asked annually to be a science fair judge at
the local public school systems at all levels (3-12).  When judging we
have been repeatedly given instructions to grade 'experiments' higher
then 'research projects'.  When talking to the students, frequently
they will hide any data from us that is contrary to what they decided
was the correct answer.  That is they are conducting an experiment
with a set answer in mind.  If the experimental results are not what
they expected, they will redo the experment, doctor the results, or
flat-out forge data and lie to the judges and their teachers.
 
Almost none of the students are aware that even experiments that are
negative or have surprise results are still valid/good/important
experiments.  I don't know whether this is a fault of the American
school system or a fault of Americans in general.  Anyway, I think
that Tom's results must be taken in stride and the experiment must
go on.  I too think that this is a very important contribution to the
scientific community (plus how am I going to know when to start buting
Palladium [Titanium, Nickel, or whatever] :) ).
 
Just the ramblings of an interested observer,
 
 
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...         | Beatles:
              |    and a minute is a LONG time!            |   Yellow Submarine
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjbatka cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 /  /  A Reply to Frank Close
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Reply to Frank Close
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:59:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger has forwarded a very flattering note written about my work by
Frank Close.  I will get it in a day or two as a FD.  I seem to have stumbled
on a sure fire way to be loved by all.  Work hard to discover cold fusion but
keep finding nothing.  The true believers love me for trying, while the
skeptics love me for publishing null results.
 
When my brother an I started this work, it was with our eyes open.  We had
some correspondence that indicated that one of the well known players was
either a con-artist, or at least an associate of a con-artist.  So we were
well aware that there might be nothing to find.  I wanted to make sure that at
least something came of the work.  So while I had enough background to build
devices to measure any of the nuclear particles, I chose instead to try to
measure heat.  I consciously did not look at how heat was measured but set out
to think up my own way.  The idea was that if "cold fusion" did not work out,
I at least had a chance at developing a new instrument.
 
I very much appreciate Frank's comments about how science is really done. I
quote from the introduction to our ACCF1 paper:
 
"We believe that it is often very helpful to
hear of other's mistakes and disasters.  We
report a few of ours here.  We believe that
the dry impartial style of technical papers
prevents young people from discovering the
joy of research.  We consciously allow our
excitement to show while attempting to
report objectively."
 
Somehow scientists have decided that good science has to be boring.  It has
never been boring to the participants, as we all know.  But is is sure dull to
watch.  I once went to an APS meeting with a physicist friend.  I think it
was the parity violation meeting.  In any case when we came out of the session
my friend said "Wow, this completely changes physics".  I did not even know
that I had witnessed a momentous discovery.  The speaker did not say anything
special, nor did the audience gasp when the view graphs went up.  I don't
think science started out this way.  Somehow we got on the wrong track.  There
used to be fist fights in the British Museum.
 
Consider what a high school student sees of life.  He sees good old Neon Deon
flying madly between sports events - and he strikes out - twice!  He then
reads in his physics book how such and such experiment was done.  Always a
perfect logical sequence of events.  He knows he is human, and could not
possibly do anything so perfect.  So he adopts Neon Deon as his role model and
practices baseball and football with enough effort to win a Nobel prize.  But
the competition is so fierce that he never makes a pro team.  So our nation is
on a downward spiral because we are putting our efforts into non-productive
goals.
 
I have known all along that I was playing a long shot.  But a little effort
can convert a long shot into a productive effort even if the primary goal is
lost.  As I have posted, there is already a spin off that is very PC that has
come about because of the calorimetry work.  Here is my plan:
 
a) Discover "anomalous heat" by extending the accuracy of calorimetry.
b) Use this work to develop e-mail collaboration for experimentation.
c) Use this work to expose to the common man how science is really done.
 
I started with only a.  Later as I started using this medium it seemed that I
should publicly declare b).  Frank now reminds me that I believe very strongly
in c).
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Studying Calibration Problems
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Studying Calibration Problems
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:00:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE () says:
>I did pet the cat a lot.
 
But does he know he is a neutron density monitor? :-)
 
>If you act on my preliminary results you do so at your own risk.
 
Cost me about $100 in chemicals the last time you had a preliminary
verfication of Mills. :-)  Between the time I sent for the nickel
plating stuff and the time I received it, you'd already gone null.
Kinda took the fun out of waiting for mail-order packages. :-)
 
I've decided being a theorist is cheaper. :-)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 /   /  RE: Fusion Digest 541
     
Originally-From: "MICHAEL MORRISON" <mmorrison@gmuvax.gmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 541
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:25:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Group:
        I must admit that I have not been keeping up with the postings on the
list because... well there are sooooo many of them and I find that I have
to scan for hours before I find anything I A| understand and B| interests me.
        Is there anyone there who would be kind enough to provide a short
but informative summary of the advances in fusion technology in the past ...
oh.. six months or so.. so that a layman like myself might understand?
        Thanks in advance!
        Michael Morrison
 
P.S. if you would be good enough to send it to my address directly with the
title - Hey Mike - Fusion... or something like that as I get a lot of stuff
and sometimes erase it witout knowing what's inside.... thanks
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmmorrison cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Re: Drop all bombs please
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Drop all bombs please
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:06:26 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <E0599F44FA5F23C046@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
>I came in this morning, specially and only to look at my email - being on
>holidays this week - and there are three spf Digests. I find, however, that
>the cnf content could be compressed into a single one, the rest is all about
>H-bombs. Please, all you bomb crazies, go away, you are cluttering up this
>group. The volume of your verbiage suggests that you could run a special
>news group on that fascinating topic for a long time - so start one. Then we
>can focus once more on non-bomb fusion.
>Thank you in anticipation of a higher S/N level.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can all see the foresight I displayed when I nominated Dieter as the
moderator for sci.energy.nuclear.catalysis
--Dick Forman--
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Cornell archive
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cornell archive
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:12:30 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

Does anyone know if the Cornell archive is available via ftp?
I am currently writing an update on my earlier submission to Science,
for submission to the Journal of Chemical Physics, and would like to do
a comprehensive job of referencing other workers. A friend downloaded
Dieter's archive for me last week. I need the archive in electronic form for
my AT so that I can feed it to Lotus Magellan for analysis.  The thought of wai
ting for my AT to do its thing on the contents of 55 microfloppys is daunting,
but I hope not to have a crash. I'll do it in chunks with backup inbetween.
I really need the archive as I note that I have lost the e-mail address of
Roman Vichinsky's grandson whom I discussed this stuff with on the net in
'89.  Since I no longer remember his name or university and I don't have
any astronomer list, I can't find him. Any help with his name and e-mail
address will also be greatly appreciated. Apparently he doesn't follow
this newsgroup.  I think he recently published a book and it was reviewed
in either Science or Physics Today.  Help!  Thanks.
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 / John Logajan /  Droegestone Bridge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droegestone Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:24:51 GMT

A question for Tom Droege, or anyone else who understands his calorimeter.
 
I can see the details, but not the big picture.  I can see the puck-plate
zero temperature gradient mechanism.  I can see the plate-base TED servo
throttling down during the leading edge of a cell heat impulse.  And I can
see the spool heaters backing off from that same heat impulse.  But I
don't see how it all hangs together -- specifically,  I don't understand
the referrence to a Wheatstone bridge arrangement.
 
My understanding of the essential characteristics of a Wheatstone bridge
(which I just acquired a few hours ago after opening a physics book, so
now I am an expert :-) are that:
 
1) Two (not necessarily identical) gradient producers are forced to
operate under identical conditions.
 
2) We can arbitrarily assign one of the gradient producers as the fixed
reference.
 
3) Part of the second gradient producer is variable and part is fixed.
 
4) We can use an uncalibrated (except for zero!) yet highly sensitive
gradient detector as a simple null balance indicator.
 
5) We connect the indicator so that it is between a fixed point on the
first gradient producer and a fixed point on the second gradient producer
(between the fixed and variable parts of the second gradient producer.)
 
If we know the ratio of the gradients at the tapped point on the first
gradient producer, and if we adjust the second variable gradient producer
until the indicator shows no difference in gradients between the two
tapped points, then we now also know the ratio of the second gradient
producer -- it is identical to the first's.
 
And if we know the value of the fixed part of the second gradient
producer, we now also know the value of the variable part.
 
                        +
                        |
                 ----------------
                 |              |           At null, R1/R2 = R3/R4
               ------         ------
               | R1 |         | R3 |            and  R2 = R1/(R3/R4)
               ------   /\    ------
                 |     /  \     |
  Tap point 1 -> |----< M  >----| <-Tap point 2
                 |     \  /     |
               ------   \/    ------
   Variable -> | R2 |         | R4 |
               ------         ------
                 |              |
                 ----------------
                        |
                        -
 
So, how is the Droege Zero Gradient Calorimeter like a Wheatstone bridge?
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 / MIKE JAMISON /  Re: Lawson criteria
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lawson criteria
Date: 15 Oct 1992 09:06 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

John McCauly (sp?) laments about the amount of paperwork generated in the
definition/design of fusion research reactors.  Well, John, if you gathered
all the paperwork generated by Space Station Freedom's design and *refined*
it get all the trace radioactive contaminants, you could run a small town
for years from the fissionable materials.
 
The other 99.999999999% could be used to power the rest of the world's
converted coal fired plants for another century or so (this must be where
they get the "there'll be a shortage in another [fill in your favorite
number] of years").
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Detection and Born Violations
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Detection and Born Violations
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:15:07 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

Hi again,
 
(BTW - Apologies for the inadvertant resend of that last large posting.
I got bitten by a subtle "feature" of the vi editor when trying to send
this one.)
 
Might as well finish a closing point that I forgot to make:
 
In Article 3080 of sci.physics.fusion
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven E. Jones) said::
 
> But if an idea or field cannot be falsified by any experiments [e.g.,
> Dr. Jones idea of looking for X-rays], then this is not good science.
> It is metaphysics.
 
If the Twist idea works at all, the specific example of creating a
two-node wavefunction for a deuterium atom should produce gammas,
X-rays, possibly a few neutrons, and who knows what else.  The specific
assumption is that whatever mass you have at each node is what you have
available for "evaporation" from that point.
 
You don't have to strain you're brain too hard for the genesis of that
heuristic.  The idea is simply that chopping up the wavefunction into
discontinuous parts is tantamount to chopping up the atom into the
same number of discontinuous parts.  Standard global symmetries and
relativistic physics would then get to rearrange whatever is left over
into some plausible set of particles.  I guess I could quantify all
of that with a bunch of equations, but honestly, why bother?  All I'd
be doing is dressing up a very simple (but very unusual) Born Violation
hypothesis in a lot of equations that just restate well-known issues
from relativistic quantum mechanics.  If this violation exists at all,
the bottom line from relativistic QM is that you should be able to get
just about *any* type of particle whose mass is less than that of the
disjoint wavefunction node from which it was formed, with a probability
distribution not terribly different from those of high-energy head-on
collisions typical of high-energy particle physics.
 
How's that for predictability/detectability?  A motely profile of *very*
detectable particles whose spectrum depends directly on how large you
manage to make the discontinuous wavefunction nodes?  With the latter
being directly controlled by solid-state mechanisms?  It may be totally
and unbelievably *wrong*, but I think it can safely be said to not be
overly "metaphysical"...  :)
 
The TMC described in Twist focuses mainly on a different configuration
in which you have a very, very large number of nodes distributed through
an entire crystal structure.  Experimentally I'd judge the latter case
to be a lot more plausible to form "accidentally," and thus was more
relevant to the palladium excess heat discussion.  But if it works at
all, it's very difficult to see an easy way for that very-many-nodes
configuration to produce any significant nuclear products except perhaps
very low energy neutrinos.
 
(Actually, I guess I should be plugging that as a positive point.  Pd
heat anomolies certainly are supposed to be clean, aren't they?)
 
But if it's detectable verification of such strangeness that you are
interested in, go for the minimal-node cases.  If Born vilolations
exist at all, they'll be much easier (and much more interesting) to
detect by constructing minimal-node disjoint atomic wavefunctions.
 
....
 
I'll try to get together some of my references on band solitions and
their curious effects on electrons, and post them sometime in the near
future.  I'd suggest a literature search on polyacetelyne (kinks and
solitons in particular) if you're in a hurry or just curious.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Various responses + Twist of Ribbon physics
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various responses + Twist of Ribbon physics
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:03:18 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <1992Oct13.195644.24273@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com
 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>Well, our system types finally got "rn" back up.  Never knew how dependent
>I'd become on this excellent little program by Larry Wall until I had to
>do without it for a week.
>
>(Larry: We're all waiting for you to write an "aspect_rn" program to provide
>instantaneous non-information-carrying Bell Inequality correlations between
>readers of sci.physics.fusion at multiple sites.  What's your planned
>release date??)
>
>This one is long, so I've included headers for quick visual scanning.
>I've also taken the trouble to actually defend "Twist" a bit.
>
>
>CHUCK SITES AND HYDROGEN BANDING
>
>Some comments and questions I've accumulated since "rn" went out on us:
>
>In <1992Oct6.072726.110@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) says:
>
>> ... T. Bollinger and I proposed (serendipitously) that D with some
>> metals could form band structures similar to electron band states found
>> in solid state systems. Heavy particle banding (HPB) is what we are
>> calling it...
>
>As he mentions, Chuck Sites came up with the heavy-particle banding idea
>on his own (and took it in a somewhat different direction, I believe).
>
>My mouth dropped six inches when he put that idea on the net, because it
>had taken me a couple of months of digging at the Library of Congress to
>eventually come up with the same idea, and even then it was via a very
>indirect route of a chemical-to-nuclear domain communication argument.
>
>Bravo to Chuck for using some great "farfetching" to hit on an idea that
>was subsequently verified to to be real, at least for surface phenomena,
>in transition metal lattices (March something 1992 of Nature).
>
>
>TERRY GETS AN ADVOCATE
>
>In <WEBB+.92Oct7152352@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> and
><WEBB+.92Oct9095837@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU> webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) says:
>
>> And anyway, I advocate Bollinger's total mass conversion theory (or
>> farfetch if you prefer), and if that theory is correct, all your
>> measurements wouldn't show anything, just some heat coming out.
>...
>> [Dr. Steve Jones], I'll send you a copy of Bollinger's "A Twist of
>> Ribbon" under separate cover.  I don't know if there's anything to
>> this idea, not being a physicist; but I like its elegance.
>
>Wow.  The support is appreciated, Jon, but I have to be adamant that Twist
>does NOT qualify as a physics theory.  Physics theories are mathematically
>quantified.  Twist is not.  (Yes, much of it can be and perhaps should be,
>but there is very little quantification in "A Twist of Ribbon.")
>
>
>DR. JONES VOTES "X-RAYS ARE A MUST"
>
>In <1992Oct8.120533.159@physc1.byu.edu>
>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven E. Jones) says:
>
>> Jon Webb suggests that Bollinger's total mass conversion idea would make
>> measurements of nuclear particles impossible in a recent posting.  Please
>> explain how in such a model heat could be produced in a cell without
>> producing secondary x-rays.
>>
>> I am serious about this.  I want to know why looking for secondary x-rays
>> could not be a crucial experiment to determine whether the "excess heat"
>> is nuclear or not.
>
>Hmm.  Well, if it works at all, my own TMC idea is highly unlikely to make
>X-rays.  I know of no clear-cut way to quantify what it *would* produce, but
>I doubt you'd get much higher than UV distributed throughout the matrix.
>
>
>IN DEFENSE OF TWIST: LOOKING FOR "BORN VIOLATIONS"
>
>I probably need to explain something: if Twist works at all, it requires
>a *major* violation of the usual interpretation of the wavefunction as
>defining the probability distribution for where to find the particle.
>This (Born) interpretation of Schroedinger's original wave equation has
>been very successful, and clearly is correct for just about every set of
>circumstances imaginable.  (I happen to be quite fond of the Born inter-
>pretation myself, which is another reason why I'm not overly gonzo about
>calling Twist a theory without very good experimental reasons to do so.)
>
>However, the "Born Violation" implied by Twist would only be invoked for
>certain extrema in the range of possible wavefunctions for a particle,
>extrema that would occur only under a very narrow range of conditions.
>The standard analogy, I guess, would be Newtonian vs. relativistic physics.
>Newtonian works for 99.99% of everyday human-scale phenomena, but begins
>to fall apart when things get too small, too big, too fast, or too heavy.
>
>BAND SOLITONS AND WAVEFUNCTION EXTREMA
>
>Band solitons are capable of doing some distinctly strange and unusual
>things to wavefunctions, and represent about a good of a class of wave-
>function extrema as I'm aware of.  Plus they're not as well explored as
>you might expect, since the phenomenon is notoriously difficult to model
>mathematically (the density of states goes to infinity, making things
>a tad messy).
>
>Let me give a specific example.  Depending on whose interpretation
>you accept, it appears that band solitons are capable of splitting a
>particle wavefunction into two distinct and separate "nodes" that may be
>separated by distances of many centimeters or more.  As R. Feynman notes
>in Physics Lectures Volume III, there is nothing in QM that requires a
>wavefunction to be contiguous.  Non-contiguous forms can be constructed
>just as readily as contiguous forms, but are seldom used because there
>are very few problems that require them.
>
>Well, band solitons appear to be one of those problems.  It's important
>to note that the "splitting" of a particle wavefunction by band solitons
>is not at all like the ephemeral splitting seen in electron two-slit
>(self-interference) experiments.  It's a real, measurable splitting in
>which each of the locations can have *fractional* quantum numbers.  If
>I take Larry Wall's Aspect aspect question seriously (?), the answer is
>quite simply "No, it doesn't apply.  Both ends of a wavefunction split
>by solitons are real and can be observed locally as if they were real
>particles (called quasiparticles)."
>
>For example, if you split an electron with polyacetylene band solitons,
>you get two quite real charge centers, each with a charge of 1/2 e.
>This is a really strange effect, and requires a rather precise setup to
>achieve it.  But once you have it, the resulting charges can be seen
>and measured.  (Incidentally, the 1/2 charges are not directly observed
>in the case of polyacetylene due to spin degeneracy.  Visible fractional
>charges have been observered in other similar systems, however.)
>
>LOOKING FOR BORN VIOLATIONS IN DISCONTINUOUS WAVEFUNCTIONS
>
>Now here's a little question for you.  A discontinuous wavefunction that
>"splits" a particle into two widely (possibly very widely) separated
>regions of space and allows them to persist there as real, measurable
>quasiparticles is clearly a doggone good candidate if you are looking
>for wavefunction extrema.  If it is postulated ("farfetched") that such
>a wavefunction configuration would be a good place to look for Born
>Violations, how might one go about looking for them?
>
>Polyacetylene and other electron band-soliton compounds would clearly
>be one such starting place, and in fact I would argue that there are a
>few isolated indications that the physics of electrons in the presence
>of band solitons are not fully understood.  That is a far cry from
>having to invoke a Born Violation to explain such anomalies, but on
>the other hand it's also a nice place to start looking.  Examples?
>Well, the high-temperature superconductors remain basically unexplained,
>despite the incredible amounts of experimental and theoretical attention
>that has been applied to them.  They are also electron band media for
>which I'm pretty sure that quasiparticles such as solitons have been
>proposed from time.  Farfetching the idea that some sort of Born
>Violation could be involved in such intractable solid state phenomena
>could be a most interesting line of pursuit for someone willing to
>postulate that some unknown physics are involved in such superconductors.
>
>On the other hand, electrons are simple particles -- there is nothing
>they can decay into without violating the major global symmetries of
>space itself.  That is, spin, charge, and mass must all be preserved
>in any low-energy event involving electrons, and the only way that can
>happen is for the electron to remain, well, an electron.  This places
>some significant limitation on the nature of any postulated Born
>Violation, because it means that *even if the violation was of a very
>drastic nature*, it would probably show up in electron band systems
>only as a some set of rather odd, hard-to-explain correlations in the
>way the affected electrons behave.
>
>LOOKING FOR BORN VIOLATIONS USING "NON-BASEMENT" PARTICLES
>
>Thus is would be nice if a real experiment in which a more complex
>particle could be "split" by something like a band soliton, *just in
>case* the postulated Born Violation involved more than simple particle
>correlations.
>
>Candidates for an extended Born Violation search?  Very few.  The
>particle must be a fermion, and it must be capable of significant
>delocalization in some form of solid-state matter.  Neutrons would
>be nice, but are generally incompatible with the stability of solid-
>state matter -- they are absorbed too quickly by most isotopes of
>most materials.  Muons are an interesting possibility, but are almost
>certainly too unstable for conceivable experiments.
>
>That pretty much leaves the fermion species of the three hydrogen
>isotopes (H, D, and T) and their ionized forms.  Anything heavier has
>little chance of delocalizing sufficiently.
>
>Fortunately, it turns out that these species are highly soluble in some
>transition metals, and that such TM hydrides show a range of unusual
>chemical and even room-temperature quantum effects that indicate rather
>complex behavior in such media.  Example include palladium, nickel, and
>tantalum hydroxide, all of which require explicit modeling of how H
>isotopes can "tunnel" from site to site.  Tunneling of this sort is
>not synonymous with band behavior, but is very definitely a prerequisite
>for it.  Recent results indicate that such hydrogen banding, as first
>proposed to the best of my knowledge by Chuck Sites and myself on this
>net group, really does occur in some transitions metals.
>
>SO WHY NOT AT LEAST LOOK?
>
>So...  The original postulate or farfetch was that the wavefunction
>configuration extrema made possible by band solitons, such as multi-
>node wavefunctions, would be a good place to look for Born Violations,
>should any such effect exist.  Furthermore, there is some possibility
>that currently unexplained or incompletely explained electron band
>phenomena such as high-temperature superconductivity could at least
>accommodate (or conceivably even depend on) such violations.
>
>Finally, the best media in which to perform a full-fledged experiment
>Born Violation search would probably be in hydrogen or deuterium that
>has been delocalized to form a (preferably full) band in some highly
>permeable transition metal or transition metal hydride.  Palladium
>deuteride would be a very good starting point, since palladium has
>the highest permeability and deuterium should form a neutral atomic
>fermion species within it.
>
>One highly specific (put probably hard to implement) route for trying
>to verify the Born interpretation for one class of wavefunction extrema
>would be to arrange the atomic equivalent splitting an electron wave-
>function into two distinct nodes separated by a distance of, say, at
>least a centimeter.  (Other extrema experiments using solitons are
>also possible.)  The behavior of the system would then be compared to
>the standard Born prediction that the wavefunction would still be
>nothing more than definition of the probability function for finding
>the atom in one or the other of the two distinct nodes.  If any sign
>of a Born Violation was found, it would need to be quantified and
>verified experimentally.
>
>THE "TWIST OF RIBBON" BORN VIOLATION POSTULATE
>
>"A Twist of Ribbon" postulates that Born Violations exist in these and
>other related wavefunction extrema (particularly in highly discontinuous
>"multi-node" wavefunctions extrema), and these violations are sufficiently
>severe to lead in what amounts to evaporation of the involved particle
>subject only preservation of the quantum numbers implied by the global
>symmetries of space -- that is, preservation of mass (energy), spin, and
>charge.
>
>
>Other than that, I'm not proposing anything really radical...   :)
>
>                               Cheers,
>                               Terry Bollinger
>
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 /  Close /   Cold Not-Fusion and Not-secret labs.READ/NEWabs
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Cold Not-Fusion and Not-secret labs.READ/NEWabs
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:29:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Several people have asked me about the "secret lab" and the contact numbers.
As Jed and others have often given the impression that a lot is happening in
the FP CN-F experiments, that the Japanese are pouring in resources on a
large scale and we had to take all these claims on trust, I decided to do some
investigation for myself.I traced FP to a technopark (Sofia Antipolis
by Valbonnes in S.France) which was set up a few years ago with public money
to stimulate what was hoped would be a French Silicon Valley. Several of these
parks now exist, the Valbonnes one was the first. It was made financially
attractive for industries to relocate there. One of the many groups with
offices there are IMRA who has an association with Technova, a Tokyo based
speculative research group.
 
Currently they are funding research into many speculative ideas, such as
magnetically levitated transport, domestic refrigerators that are CFC free
(good idea), microscopic devices for medical diagnostics and a host of
other ideas. Their Tokyo HQ are quite helpful if you get the right
introductions. CN-F (or CF, it was not clear to me quite which of these they
believe they are funding) is *not* a big part of their operation; it is one
out of many and the strategy of the company is to hope that one out of
a million ideas pays off. CN-F is regarded as a long shot and not top
of their agenda. The picture of intense Japanese supervision, assessment of
progress, peer review, call it what you will, that Jed Rothwell has
painted on occasions to support his position that "there must be
something important going on or why would the Japs be pouring in these
millions, tens of millions" (the amounts seem to go up and down like the
stock market as Dieter has noticed) is rather far from the actuality.
Apart from making videos of bubbling cells no significant progress has
been made in establishing CF as other than CN-F.
(BTW, MF informs me that a new video of a bubbling cell will be presented
at Nagoya. Move over Madonna; your hype machine has met its match).
 
The fax number that I originally gave was for the president of IMRA;
as he has better things to do than redirect messages to participants in
minority pieces of their overall programme please do not use that number.
 
 
MF pointed out to me that FP have just had a paper published in Nuovo Cimento
105A,763(92)."Concerning the detection of neutrons and gamma-rays ----"
This is the paper that "establishes" the 5-50neutrons per watt (the shortfall
of a thousand billion is like the size of an atom compared to the height of
the Empire State Bldg). Examine figures 3 through 5; they are underwhelming.
Its a pity that FP seem not to have recorded the atmospheric pressure as it
is well known that at Utah altitudes a change of a few mm of mercury in
atmos pressure causes significant fluctuations in the background cosmic
neutron noise,quite comparable with these small molehills that FP choose to
interpret as signal.
 
(When perusing fig 3, the three clear peaks are gamma rays from natural
background; the neutron induced peak is the molehill to the right and its
relative size to the other peaks is typical of cosmic backround. So the
fluctuations in this size do indeed appear to be comparable to those expected
from atmos pressure effects. Bill Johnson (are you there Bill) co-authored a
paper demonstrating this very point and the care necessary in interpreting
low level neutrons. Perhaps Bill can remind us of the reference.
A pity that FP have not absorbed more of Dick Blue and other technical
advice that occasionally appears here when not lost among H-bomb stuff.
 
Can I add my voice to those of Dieter, Tom and others: please post that stuff
elsewhere and leave this net some room for signal. Those of us who have to
travel frequently in connection with our research, return home to find our
computer saturated.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.16 / Greg Shippen /  Re: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
     
Originally-From: gbs@kolob.mti.sgi.com (Greg Shippen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Columbus may have discovered america on Oct 12 but I found nothing!
Date: 16 Oct 1992 01:22:43 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <921013123345.228018c2@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
"|> "This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  13 October 1992
"|> "
"|> "Executive summary:  After end of run calibration it looks like a null
"|> "experiment.
"|> "
 
Tom, if you'll permit this admitted "computer-type" a chance to ask a
clarifying question:
 
If I understand correctly, you are indicating here that the experiment running
since September was flawed.  You have also indicated in the past that you felt
that you had seen anamolous heat for years but had not had confidence in the
data until recently.  Do you continue to believe that you have seen anamolous
heat or are you now calling into question all the data over the past few
years?
 
--
Gregory B. Shippen
Silicon Graphics Inc./MIPS Technology Inc.                      gbs@mti.sgi.com
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. M/S 10L-175
Mountain View, CA  94039 (415) 390-4483
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengbs cudfnGreg cudlnShippen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.17 /  /  The Bridge Explained
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Bridge Explained
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 05:18:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan wants to understand how my device is like a Wheatstone bridge.
He shows the standard picture:
                         Drive
                    _______!_________
                    !               !
                    R1              R3
                    !______M _______!
                    !               !
                    R2              R4
                    !_______________!
                           !
                           Common
 
The big problem in understanding is that it is not a straight electrical
circuit.  There are a number of conversions between electrical power and heat.
Consider how R1 and R2 function as a voltage divider.  This division is not
implemented as a voltage divider but rather as a heat divider.  R1 is the spool
heater.  It puts heat into the spool.  R2 is the puck-plate refirgerator TED.
It takes heat out of the spool.  If the R1 heating rate is larger than the R2
cooling rate the temperature of the spool and puck go up.  If less, then down.
Our meter (M) is the thermometer in the puck.  It is a temperature to voltage
converter.  It's voltage is compared with the R3 - R4 voltage divider, which
is implemented as the DAC which commands the puck temperature.  We could have a
knob and use a meter to read the difference between the command temperature
from the DAC and the puck temperature.  Instead, we have the difference in
the readings drive a power amplifier which controls the spool heater.  Believe
me, this was a tough servo to close as the time constants are very large.
 
As all bridges, we can only do as well as the stability and the adjustability
of the elements.  R3-R4 is a 16 bit DAC easily good to the attempted one part
in 10,000.  R1 is controlled, so we have to be able to measure where it is set
by the servo.  This is a voltage and current measurement problem.  Again we
use a 16 bit ADC.  The shunt is temperature stabilized and the shunt voltage
is amplified by an instrumentation amplifier.  Again we think that one part in
10,000 can be done.  The big question is the R2 refrigerator.  Here we hold
the TED at constant temperature, we hold zero temperature difference between
the two sides, and we operate it at a fraction of it's design current.  It is
driven by a temperature regulated constant current source.  Until recently, we
also thought this good to the one part in 10,000.  Now I am not so sure.
 
"Anomalous Heat" is measured when the R1 balance power does not match
calibration experiments.  We could show this as a mysterious R1' in parallel
with R1 put there by an unseen hand.
 
The picture is confused by the shell servo and the plate base servo.  The only
purpose of these is to prevent loss of heat from the dewar by making
everything visible to the outside of the dewar the same temperature as the
inside of the dewar.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.17 /  /  Some replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some replies
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 05:18:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Kenneth Hardee asks "... How does this relate to bursts/peaks reported ...
add Al and B to the cell ...  Anything interesting occur,...?"
 
The bursts, peaks do not seem to be explained by the possible slow drift. I
do not seem to see similar things since replacing the cell with a resistor.
Also, the noise level has gone down, but this is easy to explain as there is
no longer the catalyst doing things.
 
The present TED's have been in place over a year.  I think I broke the glue
jouint very early in the Mark II history.  No problems since.  I am now two
days into a calibration run after several more blown fuses.  It is quite
stable.  Peak to peak variation of the 50 point mean power measurement is
about 7 mw.  Note there is a diurnal variation in the calorimeter balance
of about this size.  That is why I take readings at the same time each day.
I suppose this is the "hot" sky shining through my house and heating up the
calorimeter.  It is the right sign.  The next version will have another layer
of radiation shielding.  But the balance point is now at 40 mw of anomalous
heat compared to the start of the last run.  Best theory at the moment is that
the power failures cause a permanent calibration point change.
 
The cell seemed to quiet down after the addition of the Aluminum.  If anything
fewer pulses.  Nothing with the B.  But there was a big heat pulse when the
Al was added.  But not so many joules so it was likely chemistry.
 
I looked again at the chemical resistance tables (in the Cole-Parmer catalog)
and decide that polycarbonate was a bad choice.  OK for D2SO4 but the table
shows NN (bad) under various hydroxides.  LiOH was not in the table.  So I will
use polypropylene for the next run, and some form of Teflon for the next
calorimeter.
 
Note that nothing I have measured during calibration runs would explain the
slow drift seen on the last run.  The hydrogen absorption theory of Don Beal
is the best I have for this.  So I will do the experiment by flooding the
dewar with D2 as soon as I have run long enough to get a base line.
 
Note that a lot of what I put up here are impressions - like the cell quieting
down after the Al addition above.  So be aware that there is a differenc
between "seemed" and "is".  The latter requires a series of controlled
experiments and an impartial analysis.  The "seemed"'s are put up here so
others that may have seen similar things can be inspired to do more difinitive
work.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.16 /  Eightball /  Backyard Bombs?
     
Originally-From: eightbal@burrow.cojones.com (Eightball)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Backyard Bombs?
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:45:36 GMT
Organization: The Burrow

Anybody who'd wate their time on such a device obviously is already suicidal,
as the delivery mechanisms are either going to be too hard &/or expensive to
obtain, or will be within the blast radius of anything with enough yield for
terrorist actions. The terrorist threat is pretty inconsequential, as anybody
collecting enough to do the job will be spotted by SOMEONE well before thay
get anywhere near completion. Then, some paranoid first world nation will put
in a surgical strike, and kill them before thay can get it working.  Why fret
over the inconsequential?
 
William F. Hostman
Anchorage AK, USA
 
  ___
 /   \
( (8) ) the Eightball
 \___/
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneightbal cudlnEightball cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.16 /  M21742@mwvm.mi /  Dick Forman comments on Mercury and its uses
     
Originally-From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Forman comments on Mercury and its uses
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:34:49 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <isgksB4w165w@iowegia.uucp>
quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>> the US by several different measures.  And since when was Mendeleev (or
>> Curie or Einstein or Fermi or Nobel or Rutherford or Hahn or Meitner) an
>> AMERICAN name?  Only Bk, Cf, Lr and Am fit that description.
>>
>
>Jim,
>
>        True, Curie, Einstein, Fermi, and Nobel were not native to
>the United states, they were not born here- but they CAME here to
>do their research and to become great.  Just remember as you
>disagree with the things I say- medical professionals of the time
>laughed at Flemming as he was developing Penicillin.  They openly
>called him "stupid" and other demeaning remarks.  They said things
>like " Penicillin is such a weak antiseptic it is not even worth
>persuing".  They put their faith in Mercuric compounds like
>Mercurichrome as the salvation for mankinds war against infection
>and disease.  As you know, Flemming was right- and so am I.....sq
>
>(today we say "how could anyone be so stupid to use Mercury based
>chemicals as anti-infectives in the human body!  Mercury is
>poisonous!  And yet so it was.....)
Dick Forman comments: Yes, mercury is poisonous. Could someone calculate
                      the number of pounds of mercury introduced into landfills
                      through the disposal of mercury, mercury-sodium, or
                      HMI streetlamps being disposed of by crushing the bulb
                      to prevent implosion danger.  The average life of one
                      of these lamps is 4000 hours or about 1/2 year. To
                      continue, the lamp manufacturers now make fluorescent
                      lamps whose life equals incandescent lamps, about 1000
                      hours. Fluorescent lamps contain miniscule amounts of
                      mercury, which produce a low pressure arc that emits
                      primarily at 253.7nm, a resonance line. The phosphor
                      on the inside of the lamp downconverts the near uv light
                      to visible. Good thing fluorescent lamps (the ones that
                      $6.00/each) last a long time.  I guess there must be some
                      unknown process defect in manufacturing the ones that
                      go on sale of $1.00 in the 4' 40W Cool White Shop use
                      variety that limits their life to less than 1000 hours.
 
 
E-MAIL TO: DICK@MITRE.ORG
RICHARD A. (DICK) FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenM21742 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.16 / John Logajan /  Second draft of PostScripted calorimeter drawings
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Second draft of PostScripted calorimeter drawings
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:51:23 GMT

If anyone wants a copy of the PostScript page description language file
containing Tom Droege's calorimeter drawings -- with the inclusion of
the errata mentioned on a follow-up post, send me an e-mail message and
I will send you an e-mail copy.
 
   logajan@network.com
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.16 / J Lewis /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:12:14 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <isgksB4w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>        True, Curie, Einstein, Fermi, and Nobel were not native to
>the United states, they were not born here- but they CAME here to
>do their research and to become great.
 
Pierre and Marie Curie did the research work for which they are known
in France.  I don't think either of them ever visited the U.S.  Nobel
was Swedish and did all of his work on explosives in Sweden; hence the
prizes given in his name are given in Sweden; I don't think that he ever
visited the U.S. but I could be wrong about that.  Einstein had most of
hist career behind him when he came to the U.S.   Fermi was eminent,
and had I think already done the work for which he received his
Nobel prize when he came to the U.S.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.17 / John Logajan /  A non-virtual thermodynamic Wheatstone bridge/calorimeter
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A non-virtual thermodynamic Wheatstone bridge/calorimeter
Date: 17 Oct 92 20:21:51 GMT

A "real" (non-virtual) thermodynamic Wheatstone bridge / calorimeter.
 
                  ----------
                  |  Top   |
                  | Heater |
   |---------------        ----------------|
   |             Copper Slab               |    All access thermally
   |                                       |    insulated except top
   |--|   |-------------------------|   |--|    and bottom sources.
      |   |                         |   |
      |   |                         |   |  <--- Thermal conductors produce
      |R1 |                         |R3 |       temperature gradient.
      |   |                         |   |
      |  xxxx=======------========xxxx  |  <-- "Dueling" thermocouples.
      |   |         \    /          |   |       Imbalance turns on
      |   |          |  |           |   |       "R4" heater.
   |---   ---|       |  |        |---   ---|
   | "Cell"  |       |  ----|\   | Tracking|
   | Unknown |       |      |M>=====Heater |  <-- Measured input power
   |         |       ------ |/   |         |      tracks unknown cell
   |   R2    |                   |   R4    |      power.
   |---   ---|                   |---   ---|
      |   |                         |   |
      |   |                         |   |       Radiation losses track,
   |--|   |-------------------------|   |--|    and are calibrated out.
   |                                       |
   |               Copper Slab             |    Variation in efficiencies
   |----------------        ---------------|    of top heater and bottom
                   | Bottom |                   cooler are unimportant.
                   | Cooler |
                   ----------
 
- Slabs are constant temperature controlled to minimize calibration range.
 
- R4 should have a higher degree of thermal conductivity than R2 to handle
  an endothermic reaction in the cell (tracking heater always running) --
  or, an anti-endothermic heater can be driven in R2 by a reverse sign
  detector at "M".
 
- "Dueling" thermocouple wire connections are symmetrically dissimilar.
  Example: A chromel wire at R1/R2 is the same chromel wire at R3/R4.
           While the alumel wire from R1/R2 and the alumel wire from
           R3/R4 connect to the tin/solder leads of the error amplifier.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.17 / John Logajan /  Wheatstones
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wheatstones
Date: 17 Oct 92 20:29:56 GMT

(repost)
  +------+           +----+     +----+           +----+     +----+
  |      |           |    |     |    |           |    |     |    |
  |   +--+--+        -    |     |    -           -    |     |    -
  -   R1    R3      ---   R1    R3  ---         ---   R1    R3  ---
 ---  +--M--+        -    +--M--+    -      /==> -    +--M--+    - <==\
  -   R2    R4      ---   R2    R4  ---     !   ---   R2    R4  ---   !
 ---  +--+--+        |    |     |    |      !    |    |     |    |    !
  |      |           +----+     +----+      !    +----+     +----+    !
  +------+                                  !=======(Held equal)======!
 
1.) Wheatstone       2.) NOT Wheatstone       3.) Virtual Wheatstone
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.17 / John Logajan /  Wheatstones -- The good, the bad, and the ugly.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wheatstones -- The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Date: 17 Oct 92 17:15:55 GMT

 
  +------+           +----+     +----+           +----+     +----+
  |      |           |    |     |    |           |    |     |    |
  |   +--+--+        -    |     |    -           -    |     |    -
  -   R1    R3      ---   R1    R3  ---         ---   R1    R3  ---
 ---  +--M--+        -    +--M--+    -      /==> -    +--M--+    - <==\
  -   R2    R4      ---   R2    R4  ---     !   ---   R2    R4  ---   !
 ---  +--+--+        |    |     |    |      !    |    |     |    |    !
  |      |           +----+     +----+      !    +----+     +----+    !
  +------+                                  !=======(Held equal)======!
 
1.) Wheatstone       2.) NOT Wheatstone       3.) Virtual Wheatstone
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.18 /  G /     Cold fusion summary requested
     
Originally-From: "Arnold G. Gill" <GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:    Cold fusion summary requested
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 17:33:57 EDT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

     Can anyone provide a short (50 line) summary of where cold fusion is
now and where it is going.  How many researchers still believe it exists?
How many are using it as a way of getting some funding?  Are any positive
results coming in at all?
 
     I thought the whole fiasco was dead, but recently people have been
telling me otherwise.  Please e-mail the response.  Thanks.
 
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                        |   - If I hadn't wanted it heard,      |
|  Queen's University at Kingston     |         I wouldn't have said it.      |
|  InterNet:  gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca  |   - Astrophysician in training        |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenGILLA cudfn cudlnG cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.19 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Cold fusion summary requested
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion summary requested
Date: 19 Oct 92 16:18:25 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

In article <92292.173357GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, "Arnold G. Gill"
 <GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>      Can anyone provide a short (50 line) summary of where cold fusion is
> now and where it is going.  How many researchers still believe it exists?
> How many are using it as a way of getting some funding?  Are any positive
> results coming in at all?
 
I think everyone reading this group would like to know the answers
to these questions including Tom Droege.  (:
 
Sorry about that, but I've been following the group for about 1 year now
and I don't feel qualified to give the answers to any of these questions.
Unless someone else is able and willing to comment, I'd say hang around
for a week or two and read the posts (skip the ones about the A- & H-
bomb though).  You'll get a good overview of several differing opinions.
 
>
>      I thought the whole fiasco was dead, but recently people have been
> telling me otherwise.  Please e-mail the response.  Thanks.
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
It is very    | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
often easier  | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
to get for-   |--------------------------------------------+--------------
giveness then | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...         | Beatles:
permission    |    and a minute is a LONG time!            |   Yellow Submarine
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjbatka cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 /  /  Calorimeter Tests
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimeter Tests
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:55:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  19 October 1992
 
After running with a resistor substituted for the cell for close to four days
at very constant power level (+40 mw +/- 10 mw p-p "anomalous heat" compared
to the start of the last run) we have started venting D2 gas into the dewar.
As pointed out earlier, one of the likely paths out of the calorimeter is
through the "legs" of the TED.  We immediately saw a large power level change
(100 mw).  Because it was not certain that the tubing was free of water, we
blew out the tubing (disturbing the calorimeter from all the air moving
through it) and set the gas to a constant 200 ma of electrolysis (84 cc D2 per
hour).  The calorimeter clearly settled to a new balance point of about 70 mw.
We then increased the current in the D2 generator to 400 ma and ran over
night.  The new balance point increased by only a few mw.  This morning we
turned the gas generator off and will now watch it a few days.
 
It does not seem likely that the heat seen is provided by the gas stream.  I
compute 5.2 E-5 watts/C at 0.044 cc per second gas flow produced by the 400
ma.  Someone please check this.  None of my handbooks give anything in even
close to the right units so the above number is the result of a lot of
manipulation.  Ambient is 2 C above the cell and there is a lot of tubing
between the gas generator and the calorimeter so the electrolyzed gas should
be close to ambient.  I compute (again checks are appreciated) that the gas
would have to be 576 C above the calorimeter temperature to give the 30 mw
change seen.  So I think the balance point change is not due to the heating
effect of the gas.
 
At the moment it looks like the TED are affected by D2 gas.  The present
indication is that the first small amount does most of the damage.  I can see
a life's work just studying this effect.  According to the manufacturers
literature, the TED are "a quaternary alloy of bismuth, tellurium, selenium,
and antimony with small amounts of suitable dopents...".  Possibly D2 is a
dopent.
 
Somehow, I don't mind so much getting "bit" by an effect as obscure as this.
If it were an oscillation or some temperature drift, then I would feel bad, as
I know better.  When you are out in the woods exploring new territory,
sometimes the Indians "get" you.  I will just pull this arrow out of my "back
side" and continue on.
 
Some of you have asked whether this changes my view that I have been seeing
something all along.  I just don't know.  Both models of the calorimeter would
have been subject to this effect if it is true.  There is also a lot of things
seen that a slow drift would not explain.
 
I have started construction of the Mark III calorimeter.  The sensitive TED
will be sealed up, so that it will be very difficult for D2 to get to them.
Then we shall see.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 /  /  D2 and TED
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2 and TED
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:55:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A call to Melcor revealed what I expected.  The industry has probably not
seen a solid state physicist since the last government contract in 1970 or
so.
 
If anyone out there knows if D2 might affect a "quaternary alloy of bismuth,
tellurium, selenium, and antimony with small amounts of suitable dopants",
please tell us.
 
Meanwhile I discover that they are making 12,000 units a day of some of these
devices.  Someone buys a lot of plug in the cigarette lighter refrigerators.
 
Guess I will visit K-Mart and see what I find.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 / John Logajan /  Mark III "noise" cancellation idea
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mark III "noise" cancellation idea
Date: 20 Oct 92 02:53:51 GMT

An idea for the Mark III Droege Calorimeter:
 
As I understand it, you attempt to keep constant current supplied to the
electrolysis operation.
 
Mechanical dynamics of the bubbling cell constantly "jiggle" the electrical
impedance of the cell, causing the constant current source to raise and lower
the applied voltage to maintain a constant current.  This causes a fluctuating
power input on the electrolysis power lines -- causing a heat "noise" in the
cell to be seen by other instrumentation which in turn tends to obscure other
non-input energy effects.
 
Since constant current is probably desirable for several electro-chemical
reasons, and since constant input power is desirable for several thermodynamic
reasons -- I suggest a method to achieve both simultaneously.
 
Simply drive a secondary heater element in inverse proportion to the power
variation being applied to the electrolysis system.  The speed at which such
power balancing can occur should nullify such transients to below the detection
threshold -- by a comfortable factor.
 
It should easily beat an after the fact attempt to substract out the variations
which have been transformed into system heat, and delayed 10's of minutes by
thermal low pass filters, with complicated servo-feedback signatures.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.19 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Atmosphere ignition (was:The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:21:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
 
> ..  Just remember as you
> disagree with the things I say- medical professionals of the time
> laughed at Flemming as he was developing Penicillin.  They openly
> ...
> and disease.  As you know, Flemming was right- and so am I.....sq
 
 
"Fleming was right in believing unpopular theories, therefore I am also right."
 
What is this logical principle called?  I cannot find it in my logic textbook.
And be careful not to disagree with me either!  After all, Fleming was right.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 / COLIN HENDERSON /  Hydrogen Barriers
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrogen Barriers
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 10:59:49 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

 
My supervisor has been doing tests on barriers to stop tritium diffusion and
beta decay electrons into alpha detectors used in muon catalysed fusion
experiments.
 
Tests on Havar (1.6 microns) and Aluminium Oxide (0.3 microns) have been
done. They seem to work fine. Should be better for Hydrogen. The Alox was
better and was deposited on the detectors using electron beam evaporation.
Full details in:
 
W.A. Cilliers and F.D. Brooks, Muon Catalyzed Fusion vol5/6 (1990/91) pp413-
419
 
 
Someone was asking about neutron detection rates.  If you're using an
organic scintillator, with Pulse Shape Discrimination, the maximum rate
without pileup is about 10 kHz, maybe a little more.  I think people are
pushing it up using flash ADCs, but I think the ultimate limit is the decay
time of the light pulse from the scintillator, which is about 200
microseconds.  If you get a burst of neutrons coming quicker than 10 kHz,
you start getting pileup, and pulses from individual neutrons add up to
 one big pulse.  Most neutron detection systems are wired to
reject pileup, though.
 
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold fusion summary requested
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion summary requested
Date: 20 Oct 92 14:19:29 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <92292.173357GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Arnold
 G. Gill) writes:
>
>     Can anyone provide a short (50 line) summary of where cold fusion is
>now and where it is going.  How many researchers still believe it exists?
 
One really has to start with *what* it is!
 
The "classic" FP&H experiment is where electrolysis gives heat and fusion
products.  There appear to be recent examples of experiments where heat
is seen in a reproducible experiment.  There appears to be no evidence
of fusion products in these experiments at a level commensurate with the
amount of heat claimed.  To be fair, it is not clear if any of the truly
sophisticated nuclear measurements have been made on a "working" cell,
so if a cell has been developed that works in a predictable fashion,
those experiments will need to be repeated.
 
The "Jones" experiment is where electrolysis gives fusion products at a
very low (barely detectable with the best equipment) level and no heat.
The original results appear to be in doubt, but some statistically
significant positive results (at an extremely low level) appear to be
reproducible.  These would be interesting from a nuclear/materials science
standpoint, but are not a source of energy.
 
Other experiments, most notably the ones where gas is forced into chips
of Pd using pressure and low temperature, do appear to produce fusion
products but at an energetically uninteresting level.  The results do
not require any new physics.
 
>How many are using it as a way of getting some funding?  Are any positive
>results coming in at all?
 
Funding is available in Japan for one set of electrolysis experiments.
Tom Droege, who kindly reports his data here on the net, appears to be
getting steady positive results in his latest experiment, but one must
withhold judgement until the final calibrations are done.  In both cases,
positive results mean heat.  An enthusiast would view these experiments
as the first step to a power plant, a scientist would view these as the
preliminary steps necessary to do a good set of experiments.
 
>     I thought the whole fiasco was dead, but recently people have been
>telling me otherwise.  Please e-mail the response.  Thanks.
 
There was some revival due to the report of a new method from down in
Orlando.  Those results have not been reproduced, and we have not heard
from them in some time.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 / Martin Lewitt /  Business Week, October 26 issue
     
Originally-From: melewitt@cs.sandia.gov (Martin E. Lewitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Business Week, October 26 issue
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 15:55:07 GMT
Organization: nCUBE, Sandia Park, NM

On page 88 in the Science & Technology section of this week's Business
Week (October 26th) is an article entitled:
 
"Power in a Jar: the Debate Heats Up"
 
It discusses the upcoming Third International Conference on Cold Fusion
and Mills, Bush and Eagleton's results and theories in particular, and
has comments from and an inset about Pons & Fleishmann.
 
Tom is not mentioned.  (Just in case that would be the only reason y'all
would look it up.)
--
Phone:  (505) 845-7561           Martin E. Lewitt             My opinions are
Domain: lewitt@ncube.COM         P.O. Box 513                 my own, not my
Sandia: melewitt@cs.sandia.GOV   Sandia Park, NM 87047-0513   employer's.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmelewitt cudfnMartin cudlnLewitt cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 / A Palfreyman /  Re: Cold fusion summary requested
     
Originally-From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion summary requested
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 12:35:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Wall Street Journal
article published 10-19-92. They quote repeatable excess heat
from the following:
 
1. Randall Mills at Thermacore Inc., Lancaster:
   18W in, 68W out, continuous since March, or 770MJ accumulated.
   Light water cells.
 
2. V.C. Noninski at Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster:
   "Excess power" from Mills-type device. Light water cells.
 
3. Robert T. Bush & Robert Eagleton at Cal Poly, Pomona:
   0.9W in, 1.8W average excess for 108 days. Light water cells.
   16 cells built, "almost all produced excess heat".
 
4. Mahadeva Srinivasan at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, near Bombay:
   Light water cells. "All but one of 25 cells have produced excess heat".
   Significant tritium levels reported.
 
5. Reiko Notoya at the Catalysis Research Centre, Hokkaido University:
   Excess heat "three to four times input power".
 
The Indian and Japanese results will be aired at the Nagoya Conference
next week.
 
Comments, anyone?
 
Andrew Palfreyman
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlordSnooty cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 / Jeffrey Klein /   Fulton's Principle
     
Originally-From: klein@frith.egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Klein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Fulton's Principle
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 19:34:14 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University College of Stunt Piloting

In article <7600010@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
 Rauchfuss) writes:
>In sci.physics.fusion, quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>
>> ..  Just remember as you
>> disagree with the things I say- medical professionals of the time
>> laughed at Flemming as he was developing Penicillin.  They openly
>> ...
>> and disease.  As you know, Flemming was right- and so am I.....sq
>
>
>"Fleming was right in believing unpopular theories, therefore I am also right."
>
>What is this logical principle called?  I cannot find it in my logic textbook.
>And be careful not to disagree with me either!  After all, Fleming was right.
 
I've usually heard of it as Fulton's Principle, after Ben Fulton,
creator of the steamboat.
 
It's usually stated as:
  "They laughed at Fulton - Fulton was right -
   They laugh at me - therefore, *I* am right!"
 
Anyone know who came up with this?
 
--
Jeff Klein             | "Happily, Ral doffs his outer clothing for a
Browsing Boy of the LNH|  refreshing dip in one of the dangerous
klein@frith.egr.msu.edu|  chemical vats." - Ty Templeton
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenklein cudfnJeffrey cudlnKlein cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  /  A Hot Challenge
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Hot Challenge
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:01:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan is in a snit because my device is not an exact Wheatstone bridge.
Good for you John, it is the challenging of concepts that produces advances in
science.  In my defense I said "like a Wheatstone" bridge in the last post on
this subject, and "null balance calorimeter" in the proceedings paper.
 
John is concerned that my equivalent circuit uses in effect two batteries
while Wheatstone used one.  When Wheatstone was working, batteries were not
very good.  So the beauty of his solution is that it was quite insensitive to
battery voltage.  (But it is sensitive to it, as anyone who builds high
voltage dividers quickly finds out.  Resistors have a voltage coefficient, and
the Wheatstone bridge assumes that it is zero, except under very special
circumstances.)
 
These days it is pretty easy to make two tracking power supplies.  So I at
least claim that it is a bridge of John's type 3.  But even then I have to
stretch the concept to make that claim.
 
But let me explain the difficulty.  Take John's Type 1 (the real Wheatstone)
bridge and add a bunch of R of all different values connected from various
points on the bridge to various drifting batteries connected up in all
possible ways.  Give the R's values that are only an order of magnitude or so
away from the values to be measured.  That is the problem one has in measuring
heat.  While in electronics there are 30 or so orders of magnitude between the
best electrical resistor and the best conductor, in heat we have only about
four.
 
John, the problem with your "real bridge" is that it would not be very
practical to build unless you can find a way to balance all the heat leaks.  I
have a better way to do your differential thermocouple, it is the "DD" sent to
Jed and Gene.  It makes use of the fact that a thermoelectric cooler is
hundreds of "dueling" thermocouples connected electrically in series but in
thermal parallel.  Each of these produces a factor of three or so more voltage
than the typical thermocouple.  It is also a very low noise device.
 
I encourage John to try to build a better device.  In fact, I would like to
encourage everyone to try to build a better heat measurement instrument.  I
hereby offer a prize of $1000 and a massive silver trophy (at least on kg)
which I will commission (silver being by far the best practical {but soon
diamond} thermal material - lower specific heat than copper) to anyone who can
make a more accurate heat measurement than I can.  Rules: The device must be
capable of at least a 100 cc experiment, and have a continuous capacity of at
least 10 watts at room temperature.  While cryogenics may be used for heat
shielding, etc., the main experiment must run at room temperature - 20 C.  The
offer is contingent on a mainland US university agreeing to sponsor the
competition.  Additional rules will be worked out between myself and the
sponsoring university.  I would like 6 months notice if anyone is going to
take me up on this so I can find an artist to make the trophy.  Something like
"Prometheus Stealing Fire".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  /  Crud
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crud
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:02:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

No thanks to anyone out there, but I have a first pass on the "yellow crud".
 
It is a platinum salt.  No details yet on the composition.  But second hand
over the phone it sounded like just Pt, O, and D.  I feel bad now about
calling it crud.  No lithium in it I was told.  Since there was about a cc
of the crud, it is hard to imagine how it is put together since there is not
nearly that much Pd in the cell, and the Pd anode did not look worn away.
 
Has anyone seen a P&F cell that has run a long time.  Since they apparently
just add electrolyte they should make crud too???  That should be "nearly that
much Pt in the cell ... Pt andode did..."
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  Britz /  RE: Mark III "noise" cancellation idea
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Mark III "noise" cancellation idea
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 16:41:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan) writes:
 
>An idea for the Mark III Droege Calorimeter:
>As I understand it, you attempt to keep constant current supplied to the
>electrolysis operation.
>Mechanical dynamics of the bubbling cell constantly "jiggle" the electrical
>impedance of the cell, causing the constant current source to raise and lower
>the applied voltage to maintain a constant current.  This causes a fluctuating
>power input on the electrolysis power lines -- causing a heat "noise" in the
>cell to be seen by other instrumentation which in turn tends to obscure other
>non-input energy effects.
 
>Simply drive a secondary heater element in inverse proportion to the power
>variation being applied to the electrolysis system.  The speed at which such
>power balancing can occur should nullify such transients to below the detection
>threshold -- by a comfortable factor.
>It should easily beat an after the fact attempt to substract out the variations
>which have been transformed into system heat, and delayed 10's of minutes by
>thermal low pass filters, with complicated servo-feedback signatures.
 
Here we go again, we have been here before. It is true that the bubbles cause
transients in the electrode impedance, i.e. you will get changes in electrode
potential at constant imposed current, and thus changes in total cell voltage.
These fluctuations are on the same time scale as the bubble lifetimes, quite
short compared with the experiment's observation time. Provided that Nyquist's
criterion is adhered to when sampling the cell voltage, i.e. that this voltage
is properly filtered before sampling, these fluctuations will not matter. The
mean power over a period long compared with the fluctuations' (mean) period is
equal to the time integral of current * cell voltage; provided that none of
these two crosses zero (which can't happen), if the current remains fixed,
then that integral is also equal to current * mean cell voltage, no problem. I
wouldn't introduce a power correction circuit, with its probable traps. I do
believe, though, that someone (Todd?) is using controlled power, i.e. not a
correction of a measured error but the power controlled in the first place. I
still wouldn't do it.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 753 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 753 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 16:44:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dorogye druzya,
 you can see I've spent some of my holidays reading this batch of papers and
doing a translation. We have both sober, and not-so-sober articles. In the
last category might be placed the Matsumoto, and perhaps the Gerlovin et al. I
don't know; itons and the energy of vacuum don't really speak to me. Neither
does Hagelstein's theory, since I don't understand a word of it. Not that I
any longer start automatically trembling at the sight of multiple integrals,
but still - it IS fare for theoreticians only, hoi-poloi please keep out.
Whether this makes it true, is anybody's guess... Well, there is some careful
work here, too. Adachi et al did very careful work and some of you will be
pleased to know that (3)He has now apparently been found, albeit in rather
small quantities. Stephen Jones will rejoice: no (measurable) heat is
expected. Wolf might be thought to be vindicated, by Cedzynska and Will's
finding that there is no tritium in any Pd supplies they have looked at. What
does Wolf say to this? We hear nothing more from him. We have also another
connection between cnf and the highly successful HTSC; Celani et al consider
that these oxides are good stuff for cnf, and seem to see neutrons at the
transition between normal and super-conductivity. I am not convinced by the
rather marginal results. In particular, the fact of a triple neutron event,
which should happen just once every 80 hours, during a 2.4 hour period, seems
to me to prove nothing. I included the Enyo et al as a cnf paper because it
does refer (without a reference) to cnf and was probably motivated by it. It
will interest lithium freaks. Ion implantation, which in fact has been tried a
good number of times, is suggested by Garfinkle. If you sigh at the slightly
outdated chemical explanation of the paper by Rittner et al, look at its date.
Among the above lot, there are several with no references to either FPH or
Jones+, which are normally what a typical cnf paper starts with. Matsumoto is
particularly prominent, with 10 refs, all of them to himself {:]. One might, if
one will, take the lack of these references to the "seminal" papers, as
evidence of maturity of the cnf field - or not.
  The Tsarev and Worledge review of cnf work in what they - writing in mid-
1990! - consistently call the USSR, annoys me somewhat. As I write in the
abstract, they cite 59 papers, but do not resolve 30 of these properly
(remember, I don't regard a conference talk as a proper resolved reference).
What I do not write is that of these, about half were already in my
bibliography at the time the review was being written or in any case given its
final polish. What is more, Worledge asked me for a copy of the bibliography
and received it immediately (he never did acknowledge it though), so I see
little excuse for this.
This paper and especially the Matsumoto one, raise the question of reviewing
on Fusion Technology. This journal, in the "normal" hot fusion section, has
the look of a respectable, refereed journal. But is it? Are the cold fusion
papers reviewed at all, one might ask? If so, why let stuff like this through,
and why did the referee not ask for improvements of the Tsarev and Worledge
paper? I don't know. George Miley, are you reading this?
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Oct-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 753
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adachi G, Sakaguchi H, Nagao K;                J. Alloys Comp. 181 (1992) 469.
"(3)He and (4)He from D2 absorbed in LaNi5".
** One of the branches of the d-d fusion reaction leads to the formation of
(3)He, and this should be possible to detect if allowed to accumulate in a
closed system. Mass spectrometry was used here to do this, from deuterium
absorbed in LaNi5 alloy. The alloy (52.2 g) was carefully degassed at 1123 K
and 1.3E-03 Pa for half a day. 99.5% pure D2 at 7.9E05 Pa pressure was then
admitted and the temperature cycled between 363 and 273 K to ensure
absorption. After this, two experiments were run for 40 days and 28 days,
respectively, cycling the temperature. Samples of the initial gas were also
taken as background. Finally, the alloy was degassed again to obtain absorbed
gases. In the MS measurements, the ratios of (3)He to (4)He, as well as to the
impurity gases Ne, Ar Kr and Xe were measured as checks. Both in these ratios
and the absolute amounts of (3)He found, there was a clear increase in (3)He,
not explicable in terms of contamination from the air. The amount corresponds
to a fusion rate of about 1.3/s, which is roughly equal to 1E-23 fusions/dd-
pair/s.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedzynska K, Will FG;                           Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 156.
"Closed-system analysis of tritium in palladium".
** This describes a method of detecting tritium in Pd and the results of using
it on about 90 samples of Pd, supplied by Hoover and Strong and Johnson-
Mathey. The metal sample is simply dissolved in a destillation flask and the
solution distilled past a catalyst to burn any tritium gas to water. The
distillate is then prepared for scintillation analysis for tritium. Themethod
was standardised, and a sensitivity of about 5E07 tritium atoms was found for
the 5 ml cell, or a ratio of 1:1E13 t/Pd. None of the 90 commercial Pd samples
showed any tritium contamination, in contrast with the claims of prior tritium
contamination by Wolf. Thus, commercial Pd appears to be free of tritium.
                                                                 Jul-91/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celani F, Spallone A, Croce F, Storelli L, Fortunati S, Tului M, Sparvieri N;
Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 181.
"Search for enhancement of neutron emission  from neutron-irradiated,
deuterated, high-temperature superconductors in a very low background
environment".
** The authors consider that copper-oxide-based high temperature
superconducting materials (which absorb hydrogen) should also aid d-d fusion.
Preliminary results were obtained by Jones. These materials have a perovskite
crystal structure, similar to some geological crystals in the Earth's mantle.
A two-(3)He-tube neutron detector and Pb shielding bricks were arranged around
a cell containing variously a calibrating neutron source or a sample of the
material, exposed to D2 gas at 40 and 36 bar. Some thermal cycling was carried
out. Generally there were no deviations from background or blank detections,
but there was one triple neutron event during a superconducting transition;
such a triple event is likely to occur once in about 80 h, whereas all the
thermal cycle runs lasted only 2.4 h. Other significant multiple events were
seen in some other runs, going up to 30 sigmas above background. Thus, HTSC
materials are suitable for cold fusion experiments and nonequilibrium
conditions are favourable.                                       Oct-91/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enyo M, Biswas PC;                       J. Electroanal. Chem. 335 (1992) 309.
"Hydrogen absorption in palladium electrodes in alkaline solutions".
** The entry of hydrogen into palladium has mainly been observed in acid
solution; the cold fusion controversy makes alkaline solutions interesting as
well. Small foil samples of Pd of 5 mu thickness were subjected to galvostatic
transients and the overpotentials monitored against time. From this, it was
concluded that normal Butler-Volmer behaviour is observed at these electrodes
in alkaline media. There was evidence of underpotential deposition of Li,
explaining the disintegration of bulk Pd; this implies that similar deposition
of Na and K is not ruled out. Maximum hydrogen pressure as a result of
overpotential was less than that calculated from the Nernst equation, at up to
about 10000 atm.                                                 May-92/Sep-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garfinkle M;                                    Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 160.
~Ion implantation as a definitive means of investigating any possibility of
intracrystalline nuclear fusion".
** Electrochemical loading of a metal with deuterium has several drawbacks,
among them the large iE heat term in calorimetric experiments, the presence of
oxygen in the solution, and others. Ion implantation is suggested here. It
would make mass spectrometry easier; also, with sufficient ion energies, quite
large penetration depths up to a micrometer or so can be achieved, and
loadings up to 1E19 [sic] ions per cm**3. Also, the beam composition can be
varied, allowing experiments with p, d, t or mixtures of these ions. Thin
metal foils should be used, and reaction products can then be measured
directly.                                                        Jul-91/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerlovin IL, Baranova RKh, Baranov PS;
Zh. Obshch. Khim. 62 (1992) 230 (in Russian).
"New approach to low-temperature nuclear fusion".
** The author here outlines, in a qualitative manner, their explanation of
cold fusion, on the basis of the new unified fundamental field theory,
invoking spin orientation, the energy of vacuum, and the existence of
different kinds of space interacting, as well as magnetic effects. The vaccum
nergy effect might explain long-term properties of cnf results, due to
diurnal and other rhythms that are a result of the Earth's movement with
respect to the vacuum of space. Best results should be achieved at 10 and 11
am, and noon. This preliminary paper will be followed by both more theoretical
and experimental work.                                                Dec-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagelstein PL;                                  Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 172.
"Coherent and semicoherent neutron transfer reactions I: The interaction
Hamiltonian".
** Highly theoretical work, with quintuple discrete and continuous integrals,
taxing this bibliographer's ability to keep up. The interaction Hamiltonian
describing coherent neutron capture and neutron removel from a lattice are
presented, leading to a new nonlinear phonon operator. Increased phonon
coupling relative to Lamb theory predictions is an immediate result. Old work
by Lamb, Moessbauer and Josephson etc is invoked. Under some conditions, gamma
emissions are expected.                                          Nov-91/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 164.
"Observation of gravity decays of multiple-neutron nuclei during cold fusion".
** According to M's nattoh (soya bean) theory of cold fusion involving the new
elementary particle, the iton, cold fusion should leave behind di- and quad-
neutrons; these, as described earlier by M, should suffer gravity decay,
leading to micro-explosions. Nuclear emulsions previously placed in a cold
fusion cell space were examined for evidence of such events. Under the
microscope, many circles, clearly indicating gravity decay, were seen. The
first group of such circles were up to 0.364 mm large; in a second group of
smaller circles, these were always smaller than those of the first group, at
about 22 mu. A third group had circles of intermediate size. There were other
groups. Some of these could be assigned to the decay of di-neutrons, others to
higher-n assemblies. Clearly, many-body fusions of hydrogen atoms at grain
boundaries are responsible, leading to the production of heavy elements such
as Zn, Fe, and even Ru and In. All this might lead to a change in mass, but
this has not been observed, which supports transmutation. There are 10
references, all of them to previous work by the author.          Jul-91/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rittner ES, Meulenberg A Jr;                    J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 377.
"A chemical interpretation of heat generated in 'cold fusion'".
** The authors examined the published results of FPH and conclude that there
was recombination at both electrodes, aided by stirring, especially by the
evolved gas bubbles. This is sufficient to explain the excess heat apparently
observed. Also, Pd fracture fromb built-up internal pressure could release
more heat, due to D-D recombination. Thus, no exotic new physics is required
to explain the results.                                                    ?/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA, Worledge DH;                         Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 138.
"Cold fusion studies in the USSR".
** This sums up cold fusion work in the (former) USSR up to mid-1991, mainly
drawing on the first Soviet National Conferencue on Cold Nuclear Fusion, in
March 1991. There is very modest support for cnf research in the USSR [sic],
at about 0.5 million roubles. Some thorough work has been done, but little on
calorimetry. "Mechanofusion", normally called fractofusion in the West, is
given the prominence it deserves. Ten research institutes in the USSR [sic]
are named as places where cnf research is being done. Of the 59 references
given, 30 are unresolved (unpublished or conferences), although known to
others (e.g. contained in this bibliography).                   Oct-91/Aug-92
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Commentary; file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gough WC;                                      Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 188.
Book review: Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion, by F. Close.
** WC Gough finds this book exciting, as a mystery story, and he keeps up this
metaphor throughout the review. The "murder" is the fact of cold fusion. He
comments on scientists' belief system, and its role in the weakening of the
peer review process. G implies that this has worked against cnf research.
Close is criticised as detective for jumping to conclusions. The true culprit,
i.e. the real explanation of cold fusion, has yet to be found, says Gough.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 / John Logajan /  Why compensate for cell impedance
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why compensate for cell impedance
Date: 21 Oct 92 18:17:44 GMT

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>These fluctuations are on the same time scale as the bubble lifetimes, quite
>short compared with the experiment's observation time.
 
The graph in Droege's draft paper to the Como proceedings (mailed to me by
Chuck Harrison, thanks Chuck!) shows fluctations that are much longer than
bubble lifetimes (graph of applied voltage versus time.)
 
It was this actual empirical data than led me to suggest a nullifying
mechanism -- since the control of such a system is trivial, at least
conceptually.
 
> someone (Todd?) is using controlled power, i.e. not a correction of a
> measured error but the power controlled in the first place.
 
This subjects the electro-chemical system to varying currents, causing
who knows what other variables.  I don't mind tweaking variables, but
they should best be done in a controlled way.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 / John Logajan /  Heated Debate
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heated Debate
Date: 21 Oct 92 18:26:09 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
 
>In my defense I said "like a Wheatstone" bridge
 
In my defense, I meant to imply that your device is more "like a Wheatstone"
bridge than Madonna is "like a virgin."
 
>These days it is pretty easy to make two tracking power supplies.  So I at
>least claim that it is a bridge of John's type 3.
 
The confidence you give type 3 results depends totally on the confidence you
have in the vitural circuit -- and thus it can become a matter of philosophical
distinctions.
 
>add a bunch of R of all different values connected from various
>points on the bridge to various drifting batteries connected up in all
>possible ways.
 
Of all of that, it is only the drifting that scares me.  And this is where my
ignorance of real systems leaves me hanging by my intuitive fingernails --
what sort of drifting are we talking about when it comes to slabs of metal
conducting heat.  I can understand convection eddies in gases and liquids,
but I figured solids such as copper, aluminum, and steel were rather
uneventful transporters.
 
>the problem with your "real bridge" is that it would not be very
>practical to build unless you can find a way to balance all the heat leaks.
 
Unless the leaks are dynamic, then they ought to calibrate out.  No?
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  Henry /       Re: Fusion Digest 545
     
Originally-From: Henry <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 545
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 20:16:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The Fulton non-sequitur is in Gruenberger, "A Measure for Crackpots", SCIENCE,
145 (1964, 25 Sept.) 1413-15.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudfn cudlnHenry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  /  The Little Cube That Could
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Little Cube That Could
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 20:16:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The Little Cube That Could
 
>From time to time, my brother and I speculate on the experiment that P&F claim
blew up the fume hood.  It was supposed to use a 1 cm cube of Palladium as the
cathode.  Consider that there you are in Utah, with no particular amount of
money to order things, but with access to the University of Utah storeroom.
Where would one find a cube of Palladium, or any Palladium for that matter?
 
It is my guess that there exists in freshman physics classes, something like a
"specific gravity" set.  I picture a felt lined box with one cm cubes of Iron,
Aluminum, Silver, Tungsten, Gold, Silver, etc..   Has any one of you ever seen
such a set?  I have not.  In any case, we assume such a thing exists, and then
speculate on the properties of the cubes.  The purpose of such a set would be
to demonstrate specific gravity, and to do be used as color standards for
recognizing the various metals.  I would expect such a set to be perfect
cubes, to be exactly one cm on a side, and to have highly polished faces so
that they would present a uniform color comparison.
 
Given the task of making a production run of one cm cube of Palladium, I would
buy a bar large enough to make the required number.  I would then slice it and
dice it using a fine jeweler's saw.  Such a process would likely result in
less waste than casting individual cubes by the lost wax process.  Remember
the big saw cut corners from the bars would be easy to re-process, while the
waste from casting is more contaminated.  I would make the cubes slightly
oversize, and then would mill them to slightly over size on a milling machine.
I would then grind the faces, and finally polish them.
 
We continue to ask ourselves, what characteristics would such a cube have that
might make it "work".
 
First large bars cool slowly.  This results in a larger crystal structure.  A
cube that happened to be cut from the center of the bar would likely have
even larger crystal structure.  It would also contain a larger percentage of
the impurities.
 
Second, the cube would be quite square.  If some resonance is important, like
a laser wave bouncing back and forth, then the cube would be a good bet.
 
Lastly, such a cube is likely to be highly polished.  We have now had two
successive surface ground cathodes achieve 0.94 loading, more than on any of
our other experiments (where we believe the measurements are reliable).
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 / John Logajan /  Crud
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some missing Droege posts.
Subject: Some replies
Subject: D2 and TED
Subject: Crud
Date: 21 Oct 92 20:34:49 GMT
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 05:18:53 GMT
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:55:26 GMT
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:02:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
These three posts failed to make it to the Usenet side of the Fusion Digest/
Usenet gateway.  They were posted by Tom Droege over the last four days or
so.
 
People getting the Fusion Digest will have seen these messages before.  I
believe most Usenetters have *not* seen them before.
 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some replies
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 05:18:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
 
Kenneth Hardee asks "... How does this relate to bursts/peaks reported ...
add Al and B to the cell ...  Anything interesting occur,...?"
 
The bursts, peaks do not seem to be explained by the possible slow drift. I
do not seem to see similar things since replacing the cell with a resistor.
Also, the noise level has gone down, but this is easy to explain as there is
no longer the catalyst doing things.
 
The present TED's have been in place over a year.  I think I broke the glue
jouint very early in the Mark II history.  No problems since.  I am now two
days into a calibration run after several more blown fuses.  It is quite
stable.  Peak to peak variation of the 50 point mean power measurement is
about 7 mw.  Note there is a diurnal variation in the calorimeter balance
of about this size.  That is why I take readings at the same time each day.
I suppose this is the "hot" sky shining through my house and heating up the
calorimeter.  It is the right sign.  The next version will have another layer
of radiation shielding.  But the balance point is now at 40 mw of anomalous
heat compared to the start of the last run.  Best theory at the moment is that
the power failures cause a permanent calibration point change.
 
The cell seemed to quiet down after the addition of the Aluminum.  If anything
fewer pulses.  Nothing with the B.  But there was a big heat pulse when the
Al was added.  But not so many joules so it was likely chemistry.
 
I looked again at the chemical resistance tables (in the Cole-Parmer catalog)
and decide that polycarbonate was a bad choice.  OK for D2SO4 but the table
shows NN (bad) under various hydroxides.  LiOH was not in the table.  So I will
use polypropylene for the next run, and some form of Teflon for the next
calorimeter.
 
Note that nothing I have measured during calibration runs would explain the
slow drift seen on the last run.  The hydrogen absorption theory of Don Beal
is the best I have for this.  So I will do the experiment by flooding the
dewar with D2 as soon as I have run long enough to get a base line.
 
Note that a lot of what I put up here are impressions - like the cell quieting
down after the Al addition above.  So be aware that there is a differenc
between "seemed" and "is".  The latter requires a series of controlled
experiments and an impartial analysis.  The "seemed"'s are put up here so
others that may have seen similar things can be inspired to do more difinitive
work.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.20 /  /  D2 and TED
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2 and TED
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:55:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A call to Melcor revealed what I expected.  The industry has probably not
seen a solid state physicist since the last government contract in 1970 or
so.
 
If anyone out there knows if D2 might affect a "quaternary alloy of bismuth,
tellurium, selenium, and antimony with small amounts of suitable dopants",
please tell us.
 
Meanwhile I discover that they are making 12,000 units a day of some of these
devices.  Someone buys a lot of plug in the cigarette lighter refrigerators.
 
Guess I will visit K-Mart and see what I find.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 /  /  Crud
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crud
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:02:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

No thanks to anyone out there, but I have a first pass on the "yellow crud".
 
It is a platinum salt.  No details yet on the composition.  But second hand
over the phone it sounded like just Pt, O, and D.  I feel bad now about
calling it crud.  No lithium in it I was told.  Since there was about a cc
of the crud, it is hard to imagine how it is put together since there is not
nearly that much Pd in the cell, and the Pd anode did not look worn away.
 
Has anyone seen a P&F cell that has run a long time.  Since they apparently
just add electrolyte they should make crud too???  That should be "nearly that
much Pt in the cell ... Pt andode did..."
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.21 / David Cortesi /  Re: A Hot Challenge
     
Originally-From: cortesi@informix.com (David Cortesi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Hot Challenge
Date: 21 Oct 92 21:13:48 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

 
At first I thought this was a typo, now I don't know -- and
it affects the meaning.  When you say:
 
> ...  It makes use of the fact that a thermoelectric cooler is
> hundreds of "dueling" thermocouples connected electrically in series but in
              ^^^^^^^^^
> thermal parallel.  Each of these produces a factor of three or so more voltage
> than the typical thermocouple.  It is also a very low noise device.
 
Does this really mean "dueling" as in "participating in a duel; holding a
single combat by prearrangement"?  In other words, contending?
 
Or does it mean "dualing" as in "acting as a pair of equals, being
partners"?  In other words, cooperating?
 
Thanks for the clarification...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencortesi cudfnDavid cudlnCortesi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / John Logajan /  Lost posts
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lost posts
Date: 22 Oct 92 03:01:08 GMT

Posters sending posts directly to the zorch gateway are warned that a pattern
of lost posts has been detected.
 
Posts arriving at zorch within a few seconds of each other allow the first
post to make it both to the Usenet side, and to the Fusion Digests.  But the
second post only makes it into the Fusion Digests and not over to the Usenet
side.
 
Unfortunately, it is hard to control the time of arrival at zorch of multiple
posts, since they are queued many places along the way in a typical e-mail
store and foward system.
 
I have not been able to determine if only multiple posts from the same author
are effected, or if any two posts hitting zorch at the same time can cause
the problem.
 
You might want to space multiple posts several hours apart.
 
I might also remind people that there is an e-mail route directly into the
Usenet side -- mail your submissions to sci-physics-fusion@berkeley.edu
 
This works most of the time, and when it doesn't, it usually sends an e-mail
message (which doesn't make sense).  Then you merely repost.  This message
is coming to you through the berkeley gateway.
 
I've only had it hiccup three times in the last six months.
 
 
- 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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / Ken mad /  NTT announcement on NHK
     
Originally-From: kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad pianist))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NTT announcement on NHK
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 14:05:13 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

I just heard that NTT (Nippon Telephone + Telegraph) announced a significant
achievement on CF.  I understand that it was broadcast nationally on NHK
(Japan Broadcasting Corporation).
 
What's the scoop?
 
--
Ken Iisaka               \ NEXT RECITAL  |12:00 pm, Thursday, January 7th, 1993
kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca     \ Produced by |National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
AI Lab, University of Ottawa \ CBC Stereo|Berg        Sonata, b minor, op. 1
H: +1 613 237 6642 W: 564 8155 \ 103.3 FM|Mussorgsky  Pictures at an Exhibition
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkiisaka cudfnKen cudlnmad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / Tom Holroyd /  looking for twist
     
Originally-From: tomh@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Holroyd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: looking for twist
Date: 22 Oct 92 17:48:34 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

Sorry to post this, but I have tried for over a week to reach Terry by
email with nothing but bounces.  Where can I get a copy of "Twist of
Ribbon"?
 
Tom Holroyd
Center for Complex Systems and Brain Sciences
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA
tomh@bambi.ccs.fau.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomh cudfnTom cudlnHolroyd cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / John Logajan /  Dueling TED's
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dueling TED's
Date: 22 Oct 92 20:43:21 GMT

cortesi@informix.com (David Cortesi) asks:
>> ...  It makes use of the fact that a thermoelectric cooler is
>> hundreds of "dueling" thermocouples connected electrically in series but in
>              ^^^^^^^^^
>> thermal parallel.
 
>Does this really mean "dueling" as in "participating in a duel; holding a
>single combat by prearrangement"?  In other words, contending?
>
>Or does it mean "dualing" as in "acting as a pair of equals, being
>partners"?  In other words, cooperating?
 
I believe a single TED is a string of series *aiding* thermocouples.
 
If, however, you hook two TED units back to back, but with reverse
polarity, then all the thermocouples in one TED will be "dueling",
that is fighting with, all the thermocouples in the other TED.
 
 
- 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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / John Logajan /  Speculation #538973672
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Speculation #538973672
Date: 22 Oct 92 22:43:23 GMT

Suppose that CF is a surface effect -- then Pd or other good absorber of
D might be a bad choice, since it lets D leak into the the volume of the
material.  If you are wanting to trap D's, might as well use a bad
absorber of D and let them get trapped in the first few layers of the
surface.  No place to go!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 / John Logajan /  Correction to "dueling" post
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to "dueling" post
Date: 23 Oct 92 03:04:10 GMT

I wrote:
>>Does this really mean "dueling" as in "participating in a duel; holding a
>>single combat by prearrangement"?  In other words, contending?
>>
>>Or does it mean "dualing" as in "acting as a pair of equals, being
>>partners"?  In other words, cooperating?
 
>I believe a single TED is a string of series *aiding* thermocouples.
>
>If, however, you hook two TED units back to back, but with reverse
>polarity, then all the thermocouples in one TED will be "dueling",
>that is fighting with, all the thermocouples in the other TED.
 
I'll take that back.  A single TED does have "dueling" thermocouples.
They "duel" equally when both sides of the TED are at the same temperature.
When one side is hotter than the other, it determines the direction of
current flow, or the polarity of voltage -- it wins the "duel."
 
            ++++++\
                   \++++++\            Temperature
Temperature                \++++++       Side #2
 Side #1                   /------
                   /------/
            ------/                 <---+---- Dissimilar junctions.
            ++++++\                     |
                   \++++++\             |
                           \++++++  <----
                           /------
                   /------/
            ------/
            ++++++\
                   \++++++\
                           \++++++
 
If the temperature is greater on side #1 than side #2, the force propelling
electrons from - to + will be greater on side #1 than on side #2, causing
electrons to flow down the circuit.
 
If the temperature is greater on side #2 than side #1, the force propelling
electrons from - to + will be greater on side #2 than on side #1, causing
electrons to flow up the circuit.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  /  Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!uunet.uu.net!MAILER-DAEMON
Originally-From: uunet!ub-gate.UB.com!zorch!zorch.SF-Bay.ORG!fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Waiting Mail
Subject: Fusion Digest 535
Subject: Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 03:57:16 GMT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:45 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:51:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Princeton University

After 3 days (77 hours), your message to the following people:
 
        cab.edu.ar!granada  (host=atina)
 
has not yet been delivered. Attempts to deliver the message will
continue for 26 more days. No further action is required by you.
 
   ----- Queued message begins -----
Originally-From: uunet!ub-gate.UB.com!zorch!zorch.SF-Bay.ORG!fusion
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:45 PDT
Subject: Fusion Digest 535
 
Originally-From: jsm@shade.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest Lawson Numbers?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:51:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
....
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!uunet.uu.net!MAILER-DAEMON
Originally-From: uunet!ub-gate.UB.com!zorch!zorch.SF-Bay.ORG!fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Waiting Mail
Subject: Fusion Digest 532
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 03:57:27 GMT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:41 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:10:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After 3 days (89 hours), your message to the following people:
 
        cab.edu.ar!granada  (host=atina)
 
has not yet been delivered. Attempts to deliver the message will
continue for 26 more days. No further action is required by you.
 
   ----- Queued message begins -----
Originally-From: uunet!ub-gate.UB.com!zorch!zorch.SF-Bay.ORG!fusion
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:41 PDT
Subject: Fusion Digest 532
 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:10:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
....
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenfusion cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 / Todd Green /  Re: Why compensate for cell impedance
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why compensate for cell impedance
Date: 23 Oct 92 03:36:05 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <9210211817.AA21059@anubis.network.com>, logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM
 (John Logajan) writes:
> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>>These fluctuations are on the same time scale as the bubble lifetimes, quite
>>short compared with the experiment's observation time.
>
> The graph in Droege's draft paper to the Como proceedings (mailed to me by
> Chuck Harrison, thanks Chuck!) shows fluctations that are much longer than
> bubble lifetimes (graph of applied voltage versus time.)
>
> It was this actual empirical data than led me to suggest a nullifying
> mechanism -- since the control of such a system is trivial, at least
> conceptually.
>
>> someone (Todd?) is using controlled power, i.e. not a correction of a
>> measured error but the power controlled in the first place.
>
> This subjects the electro-chemical system to varying currents, causing
> who knows what other variables.  I don't mind tweaking variables, but
> they should best be done in a controlled way.
 
Actually, I never did end up using  constant power electrolysis, and my
interest in the first place was motivated by a desire to run the calorimeter
isothermally and not due to concerns about the fluctuating cell impedance
screwing up the input power measurement. As long as the fluctuations in
cell impedance are random (which they are likely to be) I don't see how any
unmeasured power can creep in even if you are sampling at times much longer
than the local fluctuations.
 
As for longer term voltage fluctuations, I'm a bit puzzled about the ones
that Tom Droege shows in Figure 11 of his paper. In all the cells I ran
the cell voltage was very stable - maybe +/- 4 mV variation  for  Ecell =
10 volts.
 
 
While I'm here, what IS happening at the Nagoya conference? Surely somebody
has heard something by now that is worth posting.
 
 
Todd Green
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / Gary Kelly /  Best Palladium Source Needed
     
Originally-From: gkelly@oodis01.af.mil (Gary Kelly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Best Palladium Source Needed
Date: 22 Oct 92 18:38:06 GMT
Organization: Hill AFB, Utah

I am looking for the name and contact information for the supplier of
palladium rods whose metalurgy has produced the most reliable cold fusion
results.
 
Please email the information to me: gkelly@oodis01.af.mil
 
Thanks
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengkelly cudfnGary cudlnKelly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 /  Britz /  RE: looking for twist
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: looking for twist
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 16:31:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: tomh@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Holroyd)
 
>Sorry to post this, but I have tried for over a week to reach Terry by
>email with nothing but bounces.  Where can I get a copy of "Twist of
>Ribbon"?
 
You can get it by retrieving the file cnf-unp from the archives. I post
instructions for how to get stuff from these archives once a month. Twist is
part of that file, cnf-unp. As a special favour (but don't tell anybody), I
will post it to you by email. Just this once.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 / Jacques Amar /  Test
     
Originally-From: phsjga@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU (Jacques G. Amar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test
Date: 23 Oct 92 16:07:05 GMT

test
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenphsjga cudfnJacques cudlnAmar cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.22 / Tony Alicea /  COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
     
Originally-From: phsjga@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU (Jacques G. Amar)
Originally-From: ta@slc1.UUCP (Tony Alicea)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: CFinJapanrepost
Subject: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
Date: 23 Oct 92 16:08:11 GMT
Date: 22 Oct 92 20:18:12 GMT
Organization: Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Annapolis

Path: emoryu1!emory!wupost!uunet!opel!slc1!ta
Originally-From: ta@slc1.UUCP (Tony Alicea)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
Message-ID: <413@slc1.UUCP>
Date: 22 Oct 92 20:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: uunet!opel!slc1!crusty!ta
Organization: Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Annapolis
Lines: 49
 
 
 
   TOKYO () -- A Japanese scientist said Thursday he had obtained the first
confirmation of low-temperature nuclear fusion using a method totally different
from those pursued by other researchers.
   The results, yet to be reproduced by other scientists, were reported by
Eiichi Yamaguchi, a 37-year-old physicist at the respected basic research
laboratory tied with telecommunications giant Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Corp.
   "No one has yet obtained direct evidence of the reality of cold fusion,"
Yamaguchi told reporters. "We believe we have obtained (such) direct evidence."
   If achieved, cold fusion could become a source of energy.
   Scientists around the world have been seeking evidence of nuclear fusion
occurring at low temperatures since March 1989, when chemists B. Stanley Pons
and Martin Fleischmann stunned the science world with claims of achieving
nuclear fusion at room temperature.
   Pons, Fleishmann and other scientists were unable to repeat the results and
the two were widely criticized. Many mainstream scientists remain skeptical
about claims of cold fusion, but in recent months an increasing number of
scientists have claimed to have observed excess heat from experiments similar
to
those Pons and Fleischmann used.
   Yamaguchi said that while his results have not yet been reviewed or repeated
by other scientists, he has repeated them five times himself, beginning this
August.
   Tatsuya Kimura, head of the NTT lab, called Yamaguchi's results "highly
reproducible," but said more work remains, such as finding ways to extract the
heat produced by the apparatus.
   Yamaguchi was to present his results Saturday at an international conference
on cold fusion phenomena in Nagoya, central Japan. He made the announcement to
reporters in Tokyo.
   Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute for Fusion Research said Yamaguchi's
results were noteworthy, nationally televised news reported. Further comment on
the results, which have not yet published, was not immediately available from
other scientists.
   In nuclear fusion, the force that powers the sun and stars, atoms are joined
together to produce energy, as opposed to nuclear fission, in which atoms are
split. Hydrogen bombs depend on fusion reactions, while conventional nuclear
plants are powered by fission reactions.
   Since fusion uses hydrogen, which is relatively abundant, scientists long
have sought to harness it as a source of energy, but most believe that it can
be
achieved only at extremely high temperatures, like those in the sun.
   Most scientists seeking evidence of cold fusion continue to use variations
of the electrolysis device originally used by Pons and Fleischmann, in which
electricity is pumped through water containing a "heavy" form of hydrogen
called deuterium. Cold fusion proponents believe that the deuterium collects in
one of the electrodes, which is made of palladium, and fuses together to create
energy.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenta cudfnTony cudlnAlicea cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 / Jim Carr /  Re: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
Date: 23 Oct 92 14:33:02 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Please note that I have set the followup on this comment to
sci.physics.fusion where these matters are discussed.
 
In article <413@slc1.UUCP> uunet!opel!slc1!crusty!ta writes:
>
>   TOKYO () -- A Japanese scientist said Thursday he had obtained the first
>confirmation of low-temperature nuclear fusion using a method totally different
>from those pursued by other researchers.
>   The results, yet to be reproduced by other scientists, were reported by
>Eiichi Yamaguchi, a 37-year-old physicist at the respected basic research
>laboratory tied with telecommunications giant Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
>Corp.
>   "No one has yet obtained direct evidence of the reality of cold fusion,"
>Yamaguchi told reporters. "We believe we have obtained (such) direct evidence."
 
Unfortunately, the article (and presumably the news conference) does not
even hint at the "method totally different" used by Yamaguchi.  I guess
the news release was hype for the conference, and we will have to wait
until the weekend to find out how significant his claims are.
 
We can but hope that the talk includes a description that allows the real
test -- reproduction of the results by others -- and that it will soon
be published in a refereed journal.
 
>   Yamaguchi said that while his results have not yet been reviewed or repeated
>by other scientists, he has repeated them five times himself, beginning this
>August.
>   Tatsuya Kimura, head of the NTT lab, called Yamaguchi's results "highly
>reproducible," but said more work remains, such as finding ways to extract the
>heat produced by the apparatus.
 
This is an interesting statement.  The first statements made me think that
they had nuclear-type evidence for fusion (direct evidence).  This last
statement implies that they produce heat, so calorimetry would be involved,
but not at a level where it is easy to extract.  If they do see both
types of observables (in the same relative amounts in all 6 experiments),
this could lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon.  In particular,
we may get a straight answer to whether heat and nuclear products are seen
in commensurate amounts.
 
>   Yamaguchi was to present his results Saturday at an international conference
>on cold fusion phenomena in Nagoya, central Japan. He made the announcement to
>reporters in Tokyo.
 
[other background material, typical for a newspaper article, was omitted]
 
[sci.physics.fusion readers can find the original article in sci.physics,
buried among the wide ranging discussions of the "inertia" of time]
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.24 / A Boulanger /  Re: The Little Cube That Could
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Little Cube That Could
Date: 24 Oct 92 00:12:45 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
In article <921021130129.20202581@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
 
   Lastly, such a cube is likely to be highly polished.  We have now had two
   successive surface ground cathodes achieve 0.94 loading, more than on any of
   our other experiments (where we believe the measurements are reliable).
 
 
Hey, and what is a common polishing compound? Aluminum Oxide. Perhaps
it is not the polishing, but the impurity of the polishing compound.
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 /  Wallace /  Basement bombers
     
Originally-From: Allen Wallace <allen@dtint.dtint.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Basement bombers
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 92 21:25:35 GMT
Organization: Digital Technology International

 
What is the best way of getting SMALL amounts of D2O and
palladium for basement bomber or High School science project
CF experiments? What are the alternative (and cheaper) metals?
 
Also, is the threat of radiation serious enough to warrant suggesting
(demand?) radiation detection for these kind of experimenters?
--
---
root                                   root@dtint.dtint.com
Digital Technology Int.                (801)226-2984
500 W. 1200 South, Orem UT, 84057      FAX (801) 226-8438
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenallen cudfn cudlnWallace cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.24 /  /  TED's
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TED's
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 05:15:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John got it right in his post with the drawing 23 Oct. 03:04 GMT.  The
advantage of the TED is that someone with production tooling has pasted all
those thermocouples together.  The problem is that the equivalent lead
length is not vey long - 3 mm on the ones I am using.  So they measure the
temperature difference between two flat plates.  They also have significant
conductance between the two plates, so the device disturbs the measurement.
The semiconductor material used has about three times the voltage per
junction that better thermocouple materials have.
 
When put inside a large block of aluminum, so that there would not be any
applied temperature differential, one of the 127 junction pair units came
to a voltage of less than a microvolt.  It also generates about 16,000
microvolts per C. (but this from memory).  So with good electronics one
can detect themperature differentials in the tens of microdegrees.
 
I can assure everyone that cell voltages are not steady.  There are of course
bubble effects.  For the most part bubble effects are "high frequency" noise
and are not a problem.  The longer time effects are more interesting.  Most
experiments show a long term voltage increase.  See for example Figure 9B
from the P&F paper of ACCF1.  But note that the cell voltage *decreases*
when they see heat at 1.6 megaseconds.  In the ICCF2 paper by Hansen, some
of the P&F data is analyzed.  Here again the long term increase shows up in
Figure 4.  But this data also shows small structure.  For example Figure 6.
The McKubre paper from ICCF2 (Figure 7) also shows both increasing voltage
with time and the shorter term spikes.
 
When examined very closely, the cell voltage has periods where it is steady,
and periods where the voltage has a short term exponential increase followed
by a step decrease.  We attempted to show some of this in the draft that
John has.  Unfortunately, this material was left out of the Como proceedings
to meet the page limit.  Our ACCF1 paper has some short term cell voltage
pictures.  Note that these are *not* electronic effects.  I have seen them
using a constant voltage power supply with a large series resistor to simulate
a current source.  Under these conditions, the cell looks like it has periods
of negative resistance - or at least resistance decrease which could be
modeled as a fixed resistor in series with a resistor which sometimes is
negative.
 
 
There is much to see in these cells when you look closely.  I think there is
some sort of large area gas absorption effect that "breathes" and which
changes the cell effective resistance.
 
To set John Logajan's concern to rest though, we attempt to keep the cell
voltage variation from affecting the power measurement by looking on the
other side of a long time constant filter, and sampling much faster than the
bandwidth of the filter.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.24 /  /  Drifts in calorimetry
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Drifts in calorimetry
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 05:26:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes: Of all of that, it is only the drifting that scares
me.  And this is where my ignorance of real systems leaves me...."
 
Let me helt your intuition, John.  A person looks like a 100 watt heater.  I
am trying to measure 1 mw.  So when I walk into the room, there needs to be
an attenuation of 100,000 between me and the inside of the calorimeter.  One
foot of Polyurethane foam has an "R" value of 0.015.  So for a silly
approximation, I need 1500 feet of foam between me and the experiment, but
only 150 feet of so for the (10 w) cat.
 
It is not like electronics where we have good conductors and good insulators.
For example, the temperature gradient over the 1/16" copper inner dewar liner
is about a degree C.  If I made it 1/4" it would still be 1/4 C and that is
enough for a significant radiation loss differential between the top and the
bottom of the dewar.  Much thicker and there is no room for the experiment.
We try to beat some of these problems by using many TEDs at various places
on the shell in the new design.
 
Woops, that is the conduction, not the "R" value.  R would be
66 (Btu/sq ft - F), but the computation is sort of right.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.24 /  /  I'll get it right yet
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I'll get it right yet
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 05:36:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thermal conductivity of foam is 0.015 BTU/hr-ft-F.  That would give it
an "R" value of 66.6 hr-ft-F/Btu.
 
As an exercise in futility, try to get all the thermal conductivities needed
to build a calorimeter in one place, and in one set of units.
 
The practical limits are foam at one end at the 0.015 BTU/hr-ft-F and copper
at the other at 223 BTR/hr-ft-F.  A range of 14,867.  Note that I am trying
to do one part in 10,000 with materials that have a range of only one part
in 14,867.  Tricks must be used.  We use active heat shields.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.23 / Bob Leary /  Harwell Question
     
Originally-From: leary@bozo.sdsc.edu. (Bob Leary,,45123)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell Question
Date: 23 Oct 1992 18:06:05 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD

I have seen several references to Harwell in recent postings
in this group.  Is this organization still active?  My query
relates to trying to track down the current licensors of the
Harwell subroutine library.
 
Bob Leary
San Diego Supercomputer Center
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenleary cudfnBob cudlnLeary cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.24 / John Logajan /  Different cathode materials
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Different cathode materials
Date: 24 Oct 92 15:29:22 GMT

There was a rumor a few weeks back that some material other than Palladium
was going to be the "second generation" CF material.
 
Never got a clue to what it was, but thought I'd compile a list of likely
and unlikey candidates.
 
Cathode materials for CF
 
Palladium
Platinum
Titaniaum
Nickel
 
Far out stuff
Aluminum
Uranium
Thorium
 
 
more?
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.24 / John Logajan /  Electronic thermometers and voltage/heat spikes
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electronic thermometers and voltage/heat spikes
Date: 24 Oct 92 18:38:35 GMT

FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
> [A TED] generates about 16,000 microvolts per C. (but this from memory).
> So with good electronics one can detect themperature differentials in
> the tens of microdegrees.
 
National Semiconductor has the LM34 temperature sensor in a TO-46 metal
can that produces 10mV/degree F (intentionally better internal amplification
than the LM35 which produces 10mV/degree C)
 
Thus the LM34 produces about 18mV/degree C, which is nearly the same as you
are claiming for the TED unit.  Of course, the LM34 is a sensor and an
electronic amplifier in one unit, and therefore requires electrical power,
and therefore produces its own heat (about 375 microwatts at 77F and 5V,
causing 0.18F self-heating in still air.)
 
The LM34 has 0.4 ohm output impedance, and is calibrated at the factory to
be within +/- 1.5F accuracy over its entire range of -50 to +300F.
 
My guess is that two LM34's, if calibrated over their expected operational
range, should equal the performance of those TEDs.
 
I can order LM34's from Digi-Key for $12.75, or $2.38 in the plastic pkg
and with a range of freezing to boiling.
 
> I have seen them [voltage spikes] using a constant voltage power supply
> with a large series resistor to simulate a current source.  Under these
> conditions, the cell looks like it has periods of negative resistance -
 
I think there can be three modes of recombination in the cell.
 
1.) Recombination in which the "fuel cell" potential opposes the input
potential -- giving rise to increased input joule heating as the constant
current source increases its voltage against the opposing fuel cell potential,
as well as increased joule heating of internal "short circuits" dissipating
the release electrical energy of the "fuel cell" recombination.
 
This would be seen as an increase in voltage input and a possibly short term
incommensurate increase in cell heating (due to the release of previously
stored chemical energy.)  Catalyst temperature should drop.
 
2.) Recombination in which the "fuel cell" potential gives rise exclusively
to "short circuits" dissipating the released electrical energy of the fuel
cell recombination.
 
This would be seen as an increase in cell heating with no apparent change
in input voltage or current.  Catalyst temperature should drop.
 
3.) Recombination in which the "fuel cell" potential aids the input potential.
Once again, stored chemcial energy is released into the cell and heats it.
 
This would be seen as decrease in voltage input.  Again, Catalyst temperature
should drop.
 
In summary, it is possible to explain positive voltage spikes, negative
voltage spikes, and constant voltage -- all associated with transient
increases in cell temperature.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 /  Britz /  RE: CFinJapanrepost
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: CFinJapanrepost
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 15:22:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: phsjga@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU (Jacques G. Amar) (I think -
there was a string of poster addresses):
 
>   TOKYO () -- A Japanese scientist said Thursday he had obtained the first
>confirmation of low-temperature nuclear fusion using a method totally different
>from those pursued by other researchers.
>   The results, yet to be reproduced by other scientists, were reported by
>Eiichi Yamaguchi, a 37-year-old physicist at the respected basic research
>laboratory tied with telecommunications giant Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
>Corp.
>   "No one has yet obtained direct evidence of the reality of cold fusion,"
>Yamaguchi told reporters. "We believe we have obtained (such) direct evidence."
>   If achieved, cold fusion could become a source of energy.
 
etc etc. I do not see the words "cheap" and "abundant" {:].
 
Before we get more detail about this, let me remind me of the 1990 paper by
 
>Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;        Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2 29(4) (1990) L666.
>"Cold fusion induced by controlled out-diffusion of deuterons in palladium".
>** The authors observed a "gigantic neutron burst" and inferred intense heat
>effects, at a Pd plate charged with D2. One side of the 1mm Pd plate was
>coated with a thin film of Au, which blocks outgassing of D2 on that side.
>The key process on the other side is then the "formation of D accumulation
>layers  by controlling the D-atom out-diffusive transport with
>heterostructures". This is done by coating that side with a <100 Aangstrom of
>something containing Mn and O (no more is said about it). The idea is that
>the Au-covered side is - after loading under 0.5 atm D2 - in the alpha phase
>and the other side, at least during outgassing (I think) in the beta form.
>...
 
... as abstracted in the bibliography a couple of years ago. It will be
interesting to see whether the present news is in fact something different
from that old work. We have previously seen "new" stuff that was just rehash
of old.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 / John Logajan /  Slipping your cork
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Slipping your cork
Date: 26 Oct 92 16:51:04 GMT

Hoyt A. Stearns jr writes:
 
> After a day at -40KV, the cork
> slid one inch down into the 12" high hygrometer bottle!
 
> I can't think of a physical effect that would do that
 
Two and a half guesses:
 
1.) a. -- Piezo electric constriction of the cork
    b. -- Piezo electric expansion of the bottle
2.) Electric field changing the coefficient of friction.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.18 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 18 Oct 92 21:05:32 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>     The article (some 10 years ago) gave a quite functional A-bomb
> design that could be build by the average plumber. Take an old house,
> run a pipe from the third floor 5" gun to the basement which is
> otherwise filled with concrete, and fire one fissionable hemisphere down
> into the other. If you are using plutonium, add a neutron source half
> way down the pipe. The kinetic energy of the gun and the concrete will
> hold the fissionables together long enough for a reasonable percentage
> to fission.
>
>     Lousy efficiency, but quite workable. Same principle as the Thin Man bomb
>
>     The article then went into the difficulties of the materials
> involved. (heh heh heh.) First, machining plutonium without (1) getting
> too much together at any one time, (2) using a lead lined wheelchair
> with manipulators to handle the machining, and (3) lots of suicidal
> volunteers as you will lose several during fuel processing.
>
 
Kevin,
 
        This description is [fairly] accurate.  I don't believe
the distance needs to be that great especially if the "gun barrel"
is evacuated and if you use a fast (Pentaerythrite Tetranitrate)
accelerant explosive (shaped using the Munroe effect to intensify
velocity acceleration).  The neutron source is the disintegrating
alpha particles from a small piece of Polonium 210, which is
fairly easy to make in a reactor (neutron bombardment of Bismuth)
or you can buy it with an NRC license in amazing quantities.
 
        Once again I have to reiterate, the radiation from a
subcritical sphere of Plutonium 239 is NOT lethal!  The people who
make the bombs our government is so proud of- do the fabrication
behind barium glass using nothing more than an elaborate glove
box!  Of course they only have to work for a few months a year,
and get LOTS of time off, but they also make many bombs while they
are being irradiated.  One man, with motivation really *could*
build an atomic device- this I firmly believe............sq
 
(and he could survive the construction with only minimal radiation
exposure.  Now if he were stupid, and used NO PROTECTION devices,
then you are right, they would drop like flies, or at least get
cataracts and radiation illnesses.  But then, if the man
attempting this action really WERE that stupid, then he already
lacks the primary source for his goal- intelligence, and thusly is
doomed to failure before he even starts..........)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.25 / John Logajan /  Iridium
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Iridium
Date: 25 Oct 92 16:03:29 GMT

So far, three people have sent suggestions for cathode materials.
 
Manganese
Copper-Yittrium-Oxygen
Iridium
 
Iridium is particularly interesting because it is the second densest
element known, just behind its neighbor Osmium and just ahead of its
neighbor Platinum.  Iridium is the most corrosion resistant metal known.
It is hard and brittle and about 1/5th as abundant as Platinum.  It
has a face centered crystal structure just like Palladium.
 
           g/cc     Crystal   Atomic   Atomic   Ionic    Nuclear    Atomic
Element   Density  Structure  Weight   Number  Radius A  Radius A   Sepr A
-------   -------  ---------  -------  ------  --------  ---------  ------
Hydrogen     -         -         1.0      1      1.54    0.000012     -
Aluminum    2.7    Face Cent    26.98    13      0.51    0.000036    2.76
Iron        7.86   Body Cent    55.86    26      0.64    0.000046    2.46
Nickel      8.9    Face Cent    58.71    28      0.69    0.000047    2.40
Palladium  12.0    Face Cent   106.4     46      0.65    0.000057    2.64
Osmium     22.6    Hexoganol   190.2     76      0.69    0.000069    2.60
Iridium    22.5    Face Cent   192.2     77      0.68    0.000069    2.62
Platinum   21.4    Body Cent   195.09    78      0.65    0.000069    2.68
Thorium    11.7    Face Cent   232.04    90      1.02    0.000074    3.47
Uranium    19.1    Orthorhom   238.04    92      0.80    0.000074    2.96
 
The atomic seperation column is calculated from the density and the atomic
weight, plus a 10% packing factor.  The atomic radius column was extracted
from a table in the CRC HCP.  I have no idea why the two columns differ by
a factor of 4, they should only differ by a factor of 2.
 
Face centered cubic crystal structures and hexoganol structures are two
variations of the highest density packing arrangement of spheroids.  You
can think of them as a sheets of marbles layered on top of each other so
that each layer's marbles align with the valleys between the other
layer's marbles.  There are two possible alignments (I had to build this
to see it, but it is apparent why when you do build it, if you use at
least three layers) giving rise to the hexogonal or face centered
classifications.  Their packing densities are equal.
 
The major difference between face centered and hexoganol crystal
structures is that there are straight-through tunnels in the face
centered version which repeats its pattern every two layers, while the
hexogonal layers repeat in arrangement every three layers, blocking
straight tunnel development.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.25 / Sea Wasp /  Re: Crud
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crud
Date: 25 Oct 92 20:59:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <921020153557.2060234b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>It is a platinum salt.  No details yet on the composition.  But second hand
>over the phone it sounded like just Pt, O, and D.  I feel bad now about
>calling it crud.  No lithium in it I was told.  Since there was about a cc
>of the crud, it is hard to imagine how it is put together since there is not
>nearly that much Pd in the cell, and the Pd anode did not look worn away.
 
>Has anyone seen a P&F cell that has run a long time.  Since they apparently
>just add electrolyte they should make crud too???  That should be "nearly that
>much Pt in the cell ... Pt andode did..."
 
 
        Whoa.
 
        Tom, the above paragraph confuses me.
 
        I know that palladium and other elements are often found in
conjunction with platinum, but I was presuming that any metals used in
these experiments were refined quite extensively.
 
        Yet above it appears that you were using a PALLADIUM setup,
and getting PLATINUM salts? Someone enlighten a non-chemist here. Are
you using two separate electrodes, one Pd, one Pt, and was the Pt one
eaten away?
 
        Or are we seeing a miracle, whereby you're transmuting Pd to Pt?
:)
 
                                Sea Wasp
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.25 / Sea Wasp /  Re: Fulton's Principle
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fulton's Principle
Date: 25 Oct 92 20:51:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct20.193414.24998@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> klein@frith.egr.msu.edu
 (Jeffrey Klein) writes:
>In article <7600010@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
 Rauchfuss) writes:
>>In sci.physics.fusion, quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>>> and disease.  As you know, Flemming was right- and so am I.....sq
 
>>"Fleming was right in believing unpopular theories, therefore I am also
 right."
>>What is this logical principle called?  I cannot find it in my logic textbook.
 
>I've usually heard of it as Fulton's Principle, after Ben Fulton,
>creator of the steamboat.
 
        Hmm. I always thought of it as the "Mad Scientist's Principle"
 
        (Usually said with wild hair, staring eyes, and with lightning in
the background)
        "Mad? All great men have been called mad! They laughed at Einstein...
and Galileo... and now they laugh at me... But they'll see..."
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Crud
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crud
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 21:48:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <8344@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
 writes:
 
>       I know that palladium and other elements are often found in
>conjunction with platinum, but I was presuming that any metals used in
>these experiments were refined quite extensively.
 
Yes, it's almost impossible to get pure Pd. It's almost always contaminated
with that damned worthless Pt.
 
>       Or are we seeing a miracle, whereby you're transmuting Pd to Pt?
>:)
 
Hey, there's the answer to the missing nuclear ash! :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 26 Oct 92 02:50:20 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <X4yusB2w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
 writes:
>
>        Once again I have to reiterate, the radiation from a
>subcritical sphere of Plutonium 239 is NOT lethal!  The people who
>make the bombs our government is so proud of- do the fabrication
>behind barium glass using nothing more than an elaborate glove
>box!  Of course they only have to work for a few months a year,
>and get LOTS of time off, but they also make many bombs while they
>are being irradiated.  One man, with motivation really *could*
>build an atomic device- this I firmly believe............sq
 
This argument goes around and around because the discussion is not
about the same issues.
 
Yes, you can hold a lump of Pu-239 in your hand -- at least if you
believe the stories about the bomb project.  It is supposed to be
nicely warm from the alpha-decay heat.  I do not know; I have never
done it.  It would be a most interesting experience I am sure.
 
When people talk about the radiation risk, it is the risk associated
with separating Pu-239 from burnt-up reactor fuel as the author of
this post has suggested (here or elsewhere) would be feasible.  This
is not something one does without engineering a very secure, remotely
operated, industrial facility.  I find the stories about the concrete
in the Hanford halls being turned into a material that is literally
spongy by the radiation damage to be astounding, but not surprising.
 
So, given a nice collection of chunks of bomb-grade Pu-239, you could
handle it and machine it (masks suggested) quite easily.  Making it
is not so simple.  For this reason, the security of special nuclear
materials is of the utmost importance, and the view articulated by
G.H.W.Bush that the world is safe from nuclear war following the
breakup of the former Soviet Union is only true as long as that
collection of nations maintains control over its stockpile of materials.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.15 / "Hoyt Stearns /  Electrically isolated apparatus
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus ("Hoyt A. Stearns jr.")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrically isolated apparatus
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:09:30 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

As I recall, the original P&F cells were powered with lead-acid batteries,
thus they may have been electrically isolated from ground.  I don't recall
reading much about isolation in descriptions of experiments in this
newsgroup, but it is another variable to consider.
 
1) An isolated cell would acquire a voltage != 0 if charged particles were
emitted.
 
2) There may be an effect due to the concentration of charge or electrons
in the entire apparatus. (Not likely, but then the effect isn't either :-) ).
 
Regarding 2), I have had a cell running for >2yr now, which is sealed
with a hydrocap catalyst inside.  It is not instrumented well, so only
the most spectacular results would be noticed (there haven't been any).
I raised the potential of the entire apparatus to -40KV and ran for a
couple of days, then to +40KV for another couple.
 
This did not result in any noticeable anomalous heat.  There was a strange
effect, tho --
 
 The cell has maintained a near vacuum inside for the entire
time since built (due to the hydrocap).  It is stoppered with a tight
fitting rubber stopper sealed with parafilm.  After a day at -40KV, the cork
slid one inch down into the 12" high hygrometer bottle!
(this is after two years of not moving, even when occasionally
charging with 10 Amperes--enough power to boil the electrolyte
and make the tube quite hot, and several runs with a 2000v 120 J pulse generator
which created explosive red light emitting plasmas in the electrolyte.)
 
  I can't think of a physical effect that would do that (unless
the cell got very hot when I wasn't looking, but then that would likely
blow off the pressure relief port, and show a loss of electrolyte, which
didn't happen).
 
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenhoyt cudfn"Hoyt cudlnStearns cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 / Ken mad /  Re: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
     
Originally-From: kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad pianist))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 13:19:47 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In NTT's experiment, He4 was detected, suggesting that the reaction that took
place is D + D -> He4, producing no electrons.
 
The temprature of the gold plated palladium plate rose by more than 100C.
 
The experiment was supposedly presented at a conference in Nagoya, Japan on
Saturday.
 
I understand why the North American media is not covering this at all.  Even
the Japanese press is covering this rather discreetly.  Quite understandable.
 
--
Ken Iisaka               \ NEXT RECITAL  |12:00 pm, Thursday, January 7th, 1993
kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca     \ Produced by |National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
AI Lab, University of Ottawa \ CBC Stereo|Berg        Sonata, b minor, op. 1
H: +1 613 237 6642 W: 564 8155 \ 103.3 FM|Mussorgsky  Pictures at an Exhibition
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkiisaka cudfnKen cudlnmad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 /  /  Do It Yourself Informatio
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Do It Yourself Informatio
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 19:15:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Allen Wallace asks for informantion on how to get started in the basement.
Palladium can be bought at 99.5% purity from any coin store in 1 oz bars at
about $105 per bar.  I bought it from Numisco Rare Coins in Chicago.  But
try a coin or stamp store to find a source.
 
You can buy D2O from most chemical supply houses.  Try VWR Scientific in
Chicago.  But you will pay a lot if you buy in small quantities.  In fact you
will pay almost as much for 100 cc as for a liter.  Try Aldrich Chemical Co
for liter quantities in the $300-$500 range.
 
You will need something for an anode.  Looks like Platinum is it.  After paying
$5 and inch for #30 Pt wire, we had an once drawn for us by Sylvania (old name)
at about $500 plus the cost of the Pt at market.
 
Since no one has an experiment yet that "works", you might as well do it with
peanut butter and swiss cheese as these materials are cheaper, if you really
care about costs.  But the thing to try is Pd and Pt with LiOD electrolyte.
 
If I wanted to start an insurance business, I would insure you from radiation
damage for about 3 cents per thousand dollar coverage.  But it would be
prudent to run a geiger counter.  You can get one from many places for about
$150.  Try Cole-Parmer or Edmund Scientific.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 /  /  Thermometers
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermometers
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 19:24:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan suggests using a pair of LM35's as a temperature differential
device.
 
As some of you know, I have been using the AD590.  I like it better than the
LM35 type of device since it is a current source.  This makes it easly to
put the thermometer far away and still read it accurately.  Much harder than
to read a voltage source accurately over a long distance.
 
John misses the beauty of the TED.  It is a beautiful zero differential sensor
independent of the temperature (though the gain does change).  A pair of
devices need to be calibrated over the entire temperature range of use.  Even
using a computer to hold a big calibration table, I estimate that the TED is
100 to 1000 times better as a null balance detector for a bridge calorimeter.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Crud
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crud
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 12:30:06 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
 
> In article <921020153557.2060234b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
> >It is a platinum salt.  No details yet on the composition.  But second hand
> >over the phone it sounded like just Pt, O, and D.  I feel bad now about
>       Yet above it appears that you were using a PALLADIUM setup,
> and getting PLATINUM salts? Someone enlighten a non-chemist here. Are
> you using two separate electrodes, one Pd, one Pt, and was the Pt one
> eaten away?
 
The positive hydronium ions are going to the Pd electrode and
the negative hydroxil ions are going to the Pt electrode.  The
hydroxil ions (and other negative radicals) of the electrolyte
are POWERFUL oxydizers.  Extended electrolysis can even attack Pt.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.27 / Sea Wasp /  Re: Do It Yourself Informatio
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do It Yourself Informatio
Date: 27 Oct 92 00:20:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <921026124110.21c00660@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>You will need something for an anode.  Looks like Platinum is it.  After paying
>$5 and inch for #30 Pt wire, we had an once drawn for us by Sylvania (old name)
>at about $500 plus the cost of the Pt at market.
 
        Again, I'm not a chemistry student, so excuse my ignorance, but...
 
        Why use two different metals? My impression from the meager chemistry
I know, plus the CRC, is that Pd and Pt are quite similar. Since Tom
Drouge (sp?) had this "crud" that turned out to be a Pt compound, and since
the setup appears to be similar to an electroplating one, why not make
both anode and cathode of Pd and thus eliminate yet another variable?
 
 
                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.27 /  Britz /  RE: Re: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: COLD FUSION IN JAPAN?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:48:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: kiisaka@csi.uottawa.ca (Ken Iisaka (the mad pianist))
 
>In NTT's experiment, He4 was detected, suggesting that the reaction that took
>place is D + D -> He4, producing no electrons.
>
>The temprature of the gold plated palladium plate rose by more than 100C.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The experiment was supposedly presented at a conference in Nagoya, Japan on
>Saturday.
 
This makes me suspect even more that this is old work, rehashed. In the
bibliographed article I posted the other day, there is mention of a gold
plated Pd plate, which buckled, and the gold was gone. The authors took this
to be evidence of temperature at least 1200 C (I am going by memory here).
Correct me if I am wrong - maybe these people have in fact done something new.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.27 /  /  Typo Confusion
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Typo Confusion
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 19:06:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Several of you were confused by the "yellow crud".  It was a Pt anode cell,
with a Pd cathode.  The "yellow crud" contained Pt, O, and H but not Pd or
Li.
 
Sometimes I type on line, and attempt to make corrections later in the post
as was done where I later corrected Pd anode to Pt anode.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.27 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
Date: 27 Oct 92 13:12:23 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
     Included in this partial summary of a SUPERIOR Theory is the fact that
stars do NOT generate energy by fusion, but rather by the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION
of HEAVY elements (HEAVIER than iron).
 
 
                          LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System"
 
               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years!
 
               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of
          space and time:
 
               (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME."
 
               (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN."
 
               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL
          DATUM").
 
               At each step in the development, Larson was able to
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY
          BURSTS).
 
               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom,
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules.
 
               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy
          complex mathematics, in his books.
 
 
 
          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
 
               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early
          books are out of print now, but still available through
          inter-library loan.
 
               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959)
 
               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
 
               "Beyond Newton" (1964)
 
               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965)
 
               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971)
 
               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979)
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super
                                                            Collider".]
                    [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]
 
               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982)
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.]
 
               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)
                    [Available from:
                         The International Society of Unified Science
                                                                 (ISUS)
                         1680 E. Atkin Ave.
                         Salt Lake City, Utah  84106 ]
 
 
 
          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
 
               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he
          died a couple of years ago.  He had a Bachelor of Science
          Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State University.
          He developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE
          chemical properties based only on the elements used.
 
               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer,
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC..
 
               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER.
 
               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now!
 
               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres",
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG.
 
 
               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior,
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to
          Minneapolis after retiring.
 
 
 
          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
 
               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific"
          value.
 
               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.)
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab,
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible
          with their environment.
 
               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW!
 
               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for
          this WASTED money?!
 
 
               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
          the "Supercollider"?!
 
 
               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST.
 
 
 
          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
 
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light,
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum".
 
               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet,
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each
          other.
 
               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our
          MATERIAL half.
 
 
 
          LARSONIAN Relativity
 
               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter,
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".
 
               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury.
 
               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.).
 
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low
          relative speeds, the values of the othe two dimensions are
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR.
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing
          about this.]
 
 
               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory,
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL
          FANTASY).
 
 
 
          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION
 
               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456
          pages, indexed, hardcover.
 
               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago.
 
               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most all Astrophysical
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc..
 
               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with
          OPEN MINDS!
 
               The following is an example of his Theory's success:
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he
          had an immediate related explanation for them also.
 
 
 
          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS
 
               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of
          directional coincidence).
 
               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all
          directions uniformly.)
 
               I wonder how close to us in space a source location
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to
          stop it!
 
               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS!
 
 
 
          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
 
               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them.
 
               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey
          B. Larson.
 
               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION"
          and in some of his other books.
 
               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and
          lighter elements.
 
               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some
          of his books [better than I can].
 
               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while.
 
               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R
          Diagram.
 
               The chances of the two masses falling back into the
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY system,
          orbiting each other.
 
               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron
          stars", "black holes", etc..
 
 
 
          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation
 
               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS!
 
               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive
          his own version of Bode's Law.
 
 
 
          "Black Hole" FANTASY!
 
               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than
          the sum of the two original "black holes".
 
               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black
          holes", etc.!
 
               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want
          to "prove" their theory.
 
 
               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT!
 
               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of
          Unified Science).
 
 
 
          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
 
               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.
 
               I found a possible clue about why they might work on
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe.  I quote one paragraph:
 
               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."
 
               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and
          "below" labels mixed up.]
 
               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
          light!
 
               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge
          is a rotational vibration of a particular frequency (above
          the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the rotation of the
          particle.)
 
               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
          confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in
          clouds.
 
 
 
          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics
 
               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE".
 
               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan,
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have.
 
               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars.
 
               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals,
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed.
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          partial summary is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmcelwre cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.27 / John Logajan /  Crud and TED's
     
Originally-From: logajan@ANUBIS.NETWORK.COM (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crud and TED's
Date: 27 Oct 92 21:12:09 GMT

Tom Droege writes:
>The "yellow crud" contained Pt, O, and H but not Pd or Li.
 
Hmm.  Since it had to be dripping with LiOD, I take it that the sample
was washed before the analysis.  Therefore the yellow crud probably doesn't
dissolve easily in the washing solution (H2O, D2O??)
 
>John misses the beauty of the TED.  It is a beautiful zero differential sensor
>independent of the temperature (though the gain does change).
 
I had to think a bit to figure out why you consider this a superior method.
My guess is that two opposing junctions at the same temperature *must* produce
equal and opposite voltages, else current would flow between them, transporting
energy and reversing entropy.
 
BUT!  If you route your wires to a remote amplifier, you run the risk of
introducing a cold junction into the circuit, and then all bets are off.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.27 / T Neustaedter /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
Date: 27 Oct 92 22:34:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

This doesn't belong in this group, I've set the follow-up line.
Please respect it. And my apologies for wasting bandwidth here
on sci.physics.fusion, but I figure one posting saying "bullshit"
with a follow-up group, may forestall a flame-war on this group.
 
In article <1992Oct27.131223.1995@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 writes:
>      Included in this partial summary of a SUPERIOR Theory is the fact that
 
"SUPERIOR" should indicate one of two things:
    a) It produces measurable results that are more accurate than current
       theory does.
    b) It produces the same results as current theory, but is easier to use.
 
Mr. Larson's theories fit neither category, and thus are not superior.
 
>                The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive
 
Ah, some good news. He's dead. At least there is a limited amount of
crap from this particular source. We won't be seeing any new absurdities.
 
>           BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
> [...a mind-numbing array of books ...]
>
 
Holy cow. There's more of this than I thought.
 
>           Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
>     [...]
>                Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally
>           test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.
 
Theories are built on data. Thought-games played without reference to the
real universe are termed "conjecture" or "speculation". When made to fit
with existing data, they are termed "hypothesis". After undergoing testing
of predictions (use the thesis to determine what the result of an experiment
will be, then perform the experiment and verify the result), it may be
qualified as a "theory".
 
But most important, a theory isn't useful if it doesn't provide testable
predictions. The last time I read larson's stuff (in college, nearly two
decades ago), his books were long on verbiage and short on math. If you
think there is something useful in his books, you show me how to use his
stuff to produce something useful.
 
I seem to recall having made you the offer of half the profits if you can
show me how to calculate the eletromagnetic interactions on a printed
circuit board in an easier fashion than existing CAD/CAM tools like spice.
I'll do all the hard programming work and marketing, you just show me the
math (which must be simpler and equally accurate as existing theories).
 
I'll extend it from printed-circuit boards to chip-level, and make a
fortune with tools that let Intel, Fujitsu and DEC debug their chips
using less expensive equipment.
 
>                A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX
>           physicists and astronomers have!
 
The bible is self-consistent. It doesn't help us predict the behaviour
of hydrogen plasmas at megakelvins (or compressed inside a palladium
electrode).
 
>           SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics
 
If someone's suppressing it, he's doing a piss-poor job at it. I read
books by Larson back in the '70s. I recently confirmed that those same
books are still in that same university library. And more important, you
seem to have access to them.
 
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.        Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.28 / Miikka Kangas /  Fusion
     
Originally-From: miikka@cco.caltech.edu (Miikka Matias Kangas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion
Date: 28 Oct 92 03:25:12 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Perhaps this group should be part of "physics.new_theories"?
So far there is no compelling evidence supporting cold fusion
in any form, so this should be discussed in "new_theories".
I always thought this newsgroup should be dedicated to discussions
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmiikka cudfnMiikka cudlnKangas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.30 /  Rothwell /  Nagoya Conference Report
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nagoya Conference Report
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 00:32:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I am back from the Nagoya CF conference after the usual 24 hour plane ride
ordeal which is not getting any easier as the years go by, and I am still
nursing a jet lag that feels like a hangover. So I do not feel good
physically, but mentally I am exhilarated, because the conference was a
smashing success, much better than I had anticipated. It was loads of fun.
The food was great, too. I am swamped with work, but I thought I would post
a few of the high points:
 
About 350 scientists showed up, mostly Japanese. There were very nice,
uplifting, gung-ho welcoming speeches and messages from Dr. Kouji Fushimi,
the "father of Japanese hot fusion" who built the first HF reactor back in
the 50's; from Mr. Toyoda, honorary Chairman of Technova Corp a.k.a. "Mr.
Toyota Motor Company;" and from the Prefectual Governor. NHK and other
national networks were there to record the proceedings; the lead front page
editorial in the Nikkei Shimbun was full of glowing praise, there were
major articles in the other newspapers and magazines (including Playboy!).
In short, we attracted almost as much attention as the wedding engagement
announced last week between a 20 year old sumo champion and a 19 year old
'talent' singer, which dominated the news. It is nice to feel appreciated.
 
There were no public, earthshaking revelations to those of us who have been
the following the story closely, but the overall quality of the work, and
the large numbers of workers involved, and the extent of replicability of
some types of experiments surprised me, particularly the light water work
and the deuteron beam work in Japan and Russia. Some of the striking high
points:
 
Dr. McKubre's stated that he has measured excess heat with a confidence
level of sigma 90. He did not have time to give as much detail as he did at
M.I.T. recently.
 
Dr. Srinivasan's gave a dramatic, detailed and compelling discussion of the
Mills light water replications, and light plus heavy water mixtures now
being performed in three separate laboratories. The newest work at one site
includes an on-line tritium detector that shows continual increases as the
experiment proceeds.
 
A working demonstration of a light water heat cell from Dr. Notoya,
Catalysis Research Center, University of Hokkaido attracted a great deal of
attention. One of the nation's leading hot fusion researchers remarked to
me, "I did not sleep a wink last night, I was up wondering how that thing
works!" This was a side-by-side demo, with a pure resistance heater that
had only 2 watts going in; it reached a steady state temperature of 32C.
The adjacent cell nickel - light water Mills cell reached 45C as shown on
red-alcohol thermometers, and was quite warm to the touch. Initially,
Notoya mismeasured the resistance of the left hand silver wire going into
the resistance heater. When Steve Jones pointed this out she moved the
alligator clips to the top of the bottle, eliminating half of that wire's
resistance, she adjusted the current, and the temperature went from 31 to
32. Needless to say, this was just a demonstration. Her full scale lab
experiment is much more convincing, since she used a proper calorimeter,
thermocouples, a much shorter (3 cm) and heavier gauge silver wire, and she
measures the gas from electrolysis.
 
Dr. Pons gave a fascinating lecture accompanied by both the usual
viewgraphs, and by a video. The video began by showing the details of cell
construction and assembly, a time lapse view of four boiling cells side by
side. During the high heat phase, they input 11 watts and got out 144
watts, with 100% replicablity. The video went on to show their new
laboratory in France, which is even more commodious and nicer than the
previous lab. They have 32 scientists and other staff in France, and
another big research lab in Hokkaido.
 
As recently reported Wall Street Journal, another exciting moment came when
Yamaguchi described his recent helium-4 findings, from his continuing
series of gas loading experiments. Others have found helium-4 in the gas,
notably Miles and Mizuno, but Yamaguchi has far better instruments, and he
begins with a very high, very stable vacuum which means there is no chance
of this level of impurities leaking in, and his experiments work every
time, so his results are more certain. NTT stock shot up 10% when his
findings were announced, which is a bit irrational and premature in my
opinion. When we told him, he turned very pale and said, "I certainly
didn't mean to cause *that* to happen."
 
Takahashi discussed his latest round of experiments with 300 keV pulsed
beam. Takahashi's last comment during his lecture was, "I hope some other
scientists can soon replicate these results." One of the top Russian
scientists, Kucherov, stood up and announced that he already had seen
extraordinarily similar results from his particle beam experiments, without
any knowledge of Takahashi's work. This was one of the many unplanned
moments of drama that made this the most seminal, exciting and important
scientific conferences since Huxley confronted Wilberforce and championed
Darwin's new theory of evolution.
 
Tsarev gave a fascinating overview of CF research in Russia. During the
poster sessions I heard from other sources that the programs there are
going great guns. Also, the Taiwanese replications of the molten salt work
of Liaw are fantastic.
 
Tom Claytor of Los Alamos described his on-line tritium measuring device,
with is much improved over last year, so he continues to get positive
results, but now at a much higher sigma. One of his biggest problems now is
flushing out all the tritium after the experiment to reset to the
background level.
 
No great event would be complete without comic relief. We were blessed with
a talented resident skeptic and buffoon Dr. Douglas Morrison. He told us
many fascinating things, like: Fusion is always accompanied by copious
neutron radiation. Fusion is well understood, and any evidence that
violates the known laws of physics must be due to experimental error.
Palladium is "the same as" nickel; therefore we have no reason to believe
that one might support heavy water CF and the other light water CF.
Finally, he displayed graphs showing that most of the 1989 papers in a
bibliography compiled by Dieter Britz reported negative results, that is,
no reaction. About 20% reported reactions. Therefore, cold fusion did not
exist in 1989, and it could not exist now.
 
The theater, in our day, shall not see the likes of this performance again.
A number of people were preparing to comment, or perhaps to tar and feather
the speaker, when Chairman Ikegami hammered the meeting into order, cut
short all debate, and said that he alone would make one comment directed to
Dr. Morrison: "I am surprised that such a good scientist like yourself
should make such a ridiculous talk." I myself wasn't a bit surprised, I
thought it was hilarious. I plan to offer Dr. Morrison 100 kg of nickel for
the price of 100 kg of palladium.
 
I also plan to write up this business in much greater detail, attach a
bunch of translations, graphs and preprints, and try to peddle enough
copies to pay for my airfare, as I can no longer afford to give away all of
this information for free. Along the same lines, by the way, NIFS is
selling a splendid collection of Japanese papers for 10,000 yen, some in
English, some in Japanese. It is Ministry of Education publication
02305015, "Jyouon Kakuyuugou No Sougou Kenkyuu."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: The size of electrons, and misc
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and misc
Date: 29 Oct 92 15:43:43 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1cnp7iINN3pc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John
 Logajan) writes:
>
>In a previous article, pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire) says:
>> (quoting John?)
>>>       The size of the electron is roughly the size of the nucleus, but
>
>>are single entities and are assumed
>>to be pointlike, i.e. they have no diameter to speak of.
>
>My source was my college chemistry text, 1969, Masterton and Slowinski.
 
Ouch.
 
There is probably some confusion there between the "classical" radius
of the electron and its size as measured by experiment.  The so-called
classical radius of the electron is about 1 fm, about the same as the
measured charge radius of a proton.  The radius of a typical heavy
nucleus is 5-6 times larger than this, so you would have to take a
very loose interpretation of "roughly" for even this to make sense.
 
Hard to fault this in a 20-year-old book, since the successes of QED
and the measurements of electron reactions would be unlikely to have
propagated from particle physics to chemistry by then.  I hope this
oversight has been corrected since.  All evidence is that quarks and
electrons act as if they have zero radius (or, to be precise, less than
anything we can measure today, many powers of 10 less than a fm).  The
proton and neutron are extended objects with measured charge distributions
(yes, the charge distribution in the neutron has been measured) that have
a mean radius around 0.8 fm.
 
  [followup to sci.physics]
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.30 / John Logajan /  Re-examing Mills and Ying
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re-examing Mills and Ying
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 04:14:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Now that Tom Droege has found a mechanism that gave him a false positive
indication -- is it fair to ask whether it might have also given him
false negatives, vis a vis his work on Mills and Ying.
 
Suppose, for instance, that D2 or H2 contamination of his TEDs always
induces less efficient operation.  On first glance, we would expect this
could only lead to false positives.
 
But!  Suppose the D2 or H2 contamination was early on in the calibration
phase, that the contamination ceased, and that the D2 or H2 eventually
diffused out of the material, restoring its efficieny.
 
This would give rise to a potential false negative. It would show up as
anomalous cold if unbalanced by anomalous heat.
 
--
- 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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.30 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 757 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 757 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 17:08:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello goodfolk,
here a few more. Some of you may get all excited by the Chien et al, who have
apparently found "massive" amounts of tritium. What is more, it increases
with time, and the rate depends on the applied electrode potential. The
Russian team Petrii et al, on the other hand, found no tritium; and neither do
Soyfer et al find neutrons at various hydrogen-absorbing metals and alloys.
They even tried a Wada/Nishizawa spark discharge - still nothing. Then, Pons
and Fleischmann claim to have cleaned up their gamma spectrum act, and again
find clear gamma peaks in the right place. Salamon once more comes in for some
heavy criticism, which I do not feel qualified to comment on. Mendes suggests
that dynamic (vibrational) effects in the metal deuteride lattice should be
considered; three-body collisions occur. He also ties this in with cluster
impact fusion, which is now known to have been a mistake. Too bad, mate.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Oct-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 757
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chien C-C, Hodko D, Minevski Z, Bockris JO'M;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 338 (1992) 189.
"On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium".
** Pd, from original bullion rather than scrap, was formed into cathode rods
in a fairly conventional cold fusion electrolysis cell. Pd pretreatment
included acid etching and anodic treatment. The rods were 16 mm long and 10 mm
diameter. A rod from a cell that produced tritium was cut into a number of
sections with a jeweller's saw, and stored in liquid nitrogen to preserve the
gases. The samples were then analysed for helium and tritium, and by XPS and
EDS surface analysis. The He assay was done by an external lab; extensive
controls were used. Results were: there was a marked tritium production, as
measured from electrolyte aliquots, well above the background, and increasing
with time; this could be quenched by addition of light water, and the rate of
tritium emission increased with increasing cathodic potential. It was observed
(by MS water analysis) that the heavy water was contaminated with around 10%
of light water after 22 days of electrolysis in the fairly well closed cell.
During 761 h of electrolysis, a total of around 1E15 tritium atoms were
estimated to have been produced. The original Pd material was checked, and no
tritium found in notable amounts; neither was there any in the laboratory air.
Out of 10 cells, 9 produced (4)He, ranging from 0.4 to 167E09 atoms, with an
uncertainty of 0.5 to 2E09. No (3)He was found. Surface postmortem analysis
showed some Cu, Zn, Pt and Si (in small amounts). Surface morphology differed
between cells producing tritium and those without. There is some speculation
that high fugacity is the explanation of the results.            Jan-92/Oct-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mendes RV;                                    Mod. Phys. Lett. B5 (1991) 1179.
"Ergodic motion and near collisions in a Coulomb system".
** This explores the possibilities of many body processes taking place between
charged particles in chaotic motion, as in metal deuterides, to perhaps find
factors that might enhance the rate of d-d fusion. Dynamic effects - near
collisions of ergodically moving particles - and/or collective effects are the
likely suspects. It is found that three-body collisions would dominate, the
bodies being two d's and one electron. The mass of the electron does not need
to be greater than normal. Rather large rates of instances of close proximity
are calculated, and emphasise the fact that the charged particles are not at
rest but in energetic motion. A fusion rate is not computed, however. The
author makes some suggestions for how fusion might be favoured, based on this.
Cluster impact fusion (now defunct) is mentioned in connection with solid
state (cold) fusion.                                                 May-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petrii OA, Tsirlina GA, Simonov EF, Safonov VA, Lapshina EV;
Sov. Electrochem. 27 (1991) 1240.
Russian original: Elektrokhimiya 27 (1991) 1403.
"Attempts to detect electrochemical cold nuclear fusion by determining the
excess tritium".
** Of the various signatures of fusion, tritium is not the most sensitive
(lower limit = 1E-17 - 1E-19 fusion rate) but was chosen here nevertheless
because it is urgent to detect it reliably. Careful attention was paid to
controls, material purity. Pd alloys with different mechanical properties were
used, to allow for fractofusion effects, and some trace metals were added in
order to raise the overpotential at a given current density. Tritium was
looked for in both the electrolyte and the evolved gas. No significant amounts
were found in any experiments, beyond normal enrichment effects. The lower
limit of the fusion rate is thus found to be 1E-18. Future work, to detect
protons from the same reaction, is planned, and should yield four orders of
magnitude better sensitivity.                                    Apr-91/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pons S, Fleischmann M;                       Il Nuovo Cimento 105A (1992) 763.
"Concerning the detection of neutron and gamma-rays from cells containing
palladium cathodes polarized in heavy water".
** P&F have apparently now improved their expertise in radiation measurement,
and here admit that their first attempt was insufficient. They now report the
use of an efficient Ge detector for gamma rays, placed in a lab together with
three electrolysis cell baths, each containing 4-6 cells, with various sized
Pd cathodes, various current densities, plus a Pt cathode control. The Ge
detector presumably would pick up radiation from any of these cells. This was
left to itself for up to 205 days, while some of the cells gave off excess
heat. The integrated gamma spectrum has some sharp peaks at 2224 keV, and some
other features convince P&F that this indeed comes from thermalisation of
neutrons given off d-d by cold fusion, that branch that also produces (3)He.
There is some polemic about the Salamon measurements.            Apr-91/Jun-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soyfer VN, Goryachev VA, Salyuk AN, Sergeyev AF;
Appl. Radiat. Isot. 43 (1992) 1041.
"Neutron emission during heavy water electrolysis".
** Electrolysis in heavy water and NaOH at Ti (and other) cathodes and Ni
anodes at a range of current densities from 0.05 to 300 A/cm**2 was carried
out, motivated by press reports of the FPH work. Neutrons were detected using
a proportional methane counter, with cosmic background rejection by an
anticoincidence chamber. This had a neutron efficiency of about 7%. Ti plates,
a stainless steel wire, a Ti-V alloy and Pt and V wires were tried as
cathodes. Spark discharges were also tried. No neutrons even 16 orders of
magnitude lower than the rates required by the excess heats reported by FPH
were seen in any of these runs.                                       Sep-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Peripheral papers; file cnf-peri:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krapivnii NG, Kleshya VB, Sobornitskii VI;       Elektrokhimiya 28 (1992) 451.
"Calculation of the finite rate of the spread of hydrogen concentration during
its diffusion into metals".
** The mathematics of this process is examined, solving the hyperbolic partial
differential equations under the special boundary conditions for electrolytic
charging.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.30 /  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: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 17:08:56 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.30 /  /  TED
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TED
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 19:29:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan says: "I had to think a bit to figure out why you consider this
a superior method."
 
I still think you miss the beauty of this device.  First let me describe the
device better.  The ones I use are about 1.2" x 1.2" x 0.1".  They consist
of 254 little square posts standing between two 1.2" square ground ceramic
plates.  The plates have a metalized pattern which connects all the
semiconductor posts together in electrical series, but in thermal parallel.
 
These devices are built to pump heat from one face to the other.  But since
a Peltier device is also a Seebeck device, they also generate a voltage when
the two faces are at a different temperature.
 
John is right, if the two faces are at the same temperature, then all the
thermoelectric voltages cancel and the device puts out zero voltage.  But it
is like 254 pieces of wire zig-zaged back and forth between the two plates
to form a series of thermocouples.  Further each couple has about three times
the voltage of the more popular materials.  So it is about 500 times the
sensitivity of a normal thermocouple pair.  It is further a large area device.
Each little post is larger than the usual thermocouple so it averages the
temperature locally.  Further there are many posts spread over a wide area,
so it does a great job of detecting the mean temperature difference over a
1.1" square.  You can further cover the whole area between two surfaces with
these devices as I do in my balance device, and as is done in the Seebeck
microcalorimeter made by Tronac which was used by Appleby.
 
The disadvantage of this device is that electrical conductors are also thermal
conductors.  At least no one has yet found an electrical conductor that is
also not a pretty good thermal conductor.  They sure tried in the 60's, and
had they succeeded we would be generating electricity this way today.  We
only need about a factor of 10.  In any case, these devices conduct heat
between their two faces.  So the trick in my calorimeter, is to invent a
device where the temperature differential is zero when the calorimeter is in
balance, which is all the time.  This way, no heat escapes from the calorimeter
because the outside is the same temperature as the inside.
 
John worries about bringing a signal away from this device.  I think I can do
as good a job as anyone in moving signals.  I was worring about these problems
in 1960 when I was head of the Digital Research Division of the Aeronautical
Computer Lab at the Naval Air Development Center.  We had about 1000 vacuum
tube operational amplifiers in a big simulator.  These get hot, and you have
to worry about dissimilar metals.  I know about low thermal emf solder and
other tricks to use.  So it is never easy.  But I still think these are
gread devices for this purpose.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.31 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Review earlier Droege results?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review earlier Droege results?
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 00:28:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan suggests that perhaps we should reconsider Mills and Ying
experiments in light of recent results from Tom Droege.  John you just
need to learn that experimental science is never quite so neat as we
sometimes might wish it were.  Tom has been brave enough to let us in
on the whole process of an experimental measurement which, in spite of
an unexpected drift, is still a heck of a lot better calorimetery measurement
than 97.44% of the crap that has been done in support of CF.  So where do
you get off suggesting that his earlier results are incorrect to anywhere
near the level of "surplus heat" claimed by Mills or Ying?
 
Let us review more specifically the strengths and weaknesses of the
Droege experiments.  The balance method gives much greater sensitivity
which is great for observations on a shorter time scale, but CF has
the property of generally not being observed very soon after start-up.
(One might want to comment on how the phenomena has taken on this set
of characteristics that make definitive measurements difficult to obtain
but I won't.)  The weak point in the Droege method is clearly the
fact that it is vulnerable to error, to some degree, due to drifts in
the balance point which may go undetected during the course such
extended measurement periods as CF seems to demand.  John, you need to
be reminded that the only thing wrong with this latest measurement is
that Tom overestimated his accuracy.  Even without correcting for the
known drift the result was ZERO surplus heat to an accuracy of better
than 1%.  Even if the 80 mW power level had stood it would have been
difficult to reconcile that with all these claims of many watts of
heat production.
 
Just think of all the experiments where the zero was never determined
to any accuracy at all, but for which the experimenters claimed a surplus
after some days of running and then never bothered to make any further
checks of the zero level.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.31 /  Garfinkle /       Re: Fusion Digest 555
     
Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 555
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 04:47:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After perusing the exchange of sentiments about sediments and crud and other
good things associated with electrolytic deuterium implantation, I have
concluded that too much extraneous things are going on.  Essentially,
of all the means of detecting cold fusion (if such a thing exists) would be the
detection of products of nuclear reactions.  Neutron detection is faulty
because several reactions do not produce neutrons.  Heat detection will
always to contriversal, unless you get an explosion like Pons and company.
Only helium or tritium production would be positive, if atmospheric species
were isolated from products.  This can only occur with direct implantation
of deuterium.I cordially invite readers to examine a recent paper appearing in
Fusion Technology by yours truly concerning this approach.  The
reference is  MOISHE GARFINKLE, FUSION TECHNOLOGY; Vol 22, (Aug 1992) p160.
Your critical comments would be most appreciated.  MG
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenGARFINKM cudfn cudlnGarfinkle cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.13 / John Logajan /  Psychic Experiment?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The early missing Droege posts -- found and reposted here.
Subject: Hot and Cold
Subject: Additives
Subject: Misc.
Subject: Big News
Subject: Replies
Subject: Misc.
Subject: Our Government At Work
Subject: Various Replies
Subject: The Truth About Government Support Cold Fusion History
Subject: Psychic Experiment?
Date: 31 Oct 92 15:46:16 GMT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:31:32 GMT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:32 GMT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:51 GMT
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:29:09 GMT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:02:37 GMT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:20:26 GMT
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:15:29 GMT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:15:58 GMT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:39:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
I scanned the archived fusion digests on vm1.nodak.edu for the months of
September and October and extracted all the postings from Tom Droege that
had failed to make it to those of us here on the Usenet side.  People on
the Fusion Digest side have already seen these.  I am working from memory,
but if I erred, it is on the side of inclusion for *not* recognizing
the posting.
 
The following messages are *REPOSTED* for historical completeness.
 
  --------------
Subject: Hot and Cold
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:31:32 GMT
 
To Dieter Britz and others who asked about my observation that I sometimes see
the thermometer in the cell get hot while the thermometer near the catalyst
gets cold while there is no change in the gas volume.
 
Looks like recombination in the cell to me.  Re-combination in the cell makes
it hotter.  The catalyst sees less gas to convert so it gets colder.  The
catalyst re-combines all the gas available, so there is no volume change.  Only
problem is that these events seem to be accompanied by a little excess heat.
 
Remember all the early reports that this could not happen?  I do not believe
anyone who runs an open system.  I have run too many experiments now where
the gas does not have the assumed heating value.  My next calorimeter will
allow separate measurement of the cell heat and the catalyst heat.  The plan
is to put two Seebeck calorimeters inside my nul-balance calorimeter.  The
big one will take care of the over all energy balance.  The Seebeck units will
have fast response and lower noise for their measurements.  Who knows, maybee
the cell makes "Browns gas" and the catalyst will be hotter than I expect.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Additives
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:32 GMT
 
Tod Green says "inhibitors of D2 formation are compounds like thiourea,..."
 
On the advice of Hawkins, we added thiourea to a cell about 2 years ago.  No
special effect.  The best thing we have found for loading is a highy polished
surface.  Two cell in a row with a polished cathode got to the vicinity of
0.94 D/Pd.  This has a rational basis - or at least it did in 1902.
 
And not a "great" finish either.  We will soon try a cell with a really
polished surface.  But all these things take time.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Misc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:28:51 GMT
 
Thanks to Jim Carr for correcting my spelling of Kilojoules.  In graduate
school, I had a German student next door.  Sort of average guy.  He once
amazed us all by wondering what a spelling bee was.  It seems that even
an average German thinks he can spell every word in the dictionary.  Since
my name is Droege, I really belong in Germany.  I try, but the logic of
spelling eludes me.
 
John Logajan wants to know the number of moles of LiOd in the cell.  I don't
know, the solution was made up so there is about a 5% layer of precipitate
in the bottom of the cell.  Guess is one to two cc of LiOD.  While my brother
has a record of the grams of Li added to make the mix, I can't say for sure
the percentage of the precipitate that went into each of two runs.
 
John will be interested that the total is over 70 kilojoules for his
computation.  I agree with John on his Path #1.  Local recombination in the
cell.  But this is not supposed to happen, and if it does, **** a lot of
people who think they are getting results from open cells have something
to learn ****.
 
William L. Dechent asks about output to input power ratio.  It is very small.
A typical number is 1.0059.  A little shy of what is needed for our race car.
But when I smoke the right stuff, I still claim an error on that number of
+/- 0.0001
 
Anthony E. Siegman asks about the possibility that contaminants are producing
the heat.  True, it is not much heat.  But there is only about 50 grams of
stuff in the whole set up.  For the most part, at the end of the run we see
the same stuff as at the start, so I would put an extreme upper limit on
contaminants at say 100 mg.  We are using reasonably pure chemical reagents.
But if 100 mg of stuff produces 70,000 joules, then I figure a gallon of the
same stuff would drive my car 3000 miles.  Bring on the contaminant.  We will
patent it and make a fortune.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Big News
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:29:09 GMT
 
The big news is that I made some effort to turn the cell off this weekent.  It
did not stop producing power in spite of the fact that almost all the gas
appeared to come out.  Enough gas for a D/Pd of about .84 was evolved.  So
I turned it back on and the cell is now running around 90 mw.  So either my
zero has shifted, or something really strange is going on.  This would be a
very large zero shift.  Like 100 times anything seen before under similar
conditions.
 
Just looked up contaminates.  I once misspelled "area" 46 times in a sophamore
class on the planimeter.  The instructor circled every one.  He completely
failed to notice that the experiment was done with the greatest care, and that
the measurement achieved everything possible with the apparatus.  I got
terrible grades in all my lab courses.  But my group was the only one *ever*
to get the entire motor generator experiment done in the alloted time at the
University of Cincinnati.  And the data was first class.  But I probably got
a C or a D.  So much for the american educational system.  But the Japanese
have it worse.  At least we don't have to learn Japanese.  It is my theory
that Japanese students spend so much time copying characters in school, and
trying to get them perfect, that a set is taken which explains why they look
to others for original work, and why they are so good at achieving perfection.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Replies
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:02:37 GMT
 
Why I like QuickBASIC
 
An example will demonstrate.  A while back while running the Takahashi
experiment, it seemed appropriate to try running the saw tooth on the other
side of zero.  Now I know that completely general code would have anticipated
that need, but mine did not.  With BASIC I was able to break into the running
experiment, make the fix, and continue without missing a data taking tick.
 
Dieter Britz says "show us those kW/cm**3".  Heck, I think 500 mw a cm**3
is enough.  We just have to make it so anyone can repeat it, then we have a
problem that science can cope with.  But I don't think getting to that point
is science - it is more "Adventure"!
 
Nick Hanes writes "Also I'm sure that everything in the cell will be analyzed
for state change when he strips it down."  Not unless you do it Nick.  Chuck
Sites has been looking at the cathodes with an electron microscope, but other
than that my offers of stuff from the cells have gone unanswered.  To all of
you out there, you don't have to be able to do the thing, you can just grab
the ball and run.  Some of you have offered money.  So take your money, and
my gunk and go get it analyzed.  My problem is that I don't even know the
language to use to request a commercial lab to do what should be done.
 
To all those discussing kev gamma rays.  Back in the early days I had a NaI(Tl)
counter hooked up and mounted over the apparatus.  It was run at very high
voltage on the PM and with a very low noise high speed amplifier of the type
we use for liquid argon systems at Fermilab.  It was run right down into the
tube noise, so that tube noise counts were about 10x background.  Not the usual
place one would run such a counter.  We just counted events - no PHA. (I can
build a PHA from scratch, but had other things to do).  There was nothing
obvious in the data.  I then separated the counts when the cathode was
outgassing from the rest of the counts.  There was about a 7 sigma effect.
My idea was that if an "event" made the cathode hot it would outgas a little.
So I used the space around outgas events in the measured bin and the rest as
the control.  This seemed to work with the data where I thought I saw excess
heat but not in other data.  The problem with this was that I was not very
good at detecting excess heat at the time, so the selection of the data
involved my "opinion" as to which data to use.  We all know that if you have
enough data (I do) you can find some set of it to follow any thing that you
want to predict.  So I put these experiments aside until I could produce heat
reliably.  If anyone wonders about the counter configuration it was my idea of
how to detect low energy x-rays.  Someone out there may know better.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Misc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:20:26 GMT
 
Before everyone gets grumpy, Chuch Sites is not the only one who has been
helpful to me, he is just the only one who has said "I can look at that"
with the fancy machine that he can access.
 
To the one who is going to send the secret cell killer,
 
Thomas F. Droege
2 S. 942 Thornecrest La.
Batavia, IL 60510
 
or
Fermilab, MS 331
PO Box 500
Batavia, IL 60510
 
Thanks to Robert W. Horst for the graphs.  What I really have in mind is
some of the detailed stuff.  Thousands of high resolution points if any
sense is to be made of it.  I have a number of very interesting events.
But sense can only be made of these if 5 or six curves are plotted together
as they are on my on line code.  I usually watch about 12 at a time.  This
uses up most of the colors that can be distinguished from each other.
Robert suggests that something happened at day 8 and day 14.  Day 8 was where
the shell servo went nuts.  Day 9 and 10 are corrected estimates.  Nothing
special about day 14 except the log book is full of entries like "Wow that
wat a big pulse - mark that one for later analysis".  But to sort out things
like whether the cell got hot first or the catalyst got hot first etc., you
need high resolution graphics in color!
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Our Government At Work
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT
 
Just got a mail message from Bruce Lewenstein who is co-director of the
Cold Fusion Archive at Cornell University.  He wants to interview me.
I did not before know that such a thing existed.
 
Since he is co-director, then there are at least two participants in this
NSF sponsored orginization.  He is going to Nagoya, so there must be an
expense budget.
 
As far as I know, there no official budgeted cold fusion work going on in the
US.  Ed Storms, for example, has taken early retirement, and is given only
space, and what he can beg from other budgets.
 
So it is not hard to imagine that the wonderful US government is spending
more on documenting the cold fusion research than it is spending (even extra
budget) on the research itself.
 
Further, while I don't have funds to take a trip to Nagoya, the NSF is sending
someone there to record the progres.  Sorry Bruce, there would be more progress
to report if I went and you stayed home.  (Please, at this late date, don't
anyone offer to pay my way.  I have enough money to go - though the fare would
be better spent on the next generation calorimeter.  Such a trip takes
preparation, and at the time I needed to make the decision I did not have
enough experimental evidence to want to pay for the trip.)
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:15:29 GMT
 
Dick Blue says fuso-fizzel is not interesting because it is not the kind of
reaction that we want.  Some of us, Dick, are just looking to see what we can
find.  Fossil fuels will not be exhausted in my lifetime so I don't care if
this is a practical heat source.  I keep looking at the March 1990 Scientific
American article on exotic fission. If we could somehow get Pd+D > Ag to
happen, then Ag fission> Va + Cr might happen.  At least all the protons and
neutrons add up correctly for the right Pd isotope.  And it does put out some
energy.  As far as I know, no one has looked for Va and Cr.  It is also not
clear that the fission could proceed without bumping something hard enough to
produce a few gammas.  I class this as "only" a two miracle reaction.
 
John Logajan is correct.  There just isn't enough stuff in the cell to produce
the 90 odd kilojoules seen so far.  There is no foam in the cell, John.  The
foam I mentioned is inside the glass tube which is inside the cell, and is
there to keep the two thermometers separate from each other.  Everything in
the cell at the start is there at the end.  There is almost nothing added.  I
say almost, because I add or remove gas as the motor driven syringe
fills/empties.  This is at most an unbalance of 100 cc over an experiment.
Let us say that I add 100 cc of pure oxygen and it found 200 cc (I don't know
where) of free D or H.  This would produce 2600 joules.  Just not enough.  The
only other explanation is to say that my calorimeter has drifted.  I could
certainly believe that.  Everything possible has happened at one time or
another during these experiments.  But I think not.  And the longer that the
skeptics scare others away from this research, the longer I get to work
without competition.
 
J. A. Carr again does a calculation that demonstrates that even 80 mw should
produce a dangerous level of radiation.  But my geiger counter continues to
click away at background, except when the Co60 source is in place and then it
is about twice background.  I have not yet seen any radiation detection
reports that I can believe.  I think that there is *no* radiation.  But I do
think there is heat, or I would quit.
 
Jon Webb writes:
 
"Jed, I understand that your background is not in science, so
you probably don't know this, but the Japanese will never do this, either.
The trick in science is to find a neat, simple experiment that
measures a few things and demonstrates or refutes a theory.  Setting
up an experiment that measures everything you can think of is never
done, because it's too expensive (even for well-funded research) and
anyway you can never think of everything."
 
Sorry, Jon, you have not followed high energy physics research.  That is
exactly what is done.  Detectors like the CDF at Fermilab are just 10,000 tons
of cramming every known type of detector in the assembly hall.  Clever people
like Jim Cronin are frozen out of such monster efforts.  (Jim is a nobel prize
winner to those who don't know - he said to me shortly after winning the prize
-"if I just keep quiet and and don't give interviews it will all blow over and
I can get back to science.")  Jim was appointed to be head of the CDF effort.
He lasted about 6 months and then he resigned because he wanted to do physics.
He has left the field as near as I can determine and is doing cosmic ray work.
There one can still do a clever experiment.  That is also why I find it hard
to do work on the next generation experiment here at Fermilab.  I think the
same things could be said about the "hot fusion" research.  It is not entirely
the fault of the researchers.  When you are planning to spend a billion
dollars on a detector, as is likely at the SSC, the clever people must spend
all their time drawing PERT charts, and attending meetings.
 
Dieter Britz notes that the best one can expect for calorimetry is 3% and that
my results are well within that number.  He also says "Are you sure about your
errors?"  Well Dieter, I would not want you to miss out on the splendid
opportunity that I have offered Dick Blue.  So come and bring lots of money.
I do think that I have outdone the standard calorimetry.  I am somewhere
between 0.1% and 0.01% and plan to get better.  Sorry Dieter that you cannot
read proceedings as I have published the designs in the ACCF1 and ICCF2.  I
guess if you go to the beach you do not look at girls who are not wearing
bathing suits.  If I get a reasonable ending calibration and H2O run I will
publish in Fusion Technology, and then you can see the design.  Unfortunately
I don't think there will be many out there who both want to do calorimetry and
who have enough electronic experience to build my kludge so I do not expect
many replications.  I am close to deciding to go into production of 10 or so
units.  While I have no plans to sell them, I will probably find someone who
wants to try one, who then may make an independent publication.
 
How about this.  If anyone out there wants to do precise calorimetry, and has
a **non** cold fusion experiment that he wants to do, send me a note.  It will
help me to decide whether I want to build a row of calorimeters.  The next
design will be more or less moveable.  The next design should be able to do a
20 to 30 watt experiment at room temperature.  I will look for accuracy of
the larger of 0.01% of the operating power or 1 mw.  There will be about 2
liter of space for the experiment.  I will furnish the unit at no cost, but
would expect to be a collaborator, at least on any instrumentation papers.
It will take about a year to get the next design out.
 
Dieter also worries about heat of solution of the LiOD.  On the average, the
cell is held constant to under a 0.001 C with an rms of 0.02 C.  So it does
change temperature a little, but what goes up must come down, so I think the
net energy contribution of the LiOD should be zero.  Dieter says that "the
excess is at a level where a chemical effect might suffice."  I don't think so
Dieter, if nuclear processes must leave nuclear ash, then chemical processes
must leave chemical ash.  I don't find enough.
 
Dick Blue says: "Make a hypothesis, put it to the test of experiment, and then
accept the result (after making an honest assessment of possible errors)." OK
Dick, I accept.  My hypothesis is simple - there is excess heat produced in
these reactions.  I have tested it.  I find heat.  I have studied my errors a
lot.  I have not been hasty.  I have had essentially these same results for
three years.
 
Tom Droege
 
 -------------------
Subject: The Truth About Government Support Cold Fusion History
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:15:58 GMT
 
Bruce Lewenstein sent a note with a rebuttal of my "nasty" remarks about
just what the government was supporting.
 
It seems the NSF gave Bruce enough funds to buy a file cabined, and some
file folders back in 1989 and has not supported him since.  He is sort of
hitch-hiking to Nagoya.  He has not put up anything on the net in his own
defense as he does not want to disturb that which he is studying.  Seems
like the right approach to me.
 
Even the co-director barb is not true.  All other co's seem to have left
the field to Bruce.
 
With my Libertarian hat on, I would more have the government fund a history
effort like this than the work itself, on the premise that the government
should only sponsor work thatn no one else would have motive to do.  But it
looks like they did not even get this right.
 
Be kind to your biographer.  Keep you papers orgainzed.  Don't throw out that
first experiment sitting under the bench.  Some day Bruce will want it for
his museum.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
Subject: Psychic Experiment?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:39:42 GMT
 
Possibly this is psychic phenomena after all.  I have always been open to
that possibility.  While typing the "hydrino" message, I got a message from
Don Beal who suggested that hydrogen was affecting the TED efficiency.  No way
he could know what I was typing as I had not sent it yet.
 
But I think this is not the problem.  The TED are well away from the cell, in
a different space, and covered with epoxy.  The hydrogen would have to some
how want to burrow through epoxy instead of diffusion out into all that empty
space.
 
Tom Droege
 -------------------
 
 *END OF HISTORICAL RECORD REPOST*
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.31 / John Logajan /  Possible chemical formula for "yellow crud"
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Possible chemical formula for "yellow crud"
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 23:23:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

According to the Physical Constants of Inorganic Chemicals in the CRC HCP
there is a compound of platinum that has yellow crystal needles.
 
It is H Pt(OH)  or PtO .4H O   Hexahydroxoplatinic acid
       2      6       2   2
 
It has a molecular weight of 299.14, has yellow needles, is insoluble in
cold water and very slightly soluble in hot water.  Other solvents are
H2SiF6, dilute acid, and alkalies.  It lists a melting point for -2H20 at
100C and for -3H2O at 120C (not sure what that means.)
 
As you can see from the chemical formula, there are six oxygen atoms
and eight hydrogen (or deuterium) atoms for each platinum atom.
 
My money is on the above formula (with D for H) as Tom Droege's "yellow crud."
You can get a lot of it with little loss of Pt, it is yellow, it has all the
elements reported by whoever did the analysis, elements that are known to
be in contact with the Pt anode, it is insoluable in cool water, yet soluable
by the acids or alkalies Tom used to clean it up with.
 
Other possible "cell" platinum compounds listed in the HCP are:
 
Pt(CN)2 [ C and N from atmosphere ]                  yellow-brown
Pt(OH)2    Pt(OH)2.2H2O                              black
PtO        PtO.2H2O                                  violet-black
PtO2       PtO2.H2O      PtO2.2H2O     PtO2.3H2O     black  ochre
PtO3
Pt2O3.3H2O
Pt3O4
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.31 / COLIN HENDERSON /  the trees.. er... the forest..
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the trees.. er... the forest..
Date: 31 Oct 92 22:43:54 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

 
Well, I didn't get very far with the tract on Larsonian physics. Somehow
when SOMEone keeps NAILING me with CAPitals I get BORED quicker.  But one
bit of garbled metaphor I loved, and I thank the author for it.  It summed
the whole thing up IMHO. Forgive me for dumping the caps.
 
"It often takes a complete outsider ... to see the forest through the trees."
I guess it's like missing something right under your nose, only more so.
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.30 /  Glen.Pannicke@ /  Laser Implosion
     
Originally-From: Glen.Pannicke@f121.n2605.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laser Implosion
Date: 30 Oct 92 03:02:00 GMT

Does anyone know about the progress of laser implosion of hydrogen isotopes
(Dt or Tr?).  It was being investigated as a cleaner source of nuclear energy.
Last I had heard, it was not efficient enough.  Thanx.
 
Glen
 
... QUICK! Hand me the cat; the cherry bomb's lit!
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.10 [NR]
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPannicke cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.02 / Pierre Hilaire /  Re: Laser Implosion
     
Originally-From: pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laser Implosion
Date: 2 Nov 92 01:30:12 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

 
>Does anyone know about the progress of laser implosion of hydrogen isotopes
>(Dt or Tr?).  It was being investigated as a cleaner source of nuclear energy.
>Last I had heard, it was not efficient enough.  Thanx.
 
 
        Check out the Sept. 1992 edition of "Physics Today" . There
are two good papers on the subject.
 
                                        Pierre St Hilaire
                                        MIT Media Laboratory
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpierre cudfnPierre cudlnHilaire cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.02 /  Garfinkle /       Re: Fusion Digest 559
     
Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 559
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 17:01:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ION IMPLANTATION AS A DEFINITIVE MEANS OF INVESTIGATING ANY POSSIBILITY OF
INTRACRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR FUSION;  Moishe Garfinkle;  Drexel University
FUSION TECHNOLOGY v22;(Aug 1992)p 160
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenGARFINKM cudfn cudlnGarfinkle cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.02 / John Logajan /  Size of the electron
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Size of the electron
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 18:42:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I earlier wrote:
>The size of the electron is roughly the size of the nucleus, but
>only 1/1800th its mass.
 
 
Pierre St Hilaire replied:
>The leptons (electrons and neutrinos) are single entities and are assumed
>to be pointlike, i.e. they have no diameter to speak of.
 
 
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) concurred:
>All evidence is that quarks and electrons act as if they have zero radius
>(or, to be precise, less than anything we can measure today, many powers of
>10 less than a fm).
 
Then Mike Jamison pointed out to me via private e-mail that the density of
the electrons has been suggested to be that approaching black holes.
 
To which I infer that though the size of the electron is probably a good
bit smaller than my 20 year old college textbook claimed, it still seems
unlikely that the electron size is zero -- which by standard mathematics
makes density calculations IMPOSSIBLE.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.03 /  /  Here We Go Again
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Here We Go Again
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 04:16:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have started up another run.  Mostly to check out all the changes made
to the calorimeter.  Two new power supplies, and lots of glue to seal the
TED from hydrogen.  The two new supplies do not have the power rating of the
old, so I am limited to 7.445 watts in the calorimeter.  At the present
current level, the cell dissipation is about 6.6 watts.  So if it puts out
more than 800 mw anomalous heat, I am out of luck.  (Or in luck, it depends
on your view point.)
 
We cleaned up cell 4A2 with it's 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm cathode.  It reached about
.92 D/Pd on the first charge at 20 ma per sq cm.  We then moved up in steps to
205 ma per sq cm and got to 1.05 D/Pd.  Over the next shift, the gas level
went down to of order 0.87 D/Pd.  We then rand a Takahashi style saw tooth
over night and the loading whet back up to the area of 0.94 D/Pd where it
seems to want to stay.  Every so often it absorbs an additional 10 cc of D2
which it holds for a half hour or so then it coughs it back out.  Sudden in,
sudden out, flat hold.  The catalyst thermometer confirmes that this is a
real absorption and not some artifact of the catalyst.
 
We are again seeing a small amount of anomalous heat.  So far about 20 mw.
We ran a long time with the non operating cell in the calorimeter at a very
nice steady balance.  Earlier calibration runs indicate that the power
measurement scheme is not the problem.  So we have to really stretch to find
a theory as to why the non-operating cell is in balance while the operating
cell shows "anomalous heat".
 
For this run, we are using the last of the remaining saturated LiOD electrolyte
plus some additional D2O.  No H2O.  This is the electrolyte batch that had the
aluminum foil disolved in it and the boric acid added.  So the new fill has a
trace of both.
 
Meanwhile, I have been more successful than I would have liked in the water
machine work.  The company wants me to drop everything and make water machines.
It might even work.  I wonder if "cold fusion" "might even work"?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.03 / K Eriksson /  Re: Size of the electron
     
Originally-From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Size of the electron
Date: 3 Nov 92 08:35:39 GMT
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden

In article <9211021802.AA29403@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Then Mike Jamison pointed out to me via private e-mail that the density of
>the electrons has been suggested to be that approaching black holes.
 
Does that matter on a quantum scale?
 
--
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Stallgatan 2, S-702 26 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-33 13 00  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-33 13 30  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenske cudfnKristoffer cudlnEriksson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.03 / Dave Gordon /  Size of a PHOTON?
     
Originally-From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Size of a PHOTON?
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 17:51:55 GMT
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd

In sci.physics.fusion <9211021802.AA29403@anubis.network.com>
 logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>
>I earlier wrote:
>>The size of the electron is roughly the size of the nucleus, but
>>only 1/1800th its mass.
>
>Pierre St Hilaire replied:
>>The leptons (electrons and neutrinos) are single entities and are assumed
>>to be pointlike, i.e. they have no diameter to speak of.
>
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) concurred:
>>All evidence is that quarks and electrons act as if they have zero radius
>>(or, to be precise, less than anything we can measure today, many powers of
>>10 less than a fm).
>
>Then Mike Jamison pointed out to me via private e-mail that the density of
>the electrons has been suggested to be that approaching black holes.
>
>To which I infer that though the size of the electron is probably a good
>bit smaller than my 20 year old college textbook claimed, it still seems
>unlikely that the electron size is zero -- which by standard mathematics
>makes density calculations IMPOSSIBLE.
 
This relates to something I have been wondering about for a while now:
is there an upper bound on the freqency of electromagnetic radiation?
 
Consider a single photon: as its energy increses, its "size" decreases
(assuming that size is related to wavelength).  Since energy is
equivalent to mass, at some point it must become so dense that it
collapses into a black hole!
 
Is this reasonable?  Is there an upper limit on frequency, such that a
single photon at this limit collapses into a black hole?  How much energy
does such a photon have?  Is there any chance of us being able to produce
one?  What it the lifetime of such a single-photon black hole?
 
Or is it not meaningful to talk about the "size" of a photon like this?
What about other particles (electron, proton, etc) when accelerated to
sufficient energies?
 
Any opinions?
--
 
===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | <this space is deliberately left blank>
===============================================================================
        You are in a little maze of twisty standards, all different
===============================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendsg cudfnDave cudlnGordon cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.03 / Edgar Swank /  E-Mail
     
Originally-From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: E-Mail
Date: 3 Nov 92 12:40:07 GMT
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

To Tom Droege:
 
I sent you a long (87 lines) message via E-Mail to
 
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
with advice on setting up a home system.  Hope it reaches you.
 
--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedgar cudfnEdgar cudlnSwank cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.03 /  Timm /  Re: Size of a PHOTON?
     
Originally-From: Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
Date: Tue,  3 Nov 1992 18:50:33 -0500
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Since photons are massless, it's not necessary to worry about them
collapsing on themselves anytime soon.
 
Astrophysical photons have been observed at 10^6 TeV, which is a million
times more powerful than existing accelerators can make anything.
Of course, photons much more energetic than this are commonly supposed
to have existed in the early universe.
 
Steve Timm
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfn cudlnTimm cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.04 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: Here We Go Again
     
Originally-From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Here We Go Again
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 16:04:23 GMT
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Tom, what is the "water machine work" that you mention?
I've been following your posts for months now and don't remember
a referent.
 
 
--
Chris Kostanick
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog
it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchris cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.04 /  /  Accuracy of "Cold Fusion" results.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Accuracy of "Cold Fusion" results.
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:56:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue has posted a nice even handed discussion of the accuracy of my
experiments.  I agree with most of what he has said.
 
My present position is that I believe that I am pretty bullet proof at the
1% level.  Everything I measure is good to of order 0.01%.  So why can I
not make 0.01% measurements?
 
Because something else is going on when there is a D2O cell in the calorimeter.
 
Things are as expected when I run with a resistor replacing the cell.
 
I have not run enough H20 to know if it also produces unexpected results.
 
If I were just trying to understand the calorimetry, I would run equal time
with D2O, H2O, and the resistor.  But I am exploring for "anomalous heat".
So I am spending most of my time looking where "anomalous heat" is supposed
to be.  (just as banks are robbed becaus "thats where the money is").
 
Whenever I think I see "anomalous heat" I then back up and do calibrations
until it either goes away (it always has so far) or I can be convinced that
it is real.
 
Note that Dick would likely have me spend equal time with D2O, H2O and resistor
calibrations.  That would be the correct strategy if I was trying to prove
that there is nothing to measure.  But I am hoping to find something.  So my
strategy is biased toward a positive "anomalous heat" result.  I hope, however,
that there is no bias in my measurements.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.29 / Steve Quest /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 29 Oct 92 18:41:32 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
> In article <X4yusB2w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) wr
> >
> >        Once again I have to reiterate, the radiation from a
> >subcritical sphere of Plutonium 239 is NOT lethal!  The people who
> >make the bombs our government is so proud of- do the fabrication
> >behind barium glass using nothing more than an elaborate glove
> >box!  Of course they only have to work for a few months a year,
 
> Yes, you can hold a lump of Pu-239 in your hand -- at least if you
> believe the stories about the bomb project.  It is supposed to be
> nicely warm from the alpha-decay heat.  I do not know; I have never
> done it.  It would be a most interesting experience I am sure.
>
> When people talk about the radiation risk, it is the risk associated
> with separating Pu-239 from burnt-up reactor fuel as the author of
> this post has suggested (here or elsewhere) would be feasible.  This
> is not something one does without engineering a very secure, remotely
> operated, industrial facility.  I find the stories about the concrete
> in the Hanford halls being turned into a material that is literally
> spongy by the radiation damage to be astounding, but not surprising.
>
> So, given a nice collection of chunks of bomb-grade Pu-239, you could
> handle it and machine it (masks suggested) quite easily.  Making it
> is not so simple.  For this reason, the security of special nuclear
> materials is of the utmost importance, and the view articulated by
> G.H.W.Bush that the world is safe from nuclear war following the
> breakup of the former Soviet Union is only true as long as that
> collection of nations maintains control over its stockpile of materials.
 
Jim,
 
        Although I firmly believe a motivated individual could
refine enough PU239 from spent fuel rods, or refine from U238
reflector/absorbers in his "basement breeder" reactor to build a
bomb- given the current situation as you and I have both iterated,
the materials may very well be available on the market- given the
break-up of the soviet union.  As with drugs, make enough money
available and someone somewhere who has access to said fissionable
materials will procure and provide, his motivation of course will
be large sums of easy money.  It is well known that people who
have gambling or drug problems need more money than they can earn
to support said addictions.  What would be the outcome if one of
our bonded and trusted "nuclear bomb assembly workers" had a drug
or gambling problem?  What if this problemed individual was asked
by a determined individual for the procurement of said fissile
fuels?  What if large sums of cash were given?  The results are
obvious, and there is no amount of security to prevent what I have
just illustrated from happening- for it may even NOW be happening.
 
        I do not know, but I can speculate..............sq
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.10.29 / Steve Quest /  Re: Basement bombers
     
Originally-From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basement bombers
Date: 29 Oct 92 19:31:05 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

Allen Wallace <allen@dtint.dtint.com> writes:
 
>
> What is the best way of getting SMALL amounts of D2O and
> palladium for basement bomber or High School science project
> CF experiments? What are the alternative (and cheaper) metals?
>
> Also, is the threat of radiation serious enough to warrant suggesting
> (demand?) radiation detection for these kind of experimenters?
> --
> ---
> root                                 root@dtint.dtint.com
> Digital Technology Int.                (801)226-2984
> 500 W. 1200 South, Orem UT, 84057      FAX (801) 226-8438
 
 
Allen,
 
        When I was playing around with cold fusion (about 2 years
ago now- did it when the story first broke) I obtained my D2O,
Palladium and Platinum from a company called:
 
        Aldrich Chemical Company Inc.
        940 West Saint Paul Ave.
        Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53233   USA
 
        Phone orders: 1-800-558-9160
 
 
 
        I have had very good luck with this company in regards to
pure elements and reagents.  I know it is taboo to "advertise" on
the net, but this company is VERY good at supplying about
everything I have ever needed.  They will also perform custom
synthesis to save you time if you don't want to bother to
synthesize your own "odd-ball" agents.  Their catalog says
"Chemists helping chemists", and that says it all..........sq
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenquest cudfnSteve cudlnQuest cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.04 /  /  Real Science
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Real Science
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:34:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Several of you have asked about the "water machine".  It continues to "grow"
in my basement in the room next to the "cold fusion" work.  Part of my reason
for these posts is to show how science really works.  In particular, how
science works under the "Edisonian" approach.
 
Around November of 1989, I took the husband of my wife's swimming partner into
my basement for a tour of the "cold fusion" apparatus.  He works for a water
treatment company (over a billion in sales).  The various environmental acts
have created a large industry.  We all pay for it.  In the old days, plants
which ran large steam condensers would run the river through them.  To keep
algae from growing in the tubes, or scale from forming, they would just dump
terrible chemicals in the river - chromium compounds in particular.  (My
doctor tells me that a recent medical problem was likely due to a chromium
deficiency. - Perhaps I previously go enough!)  Now they cannot do that
anymore, and the biodegradable stuff they use is expensive.  So they are much
more interested in measuring exactly what is going on.
 
When my friend saw what I was measuring for cold fusion, he wanted me to try
to measure scale formation.  Scale is the deposit left on the inside of tubes
when calcium containing water passes through.  When I started, I pictured
things like old water heaters which grow scale inches thick.  But the
condenser for a large nuclear plant is much different than that.  It may have
several hundred thousand 3/4" diameter tubes 60 feet long.  It is likely
designed with 50% excess capacity.  A very thin coating on the tubes can
reduce the cooling capacity enough so that the plant has to be shut down and
the tubes cleaned (can be done mechanically by shooting plugs through the
tubes or with acid).  This costs of order a million dollars a day in lost
revenue.  So there is a big incentive to measure scale formation so that
operators can know when to add expensive chemicals.
 
I sketched a design in my log book on that first visit.  As might be expected
it used thermoelectric devices.  About 5 versions of thermoelectric
implementations were tested before I realized that I was working on the wrong
problem.  By this time I was using two large silver blocks interconnected with
a TED.  This would heat one part of the tube and cool the other section.
Scale was supposed to form where there was high heat flow.  The idea was that
as scale formed under the hot section, its temperature would increase due to
decreased thermal conduction caused by the scale.  The cold section was not
supposed to scale as it was cold.  To test designs it was necessary to make
scale.
 
Soon I was building "water machines" which were supposed to cause scaling in a
test section of tubing.  This proved to not be easy.  It turns out that none
of the "experts" at the water treatment company know how to make scale form.
I now have several barrels of water, several pumps, chemical feeds, pipes and
valves in my basement.  Wonderful to view, but I am yet to get it to make a
good sound.  My goal is to have it make a noise like the machine in "The Man
In The White Suit".
 
Sometimes I can even make scale.  But never on demand.  I am very lucky if it
can be made once a week.  It is very hard to develop instrumentation when
there are so few opportunities to make a test.  Sometimes scale forms on the
colder surface.  Sometimes is comes off for no apparent reason.  There is also
biological fouling, and silting, and corrosion, and ...  Before this is all
over, I may end up with a patent on a scale forming test apparatus.
 
The problem with the scheme with the silver blocks connected with a TED was
that while it worked great if the water was at constant temperature and if
scale formed only under the hot connection, any temperature change was
accompanied by a big time lag through the thermal resistance of the connection
to the test heat transfer tube, and the thermal capacity of the silver block
(silver being the best material to reduce this effect.)
 
After a long struggle to compensate for this problem with mathematical models,
I gave up, and decided to use the problem for the measurement!
 
I now have several small blocks which I push up against a test section of
tubing with springs.  The blocks contain a resistor and a thermometer
(thermistor).  The resistor heats the blocks most of the time simulating the
heat load from condensing steam.  At intervals the resistor heater is turned
off and the block is allowed to relax to the tube temperature.  A series of
measurements are taken, and a curve is fitted to determine the time constant.
The time constant is dependent on the thermal capacity of the block which is
constant, and on the heat flow resistance which depends on water flow and
scale build up.  By having one block which we somehow keep clean (present
technique uses an ultrasonic head) we can remove changes in water flow, and
end up with just a measurement of scale.  By having several blocks with
different heat loads, we can determine a "safety factor" for the present
chemical treatment.  Blocks top and bottom of a section can detect silting,
etc..
 
It has taken about 14 versions to get where I am today.  That is my Edison
bias.  There are other approaches, this just happens to be mine.  Some of you
might have detected the problems by modeling, and might have found the same
solution.  Two patent applications are completed.  The first patent should
issue shortly.  I am starting on the third application.
 
Why put this up in sci.physics.fusion?  Because it is sci.!  This is how
science really works.  I have knowingly set out on a likely foolish endeavor.
The territory is mostly new, and requires trying to measure unusual things.
This has resulted in a new device in an entirely different field.  No clean A
to B to C as in our Physics text books.  It is A to Q to "off the plane" to Z
to C.
 
So if I were in the business of passing out money for research I would ask "Is
it new?", "Is it hard to do?", "Does someone (with ability) really want to do
it?", then I would hardly care what the project was.  In fact a goal is likely
to impede progress by causing the researcher to stick to "cold fusion" because
that was on the research application when effort would be better diverted to a
"water machine"!
 
There is going to be a new crew in Washington.  I hope someone will tell them
that there is no such thing as directed research.  There is hardly even
directed development.  But there is directed Pork.  And that, my friends, is
directed research!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / T Neustaedter /  Nagoya conference in Nature, 29 oct
     
Originally-From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nagoya conference in Nature, 29 oct
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:25:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

A word from the establishment about that Nagoya conference. Page 765 of the
29 Oct Nature:
 
        COLD FUSION PRODUCES HEAT BUT NO PAPERS
 
{Tokyo.} Advocates of cold fusion seem again to have fogotten the most
elementary rule of scientific communication -- publication. Last week,
Japanese researchers at Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT)
generated tremendous heat among the country's media by announcing they
had found "undoubted direct evidence of cold fusion".
   The statement is not new in the three-and-a-half-year history of the
phenomenon. But, as has often been the case for supporters of a process
claimed to have been discovered by chemists Stanley Pons and Martin
Fleischmann, the NTT researchers have no paper, published or submitted,
to back up their claim. The company's public relations department could
not even provide an abstract for the announcement.
   NTT scientists say they have detected helium-4 from palladium electrodes
soaked in deuterium gas and then heated in a vacuum. David Williams of
University College, London, says that he is "underwhelmed" by their
evidence and that similar findings have been traced to contamination
from the atmosphere.
                                                David Swinbanks
 
In other words, still no published details. The most detailed experiment
descriptions I have seen of Cold Fusion attempts have been in this group,
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.        Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / David Morning /  Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
     
Originally-From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:37:37 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
 
>reflector/absorbers in his "basement breeder" reactor to build a
>bomb- given the current situation as you and I have both iterated,
>the materials may very well be available on the market- given the
>break-up of the soviet union.
 
About 4kgs of what was described as "bomb grade" Plutonium was seized by
customs official in Germany about two weeks ago. It was being smuggled via
Poland and its destination appeared to be the Balkans. This is the second
customs seizure of Plutonium the Germans have made in the last 6 months.
 
Scary huh?
 
Dave
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendam cudfnDavid cudlnMorning cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 /  Britz /  RE:      Re: Fusion Digest 559
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:      Re: Fusion Digest 559
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:36:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>:
 
>ION IMPLANTATION AS A DEFINITIVE MEANS OF INVESTIGATING ANY POSSIBILITY OF
>INTRACRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR FUSION;  Moishe Garfinkle;  Drexel University
>FUSION TECHNOLOGY v22;(Aug 1992)p 160
 
Moishe, you seem concerned that this gets overlooked. Be assured that it is
not; your paper was included in the bibliography some weeks ago, and was also
presented on this list among some other updates. You have not been ignored. I
must also say, however, that you were not the first with this idea. There are
something like 10-15 papers in the bibliography, describing ion implantation,
including USA, French, Russian, Danish and perhaps other workers. One team
reckoned they achieved a local d/Pd loading as high as 9.  None of this helped
anybody, though, no hitherto unknown nuclear processes were unveiled, only
well known old self-targeting effects - most people neglect to turn off the
ion beam before measuring neutrons or whatever they measure.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / Ad aspera /  Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 09:32 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

(Note followups to sci.military, begging its moderator's indulgence)
 
On sci.physics.fusion, dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes...
 
>About 4kgs of what was described as "bomb grade" Plutonium was seized by
>customs official in Germany about two weeks ago. It was being smuggled via
>Poland and its destination appeared to be the Balkans. This is the second
>customs seizure of Plutonium the Germans have made in the last 6 months.
>Scary huh?
 
Opinions vary; one suspects that, as always, the people who know for
sure aren't able or willing to talk about it.
 
The seizure, apparently from the trunk of a car in Munich, was
mentioned only lightly and sporadically in the US news media.  An
early report which my wife saw (on CBS television, if we both recall
correctly) had it as more or less a complete do-it-yourself bomb kit,
plus some unspecified indications that the vendors were willing to
sell anything from special nuclear materials to assembled ex-Soviet
weapons.
 
A radio report that I heard a few days later (probably from the BBC
World Service by way of National Public Radio) said that it was "only"
a few pounds of U-235, with some conflicting reports from various
officials as to whether it was weapons- or reactor-grade material.
Some nth-hand gossip from the unclassified stem of the interlaboratory
grapevine (I hold no clearance, and my cleared friends are all a bunch
of boy scouts, so take this how you will) says it was the latter.
 
So:  I'd give odds that they did NOT find a paint-by-numbers A-bomb or
immediately usable components thereof.  The scary part, for me, was a
news report that various German officials had dealt with 100 real or
suspected incidents of this type in 1992, up from 29 the previous year.
Perhaps the American media's inattention to this story will be rectified
dramatically and all too soon.  :(
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / Mike White /  Re: Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:44:31 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <5NOV199209325115@csa3.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad
absurdum per aspera) writes:
> Opinions [about smuggled nuclear materials] vary;...
 
Swiss Radio International reported that *weapons grade* uranium
*and* a complete soviet warhead were seized.  The report went on
to say that the smuggler said he was planning to sell the warhead for
$500,000.
 
************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenm14494 cudfnMike cudlnWhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / Allan Duncan /  Re: Here We Go Again
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Here We Go Again
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:32:28 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <921102190826.20a02eab@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
...
> Meanwhile, I have been more successful than I would have liked in the water
> machine work.  The company wants me to drop everything and make water
 machines.
 
I missed this - could someone enlighten me?
Allan Duncan            ACSnet   a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708         Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
Fax    253 6664         UUCP     {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
    Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:29:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Oct27.131223.1995@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 writes:
>     Included in this partial summary of a SUPERIOR Theory is the fact that
>stars do NOT generate energy by fusion, but rather by the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION
>of HEAVY elements (HEAVIER than iron).
>
>          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
>
>               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the
>          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox
>          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory
>          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them.
> .. .
>               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate
>          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow
>          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE
>          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  .. .
>
>               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the
>          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less
>          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center
>          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to
>          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The
>          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and
>          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN
>          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while.
 
Hmmmm! According to my understanding (from random mind fluxuations)
the temperatures in the core of a star are larger and there is a thermal
gradient from the center to the surface.  If the temperatures in the
core are high enough to generate thermal X-rays then as this NET OUTWARD
X-ray flux diffuses toward the surface it is back reflected from the
higher Z stuff. In return there is a delta momentum transfer (AVERAGE
NET OUTWARD) on each high Z atom during such a photon encounter.
Consequently, the higher Z stuff is swept outward toward the surface
where it accumulates forming a kind of reflective skin (for X-rays)
after a time.  IT DOES NOT accumulate in the core. That would screw up
the fusion burn of the light fusionable species.  Stars aren't that
dumb. They have been doing this for longer than I can remember.    :-)
 
It seems that the calcium, iron, etc. crud accumulates at the surface
of the star could retard the escape of thermal X-rays by mutliple
reflections to the point where the inside of the star heats and expands
like a bubble gum bubble.  It's possible that the layer of crud can
develop "streach marks" and cracks and then pull together in a band
around the equator allowing the vast surface of the star to drop to
a low Z state and thus be transparent to X-rays which allow sudden
cooling allowing star diameter contraction.
 
In this scenario the crude layer of course gets left behind (fastest
orbital speed) and then it congels to a ring --  eventually becoming a
solid core planet --  say like venus or earth.
 
Furthermore, as the star shrinks to smaller and smaller diameters
in its later life, it leaves behind it's inverse growth rings which
become plantets and the outer ones pick up low Z gas boil off ( i. e.
Jupiter).  Now if the gas planet gets large enough or perhaps gets
an ignition assist by a monster ball lightning that forms in its
atmosphere it will become a star and -- -   Voila!!  you have a binary
system and WITHOUT burning IRON.
 
Incidentally, the ball lightning would have probably been thrust down
ward in a down draft, deep into the lower atmosphere of the planet.
This could happen during a giant red spot type storm and then been
compression heated to a fusion burn by the dramatically increased
boundary gas pressure.
 
Just thought you would like to hear the good BL part ...  heh heh..
 
I hope you agree that this scenario is a least as credible as
Larson's.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:02:58 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <1992Jun3.095319.13581@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>
 dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>it). So, in a nutshell, the situation is as inconclusive as it could be -
>and in fact one of GALLEX's researchers told me on the phone that a flux of
>80 SNU was indeed just the kind of result that would leave open most of the
>questions. Thus, DO NOT BELIEVE THE NEWSPAPERS when they tell you that there
>is no neutrino problem (if they report about the developments at all - did
>they do so outside Germany?).
>
>Solutions & references welcome! In particular I'd love to see references for
 
Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal Systems fully explains the shortage of
neutrinos.  The energy generation inside the sun comes not from fusion,
but the thermal destruction of heavy elements.  Each element has a
temperature above which it converts to pure energy.  In general, the heavier
the element, the lower the temperature, with important discontinuities at
Yterbium, Cobalt, and Carbon, where the distructive temperature drops markedly.
These discontinuities cause oscillation of output (variables), and
eventually, supernovae.
 
The sun is currently "burning" elements around lead, which destructs at
3E13 K., which is also above the destructive temperature of all elements
heavier than lead, plus elements Z = 40-70 and Z = 18-27 and Z = 3-6.
Most of the energy is from the heavy elements, which tend to gravitate
toward the core.
 
Ref: Toward A Unified Cosmological Physics, Arnold Studtmann, Ph.d.
        Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Prof. K.V.K. Nehru.
        The Universe of Motion, Dewey B. Larson.
 
All available from ISUS., 1680 Atkin Ave, Salt Lake City, UT, 84105.
 
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.05 / Jon Noring /  Re: Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:32:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White) writes:
 
>Swiss Radio International reported that *weapons grade* uranium
>*and* a complete soviet warhead were seized.  The report went on
>to say that the smuggler said he was planning to sell the warhead for
>$500,000.
 
If this is true (and it is hard to verify), the next question is what will
the German government do with the weapon?  I would not be surprised if they
would "detain" it for a short time before returning it to Russia so they
could get some of their scientists to analyze it (x-ray it, etc.) in order
to glean some nuclear weapon design information from it.
 
Comments?
 
Jon Noring
 
--
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
 
------->   I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92
------->   support UNITED WE STAND!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.06 /  Rothwell /  The Delights of Nature
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Delights of Nature
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:33:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I thank Tarl Neustaedter for posting the latest hilarious piece from Nature
magazine. Their reporter, David Swinbanks, is apparently based in Tokyo. I
surmise two things about him:
 
*    He does not speak Japanese, since he could not get a simple abstract
     out of the PR department of NTT two weeks after Business Week and the
     Wall Street Journal evidently got it.
 
*    He must be on a very short allowance, since he could not afford the
     $160 round trip train ticket to Nagoya, where he would have found the
     abstract on the page 92 of the program, along with 3 references to
     Yamaguchi's earlier work.
 
Mr. Neustaedter aptly describes the Nature article as "a word from the
establishment about that Nagoya conference," but I quibble with the definite
article. "An establishment" might be a better choice of words. There is more
than one "establishment" in this world, after all. I myself think of the
Japanese Telephone Company, the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry, the New Hydrogen Energy Panel, and the five sponsors of the Nagoya
conference as "The Establishment." Compared to these organizations, Nature
magazine is a flea. Nature's challenge of the Japanese establishment's
scientific prowess is comical and absurd fun. It reminds me of a recent
foray by their editor, Maddox, in which he gave advice to Japan about how to
improve their education system, science and technology! You have to admire
the chutzpa of this panhandler who is so presumptuous he gives investment
tips to a millionaire.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.04 / Thomas Clarke /  clarke's law
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: clarke's law
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:03:19 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

Someone recently posted Clarke's law.  The one about
if a senior scientist says possible he's probably right,
if he says impossible he's probably wrong.
 
Could you e-mail me the exact quotation?  I need to cite it
in a paper and don't want to go digging in the library.
 
Thanks.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
 
no relation
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.06 /   /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: "ALPHER, RALPH" <ames!gar.union.edu!ALPHERR>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:58:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Having had the misfortune of reading some of Larson's publications, I
would urge the person putting Larson's ideas on the net to cease and desist.
Its hard enough to separate wheat from chaff on the subject of cold fusion.
 
Ralph Alpher
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.006 / Kurt Hillig /  Re: clarke's law
     
Originally-From: hillig@U.Chem.LSA.UMich.EDU (Kurt Hillig)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: clarke's law
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 18:14:32 EST
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov4.220319.29777@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
 Clarke) writes:
 
>Someone recently posted Clarke's law.  The one about
>if a senior scientist says possible he's probably right,
>if he says impossible he's probably wrong.
>
>Could you e-mail me the exact quotation?  I need to cite it
>in a paper and don't want to go digging in the library.
>
>Thanks.
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
>
>no relation
 
Funny, the one I learned as "Clarke's Law" is:
 
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 
--
Kurt Hillig
Dept. of Chemistry                     khillig@umich.edu
University of Michigan           Telephone (313)747-2867
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1055      hillig@chem.lsa.umich.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenhillig cudfnKurt cudlnHillig cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.07 /  /  Missing Oxygen
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Missing Oxygen
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:13:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to John Logajan for explaining the missing oxygen.  Looks like the
formation of Hexahydroxoplatinic acid consumes oxygen.  That is pretty well
what I see.  When I run with excess oxygen in the cell - what happens if
nothing special is done - there is early in the run excess gas accumulated
which matches the expected absorption of D2 by the cathode.  So immediately
after charging, there is excess gas (oxygen).  This then slowly disappears
over time ast the "yellow crud" (easier to type out than you know what) is
formed.
 
This leaves us with no good way to measure the cathode loading.  I think
the resistance is not well known - or even meaningful at high loadings.
Expansion of the cathode is hard to do, and depends on the shape of the
cathode.  I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under
electrolysis.  I have all along assumed that a cell can not be turned off
and the cathode removed and weighed.  It it is, then at least sometimes
a lot of gas is lost.  So what to do????
 
Thanks again to John.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.07 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: clarke's law
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: clarke's law
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:16:15 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <L_A=lF#@engin.umich.edu>, by hillig@U.Chem.LSA.UMich.EDU (Kurt
 Hillig):
> In article <1992Nov4.220319.29777@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
 Clarke) writes:
>
>>Someone recently posted Clarke's law.  The one about
>>if a senior scientist says possible he's probably right,
>>if he says impossible he's probably wrong.
>>
>>Could you e-mail me the exact quotation?  I need to cite it
>>in a paper and don't want to go digging in the library.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>--
>>Thomas Clarke
>>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
>>
>>no relation
>
> Funny, the one I learned as "Clarke's Law" is:
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
>
> --
> Kurt Hillig
> Dept. of Chemistry                     khillig@umich.edu
> University of Michigan           Telephone (313)747-2867
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1055      hillig@chem.lsa.umich.edu
 
Clarke is allowed to have many laws. Both of these are known as
"Clarke's Law."
 
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.07 /  Garfinkle /       Re: Fusion Digest 562
     
Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 562
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:33:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>:
>
>>ION IMPLANTATION AS A DEFINITIVE MEANS OF INVESTIGATING ANY POSSIBILITY OF
>>INTRACRYSTALLINE NUCLEAR FUSION;  Moishe Garfinkle;  Drexel University
>>FUSION TECHNOLOGY v22;(Aug 1992)p 160
>
>Moishe, you seem concerned that this gets overlooked. Be assured that it is
>not; your paper was included in the bibliography some weeks ago, and was also
>presented on this list among some other updates. You have not been ignored. I
>must also say, however, that you were not the first with this idea. There are
>something like 10-15 papers in the bibliography, describing ion implantation,
>including USA, French, Russian, Danish and perhaps other workers. One team
>reckoned they achieved a local d/Pd loading as high as 9.  None of this helped
>anybody, though, no hitherto unknown nuclear processes were unveiled, only
>well known old self-targeting effects - most people neglect to turn off the
>ion beam before measuring neutrons or whatever they measure.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter, I was only concerned because I neglected to include "cold fusion"
among the key words assigned to the article.  Glad you found it.
I don't wish the main point of thr article to be lost.  Neutron detection
or anomolous heat can be misconstrued, and in fact be misleading.  Only
a detection of the products of reaction in situ and directly would be
unambiguous.  That is the point I am trying to make, and apparantly from
other comments I have largely failed.  The device proposed is solely
for this purpose:  A means of unambiguous detection, if cold fusion is a
reality.  The jury is still out!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenGARFINKM cudfn cudlnGarfinkle cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.07 /  logajan@sleepy /  Weighty subjects
     
Originally-From: logajan@sleepy.network.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Weighty subjects
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:18:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under electrolysis.
 
The astronauts "weigh" themselves by sitting in a bucket that oscillates
up and down.  That acceleration gives rise to a number of measurable
quantities.
 
Maybe you could fasten the cathode to a piezo element which itself is
fastened to the tube.  The frequency of resonant oscillation ought to have
some relationship to the mass of the cathode.
 
 
tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>>Yamaguchi claims it absorbs 760 times its own weight of deuterium.
>
>I presume that's a typo of some kind. That would be 9 kg/cc, which could
>only be some variant of degenerate matter.
 
Yeah, but it'd probably account for the cold fusion effects. heh heh
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.07 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Missing Oxygen
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing Oxygen
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:07:18 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

\ Tom writes:
 
This leaves us with no good way to measure the cathode loading.  I think
the resistance is not well known - or even meaningful at high loadings.
Expansion of the cathode is hard to do, and depends on the shape of the
cathode.  I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under
electrolysis.  I have all along assumed that a cell can not be turned off
and the cathode removed and weighed.  It it is, then at least sometimes
a lot of gas is lost.  So what to do????
 
 
How about this:
 
1) While the cell is running, flush the head space of the cell with helium.
This removes oxygen and prevents the recombiner from eating evolved
deuterium/hydrogen.
 
2) Turn off the helium flush and the cell power at the same time.
 
3) Sit back and watch the gas volume expand as deuterium/hydrogen comes out
of the cathode.  When the volume has stopped increasing, it is probably safe
to remove the cathode.  For added protection, you might wish to gently heat
the cathode in situ.
 
4) Remove and weight the cathode to measure anything that is good and stuck
in the structure.
 
5) Loading is determined by the gas evolved by the cathode plus the mass gain
of the cathode.
 
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.008 / Edgar Swank /  Re:Setting up home system for internet
     
Originally-From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Setting up home system for internet
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 03:58:17 PST
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

I sent the following msg via E-Mail to Tom Droege on Nov 3. At the
request of Russ Schnall, another participant in this group, I'm
posting it for the whole group.  Sorry I can't offer to send to
everyone in the group the materials I offered to E-mail to Tom.  I
hope you all find the material useful anyway.  I don't pretend to be
the world's greatest expert here, so if anyone has any suggestions
they think are better, I'd like to see them.
 
Edgar Swank
======================================================================
 
Tom:
 
Saw your request for advice about setting up a home system for
access to Internet and the usenet newsgroups.
 
A "junk"  286 or 386/sx is quite adequate for terminal work. A hard
disk of at least 20 Meg is desireable for capturing messages &
holding messages to be uploaded.
 
Modem:
 
Your Watson modem is OK if it emulates a Hayes at the register level
at at least 2400 baud.  Otherwise, get the cheapest internal 2400 baud
modem you can find (around $50). With 2400's that cheap, there's no
reason to settle for 1200.  If the Watson is not compatible at the
register level, then it will only run with software written for it,
which is too restrictive.
 
2400 baud should be more than adequate for 100 msgs/month in and out.
a 9600 baud modem will cost at least $200 & in my opinion can only be
justified of you're doing a lot of work over long distance.
 
Software:
 
There is plenty of good software available as shareware, which you
pay for (if at all) only after a trial period. I recommend Telix.
You can download it off almost any BBS (perhaps with software which
came with your modem, or use your equipment & software at work).
You can use your existing (at work) Internet E-Mail connection
to order Telix from the SIMTEL20 Archive: just send
 
/PDGET  MAIL  PD:<MSDOS.TELIX>TLX315-1.ZIP
/PDGET  MAIL  PD:<MSDOS.TELIX>TLX315-2.ZIP
/PDGET  MAIL  PD:<MSDOS.TELIX>TLX315-3.ZIP
 
to
 
LISTSERV@VM1.NODAK.EDU  (ND State Univ - SIMTEL)
 
Probably best to send only one request per day.  The ListServ will
send you files in UUENCODED form. Hopefully, you will have a
UUDECODE utility at work somewhere.  If not, I can send you
a "bootstrap" UUDECODE expressed as a BASIC program.
 
[You can also get this from SIMTEL by sending
 
/PDGET  MAIL  PD:<MSDOS.STARTER>UUDECODE.BAS  TRANSLATE
 
]
 
The great thing about Telix is that it can be greatly automated
by "programs" in it's own SLT language, which greatly resembles
the C language.  This can be used to acheive your goal of
capturing messages for reading offline and for sending messages
prepared offline.  I would be glad to send you my SLT files
which I use to do just this very thing with Telix and this Spectrox
System. You would probably have to modify them for use on another
system.
 
You will also need a good fullscreen editor for reading captured
messages and preparing replies. There are lots of shareware choices.
You probably already have a favorite that you're used to.
 
You have a lot of choices about "what to join".  If I knew your
area code, I could send you a list of public access Unix systems
in your area.  You can order a nationwide (& worldwide) list
by sending
 
send nixpub long short
 
to
 
Widener Archive Server <archive-server@cs.widener.edu>
 
This list is not exhaustive. It does not include many small systems
which are often free access. For example, this Spectrox System at
(408)252-1005 offers E-mail & limited Usenet access and it's completely
free. You can sometimes find these systems listed in free "pulp"
computer magazines distributed at libraries and computer retailers.
 
Many of the systems in the NIXPUB list are also free. Others
charge in the neighborhood of $20/month.  The fees are specified
in the "long" list.
 
Hope this is helpful. Please send E-Mail if you have any questions
or want me to send you any of the files I mentioned.
 
Note my E-mail address
 
               Internet: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com
                   UUCP: szebra!spectrx!edgar
 
The return address in the net header may not work.
 
--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenedgar cudfnEdgar cudlnSwank cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 / Mark Brader /  Re: clarke's law
     
Originally-From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: clarke's law
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:42:31 GMT
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada

> > > Someone recently posted Clarke's law.  The one about
> > > if a senior scientist says possible ...
> > Funny, the one I learned as "Clarke's Law" is:
> > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> Clarke is allowed to have many laws. Both of these are known as
> "Clarke's Law."
 
No, these are Clarke's First Law (which *was* Clarke's Law when it
was the only one), and Clarke's Third Law.  Incidentally, in his
recent book "How the World Was One", he refers to a case where the
First Law bit *him*.
 
Here's an old article of mine which made it into the FAQ list for the
newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written:
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke's Law, later Clarke's First Law, can be found in the essay
"Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in the collection
"Profiles of the Future", 1962, revised 1973, Harper & Row, paperback
by Popular Library, ISBN 0-445-04061-0.  It reads:
 
# [1]           When a distinguished but elderly scientist
#               states that something is possible, he is almost
#               certainly right.  When he states that something
#               is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
 
Note that the adverbs in the two sentences are different.  Clarke continues:
 
#       Perhaps the adjective "elderly" requires definition.  In physics,
#       mathematics, and astronautics it means over thirty; in the other
#       disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties.
#       There are, of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher
#       just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for
#       nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out
#       of the laboratory!
 
Isaac Asimov added a further comment with Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's
Law, which he expounded in an essay logically titled "Asimov's Corollary".
This appeared in the February 1977 issue of F&SF, and can be found in the
collection "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright", 1978, Doubleday; no ISBN on
my copy.  Asimov's Corollary reads:
 
% [1AC]         When, however, the lay public rallies round an
%               idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly
%               scientists and supports that idea with great fervor
%               and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly
%               scientists are then, after all, probably right.
 
 
So much for Clarke's First Law.  A few pages later on, in the final
paragraph of the same essay, Clarke writes:
 
# [2]           But the only way of discovering the limits of the
#               possible is to venture a little way past them into
#               the impossible.
 
To this he attaches a footnote:
 
#       The French edition of [presumably, the first edition of] this
#       book rather surprised me by calling this Clarke's Second Law.
#       (See page [number] for the First, which is now rather well-
#       known.)  I accept the label, and have also formulated a Third:
#
# [3]           Any sufficiently advanced technology is
#               indistinguishable from magic.
#
#       As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly
#       decided to stop there.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The original poster asked for email, not posted answers, and I am
emailing this article to him also.
--
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
        We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity;
        but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice.
        -- a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"
 
This article is in the public domain.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmsb cudfnMark cudlnBrader cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 / Allan Duncan /  Re: Missing Oxygen
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing Oxygen
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:34:45 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <921106162911.208010ce@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
...
> This leaves us with no good way to measure the cathode loading.  I think
> the resistance is not well known - or even meaningful at high loadings.
> Expansion of the cathode is hard to do, and depends on the shape of the
> cathode.  I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under
> electrolysis.  I have all along assumed that a cell can not be turned off
> and the cathode removed and weighed.  It it is, then at least sometimes
> a lot of gas is lost.  So what to do????
 
An in situ load cell?  You would still need to either drain the
electrolyte and replace it with "inert" gas or fresh electrolyte of
known s.g, or determine the s.g. of what is in there already - a good
old fashioned battery hydrometer, perchance :-)
 
Allan Duncan            ACSnet   a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708         Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
Fax    253 6664         UUCP     {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
    Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 / Evan Simpson /  Re: Re:Setting up home system for internet
     
Originally-From: evan@gauss.math.brown.edu (Evan M. Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re:Setting up home system for internet
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:44:31 GMT
Organization: Brown University Math Department

In article <uR6wTB3w165w@spectrx.saigon.com>, edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W.
 Swank) writes:
[...]
|> Tom:
|>
|> Saw your request for advice about setting up a home system for
|> access to Internet and the usenet newsgroups.
[...]
|> Modem:
|>
[...]
|> 2400 baud should be more than adequate for 100 msgs/month in and out.
|> a 9600 baud modem will cost at least $200 & in my opinion can only be
|> justified of you're doing a lot of work over long distance.
[Much excellent advice deleted]
 
   Note that these days you can buy a full-featured 14.4K fax/modem for as
little as $200 (Infotel, for example, or the Gateway offer). These can pay
for themselves quickly if you use a pay dialup service.
 
--
Evan Simpson               My .sig got stale, so I had to throw it out.
Brown U. Math Dept.
evan@gauss.math.brown.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenevan cudfnEvan cudlnSimpson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 /  morrison@vxpri /  Cold Fusion Update.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Update.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:05:51 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

Dear Colleagues,                                        8 November 1992.
                Am writing up a summary of the Third International Cold Fusion
Conference at Nagoya, 22 to 25 October. As it is rather long and unfinished, am
sending this extract which is a summary of my Invited Talk which was entitled;
 
          REVIEW OF COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS
 
and have added the description of the events that followed - events that are
unusual at conferences that are supposed to be scientific.
    Will send the full account of the Cold Fusion conference as soon as possible
(have added the beginning) while due to pressure of other work, the actual
paper of my talk will probably not be ready before the end of the year.
 
                                                        Douglas.
 
4. SATURDAY 24 OCTOBER, Jones, Yamaguchi, Miles, Iida, Kasagi, Cecil,
Tsarev, Gozzi, Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmorrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 / Todd Green /  Re: Missing Oxygen
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing Oxygen
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:33:37 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <921106162911.208010ce@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
> This leaves us with no good way to measure the cathode loading.  I think
> the resistance is not well known - or even meaningful at high loadings.
> Expansion of the cathode is hard to do, and depends on the shape of the
> cathode.  I cannot imagine how to weigh the cathode while it is under
> electrolysis.  I have all along assumed that a cell can not be turned off
> and the cathode removed and weighed.  It it is, then at least sometimes
> a lot of gas is lost.  So what to do????
 
Tom, I reckon you should get back to the resistance technique for measuring
loading values. Having mucked about with most of the alternatives, I decided
that this was the best procedure. A reasonable calibration of resistance
versus loading can be constructed from the literature (see McKubre's paper
for the refs) although I estimate an error of ca. 3% up to 0.90 and maybe as
high as 5% for > 0.90. If there is any interest I can post the calibration
data to this group, or maybe even a postscript file of the actual graphs.
 
A 4 wire resistance measurements is mandatory, of course, given the low
resistance of the cathodes. Also, the electrolysis current produces a
voltage offset, but this can be corrected for by pulsing the excitation
currents in the forward and reverse directions. In a typical run the initial
resistance might be 2 milliohms but upon charging it will increase to about
4 milliohms and then start to drop as you pass through the resistance maxima
at around PdD0.73. Usually the resistance will stabilise at about 3.8 milliohms
corresponding to PdD0.85 but one sample that was annealed and acid etched got
to PdD0.91.
 
Anyway, I think resistance is probably the best and easiest method to use.
There are other problems which I haven't mentioned, but they can all be
solved rather easily.
 
 
----
Todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 / John Logajan /  I am your density
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I am your density
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:29:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
> [...palladium plate...] Yamaguchi claims it absorbs 760 times its own
> weight of deuterium.
 
tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>I presume that's a typo of some kind. That would be 9 kg/cc, which could
>only be some variant of degenerate matter.
 
webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes:
>Not on my part.  That is a direct quote from New Scientist.  It does
>sound unlikely, though.  But your calculation of the density is
>probably wrong; it's well known that palladium expands as it absorbs
>deuterium (in electrolisys, at least.)
 
I'm sure they must have meant to say 760 times its own volume.  The CRC
HCP claims palladium can absorb 900 times its own volume at room temperture.
 
As for density, the highest density element is Osmium at 22.6 g/cc, with
gold at 19.3 g/cc and uranium at 19.07 g/cc.
 
Palladium is 12 g/cc.  760 times 12 is 9120, or about 9 kg/cc, just like
Tarl calculated.  That is about 400 times more dense than Osmium.  I doubt
palladium expands 400 times its volume!
 
By the way, for the curious, diamonds are only 3.5 g/cc.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.09 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Loading ? and Contaminants ?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Loading ? and Contaminants ?
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:43:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has informed me that cold fusion is certain to occur at
deuteron-to-palladium ratios of 0.9 and above, but I haven't ever seen
a clear explaination as to how these high loadings are measured.  Tom
Droege's puzzlement over this issue would seem to indicate that he too
would like to know where the numbers come from to support Jed's assertions.
 
My second question has to do with the recent abstract for the paper by
Chien C-C, Hodko D., Minevski Z, and Bockris J O'M, J. Electroanal. Chem.
338(1992)186.  After asserting that they had electrodes "producing
massive quantities of tritium and helium" they say that in 22 days they
produced 1E15 tritium atoms and somewhere between 4He 0.4 and 167E9
helium atoms.  They also say this was done in a "fairly well closed
cell" but that they ended with a 10% contamination of H2O in thier
electrolyte.  Can those of you who understand this sort of thing and/or
who may have read the full paper explain to me who any can claim trace
ammounts of tritium and helium had to be produced within a cell at the
same time they admit that enough light water was getting in to contaminate
the electrolyte at the 10% level?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.009 / Bob Clarke /  cmsg cancel <1992Nov09.201527.4347@actcnews.res.utc.com>
     
Originally-From: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1992Nov09.201527.4347@actcnews.res.utc.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 20:18:12 EDT
Organization: United Technologies Research Center

The subject says it all.
The message was cancelled from within UnixBBS.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbbs cudfnBob cudlnClarke cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.009 / Bob Clarke /  Who is Funding Pons?
     
Originally-From: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who is Funding Pons?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 20:18:32 EDT
Organization: United Technologies Research Center

I understand Pons is working in France with a staff of 32 scientists and
other staff.  Who is funding this effort?
--
Bob Clarke, user of the UnixBBS System @ actcnews.res.utc.com
E-Mail: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com
========================================================================
   United Technologies Corporation
   Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent UTC.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenbbs cudfnBob cudlnClarke cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 /  morrison@vxpri /  Made a change.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Made a change.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:31:46 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

Dear Colleagues,                                        8 November 1992.
                Am writing up a summary of the Third International Cold Fusion
Conference at Nagoya, 22 to 25 October. As it is rather long and unfinished, am
sending this extract which is a summary of my Invited Talk which was entitled;
 
          REVIEW OF COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS
 
and have added the description of the events that followed - events that are
unusual at conferences that are supposed to be scientific.
    Will send the full account of the Cold Fusion conference as soon as possible
(have added the beginning) while due to pressure of other work, the actual
paper of my talk will probably not be ready before the end of the year.
 
                                                        Douglas.
 
4. SATURDAY 24 OCTOBER, Jones, Yamaguchi, Miles, Iida, Kasagi, Cecil,
Tsarev, Gozzi, Morrison.
 
Several pages - to come later-
 
   D.R.O. Morrison gave a review of Cold Fusion Experiments. He first emphasized
the Universality of Physics - the same physics laws apply on earth, in the
Sun, in Supernova, in pulsars where the density was 10 E14 times that on earth.
He recalled the basic reaction chains in the Sun noting that dd fusion was
not important, though if its rate was increased by 10 E 40 as some suggested
this might be noticeable. The dd reaction gave a compound nucleus which lasted
about 10 E-20 seconds before decaying and it always decayed the same way,
independent of its formation. The two main strong decays were to (3He + n) and
to (t + P) with a 1 to 1 branching ratio while the weak decay to (4He + gamma)
was lower by a factor of ten million. This had been shown experimentally at the
Second Annual Cold Fusion Conference by Davis et al. who confirmed the ratios
of 1:1: 10 E-7 down to about 2 keV. Dr. Preparata intervened and loudly said
the speaker was insulting us, this was an academic lecture and was all well
known. After a pause the speaker continued and noted that these branching ratios
of neutron to tritium of one to one and helium4 being ten million times less
had been confirmed at zero energy by muon catalysed fusion at which subject
Steve Jones was a world expert.
    With dd fusion, the primary products were neutrons, tritium, gammas, 4He,
3He and protons while an important secondary product was X-rays of 21 keV
produced when energetic charged particles such as 3 MeV protons, passed through
palladium. The first four of these (n, t, gammas, 4He) all had major problems
due to the ease of artifacts producing false readings. However 3He, protons and
21 keV X-rays were relatively clean and reliable measurements.
 As Cold Fusion is potentially so exciting, many fast experiments have been done
and presented before all checks have been made. Corrections and retractions
are not always presented using the same media. The problem is how to get a
fair unbiassed set of data to review. Have used the bibliography of Dieter Britz
which most people consider unbiassed. He takes only papers which have been
published and which therefore have been refereed. The set is up to 3 October
1992. It contains 728 relevant papers of which 256 are experimental results,
235 are theory and 233 are Others( 64 reviews, 76 technical, 33 comments,
6 rebuttals and 38 repeats). The Experimental papers were 86 positive(ie
supporting the existence of Cold Fusion) and 136 null papers (finding
no evidence and giving upper limits) while 34 were indecisive or contradictory.
There was a problem that some papers were very poor (eg 2 standard deviation
effects, no hydrogen control, no calibration, only one neutron counter, no
check for artifacts, etc.) but to be as kind as possible to Cold Fusion, and to
avoid any accusation of bias, all were taken as evidence of Cold Fusion if the
authors said they were evidence.
    A page of 11 figures was shown giving firstly the numbers of papers as a
function of the year - for experimental papers there were 72 in 1989(9 months),
128 in 1990, 51 in 1991 and 8 in 1992(9 months). Of the 8 in 1992, 6 were null,
one was positive and one was indecisive. Thus it can be seen that interest in
Cold Fusion peaked two years ago and is fading fast.
    Secondly on this page, the numbers of results for each kind of effect
(excess heat and nuclear products) were given. For each effect the number of
null results was greater than the number of positive results. For the case of
the three products which were relatively free from artifacts, the numbers were;
Protons - 11 null and one positive
3He - 8 null and one positive
X-rays - 7 null and zero positive.
   Although one says "do good experiments", many are still inadequate.
To list these is unsocial, hence the other alternative was adopted and good
experiments were selected. One criterion is number of effects measured - it was
shown that when many factors (eg excess heat, neutrons, tritium etc.) are
measured simultaneously, null results are much more frequently obtained.
Again the 728 papers listed were studied to see which ones Dieter Britz had
considered as "expert" - note this was his opinion, not that of the author.
The names of the first author of 'expert' papers are; Aberdam, Armstrong, Bacej,
Baranowski, Bennington, Besanbacher, Blaser, Bulloch, Case, Cheek, Chemla,
Divisia, Flanagan, Gottesfeld, Hayden, Ilic, Kreysa, D. Lewis( not the Lewis
from Caltech), McCracken, Menlove, Morrey, Naerger, Olofsson, Paneth, Porter,
Riley(who died tragically), Rugari, and Williams. It is to be hoped that
serious students of Cold Fusion have already read most of these papers, or if
not, will do so soon. These papers are classifed as one positive, 19 null,
2 unclear and 6 technical.
    Another criterion of good experimental technique, is that the authors make
a point of saying that they looked for artifacts. Dieter Britz mentions 18 such
papers which are composed of one positive, 14 null, 2 unclear and one technical.
Again most careful workers do not find any Cold Fusion effects.
    As loading is said by many to be crucial in achieving positive Cold Fusion
effects, the 728 papers were scanned for values of loadings measured. 52 papers
reported loadings - of these 16 were technical and 36 experimental; these
36 gave 3 positive, 31 null and 2 unclear. Taking only the graph of loading by
electrolysis of palladium, there is a broad peak in D/Pd near 0.8 to 0.85. Many
authors comment that there seems to be a maximum loading. This graph is very
similar to that of Mike McKubre with a peak in the same place near 0.83,
but with his higher statistics, it extends to higher values of just
over one, and also has a much wider tail down to zero(being unpublished the
McKubre results do not qualify). Other results quoted this week are Claytor
D/Pd = 0.82, Kumimatsu 0.88, Enyo 0.9 and Fukai 0.83. A further point is that
it seems a surprisingly high proportion of experiments with positive results
do not measure their loading.
    From a review by Ed. Storms, a graph was shown of the log of the number
of neutrons against the log of the number of tritium atoms - it could be seen
that there was no correlation, the ratio of neutrons to tritium varying from
one thousand to one thousand million. A different explanation is that if there
are three standard deviation fluctuations in the measurement of neutrons and
three standard deviation fluctuations in the measurement of the tritium, then
such ratios are expected - the reason is that neutrons are measured directly
whereas since tritium has a half-life of 12 years, only the very small fraction
of tritium atoms which happen to decay, are counted during the short time of
the measurement. That is these results are consistent with there being
no Cold Fusion, only fluctuations.
    Another graph is of the log of excess power, watts/cm2, against the current
(linear scale); a line is drawn which does not fit the data but does indicate
that as the current is increased there is a saturation in the Watts/cm2 at about
one watt/cm2 which seem contrary to the idea that if only the current density is
high enough, then the loading will pass some critical threshold and Cold Fusion
will occur strongly. Another interesting point about the graph is that it shows
the original values of Fleischmann and Pons who found considerable excess heat
at the very low current density of 8 mA/cm2 (indeed in their paper they wrote
over 1000% excess heat is obtainable but the only occasion was with their lowest
current density of 8 mA/cm2). The point is that Dr. R.T. Bush finds that they
obtain excess heat with normal light water but when Morrison asked him whether
this was in contradiction to Fleischmann and Pons who find excess heat only
with deuterium and believe that it is fusion because they do not find it with
light hydrogen, Dr. Bush replied that it was different because he works only at
very low current densities, 1 to 20 mA/cm2, he said. However it was pointed
out that Fleischmann and Pons also obtained excess heat in that region with
8 mA/cm2. Dr. Bush then pointed out that he used nickel and not palladium,
but Morrison asked if in his theory, were nickel and palladium not the same -
Dr. Bush replied that they were and therefore light water should have given
excess heat with palladium(please note that the statement of the equivalence
of nickel and palladium in this context, was a theoretical statement of
Dr. Bush and not by anyone else).
    It is surprising at this conference that people do not jump up to point
out the contradiction that some people use light hydrogen as a control and
find no excess heat while others find do excess heat with light hydrogen.
    In March 1989 in Utah, the press conference announced that Cold Fusion
gave both excess heat and fusion products, that is it was a fusion process in
which mass was converted into energy. There were great hopes of a "Clean,
virtually inexhaustable source of energy" - though it must be said that Martin
Fleischmann demurred and was more cautious. However it was quickly realised that
there was an enormous contradiction as one watt of power should have given
a million million nuclear reaction products per second which would have killed
everyone around, but the measured nuclear products were many orders of
magnitude less - about a million million times less as Steve Jones pointed out.
Thus Cold Fusion claims split into two parts;
a) Excess heat - Fleischamnn and Pons - Watts/cm3
b) Fusion Products - 40 000 neutrons/second according to F&P
                   - 0.4 neutrons/second according to Jones
                   but 10 E12 neutrons/second were expected if fusion.
   An important point is that both Martin Fleischmann and Steve Jones said
that there was no secret - just a simple table-top experiment as one said. Thus
to obtain Cold Fusion there was no need for any dynamic process such as heating,
cooling, varying current as in Takahashi style. It should work just by simple
electrolysis even at low current densities such as 8 mA/cm2.
   Now these two original experiments have been severely contested over the
years and it is clear that if the two original experiments which began the
current Cold Fusion excitement, are shown to be untenable, then the very
foundations of Cold Fusion should crumble. In addition to these earlier
criticisms, recently two major results have appeared that would appear
to contradict the two foundation results. It is important to consider them
and their rebuttals.
    Initially Steve Jones et al. reported in Nature in 1989 a neutron rate of
0.4 n/second; this value was re-evaluated later to 0.06n/s. This was using
electrolysis with a palladium cathode. Later Steve and Howard Menlove did
another experiment with titanium which was lightly loaded with D2 gas, in
which they claimed large neutron bursts of up to 280 neutrons in a time
interval of 128 microseconds; they were especially frequent after cooling
with liquid nitrogen and then in warming up, the bursts were observed
near -30C.
    Steve Jones, Howard Menlove et al. have placed Cold Fusion cells in the
center of the 3000 ton Kamiokande detector. As the Kamiokande detector
is in a mine (visited it on 21 October when at the Neutrino Astrophysics
conference held at Takayama and Kamioka - the experiment was impressive)
and as it has large veto counters and careful control of radon and other
possible radioactive backgrounds, very low backgrounds are obtained, so
that the previous values of 0.4 or 0.06 neutrons/second should now have been
very clear. The experiment is described in a thesis by Taku Ishida which is
admirably written and which explains all the corrections and results in
great detail - it is well worth reading just for the pleasure of its clarity,
apart from its interesting results.
    They started running in January 1991. At first they tried electrolysis
with palladium cathodes but observed almost nothing, then with titanium loaded
with D2 gas and again observed almost nothing. The upper limit was about 10 E-4
neutrons/second, ie several orders of magnitude less than Jones et al. claim of
0.4 or 0.06 n/s for 'random' or steady neutron emission.
   With the experiments with titanium and D2 gas and warming up from liquid
nitrogen temperatures, "bursts" of 2 or 3 or occasionally 4 neutrons were
observed (with an extended interval of 500 microseconds, not 128). The obvious
interpretation was that this was radioactive contamination for uranium
fission can give up to six neutrons and plutonium up to seven which gives
about the observed multiplicity distribution. Coverting these observed neutrons
into source neutrons gives a maximum burst size of 11 neutrons during
electrolysis. Further when these bursts are observed, it is not at -30 C but
at room temperature contrary to previous claims.
    Thus these measurements contradict all the results claimed by Jones et al.
and by Menlove et al.
These conclusions are rebutted as follows;
a) the random or steady neutron emission is down from 0.4 n/s  to less than
10 E-4 n/s for 1311 hours(gas) and 957 hours(electrolysis), but it is claimed
that the old data have been studied and it was found that random emission
only occurs once every 900 hours and therefore the runs were too short.
However this seems to be only the number of hours whereas the weight of metal
in the old experiments was generally small, 88 grams, whereas in the Kamiokande
experiment it was generally more, going up to 1700 grams.
b) the bursts, 5 in gas and 9 in electrolysis could come from a few ppm of
uranium, thorium or other radioactive source but measurements in the Canada
gave a lower amount of uranium or thorium in the metal. However the comparison
is not easy. If Kamiokande measured only neutrons directly, it would be
straightforward, but the neutron signal it measures can also come from gammas
which give photo-disintegration of the deuterium yielding neutrons.
When control experiments are done with normal hydrogen, these gammas will not
give neutrons. Further since there is a threshold of at least two neutrons, the
difference is enhanced. Also the multiplicity of bursts is entirely different
as previously it extended to 280 source neutrons, not to 11 as in Kamiokande.
    The General Electric paper, Wilson et al., J. Electroanal. Chem 332(1992)1,
includes Fritz Will as an author before he left to become Director of the
National Cold Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City. It consists of two parts.
Part 1 is experimental. It describes briefly a long series of experiments
firstly repeating Fleischmann and Pons's experiments as exactly as possible
(since there is no secret, this is OK), and then variations and improvements
some of which gave very high quality experiments. They find no excess heat and
no neutrons nor tritium nor 4He.
Part 2 is a very complete discussion of the analysis of the Fleischmann and Pons
experimental data. They find that the excess heat is generally overestimated
and that control samples using hydrogen which F&P claim gave no excess heat,
should have indicated excess heat if the analysis had been performed as
described. (More details of this are given in the Email "Cold Fusion Update
No. 6).
   The rebuttal of Fleischmann and Pons is given in the next paper,
J. Electroanal. Chem 332(1992)33. it says that the paper of Wilson et al. is
"a series of misconceptions and misrepresentations".... "gross errors". Then
follows 20 pages of calculations etc. with the comments;
1) Fleischmann and Pons say that Wilson et al. "have not provided sufficient
information". Agree, but one can ask GE for data and hope to get it. It would
be good for Science if both sides were to exchange data.
2) Wilson and others say that the use of non-linear regression analysis
and Kalman filtering is unnecessarily complicated (F&P say it is standard but
when the audience at Nagoya was asked if they had recently used a non-linear
regression analysis to obtain excess heat - no one replied).
3) Fleischmann and Pons say that "the precise control of the level of the
electrolyte is hardly feasible" and this justifies the complicated analysis, but
if a closed cell is used, then the level is constant.
4) This argument between leading scientists is disagreeable - in view of the
crucial importance of the Fleischmann and Pons experiment to Cold Fusion, it
should be resolved. Fortunately this can be done simply by Fleischmann and Pons
doing a clean simple experiment with few corrections in a closed cell immersed
in 3 constant temperature baths as was done by their good friend David Williams
at Harwell using the device used for evaluating the amount of plutonium in
samples. This is a null measurement like the Wheatstone bridge ie if excess
heat is produced, the heaters that keep the 3 baths above room temperature,
are lowered to keep the temperatures constant. Thus nothing changes in the
temperatures so that no elaborate corrections are needed. Loading and
nuclear products should also be measured at the same time.
   It should be appreciated that the best way for Drs. Fleischmann and Pons to
answer critics would be to obtain positive results with a clean good apparatus
chosen to require few corrections as above.
   Some Conclusions;
1. There is a major separation between experiments which measure excess heat
and claim watts and experiments which measure nuclear products which find
10 E-6 to 10 E-16 watts.
2. The positive experimental claims are highly dispersed and inconsistent
with one another. Some experiments are poorly designed and artifact-prone with
the consequence that artifacts are claimed as results. Answer/recommendation is
to do only good fully-instrumented and fully-calibrated experiments that need
few and unimportant corrections. Always measure loading.
3. Several experiments claim that Cold Fusion occurs in normal light hydrogen.
This is in direct contradiction with most previous Cold Fusion claims which said
the reason one knew it was Cold Fusion was because it did occurred with
deuterium and did not occur with hydrogen. It is not possible to believe
both sets of claims simultaneously.
4. There are an enormous number experiments which describe the behaviour of
hydrogen and deuterium in metals and these show that the deuterium ions are
further apart in metals than in D2 gas - as described also by Dr. Fukai.
5. The two original experiments of Fleischman and Pons and of Jones et al.,
are contradicted by the General Electric Company's paper of Fritz Will and
others and by the Kamiokande experiment of Jones et al., respectively.
6. It has been said that if Cold Fusion has a 1% chance of working, then it
is worth further study. But the best estimate is not 1%. If one accepts the
results from the excellent Kamiokande experimental limit of 10 E-4 neutrons
per second, then the limit is not 1% but 10 E-14% or one hundredth
million million of one percent.
 
5. AFTER MORRISON'S TALK
     After Dr. Preparata's loud intervention, the rest of Morrison's talk was
heard in silence, but after he finished the Co-Chairmen said nothing, but the
Conference Chairman, Dr H. Ikegami moved swiftly across and removed deftly the
microphone from the speaker's jacket and the battery from his pocket and
then quietened the tumult and booing by declaring that he wished to apologize
to the audience. He was surprised that a scientist of Dr. Morrison's
international reputation could make such a ridiculous talk, and so on.
A noisy crowd then surrounded Morrison so that it was difficult for
the TV people to film this from close up. The loudest voices were essentially
Cold Fusion propagandists and it is interesting that none of their questions
or comments were direct to scientific issues but were of the nature "Have you
looked at the raw data?" One particularly interesting question was "in your
bibliography, did you include papers from 'Fusion Technology'?" This is
interesting because this journal has a reputation of being rather kind to papers
in favour of Cold Fusion - for example "Cold Fusion observed with ordinary
water", "Observation of quad-neutrons and gravity decay during Cold Fusion",
"Searching for tiny black holes during Cold Fusion" - was shown a photo of a
black hole! The editor says that more papers are refused than accepted. The
answer of Morrison was 'yes' - in order to be as kind as possible to Cold
Fusion, and to avoid accusations of bias, all journals that claim to have
referees were taken, including Fusion Technology.
     After a time Morrison was removed from the noisy crowd by an Organiser who
said he should attend a press conference downstairs. There Dr. Ikegami was
talking in Japanese to reporters. This went on for over an hour and the phrase
"Morrison-san" was heard frequently. Afterwards the meeting broke up and none
of the reporters asked Morrison any questions though they gave their cards.
    After lunch there was the poster session. As requested, Morrison spread
out copies of the 21 pages of transparencies on a table. Many gathered round
and accepted copies of the page with 11 graphs summarizing the number of
results. Dr Preparata came with his two accolytes and started attacking in a
very loud voice - interestingly enough none of his comments were scientific
and he did not question the accuracy of any of the 21 pages spread out.
One of his accolytes then started loudly and again none of his comments in any
way questioned the pages on the table though he did say he was spokesman of an
experiment. Dr. Preparata was offered a copy of the page of graphs - he took
it and ceremoniously tore it across and then tore it again and again before
moving away. Wonder if he also burns books?
    After that the poster session proceeded peacefully with many friendly
conversations and people were happy to have a copy of the page of graphs.
It was noticable that then and the next day, the serious scientists such
as Steve Jones, discussed but that the principals and other propagandists
avoided the poster table.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dear Colleagues,                                         1 November 1992.
 
                     COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
 
         THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE.
 
 It was held in Nagoya, 21 to 25 October 1992.
It started with a Press Conference but ended with a Whimper.
Cold Fusion is now claimed with Light Hydrogen.
Skeptics of Cold Fusion verbally attacked.
Fourth Annual Conference scheduled for Hawaii - scientific?
 
SUMMARY
     The character of the annual Cold Fusion conference is changing. Only a
few new results were presented as Invited Talks claiming excess heat and
nuclear products while many other claims were relegated to poster sessions.
These other claims included several groups saying that they observed excess
heat with normal hydrogen - this is in contradiction with Fleischmann and Pons
and others who said it happens only with heavy hydrogen (deuterium) and the
proof that it is nuclear fusion is that it is NOT observed with light hydrogen.
There were a number of highly unusual papers available but not all presented,
claiming Cold Fusion in biology, in tiny black holes, and in gravity decays;
also transmutation was claimed. On the other hand the most complete experiment
in Japan according to the book of Abstracts, has been carried out over three
years by Isagawa et al. at the National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, KEK
- it was not chosen for presentation and was not mentioned - their evidence
on excess heat, neutrons and tritium was against Cold Fusion although they
found many artifacts.
     Near the start of the conference, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, NTT,
held a press conference where Drs. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka announced
that they had for the the first time succeeded in detecting excess heat and
helium during the experiment with high reproducibility. According to the
three-page article in Liberation of 27 October, this caused the
NTT share price to rise by over 11% (note NTT has the biggest share
capitalisation in Japan and at times in the World - the rise was worth
several billion dollars). Also it was said that the helium was observed
with deuterium and not with light hydrogen. However at the Conference
Round Table, Dr. Yamaguchi said that they had also observed excess heat
with light hydrogen. It should be noted that at the 1990 AIP conference, they
wrote "We have also observed the latter three phenomena (Excess heat, plastic
deformation and explosive gas release) by applying this method to Pd:H systems
having the same heterostructure. This is the first evidence for the fact that
the excess heat production is not caused by D-D reactions." With other
contradictions, it is probably wiser to consider the press conference as
premature since adequate checks have not yet been made(see below in Section 4).
    S. Jones and H. Menlove have tried to detect neutrons in the large
(3000 ton) Kamiokande detector; with palladium and titanium, upper
limits corresponding to 10 E -14 Watts were found. The fact that Cold Fusion
is observed in some parts of the World but not in others - called in an
earlier Email "the Regionalization of Results" - continues with
Dr. F. Scarramuzzi saying that "Behind the Alps Cold Fusion never existed".
    An expert on hydrogen in metals, F. Fukai, explained that Cold Fusion
at the rates quoted, was impossible. D.R.O. Morrison reviewed all the
published papers (over 700) and noted that the numbers of papers
published had declined steeply and that only 8 experimental ones
have been published so far in 1992 and of these 6 found no effect,
one was positive and one undecided; he concluded "It has been said
that if Cold Fusion has a 1% chance of working, we should continue.
But the best estimate is not 1%. If one accepts the Kamiokande limit
of 10 E-4 neutrons/second which is 10 E-16 Watts, then it is not 1%
but (10 E-14)% or one hundred million millionth of a percent". Both
Fukai and Morrison were verbally attacked by Cold Fusion Believers.
   The meeting finished with a round table discussion where the speakers
mainly said that better experiments should be done, and then people drifted off
without any great show of enthusiasm.
    A major question is "Are the Annual Cold Fusion Conferences scientific
meetings"?
 
SUBJECTS
1. Before and Organisation
2. Thursday 22 October; McKubre, Claytor, Kunimatso, Srinivasan, Oyama,
   Enyo, Thompson, Fukai, Sanchez, Chien.
3. Friday 23 October; Takahashi, Mallove, Celani, De Ninno, Pons, Smedley
4. Saturday 24 October; Jones, Yamaguchi, Miles, Iida, Kasagi, Cecil, Tsarev,
   Gozzi, Morrison
5. After Morrison's Invited talk
6. Sunday 25 October; Claytor, Bockris, Li (China), Tsarev(Russia),
   Scaramuzzi(Italy)
7. Round Table, end of conference
8. Next Cold Fusion conference - scientific?
 
 
1. BEFORE AND ORGANISATION
    The conference was supported by 8 major Japanese Societies - one was the
Japanese Physical Society which I know well and which I respect, so expected
a normal scientific meeting with a balance of speakers chosen to present
different points of view and expected free and open discussion. Though not
emphasised, there was clearly some appreciable Japanese industrial support for
Cold Fusion.
    There were some 320 participants which was substantially more than the
first two meetings which had about 200 each. Of these 199 came from Japan and
about a third were from industrial organisations such as Mitsubushi, Toyota,
Fuji Electrical, Sumitomo Electric, Tokyo Gas, Hitachi, Tokyo Electrical Power
Co., Osaka Gas, NTT, Honda, Nomura, Nippon Steel, Kansai Electrical Power Co.,
Sanyo Electric, Aisin Saiki Co., NKK Co., Central Research Institute of the
Electric Power Industry, also the Japanese offices of two French companies (Air
Liquide and Cogema), plus the Director and Deputy Director of the Electrical
Power Division of MITI - note that most were observers and not reporting
results. This was quite an organisational achievement for Dr. Hideo Ikegami,
the Chairman of the Conference. There were 55 listed from the USA, 20 from Italy
16 from Russia and the Ukraine, 11 from China and only 19 from the rest of the
World, (which includes Stan Pons listed as from IMRA in France and Martin
Fleischmann listed from the University of Southampton and the only person from
the UK) so that it can be seen that World coverage was non-uniform.
    There were only 23 talks - all of 20 minutes except Stan Pons who had
30 minutes. There were reviews of Cold Fusion in China, Russia and Italy. Also
there were two panel discussions and the meeting ended with a round table
discussion. From the abstracts it seemed that I was the only skeptic speaking.
75 papers were scheduled for the poster session - again mine seemed the only
paper presenting a skeptical viewpoint even though most of the World's
scientists think Cold Fusion is dead. The poster sessions in the afternoons
were of an unusual format - it was a very large room with many tables and the
"posters" were generally A4 pages which covered the table. Thus the morning
speakers could cover the table with their transparencies. This system worked
very well and allowed everyone a satisfactory chance of seeing the papers
and of discussing with the authors and with other participants. An afternoon was
devoted to visiting the Toyota car plant - this was very interesting as while
there was some robotization, what we saw was the production chain with many
men doing various operations - they worked steadily but did not seem to be
forced to go at too high a speed. At the end of the production line, the cars
were driven a few metres and tested immediately. (We have had Toyota cars in
the family for 19 years and they never break down so are thinking of buying
another one next year - what I saw of the production chain reinforced this
opinion).
    At the spectacular conference dinner, the representative from MITI said that
they would fund research in Cold Fusion in the near future (was told they would
give about $2.5 million next year and industry would give a comparable amount)
This was not to be taken that they believed in Cold fusion (they call it
Hydrogen Energy research) but that they thought it was worth further study.
A message was read from Minoru Toyoda who is a major figure in the Toyota car
company. He founded Technova in 1978 and IMRA in 1985. After Technova
received a joint research proposal from Professors Fleischmann and Pons, he
judged that they should work for IMRA Europe at the Science Park near Nice.
IMRA Japan is now also working on Cold Fusion research. Mr Toyoda is like
many of us, greatly concerned by the World Energy problems and desires a
harmonious development of Science and Technology as proposed by President
Mitterand at the 1982 summit. His message is a very sincere one. (A review
paper "World Energy in the Next Century" which is based on my Invited Talk at
the November 1991 World Clean Energy Conference and presented at the
1992 Pugwash meeting, was submitted to this conference but not listed).
 
CURIOUS STORY.
    In the large hall outside the conference room and where the Secretariat was,
a working demonstration of Cold Fusion with ORDINARY water was set up. There
were two cells, one with light water and potassium carbonate with a nickel
cathode and the other was a control cell. Meters showed that the current and
voltage were the same in both cells. But while the control was just above room
temperature, the other was distinctly hot and everyone was invited to touch
and see the difference which was quite marked. A very simple direct
demonstration which impressed some. Steve Jones's graduate student, David
Buehler looked closely and noticed that the lead wires entering the control
cell were much thinner than those going into the "nuclear heat" cell although
it had been said that the two were identical. Steve challenged him to measure
the resistance of the control cell leads somehow. David moved the alligator
clips from the ends of the thin lead wires to points where the leads
entered the control cell. He saw that the voltage dropped and from this
determined that the thinnest lead had a high resistance so that the wire
must have been quite thin. He estimated that half the power delivered
to the control cell was dissipated in the air, not in the solution which
would make it appreciably cooler than the other cell. The demonstration was
removed before the end of the conference.
 
PS The ski season in the Alps looks promising - good sking yesterday down
to 2200 metres - November 7 is the earliest that I have skied.
 
                                         (c)  Douglas R. O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmorrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 / Michael Zedeler /  Tokamak-magnets in JET/(ITER?)
     
Originally-From: mike@ruc.dk (Michael Zedeler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak-magnets in JET/(ITER?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:02:54 GMT
Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark

 
 We are currently trying to figure how the JET-tokamak is working.
 
As a member of the subgroup dedicated to the subject "magnetic fields in - and
around the tokamak", I would like to know if anyone has the time to answer a
few, and very basic questions:
 
-What magnets are powered by alternating current in the tokamak?
   (Polodial, torodial, etc.)
-What magnets contributes to the torodial magnetic field?
-How does the plasma contribute to the magnetic field?
-Is it possible to estimate the size of the magnetic field configuration
 AROUND JET? (In the vicnity.)
-How does the polodial magnetic heating work?
 
If you have any answers, and DO have the time to answer any of them, we'd be
pleased to hear from you.
 
Michael and Henriette.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmike cudfnMichael cudlnZedeler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 /  /  Gas Loading
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gas Loading
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:10:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says that he does not see a good explanation as to how high gas
loadings are measured.  I don't know how to do it either.
 
Tod Green gives a good discussion and picks the four point resistance method.
I too used this for a while.  I now measure the excess oxygen.  As far as I
can see neither method is very good.  But they are both better than anything
else that I can figure out.
 
I watch the skyscraper and count the number of people coming in and out the
front door to estimate how many people are inside.  Tod monitors the elevator
traffic.  My method is bad because there is a subway under the building, and
also a back door.  I think Tod's method fails because we really don't know
the relation between elevator traffic and people in the building when the
building is occupied by more people than the fire department allows.
 
But this does not stop us from learning some things.  One can still make
comparative measurements.  With plain rods I get to 0.7 to 0.8 by the
excess oxygen method.  With a polished cathode, I have achieved 0.94 of the
first load three times in a row.   Later in the cycle I appear to get to
much higher loading, but by then I no longer have a good count on the
skyscraper occupancy.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 /  /  Mail
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mail
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:10:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Somehow I managed to completely mess up my mail directory.  So if you have
sent something that required a reply, I may not have received it.  It was
some sort of directory cancer that tried to fill all available space on the
disk.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 /  /  D/Pd ratios
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D/Pd ratios
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:11:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have measured 1190 relative volumes.  Because oxygen is slowly lost due to
the formation of the Platinum compound (yellow crud) the excess oxygen method
tends to undermeasure.  There is a simultaneous energy measurement that tends
to confirm that something is going on, but if anything it indicates that the
loadins is also under measured.  Moore (Trans Electrochemical Soc., 75 [1939])
measured 2800 relative volumes.  I cannot find anything wrong with his
method.  But Moore thought that more than half of the gas existed not in the
crystal lattice but in "rifts in the slip planes".  Moore used very fine
wires.  He would then pass a current through the wire and heat it up to drive
off the hydrogen.  Hard to go wrong with such a simple method.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  Latest run is again drifting in the "anomalous heat" direction.  Heat
also comes in pulses that are hard to explain.  This run was not intended as
a serious measurement but was designed to shake down the calorimeter after a
number of changes.  So the calibration was only done to 10 mw or so.  Now the
"anomalous heat" is again up to 50 mw peaks.  Why does the calorimeter drift
with a cell in place, and not with a dummy load.  Why is the drift always in
the "anomalous heat" direction?  I really think that I have now eliminated the
TED as a possible source of drift.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  Rothwell /  Notoya's mistake, distorted
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notoya's mistake, distorted
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:02:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Douglas Morrison posted a twisted version of the mistake found in Notoya's
light water cell demonstration:
 
"Steve challenged [David] to measure the resistance of the control cell leads
somehow. David moved the alligator clips from the ends of the thin lead wires
to points where the leads entered the control cell. He saw that the voltage
dropped and from this determined that the thinnest lead had a high resistance
so that the wire must have been quite thin. He estimated that half the power
delivered to the control cell was dissipated in the air, not in the solution
which would make it appreciably cooler than the other cell. The demonstration
was removed before the end of the conference."
 
David moved the alligator clips on the right hand silver wire near the top.
Immediately after that, Dr. Notoya and I moved both clips the rest of the way
up. She also measured the resistance again. She said, "oops, it is greater
than I thought." She adjusted the current to account for the resistance, and
the temperature in the dummy cell went up only about a degree. So clearly
David was wrong, "half the power delivered to the control cell" was *not*
dissipated into the air, because when we reduced the length of the silver lead
by about half (leaving most of the wire underwater), the dummy cell remained
14 degrees cooler than the CF cell.
 
The demonstration was removed just before the end of the conference by Dr.
Notoya and I. We packed up the power supplies and other equipment in large
boxes, and called in a delivery service to ship it back to Hokkaido
University. She could not have carried all that stuff in a Taxi! Dr. Notoya
will bring the cells to the U.S. in a few weeks, tentatively to Stanford
University in the last week of November, and definitely to M.I.T. around
December 1 or 2. Anyone who wishes to measure the resistance of the silver and
platinum leads will be more than welcome to do so. You do not have to measure
it "somehow;" it is not "a challenge."  You can bring your own meter, or
borrow Dr. Notoya's.
 
Dr. Notoya plans to replace the thin silver wire with a heavier gauge one, and
she will measure resistance very carefully this time, she promises.
 
I like my version of this story a lot better than Morrison's. No mysteries
here. Nobody "doing their best to measure things" by some seat of the pants
method. Nobody "removing demonstrations" before the end of the conference and
vanishing into the night. Let me re-emphasize that this was a "walking around"
demo and NOT, by any means, a full scale, scientific experiment. Notoya has a
full scale experiment back in the laboratory which is much more convincing,
because she uses a proper calorimeter, thermocouples, a much shorter (3 cm)
and heavier gauge silver wire, and she measures the gas from electrolysis.
 
Notoya did make a minor error measuring the resistance of a wire, but perhaps
Dr. Morrison will cut her a little slack here, since we all make mistakes from
time to time. Dr. Morrison certainly made a foolish error when he noted Dr.
Buehler's comments, jumped to the conclusion that Buehler was right, and never
bothered and verify whether the temperature of the dummy cell had actually
gone up 15 degrees or not.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 / David Seghers /  Re: Real Science
     
Originally-From: seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Real Science
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:32:23 GMT
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server

(I'll post this since my mail bounces...  Perhaps others will also want to
inform the new administration of what "real science" is about...  :-)}  )
 
>
>There is going to be a new crew in Washington.  I hope someone will tell them
>that there is no such thing as directed research.  There is hardly even
>directed development.  But there is directed Pork.  And that, my friends, is
>directed research!
>
>Tom Droege
>
>----------
>
Tom,
 
Perhaps you can be the one to tell the Clinton crew "how it is."  I picked
up the Clinton email address from someone posting to the talk.politics.*
groups.  Here it is:
 
 
        Glad to help. The official address (managed by Jock Gill) is:
 
        75300.3115@compuserve.com
 
I really enjoy reading your postings, and I think you are performing a
tremendous service to the net-at-large by showing what *real* science
is about!  Keep up the great work!
 
(An interested layman convinced that most of the truly interesting
discoveries have yet to be made...)
 
David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
 
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
 
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
 
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenseghers cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 / John Logajan /  **HOT** Yellow crud (corrected calculations)
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: **HOT** Yellow crud (corrected calculations)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:08:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

***** Reposted with corrected last four paragraphs!!  Sorry ******
 
If we assume (guess #1) that the "yellow crud" is PtO2.4H2O, we find from
the CRC HCP that PtO2 takes 40.1 kcal/mol of Gibbs energy (heat of formation)
to form.
 
I couldn't find the Gibbs energy listed for PtO2.4H2O, however, but I scanned
other chemicals with .4H2O attached and found an average (guess #2) difference
in Gibbs energy between with/without .4H20 to be -290 kcal/mol.
 
The Gibbs energy of H2O formation is -56.7 kcal/mol.  The H2O already exists
so we want to factor out that energy from the published data for .4H2O.  Since
we have four water molecules, that is 4 * -56.7 = 227 kcal/mol.  Subtracting
the energy of H2O formation (times 4) from the "guessed" .4H2O energy of
formation gives -290 - (-227) = -63 kcal/mol.
 
So, forming PtO2 takes 40 kcal/mol of energy, but we get back -63 kcal/mol
when the .4H2O combines with it, for a net energy change of -23 kcal/mol.
 
That is to say, for each mole of PtO2.4H2O formed, it appears that 23 kcal
of heat energy appears in the system (is liberated by the "yellow crud.")
 
This is on the order of 1eV per molecule of "crud" or about 1/15eV per
constituent atom.
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  Rothwell /  The Wrong Spirit
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Wrong Spirit
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:08:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Now that I am fortified with a dinner of chicken stew, let me share some
additional thoughts about Dr. Morrison's portrayal of Notoya's light water
cell. I will leave out the technical details; anyone seriously interested in
them should come over in a few weeks and have a look, or e-mail me. Let me
address the moral spirit of Dr. Morrison's remarks. I feel that his words and
actions work against the true, open, friendly, scientific spirit that all of
us desire, and work hard to cultivate. Here is what I mean: Dr. Morrison
apparently had some legitimate, serious doubts about the Notoya cell. Fine!
Good! He should have strolled right up to Notoya or me and said just said
what was on his mind. Dozens of other people did, including Huizenga. Steve
Jones and Dave did. Any honest, friendly scientist would do that. When Steve
and Dave showed me the problem with the resistance, I said something like,
"Notoya-san has a multimeter in her purse, so as soon as she comes back,
let's ask her to check it." I did. She did. It was okay, only a little off
(Dave was partly right). I don't know if he had a chance to come back and try
the multimeter himself. I hope he did, but if not, maybe next time, or maybe
I can send him a cathode for himself.
 
Dr. Morrison might say, "I could not ask. I did not know who was in charge of
the cell," That's silly. I was right there! Big as life. You couldn't miss
me. The couch next to the cell was one of the most comfortable in the hall,
and it was 3 meters from a table full of cookies, orange juice and coffee, so
I was usually sprawled there, gabbing and laughing with the NHK crew. On
Notoya's orders, I was guarding the cell against Ikegami, who wanted to turn
up the power to the max and see what would happen. Morrison should have
*asked* me who the cell belonged to. He should have *followed* *up*. Show us
the problem, see if we can fix it. Come back in an hour and see if the cell
is still 14 deg C hotter than the dummy. Follow Up! This is science, the
tools were right there at hand. We would have handed him the multimeter, or
switched silver wires, or swapped power supplies. He should have talked about
the problem with Dr. Notoya. She was certainly recognizable, she was the only
five foot middle aged Japanese lady professor wearing bright red and speaking
Russian in a loud, high pitched voice at the Conference. I did not see any
others that fit that description, and I never have. Notoya and I are both
easily recognized at a distance, and both friendly as puppies.
 
Dr. Morrison missed the spirit of the Conference. He missed the fun. He
complains about Ikegami's interview in Japanese. Well, why on earth didn't he
come and ask me, or an English speaking Japanese person, to interpret? What
was he afraid of? What language did he expect Ikegami to speak? He got all
worked up about nothing -- it is just paranoia. If he had any concerns about
the content of the interview, I am sure that the NHK people and I could have
set his mind at ease. Japanese National Television is fair and even handed.
 
And this furtive silly nonsense about us making off with the cell in the
night. For goodness sake! If he had bothered to ask, I would have said, "UPS
took it away yesterday. You can see it again in Cambridge the first week in
December."
 
Instead of asking, debating, challenging, and promoting an open, honest, fun
dialogue, Morrison slinked back and posted this silly message, weeks later.
The reason I am railing on about this is because is *symptomatic*. It is the
*essence* of the pathology of the so-called "skeptics." They don't have the
right spirit! You don't nit-pick, and secretly look for some little problem,
so you can go home and torpedo people from a safe distance. That is not how
to do science. You have a problem? You have a question? Call us up! Ask! Step
right up and ask for a multimeter. Measure that resistance for yourself.
Notoya probably had a couple spare wires in her bag, we could have double
wired the connection down to the resister. We are open to any suggestion,
except Ikegami's plan to blow the thing up. This was an open, come-one-come-
all, demonstration with a couple of people lounging around next to it,
answering questions, laughing, and eating cookies. There will be another
after demonstration after that, and another, and another. We are not going
away, not unless someone shows us what is wrong with the cell. We are here to
build a generator. We are not hiding. Everyone knows how to reach me,
Ikegami, Notoya, or MITI.
 
Morrison and many others accuse us of hiding things, and not submitting to
public inspection, of not publishing, or allowing others to judge our work,
but that is crazy nonsense! We are the most open, friendly people around. I
have called dozens of cold fusion scientists. Outside of the big
corporations, most of them send you any papers or raw data you want. They
describe their work and their methods in endless detail, and will invite you
into the lab anytime. Morrison and the other so-called "skeptics" accuse us
of being furtive. They say we hide our work. It is just the opposite; good CF
scientists are bold as brass and willing to let anyone (except Ikegami) mess
with experiments right in front of everyone in the conference. I spend tons
of my own money handing out detailed literature describing every trick and
technique I know about, and Tanaka Precious Metals hands out free palladium.
The "skeptics" refuse to allow us to publish anything! They refuse to look at
the experiments. *They* are running and hiding, not us.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.10 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:06:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>
> Furthermore, as the star shrinks to smaller and smaller diameters
> in its later life, it leaves behind it's inverse growth rings which
> become plantets and the outer ones pick up low Z gas boil off ( i. e.
> Jupiter).  Now if the gas planet gets large enough or perhaps gets
> an ignition assist by a monster ball lightning that forms in its
> atmosphere it will become a star and -- -   Voila!!  you have a binary
> system and WITHOUT burning IRON.
 
If a star is hot enough to allow fusion, would it not just start fusing without
ignition?  If it is not hot enough, wouldn't it be impossible to ignite, no
matter how much ball lightning was around?
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  /  Note to Mr Rothwell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!uunet!vxprix.cern.ch!morrison
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Note to Mr Rothwell
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:19:37 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

Note to Mr Rothwell.
     I received details of the "Curious Story" of the use of an abnormally
thin wire on one of two "identical" cells, only when I was back in
Switzerland. This was too late to talk with the Japanese lady so unchivalrously
described.
                                    Douglas R. O Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmorrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  Britz /  D/Pd Loading
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D/Pd Loading
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:23:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Tom Droege and Todd Green have discussed the problem of measuring the loading.
I still like the excess oxygen method Tom used, even with the interference by
the yellow crud. You could largely account for the effect of that. For one
thing, you can weigh the Pt anode before and after, which gives you the Pt
content of the crud. At the end, carefully collect as much crud as you can,
and have it analysed quantitatively for Pt, O and D (or H; Bockris tells us a
lot of H gets in there! {:] ) and you can then estimate the total amount formed
from the actual Pt lost. Then calculate how much oxygen was swallowed by that
and correct the excess.
 There is a problem here. If the crud were to eat oxygen, Tom actually
underestimated the excess oxygen - i.e. there would have been more, if not for
the crud. The way I see this happening (and I do wonder at so much Pt
dissolving) is the corrosion reaction, in a strongly alkaline solution:
 
Pt + 4OD-  ---> Pt(OD)4 + 4e-                  (1)
 
(Never mind the extra D2O's attached to the stuff). This reaction competes
with the predominant one taking place at the Pt,
 
4OD- ---> O2  + 2D2O + 4e-                     (2)
 
so while D2 is being produced at the Pd cathode, reaction (1) robs us of a
bit of O2 supposed to be made at the Pt anode. I hate to say it - because
frankly I don't believe in loadings far above 0.8 - but it looks to me as if
you might have underestimated the loadings. Please correct me, somebody, if
I have this wrong (Todd?).
 
I believe you start with filling the cell headspace with D2 gas - and all D2
formed should either  burn at the catalyst or go into the Pd. If the crud
reaction (1) takes away oxygen, though, could you be getting D2 coming out,
along with the excess O2? At first, while you are charging the Pd, there
would be excess oxygen; later, when the Pd is fully charged, no more gas
should come out, all being recombined, but crud formation would now produce
a small excess of D2 gas, with no O2 there to burn it.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  Britz /  The Notoya Demo
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Notoya Demo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:23:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
We have seen two conflicting accounts of the demonstration of a cold fusion
cell at the Nagoya conference. Both Jed Rothwell and Douglas Morrison agree
that the dummy cell had a thin lead making the contact. They disagree about
how much this lead mattered.
 I don't know what currents and voltages were being applied (how about telling
us?), but I have in my time fiddled with a lot of electronics and soldered a
lot of leads. I have never had a lead just lying around that was so thin that
it would dissipate significant heat with a few amps going through it. I take
it that the idea of using a silver wire would have been that Ag conducts
better than Cu, the usual material. To then use an extremely thin Ag wire
would seem to negate this advantage. This thing makes me suspicious.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 / T Neustaedter /  Re: The Wrong Spirit
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wrong Spirit
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:16:27 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <921111031513_72240.1256_EHL22-1@CompuServe.COM>,
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> [...] let me share some additional thoughts [...]
> I will leave out the technical details; [...]
 
Not to start a flame-war, but there is regretably too much of this
going on in cold fusion research. Technical details should be the
*only* relevant topic of conversation. Personality issues should be
left for observers to see who makes a fool of themselves.
 
> The "skeptics" refuse to allow us to publish anything! They refuse to look at
> the experiments. *They* are running and hiding, not us.
 
Where have I heard this before?
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.        Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Kamiokande and BYU experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kamiokande and BYU experiments
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:17:26 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I would like to set the record straight regarding the recent experiments
using the Japanese Kamiokande detector and detectors now in operation in
a tunnel in the Wasatch mountains near the campus of Brigham Young Univer-
sity.  Actually, we are encouraged somewhat by the results in that a small
(very small - no nuclear "excess heat") seems to be produced, and we think
the results may be significant in the context of the geological fusion
hypothesis which the BYU group advanced some years ago.
Perhaps the fairest way to represent the results of the Kamiokande experiment
is to quote the Conclusions section of the master's thesis on the subject
written in 1992 by Taku Ishida.  The thesis is widely available due to
distribution by the University of Tokyo a few months ago, as ICRR-Report-277
-92-15.  I would also be happy to send a copy to interested parties.  The
work is extensive, and it is most unfair to dismiss this as a "negative"
experiment on cold fusion.  Listen to the conclusions which represent the
current consensus of the collaboration:
   By using the Kamiokande-III detector, the detectable limit of random neutron
emission is pulled down to 10-4 neutrons per secone level, and the signal to
noise ratio is much improved than ever.  [Note this is the sensitivity level,
not an upper limit on neutron emissions.  A clear random neutron emission
signal is reported in point 3 below.]   Figure 7-1 compares our results with
others.
Some burst neutron emissions were observed especialy from the electrolytic
cells.  The event rate (0.06 bursts per hour) was comparable to that of Menlove
et al (1990), but the maximum multiplicity was only limited to four (source
neutron of about 11, Fig. 7-2).  [Small burst events were seen in the deuterium
cells, but large bursts were not.  The SAME materials used in D2O electrolytic
cells were loaded with hydrogen, but the small - burst rate was significantly
slower, so we believe we have ruled out the possibility that this signal is due
to contamination of radioactive trace materials.  We have found no conventional
explanation after careful and deep probing.]
(1)  Pressurized D2-gas type experiment
We did not find random neutron emission above background.  The flux limit is
8.0 X 10-5 neutrons per second at 90% confidence level.  But this limit is
simply deduced from the statistical error of 1311 hours of measurement, and
is not very meaningful because it is claimed that the neutron emission lasts
only for several tens of hours.  [Note caveat.]
Burst neutron emission was also searched for and we found 5 bursts with the
maximum multiplicity of 3.  They can only be explained by about 5 p.p.m.
(micrograms per gram) level uranium contamination in the titanium chips.  A
sample measurement of the same titanium gave the upper limit of 1 ppm for
uranium contamination (recent measurement, 0.14 ppm in titanium and less than
0.01 ppm in stainless steel).     We did not find bursts with multiplicity
higher than 4, and all of the bursts appeared in the normal temperature, not
during the warmup from the liquid nitrogen temperature, as reported in many
references.
(2) Electrolytic cells experiment
We did not find random neutron activity above background.  The flux limit is
9.8 X 10-5 neutrons per second for the April set (387 hours) and 5.7 X 10-5
neutrons per second for the July set (570 hours) at 90% confidence level.
Again these numbers are not very meaningful if the neutron emission is a
phenomenon of up to several tens of hours.
We have observed 9 bursts with maximum multiplicity of 4.  The probability
athat these bursts originate in uranium contamination [ or other contamination,
since we ran with hydrogen in the same materials] is less than 2 X 10-4,
probably at the level of 10-6.  [Not very likely.]  Low statistics of
background measurement does not allow us to estimate the probability more
precisely.
 
(3) Cement experiment
We have found a clear random neutron emission from the portland cement mixed
with D2O at the level of 1X10-3 neutrons/second, which is, however, difficult
to explain based on radioactivity contamination in the cement, though more
data are clearly needed.  [Signal is about ten times the sensitivity level.]
(4)  More study
Several more data on teh portland cement + D2O are to be analyzed.  A system-
atic study of radioactive impurities in all the samples is underway.  The
final results critically depend on these studies and will be reported soon.
 
As I have reported at recent scientific conferences, further studies on cement
+D2O at Kamiokande and in the BYU tunnel lab continue to show a "clear random
neutron emission" while the cement is curing (not after heat-curing).  The
cement+H2O samples show no signal in four tries.  We have transported these
cement+D2O studies to Provo from Kamiokande for two main reasons:  1- The
neutron (clearly not gamma) signal from  the curing cement is sufficiently
large to interfere with neutrino measurements in the Kamiokande, so we looked
for another facility to pursue the path; 2- the Kamiokande is sensitive to
thermalized neutrons, and therefore to neutrons from (a particular concern)
deuteron photodisintegration induced by gammas from daughters such as thallium
208.  We have made an extensive study of this question (along with fission
neutrons and d(alpha,n) reactions) in the Provo Tunnel, and have not found
a fitting conventional explanation.  Moreover, we have a detector which
discriminates against the low-energy photodisintegration neutrons, and yet
the signal from fast-setting cement + D2O is seen in Provo.  Clearly, we
will not abandon the path as we have searched diligently for years for a
reliable neutron producer.  We are attempting to isolate the reaction(s)
responsible for the "clear random neutron emission" from setting cement +
D2O.
Again I stress that the observed signals are very small and in no way support
claims of excess heat production in electrolytic cells by nuclear processes.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
BYU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  /  Yellow Crud Power
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yellow Crud Power
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:43:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan has nicely worked out the energy of formation of Yellow Crud.
 
A gross guess is that one cc formed in 4 mega seconds.  Given that the yellow
crud density is between 1 and 10, I estimate that this contributed of order
100 micro-watts to the anomalous heat.  Perhaps John would like to use the
one cc per 4 mega-seconds number and compute a more accurate number.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  jbatka@desire. /  Location of heat production?
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Location of heat production?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:26:31 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

Tom,
 
I posted a while back on this and got no response, so either I'm being
ignored, or my news manager got confused.
 
Have you (or anyone else that you know of) tried to localize where the
heat production (if any) is taking place?  It seems to me that every-
one is assuming it is taking place at the Palladium anode but noone
has bothered to check.
 
If the heat production is not at the anode, it would certainly be very
informative.
 
Would it be possible to take some measurements of the anode, cathode,
the head space above the cell, and in a few places in the electrolytic
solution?
 
Thanks for lending your ear,
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
It is very    | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
often easier  | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
to get for-   |--------------------------------------------+--------------
giveness then | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...         | Beatles:
permission    |    and a minute is a LONG time!            |   Yellow Submarine
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjbatka cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / John Hawkinson /  Re: Kamiokande and BYU experiments
     
Originally-From: hawk@iastate.edu (John D Hawkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamiokande and BYU experiments
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:17:20 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

I remember cement was a problem when doing low-level counting work...in fact,
we usually kept the stuff away from our detectors....
 
Here's a reference I hope might help shed some light on the subject:
"Radioactivity in Consumer Products", NUREG/CP-0001, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, August 1978.  The specific sections are:
 
p. 332-343, "Radioactivity in Building Materials" and
p. 351-368, "Radiation Exposure from Construction Materials Utilizing Byproduct
             Gypsum from Phosphate Mining".
 
In article <1992Nov11.101727.189@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
[everything not related to cement deleted -jdh]
 
 >(3) Cement experiment
 >We have found a clear random neutron emission from the portland cement mixed
 >with D2O at the level of 1X10-3 neutrons/second, which is, however, difficult
 >to explain based on radioactivity contamination in the cement, though more
 >data are clearly needed.  [Signal is about ten times the sensitivity level.]
 
I assume you're primarily concerned with the fissile materials, since they're
the ones that can decay through spontaneous fission?  Wollenberg & Smith gave
values of 1.1 pCi/gm U-238 and 0.4 pCi/gm Th-232 for cements in general.
 
Cements utilizing byproduct gypsum from phosphate mining are even more
"interesting".  Phosphate ore in the U.S. has concentrations of uranium and
thorium.  When phosphatic fertilizers are produced, a large amount of phospho-
gypsum is formed as a byproduct.  About 20% of all phosphogypsum produced
(1975 data) goes into PORTLAND CEMENT.
 
Phosphogypsum from Florida phosphates contains on average, 33 pCi/gm of
Ra-226, 6 pCi/gm U-238 and 13 pCi/gm Th-230.  Idaho-produced phosphogypsum
has 23 pCi/gm Ra-226...I don't have any numbers on U or Th, although the
proportions should be similar (I _think_ ).
 
 >(4)  More study
 >Several more data on teh portland cement + D2O are to be analyzed.  A system-
 >atic study of radioactive impurities in all the samples is underway.  The
 >final results critically depend on these studies and will be reported soon.
 
I wonder if you might have to do a Monte Carlo simulation of the system, as
well...I hate to suggest it, because it's a *good* way of burning up an
enormous amount of computer time...
 
 >
 >As I have reported at recent scientific conferences, further studies on cement
 >+D2O at Kamiokande and in the BYU tunnel lab continue to show a "clear random
 >neutron emission" while the cement is curing (not after heat-curing).  The
 >cement+H2O samples show no signal in four tries.  We have transported these
 >cement+D2O studies to Provo from Kamiokande for two main reasons:  1- The
 >neutron (clearly not gamma) signal from  the curing cement is sufficiently
 >large to interfere with neutrino measurements in the Kamiokande, so we looked
 >for another facility to pursue the path; 2- the Kamiokande is sensitive to
 >thermalized neutrons, and therefore to neutrons from (a particular concern)
 >deuteron photodisintegration induced by gammas from daughters such as thallium
 >208.  We have made an extensive study of this question (along with fission
 >neutrons and d(alpha,n) reactions) in the Provo Tunnel, and have not found
 >a fitting conventional explanation.  Moreover, we have a detector which
 >discriminates against the low-energy photodisintegration neutrons, and yet
 >the signal from fast-setting cement + D2O is seen in Provo.  Clearly, we
 >will not abandon the path as we have searched diligently for years for a
 >reliable neutron producer.  We are attempting to isolate the reaction(s)
 >responsible for the "clear random neutron emission" from setting cement +
 >D2O.
 >Again I stress that the observed signals are very small and in no way support
 >claims of excess heat production in electrolytic cells by nuclear processes.
 >Sincerely,
 >Steven E. Jones
 >BYU
 >
 
This last point may be worthless but, for what it's worth, the NUREG/CP noted
(page 338):
 
   "A number of studies have been made, and others are in progress, on the
    emanation of radon from various materials.  A few points of interest
    emerge.  One is that an increase in the water content of concrete or
    other porous material increases the emenation rate (Auxier, 1974)."
 
Any speculation as to what impact "radon puffs" from the drying concrete
might have on the detector setup?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhawk cudfnJohn cudlnHawkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / Bijal Modi /  Question on Langmuir Probe
     
Originally-From: bijal@fusion.Berkeley.EDU (Bijal C. Modi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question on Langmuir Probe
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:21:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
Hi,
 
   Can somebody provide me with the I-V (current-voltage) relationship
for a Langmuir Probe? The one I got by simple derivation is
 
                    1 - J
      exp(eV/T) =   _____     , V = voltage, J = current
 
                    1 + J
 
     My suspect is that instead of exp(eV/T) it is exp(-eV/T).
 
 
thanks,
 
-Bijal.
 bijal@garnet.berkeley.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbijal cudfnBijal cudlnModi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / Dan Tilque /  Re: clarke's law
     
Originally-From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: clarke's law
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:22:23 GMT
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard

In article <1992Nov4.220319.29777@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
 Clarke) writes:
>Someone recently posted Clarke's law.  The one about
>if a senior scientist says possible he's probably right,
>if he says impossible he's probably wrong.
>
>Could you e-mail me the exact quotation?  I need to cite it
>in a paper and don't want to go digging in the library.
 
Here's the relevant section from the rec.arts.sf.written FAQ.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Clarke's Laws
 
(This entry was written by Mark Brader.)
 
Clarke's Law, later Clarke's First Law, can be found in the essay
"Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in the collection
"Profiles of the Future", 1962, revised 1973, Harper & Row, paperback
by Popular Library, ISBN 0-445-04061-0.  It reads:
 
# [1]           When a distinguished but elderly scientist
#               states that something is possible, he is almost
#               certainly right.  When he states that something
#               is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
 
Note that the adverbs in the two sentences are different.  Clarke continues:
 
#       Perhaps the adjective "elderly" requires definition.  In physics,
#       mathematics, and astronautics it means over thirty; in the other
#       disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties.
#       There are, of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher
#       just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for
#       nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out
#       of the laboratory!
 
Isaac Asimov added a further comment with Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's
Law, which he expounded in an essay logically titled "Asimov's Corollary".
This appeared in the February 1977 issue of F&SF, and can be found in the
collection "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright", 1978, Doubleday; no ISBN on
my copy.  Asimov's Corollary reads:
 
% [1AC]         When, however, the lay public rallies round an
%               idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly
%               scientists and supports that idea with great fervor
%               and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly
%               scientists are then, after all, probably right.
 
 
So much for Clarke's First Law.  A few pages later on, in the final
paragraph of the same essay, Clarke writes:
 
# [2]           But the only way of discovering the limits of the
#               possible is to venture a little way past them into
#               the impossible.
 
To this he attaches a footnote:
 
#       The French edition of [presumably, the first edition of] this
#       book rather surprised me by calling this Clarke's Second Law.
#       (See page [number] for the First, which is now rather well-
#       known.)  I accept the label, and have also formulated a Third:
#
# [3]           Any sufficiently advanced technology is
#               indistinguishable from magic.
#
#       As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly
#       decided to stop there.
 
 
---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendant cudfnDan cudlnTilque cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: the Notoya Demo
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the Notoya Demo
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:28:57 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The following measurements were recorded by David Buehler (BYU graduate
student) on the Notoya cells.  I post these to meet the request by D. Britz,
without comment.
Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with resistor, initially:
3.4 volts,  0.6 amps.
Buehler moved alligator clip from power supply about 5 cm closer to the cell
on very thin lead entering the control cell, result:
3.0 volts,  0.6 amps (constant current supply).
Adjusting both clips to points on two wires close to entry into cell,
presumably by Dr. Notoya after Buehler pointed out his concern (control cell):
2.57 volts, 0.72 amps (current evidently adjusted also).
(Don't know why current was adjusted on control cell.)
 
This is all the data I collected from D. Buehler and recorded in my logbook.
It may suffice for a mock-up of the Notoya demonstration if anyone is
interested, at least to test the effects of the higher resistance of the
lead wires entering the control cell.  One more item, the wires entering the
Ni cell were nearly the thickness of a dime (U.S.), while the wires entering
the control cell were much thinner (one was very fine).
I mean no offense in offering these data.  David Buehler was correct, I think,
to examine the Hokkaido University demonstration very carefully, and to report
his findings to Dr. Notoya at the conference in a straightforward manner.
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / John Logajan /  Resistance of wires
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Resistance of wires
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:29:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>I have never had a lead just lying around that was so thin that
>it would dissipate significant heat with a few amps going through it. I take
>it that the idea of using a silver wire would have been that Ag conducts
>better than Cu, the usual material. To then use an extremely thin Ag wire
>would seem to negate this advantage.
 
I can't imagine the need for silver wire either.  The difference in
resistivity between copper and silver is only about 6%, with silver being
a slightly better conductor.  The difference in temperature coefficient
is only 10% better for silver.  It would be far easier and cheaper for me
to come up with a many 100's percent greater cross-sectional area copper
wire than a silver wire of any size.
 
A 30 guage wire has a resistance of about 0.1 ohm per foot.  For a ballpark
guess, lets assume the Mills cell is dropping 2 volts at 100 ma, or about
200 mw.  So, assuming a foot of 30 guage wire and by P=I^2*R, I=sqrt(P/R),
therefore I=1.4 amps.
 
By intuitive inspection, if half the wire is out of the cell, half the power
is being dissipated outside of the cell.  If you slide the connection
(presumably to a much thicker "feed" wire) to effectively cut the wire length
in half, you also cut the resistance in half, and have to recompute the
applied current -- which is now I=2 amps -- to duplicate the 200mw Mills cell.
 
A 20 guage wire has about 10 times the cross-sectional area of 30 guage wire,
and therefore has 1/10 the resistance per foot, about 0.01 ohms.  We'd have
to pass about 4.5 amps to get it to dissipate 200 mw over a one foot section
and 6.3 amps if it were six inches long.
 
I doubt, however, that a mere 200 mw would heat a cup sized object to feel
"warm to the touch" so scale up these numbers appropriately.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / John Logajan /  Yellow crud anomalous heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yellow crud anomalous heat
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:30:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>Given that the yellow crud density is between 1 and 10
 
I concur that a specific gravity of 10 represents a good upper limit
(next time, weight it, heh heh.)
 
>I estimate that this contributed of order 100 micro-watts to the
>anomalous heat.
 
At an estimated 10 grams with a molecular weight of 299, I get 1/30th of
a mole, or 2E22 molecules.  At the 1eV per molecule in my previous
estimate, that comes out to 2E22 eV, or 1250 Joules.  Over 4 million
seconds, that is 310 microwatts.
 
However, as an editorial aside, I see no reason to believe that the power
comes out at a constant rate, given your own observations of shifting
centers of recombination, leading to who knows what changes in the rates
of formation of PtO2.4H2O
 
Also add a +/- factor of 10 to my original energy estimates, I did guess
a lot.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / John Logajan /  oops
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: oops
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:30:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I forgot that I should have used the atomic weight of deutrium instead of
hydrogen, but it only changes the molecular weight by 2.6%, so it doesn't
significantly effect the numbers I just calculated.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  Rothwell /  Origin of heat
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Origin of heat
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:31:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jim Batka asks:
 
"Have you [Tom Droege] (or anyone else that you know of) tried to localize
where the heat production (if any) is taking place?  It seems to me that
everyone is assuming it is taking place at the Palladium anode but no one
has bothered to check." [I assume this is a typo for "at the cathode."]
 
This was discussed informally at the Nagoya Conference. Some people thought
about using things like heat sensing cameras, to make videos or still photos
of working cells in plastic or glass cells; other people suggested that
thermocouple probes might be placed right next to the cathodes. That would be
a tight fit, and the probe might disrupt the process if it touched the metal.
That is the same problem people face when they try to measure loading by
measuring resistance.
 
The best evidence we have is that all of the heat originates in the cathode:
 
1. Close up videos and photos of P&F's vigorously boiling cells show that
virtually all of the bubbles are coming from the cathode. Actually, the anode
shows very few signs of bubbling at all, not even the usual amount you would
expect from electrolysis, which is interesting.
 
2. Other people who have observed boiling cells have noted vigorous activity
around the cathode, and nowhere else. There is a lot to be said for old
fashioned 'look and see' observations. I recommend glass or plastic cells with
old fashioned mercury thermometers in them, like the ones used by P&F,
Takahashi, Storms and me. I also recommend safety glasses, and heavy
plexiglass in front of the cells! A bright lamp helps. You can see a great
deal if you just *look*; you can answer questions about mixing, cleanliness,
and the condition of the platinum black on the palladium cathode. I say, look
at the cell and *think* before you go off on a tangent staring at the numbers
from a computer data collection device, or worse, from a computer simulation.
These experiments make much more sense when you confront something like
Notoya's cell with a multimeter, a thermometer, and a little common sense.
 
3. Cells with multiple thermocouples, like mine, show that the temperature of
the electrolyte is fairly uniform, and it must be much cooler than the
cathode. When you turn up the power and increase the joule heating, you can
sometimes see "waves" of heat hitting the thermocouples closest to the cathode
first.
 
4. Our top thermocouple was frequently out of the water, in the 'head space.'
It showed that the gas up there was close to ambient temperature. However, we
were not getting any excess heat, so that may not prove anything.
 
I do not know any CF workers who have postulated that the reaction takes place
anywhere but in the cathode, either at the surface, or in the bulk. The people
who want to make videos of the cathode to look for the heat are asking: Is the
heat spread uniformly throughout the cathode, or is it concentrated in local
hot spots? Does the heat start up in one part of the cathode and linger there,
or does it come and go in different parts? Answering this will be a difficult,
challenging job.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / John Logajan /  Be direct
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Be direct
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:31:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I also should have noted that the best way to determine power input into
the duplicate cell is to measure voltage and current.  Attempting to measure
the resistance is derivative and is subject to the error of the temperature
coefficient of the conductor's resistivity.
 
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D absorption by various metals
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:57 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
 
Does anyone have information on the loading achievable for Ni and Ti?
 
How are these metals most efficiently loaded with D?  (The posts I've seen
dealing with loading Ti suggest that electrolysis isn't used).
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:35:13 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <7600011@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
Rauchfuss) writes:
> If a star is hot enough to allow fusion, would it not just start fusing
without
> ignition?  If it is not hot enough, wouldn't it be impossible to ignite, no
> matter how much ball lightning was around?
>
 
Have you ever lit a match?
 
 
--
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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Jones @ Kamiokande III
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones @ Kamiokande III
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:52:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have some difficulties with the neutron rate numbers given by S. Jones
in his recently posted summary of their experiments at Kamiokande.  First
off there are the random neutron emission rate numbers:  "detectable
limit for random neutron emission of 10^-4 neutrons per second."  I take
that to mean roughly that is the background rate and essentially nothing
was seen that was significantly different from background.  Clear enough.
But then we have the statement in the initial summary that there were
some bursts at a rate of 0.06 bursts per hour and a maximum multiplicity
of 4 and later there is a statement of 9 bursts with maximum multiplicity
4 in a run of 387 hours.  I think 0.06 bursts per hour computes to be
less than 2 X 10^-5 events per second so the crux of the matter is whether
"bursts" can be detected in a random neutron background of a comparable
rate.  I think some fancy statistical foot work may come into play here,
but that is not really of much concern to me.  I would like to draw out
some more information on the character of these bursts.  I would guess that
by definition a burst involves the detection of 2 or more neutrons within
some preset time interval.  If we are talking about 9 events with a maximum
multiplicity of 4 I would be curious to know the multiplicity distribution.
As a guess, perhaps it is 7 twos, 1 three, and 1 four.
 
In so far as it relates of cold fusion, I believe Jone's assertion is that
these burst events occur only for a given type of cell containing D2O and
do not occur when the D2O is replaced by H2O.  It would also seem that
this type of event could be expected to be associated with residual
radioactive impurities, and that D20, through photofission, can enhance
the probability for multiple neutron events in a way that H2O would not
duplicate.  Furthermore I have no strong sense that multineutron events
should provide a better signiture for the occurance of cold fusion than
does the singles neutron rate.  What this experiment does show without
question is that some previously obtained higher event rates have not
been confirmed .
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  /  Lead Loss
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lead Loss
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:43:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says:
 
"I have never had a lead just lying around that was so thin that it would
dissipate significant heat with a few amps going through it."
 
I have Dieter.  In the first calorimeter there were several 5" long leads
made from #20 wire. (#20 copper wire is 0.010 ohm per foot)  At two amps,
a 5" lead dissipates 16 mw.  This was a big problem in the first calorimeter.
I never got it right.  The potential leads were not at exactly the right place
so I had to make corrections for the heat in the leads.  Actually there was
a larger problem at first.  I had several connectors on the way into the
calorimeter.  Connector manufacturers design for of order 50 mv drop at rated
current.  So that is another 50 mw per amp.  Eventually I slodered everything
together.  But there were still problems with hot spots due to high resistance
regions of the lead path.
 
It is not easy.
 
If the measurements that have come to me on the Nagoya demonstration are
correct, then they would have seen that silver lead glowing red had they
turned out the lights.  From a private communication, the wire was very fine
indeed, of order #36.  It would be ohms per foot.  There could be a lot of
heat lost where the clip lead attaches.  Easily hundreds of milliwatts into
the air and not into the cell.  So such a demonstration requires **exactly
alike** cells.  Even then it is so hard to do this that I would never take
such a demonstration seriously.
 
The interesting question is why were they using a silver lead?  No significant
difference as a conductor - a few percent.  But perhaps they did not want to
get copper ions into their cell.  Perhaps the silver was the cathode/anode
material?
 
Tom Droege
 
Also, perhaps it was not silver at all, but "silver colored".  Then it was
likely platinum.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  /  Cathode Loading
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cathode Loading
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:44:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

More discussion on gas loading.
 
First I would like to say that I respect Tod Green's decision that resistance
is the best way to measure gas loading.  While he is not posting his
measurements as I am, it is obvious that he has done a lot of work.  It is
just not possible to reach his level of understanding of the problems without
trying a lot of things.  Also thanks to Dieter Britz for thinking with me.
This is the reason I make these posts.  Some of you read them and think.
 
The first thing to know, is that **all** of the electrolyzed D/H is absorbed
by a fresh palladium cathode.  I would put this at 98 +/- 2%.  The palladium
really wants that hydrogen!  This is when measured at relatively low current
densities of 25 to 50 ma per sq cm.  I think it is also true at current
densities of 600 ma per sq cm, but it is harder to make the measurement.
 
1) The excess oxygen produced exactly matches the applied current.  This
either means that the excess oxygen is that left over after all the D/H is
absorbed or that there are two (or more - Why accept limits on miracles?*)
processes going on that somehow exactly add to the expected result.  I think
Occam's razor leads us to the simpler explanation.  This seems to hold between
0% D/Pd and 60% D/Pd.  After this, the absorption percentage starts to
decrease.  This from memory, I could generate a nice curve with a little
effort.
 
2) The closed calorimeter balance indicates that 1) is at least close.  The
lost heat matches the expected difference between the heat lost because the
absorbed D/H is not burned, and the heat of absorption of D/H by palladium.
This measurement is at least good to 20% of the heat involved.  Some day I
will run a large chunk of palladium and get a good measurement of heat of
absorption versus loading.
 
3) With a polished cathode we hit a limit at low current of about 0.94 D/Pd.
Pushing up the current in steps gets to higher current loadings.  I suspect
that this portion is adsorbed *note the d*.  Or at least that it is very near
the surface.  A heavily loaded cathode often appears to bump gas in and out.
Many small 1% D/Pd, but also as much as 10%.  But this is by the excess oxygen
method.  What I observe is a sudden increase in gas volume.  By sudden I mean
that with a .2 cc cathode, excess (presumed oxygen) gas accumulates at the
rate of 1 cc per minute.  Sometimes as much as 10 to 15 cc are accumulated.
Typically the gas is held by the cathode for an hour or so, then it is coughed
back out at about the same rate.  I do not think that this is some funny
artifact of the catalyst.  The above events are confirmed by a catalyst
temperature reduction during gas ab/dsorption and a catalyst temperature
increase when it is coughed back out.  Nothing much else seems to happen
during these events.
 
4)  The manufacture of "yellow crud" is not likely to affect the above
measurements.  We charged the last sample (slightly less than 0.2 cc) at about
100 ma.  This makes 20.9 cc of oxygen (and 41.8 cc D/H) an hour.  We got to
0.94 in about six hours.  We are now running at 1 ampere and are losing about
.3 cc per hour (of oxygen?).  If the oxygen eats the platinum, then the
process would likely be proportional to current density.  So we would expect
the loss of 0.03 cc of oxygen per hour at 100 ma.  This means that "yellow
crud" formation is likely a 0.2% effect during charging.  At worst, if it is a
constant effect independent of current, then it is still only a 2% effect.
This is well within our likely error.
 
Note that while I cannot say wonderful things about the precision of my gas
measurement kludge, I can (and have) calibrated it against straight gas
generation by current which I can measure *very* well.  Everything is good to
within barometric pressure errors.  I do not correct for barometric pressure,
but I do keep an eye on the Chicago weather.
 
Note that the last 3 experiments all got to close to 0.94 initial loading.  I
attribute this to surface grinding the samples, as previous cathodes did not
load as high.  We have also achieved higher loading with ground flat plates
than with ground rods.  Possibly Takahashi is right and there is something
special about symmetrical loading of a flat plate.  One reason to believe the
measurement is that many previous cathodes got to loadings like 0.65, 0.7. and
0.86; more like the standard values.    This last one got to 1.05 during the
steps up to high current.  The first cathode was 1 cm by 1 cm by 1 mm and was
started with a D2 fill.  The second cell was a 1 cm by 2 cm by 1 mm cathode
and was started with an Oxygen fill.  The present run was a re-run of the 1 cm
by 2 cm by 1 mm cathode and was just filled with air.
 
Tom Droege
____________________________________________________________________________
*Some of the critics have classified cold fusion phenomena by the number of
miracles required.  Are there higher order miracles like there are higher
order infinities?  Have the critics established that a seven miracle event is
any less likely than a .5 miracle event?  I propose that since:
 
infinity + infinity = infinity
 
miracle + miracle + miracle + ... = miracle
 
So it is not as hard as some of the critics have proposed.  We just need one
miracle for cold fusion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  /  Just Need One More Thing
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just Need One More Thing
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:44:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Steve Jones for postin Buehler's measurements.  Now we just need
one more thing.  The voltage and current to the Nickel cell.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  I would not be impressed if they had a hundred open cells lined up in
a row.  Too many things are uncontrolled.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  /  The Notoya Cells
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Notoya Cells
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:34:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, now I get it.  They started with both cells at 3.4 volts and 0.6 amps.
It sems to me that the control cell should have been adjusted to the same
input power.  2.57 volts and .72 amps gives a control cell resistance of
3.57 ohms.  3.4 volts and .6 amps of the test cell gives a power of 2.04
watts.  To put the same power into the control cell, they would have had
to set the voltage to 2.7 volts, at which point the current would have
been 0.756 amps.  But the current was not readjusted enough.  So they were
puttin 2.04 watts into the test cell but only 1.85 watts into the control
cell.  I believe that the test cell was warmer.
 
What bothers me about all the cell pictures that I have seen, is that I only
see two leads on the cell.  It is impossible to make a good measurement
without 4 leads on the cell.  It is important that they be attached correctly.
The potential leads must be on the cell side of the current leads.  This
includes the P&F pictures which always seem to have only two clip leads.
 
I recommend an "A" for David Buehler in field science.  But he will more
likely be grades on how neatly he writes up his report, or whether he states
his premise correctly.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  /  Reply to Jim Batka
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jim Batka
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:35:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Batka wonders why we did not respond to his initial request for cel
temperature studies.  I saw it Jim, and questions like this are appreciated,
but I just do not get around to everything.
 
I can't wait to study things like this.  We have been collecting literature
and prices on mineature IR video cameras.  But first I have to think that I
see heat.  And I have to be able to repeat the experiment.  If we ever get
to that state you can bet that everything but the kitchen sink will be
attached to the cell!!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Notorious Notoya Demonstration
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notorious Notoya Demonstration
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:15:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

We have repeated Notoya's demonstration of excess heat performed before
the world at the Nagoya, Japan meeting in October 1992, based on data from
this demo. garnered at the meeting by BYU graduate student David Buehler.
We find that a temperature difference between cells of approximately 10 C
is readily obtained, with the "control cell" being cooler.
But the heat is not nuclear.
Here are the data from the Nagoya demo:
Control cell, initially: 3.4 V at 0.61 amps, so total R = 5.57 ohms (+ or -).
The "nuclear" cell with nickel anode ran at approx. the same voltage and I.
 
Then Buehler pointed out to Nagoya that the wires leading into the the
resistance wire in the control cell were much thinner than the (dime-thickness)
wires leading into the Ni cell.  In fact, one wire going into the control cell
was hair-thin by my observation.  She obliged him by moving the alligator clips
from the power supply for the control up each wire some 10-15 cm so that the
clips were now close to the entry points of these wires going into the cell.
Buehler recorded the new conditions:  2.57 volts with 0.72 amps, so total
R (in cell) = 3.57 ohms.  Thus, the thin leads going into the control cell
contributed 5.57-3.57 = 2.0 ohms to the resistance of this "control".  We see
that 2.0/5.57 = 36% of the heat of the control was dissipated into the air!
David reports further that the f
fine wire going into the control cell was perceptibly warm to the touch.
With approx. 1 mm diameter wires leading into the nickel cell, with approx.
5.6 ohms resistance in the electrolysis cell, nearly all the heat here was
dissipated in the (light) water electrolyte.  It registered about 10 C warmer
each time I checked it.
But can these conditions sustain a 10 C temp difference between "nuclear" and
control cells?  We have performed an experiment to find out, today.
We set up two graduated cylinders with 32 ml H2O in each.  In one, we inserted
a resistor of 6.2 ohms.  In the other, we placed a 3.8 ohm resistance in the
water and a 2.3 ohm resistance in the air.  Control cell at 3.42 V, 0.56 A,
1.92 watts with 0.72 watts dissipated in the air and 1.20 watts in the water,
approximating closely the conditions of the Notoya control cell.  Other cell
at 3.37V, 0.54 A, 1.8 watts, essentially all dissipated into the water.
After one hour of running, the temperatures were 46 C in test cell and 36 C
in control.  After 2h 50 m, 46.5 C and 36.5 C respectively.  Thus, a 10 C
difference was maintained.
These conditions and results correspond closely to those of the Notoya
demonstration and show that the excess heat, supposedly nuclear in origin,
can be explained in terms of Joule heating differences.
Respectfully,
Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Notoya Demo
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Notoya Demo
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:50:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In previous posting about the Notoya demonstration, I said "Then Buehler
pointed out to Nagoya..."  Of course, David pointed this out to Professor
Notoya, not Nagoya.  Prof. Notoya is at the University of Hokkaido, and
this work was front page news in two Japanese newspapers that I know of, in
recent weeks.  I think these excess heat claims were also cited in J. Wall
Street.
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: S.Jones' posting of Notoya's data
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' posting of Notoya's data
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:51:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
S.Jones should be advised that, if we are to believe the figures he himself
posted today, the *heating* power of Notoya's electrolysis cell
(3.4V-1.48V)x0.6A=1.15 W remains lower than the input power in the control
cell, 3.0Vx0.6A=1.8W, even after the student "moved clips from power supply
about 5cm closer to the cell on very thin lead entering the control cell ...".
 
Thus, even after the "correction" the temperature of the electrolysis cell
should be expected to be lower than the temperature of the control cell. This
is contrary to what was reported to have been observed by many in Nagoya !
 
Therefore, the easy solution S.Jones offers to the Notoya puzzle is invalid.
 
Truly yours,
 
Vesselin Noninski                                November 12, 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvnoninski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 / Todd Green /  Loading Measurements
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Loading Measurements
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:34:14 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Dick Blue says that he does not see a good explanation as to how high gas
>loadings are measured. I don't know how to do it either.
 
>Tod Green gives a good discussion and picks the four point resistance method.
>I too used this for a while.  I now measure the excess oxygen.  As far as I
>can see neither method is very good.  But they are both better than anything
>else that I can figure out.
 
>I watch the skyscraper and count the number of people coming in and out the
>front door to estimate how many people are inside.  Tod monitors the elevator
>traffic.  My method is bad because there is a subway under the building, and
>also a back door.  I think Tod's method fails because we really don't know
>the relation between elevator traffic and people in the building when the
>building is occupied by more people than the fire department allows.
 
Tom is right, neither method is totally satisfactory, but we have no reasonable
alternatives. At least they are both useful in a relative sense, i.e. enable us
to see under what conditions the cathode is gaining or losing deuterium, even
if the absolute amount is a bit suspect. McKubre has allegedly checked the
resistance calibration against a volumetric method, so I really think it is
fairly well established. Volumetric measurements are direct and should be more
reliable, but I'm not so sure. There is the possibility of gas losses via leaks
and also the occurrence of unanticipated and weird chemical processes, and Tom
appears to has some evidence for the latter. One thing that worries me is that
nearly all the "papers" (usually conference reports) that report loadings > 1.0
were done volumetrically, and I just don't see that such high values are likely
(see later).
 
In another post Tom writes:
 
>I have measured 1190 relative volumes.  Because oxygen is slowly lost due to
>the formation of the Platinum compound (yellow crud) the excess oxygen method
>tends to undermeasure.  There is a simultaneous energy measurement that tends
>to confirm that something is going on, but if anything it indicates that the
>loadins is also under measured.  Moore (Trans Electrochemical Soc., 75 [1939])
>measured 2800 relative volumes.  I cannot find anything wrong with his
>method.  But Moore thought that more than half of the gas existed not in the
>crystal lattice but in "rifts in the slip planes".  Moore used very fine
>wires.  He would then pass a current through the wire and heat it up to drive
>off the hydrogen.  Hard to go wrong with such a simple method.
 
Tom, I don't really think that loadings greater than 1.0 are possible via
electrolysis and I am a tiny bit suspicious of Moore's 2800 relative volumes.
It would basically mean that you are populating tetrahedral sites and this is
energetically very unfavorable. The alternative is that the D is going into
rifts or voids (as D2) but Moore's "rift" hypothesis is generally considered
wrong these days. There is a lengthy discussion about it in T. Flannagan's book
"The palladium hydrogen system". Basically, TF notes that there is very
little  difference in the solubility of hydrogen in palladium prepared in
various ways (cold worked, annealed, cast etc.) and this seems to exclude that
idea that LARGE amounts of deuterium can be contained in voids or other sites
such as defects, vacancies and dislocations.
 
From Dieter Britz:
 
>Tom Droege and Todd Green have discussed the problem of measuring the loading.
>I still like the excess oxygen method Tom used, even with the interference by
>the yellow crud. You could largely account for the effect of that. For one
>thing, you can weigh the Pt anode before and after, which gives you the Pt
>content of the crud. At the end, carefully collect as much crud as you can,
>and have it analysed quantitatively for Pt, O and D (or H; Bockris tells us a
>lot of H gets in there! {:] ) and you can then estimate the total amount formed
>from the actual Pt lost. Then calculate how much oxygen was swallowed by that
>and correct the excess.
 
>There is a problem here. If the crud were to eat oxygen, Tom actually
>underestimated the excess oxygen - i.e. there would have been more, if not for
>the crud. The way I see this happening (and I do wonder at so much Pt
>dissolving) is the corrosion reaction, in a strongly alkaline solution:
 
>Pt + 4OD-  ---> Pt(OD)4 + 4e-                  (1)
 
>(Never mind the extra D2O's attached to the stuff). This reaction competes
>with the predominant one taking place at the Pt,
 
>4OD- ---> O2  + 2D2O + 4e-                     (2)
 
>so while D2 is being produced at the Pd cathode, reaction (1) robs us of a
>bit of O2 supposed to be made at the Pt anode. I hate to say it - because
>frankly I don't believe in loadings far above 0.8 - but it looks to me as if
>you might have underestimated the loadings. Please correct me, somebody, if
>I have this wrong (Todd?).
 
I'd agree that such a mechanism might be operating and that it would produce
an oxygen deficit, but it seems odd that you could produce so much of the Pt
crud. There does seem to be some corrosion of the anode but the amount is rather
small. I had some electrolyte solutions analysed for various elements (looking
for transmutation products mainly :->) and platinum was  detected at only a
few ppm. This was in a cell that had been operating  for about 40 days at high
current densities. Tom uses (I think) saturated LiOD and maybe the corrosion
is accelerated under more basic conditions.
 
Dieter also wonders what loadings are possible. Under most conditions I get
between 0.8 and 0.85, but using the McKubre pretreatment (only approximately as
I don't have the full details), it ranges from 0.88 to 0.92. Anything below
1.0 is, I think, possible. Tom's polishing trick is certainly worth a try -
0.94 is way above the alleged threshold for initiating XS heat.
 
----
Todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 / Todd Green /  Takahasi's Heat?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahasi's Heat?
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:35:53 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

 
One thing that sort of perplexes me about the reports on the Nagoya conference
is the lack of commentary on the XS heat results of A. Takahashi. You might
remember that this experiment caused a very big stir because the amount of
excess heat was very large (up to 200% I think) and there were reports
of replications done elsewhere. Takahashi's results were also a major factor in
convincing MITI to start a cold fusion program. Given all this, I expected
that Takahashi's XS heat claims would be an important result of the conference
but, in Jed's summary, only his results with deuteron beams are mentioned. My
suspicions were further raised when I read in _Fusion Facts_ that Takahashi
(at another conference prior to Nagoya) was now claiming 20% heat i.e. down
by an order of magnitude from the initial claim. Maybe Jed could give a status
report on the Takahashi work and the CFRA experiment. I might be dead wrong
but I get the feeling that this is another big result that is starting to
fizzle and that people are looking for other bandwagons to jump on.
 
---
Todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 / John Logajan /  Hi resistance wire
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hi resistance wire
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:26:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since all the other angles have been beat to death on the Notoya demo,
I'll focus on the apparent wire resistance, which seems excessively
high.
 
Dr. Jones first claimed that a section of about 5cm of the wire dropped 0.4v
at 0.61A, ergo 0.66 ohms.  That's almost 4 ohms per foot.
 
Then he claimed a 10-15 cm section was approx 2 ohms, which again is on
the order of 4 ohms per foot.
 
Since these numbers "scale" with wire length, it is unlikely that clip
contact resistance is a significant contributor.  (Plus I just tried a couple
of dirty gunky alligator clips at home and I consistenly got connections under
1/4 ohm (or as low as I could resolve on my meter.))
 
Tom Droege said he heard 36 gauge wire, but in both copper and silver, such
resistance per foot is 0.4 ohms, 1/10 of the Buehler experimental value.
 
Gauge 38 platinum wire would have about 4 ohms per foot.  You'd have to go
to about gauge 46 copper or silver wire to get 4 ohms per foot.  But then
at 700ma you are probably exceeding the fusing current of such small wire.
 
Gauge 28 nichrome wire would also have about 4 ohms per foot.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 759 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 759 papers, 114 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:26:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello goodfolk,
it's Friday and before I look at the latest Chem. Abstracts and glean two or
three more papers (it's a bare trickle these days, for which I am grateful),
I'll fire these few items off. Arata and Zhang, of spark discharge fame, have
now tried electrolysis. Strangely, they use 0.07 M LiOH (not LiOD) in D2O.
There are those who would say that this quenches cold fusion, no H is allowed.
Not so here, neutrons were measured, as well as some heat. The Russian team,
Lipson et al, continue to put their vibromill to use. Here, they have mashed
chips of Zr with a bit of D2O and deuterated polypropylene aded to it, chasing
fractofusion. Again, they find some subtle differences in neutron emissions
between these and blanks. Hm.
Peter Hadfield was at Nagoya and gives us a bit of detail about Yamaguchi's
new results. He has previously observed a largish Pd plate bend and crack, and
a gold film evaporate off, signifying a temperature of over 1000 C. This time,
the temperature rose only by 100 C. Still, how come? It happened in a D2 gas
atmosphere, so I don't see how the heat could come from burning, as suggested
by some critics there.
Frank Close's bestseller is now apparently out as a paperback and is reviewd
by Roy Herbert in New Scientist. He likes it. Frank tells me there is a new
chapter. I'll tell you about it when I get the book, which is on order.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 13-Nov-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 759
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arata Y, Zhang Y-C;           Kaku Yugo Kenkyu 67(5) (1992) 432 (in Japanese).
"'Cold' fusion in deuterated complex cathode".
** A new type of cathode, either Ni or Pd, was prepared by plasma spraying its
surface with Pd. This layer activated the surface and a new type of heat
generation was observed reproducibly. The experiment was done by electrolysis
in 0.07 M LiOH in D2O, with a thermocouple to monitor the heat, and two
neutron counters (one BF3 and one (3)He). Accumulated neutron counts as a
function of time showed clear differences between D2O runs (higher) and
control H2O runs (lower), the latter matching blank runs in air.      Dec-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Kluev VA, Mordovin VN, Sakov DM, Derjaguin BV, Toporov YuP;
Phys. Lett. A166 (1992) 43.
"On the initiation of DD reactions in the zirconium-deuterium system".
** The authors suggest that group IV metals should be good materials, and high
dispersivity should, by favouring cracks and dislocations, favour the
dissociation of D2 into atoms, and thus loading into the metal. Here, Zr is
tried, in a vibromill, together with several deuterated substances such as D2O
and polypropylene PP(D6). 10 g of untreated Zr chips were used, mixed with 4%
PPD6 + 10% D2O, placed into a steel cylinder with steel balls and milled at an
applied power of 10W/g. Seven proportional counters measured neutron emission.
The cosmic background was 0.03 n/s. Control experiments with just Zr in the
mill produced no excess neutrons. The charged mill was frozen to -160 C and
then vibrated for 3 min, then allowed to warm up to about 25 C to get the
"post-effect" previously reported. The cell was then again taken down to -160
C. This cycle was repeated several times. Spectra show neutron event
differences between these runs and blank runs, both during freezing and the
post-effect, of 7 and 6 sigmas, and of a strongly unsteady nature. Other
transition metals that form deuterides should do the same.       Mar-90/Jun-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comment; file cnf-cmnt:
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hadfield P;                              New Scientist 136 (1992) (31-Oct) 10.
"Lukewarm reception for Japanese cold fusion".
** PH reports from Tokyo, having been to several meetings, among them the
Nagoya cold fusion cenference. He mainly reports the new results of Yamaguchi,
who has had some news exposure with his Pd platelet, coated on one side with
Pd oxide, charged from the gas phase with D2 and then coated on the other side
with Au. (4)He then appears after some hours, claims Yamaguchi, who however
detected no neutrons; this is a different kind of fusion. Hadfield refers to
what must be mass spectrometry of emitted particles, quoting a 0.64% mass
difference between D2 and He atoms. Yamaguchi repeated this experiment five
times, successful every time. Critics suspect that the He came from the glass.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert R;                               New Scientist 136 (1992) (31-Oct) 45.
Book Reviews: Paperbacks.
** RH briefly reviews the Penguin paperpack edition of Frank Close's book
Too Hot to Handle. He writes "The story caused jaws and work to be dropped",
but reports that it gradually became clear that it [cold fusion] cannot be
done. RH likes the book, and recommends it as a thriller for a plane flight
for some appalled delight.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  Britz /  RE: The Notoya Demo
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The Notoya Demo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:26:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>The following measurements were recorded by David Buehler (BYU graduate
>student) on the Notoya cells.  I post these to meet the request by D. Britz,
>without comment.
>Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with resistor, initially:
>3.4 volts,  0.6 amps.
>Buehler moved alligator clip from power supply about 5 cm closer to the cell
>on very thin lead entering the control cell, result:
>3.0 volts,  0.6 amps (constant current supply).
>... One more item, the wires entering the
>Ni cell were nearly the thickness of a dime (U.S.), while the wires entering
>the control cell were much thinner (one was very fine).
 
I assume the thickness, not the diameter, of a nickel is meant {:].
Anyhow, here some back-of-the-envelope stuff: The resistivity of Ag is 1.6E-08
ohm.m. We now know that this lead was 5 cm, and the voltage drop along it was
0.4 V, for a current of 0.6 A. I.e. 5 cm had a resistance of 0.7 ohm, roughly.
I make that a diameter of about 40 micrometers, truly a fine wire. Such a fine
wire is not easy to solder on without melting it through. My suspicions are
reinforced, this looks like a bit of sleight of hand.
If I were to try my hand at this sort of thing, I wouldn't use such an obvious
device as an ultra-thin lead. Much better to have two apparently identical
cells, both fed with the identical input power, but having different heat
conduction constants. Much harder to detect. Or, one cell has a recombiner in
it, the other doesn't. Anybody with more ideas?
 I understand from Jed Rothwell's posting, that this very same demo will be
on show in a couple of places in the USA, such as at MIT? I hope this net will
have a mole there, with a meter in his/her pocket. Take a good look, please,
and tell us all.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  Britz /  Oops!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oops!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:27:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In reporting the Arata and Zhang paper, I referred to their "spark discharge
fame". It is of course Wada and Nishizawa who have this fame. Sorry to
mystify you. Arata et al's fame lies in their on-off effect.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 / MIKE JAMISON /  Hypothesis on Pd micro-cracks and time-varying loading
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hypothesis on Pd micro-cracks and time-varying loading
Date: 13 Nov 1992 10:15 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

At high loading, Tom Droege sees the Pd/D loading oscillate over time.
Does it make sense to assume that this is due to the formation of micro-
cracks in the Pd itself.  In other words:
 
Loading increases to a certain critical point in a section of Pd.  The Pd
fractures due to stress.  The D that was contained there is then able to
escape from the Pd.
 
Repeat above cycle for different physical locations in the Pd.
 
When the Pd surface is at first highly polished, does it become less
polished during electrolysis (I thought this was mentioned, somewhere).
 
If so, surface cracking could be the explanation.
 
I may be regurgitating something that's been posted before.  If so, I'm
sorry about that.
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.12 / Edgar Swank /  Re:Setting up home system for internet
     
Originally-From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Setting up home system for internet
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 04:28:31 PST
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

On Nov 9 Evan Simpson commented on my recommendations to Tom Droege:
 
    Note that these days you can buy a full-featured 14.4K fax/modem
    for as little as $200 (Infotel, for example, or the Gateway
    offer).  These can pay for themselves quickly if you use a pay
    dialup service.
 
I'm not familiar with either of the specific modems cited. Typical
prices for "generic" 9600 baud internal modems are $225-250. However,
I did find one ad, dated last September,
 
9600 Baud internal modem  $175
2400 "       "      "      $36
 
Micromatics
3442 De La Cruz
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 408-970-8566
Fax:   408-970-0662
 
Be aware that many "fax/modem's" floating around support a high baud
rate for FAX but a lower rate (typically 2400) for the modem function.
 
Many pay dialup services charge a higher rate for a 9600 baud dialin
port than for a 2400. (but perhaps not four times higher).  The
systems like Comp-U-Serve that charge per minute of connect time are
the most expensive.  You should be able to find a system that will
give you internet/usenet access for either free or a fixed monthly
charge.
 
--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenedgar cudfnEdgar cudlnSwank cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Hi resistance wire
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hi resistance wire
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:51:09 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <9211130554.AA07264@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Since all the other angles have been beat to death on the Notoya demo,
>I'll focus on the apparent wire resistance, which seems excessively
........
>Dr. Jones first claimed that a section of about 5cm of the wire dropped 0.4v
>at 0.61A, ergo 0.66 ohms.  That's almost 4 ohms per foot.
.........
>Tom Droege said he heard 36 gauge wire, but in both copper and silver, such
>resistance per foot is 0.4 ohms, 1/10 of the Buehler experimental value.
 
 
If you put .66 amps into a # 36 copper or silver wire, its temperature
will rise dramatically, and so will its resistance.  I would not be
surprised by an increase of an order of magnitude.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Cathode Loading
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cathode Loading
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:27:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
>Note that the last 3 experiments all got to close to 0.94 initial loading.  I
>attribute this to surface grinding the samples, as previous cathodes did not
>load as high.
 
What exactly is surface grinding?  Do you take a grinding wheel to it?  Do
you rub it down with a grit?  Wouldn't this leave a (micro) rough surface?
 
--
- 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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 /  /  Wire
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wire
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:44:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan said "Tom Droege said her heard 36 gage wire".  Not quite right
I said "from a private communication, the wire was very find indeed, of order
#36."  I had been given the material by a third party and had not been released
to state the same facts that we all now have.
 
I had decided that the wire was likely platinum, on the grounds that copper
or silver wire or the required resistance would be too fine to handle, even
for a Japanese.
 
Noninski reminds us why any such open experiment is just junk.  One has to
consider the decomposition of the electrolyts.  You can't possibly know what
is going on without accounting for the gas energy.  Sorry, I will not accept
that we either know the amount generated, or wher it recombines unless it
is measured.  I have seen too many funny things.
 
For all of you out there who don't like to try to find wire tables, I will tell
you all in a few lines:
 
#10 wire is 0.001 ohm per foot.  It is a log scale.
10 wire sizes give a factor of 10 resistance increase.
#10 wire is 0.1" in diameter
 
This is all you need to know.  Note from this and the fact that log 2 is
.3, we can deduce that 3 wire sizes up doubles resistance.  Since log 3 is
.5, then 5 wire sizes up increases resistance by 3.  Of course the wire table
is exact, the useful rules above assume that 2^10 is 1000 not 1024.  It is
thus pretty easy to compute anything you need to know in your head.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 / John Logajan /  What was in the control cell?
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What was in the control cell?
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:44:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Vesselin Noninski  vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
 
>the *heating* power of Notoya's electrolysis cell
>(3.4V-1.48V)x0.6A=1.15 W remains lower than the input power in the control
>cell, 3.0Vx0.6A=1.8W,
 
Good point.  Now I wonder whether the "control" cell was a simple resistor,
or whether it was also electrolysizing H2O with non-nickel (non-Mills)
cathodes.  Then the 1.48vx0.6A factor would cancel out.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 /  /  Gas Loading
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gas Loading
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:45:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is really useful to discuss these experiments on the net.  Tod Green has
just told me why I get "yellow crud" and no one else seems to.  Looks like
there is a reason why P&F run with 0.1 M LiOD.  It conserves the platinum
supply.  Remember that P&F run open cells, and keep adding electrolyte.  Thus
if Li is absorbed by the cathode (as I suspect) then the fresh electrolyte
would make up for the loss.  Looking up the original paper, they say that
they replace 1 cc test samples taken at 2 day intervals with electrolyte, but
make up the electrolysis loss with D2O.  Since experiments are known to run
months, this procedure insures the maintenance of a constant electrolyte
strength.
 
We switched to higher Lithium content when we could not maintain cell current
on long experiments due to cell voltage rise with our closed cells.  Now it
looks like we should consider a new procedure.  One way is to measure the
solution pH and to then add concentrated electrolyte as needed.  One of the
reasons we made the present calorimeter so large was to allow insertion of a
standard pH meter probe.  I even bought a skinny one.  But I have been
concerned that it might disturb the experiment. Looks like pH probes work by
putting something into the liquid that they measure.  It is obvious that the
liquid filled ones lose the fill, so it must go into the solution that is
measured.
 
Someone out there - Is is safe to put a pH probe in an "anomalous heat" cell?
 
Possibly I am being too cheap.  Just take out samples, measure their pH, and
then throw them away.  Then replace the sample taken with fresh electrolyte.
While it is not really the cost, I have run 3 1/2 years on 2 liters of D2O.
 
Another reason that I don't like taking samples is that I try to keep an
energy balance from the start of the run.  It is hard to keep track to my
attempted accuracy if stuff is taken in and out of the calorimeter.
 
Tod, one thing is certain.  If your resistance versus gas loading calibration
curve only goes up to 1/1, you will never measure loadings above 1 by the
resistance method.  Remember that I see sudden changes of order 10% of 1/1
D/Pd loading.  Usually the cathode takes in gas for a while and then releases
it after an hour or so.  These events seem to start happening only after long
electrolysis.  I guess I need to start measuring both volume and resistance.
But I like the flat plates, and it is harder (but not impossible) to do a
proper resistance measurement on a flat plate.  There is a very complicated
scheme built into the present calorimeter to measure cathode resistance.
Completely isolated from ground.  There is a controlled constant current
supply at each end of the cathode.  The constant current supplies sum the
cathode current command and a differential measurement current.  It is so
complicated in an effort to do it right.  But I never bothered to get it
working.  Sometimes one can be too cute.
 
Another problem Tod, is how do you know where you are on the resistance curve?
Since it folds over, and since these experiments are noisy and messy, how do
you tell if you have gone over the top into the high loading area, or whether
instead loading has been lost and you are "back sliding"?  I know that faith
prevents "back sliding" but in science we need a confirming measurement.  So
better take gas measurements too.
 
Thanks, Tod, for the comments by Flannagan.  Sounds like a good argument to
me.  Certainly I am skeptical of Moore.  But his procedure was simple.  Load
the wire, then discharge it at constant current and integrate the charge.  But
he only did it once.  It was a manual operation.  I can picture him with his
hand on the pot and eye on the galvanometer.  The good old days, one man, one
experiment, one potentiometer, one galvanometer.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 /  Rothwell /  Notorious Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notorious Steven Jones
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:45:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dear Steve,
 
     Say what? Dr. Notoya works on this for six months, and you work on it for
one day, jump to a conclusion without consulting her, and *she* is notorious?
Let us just hold our horses, retrace our steps here, and see what is watt. Why
don't you please address some basic points, please:
 
1.   You refer to the wire as "very thin" and "about as thick as a dime" and
     this, and that and the other. I don't find that a very scientific way to
     describe things. I mean, who's hair are we talking about here? Blond?
     Brunette? Get serious, please.
 
2.   Did you call Dr. Notoya and ask her just how thick the wire was?
 
3.   Did you ask her exactly how much power she was putting in to both
     devices?
 
4.   Did you ask her exactly how long the wires were, or did you measure them?
 
5.   Did you take a sample of the wires back from Nagoya?
 
6.   Did you use silver wire?
 
7.   Did you do what she did, that is, move the alligator clips right to the
     top of the bottle, and observe a 1 degree rise in temperature? If you did
     not observe this, then obviously, something is different.
 
"We find that a temperature difference between cells of approximately 10 C
is readily obtained, with the 'control cell' being cooler." Since her cell was
15 degrees hotter than the control, we have another 5 degrees leeway, even if
you are right, which I doubt.
 
Let me ask you flat out: Did you consult with her in any way, at any time,
before posting this message? I don't think so, she did not mention that you
called. If she was trying to demonstrate that your Portland cement experiments
were in error, I am certain -- absolutely certain -- she would have enough
sense to consult with you first, to find out exactly what you did! It is
common sense, and common curtesy.
 
I find your experiments, and your approach, unreasonable, unscientific, sloppy
and uncalled for. I think that before posting that message you should have at
*least* asked her exactly what sized wire she used. You have demonstrated a
foolish lack of respect for a colleague and fellow scientist. She worked on
that experiment with a full scale, proper calorimeter, for six months at the
University lab, while you and David Buehler looked at it for five minutes in a
meeting hall, jumped to a conclusion, and walking away without checking your
results. You owe her the benefit of the doubt.
 
And even if you are *right*, you owe her a phone call, telling her you think
you found a mistake, and you are about to tell the whole damn world, and
Morrison to boot! That is a high-handed thing to do to someone. I know this is
an informal forum here, but as the Japanese say, "manners matter, even among
friends." A five minute consultation is in order. Just fax her in advance and
ask for comments, that is all it takes. I am quite certain that any Japanese
researcher who was about to announce he had proven that Steven Jones was flat
out wrong would have the courtesy to call you first.
 
As I said earlier, she has now replaced all wires in both cells, and she
reports getting the same results. She did a demo and gave a lecture at
Hokkaido National University with identical wires in both cells. You might
want to consult with Tom Passell, Mike McKubre or Robert Bush about that, I
believe they saw it. I am certain that Dr. Mizuno saw it. Why don't you talk
to one of those people?
 
I suggest that you consult with her, and if I was you, I would apologize for
not doing so earlier. If you are still convinced she is wrong, and you have
the courage of your convictions, why don't you just come to MIT and show us
what you have? She said to me yesterday, "it really would not be fair for
someone to *claim* they could show I was wrong, and *claim* they could build a
similar device that proves it, and then not show up with that device."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 /  Rothwell /  Old Hat By Now
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Old Hat By Now
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:45:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Todd Green asks:
 
"One thing that sort of perplexes me about the reports on the Nagoya
conference is the lack of commentary on the XS heat results of A. Takahashi.
You might remember that this experiment caused a very big stir because the
amount of excess heat was very large (up to 200% I think) and there were
reports of replications done elsewhere."
 
I didn't talk about it because it is old hat. I believe some 20 groups in
Japan replicated Takahashi, and reported during the September Electrochemical
Society Meeting in Hokkaido. I wasn't there, and the meeting was "closed" so
I don't know exactly what happened. See the Nikkei Shimbun, September 26,
1992, page 12. In the U.S. Ed Storms replicated, as did two other groups who
are not quite ready to publish yet. I was not able to replicate, and I ran
out of money and time. My cell is now ensconced at M.I.T. where I am hoping
someone will turn it on for another try soon. In Italy, Celani and some other
Italian groups replicated.
 
Takahashi himself has never been able to achieve such high levels of heat
again. As you say, he is getting 20% to 30%. In retrospect, he says he
regrets turning off the first cell so soon! They moved the cells to a climate
controlled room, added magnetic stirrers, and put 5 thermocouples in each
cell, instead of one, and added a lot of expensive data collection equipment.
A few days before I was visited, the campus got hit by a day long power
failure, which zapped the cells, deloaded the Pd, and left the experiments
barely panting along.
 
The reason the first experiment may have gone so well might be because the
first, highly successful cathode appears to have had a relatively high level
of aluminum impurity. This is a solid state phenomenon, so it only takes
parts per million to cause a radical change in performance. McKubre's MIT
lecture prompted them to go back and check for that, and hopefully the
metallurgists will now come up with something interesting.
 
"Takahashi's results were also a major factor in convincing MITI to start a
cold fusion program." I don't think so. Long before Takahashi's December
experiment, I heard details and proposed budgets from MITI that were
substantially the same as the ones published this summer.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 / Russ George /  Re: Who is Funding Pons?
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who is Funding Pons?
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:23:07 GMT
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238

Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke) writes:
 
> I understand Pons is working in France with a staff of 32 scientists and
> other staff.  Who is funding this effort?
> --
> Bob Clarke, user of the UnixBBS System @ actcnews.res.utc.com
> E-Mail: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com
> ========================================================================
>    United Technologies Corporation
>    Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent UTC.
 
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 / Russ George /  Pons and Fleischmann in France
     
Originally-From: bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Russ George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons and Fleischmann in France
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:33:58 GMT
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238

some have asked about who is funding Pons and Fleischmann in France.
They are supported by IMRA corp. a research subsidiary of Toyota corp.
They have jsut added 32 new scientists to staff there. The facility is
called IMRA Europe to be distinguished for a similar effort being mounted
in norhtern Japan called IMRA Japan. Other big Japanese companies with
substantial cold fusion efforts include NTT, Toshiba, Hitachi,
Mitsubishi, and a long list of others. The funds dedicated for cold
fusion research from MITI are for equipment expenses in Japanese
universities. Total is jsut over $3 million US for 1993 alone, other
expenses such as lab overhead, salaries, etc. are being picked up by the
ministry of education.  This works out to roughly a $6-$9million dollar
budget for cold fusion research in Japanese universities alone for 1993.
A drop in the bucket when compared to the reported work in Russia at 54
different scientific institutes (as reported by Tsarev head of Russian
cold fusion research).
I wonder why the US academic bandwagon hasn't caught on to the prospect
for research dollars in cold fusion here in the US.
 
 
--
Russ George (bbs.rgeorge@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrgeorge cudfnRuss cudlnGeorge cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 / John Logajan /  Remote pH sensing
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Remote pH sensing
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:50:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>We switched to higher Lithium content when we could not maintain cell current
>on long experiments due to cell voltage rise with our closed cells.
 
>One way is to measure the solution pH and to then add concentrated
>electrolyte as needed.
 
Huh?  Isn't the pH measurement redundant to your above stated observation?
That is to say, average cell voltage indicates the state of the pH.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: Notoya Demo/ No No Noninski
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Notoya Demo/ No No Noninski
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:08:26 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I appreciate the responses and questions to recent postings; return responses
follow.
Dr. Noninski objects that the Notoya "nuclear" cell drops power (1.5V x I)
due to decomposition of water to hydrogen + oxygen.  True, but the voltage
on the "nuclear" cell shown by Notoya in Nagoya was INCREASED BY 1.5 V to
compensate for the hydrolysis loss.  That is, the voltage on the control cell
was 3.4V (first two days) while the voltage on the cell with Ni cathode was
3.4 + 1.5 volts.  Both cells had about 0.6 A current.  So the objection
of Noninski fails.
We did speak to Prof. Notoya during the conference, raising our objections,
Jed.  She told David Buehler (a student) that she was an "expert", implying
that he should not worry about such things as thin wires going into the
control cell.  We do worry.  Raising questions and objections is part of the
scientific process; it is the demonstration that was "notorious" from our
studied consideration and personal attacks are not intended.
Prof. Hansen recalls from his conversation with Dr. Notoya that the thin leads
entering the control cell were made of platinum.
Dr. Blue posts (regarding the Kamiokande/BYU/Los Alamos/Texas A&M experiments):
"[citing the Kamiokande report] 'detectable limit for random neutron emission
of 10-4 neutrons per second.' I take that to mean roughly that is the
background rate and essentially nothing was seen that was significantly
different from background. Clear enough."
Wrong.  "Detectable limit" means the sensitivity limit for detecting neutrons,
not the upper limit for their detection.  In cement+D2O, "we found a clear
random neutron emission from the portland cement mixed with D2O at the level
of 1X10-3 neutrons/second, which is, however, difficult to explain based on
radioactivity contamination in the cement..."  This signal was about 10 times
the sensitivity limit.  And observations have been repeated in the Provo Canyon
tunnel laboratory using fast-setting cement + D2O (and H2O, which shows
nothing).  We are still working on isolating the source of the neutrons,
meanwhile we are encouraged by this path, found at Kamiokande and motivated
by the geological fusion hypothesis.  Please send your address, Dr. Blue,
and I will send the thesis on the experiment and a write-up of further work
at Provo.  (In Provo, we have the advantage of discriminating against neutrons
having E < 1MeV; this eliminates photodisintegration neutrons caused by
thallium-208 which neutrons have only 0.2 MeV each.  This was a major worry
when the thesis was written; we have checked this along with d(alpha,n),
fission neutrons, etc.)
Thanks for the feedback,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.14 / Edgar Swank /  Re:Setting up home system for internet
     
Originally-From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Setting up home system for internet
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 18:38:28 PST
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

On Nov 9 Evan Simpson commented on my recommendations to Tom Droege:
 
    Note that these days you can buy a full-featured 14.4K fax/modem
    for as little as $200 (Infotel, for example, or the Gateway
    offer).  These can pay for themselves quickly if you use a pay
    dialup service.
 
I'm not familiar with either of the specific modems cited. Typical
prices for "generic" 9600 baud internal modems are $225-250. However,
I did find one ad, dated last September,
 
9600 Baud internal modem  $175
 
--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedgar cudfnEdgar cudlnSwank cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 / Woody Ligon /  Re: Notoya Demo/ No No Noninski
     
Originally-From: Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Notoya Demo/ No No Noninski
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:05:42 GMT
Organization: GE-CRD

In article <1992Nov13.170826.200@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
wrote:
>
>  In cement+D2O, "we found a clear
> random neutron emission from the portland cement mixed with D2O at the level
> of 1X10-3 neutrons/second, which is, however, difficult to explain based on
> radioactivity contamination in the cement..."  This signal was about 10 times
> the sensitivity limit.  And observations have been repeated in the Provo
> Canyon tunnel laboratory using fast-setting cement + D2O (and H2O, which shows
> nothing).  We are still working on isolating the source of the neutrons,
> meanwhile we are encouraged by this path, found at Kamiokande and motivated
> by the geological fusion hypothesis.
 
 I would respectfully suggest that a more interesting control for this
 experiment is not H2O as described in an earlier posting but rather H2O
 contaminated with the same (non trivial) amount of T2O as is present in
the
 D2O being used.
 
 Even more interesting  would be D2O free of T2O but this is probably
harder to
 accomplish. As an alternative, I suggest substantially increasing the
amount of
 T2O in the D2O and repeating the experiment. I mention these control
 experiments because it would seem that the weak but real ionized
 tracks produced by tritium decompositions could provide both a ready
source of
 deuterons and a region (the ionized track) of relatively low density. If
these
 particle tracks were adventitiously created in a region with high static
charge
 arising during crystal formation then we have met a number of the
 requirements for conventional nuclear chemistry.
 
Woody Ligon
(Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com)
Standard Disclaimer applies.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenLigon cudfnWoody cudlnLigon cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 / Jacques Amar /  Yamaguchis_Experiments
     
Originally-From: phsjga@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Jacques G. Amar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchis_Experiments
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:22:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I`ve just read an article in New Scientist Oct.31 issue (British science
magazine) about the experiments of Eiichi Yamaguchi of NTT.
They sound quite interesting, and are claimed to be easily reproducible.
 
It appears he takes a `chip` of palladium (3cm x 3cm x 1mm), one side of
which has been oxided and exposes it to deuterium gas so
that it becomes saturated (high pressure ?).  The other side of the chip is
then coated with
gold (to seal it?) and heated (how much?, in a vaccuum ? or in a vaccuum-tight
container ?).
After several hours, he observes a 100 C rise in temperature in the chip.
Also, He4 is detected in the chamber.
He apparently believes that deuterium `migrates` toward the Pd-oxide side
where it fuses to form He4.
He also claims that `at
the peak` , 1 million-billion (10^15) fusions per sec occur.
 
An alternative interpretation due to David Williams of Harwell is that the
heat is due to oxidation of the deuterium (presumably due to the oxygen
in the Pd-oxide layer ?) to form D_2O, while the He4 is due to impurities in
the glass container.  I presume however that this can be checked by using H
instead of D (have they ?) and/or looking for D_2O.  I would imagine also
that repeating the experiment (as was done 5 times with `perfect` success)
 but with the _same_ container could also be a check.
 
 
Can anyone provide more information on this experiment ?
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenphsjga cudfnJacques cudlnAmar cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 / John Logajan /  Structure
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Structure
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:22:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
>Thus if Li is absorbed by the cathode (as I suspect) then the fresh
>electrolyte would make up for the loss.
 
The Li atom has a diameter of 3.04 A while the Li+ ion has a diameter of 1.2 A.
The H or D atom has a diameter of 0.74 A while the H+ or D+ (or Li+++) would
just have the nucleus diameter at about 0.00025 A.
 
Pd-Pd bond lengths are given as 2.75 A, which equals the Pd diameter.
 
If we assume Pd atoms are spherical and each touching 12 other Pd atoms in
the metal crystal packing structure, there exists a "torus" around each
sphere-sphere contact point which has a clearence of about 0.42 A diameter
of circular cross-section.  It is actually more of a triangular cross-section,
with sides curved inward.  The 0.42 A dimension is for the largest spherical
object that could pass through the triangular cross-section.
 
Neither the H (or D) atom or the Li+ ion are small enought to pass through
the inter-connected 0.42 A "torus tunnels" unmolested.  The H is willing to
give up an electron to become H+, and thus shrink to near nothingness in size,
but wouldn't the Li+ be much harder to turn into Li++ or Li+++ ?
 
In fact, if Li+ is going into the cathode, and since it might be fitting into a
space smaller than what it would like to be in, perhaps it is the Li that is
causing these Pd cathodes to bend, twist, crack, and pit.
 
Another question arises as to where the D or Li resides in the Pd crystal.
The triangular torus cross-section represents the minimum diameter of the
constriction around the spherical points of contact, but the volume fluctuates
with a hexagonal pattern around the torus as it plays in and out around the
spherical surfaces of the neighboring atoms.
 
There might be more or less "favorable" sites around these hex "nodes",
but other than that, there is no reason that many more than six D molecules
could fit in the same torus -- which I believe must be true for loading
ratios greater than 1.0.
 
And if it is possible to overload these toruses, then during times of
disequilibrium, regional overloading conditions may occur.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 /  Britz /  Manners
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Manners
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:23:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>Dear Steve,
>
>     Say what? Dr. Notoya works on this for six months, and you work on it for
>one day, jump to a conclusion without consulting her, and *she* is notorious?
>Let us just hold our horses, retrace our steps here, and see what is watt. Why
>don't you please address some basic points, please:
>...[Much stuff deleted here]
>Morrison to boot! That is a high-handed thing to do to someone. I know this is
>an informal forum here, but as the Japanese say, "manners matter, even among
>friends." A five minute consultation is in order. Just fax her in advance and
 
.. etc etc, at the great length we are trying to get accustomed to in Jed's
writings. You are, as usual, putting up a smoke screen of verbiage here, mate.
You forget that it was not Jones himself, but his graduate student, who was
there. How could he take a bit of the wire home? Surreptitiously snip a bit of
it off, while Notoya or you were not looking? The phrase "hair-fine" is
commonly used, and everybody (except perhaps you) knows roughly what is meant:
a very thin wire. From the data we have and your statement that it was silver,
I have been able to roughly calculate its diameter. About 40 mu. Happy?
 
Jed, to paraphrase the well known quote,
 
"My Rothwell doth protest too much".
 
I liked the Japanese quote about manners. I wish you would keep this in mind
yourself, Jed, before boldly attacking eminent people such as Jones, Morrison,
Huizenga, and Close. All these people know their physics, and are talking from
that base. That is not to say that they can't be wrong sometimes, but you have
to do more than impolitely threaten to "blow you out of the water", and the
rest of your intemperate language you allow yourself to use on these people.
You have to match them with physics or chemistry - but this would take you a
good number of years of study, I am afraid.
 
One thing you have not addressed is WHY such a fine wire was used there. You
or Notoya clearly went to some trouble to put it there. As I say, it can't
have been easy to solder it on, and one doesn't accidentally grab a bit of
40 mu wire instead of a normal lead, like the fat one connected to the other
cell. Come on, allay my suspicions, convince me this was not a premeditated
- shall we politely say, false-front PR demo setup.
Don't wait for me to telephone/fax you, tell us here.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:58:03 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Jed,
Your public letter resorts to ad hominem attacks, even in its title:
"Notorious Steven Jones".  You further state that our efforts to understand
the basis of the heat demonstrated to the world in Nagoya by Dr. Notoya
are "unreasonable, unscientific, sloppy and uncalled for."  You state that
we should have talked to Notoya and taken data there.  We did this, and
have reported the voltage, current and power given to each cell.  I trust
the one correction to our report got through, that is, the joule heating
to each cell was approx. the same, but the nickel-cathode cell had higher
voltage (and total power) to account for loss due to water decomposition
losses (the cell was open, letting H2 and O2 escape into the air).  I agree
with Tom Droege that xs heat claims based on open cells such as this are
not reliable.
So both David Buehler and I did speak to Dr. Notoya during the conference.
We took measurements of the voltages and currents with her instruments, with
her help, the alligator clips from the power supply were moved up the wires
close to the control cell, and we then found that much of the power in this
cell (36% - see earlier posting for details) was dissipated into the air.
Then we did an experiment here to see whether the set up as demonstrated in
Nagoya could result in about a 10 C difference in temperatures, based on
differences in joule heating which we clearly expressed our concern to Notoya
about in Nagoya.  We found that the temp. difference could indeed be explained
by differences in joule heating, with significant heat in the "control"
dissipated into the air due to thin wires , while the "nuclear" cell had wires
of approx. 1-mm diameter by my measurement there.  Actually, the exact
thickness of wires is less important than the power losses, which we measured
as described in a previous posting.
    In science, we check each others' results.  Openly.  As I said in an
earlier posting, no personal attack is intended on Dr. Notoya.  Indeed, she
obliged our request to move the alligator clips which allowed us to measure
the (high) resistance of the thin wires entering the control cell.  We spoke
to her.  We took measurements of a publicly demonstrated cell with the
instruments displayed with it.  We checked the result and conclude that the
heat difference of the demonstration cells can be accounted for by differences
in joule heating *in* the cells.  I think this is consistent with standard
scientific procedure.
    But Rothwell's ad hominem attacks are not.
 
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Notes/ visit to Takahashi's lab
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notes/ visit to Takahashi's lab
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:32:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
David Buehler, Prof. Lee Hansen and I visited Dr. Takahashi's laboratory
on October 27, 1992.  I wish to report a few of our observations there,
which we also reported to Dr. Takahashi.
The electrolytic cells in which xs heat was reported were open, with
D2 and O2 gases escaping into the air (a red flag as Droege emphasizes).
In fact, we saw dried salts on the tops of the plastic cells showing that
electrolyte had somehow reached the outside of the cells.  Chromel thermo-
couples were used to measure temperature, placed in the electrolyte with
teflon wrapped around the thermocouples -- but this is not a sufficient
barrier to the electrolyte.  Chemical and even electrolytic processes could
thus occur on the thermocouples, leading to small voltage variations which
would be interpreted as temperature changes.  We asked about the calibration
for the heat measurements.  Dr. Takahashi replied that since the electrolytic
cell had vigorous bubbling whereas there would be no bubbles with a resistance
heater, there was *no* calibration.  This seems unbelievable to me, and there
may have been a language problem, but this is what we recall and is recorded
in my logbook.
Dr. Takahashi is experienced in nuclear measurements, not in calorimetry.  His
measurements of neutrons and charged particles appear to be quite good.  Of
course, one must add that the level of these nuclear emissions is a trillion-
fold less than required to produce one watt of xs power.  I see *no*
correlation.  He reports a type of anti-correlation, with neutron emissions
decreasing as xs heat rises.  Furthermore, there is no quantitative
correlation, with neutrons too few by about a trillion-fold to account for
the xs heat, according to his measurements.
Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU is an experienced calorimetrist.  He has written a
brief treatise on what is needed for careful, definitive heat measurements.
This is being forwarded to Dr. Takahashi, Dr. Notoya -- others may request
the paper by a note to me.  It may be published in the proceedings of the
cold fusion meeting at Nagoya, hopefully.
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:13:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Jamison speculates on the source of the changes in gas absorption.  We
have looked at several cathodes (Chuck Sites did the looking - what say Chuck)
and likely did not see many cracks.  No doubt about it, large volumes of gas
puff in and out.  I still think it is some sort of surface effect where the
gas is held near the surface and "sheets" off.  I do *not* think it is
a bubble effect.  Try to put a 10 cc bubble in a 50 cc cell volume and have
it stay for minutes.
 
John Logajan asks "what is a surface grinder".  You will find one in most
machine shops.  Imagine a grinding wheel and motor suspended above a two axis
table - like a milling machine table.  You can raise and lower the grinding
wheel, and move the work under it.  It is very easy on the right material to
take very fine cuts.  When you have the head of your hot rod refinished, it is
likely done with a surface grinder.  Certainly the bearing surfaces on you
crankshaft are done with a similar machine.  In any case, it is the next step
down from normal machining.  I guess lapping and then polishing are the next
processes to use for a fine finish.  Even so, a grinder and fine cuts will
produce a mirror finish on steel.
 
Thanks for all the pH advice.  Next experiment will be done with 0.1 M LiOD
and I will exchange part of it from time to time to maintain cell conductivity.
I will have to learn to live with the resulting thermal transient.
 
The present experiment looks null now that I have turned the current down to
zero.  But it again drifted in the direction of anomalous heat during the
1.4 megasecond run.  About 70 mw.  I now plan to just let it sit a few days
and see what happens.
 
Jed Rothwell has put up a long apology for the Notoya demonstration.  As far
as I am concerned, this is controversial work (cold fusion in general).  So
different rules apply.  If anything is found wrong with an experiment, then
you throw it out, and then demand much higher standards for the next work by
the same experimenter.  This holds for me too.  I feell that I have used up
a lot or credibility by my recent "positive" announcement.  I will be even
more careful in the future - even though these posts are not "publication".
It is clear that there was something wrong with the Natoya demonstration.
There was obviously heat going into lead dissipation that Dr. Notoya was
proposing to go into the control cell.  So I throw out the whole experiment,
and require a much more thorough experiment from Dr. Notoya next time.
 
John Logajan writes "Huh? Isn't the pH measurement redundant to your above
stated observation?  That is to say, average cell voltage indicates the
state of the pH."
 
I guess it does, John.  But my goal is to have as many redundant measurements
as possible.  Two or three or four on everything.  Then if they all agree, I
can have some confidence in the result.  If they don't agree, then I learn
something new.  That is even better.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE:  Yamaguchi's experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Yamaguchi's experiments
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:24:29 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks to Terry Bollinger for calling attention to the following "What's
News" from the American Physical Society:
4.  IS COLD FUSION PRACTICAL?  IT IS IF YOU OWNED STOCK IN NTT
prior to the Third International Cold Fusion Conference in Nagoya on
21 Oct.  Two scientists from Nippon Telephone and Telegraph held a press
conference to announce that they had detected excess heat and helium in
a reproducible cold fusion experiment.  NTT stock rose 11% on the news.
NTT is one of the biggest stock capitalization companies in the world.
The paper profits after the cold fusion announcement were nearly
$8 billion.
Whew!
A comment on the work of Yamaguchi (one of the NTT scientists) is in order.
The other NTT scientist referred to above may be his partner, T. Nishioka.
Their abstract from the Nagoya meeting states in part:  "The key factor of
this study is heterostructures fabricated by depositing thin film oxides and
Au on one and the other surface of Pd:D plate. ... We applied electric
current of 0.5-0.8 A/cm2 perpendicularly to the sample plate.  With 100%
reproducibility in obtaining the excess heat evolution, explosive gas release
and rapid plastic deformation, it has bee found that these phenomena result
from D (H) transport due to the temperature and strain gradients induced by the
current. "  In the abstract, the NTT scientists state that "excess heat
evolution" ... "was observed also by applying this method to Pd:H systems
... This is the first evidence for the fact that the excess heat production
is not necessarily caused by regular D-D reactions."
Unfortunately, these comments about heat produced by hydrogen-loading (not just
deuterium-loaded samples) and the conclusion that the xs heat is not
necessarily caused then by D-
D reactions was NOT made by Yamaguchi during his highly publicized talk
Saturday morning (10/24/92).  On the contrary, his vu-graphs pointed strongly
to nuclear xs heat a la Pons and Fleischmann, as I recall.
After his talk, Nate Hoffman of Rockwell asked if he had any glass in his
system.  Yamaguchi said "no."  His response is absolutely astounding:  Nate
later spoke to him and learned that there is considerable glass in the experi-
ment, a glass vessel with walls 5 cm thick.  I hope this matter is clarified,
because glass provides a reservoir for helium which can be extracted by
passing H2 or D2 gas over it.  This is precisely the artifactual evidence for
helium production from hydrogen gasses that initially confused Paneth in
experiments with Peters in the late 1920's:  "Paneth and Peters showed that
the liberation of helium from glass is dependent on the presence of hydrogen.
Glass tubes, which gave off no detectable helium when heated in vacuum or in
an oxygen atmosphere, yielded up absorbed helium in the quantities observed
when heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen.  Hence, they were in a position to
give an explanation of the occurrence of the observed very small quantities
of helium in their experiments as coming from absorbed helium in the glass,
without having to conclude the systhesis of helium from hydrogen."  (p. 13
of John Huizenga's book on cold fusion.)
(Frank Close also reviews this early history.  Those who do not learn history
are doomed to relive it?)
So the xs heat is also seen with hydrogen, and there is glass (we're checking
further but quite sure of this) in the experimental system.  Not much to
base investment in cold fusion on. . .
 
I reflect also on Nagoya conference chairman Ikegami's treatment of Douglas
Morrison after his talk.  Truthfully, I found Morrison's talk quite balanced
and enlightening, although I did not agree on all points.  After the talk,
a dozen people arose from the audience, clamoring to respond -- which is the
correct spirit of a scientific meeting surely.  But Ikegami took the microphone
and apologized for allowing Morrison to speak, adding something like "I have
never heard such an unscientific talk at a scientific meeting."  He refused to
allow further comment.  I was shocked and appalled by a Japanese making such
a remark, and ending what promised to be a stimulating discussion.  Frankly,
I was dumfounded.
You tell me:  what is going on in Japan?
I hasten to add that I have excellent colleagues in Japan for whom I have great
respect and with whom I have enjoyed collaborative efforts since 1985.
But in the cold-fusion arena, there is something fishy??  I cannot put my
finger on it quite...
The cold-fusion work of Pons is funded by a Japanese company, although I do not
say this is in any way connected to the above views.
And the demonstration of xs heat during the meeting was clearly faulty -- see
previous postings about the "Notoya demo" from the Univ. of Hokkaido.
What is going on?
--Steven E. Jones
Standard disclaimer
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 /  Rothwell /  Britz Reveals A Fraud
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz Reveals A Fraud
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:32:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter Britz writes:
 
"One thing you have not addressed is WHY such a fine wire was used there. You
or Notoya clearly went to some trouble to put it there. As I say, it can't
have been easy to solder it on, and one doesn't accidentally grab a bit of 40
mu wire instead of a normal lead, like the fat one connected to the other
cell. Come on, allay my suspicions, convince me this was not a premeditated -
shall we politely say, false-front PR demo setup.
Don't wait for me to telephone/fax you, tell us here."
 
I tell you what, right here, right now. I thought you were making a sick joke
the other day when you suggested it was a 'false front PR demo' (a fraud). Now
I see you really mean it. You are completely out of your mind! Why on earth
would anyone do that? As I have stated, over and over again, Notoya will bring
the very same device, with new wires, to M.I.T. on Dec. 3; and she invites
*anyone* to investigate it, and measure the resistance, or measure anything
else they want.
 
She said that, I translated it and said it right here, and you ignored me,
because you are crank and a fool, I suppose. What on earth do you think she
could accomplish by setting up a 'false front?' It would last until the
afternoon of December 3rd. It is nuts! She would simply destroy her career and
become a laughingstock. And how on earth would she get people like Mizuno and
her boss Enyo to go along with it? Mizuno was quoted in the national
newspapers and on television saying that he had observed he laboratory
experiments, and they were solid and reliable. Why would *he* want to destroy
himself? What is the motive?
 
As to WHY a fine wire was used, she said it was the first thing at hand on her
workbench, and she did not think twice about it. She had no other reason for
using it. You are wrong, it was no trouble to work with. She disassembled both
bottles in my presence, to show me what was in them and how she put them
together, and it was not the least bit difficult to work with that wire. She
has replaced the wire already, and the effect continues. I doubt very much
that the resistance was as high as Steve Jones thought; a silver wire would
have to be nearly invisible to offer as much resistance as he calculates. I do
not understand the source of his confusion (if that is what it is), but I
think it would be wise for him to accept a sample from Notoya; or to wait a
few weeks and measure the resistance again at MIT; or have someone else do it.
I suggest it would be far better to use a standard meter, rather than to play
a guessing game by fiddling with an unfamiliar power supply, and moving around
alligator clips. Notoya reminds everyone that alligator clips make a poor
connection, and they can change the resistance and other electrical
characteristics radically if you do not make certain they are firmly
connected. It is better to measure at the entrance and exit points of the
bottle.
 
She said if she gets a chance, she will measure the size and resistance of the
discarded wires, so if I hear from her, I will post the numbers. If you don't
want to believe that she is telling me the truth, or that I am posting what
she told me, you can go jump into a lake.
 
When I told her about Steve's comments, she said, "why on earth didn't he ask
for a small sample of the wire. There was a pair of scissors on the table." It
seemed to her, and to me, the most obvious and logical thing in the world. I
certainly would have asked for a sample, if I had any doubts or questions.
Steve said he talked to her directly, which I am glad to hear. I wish he had
talked a little more.
 
As for you, Dieter, for years, you have been pretending that you are an
objective, fair minded, impartial observer. The man we trust to read the
literature and give us a "balanced view." Now we see you crawl out from under
your rock and accuse someone of committing deliberate fraud. You have only the
thinnest of thin evidence to believe this! There is no earthy reason for
Notoya to commit fraud; indeed, if she has done so, it will immediately
destroy her. So, you have jumped to an utterly illogical and untenable
conclusion, based on nothing more than a few electronic messages, and your own
warped, suspicious, irrational nature. If you had said, "well, she must be
incompetent because she accidently used thin wire and dumped the heat into the
atmosphere," that would be a reasonable, tenable conclusion. I think that is
what Steve Jones has concluded about her as a person, and I respect him in
that regard. It is perfectly okay to suggest that a person has made a dumb
mistake, since we all do that from time to time.
 
But when you flew off on a tangent, and started making this outrageous,
untenable suggestion that she was deliberately lying, you have lost all
credibility. You have revealed that you are *not* fair, *not* reasonable,
*not* trusting, and therefore not trustworthy. It has all been a masquerade,
you are part of the pack of ruthless hyenas who will attack any cold fusion
scientist who dares to make any important claim, like the gang that drove Pons
and Fleischmann out of the country, and into the arms of Toyota Motor Company.
You are revealed yourself as a fraud.
 
You should be ashamed of yourself. Even if Notoya made a dreadful mistake,
that is not the same as committing fraud, and you owe her an apology for
suggesting that it is. I am not going to say anything more about your
outrageous and uncalled for behavior. I am through with you, and I will not be
baited into saying anything more. I could not "allay your suspicions" in 100
years, because they are based on nothing more than your own unyielding,
irrational lack of imagination and lack of trust in your fellow scientists.
 
Indeed, I am not going to say another word about Notoya's experiments. Words
are wasted when another actual public demonstration is three weeks away.
Anyone is welcome to come, and you are free to measure whatever you want with
the cell. I expect that the so-called "skeptics" like Dieter Britz are cowards
and will not come; or they are such fools that they believe these electronic
letters implicitly, so they have made up their minds, and they will not bother
to look for themselves, or send someone they trust to look. That is up to
them, I personally could not care less whether a single so-called "skeptic"
comes or not. I will be in the audience, it is not my lecture, and not my
demonstration. I expect it will work, but only God Almighty knows for sure.
 
I will be too busy to post messages the rest of this week, so let me offer one
more suggestion to Steven Jones: If you have the time to run that weird
experiment with the resister on the outside of the bottle, which got you two
thirds the way to simulating Notoya, why don't you take a few more hours and
try an experiment with spongy nickel and potassium carbonate? Why not try the
real experiment? Contact Mallove, Srinivasan or I for a protocol, because
there are, after all, many ways to do this experiment incorrectly, as
Srinivasan said.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Notes/ visit to Takahashi's lab
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Notes/ visit to Takahashi's lab
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:16:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

With all due respect to Dr. Takahashi, I must make some comments
on Rothwell's embarassing and unwarranted diatribe.
 
It would seem rather apparent when a scientist reports that a
meagerly instrumented experiment is reporting highly positive
data and then the experiment is more carefully instrumented and
then reports very much less positive results that the cause may
not be the changing of the experiment but the more careful gathering
and evaluation of the data.
 
Steven Jones now tells us that the cells were open and that no
_calibration_ was taken.
 
Bearing this in mind, I think that Dr. Takahashi may have been a
bit early in reporting his data.
 
This is not to say that he has found no results, but that it would
appear that his results are unreliably documented.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: No No Noninski
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No No Noninski
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:42:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
On  November  11  S.Jones  posted  a  "correction"  of   Notoya's
experiment based on the  figures  of  the  voltage  and  current,
*measured* by his student. On that date S.Jones wrote:
 
"Cell  with  Ni  cathode  AND   control   cell   with   resistor,
initially: 3.4 volts, 0.6 amps".
 
On November 13 S.Jones restated the same figures for the  voltage
and the current, *measured* by his student:
 
"The  following  measurements  were  recorded  ...Control   cell,
initially: 3.4 V at 0.61 A ... The  "nuclear"  cell  with  nickel
anode (?! - remark  mine,  VN)  ran  at  approximately  the  same
voltage and I."
 
On November 13, I posted a message pointing out that if we are to
believe the figures S.Jones himself is  posting,  the  *measured*
input heating power in Notoya's electrolysis cell is  lower  than
the measured heating power in the  control  cell.   This   should
lead  to  a lower temperature in the electrolysis cell than   the
temperature of the control cell. That,  however,  goes   contrary
to  what  was  reported  to have been observed by many in Nagoya.
 
On November 16, after my criticism, in a  third  posting  S.Jones
arbitrarily increased the figure of the voltage of Notoya's  cell
from 3.4V to 4.9V, explaining this with an apparently  dreamed-up
increase in voltage to compensate for what he  calls  "hydrolysis
loss", having nothing to do with the measurement of his student:
 
"... the voltage on the "nuclear" cell shown by Notoya in  Nagoya
was INCREASED BY 1.5 V to compensate for the hydrolysis loss. ...
the voltage on the cell with Ni cathode was 3.4 + 1.5 volts."
 
It need not be too strongly emphasized, however, that it is   the
actual  measurement   of   the  current  and  voltage  which   is
important  when  determining  the  input  heating  power  and  no
catching at straws, like the proposed increase by  1.5   V,   can
put more power into the cell.
 
Obviously, the measured  values  of  Notoya's  electrolysis  cell
current and voltage, posted by S.Jones, would cause it to have  a
lower temperature than the  control  cell.  This,  as  I  already
noted, goes contrary to what was reported to have  been  observed
by many in Nagoya.
 
I  again  state  that  the  easy  explanation S.Jones  offers  of
the Notoya puzzle, including the attempt to save his criticism by
changing the figure of the cell voltage, is in error.
 
Further, if S.Jones wants to be credible he should not change  at
will, according to his own needs,  the  figures  he  is  posting.
Otherwise the discussion with him is useless.
 
Truly yours,
 
 
Vesselin  Noninski                           November  16,   1992
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvnoninski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / Terry Bollinger /  Terry's Two Bits
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry's Two Bits
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:39:54 GMT
Organization: Me.

 
Hi folks,
 
A couple of quick items.  First this:
 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> From: ddepir@curie.phy.ulaval.ca (Didier Depireux)
> Subject: WHAT'S NEW, FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 1992
> Message-ID: <1992Nov13.223137.29816@cerberus.ulaval.ca>
> Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Quebec (Canada)
> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:31:37 GMT
>
> WHAT'S NEW, FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 1992               WASHINGTON, DC
>
> .....
>
> 4. IS COLD FUSION PRACTICAL?  IT IS IF YOU OWNED STOCK IN NTT
> prior to the Third International Cold Fusion Conference in Nagoya
> on 21 Sept [sic].  Two scientists from Nippon Telephone and Telegraph
> held a press conference to announce that they had detected excess
> heat and helium in a reproducible cold fusion experiment.  NTT
> stock rose 11% on the news. NTT is one of the biggest stock
> capitalization companies in the world. The paper profits after
> the cold fusion announcement were nearly $8 billion.
>
> Robert L. Park  (202)662-8700       The American Physical Society
 
If the above figures are accurate, then I owe Dr. Frank Close a major
apology for having repeatedly told him in private emails that I simply
did not believe that the social aspects of the "cnf" were all that
significant these days.  Clearly in Japan they are.  (Sic' em, Frank!)
 
I would also add that since I work in a Japanese firm (NEC) myself, my
advice to any coworkers impressed by the Nagoya conference is that they
should be very, VERY careful about taking such a weak set of results
seriously.  Mr. Rothwell has nicely established that the flavor of the
conference more closely resembled a football game than anything one
might normally call an exchange of scientific data.
 
(The game strategy, I take it, was to tackle anyone who disagrees with
the Pro Heat Team, then proclaim victory as soon as the field has been
cleared of dissenting voices, such as Dr. Morrison's.  A most curious
way to hold a scientific conference, that...)
 
....
 
By the way:  Mr. Rothwell, perhaps you could help me out by answering
a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped several
times in the past.  Whenever I go over your recent postings I am struck by
how much your ad hominem style of argumentation resembles some delightful
examples of Lyndon LaRouche literature I once collected.  In particular,
the ability to go from direct personal attacks of nearly everyone in
sight to moaning about the rude "manners" of uncouth Americans such
as Dr. Jones is something that not just any person is capable of doing.
 
Can you clear this up for us once and for all?  Have you ever in any
way been funded by the LaRouche organization for your efforts?  Have
you ever written any article for them or any of their many front
magazines?  Have you ever attended their meetings?  Do you espouse the
same political candidates as they?  Have you ever done them any favors
by promulgating their ideas in Japan, where LaRouche is far less known?
 
Now mind you, since you have adamantly and repeatedly told us what a
highly scientific gentleman you are (I believe it was right in between
the email telling us to disregard Tom Droege's careful techniques and
another one that said something to the effect that smart people should
look for "bubbles," not measurements), I have no doubt that you will
surely disavow all knowledge of LaRouche and his organization.  That is
why I wish to get it out in the open, though, so you can CLEARLY have it
on the record that you have no ties to the LaRouche organization and its
various fronts.
 
That way, the next time you attack the integrity of [hmm, whom have you
NOT attacked?  Preparata?  perhaps he's next?  Dr. P, beware!] we will
truly and without any doubt know that it is YOU who are speaking, and not
some silly off-the-wall group that spends thousands of dollars to put up
huge billboards on Route 7 in Virginia to tell President Bush to eat
broccolli.
 
We anxiously await your total renuciation of any past or current association
with Lyndon LaRouche and his various organizations.
 
                                Have a nice day,
                                Terry Bollinger
                                (Speaking for myself only, of course)
 
 
P.S. -- Hey Dr. Prep, DID you ever get Bell's Inequality straight, or not?
 
        While paper ripping IS a good sign of a young, open mind (my six
        year old used to do it before he grew up, too), it's just not quite
        enough evidence to convince me that all those investors are getting
        their theoretical money's worth.  Oh well, I suspect they'll figure
        it out for themselves when they don't get their cold fusion hand
        warmers on schedule.  Que sera sera ...
 
       (oh dear, that *was* a bit ad hominem of me, wasn't it?)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / John Kreznar /  Re: Kamiokande and BYU experiments
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamiokande and BYU experiments
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:52:32 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <BxL58w.5x@news.iastate.edu>, hawk@iastate.edu (John D Hawkinson)
 writes:
| In article <1992Nov11.101727.189@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 writes:
 
|  >As I have reported at recent scientific conferences, further studies on
|  >cement +D2O at Kamiokande and in the BYU tunnel lab continue to show a
|  >"clear random neutron emission" while the cement is curing (not after
|  >heat-curing).  The cement+H2O samples show no signal in four tries.
 
| ...the NUREG/CP noted (page 338):
 
|    "A number of studies have been made, and others are in progress, on the
|     emanation of radon from various materials.  A few points of interest
|     emerge.  One is that an increase in the water content of concrete or
|     other porous material increases the emenation rate (Auxier, 1974)."
 
| Any speculation as to what impact "radon puffs" from the drying concrete
| might have on the detector setup?
 
..or as to possible dependence of such puffs on whether the water is heavy
or light?
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / Todd Green /  A better demonstration
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A better demonstration
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:44:48 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
(Much stuff deleted...)
 
>Indeed, I am not going to say another word about Notoya's experiments. Words
>are wasted when another actual public demonstration is three weeks away.
>Anyone is welcome to come, and you are free to measure whatever you want with
>the cell. I expect that the so-called "skeptics" like Dieter Britz are cowards
>and will not come; or they are such fools that they believe these electronic
>letters implicitly, so they have made up their minds, and they will not bother
>to look for themselves, or send someone they trust to look. That is up to
>them, I personally could not care less whether a single so-called "skeptic"
>comes or not. I will be in the audience, it is not my lecture, and not my
>demonstration. I expect it will work, but only God Almighty knows for sure.
 
Jed, I don't think a couple of cells sitting on a bench with thermometers in
them is going to convince anybody at MIT. More likely it will just bring more
ridicule and accusations of bad calorimetry. An experiment that WOULD convince
all of us would be if you and Notoya went over to Batavia and set up the cell
in Tom Droege's calorimeter and demonstrated excess heat there. Surely this is
feasible if Tom agrees. If you expect poor old Dieter Britz to fly over from
Denmark to witness the demonstration, surely we  can expect you to fly over
to Illinois for a definitive test in a calorimeter that is known to be
accurate? How about it? 400% excess heat in a benchtop demo might not be too
convincing but, a 4000 sigma event in the Droege beast would make for a strong
case.
 
----
Todd Green
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / E Smith /  Re: Terry's Two Bits
     
Originally-From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry's Two Bits
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:28:02 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov17.053954.3582@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com
 (Terry Bollinger) writes:
 
>By the way:  Mr. Rothwell, perhaps you could help me out by answering
>a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped several
>times in the past.  Whenever I go over your recent postings I am struck by
>how much your ad hominem style of argumentation resembles some delightful
>examples of Lyndon LaRouche literature I once collected.  In particular,
>the ability to go from direct personal attacks of nearly everyone in
>sight to moaning about the rude "manners" of uncouth Americans such
>as Dr. Jones is something that not just any person is capable of doing.
 
As a relatively impartial observer in all this (I've been reading this
group for a couple of weeks, but don't have a clue who you folks are
or who wants to gore which ox.  Nor do I have a clue if CF is real or
a hoax...):
 
Mr. Rothwell seems to me to have been rather well spoken in
describing the attacks and rude manners displayed here.  I have
no idea if the th wire was fraud or folly, but Occams Razor
says it was a simple mistake...
 
>We anxiously await your total renuciation of any past or current association
>with Lyndon LaRouche and his various organizations.
 
No, 'We' don't.  I don'twant to hear a thing about LaRouche.  Period.
I want to hear about experiments done that show the state of
research into cold fusion and don't give a tinkers damn about LaRouche.
 
Can we call a truce between you two and get back to some science now?
 
Personality wars are pointless...
--
 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
 
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
 
I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenems cudfnE cudlnSmith cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 /  Britz /  RE: Britz Reveals A Fraud; is revealed as Ruthless Hyena
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Britz Reveals A Fraud; is revealed as Ruthless Hyena
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:23:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>Dieter Britz writes:
>...
>She said that, I translated it and said it right here, and you ignored me,
>because you are crank and a fool, I suppose. What on earth do you think she
>could accomplish by setting up a 'false front?' It would last until the
>afternoon of December 3rd. It is nuts! She would simply destroy her career and
>become a laughingstock. And how on earth would she get people like Mizuno and
>her boss Enyo to go along with it? Mizuno was quoted in the national
>newspapers and on television saying that he had observed he laboratory
>experiments, and they were solid and reliable. Why would *he* want to destroy
>himself? What is the motive?
 
I don't know, mate; suppose you tell me?
 
>As to WHY a fine wire was used, she said it was the first thing at hand on her
>workbench, and she did not think twice about it. She had no other reason for
>using it. You are wrong, it was no trouble to work with. She disassembled both
 
For one thing, I still say wire like that doesn't just appear at your elbow;
secondly, if one wanted to set up a convincing demo, one would want to use
thick wire on both sides. I remain unconvinced. The only thing that speaks
against the PR-demo theory is that this would be too easy to spot (as it
indeed was), for it to have been done deliberately. It still invalidates the
demo, though. I do hope someone will tell us what they see at MIT.
 
>she told me, you can go jump into a lake.
Do it!
 
>As for you, Dieter, for years, you have been pretending that you are an
>objective, fair minded, impartial observer. The man we trust to read the
>literature and give us a "balanced view." Now we see you crawl out from under
>your rock and accuse someone of committing deliberate fraud. You have only the
>...
>*not* trusting, and therefore not trustworthy. It has all been a masquerade,
>you are part of the pack of ruthless hyenas who will attack any cold fusion
>scientist who dares to make any important claim, like the gang that drove Pons
>and Fleischmann out of the country, and into the arms of Toyota Motor Company.
>You are revealed yourself as a fraud.
 
Frothing a little, aren't we? And it was just a short time ago, your associate
Mallove was referring to me as "world renowned cold fusion skeptic". I didn't
ask for that, of course, but it was good enough for Mallove to keep quoting
what I said about his book. And "gang"? What gang?
 
>I am through with you, and I will not be
>baited into saying anything more. I could not "allay your suspicions" in 100
>years, because they are based on nothing more than your own unyielding,
>irrational lack of imagination and lack of trust in your fellow scientists.
 
I am glad to read this, at least - no more floods of verbiage to wade through.
Let me, however, straighten you out on one point: my objectivity and
impartiality. When I see a carefully done quality experiment that comes out
with thumbs up for cold fusion, I acknowledge it, as I have done, for example,
for the "Huggins" work, among others (my little "quality positives" list).
I have never concealed the fact that I am very skeptical of cold fusion, but
can be convinced by solid evidence. When however, confronted with shoddy work,
which then gets defended tooth and nail with ad hoc new "theories" or a flood
of protest and ridiculous accusations, I conclude - as anyone would - that
this is plain merde. The reasons I keep on with the bibliography are that
(1) this field is of great science-historical/sociological interest, and
(2) there might just be an effect here, be it fusion or whatever, that has so
so far escaped us; I have always tended towards the fractofusion scenario, and
still do. You may recall (when you stop frothing) that I have even made some
positive suggestions for how to optimise the effect, if there be one, such as
to raise the LiOD concentration, to use metals that do NOT copiously absorb
deuterium, etc. I have never driven anybody out from anywhere, and in fact
noone has been driven out of cold fusion. For Fleischmann and Pons, the money
simply ran out; that's not the same as being driven out.
 I agree, Jed, you could not allay my suspicions in a hundred years; but a
real scientist, coming up with real evidence, would convince me in no time.
 
Once again, I will make my prediction: cold fusion, as far as the scientific
community as a whole is concerned, will most likely be dead by the end of this
year. There will remain a small group of people, who for one reason or other
- mainly money, in the form of research grants or sale of company shares -
will keep on with it; these will even be able to publish in uncritical
journals like Fusion Technology, but on the whole, the thing will be dead.
I will publically take all this back the minute I see really good evidence,
produced repeatedly (as the Huggins work was not), and not pushed by hoopla
PR, and defended with post-hoc caveats and unmannered personal attacks.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: RE:  Yamaguchi's experiments
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE:  Yamaguchi's experiments
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:28:04 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1992Nov16.152429.206@physc1.byu.edu>, by jonesse@physc1.byu.edu:
> I hope this matter is clarified,
> because glass provides a reservoir for helium which can be extracted by
> passing H2 or D2 gas over it.  This is precisely the artifactual evidence for
> helium production from hydrogen gasses that initially confused Paneth in
> experiments with Peters in the late 1920's:  "Paneth and Peters showed that
> the liberation of helium from glass is dependent on the presence of hydrogen.
> Glass tubes, which gave off no detectable helium when heated in vacuum or in
> an oxygen atmosphere, yielded up absorbed helium in the quantities observed
> when heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen.  Hence, they were in a position to
> give an explanation of the occurrence of the observed very small quantities
> of helium in their experiments as coming from absorbed helium in the glass,
> without having to conclude the systhesis of helium from hydrogen."  (p. 13
> of John Huizenga's book on cold fusion.)
 
Of course, an alternative explanation, let's call it the True Believer
explanation, would be that various forms of glass catalyze the fusion
of H and D to He. Which kind of fits the geofusion hypothesis, doesn't
it? :-)
 
> You tell me:  what is going on in Japan?
 
I really don't know but, I can speculate.
 
I think the driving force behind the quest for Cold Fusion is the
possibility (no matter how small) that we could be on to a compact,
clean, and virtually limitless source of energy. This is something
that everyone on earth needs desperately.
 
But as much as we all need it, does any society on earth need such a
source of energy as much as the Japanese do? They pretty much import
all their energy either as oil, coal, uranium, or now, plutonium. The
Japanese know from history what a shipping blockade can do to them.
 
The Japanese are highly motivated to find new sources of energy. They
have the money, the talent, and the motivation to look into any
possible new energy source. They are perhaps too motivated.
 
                                Bob P.
 
 
P.S.
 
I'm completely ignoring the commercial value of having the patents on
the first working Cold Fusion power plants.
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 /  Rothwell /  NY Times Article
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NY Times Article
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:51:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Busy, busy, busy, but I have to post this tidbit:
 
There was a pretty good article in this morning's New York Times (11/17/92) in
the Science Times section, titled "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In
Japan."
 
 
Steve Jones comments:
 
"Your public letter resorts to ad hominem attacks, even in its title:
'Notorious Steven Jones'.  You further state that our efforts to understand
the basis of the heat demonstrated to the world in Nagoya by Dr. Notoya are
'unreasonable, unscientific, sloppy and uncalled for.'"
 
Hey, give us a break, Steve. Cut out the B.S. If you are going to publish
letters with snappy titles like "Notorious Notoya..." you are going to get it
back from me. Like it or not! What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander too. Don't play high and mighty scientist, please, you are as
emotionally attached to your views as anyone.
 
I must say though, you are completely, 100%, inside the bounds of
reasonableness, fair play and enlightenment compared to Dieter Britz. I
presume you think that poor old Notoya made a mistake. You do not think she
committed fraud, right? That is perfectly okay. I thought you were pretty
sneaky coming down on her like a ton of bricks without warning or consulting.
You say you talked to her, which is good, but I think a few more minutes might
have helped. However, it is just politics, hitting someone from behind is
standard operating procedure, I guess I have done it myself from time to time.
 
Just remember that when you call someone "notorious," you better not scream
and complain when I call you the same thing. If you don't like words like
that, don't use them yourself. As they say in kindergarten (which is where
this discussion is rapidly headed), "you started it."
 
 
Thomas H. Kunich comments about Takahashi:
 
"Steven Jones now tells us that the cells were open and that no _calibration_
was taken."
 
I didn't catch that, but if Steve said it, he is wrong again. I have the
calibration curves from the current run right here in my Takahashi file.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / Jim Carr /  Japanese Cold Fusion in NYTimes
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese Cold Fusion in NYTimes
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:07:07 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

For those who are interested, and I assume that is most of you, there is
a nice article in today's (17 Nov 92) NYTimes about Cold Fusion research
in Japan.  Dateline is Nagoya, and the article is a feature article
follow-up to the recent conference.  (The article is in the "Science Times"
section, starting on B-5 in the national edition we get here.) It includes
nice pictures of Ikegami and Takahashi and some interesting statements
from all parties involved.
 
Akito Arima says he still sees no reason to take out the razor and shave
his head, Huizenga says the Japanese are repeating mistakes made in the
US, Ikegami says he had to go to Europe to find a "critic" since no
Japanese would attack the work being done, and some observations that
Japan is more technologically optimistic and thus willing to take a
chance on a long shot like cold fusion.  There is much more; the
continuation of the article is about half a page.
 
What I found most interesting was a statement that implied that each
professor in Japan has $40,000/year in discretionary research funds!
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Terry's Two Bits
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry's Two Bits
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:23:02 GMT
Organization: Me.

In article <1992Nov17.112802.9057@michael.apple.com>
ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
 
> Mr. Rothwell seems to me to have been rather well spoken in describing
> the attacks and rude manners displayed here.
 
Mr. Rothwell is very well spoken.  Rudeness?  Try a grep function for ad
hominem words in both Mr. Rothwell's, and my own archives of postings into
this group.  And don't forget to try the same for Dr. Jones and Dr. Morrison,
two of the people whom he described as rude.  See who wins, especially
on postings since the Nagoya conference.  (I figure I'll come in second.)
 
> I have no idea if the wire was fraud or folly...
 
Nothing I've seen described about Dr. Notoya's experiment indicates any fraud.
 
Quite the contrary -- I think Dr. Notoya had and has nothing but the best
intentions, and I am very much in agreement with the suggestion earlier
today that her experiment would benefit greatly from the expertise of some-
one like Tom Droege who is has some solid experience in making high quality
heat measurements, and who is sincerely committed searching for real heat
production effects.  If Dr. Notoya's results are reproducible, Tom Droege
could add a lot more experimental clout to her results than Mr. Rothwell's
words-only defenses will ever accomplish.
 
By the way, I truly do not think the kind of "ignore any problems, she's
right, she's right!" approach that Mr. Rothwell has taken in defending
Dr. Notoya is going to be of much benefit to her either experimently or
careerwise.  Perhaps Dr. Notoya or some of her co-workers could speak for
themselves on this group?  Can anyone out there other than Mr. Rothwell
provide direct comments from her or her co-workers?
 
I personally found some of what she has been doing very interesting, and
would like to see futher discussion -- but hopefully with fewer comments
about people and more comments about data.
 
> but Occams Razor says it was a simple mistake...
 
I concur.
 
> No, 'We' don't.  I don't want to hear a thing about LaRouche.  Period.
> I want to hear about experiments done that show the state of research
> into cold fusion and don't give a tinkers damn about LaRouche.
 
Alas, when figures like $8 billion dollars and the reputations of large
companies are involved, I'm afraid that certain aspects of this little
affair have gone outside of "simple" science.  It is for precisely this
reason that I'm adamant that Mr. Rothwell *should* define his associations
or lack thereof with any special interest groups, especially ones like the
LaRouche organization that are noted for often obscure (but adamantly held)
political agendas.
 
Barring his comments, my default assumption is (and has been) that he
is *not* associated with the LaRouche organization.  But if he is, I
think he should be frank and open about it, because it *is* an important
data point for any person or organization who has sunk money into this.
 
This is one reason why I very much prefer the low-profile approach taken
by folks like Tom Droege.  I don't give lickety-split what political
views he has, because he has been so scrupulously careful to focus only
on actual results, and because he has been so consistent in bringing up
and openly discussing experimental problems.
 
> Can we ... get back to some science now?
 
Several folks have been trying hard to do that.  Look at the comments of
Tom Droege and Dr. Steve Jones, both of whom are noted *advocates* of
their being something interesting going on in palladium hydrides (although
not necessarily heat).  READ their comments.  Look at the conservative tone
they have used, and their emphasis on facts, measurements, and the need to
eliminate uncertainties.
 
I'm a bad example, alas.  Silly me, after about the fifth or sixth posting
ripping in to someone I know or respect, I get ticked off.  Sigh.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
                                (Speaking only for myself)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / Cary Jamison /  Muon-catalysed fusion
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalysed fusion
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:12:00 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc, A Subsidiary of TRW

I thought it was time to take a break from all the bashing going on in this
group lately and ask a question about some REAL cold fusion.  I see Dr.
Steven Jones has been participating in this group regularly now, so I thought
I would ask about the current state of muon-catalysed fusion.  I haven't heard
much about it lately.
 
Are you still pursuing it as a possibility?  I assume you are still running
into the problem of getting enough reactions to happen during the short life
span of the muons.  Do you think there is a future in this, still?
 
------------
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 /  Rothwell /  Back To The Future
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Back To The Future
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:43:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Terry Bollinger, who either missed or misses the McCarthy era, asks:
 
"By the way:  Mr. Rothwell, perhaps you could help me out by answering
a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped several
times in the past... Have you ever in any way been funded by the LaRouche
organization for your efforts..." and bla, bla, bla.
 
Don't be ridiculous! I have never sidestepped a question in my life. Anyone
who has ever know me for more than 5 minutes can tell you that. You might as
well accuse Art Clarke of being modest as accuse me of being evasive. I may
make an ass of myself spouting off untruths, but I have never, *ever* evaded a
question. On the contrary, I tend to go charging in like a bull when you wave
a cape like that, even though I have promised a dozen people I will send them
this document I am translating. I have answered that particular question many
times, right here in this forum.
 
So, to answer your question: Nope. The LaRouche people drive me nuts. I have
to deal with them from time to time, because they show up at the cold fusion
conferences, but I have no business or social relationship with them because
they make me sick. They have, however, quoted translations by me, but that is
the author's business, not mine. Lots of people quote stuff that I translated
originally, including Fusion Facts, MITI, and the New York Times, but nobody
ever pays for quotes, in any field. As far as I know, I am the only source of
Japanese Cold Fusion information translated into English.
 
I wish they would leave us alone and go back to supporting hot fusion
reactors, fission reactors, breeder reactors, space travel, food irradiation,
maglev transportation, tax cuts, evolution (not creationism), high temperature
superconductors and... HEY! Wait a second here... Didn't you say you worked
for NEC? Just a second... I think you guys are in the superconductor business
aren't you? Don't deny it! Yeah... Perhaps you could help me out by answering
a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped here. What are
*you* doing in line of business clearly supported by and *abetted* by the
LaRouche organization? Oh, man, are you in for it!
 
I declare you guilty as charged. Step under the kleig lights, please. Raise
your right hand and swear: "I am not now, and never have been, a member of the
LaRouche Party..."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 / John Grasham /  Cold Fusion Confusion
     
Originally-From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:16:33 GMT
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company

I am a regular reader of this group and not a CF researcher.  I have
a (somewhat) informed layman's knowledge of physics.
 
I do not understand why STILL no one can tell whether or not CF exists.
 
I have read everything I could get on the subject both in the press and
here on the net, and am amazed at the level of diatribes, accusations
of outright fraud/intentional lying, etc.
 
Is the level of emotion shown here evidence of what is at stake?
 
Is science-in-the-making such a messy process (a la law-making and
sausage-making) that this is a normal part of the discussion?
 
Just wondering.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendprjdg cudfnJohn cudlnGrasham cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:48:12 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1992Nov17.151633.11143@Arco.COM>, by dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John
 Grasham):
 
> I have read everything I could get on the subject both in the press and
> here on the net, and am amazed at the level of diatribes, accusations
> of outright fraud/intentional lying, etc.
>
> Is the level of emotion shown here evidence of what is at stake?
>
> Is science-in-the-making such a messy process (a la law-making and
> sausage-making) that this is a normal part of the discussion?
 
Rule #1: Any activity that involves people involves politics,
emotion, and personalities.
 
Rule #2: Discovering a new fact means that either the experts didn't
already know the fact, or that what they "knew" was wrong. Some people
cannot admit that they were wrong, or that there is something they
don't know.
 
Rule #3: The intensity of the politics is inversely proportional to
the size of the pie and/or directly proportional to the size of the
potential reward.
 
The size of the pie that researcher are dividing is pretty small, and
the potential rewards for cold fusion are huge.
 
Based on a life long association with research scientists I'd say that
what you see here is both the good and the bad of science as it really
happens. Well, all most, these guys are using their "Sunday go to
meeting manners" because this is a public medium and there are
non-scientist present.
 
                                Bob P.
 
P.S.
 
Based on a life long association with research scientists, I decided
to be an engineer... :-)
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Back To The Future <--[huh? you lost me with that title]
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Back To The Future <--[huh? you lost me with that title]
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:42:31 GMT
Organization: Me.

Hi ya'll,
 
In article <921117221753_72240.1256_EHL57-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger, who either missed or misses the McCarthy era, asks:
 
Etc. etc.  A vast improvement in tone, Mr. Rothwell.  I actually got a
several chuckles out of that posting.  You seem to be getting back to your
old pre-conference form.  Whatever that was.
 
> I may make an ass of myself spouting off untruths...
 
Hey, NICE quote -- thanks!   :)
 
> I have answered that particular question many times,
> right here in this forum.
 
Yeah, sort of.  I have the emails.
 
> So, to answer your question [whether J. Rothwell has LaRouche connections]:
 
> Nope. The LaRouche people drive me nuts... I have no business or social
> relationship with them because they make me sick. ... They have, however,
> quoted translations by me, but that is the author's business, not mine.
 
Excellent!  I am genuinely pleased to hear such a clear denial, and hope
that your taking the time to make it doesn't slow down your vital process
of translation by anything more than, oh, a week or so.
 
The point about quotes being used in LaRouche literature without consent is
well taken, as they certainly do like to grab other people's text and even
pictures and stick them in their publications without proper authorization.
 
> ... I wish they [LaRouchians] would leave us alone and go back to supporting
> hot fusion reactors, ..., high temperature superconductors and...
> HEY! Wait a second here... Didn't you say [your company is one of the ones
> that is in] the superconductor business[?]  Perhaps you could help me by
> a little question that you seem to have missed or sidestepped here. What
> are *you* doing in line of business clearly supported by and *abetted* by
> the LaRouche organization? Oh, man, are you in for it!
 
Oh posh, I'm disappointed -- is that the best you can do?  Here's my version:
 
> ...and, Mr. Bollinger, we note with great interest that you have several
> times mentioned on this group that you lived practically NEXT DOOR to the
> Louden County home of Lyndon LaRouche himself, and that you travelled up
> and down Route 7 frequently.  And how DO you know so much about their
> style of argumentation, hmmmmm, Mr. Bollinger... UNLESS YOU ARE THEIR
> COVERTLY TRAINED AGENT SENT TO DISRUPT THE INTERNATIONALLY CRITICAL
> TRANSLATIONS TASKS OF OUR NEMESIS AND LIFETIME FOE, JED ROTHWELL!!!
 
Also, I might note that you probably need to work a bit more on subtlety
in your satirical/political/pesuasive style.  Calling folks like Dieter
Britz coo coo is not exactly a clever persuasion strategy, since it merely
gives others good reason to doubt both your motives and your judgement.
 
                        Have a nice whatever it is you are doing,
                        Terry Bollinger
 
P.S. -- Truce, Mr. Rothwell?  I'll shut up about you if you will try hard
        to stick to "just the facts" and stop going after personalities.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  What about Yamaguchi?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What about Yamaguchi?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:07:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I feel the need for a refresher course on what Yamaguchi's experiment
actually involves.  In addition to a Pd sandwich with an oxide and a
gold side with Pd:D in between there seems to be a rather high ion current
applied "perpendicular" to the plane of this sandwich.  Is this in
vacuum or in liquid?  Either way I don't see anything too surprising
about an observation that this thing comes apart.  Next how is the
energy balance determined?  I would also like to know what kind of
material properties the oxide layer is likely to have.  I know that
wierd things happen when you form oxide layers on alumnimum, for
example, relating to large electric field gradients on thin layers.
Does an oxide layer on Pd have similar properties?  Next some elementary
chemistry would seem to indicate that having an oxide in close contact
with a layer loaded with deuterium might lead to an explosive situation.
I think that when we have an experiment that is worth $8-billion in
paper profits it is worthy of a good going over.  Does anyone know
some of the details about Yamaguchi's experiments, or is this one of
those deals that is kept shrouded in industrial secrecy except when
there is some selfserving PR work to be done?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Various responses
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various responses
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:36:14 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The feedback is enlightening, although some comments show more heat
than light.
Mr. Noninski says I used an "apparently dreamed-up increase in voltage to
compensate for what he calls 'hydrolysis loss', having nothing to do with
the measurement of his student."  This is not correct.  I first reported
what I understood from David Buehler that the V and I were the same in the
Ni-cathode and control (resistance-heater) cells.  Later, David corrected
me explaining that the joule heating in the two cells was approximately the
same, but that the voltage in the Ni cell was greater, to make up for the
heat lost due to water decomposition (H2 and O2 were allowed to escape
from the open cell).
This makes sense, doesn't it?  That the joule heating should be made equal
between the two cells?  I misunderstood at first -- it was the joule heating
power and the currents that were approx. the same.  I endeavored to correct
my mistake immediately when I learned of it, twice before on the net (this
is my third try with Dr. Noninski).  But the fact remains that much of the
joule heating of the control cell occurred outside the control cell, in the
very thin lead wire, this according to the measurements recorded by David
Buehler.  Then we checked that this difference with respect to the Ni cell
could cause a 10 C temperature difference.
I think the demonstration was misleading, but I do not accuse Dr. Notoya of
deliberate fraud.  The term "notorious" was applied to the demonstration, not
to Dr. Notoya as I explained in a previous posting.  However, I see that this
term could be misinterpreted and I apologize for using it (specifically to
Dr. Notoya).
Tom Droege is right:  now is the time for definitive and scrutinized experi-
ments.  The BYU group is well aware that we have the same obligation with
regard to our claims of neutron and charged-particle emissions from deuterided
materials.  (See Proceedings of conference on low-level nuclear effects
possibly occurring in deuterided solids, BYU Oct. 1991, published by the
American Institute of Physics, 1991.  Oops - mtg held at BYU in 1990.  I have
a few copies of this Proceedings left.)
Folks, we keep seeing evidence of small nuclear goings on.  Until we get a
strong, reproducible signal, don't expect to hear too much from us.  We do
have a dedicated laboratory in a nearby tunnel and we hope to generate
definitive results one way or the other.  The Kamiokande results point us in
certain directions but were not definitive in my opinion.  Now we can work
close to home with *superb* detectors (Czirr and Menlove and others deserve
much of the credit for their development).  We haven't given up -- how can
we with what we have seen and with a sense of responsibility to clear this up?
 
Someone asked about radon in the cement+D2O expts.  The Kamiokande group
checked this by adding air with high radon content to D2O, then placing this
in the Kamiokande.  No neutrons were produced.
Muon-catalyzed fusion research continues; colleagues and I just completed a
paper on muon-alpha sticking following muon-induced fusion.  Now here is a
puzzle:  why is it that mu-cat-fusion is just one order of magnitude *below*
what is needed for commercial power production?  (A factor of roughly 20.)
So close.  We haven't given up on this either.
Best Regards to all,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 / Stephen Fulton /  Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
     
Originally-From: sdf@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Fulton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:28:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <1992Nov17.151633.11143@Arco.COM>, dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John
 Grasham) writes:
> I am a regular reader of this group and not a CF researcher.  I have
> a (somewhat) informed layman's knowledge of physics.
>
> I do not understand why STILL no one can tell whether or not CF exists.
>
> I have read everything I could get on the subject both in the press and
> here on the net, and am amazed at the level of diatribes, accusations
> of outright fraud/intentional lying, etc.
>
> Is the level of emotion shown here evidence of what is at stake?
>
> Is science-in-the-making such a messy process (a la law-making and
> sausage-making) that this is a normal part of the discussion?
>
> Just wondering.
>
To "prove" that cold fusion exists means usually to have a laboratory design an
experiment to prove it does. Then to carry out this experiment with positive
 results
e.g. heat/neutrons etc. produced that can't be explained any other way.
 
Secondly the experiment has to be repeated several times to verify the results.
 
Thirdly the experiment then has to be verified by at least two other
 laboratories not
connected with the first lab. i.e. preferably on the other side of the world or
 like.
 
All of this needs to be reported in a "respectable" scientific journal.
 
From my reading,and correct me if I'm wrong,the first has been done countable
 times
the second occasionally but the third never (as of yet).
i.e. cold fusion possibly exists but hasn't yet been verified sufficiently.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudensdf cudfnStephen cudlnFulton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 / David Buehler /  Re:Notoya demo
     
Originally-From: dave@digaudio.byu.edu (David Buehler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Notoya demo
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:59:57 -0700

Because there was question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's electrolysis
cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he explained, the
voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than resistive
cell.  This was all explained with little signs in front of the two cells.  The
control would have been meaningless if it used the same voltage and current as
the nickel cell.  It really doesn't matter anyway, since we will have to wait
and see the results from more careful experiments to see if anything unusual is
happening.
_____________________________________________________________________________
 david buehler                                   byu grad studend
 dave@digaudio.byu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendave cudfnDavid cudlnBuehler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:19:14 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Nov17.151633.11143@Arco.COM> dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John
 Grasham) writes:
>I am a regular reader of this group and not a CF researcher.  I have
>a (somewhat) informed layman's knowledge of physics.
>
>I do not understand why STILL no one can tell whether or not CF exists.
 
I am tempted to say "Because it does not", but that would be a bit
premature.  Proving a zero is one of the hardest jobs in physics,
right up there with measuring a very small, yet non-zero, quantity.
Both are dominated by systematic errors rather than statistical errors,
so that more data does not always improve the situation.  Only more
careful experiments will clarify what is going on.
 
The real reason is that the purported positive experiments are not
reproducible.  The negative ones are, but they can always be dismissed
on the basis that some (unspecified, because it is unknown) condition
was not met.  The biggest symptom of this problem is that the very
*definition* of the phenomena being sought is still changing.  It is
hard to do a test when one person says light water gives nothing and
someone else says light water is the way to go.
 
We do not yet have a recipe, where you can be told "do this and you
get heat, change this one variable and it will go away" and then
proceed to monitor other things like nuclear products.  The contrast
with high-Tc superconductors, where everyone was making them within
a week of word getting out, should enlighten you.
 
>I have read everything I could get on the subject both in the press and
>here on the net, and am amazed at the level of diatribes, accusations
>of outright fraud/intentional lying, etc.
 
I note with interest that you do not include scientific journals in
your list of things you have read.  The information there is quite
thin, and then only if your library happens to get the rather obscure
journal where most of it appears.
 
>Is the level of emotion shown here evidence of what is at stake?
>
>Is science-in-the-making such a messy process (a la law-making and
>sausage-making) that this is a normal part of the discussion?
 
Yes.  More so in some fields (particle theory was famous for this)
than others, but it is not uncommon to see rather emotional responses
to a challenge to accepted ways.  Not-invented-here.  Turf battles.
I once had my head almost bitten off when I (a theorist!) suggested that
the reason certain data seemed unusual was that they had most likely
made an error in background subtraction (they had followed a procedure
quite different from that used by others).  Yo Mama!  Its our background
and we can subtract it any way we like, and besides, it has already been
published in a respected journal so it must be right!
 
I love meetings.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Confusion
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:14:43 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Nov18.154812.5759@hal.com> bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>
>Based on a life long association with research scientists I'd say that
>what you see here is both the good and the bad of science as it really
>happens. Well, all most, these guys are using their "Sunday go to
>meeting manners" because this is a public medium and there are
>non-scientist present.
 
Hmmm.  There were plenty of non-scientists, plus the worst sort of
non-scientists with their video and tape recorders, present at the
Baltimore APS meeting and that did not affect anyone's behavior
that I could see.  Scientists are like most people: generally polite
until their toes are stepped on.  A lot of the anger associated with
responses to cold fusion comes from having spent a lot of time on
an experiment (in good faith) only to learn later that some of the
statements (including published data) on which that work was based
were something less than the truth.
 
Remember P&F saying that it was easy, and that all you needed to know
was in their paper?  Remember how long ago it was that they promised
to display a working household hot-water heater?  How many first-year
lab students would build a control that had main components constructed
from different materials, as we have seen most recently?
 
Physicists tolerate mistakes made by students and other newbies.  They
do not like it when someone who should know better has not done their
"homework", but will tolerate such mistakes by colleagues who admit them,
in print, if it was accidental.  They really dislike faked data.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.19 / John Logajan /  Future tense cynical
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Future tense cynical
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:43:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Dr. Notoya will bring the cells to the U.S. in a few weeks, tentatively to
>Stanford University in the last week of November, and definitely to M.I.T.
>around December 1 or 2.  Anyone who wishes to measure the resistance of the
>silver and platinum leads will be more than welcome to do so. You do not
>have to measure it "somehow;" it is not "a challenge."  You can bring your
>own meter, or borrow Dr. Notoya's.
 
There isn't a non-cynical sounding way to put this, so I will make no pretense
(even though I secretly hope Dr. Notoya is correct)...
 
What are the odds that Dr. Notoya and her cell will now be inconveniently
delayed from making the trip by some reason or other, such that further demos
will have to be postponed indefinitely?
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.19 / John Logajan /  The Accidental Tourist
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Accidental Tourist
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Also,
 
>Anyone who wishes to measure the resistance of [Notoys's]
>silver and platinum leads will be more than welcome to do so. You do not
>have to measure it "somehow;" it is not "a challenge."  You can bring your
>own meter, or borrow Dr. Notoya's.
 
It should be noted that the resistance of copper, platinum and silver wires
doubles for approximately each 250-300 degree increase in temperature.
 
A thin wire will measure quite low resistance with just the ohmmeter micro
amp current compared to the resistance that might arise under operating
conditions of high current density self-heating.
 
Therefore, power input into the cell should be measured directly by a series
current measurement and a parallel voltage reading taken directly at the points
of wire entrance into the cell.
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.19 /  Britz /  RE: What about Yamaguchi?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: What about Yamaguchi?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
 
>I feel the need for a refresher course on what Yamaguchi's experiment
>actually involves.  In addition to a Pd sandwich with an oxide and a
>gold side with Pd:D in between there seems to be a rather high ion current
>applied "perpendicular" to the plane of this sandwich.  Is this in
>vacuum or in liquid?  Either way I don't see anything too surprising
>about an observation that this thing comes apart.  Next how is the
>energy balance determined?  I would also like to know what kind of
>material properties the oxide layer is likely to have.  I know that
>wierd things happen when you form oxide layers on alumnimum, for
>example, relating to large electric field gradients on thin layers.
>Does an oxide layer on Pd have similar properties?  Next some elementary
>chemistry would seem to indicate that having an oxide in close contact
>with a layer loaded with deuterium might lead to an explosive situation.
 
I doubt that you'll get much real information until a paper comes out - if
indeed it does. I have the earlier paper, and they used an oxide of manganese,
calling it "Mn-O", of about 100 A thickness. An interesting point you make,
Dick, whether this layer's interaction with hydrogen might provide the heat.
With a quick calculation I make that of the order of 10 microgram MnO2, and
this might release at most 0.1 J per cm**2. The plate would have to very thin
to get hot. But if what they say is true (and I have this only from remarks
dropped here, and a brief report in Nature or Science, I forget), the plate
was charged from the (D2) gas phase - so I don't see how burning in air could
do the job. Neither can I see what these layers are supposed to do. There
seems to be some kind of idea here that after charging the Pd, there is a
large concentration of deuterons still on its way towards the far end, covered
with oxide (there is a diagram showing this). After some time, they all make
it out through, and there is an "explosive gas release". Hm, I don't believe
this.
 The original paper only inferred the plate temperature from the fact that it
bent, and that the clour of the gold film went away, i.e. that the Au had
alloyed with the Pd, and this requires, say the authors, a temp. of 1064 C.
 Market forces are a loony phenomenon anyway; I am not really surprised at a
change in share values. I watched, with amusement, the exchange value of the
US$ go up and down like a yoyo, during the recent election campaign. I
couldn't see why a punchy come-back from one or the other candidate should
have anything to do with that - but money people are not scientists, are they?
Scientists, now, they need real evidence, before they make up their minds...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.19 /  Harrison /  Mills cell instrumentation
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills cell instrumentation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'm setting up a Mills test with a colleague.  Our goal is a simple,
robust experiment which will (possibly) convince us personally that
something is going on.  Please make suggestions.
 
We plan to run an ambient-pressure (open) cell in a stoppered Thermos
ca. 500 mL with a simultaneous resistance control.  I would like to
bubble the exhaust gases through solutions which will react with H2 &
O2 to produce a quantitative chemical record of gas evolution --
ideally a weighable precipitate, but titrations are acceptable.  We
need advice on the chemistry.  Low-tech, low-toxicity preferred!
 
Thanks, all!  -Chuck
 
P.S. - IMHO all participants in recent flame wars should be ashamed of
themselves.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.19 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:44:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello fellow searchers for The Truth,
I crawl out from under my rock and run with my pack of ruthless hyenas, to
bring you this masquerade of objective and impartial reporting etc. Whom shall
we drive out of the country today?
  We have four papers out of FT, and again I wonder at the editor... However,
the long paper by Bush has an acknowledgement, in which he thanks R. Bass,
S. Chubb and E. Storms for discussions, Editor Miley for encouragement and
Southern California Edison for financial support, as well as two anonymous
referees for their comments. So we are told two important things here: FT does
use referees, and cnf does get finance. Bush didn't have to leave the country.
He writes with a scholarly tone, is clearly self-critical, but is forced to a
conclusion many of us will have strong doubts about. But this theory might be
behind recent statements by our friend Jed R, about cnf really being a large
number of hitherto unknown nuclear processes, not just one.
  Arata and Zhang (Zhang is a "she", we find from the authors' photos in the
journal) here publish exactly what they already published in the Japanese
journal. Their "on-off" effect here is just an "off" effect; the neutrons and
heat appear when the PdD is exposed to air and the D rushes out.
 Fugacity is defended qualitatively by Bockris et al, even quoting a Bockris
paper of 1972, which I would have used as an argument against this "theory".
The secret is said to be that what happens between gas particles is not the
same as at the wall, where pressure is measured. And Landau and Lifshits
(spelled consistently "Lifchits", I don't think polyglot Bockris did much of
the writing of this one, I bet he knows some Russian and knows the
transliteration rules).
 Once again, we have Matsumoto, and where, I ask, were the anonymous referees?
Black holes indeed. But there I go again, dropping my mask of objectivity. I
liked the tailed one, though. One of them, I must admit, looked to me like a
microscopic bug, like a mite; I reckon I can see a few legs. No, it's a black
hole.
 Well, on with the show. Michael Swartz, who sometimes posts here, has a
paper, on a 1-D model of a cold fusion cell, an unusual way of looking at it.
No surprising conclusions, but maybe he'll follow up with more.
  Finally, we have Tsarev and Golubnichii, who put in a plug for fractofusion,
pointing out that this was discovered in the USSR in 1986, and might be the
answer Prof. Jones needs for his geological fusion puzzle.
  A couple of patents; one of them now also involving coal. Yes, coal.
 
Back under my rock now. But first:   AOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! Ooh, that feels
good, I love a good howl.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 19-Nov-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 765
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arata Y, Zhang Y-C;                             Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 287.
"Reproducible 'cold' fusion reaction using a complex cathode".
** This is essentially the same paper as published by the authors in Kagu
Yugo Kenkyu 67 (1992) 432, in Japanese. It describes a Pd or Ni cathode
"plasma-sprayed" with a Pd layer. The authors point out that if cnf takes
place, it does so within the cathode, and it is there the temperature should
be measured. Neutron emissions from an electrolysis cell were measured with
two detectors; a (3)He and a BF3 one, with surrounding paraffin blocks and Cd
shielding. A complex Pd cathode, after charging for 240 h, was held in air and
a strong heating effect was observed. A similar cathode but without the extra
Pd layer did not do this. When sand-blasted, this one, too, heated up in air
after being charged again. Thus, an uneven surface favours fusion. Neutron
counts, too, were higher than blanks or runs with H2O, with these sprayed
rods.                                                            Aug-91/Sep-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris JO'M, Chien C-C, Hodko D, Minevski Z;
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 17 (1992) 445.
"Cold fusion as a consequence of high fugacity among hydrogen isotopes".
** Bockris et al here argue for the high-fugacity theory of cold fusion. In
the original FPH paper, FPH calculated, from the overpotential, an equivalent
"pressure" of 1E26 atm. This is supported here, although called fugacity. The
authors refer to 1967 work of Landau and Lifshits, which says that a pressure
exceeding 1E17 atm might cause electron capture by deuterium nuclei and thus
loss of charge. There is some qualitative argument for equating fugacity with
pressure, away from walls. The steep fugacity rise at pressures of around
1E04 atm is still mentioned.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
"A light water excess heat reaction suggests that 'cold fusion' may be
'alkali-hydrogen fusion'".
** Bush here outlines, in a qualitative manner, his disavowal of the theory of
Mills and Farrell (which "is flawed"), and his own theory of how cold fusion
takes place in a Pd or Ni lattice. A multitude of reactions of the kind p + M1
==> M2, and d + M1 ==> M2, are possible, where M1 are alkali metals (as well
as hydrogen isotopes), and M2 are ultrastable (or near-ultrastable) elements
such as (40)Ca, (4)He, etc. This ultrastability, plus the special conditions
in a metal hydride/deuteride lattice, is what enables cold fusion. There is
thus a wide choice of fusion fuels, and the good news is that deuterium is not
needed. In each case, the resulting high energy is dissipated in a kind of
anti-Moessbauer effect, due to the rigidity of the metal lattice at these low
temperatures. FPH were lucky because Li can do it with d. The author's TRM
model (with Eagleton) is invoked along with all this.
 There is experimental proof. Using a Ni cathode, a Pt anode and 0.57M K2CO3
as electrolyte, and a plate of a "Ni alloy", excess heat was found, in
contrast with M&F, whose theory demands light water and a sodium salt (but
using Ni itself). Rb salts, too, do the trick. The reaction with potassium
should yield some Ca as the ash, and in fact 14 microgram (about the right
amount) were found; using a Rb salt, again about the right amount of Sr was
found (3 microgram). This subrevolution within cnf could have immense economic
ramifications, writes Bush.                                      Jul-91/Sep-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 281.
"Searching for tiny black holes during cold fusion".
** The author continues in his efforts to support his Nattoh theory of cold
fusion, which proposes the formation of neutron clusters which collapse by
gravity and then explode. This might also be expected to produce tiny black
holes, and a careful search for these is described here. As before,
post-experiment microscopic analysis of the Pd surface was carried out. The
several figures clearly show black holes, from 10 to 100 mu in diameter, one
of them with a tail. The region of space around this tail has asymmetrical
curvature. Some others show associated other particles. There are six
references, all to prior work by the author.                     Dec-91/Sep-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swartz MR;                                      Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 296.
"Quasi-one-dimensional model of electrochemical loading of isotopic fuel into
a metal".
** A cold fusion electrolysis cell, with a Pt anode, a Pd cathode and
intervening electrolyte, is modelled as a 1-D system for the transport of
deuterium ions. The flux of deuterons in the direction of the model is
derived, using 18 equations in all. The implications for cold fusion are that
loading and D2 formation are mutually antagonistic, and the crystal structure
of the Pd is important (defects, dislocations, zeolite-like diffusion of
deuterons in the lattice), as well as its overall shape and small surface
features such as spikes.                                         Jan-92/Sep-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA, Golubnichii PI;       Sov. Phys. - Lebedev Inst. Rep. (3)(1991) 22.
(Original Russian: Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. (3)(1991) 24.)
"Geological manifestations of cold fusion".
** The actual role of cold fusion in the Earth is not yet clear, since we do
not yet fully understand the cold fusion mechanism, write the authors. But the
geological level of fusion suggested by Jones is far too high, and dd fusion
contributes more than pd fusion. One problem with any scenario is that steady
fusion rates over long periods are required, whereas experiments with Pd or Ti
show that the effect dies away after some time. This can be understood in
terms of fractofusion, first demonstrated in 1986 by Soviet workers. This
reasoning also has importance to geological tritium and (3)He.        Jan-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents/Appl.; file cnf-pat:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamo K, Watanabe M, Niikura J, Taniguchi N, Baba M, Kawamura K;
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04 93,693, 3-Aug-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(18):180351 (1992).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion".
** "In a cold-nuclear-fusion app., which has a cathode that adsorbs a H
isotope (e.g. D), and an anode from a metal (or its oxide or hydroxide)
immersed in an electrolyte contg. a H isotope, the cathode has a part where
c.d. is locally increased. The cathode may locally contain an impurity (alkali
or alk.-earth metal)". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heredy LA;                              PCT Int. Appl. WO 92 08,232, 2-Nov-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(18):180353 (1992).
"Electrostatically promoted cold fusion process".
** "In the title process D gas is introduced and maintained under pressure in
a reactor contg. a relatively large no. of electrode pairs sepd. from each
other by thin-walled insulator members, connected to a variable high voltage
d.c. power source. At least one set of electrode pairs comprises a transition
metal, such as Pd, which is capable of forming a deuteride. Sufficient voltage
is applied to the electrodes to trigger a nuclear fusion reaction in the D
which is absorbed in the transition metal electrodes and excess heat of the
reaction is captured by suitable heat exchangers operatively assocd. with the
reactor. Both sets of the electrodes may comprise a transition metal and both
are preferably provided in a powder form to increase surface. The polarity of
the electrodes is reversed periodically to maintain or promote the fusion
reaction and the powd. electrodes are agitated from time-to-time to bring
fresh transition metal powder in contact with the insulator membranes".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sakawa M, Takagi R, Numata H;  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04 115,188, 6-Sep-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117(18):180352 (1992).
"Cold nuclear fusion".
** "In cold nuclear fusion, coal is heated in the presence of a pressurised D
gas". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.19 /  Rothwell /  Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:46:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dick Blue asks:
 
"I feel the need for a refresher course on what Yamaguchi's experiment
actually involves... Is this in vacuum or in liquid?"
 
A vacuum. I got his full paper recently. I will mail you a copy.
 
 
I faxed the comments of Steve Jones to Yamaguchi, and I summarized the
comments with the following question (in English):
 
"You told Nate Hoffman that there was no glass in the vacuum chamber; Later
on, you told him that there is a 5 cm glass vessel in the chamber. Which is
correct?"
 
Just as I expected, it was a misunderstanding based on a language problem.
That sort of thing happens frequently, as we translators well know. By the
way, if anyone here has a nagging question about a Japanese scientist's work,
I recommend that you be Mr. Nice Guy and fax him a specific question, in
plain, straightforward English. Those of us who struggle with a second
language know that a written question is much easier to deal with, and
respond to, than a verbal question on the phone. Anyway, Yamaguchi responded
in English, and here is what he said, verbatim:
 
 
        "Actually, our vacuum chamber has three glass windows. But during the
measurement, all of the window was sealed like this."
 
[A nifty schematic of a glass porthole, here. It is a pity I cannot upload...
>From outside to inside the chamber: it shows a stainless steel cover, 0.6 cm
air at 1 atm, a 5 cm thick glass window, and then the vacuum area. There are
two 6 cm ports, and one 13.5 cm.]
 
        "The stainless steel caps are for shutting the light as well as for
preventing the glass of touching abundant air. Within the space between glass
and the cap, there is at most 100 cc air. It was extremely difficult for me
to answer such a way in English for short time, so I answered simply 'no,'
which means No effect for leaking 4He through glasses."
 
        "Later on, I correctly answered to Hoffman and also told him that we
showed real evidence for no effect of leaking 4He (see results for Pd:H). If
you have further questions to me, please fax me."
 
 
I hope this makes it clear. Let me take the liberty of extrapolating from his
paper, this letter, and conversations I had with him, to explain a bit more:
 
There are glass porthole windows in the vacuum chamber, but the experiment is
not in a glass container and there is no glass in the experimental apparatus
that is inserted into the chamber.
 
There is no sign of any leak through the glass window during extensive
testing of the vacuum chamber.
 
The helium-4 is strongly correlated with bursts of heat during the
palladium - deuterium experiments. When similar bursts of heat occur during
palladium - hydrogen experiments, he does not detect helium-4, so the glass
could not be playing a role, since it could not selectively dump in a bunch
of helium with a deuterium chip but not with a hydrogen chip. I gather he is
going to tune the detector to try to figure out the Pd:H experiments.
 
The glass window is separated from the heat producing chip by a high vacuum,
so I cannot imagine how the heat from the chip could instantaneously cause
the glass to dump 4He into the vacuum at rates as high as 10^16 atoms per
second for three hours.
 
 
Terry Bollinger remarks:
 
"By the way, I truly do not think the kind of "ignore any problems, she's
right, she's right!" approach that Mr. Rothwell has taken in defending
Dr. Notoya..."
 
Incorrect! Wrong! First of all it isn't my "defense." It is her's, I am
merely translating her comments into English. Second, her defense has always
been, and remains:
 
        If you think this experiment is wrong, bring a meter, or an
        oscilloscope, or any gadget you want, and measure the resistance, the
        input power, or the heat yourself. The demo unit will be open for anyone
        to examine in any fashion they would like, for up to three days at
        M.I.T. The lab experiment, which is far better and more convincing, is
        also open to the public. If you want maximum details, go to Hokkaido.
 
This is the extreme opposite from an "ignore any problem" approach. Let us
have a reality check here: she is doing a public demonstration, plus she has
a paper, of course. These is no way on earth any scientist could possibly be
more open, and more candid, and more willing to expose an error than this. In
four years of CF, Notoya is the first scientist I have heard of who is
willing to boldly stick her neck out this far. She will show the world the
device, and she offers to let any other scientist poke around with it. If
Terry Bollinger, or someone else here, knows a better, more open way to
expose an error, let him tell us.
 
This is absolutely the opposite of a cover-up, cop out, or a plea to ignore
problems. She is publicly challenging anyone on earth to step up and *expose*
any problem.
 
Furthermore, if anyone wishes to replicate the experiment, they are invited
to contact me. I will e-mail the protocol Gene Mallove and I wrote, which
both Notoya and Srinivasan used.
 
Finally, let me add that it is cheaper to fly from L.A. to Hokkaido than from
L.A. to Boston, so a trip to the lab is not an outlandish suggestion. Also,
let me make it clear that I am a translator and facilitator of information. I
am not Dr. Notoya. If her experiment turns out to be in error, that is no
skin off my teeth. Lots of experiments turn out to be wrong.
 
 
A note about "credibility" -
 
I have been very upset here because Dieter Britz called Notoya and me a
fraud. That has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with science. It is
way, w-a-a-a-y beyond the bounds of reasonable, acceptable discourse. You can
call me uninformed, or a fool, or whatever you want, but if you say that I
have deliberately and consciously perpetrated a fraud, you step over the
line, and I will object in the strongest possible terms. Yesterday, someone
objected to me by private e-mail, saying that I had lost "credibility." I
don't buy that. I was publicly charged with fraud, and I made a VERY LOUD
NOISE. I did not lose credibility, okay? Would any of you people ignore such
a charge, or just let it slide by with a mild mannered objection? I hope not.
 
Furthermore, this 'charge' is illogical nonsense, as anyone with an ounce of
sense can see. I have no motive to make a laughingstock of myself in public.
Everyone knows that a fraud would come to a crashing end on December 3rd, so
why would I seek three weeks of glory? More to the point, why would Notoya,
Enyo and Mizuno?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:00:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C24B5835131F203349@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>Hello fellow searchers for The Truth,
>==============================================================================
>                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                           Additions 19-Nov-1992
>                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>                     Total no. of journal papers: 765
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
>"A light water excess heat reaction suggests that 'cold fusion' may be
>'alkali-hydrogen fusion'".
>** Bush here outlines, in a qualitative manner, his disavowal of the theory of
>Mills and Farrell (which "is flawed"), and his own theory of how cold fusion
>takes place in a Pd or Ni lattice. A multitude of reactions of the kind p + M1
>==> M2, and d + M1 ==> M2, are possible, where M1 are alkali metals (as well
>as hydrogen isotopes), and M2 are ultrastable (or near-ultrastable) elements
>such as (40)Ca, (4)He, etc. This ultrastability, plus the special conditions
>in a metal hydride/deuteride lattice, is what enables cold fusion. There is
>thus a wide choice of fusion fuels, and the good news is that deuterium is not
>needed. In each case, the resulting high energy is dissipated in a kind of
>anti-Moessbauer effect, due to the rigidity of the metal lattice at these low
>temperatures. FPH were lucky because Li can do it with d. The author's TRM
>model (with Eagleton) is invoked along with all this.
> There is experimental proof. Using a Ni cathode, a Pt anode and 0.57M K2CO3
>as electrolyte, and a plate of a "Ni alloy", excess heat was found, in
>contrast with M&F, whose theory demands light water and a sodium salt (but
>using Ni itself). Rb salts, too, do the trick. The reaction with potassium
>should yield some Ca as the ash, and in fact 14 microgram (about the right
>amount) were found; using a Rb salt, again about the right amount of Sr was
>found (3 microgram). This subrevolution within cnf could have immense economic
>ramifications, writes Bush.                                      Jul-91/Sep-92
 
Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
duplicated.
 
The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 /  Rothwell /  Light Water Protocol
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Light Water Protocol
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:41:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I e-mailed this to Chuck Harrison, I don't know why I did not think to
just post it right here. Anyway, here it is, with some new notes on top.
 
This is "ASCII" version of the protocol. I have another one with nice
WordPerfect formatting and footnotes. The only substantial changes I have
to make are:
 
1. You should use "spongy" nickel, such as is commonly used as a catalyst.
Contact Gene, Bush or Srinivasan for a sample. Notoya probably cannot
provide a sample, because she manufactures her cathodes in a small forge,
and she is back-ordered. Ordinary, off-the-shelf nickel often does not
work. You might call:
 
National Standard Company
1-800-354-7844
 
Ask for "Fibrex Nickel Fiber Mat," which is described as follows: "80% fiber,
20% powder. 95% porosity. 20 micron. 0.05735 grams per cm squared."
 
2. Mills says that only low current density will work. That is evidently false.
Notoya and others are running at a much higher current density, I believe.
 
Call Noninsky, Mallove, Notoya, Bush, or Srinivasan for help if you do not
succeed. Or contact me, I know several other people who have done it on an
"informal" basis and have not published. One of them in your area might be
willing to lend a hand.
 
- Jed
 
 
Protocols for Conducting Light Water Excess Energy Experiments
 
January 28, 1992
 
Assembled by Eugene F. Mallove from published and unpublished
material.
 
Uploaded by Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court #312-F
Chamblee, GA 30341
USA
Phone: 404-451-9890 * Fax: 404-458-2404.
 
Notes from Jed Rothwell:
 
1. This document is intended to augment the Fusion Technology paper by Mills
& Kneizys. Fusion Technology is carried in many major libraries, for
example, the Boston Public Library, and the M.I.T. science library.
 
2. Subscripts are shown with square brackets: H[2]O.
 
3. Underlined portions are shown between underline characters "_".
 
 
Purpose:
 
Many people have heard of the light water excess energy experiment reported
by Mills and Kneizys in Fusion Technology. (1) By January, 1992, this excess
energy effect had been reproduced by at least a half-dozen other groups.
Even though the experiment is simple and apparently highly reproducible,
many would-be experimenters might be deterred from trying it because of the
well-known history of difficulties with the heavy water palladium-platinum
approach of Fleischmann and Pons. Even though Mills et al do not think that
their excess energy is due to "cold fusion" -- they have an elaborate theory
of shrinking hydrogen atoms to explain the excess power -- their experiment
_was_ inspired by the Fleischmann-Pons announcement. The purpose of this
brief collection of experimental protocols is to encourage others to try the
Mills experiment and perhaps go beyond it in their investigations.
 
 
How to Begin
 
The first order of business is to read the experimental part of the Mills-
Kneizys paper in Fusion Technology to familiarize yourself with the basic
approach. Don't try any fancy pulsed input power in the beginning. Stick
with continuous (DC) input power. Don't be concerned either about the exotic
theory of Mills and Kneizys. Their theory may be wrong or right, but it's
the validity of the experiment that's important at the moment. Other
theories -- including "conventional" cold fusion mechanisms working with the
trace amount of deuterium -- might be invoked to explain the excess energy
in this light water experiment.
 
 
Conditions that should be employed:
 
1. The volume of solution could be from 100 ml to 1,000 ml in a vacuum-
jacketed glass dewar cell. Note: Some people have tried a non-dewar cell --
a heavily insulated glass beaker with plastic materials to give the same
insulating dewar effect. The cell should be closed at the top with a tapered
rubber stopper.
 
2. The electrolyte should be: 0.6 M aqueous K[2]CO[3] of high purity.
 
3. The electrolyte should be stirred continuously with a magnetic stirring
bar to ensure temperature uniformity.
 
4. The nickel cathode does not apparently have to have the exact
configuration of the "spiral wound" sheet described by Mills-Kneizys in
their paper. It could be just a flat sheet of nickel, but the ratio of the
_total surface area_ (i.e. both sides) of the nickel cathode to the surface
area of the platinum anode should be no less than 20/1.
 
5. The anode is of platinum wire, 1 mm diameter. Mills and Kneizys used a
spiral-shaped piece 10 cm long.
 
6. Above all, avoid impurities and contamination of the cell materials,
whether in handling or in environmental conditions. Particularly insure that
no organic contaminants are in the cell or on the electrodes. (Don't forget
that remnant soap film could be a problem!)
 
7. Dr. V.C. Noninski, who has replicated this light water work (2),
recommends:
 
"Before starting the experiment, mechanically scour the platinum anode with
steel wool, soak overnight in concentrated HNO[3], and then rinse with
distilled water. Remove the nickel cathode from its container with rubber
gloves, and cut and bend it in such a way that no organic substances are
transferred to the nickel surface. Preferably, dip the nickel cathode into
the working solution under an electrolysis current, and _avoid leaving the
nickel cathode in the working solution in the absence of an electrolysis
current._"
 
8. Before attempting to run the cell to demonstrate excess energy, reverse
the cell polarity for about one-hour to anodize the nickel cathode. However,
Professor John Farrell of the Mills group has said that 0.5 hour of this
treatment is adequate. He says this "electropolishes the Ni."
 
9. Use distilled H[2]O.
 
10. There have been claims and counter claims about whether the experiment
will work in "closed-cell" mode with a catalytic recombiner. Begin your work
without one to be on the safe side. Professor Farrell and, independently,
Dr. Noninski have measured the oxygen and hydrogen evolution in the absence
of a recombiner and find these gases in the expected quantities, i.e.
unsuspected recombination is NOT causing the excess power effect.
 
11. The current density on the cathode should be on the order of _one
milliamp per square centimeter_. This is very low compared to the Pons-
Fleischmann heavy water experiments.
 
12. To calibrate the cell, introduce a pure resistance heating of known
power by using a 100 ohm precision resistor encased in teflon tubing.
 
 
Simple Analysis:
 
     The basic goal of the experiment is to demonstrate that significantly
more heat emerges from the cell under electrolysis than the joule heating of
the cell. This is how the basic analysis works:
 
      The cell has a particular heating coefficient (HC), which can be
determined by employing (in the absence of electrolysis) _pure resistance
heating_ by an ordinary precision resistor with an applied voltage. One
might find, for example, that the HC of a particular cell is say 25 C/watt.
This means that for a watt of input power, the temperature of the liquid
contents of the cell should rise 25 C above ambient. In this regard, keeping
the ambient temperature stable is important; this is a source of possible
error in the experiment.
 
     The heat input to the cell that would ordinarily be expected from
electrolysis (the so-called "joule heating") is given by the expression:
 
(V - 1.48)I
 
where V is the voltage applied to the cell, and I is the current passing
though. The "I x 1.48" quantity here is the power lost by electrolytic
production of oxygen and hydrogen. Because the cell is open to the
atmosphere, this "power" in the form of potentially recoverable chemical
energy simply escapes the cell.
 
     If, for example, the current is 80 mA and the applied voltage is 2.25
volts, the joule heat input to the cell would be 61.6 mW. [An example used
by Professor Farrell]. If the HC were 25 C/watt, the expected _temperature
rise_ of the cell due to the 61.6 mW input power would be 25 x 0.0616 = 1.54
C. If the temperature is observed to rise any more than 1.54 C, an unknown
excess power source may exist in the cell. If, for example, the temperature
were observed to rise 3.08 C, rather than only 1.54C, this would represent
100% more heat than 61.6 mW coming from the cell, that is, 133.2 mW.
 
     Excess powers on the order of 100 to 300%, calculated in this manner,
are said to be readily achievable. As Professor Farrell has said, "We have
never NOT gotten the effect." [With these general conditions.]
 
Caveat:
 
     This has been a tutorial for beginners by someone who has not done the
experiment himself, but who has talked to the people who have. You should be
able to go off on your own now and find bigger and better ways to do this.
You might begin by trying pulsed power input, which supposedly increases the
output. If you are a cold fusion skeptic, you should really relish this
experiment! It offers an easily reproducible effect. If you can find a
_trivial_ explanation for the excess power, think how famous you'll be! More
likely, you'll become a "Believer" -- or at least a very frustrated
skeptic -- so watch out!
 
 
1. Mills, Randell L. and Steven P. Kneizys, "Excess Heat Production by the
Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte and the
Implications for Cold Fusion," Fusion Technology, Vol.20, August 1991,
pp.65-81.
 
2. Noninski, V.C., "Excess Heat During the Electrolysis of a Light Water
Solution of K[2]CO[3] With a Nickel Cathode," Fusion Technology, accepted
for publication in the March 1992 issue.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / John Logajan /  Sodium or Potassium
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sodium or Potassium
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:41:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
> Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
> There is experimental proof. Using a Ni cathode, a Pt anode and 0.57M K2CO3
>as electrolyte, and a plate of a "Ni alloy", excess heat was found, in
>contrast with M&F, whose theory demands light water and a sodium salt
 
Farrell's posted procedure on this very forum suggested K2CO3.  I remember
vividly because I bought and own 10 pounds of the stuff.
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 /  vnoninski@FSCV /  Re: S.Jones' posting of November 19
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' posting of November 19
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:41:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
It seems that exactness  in his  statements  is  not  of  primary
concern  to  S.Jones.  For instance, on November  19 he writes:
 
"I endeavored to correct my mistake immediately when I learned of
it, twice before on the net  (this  is  my  third  try  with  Dr.
Noninski)".
 
What does this statemen mean ?
 
Correcting  of  his  mistake  was  not  such  innocent   an   act
as  S.Jones  would  like  to  present   it.   He  "endeavored  to
correct" the figures he posted only  after   he   was  shown  and
"learned"   that   these   figures    do    not    support    his
sensational "discovery" of Notoya's "mistake".
 
Further, under the circumstances  it  would   probably  be   more
prudent   for   the   author   to    restrain    himself     from
statements like : "But the fact remains that much  of  the  joule
heating of the control cell occured outside the control cell,  in
the very thin lead wire ..." since it is  not   at   all  obvious
that  such  a  fact  "remains".  As   noted,   the   measurements
reported  after   the   criticism   contradict   those   reported
before   the criticism and this provides an  obvious  reason   to
suspect  that the latter  figures,  reported  from  measurements,
were in  fact  made up to sustain the initial claim for "mistake"
in Notoya's cell.
 
"Contributions" of this type, based  on  adjusting  the  data  to
support one's point at any rate, are  the  least  needed for  the
discussions of  scientific  matters  and  particularly  for   the
debate  about  the reality of the excess heat during electrolysis
of  H2O  solutions with Ni  cathodes,  claimed   by   Fleischmann
et  al.
 
In  addition  to  reinforcing  my  conviction  that  S.Jones  has
deliberately adjusted the data, after my criticism (obviously the
change of data was made to support his  initial  denouncement  of
Notoya's experiment), from his posting of November 19  I  further
learned with astonishment  that  he,  admittedly,  is  ready   to
publish  and make ultimate statements based on data that has  not
been critically analysed by him. It was enough for  him  to  just
hear some figures from some student and the  moment  he  realized
the figures fit his goals he rushed to publish them.
 
How     can     one     be     certain     that     in      other
publications   and  statements  of  S.Jones  the  author  is  not
similarly selective when choosing the "facts" he publishes ?
 
Truly yours,
 
Vesselin  Noninski                            November  19,  1992
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvnoninski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 /  Britz /  RE: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:15:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In my update, which was written in a bit of a hurry, I wrote
> Fugacity is defended qualitatively by Bockris et al, even quoting a Bockris
>paper of 1972, which I would have used as an argument against this "theory".
>The secret is said to be that what happens between gas particles is not the
>same as at the wall, where pressure is measured. And Landau and Lifshits
>(spelled consistently "Lifchits", I don't think polyglot Bockris did much of
>the writing of this one, I bet he knows some Russian and knows the
>transliteration rules).
 
This is of course hacked off. It should go on with: "are quoted as saying
that at pressures exceeding 1E17 atm, you might get nuclear effects due to
electron capture by nuclei".
Also, it was "colour", not "clour" of the gold on the Pd that disappeared in
the earlier Yamaguchi. I must be more careful and not try to rush these out.
 
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
>In article <C24B5835131F203349@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
> writes:
>>
>>Hello fellow searchers for The Truth,
>>==============================================================================
>>                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                           Additions 19-Nov-1992
>>                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>>                     Total no. of journal papers: 765
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Bush RT;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
>>"A light water excess heat reaction suggests that 'cold fusion' may be
>>'alkali-hydrogen fusion'".
>> [...]
 
>Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
>duplicated.
>The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
>my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
>investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.
 
Yes; but before others jump in and express their doubts, let me add that Bush
himself throws some doubt on this. He rightly points out that Ca is pretty
ubiquitous and might well be contamination from the cell. He is pretty
careful. In another place, he did find a trace of Sr, which presumably would
not be so likely as a contaminant. But the analysis method is pretty
insensitive and needed a few tricks, so this, too, needs confirmation, at the
very least.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 /  Britz /  RE: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:16:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>A note about "credibility" -
>I have been very upset here because Dieter Britz called Notoya and me a
>fraud. That has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with science. It is
>way, w-a-a-a-y beyond the bounds of reasonable, acceptable discourse. You can
>call me uninformed, or a fool, or whatever you want, but if you say that I
>have deliberately and consciously perpetrated a fraud, you step over the
>line, and I will object in the strongest possible terms. Yesterday, someone
>objected to me by private e-mail, saying that I had lost "credibility." I
>don't buy that. I was publicly charged with fraud, and I made a VERY LOUD
>NOISE. I did not lose credibility, okay? Would any of you people ignore such
>a charge, or just let it slide by with a mild mannered objection? I hope not.
 
Jed, if you check back, it was you who used the word "fraud", not me. I agree
that it is too strong a word, and I used words like "PR", "false-front", etc.
This is not the same. The idea I am getting across here is that the demo was
set up by someone who believes in the effect, but for the purposes of the
demo, helped it along a bit, to counteract the poor reproducibility. I still
say this is the only way I can interpret an ultra-thin wire used the way it
was. Not fraud, no. I'll admit I did suggest a few more ways to help it
along. After all, if Notoya can reproduce this effect so reliably that she
can set up a public demo, then this, not Yamaguchi, should have been headline
news at the conference and elsewhere. This would be the Big One, the
breakthrough y'all have been waiting for. Why was it not taken as such?
 
 I am sorry if I upset you, mate - maybe I laid it on a bit hard. You bring
out the worst in me, with your almost fanatical insistence that every cnf
claim must absolutely be true, no doubt. HH Bauer has corrected us a few times
in this group on how a "real scientist" actually works; however, the average
scientist does exercise a high level of self-criticism and care, and does not
cry EUREKA everytime an experiment seems to produce a shred of evidence. If
you were to take this attitude, you wouldn't cause the hackles to go up, as
you do.
 You have some good examples among cnf researchers. As I have just posted,
Bush makes some pretty far-out claims, but does express himself very carefully
and admits some doubts. He holds back with his Eurekas, and double-checks.
Jones, too, works like this. I expect him, any day, to make a null neutron
measurement and say so in public. Unfortunately, some of the big players in
this game are not so straight, and this reflects very badly on cnf as a real,
believable phenomenon - or a bunch of real phenomena, as you'd say.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:16:29 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921119171505_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>        ...      she [Notoya] is doing a public demonstration, plus she has
>a paper, of course. These is no way on earth any scientist could possibly be
>more open, and more candid, and more willing to expose an error than this. In
 
This is true.
 
>four years of CF, Notoya is the first scientist I have heard of who is
>willing to boldly stick her neck out this far. She will show the world the
>device, and she offers to let any other scientist poke around with it.
 
This is not being fair to Steve Jones.
 
Steve was, by far, the first scientist to allow other scientists to make
measurements with his device.  He not only allowed all of us to see his
lab notebooks from day 1 and allowed visiting teams in his lab, he set
up the experiment in another lab (with Moshe Gai, a sceptic, at Yale)
within 6 months (I know the results were semi public by October) of the
original announcement.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / Bruce Dunn /  Liquid Helium Prices
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Liquid Helium Prices
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:47:38 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

        I am in need of a figure for the cost of liquid helium in ton lots.
Does anyone have such a figure, or failing that a figure for smaller amounts?
The figure should include both the cost of the helium itself, and the cost of
liquifying it (ie. the cost if the gaseous helium were not recovered and
reliquified after liquid helium boiloff).  I presume that liquid helium must
be a commodity item at establishments using large superconducting magnets.
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / Jim Bowery /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 08:12:14 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> >found (3 microgram). This subrevolution within cnf could have immense econom
> >ramifications, writes Bush.                                      Jul-91/Sep-
>
> Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
> duplicated.
>
> The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
> my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
> investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.
>
 
It is especially interesting in that a) doing good quantitative
analysis on Ca is relatively easy and b) the heat is correlated.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / Jon Webb /  Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:58:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <921119171505_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   There are glass porthole windows in the vacuum chamber, but the experiment is
   not in a glass container and there is no glass in the experimental apparatus
   that is inserted into the chamber.
 
   There is no sign of any leak through the glass window during extensive
   testing of the vacuum chamber.
 
Jed, thanks very much for finding this out from Yamaguchi.  Posts like
this are the reason I still read your stuff.
 
As I understand the problem, though, sealing the glass from the
outside is not the issue.  The problem is that there may be 4He within
the glass itself.  This is then released when the vacuum chamber is
filled with deuterium or hydrogen.  This is the effect Paneth
discovered, which explained where the helium was coming from in their
system, when they originally claimed cold fusion. -- J
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yamaguchi's Paper and Resp. To S.J.
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:18:53 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <921119171505_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger remarks:
>
> | "By the way, I truly do not think the kind of "ignore any problems, she's
> | right, she's right!" approach that Mr. Rothwell has taken in defending
> | Dr. Notoya..."
>
> Incorrect! Wrong! First of all it isn't my "defense." It is her's, I am
> merely translating her comments into English. Second, her defense has
> always been, and remains:
>
> | If you think this experiment is wrong, bring a meter, or an
> | oscilloscope, or any gadget you want, and measure the resistance, the
> | input power, or the heat yourself. The demo unit will be open for anyone
> | to examine in any fashion they would like, for up to three days at
> | M.I.T. The lab experiment, which is far better and more convincing, is
> | also open to the public. If you want maximum details, go to Hokkaido.
>
> This is the extreme opposite from an "ignore any problem" approach...
 
Fair enough.  I look forward to hearing the results of the MIT demo and
examination period, and I suspect many others do also.  And I wish Dr.
Notoya well with regards to reproducibility.  Such public demonstrations
are certainly going in the right direction to achieve such a goal.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 / E Smith /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
     
Originally-From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:03:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <4iPJuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
>tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>> >found (3 microgram). This subrevolution within cnf could have immense econom
>> >ramifications, writes Bush.                                      Jul-91/Sep-
>>
>> Immense economic ramifications is a bit understated, if his results could be
>> duplicated.
>>
>> The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have
>> my doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of
>> investigation. Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting.
>
>It is especially interesting in that a) doing good quantitative
>analysis on Ca is relatively easy and b) the heat is correlated.
 
Hmmm ... I'm not trained in this area at all, but the thought comes
to mind:  IFF the theory is true, is there any isotope of alkali metal
that, when transformed per the theory, would produce a clearly identifiable
isotope of target material?  That is, could one use the equivalent of
radioactive tracers to prove the transition?  (I know, the isotope could
change the reaction such that it didn't happen... but a positive should
be easy to show.  Either with a radioactive starting material yielding
a surprising drop in electrolite radioactivity or with the appearance
of a surprising increase in an odd isotope of Ca or Sr that would not
be common in nature...  Potasium has a couple of common isotopes, why
not just start with an isotopicaly pure material and see what the 'ash'
is, then re-run with mixed isotopes and again see what the 'ash' is.
If it is the same in both cases, something would start to look fishy...)
 
 
--
 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
 
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
 
I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenems cudfnE cudlnSmith cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yet another reply to V. Noninski
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another reply to V. Noninski
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:17:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The voltage on the cell with Ni cathode *really* was approx. 1.5 V greater
than the voltage on the resistance-wire-heated control cell.  In a 17 Nov
1992 posting, V. Noninski claims I used "an apparently dreamed-up increase in
voltage to compensate for what he calls 'hydrolysis loss', having nothing
to do with the measurement of his student."
BYU graduate student David Buehler made this posting on 18 Nov:
"Because there was question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's electrolysis
cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he explained, the
voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than resistive
cell.  This was all explained with little signs in front of the two cells.
{at the Nagoya meeting}"
Yet on 20 Nov., V. Noninski continues to assert that my figures "were in fact
made up to sustain the initial claim for 'mistake' in Notoya's cell."
This is getting ridiculous.  First of all, David Buehler is not a liar.
Secondly, there were numerous witnesses to the very thin
wire going into the control cell.  At my suggestion, David Buehler made
careful measurements of the resistance of the wires entering the control cell,
with Dr. Notoya's help, as well as the resistance of the materials inside the
cell.  Then we replicated the resistances involved here, to show that a 10 C
difference in cells (as we saw at the meeting)
could indeed result from the resistances as measured.  It is
not the case, as Noninski asserts, that "it was enough for him [Jones] to just
hear some figures from some student and the moment he realized the figures fit
his goals he rushed to publish them."  (Nov. 20 posting by V. Noninski.)
There are others who can explain that Dr. Notoya did, in fact, have approx.
1.5 V higher on the cell with the Ni cathode, as she reported on the signs in
front of the two cells.  As my next witness, I call on none other than Jed
Rothwell, who in his Nov. posting on the prescribed protocol for just this
type of Ni-cathode cell, states:
   "The heat input to the cell that would ordinarily be expected from
electrolysis (the so-called "joule heating") is given by the expression:
(V - 1.48) I
where V is the voltage applied to the cell, and I is the current passing
through.  The "IX1.48" quantity here is the power lost by electrolytic
production of oxygen and hydrogen.   Because the cell is open to the
atmosphere, this "power" in the form of potentially recoverable chemical
energy simply escapes the cell."  Thus, the voltage on the electrolysis
cell was adjusted 1.48 V higher than the V on the resistance-heated control,
to balance the joule-heating in the two cells to permit comparison based
on temperature differences of the two cells.
V. Noninski states on 20 Nov. "my conviction that S.Jones has deliberately
adjusted the data, after my criticism (obviously the change of data was made
to support his initial denouncement of Notoya's experiment..."   Such
 statements,
in the face of postings by David Buehler (who is certainly no liar, Mr.
Noninski) to the contrary, and even Jed Rothwell (although Jed is speaking of
experiments generically) are unreasonable.
Respectfully if elegiacally,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 /  Rothwell /  Light Water Replications
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Light Water Replications
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:21:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas H. Kunich comments about the work of Bush and Eagleton:
 
"The question is: Is anyone trying to duplicate this work? While I have my
doubts, this at least looks somewhat promising as an avenue of investigation.
Finding calcium ash is pretty interesting."
 
Yes. Notoya's replication of Bush's work is what caused the recent brouhaha in
this forum.
 
Let me review the history of this, just to bring everyone up to speed here:
 
Bush and Eagleton use a light water - nickel cell. Their experiments were
prompted by reports from Mills & Kneizys, and Noninski. After Bush replicated,
five other groups in the U.S. told me privately that they had also replicated,
getting about 30% excess heat, in most cases. The best results that I know of,
as of today, are reported by Mills, and by Thermacore, Inc, which is a
military contractor that specializes in thermal engineering. They get 900%
excess, as reported in Business Week magazine, Oct. 26 issue, page 88. I know
very little about Thermacore, I have no paper from them. However a high
ranking scientist in the U.S. military who is a friend of mine tells me that
he has worked with Thermacore for years, and they are experts at measuring
heat. He visited them, and described their experiment to me, and it sounded
convincing.
 
The news of these replications reached me last winter, and prompted me to send
the light water protocol and copies of papers by Mills, Noninski and Bush to a
large number of workers throughout the world, asking them to try it. To my
knowledge, only four groups tried the experiment, but all four replicated with
very little trouble, and reported at Nagoya. Three are in BARC, India, who's
work was reported by Srinivasan, and one was in Hokkaido. It is possible that
other groups tried, but did not report back to me.
 
For more details, see the Nagoya Conference Abstracts:
 
"Tritium and Excess Heat Generation During Electrolysis of Aqueous Solutions
of Alkali Salts with Nickel Cathode," M. Srinivasan et al. (et al 8 others!)
 
"Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of K2CO3 Solution with Ni Electrodes,"
Notoya and Enyo
 
Bush reports finding calcium, and so does Notoya. Bush has also observed other
transmutations, with other salts, like strontium carbonate. I am not aware if
anyone else has tried replicating these other results. Many people point out
that calcium is a common contaminant.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Yamaguchi and 4He
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi and 4He
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:22:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think there are still some points of confusion as to whether and to
what extent the Helium observed by Yamaguchi can be a simple contaminant.
What Jed has relayed to us is the assurance that there is "No effect for
leaking 4He through glasses."  What this clearly indicates is that
Yamaguchi still is not in touch with the ways in which glass can be a
source of the helium he is observing.  The 4He need not be coming through
the glass.  The glass itself may be a reservoir for helium.  However, this
possibility becomes academic if the quantity of helium is very large.
So how much helium is Yamaguchi finding?  Jed gives us numbers like
10^16 atoms per second and a time period of something like 10^4 seconds.
Unfortunately these two numbers don't go together.  In fact it is hard
to make much sense of the 10^16 atoms per second as being indicative
of the helium production rate.
 
Since this experiment is conducted in "vacuum" it is time to give Jed
a little review of what that word means.  Vacuum is any pressure below
normal atmospheric pressure with the composition of the residual gas
completely unspecified.  Whenever I hear a claim that someone has
detected helium at very high levels in a situation where deuterium
is likely to be the dominant species, a red flag goes up.  Does
Yamaguchi no what he is doing when he tries to varify the presence
of helium in a deuterium atmosphere?  If he is using a mass spec I
would like to see a listing of the partial pressures for everything
and a plot of the peaks in the region of mass 4.
 
If we take Yamaguchi's observations at face value, it would seem that
the dueterium experiments produce enough helium to be conmensurate with
kilojoules of nuclear energy, but that the same heating is seen with
hydrogen.  However, the hydrogen experiment produces no helium.  Of
course his measurements of the energy released are nonexistant so
there is lots of wiggle room left.  Of course one possibility is
that those 10^16 helium atoms per second were evolved along with
10^16 high energy gammas per second in a reaction that is very
inefficient at "heating".  Of course no one bothered to have a
suitable radiation detector present when this occurred.  When is
he going to get serious?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 /  /  Comments on Natoya and McKubre
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Natoya and McKubre
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:22:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here is a prediction on the Natoya experiment.  When the open experiment is
carefully done, with good instrumentation, proper wire size, and the 1.48*I
correction for the Nickel cell; excess heat will be seen.  When done in closed
form, for a very long time, with the energy balance measured from the start of
the experiment, and with equally good instrumentation; the experiment will be
null.
 
Thomas Kunich asks if anyone has tried to duplicate R.T. Bush.  Similar
experiments were reported by me here January - March of this year.  I did not
do all the versions of the Bush experiment, but I did do the Mills experiment
on which the Bush work is based.  This is also similar to the Natoya
experiment.  My results were that there are problems in assuming that the
1.48*I correction is valid.  The problem that I have with the Bush work is
that Bush fills up journals with long papers that are very short on
experimental detail.  (This is about my limit for a "flame".)  I contrast the
Bush work with the McKubre work, where I find many little details of
experimental technique which demonstrate to me that his work is first class.
 
Again I would like to complement Jones and Buehler for excellent work in
pointing out problems with the Natoya demonstration.  While they did not get
everything right the first time, as they digested the information that they
had, they put up corrections until everything possible was presented.  I
prefer this to waiting a long time until they were absolutely sure (which is
never) before reporting.  The danger in not reporting a suspicion is that some
of us (like me with Mills and Ying) may rush off and expend resources trying
to duplicate a bad experiment.
 
I had a very interesting meeting with Mike McKubre in Washington D.C. Tuesday
Nov. 17.  There were only a few of us present so that I got to question him
extensively.  My opinion remains that he is doing very good work, and that his
measurement technique is first class.  I learned only a few new things that
are not in the Como proceedings paper which I recommend to you all.
 
After thinking about the meeting for some time I conclude that while McKubre
freely answered every question, he did not answer questions that were not
asked.  It is thus likely that he has un-revealed interesting results.  I
believe that the last sequence of experiments he described were scale up
experiments.  This means that he either thinks that he knows what he is doing,
or that he feels he needs to demonstrate high power to keep his funding.  Not
a pleasant thought.  The one funded researcher in the US may feel pressure to
produce positive results to keep his job.  We learned that at SRI you keep
your job only as long as you bring in research projects.  It did not sound
like there was other funded work waiting.  I rush to say that in my opinion
McKubre is an ethical, dedicated worker.  I do not like the pressure that
exists at SRI.
 
McKubre ends the Como paper as follows:
 
"As a final note, we are unable to account for the observed excess temperature
by any artifact known to us and are forced to conclude, tentatively, that the
source of the excess power is a property of the D/Pd system.  Further, we
cannot account for the measured excess heat by any chemical or mechanical
process with which we are familiar."
 
The one knowledgeable skeptic present was not convinced and proposed a
chemical explanation.  (My definition - there were several skeptics present,
but one had worked hard to do the experiment in 1989.)  He did not fault
McKubre's technique.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 /  /  Academic or Commercial?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Academic or Commercial?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:22:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Carr has put up a nice discussion of the messy world of controversial
science.  The assumption is that P&F are scientists and that we are operating
under the rules of controversial science.  But what if P&F turned commercial
the day they thought that they had "fusion in a jar"?  Then word leaked out.
How would they react?
 
In commerce, it is perfectly proper to mislead a competitor.  It is more like
the Manhattan project, where all sorts of fakery was performed to dupe any
outside government agents into thinking we were doing something other than
what we were doing.  Note that while Fleischmann is a career academic, Pons
has had commercial training in a family business along with his academic
career.
 
It is quite possible that the day that they thought that they had something
that they started covering their tracks.  What an easy thing!  Publish a
rigged radiation curve that could be easily detected.  Claim that they see
neutrons.  Any student of science could predict the result.  The academic
community writes them off as fools.  While the Jackals howl over the fake
corpses, they can continue work without competition.  Meanwhile, they disclose
enough information to sponsors who are used to working in secrecy (the
Japanese) to get all the money they need to continue their work.
 
I find the recent P&F publications much more consistent with trickery than
with honest publication.  Why spend so much journal space with justification
of their obscure calorimetry instead of telling us what they do to produce
"boiling cells"?  I assume they are commercial and that they are trying to
mislead us while publicly showing just enough to reassure their backers.
 
While the thought of publishing fake data horrifies any academic, when there
are billions to be gained, some may change their principals.  The AIDS test
comes to mind.
 
In general, I do not believe that conspiracy is possible.  But this is a
special case.  Possibly only two know the secret.  My brother has a theory
gleaned from many years in the early semiconductor work that if three or more
people know a secret process, that the group will split and form separate
businesses.  But here only two may know, and one at least is old enough to
likely not have commercial ambition.
 
But it is a dangerous game.  They risk losing all if the secret gets out.  My
understanding of the patent process is that you must "teach" (very special
patent meaning) and claim to get a patent.  So far I have not found much
"teaching" in the P&F patent applications.  It is my understanding that if
someone else files a patent with the correct "teaching" first, that they will
get the patent even if P&F know the secret.  Withholding "teaching" that you
know from a patent application, I believe, precludes you claiming that you
knew it earlier.  But this is likely something that patent attorneys could
argue over for years.
 
So the most likely thing is that P&F don't know a secret.  Else it would be in
their patent application.  But it is remotely possible that they think that
the secret is so obscure that it is unlikely that others will find it.  So
they withhold it to gain time to tie up the field.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 /  Rothwell /  Lecture Notice
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lecture Notice
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:23:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
LECTURE NOTICE
 
Thursday, December 3, 1992, 4:00 p.m.
 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Building 34
Room 34-401 A, the Greer Room
 
Access from Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA
 
Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of Potassium Carbonate Solution with
Nickel Electrodes
 
by Dr. Reiko Notoya
Catalysis Research Center
Hokkaido National University
Japan
 
Dr. Notoya will give a lecture and a demonstration of a light water - nickel
cold fusion device, which generates 3 to 4 times more heat energy than the
electrical heating energy put into it. It will be shown in a side-by-side
comparison with a resistance heater control cell. When the same power is input
into both cells, red alcohol thermometers show that the cold fusion cell
becomes about 15 degrees Celsius hotter than the control cell. The temperature
difference is immediately apparent to anyone who touches the surface of the
glass containers. This temperature difference persists indefinitely.
 
For more information, contact Jed Rothwell at:
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Phone: 404-451-9890   Fax: 404-458-2404
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 / John Logajan /  The point, I believe
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The point, I believe
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:23:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>V. Noninski states on 20 Nov. "my conviction that S.Jones has deliberately
>adjusted the data, after my criticism (obviously the change of data was made
>to support his initial denouncement of Notoya's experiment..."
>
>Such statements... are unreasonable.
 
I could be wrong, but I believe V. Noninski is just illustrating the type of
abuse that CNF'ers experience upon making small mistakes which they later
retract.  To see my point, replace references of S.Jones with references to,
for instance, P+F.
 
In this case, S.Jones has his debunker hat on instead of a CNF'er hat, and
so gets V. Noninski full blast.  Had any other debunker made the same small
error (claiming equal input voltages) and then retracted it (now claiming
unequal input voltages) his name would have been where S.Jones' name is.
 
I believe the parallels of the Noninski blast to the anti-CNF'er blasts
do catch a bit of the latter spirit.  I'm sure even S.Jones would be amused
if he weren't the accidental recipient. :-)
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 / B Bartholomew /  Naive questions
     
Originally-From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Naive questions
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:50:15 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

I've already been flamed once, for trying to make a suggestion,
but I've thicker skin than to let that stop me from jumping
in again.  (Others may find another explaination.)
        In the measurements of excess heat from CNF cells,
is it customary to consider *past* energy input to the cells
in the computation?
        For example, it seems to be common to run cells for
many (sometimes hundreds of) hours before the observation of
activity.  When calculating that a cell is producing more energy
than is *currently* (no pun intended) being input, do we
disregard the rather substantial watt-seconds that have led to
this excess?  Can we observe excess heat for enough time to
pay back the electrical energy used to charge the system and
still see excess energy output?
        If not, seems like we have invented a new type of
storage cell that releases heat in unpredicted ways.
        BartB
 
--
"I'll need a sample."  "Come again?"  "No, once is enough." -Joel to Holling
If there's one thing I just can't stand, it's intolerance.
*No One* is responsible for my views, I'm a committee. Please do not
infer that which I do not imply.  hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhcbarth cudfnBart cudlnBartholomew cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics, NO fusion in Stars
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:33:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <7600011@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
 Rauchfuss) writes:
>In sci.physics.fusion, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>If a star is hot enough to allow fusion, would it not just start fusing without
>ignition?  If it is not hot enough, wouldn't it be impossible to ignite, no
>matter how much ball lightning was around?
>BDR
 
The candidate gas planet would not be initially hot enough to fusion burn
or ignite a fusion burn, although with time it is conceivable such a
planet or star candidate could accrete enough mass to compression heat
its central region to the ignition point.  I was only pointing out that
it is possible that some other plasma generating mechanism could generate
a highly local ignition before such a global compression heated ignition
was reached.  This localized fusion burn would then spread to the rest
of the planet by intense fusion driven radiation heating of the immediate
neighborhood which would then expand progressively outward to include
the whole planet.  Consequently such a mechanism could explain the
ignition and burning of the binary companions of stronger (older)
stars; existence of such couplets are well known to astronomers.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 /  Rothwell /  Words have consequences
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Words have consequences
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:11:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz writes:
 
"Jed, if you check back, it was you who used the word "fraud", not me. I agree
that it is too strong a word, and I used words like "PR", "false-front", etc.
This is not the same. The idea I am getting across here is that the demo was
set up by someone who believes in the effect, but for the purposes of the
demo, helped it along a bit..."
 
Helping things along a bit is called "fraud." If it was shown that Dr. Notoya
helped the experiment along, she might well be thrown out of Hokkaido
University. If you carelessly spread rumors that she has done so, you can cause
her quite a bit of grief, as I am sure you well know. Don't be cute with me,
please, you know damn well what you said, and what you meant. You should
remember that words have consequences. These careless attacks, these offhand,
baseless accusations of fraud that have been so common during the sordid
history of CF have unjustly hurt a lot of people.
 
Also, it is perfectly obvious from context that I did not mean a literal
"fraud." I meant that you have been disguising your true feelings and emotions,
and pretending to be more objective and even handed than you really are. The
kind of behavior I accuse you of is not cause for dismissal at any university
or other institution. In any case, your mask was thin all along, your hostility
and unfairness has been clear to me. You just never attacked me directly
before, so I did not bother with you. As I said, I don't mind being called a
fool, but I will be damned if I let someone impute that I have deliberately
planned and executed a fraudulent experiment during an important International
Conference. I have a reputation to worry about, too, you know. What the hell
do you think my contacts at MITI would do if they heard, and believed, this
garbage you wrote? You could cost me a bundle of money, and believe me, if you
do, you *will* pay it back, in spades.
 
"I am sorry if I upset you, mate - maybe I laid it on a bit hard. You bring
out the worst in me, with your almost fanatical insistence that every cnf
claim must absolutely be true, no doubt..."
 
I gather that is an apology. If so, it is accepted. Although, as I say, if MITI
calls me and wants to know what this is all about, I will be expecting
something a heck of a lot stronger, clearer, and more direct from you to them.
In any case, the second part of this is utter nonsense, as I have frequent and
loudly pointed out dumb mistakes in various CF experiments, starting with my
own. Furthermore, I ignore most of them. I only know about a handful, that is,
the ones I am directly involved with, or have to translate for. Everyone knows
that there are dozens of marginal CF experiments. So what? I am only interested
in the good ones.
 
Furthermore, in practically *every* instance, I preface my statements with,
"unless Notoya is wrong" or "If the experiment works on Dec. 3." I am not the
least bit fanatical, is it *you* who are clinging to absurd ideas, and refusing
to face the reality of McKubre's sigma 90; and Notoya's recent 50 deg C Delta
T measurements, with 3 watts in. You are pretending that results like this are
marginal, when in fact, by any reasonable scientific standards, they are
*decisive*. As I see it, it is absurd that you, or any trained scientist, would
question Srinivasan's 50 experiments, or Notoya's dozen. You are saying that
people like Notoya, Enyo and Mizuno are incapable of measuring temperatures
like 20, 30 or 50 degrees. When this controversy finally comes to an end, you
will look back on this, and wonder how you could ever have dreamed they could
be wrong! How could so many people accidentally measure such high temperatures
time after time? It is absurd and impossible.
 
One more word about fraud. I have publicly, on several occasions, accused the
MIT group of committing fraud. I stand by that accusation. Until and unless
they demonstrate just exactly why, how and when they modified the data, I am
forced to believe they are covering up. If they explain, or apologize and
retract, I will not mention it again. In my opinion, all of the *written*
evidence points to a deliberate and willful modification of the data. I do not
make such accusations lightly. I have been in business for a long time, and I
am well aware of the legal consequences of making a baseless, undocumented
accusation. I am serious, and I know very well the consequences and power
inherent in words. As a personal aside, my parents were among the many people
directly attacked by Senator McCarthy in the early 1950s, so I know exactly
what words can do, and I take them *very* seriously. My parents, in case anyone
wonders, were attacked by McCarthy because the U.S. State Department stationed
them in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. They were attached, in
short, because they served their country under dreary and dangerous conditions
in time of war.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 /  Rothwell /  Helium and glass
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium and glass
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jon Webb writes:
 
"As I understand the problem, though, sealing the glass from the outside is not
the issue.  The problem is that there may be 4He within the glass itself.  This
is then released when the vacuum chamber is filled with deuterium or hydrogen.
This is the effect Paneth discovered..."
 
If the glass is thin, like a test tube, people worry about helium leaching in
over time. Of course you cannot have thin glass in a vacuum chamber porthole.
Two other possible causes of helium contamination from glass have been
suggested: trapped helium can evolve out of the glass in the presence of
deuterium or hydrogen (as you point out); or, when the glass
is heated up. However, this does not always happen, because not all glass
contains helium.
 
When Yamaguchi does the experiment with deuterium saturated chips, he sees
helium-4 instantaneously appear in the vacuum at rates that correspond closely
to the amount of excess heat that the chip is producing. By "excess" I mean
over and above the amount of heat generated by the electric current. I suppose
it could be either chemical or nuclear heat; I do not know for sure whether it
exceeds the limits of chemistry in these experiments. In any case, you get a
blast of heat which is not from the electricity going in, and you get a
proportional blast of helium atoms at the same moment. Assuming the heat *is*
of nuclear origin, the consensus of opinion is that the total number of atoms
is "commensurate" with the heat. The helium appears at a the maximum rate 10
^ 17 atoms per second.
 
When he does the experiment with hydrogen saturated chips, he sees no helium-4.
So, I think that conclusively eliminates the possibility of helium liberated
from the glass by hydrogen.
 
The hydrogen chip experiments produce almost as much heat as the deuterium chip
experiments. At least, the sample runs shown in the paper do, they both go up
100 to 200 degrees, and waver around for a while. So, roughly the same amount
of heat is present in the chamber with both experiments, but you get helium in
one case, and no helium in the other, which eliminates the possibility that the
heat is liberating the helium. Another factor here is that the chip is sitting
in the middle of the chamber, and there is a high vacuum between the chip and
the window, which is good insulation. It would take a while for the chip to
heat up the window, yet the helium appears instantly. Plus, it is a hot chip,
but it is small; the total excess power coming out of it is between 0.5 and 5
watts. Not enough to heat up three windows much.
 
So, Yamaguchi concludes that the helium is not originating in the glass.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 /  Rothwell /  I * V
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I * V
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Hoping to pour oil on troubled waters, and not on a bonfire, let me say David
Buehler and Steve Jones are right, most of the time Notoya left the control
cell at lower power level than the CF cell, in order to compensate for power
lost to electrolysis. However, I believe that from time to time she showed it
to people, and disassembled it, and so on, and she adjusted the power to
demonstrate other aspects of the system, so it is possible that Buehler
observed it with different power levels at different times. On the last day,
she and I were having a good time playing around with it. This is a hands-on
demo after all, not a strict lab experiment. It is merely intended to give
people a feel for the kind of results she is getting back at the lab.
 
Some people have suggested she bring "a better calorimeter." I remind everyone
that she is not allowed to schlepp a ton of lab equipment and computers into
the overhead compartment on airplanes. If you want to see the real experiment,
go to Hokkaido.
 
Three more quick notes on this, and then let us drop the subject until Dec. 3,
when we can run this mini-experiment again with thick, uniform, silver wires.
First, the settling time for the glass jar is about 15 or 20 minutes, which is
convenient, it lets you demonstrate a variety of different power levels.
Second, when you adjust both cells to exactly the same power in (ignoring
recombination) you see there is still a substantially higher temperature in the
CF cell. Third, Notoya tossed the old silver wire, so she can't say how
resistant it was, but she doubts very much that 6 cm of silver wire thick
enough to be visable could possibly offer as much resistance as a 4 cm nichrome
heater, which is what is in the cell. I doubt it too. In fact, I think the very
suggestion is preposterous. I expect Buehler made some kind of error when he
moved the alligator clips. I do *not* think he is kidding, or lying, I am sure
he believes what he says. I suggest Bueler and Jones might want to run one more
little mini-experiment, if they have 15 minutes to spare: measure the
resistance of the thinnest silver wire you find (or see), and then measure the
resistance of a 4 cm nichrome heater, and report back to us if they are the
same.
 
 
In my brief review of the light water work, I forgot to mention Tom Droege.
Sorry Tom! Tom says:
 
"My results were that there are problems in assuming that the
1.48*I correction is valid."
 
Notoya measured the gas that evolved from the cell and found that it was the
amount predicted by this standard factor for light water electrolysis. I
believe Noninski also measured the gas, but I am not sure. Notoya and
Srinivasan also both measured far more heat than the total input I * V, so even
if there is recombination on the nickel cathode, it is not an issue.
 
Tom predicts:
 
"When [the light water experiment is] done in closed form, for a very long
time, with the energy balance measured from the start of the experiment, and
with equally good instrumentation; the experiment will be null."
 
This would be a good test, but based upon my conversations with people who
doing the light water experiments, I have several cautions and warnings to
anyone who wishes to try this:
 
Keep everything as clean as possible. The light water systems do not like
conventional recombiner materials. Throw one of those dirty things in the cell,
and "you can kiss it goodby."
 
Get a lot of practice with "open" cells first. Be sure you exceed I * V.
 
If possible, use a separate recombiner. Tom did this, as I recall. One person
told me, "be sure it is *really* separate, you don't want gunk going back up
the tube."
 
Maybe a fuel cell arrangement would be clean? I don't know the details.
 
 
Dick Blue comments: "Since this experiment is conducted in 'vacuum' it is time
to give Jed a little review of what that word means..." Well, Dick, I believe
Yamaguchi said it was 10 ^ -8 torr. That sounds pretty vacuuous to me, kind of
like your knowledge of what Yamaguchi is doing. I notice that you immediately
started making fun of Yamaguchi, and attacking him, and asking "when will he
get serious," and then from time to time you stopped and asked questions like:
 
"Is this being done in a vacuum or in a liquid"
 
"Is he using a mass spec?"
 
Such questions indicate that you have not got the foggiest, vaugest idea of
what he is doing, or even what kind of instruments he is using, and that you
have jumped to the conclusion that he is incompetant without knowing anything
at all about him! I bet you have never heard of the guy. You are asking
elementary questions about the experiment which reveal that you have not even
seen the abstract, not to mention the full paper. In my opinion, you are are
making a fool of yourself.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 / John Logajan /  Even a conventional explanation is trickey
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Even a conventional explanation is trickey
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
>Here is a prediction on the Natoya experiment.  When the open experiment is
>carefully done, with good instrumentation, proper wire size, and the 1.48*I
>correction for the Nickel cell; excess heat will be seen.  When done in closed
>form, for a very long time, with the energy balance measured from the start of
>the experiment, and with equally good instrumentation; the experiment will be
>null.
 
I find the mechanism by which this sequence of events arises to be itself
somewhat fascinating.  I believe this is a restatement of the actual
experimental results Tom Droege got earlier this year in doing a Mills cell.
 
Excess heat is seen right at the start.  If recombination is responsible,
then gas evolution should be reduced accordingly, right at the start -- the
1.48V*I correction must be wrong from the git-go.
 
I believe that the claim is that gas quantities are okay at the start, which
leaves us looking for another source of energy.  A cell has nickel, K2CO3,
H2O, O2, N2, possibly Si (from the glass) Pt, trace gases, such as CO2, and
maybe some rubber.  I imagine some of these things could undergo a chemical
energy releasing burn at first.
 
But after a while, they'd burn out.  I think the Mills cells run long enough
to exclude chemistry as a possibility.  But suppose as the chemical resources
exhaust themselves, that recombination begins to occur at a faster rate.
Then the 1.48V*I correction becomes less and less accurate, and we are more
and more measuring our electrical input power as anomalous heat.  Again gas
production would drop off, and be a good sign of recombination -- if anybody
bothered to measure it after the first few hours or days.
 
So maybe such a two phase system misleads people to give up their gas measuring
in the first phase when gas production doesn't start to decline until the
second phase.
 
(Note, Jed Rothwell mentions Mills gets 900% excess energy.  So it might seem
that even with 100% recombination, the best we could expect is 100% (double)
excess (bogus) energy.  But I think Mills always subtracts 1.48*I first, so, for
instance, if he was really running at 1.58 volts, he'd count his input
energy as 0.1*I.  Thus it would only take 60% recombination to produce a
900% excess heat claim, under these hypothetical conditions.)
 
>In general, I do not believe that conspiracy is possible.
 
I think just the opposite is the norm.  Any interaction between humans can
be defined a "conspiracy."  Thus the problem with searching for a particular
conspiracy is not for lack of conspiracies, but rather the masking effect
of the multitudes of others.
 
Postulating a conspriacy, therefore, is essentially an act of definitionalism.
Since definitions are infinitely plastic, anyone can play the game of "Spin
the conspiracy theory."  The key to success is merely to assert that the
"smoking gun" evidence is being covered up by the conspirators.  So you can
use the lack of corroborating evidence as evidence of a cover-up!
 
Associations of individuals to commit harm do exist, of course.  And conspriacy
theories are everywhere abundant.  But there is seldom correlation between the
theories and reality -- and hence, no particular motive to accept any given
conspriacy theory as anything more than an over-active imagination.
 
 
- 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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 / John Logajan /  The Wall
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Wall
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:12:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I wrote:
>Jed Rothwell mentions Mills gets 900% excess energy.
>I think Mills always subtracts 1.48*I first, so, for instance, if he was
>really running at 1.58 volts, he'd count his input energy as 0.1*I.  Thus it
>would only take 60% recombination to produce a 900% excess heat claim, under
>these hypothetical conditions.
 
To expand on this, the closer you can run a Mills cell to 1.48V, the greater
the ratio of excess heat you might be able to claim.  At 1.49V and 100%
recombination, you could claim 14800% excess heat.  At exactly 1.48V with
100% recombination, you could claim infinite heat gain (note infinite *gain*
rather than infinite *heat*, as there is quite a difference in concepts!)
 
So let me ask a question.  Is there any Mills cell anywhere in the world that
produces more excess heat than the limit set by 1.48*I?  If not, one might
want to wonder why not.
 
 
- 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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: S.Jones' "correction" of Notoya's exp.
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' "correction" of Notoya's exp.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:13:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
Despite  the  fact  that  S.Jones  already,  only  after  he  was
criticized, appears to have understood (as  seen  from his latest
postings)  that  not   all  of  the  power   applied    to    the
electrolysis  cell  is  spent  for heating the cell (although  it
took  him  some  time,  even  after  he   was   criticized,    to
understand that the process for which  part  of  the  energy   is
spent  is  not "hydrolysis", cf.  his  posting  of  November 16),
he continues   to  refuse    to    understand    that   thickness
(resp. the resistance)  of the wires before  the   points   where
the  voltage  actually  is measured makes   no   difference   and
goes on  to  insistently   refer  to  those  thin  wires  as   an
argument    against    excess    heat    in  Notoya's  cell  (see
S.Jones'  posting   of November 20).
 
However, what the voltages of the electrolysis  and  the  control
cells (after the clips were moved to the  top   of   the  control
cell) really were is very questionable in view of the way   those
data  were   presented    before    the     world     (on     two
occasions, before he expected anyone to  criticise  him,  numbers
from measurements  were  posted,  differing   from   the  numbers
posted after the criticism).
 
Truly yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                               December 21, 1992
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenvnoninski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 /  Harrison /  Ni - H2O electrolysis
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ni - H2O electrolysis
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:13:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here's the current plan for Mills/Notoya replication:
3 cells, A & B under electrolysis, C thermal only.  Constant current.
 
   [ EXCESS GAS COLLECTION ]
   [      2 CONTAINERS     ]
 
         ^          ^               Key:  OOOOOO  = gas tubing
         O          O                     ......  = wiring
         O          O
 D1  [ Dessi ]  [ Dessi ] D2
     [  cant ]  [  cant ]
         O          O
      [ Pt ]     [ Pt ]       ...( R )......( R )..............
         O          O         :         :                     :
     [ Dessi ]  [ Dessi ]     :         :..----\              :
     [  cant ]  [  cant ]     :         ...servo>..           :
         O          O         :         :  ----/  :           :
          O          OOOOOOOO:          :         :           :
 ........  O    ...........: O     .....:......   :   ........:
 :      :   O   :          :  O    :          :   :   :       :
 :      :   O   :          :   O   :          :   :   :       :
 :    --:---O---:--      --:---O---:--      --:---:---:--     :
 :    [ :       : ]      [ :       : ]      [ :   :   : ]     :
 :    [ :       : ]      [ :       : ]      [ :   :   : ]     :
 :    [ Pt     Pt ]      [ Pt     Ni ]      [ :.D G S.: ]     :
 :    [           ]      [           ]      [           ]     :
 :    [   K2CO3   ]      [   K2CO3   ]      [    H2O    ]     :
 :    -------------      -------------      -------------     :
 :      CELL A              CELL B             CELL C         :
 :    ( Control )        ( Experiment )      ( Control )      :
 :                                                            :
 :              ------------------------                      :
 :.............( +   CURRENT SOURCE  -  ).....................:
                ------------------------
 
Features:
Series configuration guarantees equal current in all cells.
Cell C ("resistance" control) is actually a power transistor servo'd
 to force same voltage on cell C as cell B.  This forces equal power
 into cells B & C.
Cell A (control) simply electrolyzes water to H2 & O2.  Evolved gas
 is dried, then recombined on Pt catalyst.  Resulting water vapor is
 absorbed on dessicant D1.
Cell B's evolved gas is treated the same and absorbed in dessicant D2.
 
Weight gain of dessicant (from before/after weighings) indicates amount
of H2 & O2 produced.  Steady-state evolution of "excess gas" would
indicate unanticipated gas chemistry.
 
Simplified calorimetry (temperature rise of cell dewars) estimates heat
generation <10%.
Operating current approx 150 ma.
 
Question:
What is a reliable form of Pt catalyst (or Pd or other) to recombine
 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O at room temp, ambient pressure?
 
-Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: S.Jones' posting of November 19
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' posting of November 19
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:33:46 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <00963DE2.EFCA1560.29678@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>
 vnoninski@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU writes:
>
>It seems that exactness  in his  statements  is  not  of  primary
>concern  to  S.Jones.  For instance, on November  19 he writes:
>
>"I endeavored to correct my mistake immediately when I learned of
>it, twice before on the net  (this  is  my  third  try  with  Dr.
>Noninski)".
>
>What does this statemen mean ?
 
It means he corrected his statement once (14 Nov 92) and had his
student, who made the measurements clarify it as well (18 Nov 92).
 
So clearly this was his third try to clarify it.
 
>Correcting  of  his  mistake  was  not  such  innocent   an   act
>as  S.Jones  would  like  to  present   it.   He  "endeavored  to
>correct" the figures he posted only  after   he   was  shown  and
>"learned"   that   these   figures    do    not    support    his
>sensational "discovery" of Notoya's "mistake".
 
 ...
 
>"Contributions" of this type, based  on  adjusting  the  data  to
>support one's point at any rate, are  the  least  needed for  the
>discussions of  scientific  matters  and  particularly  for   the
>debate  about  the reality of the excess heat during electrolysis
>of  H2O  solutions with Ni  cathodes,  claimed   by   Fleischmann
 
 ... etc ...
 
OK, so lets have an independent third party (I have never worked with
Steve Jones and have no vested interest in anything but the truth here)
look at what was actually posted:
 
 |From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 |Subject: Re: the Notoya Demo
 |Message-ID: <1992Nov11.162857.191@physc1.byu.edu>
 |Date: 11 Nov 92 23:28:57 GMT
 |
 |The following measurements were recorded by David Buehler (BYU graduate
 |student) on the Notoya cells.  I post these to meet the request by D. Britz,
 |without comment.
 |Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with resistor, initially:
 |3.4 volts,  0.6 amps.
 |Buehler moved alligator clip from power supply about 5 cm closer to the cell
 |on very thin lead entering the control cell, result:
 |3.0 volts,  0.6 amps (constant current supply).
 |Adjusting both clips to points on two wires close to entry into cell,
 |presumably by Dr. Notoya after Buehler pointed out his concern (control cell):
 |2.57 volts, 0.72 amps (current evidently adjusted also).
 |(Don't know why current was adjusted on control cell.)
 |
 |This is all the data I collected from D. Buehler and recorded in my logbook.
 
That is pretty clear.  Steve Jones reported exactly what he had recorded, and
the details he recorded were the values for the control cell.  There is a lack
of clarity in the sentence "Cell with Ni cathode AND control cell with
resistor, initially: 3.4 volts", which can be read two different ways but
only makes sense when interpreted one way -- referring to the control cell
only.
 
 |From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 |Subject: Notorious Notoya Demonstration
 |Message-ID: <1992Nov12.141536.195@physc1.byu.edu>
 |Date: 12 Nov 92 21:15:36 GMT
 |
 |We have repeated Notoya's demonstration of excess heat performed before
 |the world at the Nagoya, Japan meeting in October 1992, based on data from
 |this demo. garnered at the meeting by BYU graduate student David Buehler.
 |We find that a temperature difference between cells of approximately 10 C
 |is readily obtained, with the "control cell" being cooler.
 |But the heat is not nuclear.
 |Here are the data from the Nagoya demo:
 |Control cell, initially: 3.4 V at 0.61 amps, so total R = 5.57 ohms (+ or -).
 |The "nuclear" cell with nickel anode ran at approx. the same voltage and I.
 
Here is the mistake Steve Jones made.  However, as the calculations and
experimental design that followed this statement (omitted to save space)
made clear, he used the 3.4 volts for the "nuclear" cell to calculate
the heat dissipated in that cell -- which is correct.
 
Actually, since one (trusting Notoya) that the control cell was set up
to dissipate the same power as the nuclear cell, all that one really
needs to worry about is the fraction of the cell resistance in the
wire leads.
 
 |From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 |Subject: RE: Notoya Demo/ No No Noninski
 |Message-ID: <1992Nov13.170826.200@physc1.byu.edu>
 |Date: 14 Nov 92 00:08:26 GMT
 |
 |I appreciate the responses and questions to recent postings; return responses
 |follow.
 |Dr. Noninski objects that the Notoya "nuclear" cell drops power (1.5V x I)
 |due to decomposition of water to hydrogen + oxygen.  True, but the voltage
 |on the "nuclear" cell shown by Notoya in Nagoya was INCREASED BY 1.5 V to
 |compensate for the hydrolysis loss.  That is, the voltage on the control cell
 |was 3.4V (first two days) while the voltage on the cell with Ni cathode was
 |3.4 + 1.5 volts.  Both cells had about 0.6 A current.  So the objection
 |of Noninski fails.
 
That is, as one would expect if Notoya was doing the experiment with a
suitable control, the two were run with the same current and voltages
differing by the amount taken up by the electrolysis.
 
I guess the only thing that puzzles me is why Notoya did not notice that
she had to use the "wrong" resistor for this combination of voltage and
current.  It is easy to see how this mistake could get overlooked if the
experiment was done in a hurry to get results for the conference.  Would
not be the first time *that* happened in physics!
 
Further:
 
 |From: dave@digaudio.byu.edu (David Buehler)
 |Subject: Re:Notoya demo
 |Message-ID: <1992Nov18.125958.1162@yvax.byu.edu>
 |Date: 18 Nov 92 19:59:57 GMT
 |
 |Because there was question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's electrolysis
 |cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he explained, the
 |voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than resistive
 |cell.  This was all explained with little signs in front of the two cells.
 
So it would be pretty hard to miss.  Clearly Notoya set them up this way
and the original error when Steve Jones said "The 'nuclear' cell with
nickel anode ran at approx. the same voltage and I" was a simple
misstatement caused by his focus on the heat dissipation and not the
details of her setup.
 
I find it hard to see how this is some sort of scandalous manipulation
of the data by the noted cold fusion skeptic, Steve Jones.  ;-)
 
Jed was there, and can state if such a sign existed, so I assume he would
have already corrected David Buehler if he was making this up.  The only
question I can see is that Jed noted that, after the leads were adjusted,
the cell stayed cooler; however, Steve Jones records that the voltage and
current were also adjusted when the leads were moved, which would explain
this effect.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 765 papers, 117 patents/appl.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:22:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov20.230343.20315@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E.
 Michael Smith) writes:
>
>Hmmm ... I'm not trained in this area at all, but the thought comes
>to mind:  IFF the theory is true, is there any isotope of alkali metal
>that, when transformed per the theory, would produce a clearly identifiable
>isotope of target material?
 
IF he is fusioning calcium it is really simple to use a mass spectrometer
to identify the isotope mix. A dead giveaway and necessary considering that
even your breath probably contains enough calcium to contaminate the suh a
finding.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.21 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Lecture Notice
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:01:37 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> LECTURE NOTICE
>
> Thursday, December 3, 1992, 4:00 p.m.
>
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
> Building 34
> Room 34-401 A, the Greer Room
>
> Access from Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA
>
> Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of Potassium Carbonate Solution with
> Nickel Electrodes
>
> by Dr. Reiko Notoya
> Catalysis Research Center
> Hokkaido National University
> Japan
 
Why any researcher who genuinely believes they have replicated
some aspect of the P&F "excess heat" would consider MIT worthy
of their attention is beyond me.  MIT has gone out of its way
to establish itself, along with Cal Tech and other major "academic"
institutions, as irrationally opposed to alternative fusion
technologies while irrationally favoring proven idiocy such as
the Tokamak.  They no longer have any credibility.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 /  Rothwell /  Business is not science
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Business is not science
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:12:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege comments:
 
"So the most likely thing is that P&F don't know a secret.  Else it would be
in their patent application.  But it is remotely possible that they think that
the secret is so obscure that it is unlikely that others will find it.  So they
withhold it to gain time to tie up the field."
 
I am not a lawyer, but I happen to know about patent law. Under U.S. laws, if
it could be shown that P&F withheld information, or knew a better method of
achieving the CF effect, the patent would not be granted. The patent filer must
state the best, most up-to-date, most effective method and art that he knows.
Uncle Sam is very strict about that.
 
 
Tom makes some other astute comments, worth rereading. As Fleischmann often
puts it, "I want you to think carefully about what that gentleman just said:"
 
"The assumption is that P&F are scientists and that we are operating under the
rules of controversial science.  But what if P&F turned commercial the day they
thought that they had 'fusion in a jar'?  Then word leaked out. How would they
react? ... In commerce, it is perfectly proper to mislead a competitor."
 
I had a chance to talk to Pons on several occasions about these topics. After
the conference, MITI asked me to testify before them, the NHEP and the STA, so
I got a chance to talk to them at length about their attitudes and the extent
to which they felt this research should be "open" or "proprietary." Of course,
there are substantial disagreements about these things within the leadership,
but let me generalize, and try to express what I felt the consensus opinion is.
This is my opinion of what *they* think, by the way, I may not be right, and
I may not agree with the following:
 
      They feel that they have acted as openly as any prudent, responsible,
      research consortium. Their activities have been reported regularly in the
      national media. They have offered to share significant amounts of
      technical information. They will meet with qualified, high level officials
      from the U.S. or elsewhere. This has to be on an appropriate government
      to government level.
 
      On the other hand, they are not going to go out of their way to advertise
      what they have, and what they plan to do. They are certainly not going to
      hand out trade secrets for free, or hold open meetings. If the U.S., or
      some other country, wishes to make a commitment, and to take an active
      role in the research, then of course that country will get appropriate
      access to the information, just like any other member of the consortium.
 
Now, back to my observations. I see zero -- absolutely zero -- evidence that
P&F, Technova, MITI or any other responsible party has deliberately mislead
anyone in any way. Such tactics are regularly employed in business, but only
on a short term basis (like months), and if I do say so myself, I can usually
see through them. This sort of thing is done all the time in the computer
business, where phantom features in unreleased products appear and disappear
like spirits from the vasty deep. There is nothing unethical about this kind
of deception as long as it does not unduly or deliberately impact on the market
value of the stock, or endanger consumer safety, or something like that; but
it is rather silly, undignified, and it does not work for long. Also, MITI is
a government agency, so by itself, it would not be allowed to play such games.
If the NHEP members chose to issue some confusing or misleading information...
perhaps MITI might overlook it for a while.
 
However, as I said, they are not playing any such games. To the contrary, I am
amazed how much MITI and the NHEP is willing to share. Still, they are
obviously keeping many secrets, just as you would expect. As I have pointed out
time and time again, Intel does not publish detailed specifications of the CPU
chips it plans to introduce two years from now. No private corporation or
consortium could possibly, under any circumstances, survive if it gave away
trade secrets. Indeed, the members would get in serious trouble for violating
fiduciary responsibilities. It is absolutely unthinkable. Most of the readers
on this forum appear to be scientists, who are not used to this ethic. You must
realize that what you consider correct, appropriate behavior -- revealing
methodology, and publishing papers -- would be considered criminal behavior in
a business setting; or if not criminal, it would be considered madness. You
should not judge others by standards that do not apply to them.
 
By the way, the Ministry of Education, and NIFS, operates by your rules: free
and open. Internal MITI stuff depends (usually open, sometimes not). I don't
know about the STA.
 
 
John Logajan asks the question:
 
"Is there any Mills cell anywhere in the world that produces more excess heat
than the limit set by 1.48*I?"
 
Yes, several:
 
Mills told me that his is far above the I*V (total input power) level. I asked
him very specifically, after explaining Tom Droege's concerns about
recombination. However, when he and others working with him say 900% excess,
I do not know whether they mean 9 time I*V, or 9 times the joule heating only.
 
Bush uses as closed cell, with a recombiner in it. I believe he is getting 7
times I*V, but I am not sure of the exact number. I *am* sure that he is
considerably above I*V.
 
Srinivasan's preprint graphs show both lower joule heating level and total
power, and the power has clearly far exceeded both.
 
Notoya is way over the limit.
 
Some of the others in the U.S. are also over the limit, but others are not.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 / Todd Green /  Re: Ni - H2O electrolysis
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ni - H2O electrolysis
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:51:26 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <921122025453_73770.1337_EHA72-1@CompuServe.COM>, Chuck Harrison
 <73770.1337@compuserve.com> writes:
> Here's the current plan for Mills/Notoya replication:
>
> Simplified calorimetry (temperature rise of cell dewars) estimates heat
> generation <10%.
> Operating current approx 150 ma.
>
> Question:
> What is a reliable form of Pt catalyst (or Pd or other) to recombine
>  2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O at room temp, ambient pressure?
 
Cheap recombination catalysts can be obtained from Hydrocap Inc. - based
in Florida, I think. There catylator product can recombine a few amps
and they are rather cheap ($3 each). An alternative is to use a piece of
fuel cell electrode. These usually consist of Pt dispersed on carbon and
mounted on a metal base. E-Tek Inc. (Framingham, MA) manufacture an ESN type
fuel cell material which works very well as a recombiner. It is best to get
them "wet proofed" with a porous teflon film as a safety precaution.
Cost is (approx) $100 for 50 cm2 and this would be enough for a number of
cells. They are rather "clean", although a few carbon particles usually end up
in the electrolyte.
 
----
Todd Green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.22 / E Smith /  Re: I * V
     
Originally-From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I * V
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:31:51 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In one more (vain?) attempt to bring civility to things ...
 
In article <921121164207_72240.1256_EHL48-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>Hoping to pour oil on troubled waters, and not on a bonfire,
 
OK, so far so good..
 
>Dick Blue comments: "Since this experiment is conducted in 'vacuum' it is time
>to give Jed a little review of what that word means..." Well, Dick, I believe
>Yamaguchi said it was 10 ^ -8 torr. That sounds pretty vacuuous to me, kind of
>like your knowledge of what Yamaguchi is doing.
...
>In my opinion, you are are
>making a fool of yourself.
 
Not only do you pour oil on the bonfire, you provide a blowtorch too...
 
Jed, can you remember to use the same manners you would use with MITI
contacts in this forum?
 
I guess I'm fighting a losing battle, trying to bring professional
behaviour to a bar room fight.  Sigh.
 
I give up.  It looks like BOTH sides would rather fight than be civil.
 
 
--
 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
 
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
 
I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenems cudfnE cudlnSmith cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.23 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Is the power input AC?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is the power input AC?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:19:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The question has been ask before as it applies to the Pd-D cells, but
perhaps it is time to ask it again with a thought to the Ni-H experiments
and the Notoya-Rothwell demo that is supposed to be so easy - i.e.
starts first time, every time without any long preparation period.
Spongy nickle got me thinking about very large surface to volume ratios
and the possibility that what we have in this case in a huge electrolytic
capacitor.  I think the engineers at MIT would do well to be prepared to
make some AC measurements on this demo or at the very least have an
oscilloscope handy!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.23 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Lecture Notice
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lecture Notice
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:04:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <eLXLuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
 writes:
 
>Why any researcher who genuinely believes they have replicated
>some aspect of the P&F "excess heat" would consider MIT worthy
>of their attention is beyond me.  MIT has gone out of its way
>to establish itself, along with Cal Tech and other major "academic"
>institutions, as irrationally opposed to alternative fusion
>technologies while irrationally favoring proven idiocy such as
>the Tokamak.  They no longer have any credibility.
>
I think that a restatement of the above observations is that
MIT, in an effort to counter the irrational hysteria surrounding
the so-called 'cold nuclear fusion', has demanded strict scientific
evidence and a reasonable theory to support the expensive research
that would have to go into it.
 
On this net we have seen Tom Droege, a fine scientist, make a few
mistakes that led him to erroneously believe that he had positive results.
But he checked his work and found his own errors. Notoya, with all due
respect, certainly did not. And this is the sort of thing that MIT
doesn't want to be associated with.
 
And it seems imminently reasonable to me.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.23 / John Logajan /  The Trouble with Bubbles.  A report.
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Trouble with Bubbles.  A report.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:00:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The Trouble with Bubbles.
 
A preliminary report on a 0.6m K2CO3+H2O/Ni/Pt gas measuring experiment.
 
Synopsis:  Gas evolution rate varied up to 30% using a fixed electrical
           current -- calling into question the 1.48*I assumption.
 
I figured I could do some comparative electrolysis gas production
measurements with some simple equipment (see apparatus description below.)
 
I figured I could count bubbles if they were not too fast nor too slow.
My apparatus produced bubbles at the rate of about 1-2 per second, which
was just about ideal for eyeball/wristwatch, lucky me.
 
I applied 200ma (measured with two different meters both within 0.5% of
each other) in the reverse current direction (Ni as the anode, Pt as
cathode.)  After one hour the bubble rate was 111 bubbles per minute.
 
I applied 200ma in the forward current direction (Ni as the cathode, Pt as
the anode.)  After eight hours (sleep), the bubble rate was 88 bubbles
per minute.
 
The bubble rate is in a state of flux just after reversing the current
and takes about an hour or two to settle down.
 
*Conclusions* -- Any assumption about a fixed relationship between current
and gas production is (preliminarily) shown to be off by as much as 30%
(with an approx 10% worst case range of measurement errors.)
 
Other observations:  I continue to get some sort of "fuel cell" effect.
That is, I get an EMF potential after disconnecting the power supply.  It
decays quickly from around a volt or so to about 1/10 of a volt in the
course of about 10 seconds (which probably has something to do with the
load of the voltmeter.)
 
Furthermore, I continue to get current flow at *all* applied voltage levels.
This implies either parallel current paths in the electrolyte, or the effect
of recombination of the gases.
 
In either case, the 1.48*I factor is (preliminarily) shown to be unreliable
by a wide margin.
 
   * * * * *
 
Apparatus consists of:
 
1.) A glass test-tube approx 1" x 6" and black rubber stopper (sold as a
    unit as pet mouse water supply.)  The test-tube contains:
    a.) Two wires, one Pt and one nickel plated copper.
    b.) Nickel nodules.
    c.) 0.6 molar K2CO3+H2O
 
2.) An 8" length of clear flexible soft plastic tropical fish air hose, approx
    5/32" O.D. 3/32" I.D.
 
3.) An old clear glass olive jar approx 2.5" x 6" -- filled with tap water.
 
4.) Approx 2-3 ounces of Nickel metal spherical "nodules" each on the
    order of 1/4" diameter.
 
5.) A foot of 22 gauge copper wire with nickel plating.
 
6.) A 20" length of #30 gauge Platinum wire.
 
7.) A manual voltage adjust power supply with built in milliamp meter.
 
8.) A Heathkit digital multimeter.
 
The power supply is connected to the two wires piercing the rubber stopper.
The nickel plated copper wire descends to the bottom and is in contact with
the nickel nodules also settled at the bottom.  The platinum wire is wound
loosely in the top section of the test tube.  The tube is filled to within
1/2" of the top with the K2CO3 solution.
 
The plastic hose exits the rubber stopper and descends into the water
filled olive jar.  At 200ma input current, bubbles ascend from the hose
exit in the olive jar at rate of 1-2 per second.
 
Barometric pressure, ambient temperature, granularity of bubble counts,
accuracy of current measurement, and accuracy of timing operations add to
approximately a total worst case error range of 10%.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.23 /  /  Re: A Mixture of Responses
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Mixture of Responses
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:00:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>
>Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>> Bush RT;                                      Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 301.
>> There is experimental proof. Using a Ni cathode, a Pt anode and 0.57M K2CO3
>>as electrolyte, and a plate of a "Ni alloy", excess heat was found, in
>>contrast with M&F, whose theory demands light water and a sodium salt
>
>Farrell's posted procedure on this very forum suggested K2CO3.  I remember
>vividly because I bought and own 10 pounds of the stuff.
>
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
>--------------------
 
John Logajan is correct.  Mills and I have said from the very beginning:
 
2.  K+ does work.  Use an electrolyte of 0.6 M K2CO3. Ni cathode/Pt anode.
 
2.  Na+ does not work.  The best control cell uses an electrolyte of 0.6 M
Na2CO3.
 
3.  Pd+2/Li+ does work (you have to wait awhile if you use Pd/Li+ until the
Pd oxidizes.
 
4.  Rb+ does work.  Ti+2 does work.  Many other systems will work; I will
not list them.
 
5.  The heat is not from fusion.  Use light water.
 
6.  Small amounts of tritium and ever smaller amounts of neutrons will be
released if D2O is used.  This will account for about 1 X 10^-12 of the
xheat. The branching ratio is not 1 for this type of fusion.
 
You may or may not believe any of the above, but we stick by these
statements.
 
More recent results from HPC (HydroCatalysis Power Company).
 
1.  For several months now the HPC and several other labs have had cells
running where the input (VxI; **no** subtraction for H2 and O2 production)
is about 20 watts and the output is about 75 watts.  One of these labs is a
heat transfer company. It is all they do--heat transfer.
 
2.  HPC also has a test cell where the input is 10 watts (VxI) and the
output is 100 watts.  Obviously, they are successfully maximizing the
parameters.
 
3.  HPC had the electrolyte from some cells that have been producing x heat
for more than 1 year tested for calcium.  No calcium above background.  I
spoke with Bush many months ago and warned him to be careful with the Ca
analysis.  I recommended that he use the method of standard addition. CaCO3
is quite insoluble and would begin to precipitate almost immediately.  HPC
cells that have been running for a year or more have no CaCO3 precipitate,
and, as I said above, no Ca+2(aq) in solution (above background).
 
4. Recombination is not a factor: (a) recombination of all of the hydrogen
and oxygen would only account for a small fraction of the heat observed;
(b) you can see copious amonts of gases evolved (anaylsis for CO2 is
negative); (c) the effluent gases have been analyzed and quantifies; (d)
you are welcome to light a match near the effluent (let me get out of the
room first!).
 
Other comments.
 
1.  You can use Ni sheet (Alpha) or Ni fiber mat or Ni from NBS, but the
best that we have found so far is Ni wire from Alpha (#10253, 0.38 mm
diameter, 99.8%; $31.00 for 100 g; 100 g = 100 m).
 
2.  Chuck Harrison gave a diagram for his Mills/Notoya replication.  The
K2CO3 with Pt/Pt should **not** be used as a control.  The crutial species
here is not the Ni but the K+ (it just works better if the cathode is Ni
rather than Pt).  The control ought to be Na2CO3 with a Pt anode and a Ni
cathode.  Actually, Pt is expensive for a large cell and HPC uses Pt coated
titanium anodes.  I'm not sure what function his Control Cell A plays, but
it will produce some excess heat.
 
Important.  Any **experimentor** can call HPC for more information.  Call
(717)291-6673.  Ask for Bill Good or Randy Mills.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.23 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  What Kind of Fool Am I?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Kind of Fool Am I?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:00:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Jed's benefit, let me say right up front that I may well be foolish
to keep asking questions about these experiments rather than just
accepting everything that comes out of the CF community as the absolute
end with no ifs ands or buts.  But what the heck, that's why the gummint
has given us this toy to exchange information over.
 
Now back to Yamaguchi.  First off, Jed, you should understand that I
don't need to know Yamaguchi.  It is the Yamaguchi experiment that is
underdiscussion and, I started this by saying I didn't know enough about
this $8 billion result.  I still don't know very much about it, but if
we keep whacking away at each other maybe we can get some things sorted
out.  Now I have one more piece of the puzzle.  You say the chamber
vacuum is 10^-8 Torr.  I do a bit of arithmetic and come up with the
number that that corresponds to the order of 10^11 molecules per liter
residual gas.  If the chamber is say 10 liters we get 10^12 molecules
total.  Now you tell us POOF goes a reaction and in a second we get
10^16 helium atoms.  It would seem that the pressure would rise to
shall we say 10^-4 Torr.  Such an event would be hard to miss, right?
Does the good Dr. Y comment on such events?
 
Now we do same experiment over with hydrogen sandwich and no helium
is formed.  Does the pressure remain at 10^-8 Torr?  Is there a
pressure rise of any sort?
 
Next I hit the books and read up on the effects of high pressure
on peak shapes in mass spectrometers.  Guess what, Jed?  You can
have nicely resolved peaks in your mass spec when the pressure of
the residual gas is 10^-8 Torr and when the pressure rises to
10^-4 Torr the resolution goes to pot.  In fact most of these
devices don't work at all well above about 10^-5 Torr.
 
One final comment as to whether vacuum is a good insulator.  Ever
hear of radiation?
 
It is probably unfair for me pick on the Yamaguchi experiment on the
basis of the information Jed has provided.  My point really is that
Jed is not a suitably critical filter so that his enthusiasm for
these results should not be considered the final word on cold fusion.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  /  Liquid Helium
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Liquid Helium
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:35:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce Dunn has asked about the cost of liquid Helium in large quantities.
 
Sorry Bruce, I could not get the cost of Helium on our large contract.  It is
apparently tied in with a lot of other things, including operation and service.
 
I did find out about our "small" contract.  It is a three year contract for
200 to 300 five hundred liter dewars per year.  In this quantity (100000 liters
 per year for three years) it is $2.35 per liter.  I assume this is vented off
to the atmosphere.  While we have a collection system here at Fermilab, there
are a lot of places where it is used where it is uneconomical to collect the
gas.
 
If you are really serious about large quantities for your "Bombastotron"
proposal, I can try to run down an expert for you.  We have a very large main
liquifier, and many small satelite refrigerators, a collection system, and it
also seems like we have some sort of operating contract with Air Products.
Let me know.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  /  In case there was ever a doubt
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In case there was ever a doubt
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:35:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One of the things Mike McKubre presented at the (private) Washington meeting
was his experiment P-15.  This experiment is also discussed in the Como
proceedings.
 
I have now re-read the Como proceedings several times.  I can find no mention
of the addition of 200 ppm Aluminum.  Yet there it was on the view graph last
Tuesday.
 
Workers in this field are not publishing complete experiments.  Q.E.D.
 
In fact, reading the Como paper again, I find some of the content downright
misleading, considering what McKubre knew at the time.  Please be aware that
I am not accusing McKubre of being in any way unethical.  He is being paid to
do this work and to keep the results secret until they can be given patent
protection.  He is operating under one set of rules - the paid researcher.  I
am operating under a different set of rules.  You guess them.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  Rothwell /  Bubbles?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubbles?
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:50:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
John Logajan reports:
 
"I figured I could count bubbles if they were not too fast nor too slow.
My apparatus produced bubbles at the rate of about 1-2 per second, which
was just about ideal for eyeball/wristwatch, lucky me."
 
How big were the bubbles? Seriously, much as I love simple, 'eyeball' methods
of doing things, that sounds a little bit *too* simple. If you want to use
bubbles, here is a slightly more sophisticated method:
 
Get a liter cylinder with an opening on the bottom, or on the side near the
bottom. Put a little dish soap and water into the cylinder and shake well; make
lottsa bubbles. Now attach a hose from the top of the cell to the hole in the
bottom of the cylinder. Pick a bubble and watch as it get pushed up the
cylinder. Count how many ML it moves up per minute.
 
That is a gorblimey method too, but I think it beats counting bubbles.
Actually, what you need here is a special flowmeter for gas with a computer
interface, but I bet that would cost a pretty penny. I went through two water
flowmeters, they are nice and accurate but delicate. If you can't get a
flowmeter, I like the idea of simply recombining the water and measuring it.
I think that would be much better than counting bubbles. Again, let me remind
everyone that with a real light water CF cell, this is best done in a separate
container.
 
 
I inadvertently gave E. Michael Smith the wrong impression, when I wrote that
I was attempting to pour oil on troubled waters. I mean between Noninski,
Beuler, Jones and me. I respect these three, although I disagree with them at
times. I wanted to point out that if Jones was reporting different power levels
at different times, and his notes appeared confused, it may have been because
he observed the demo cells at different times, and power levels may have been
changed.
 
As far as Dick Blue goes, if he is going to say "Yamaguchi is incompetent" in
one breath, and "by the way, what did he do? Was it in a vacuum or liquid?" the
next, I say he makes himself look like a fool. That is really, really dumb, to
admit that you have absolutely ZERO knowledge of the experiment in one
sentence, and to declare that the experimenter is "not serious" in the next.
That is a public declaration that Dick Blue is a close-minded bigot who does
not even give an experiment an even break, or a first chance, not to speak of
a second chance. While this shows wonderful self confidence and chutzpa, it
also shows a casual disregard for facts, truth, and careful evaluation of
experimental evidence.
 
Mr. Smith asks that I "use the same manners you would use with MITI
contacts in this forum?" Okay, I will. It is agreed. Let me assure everyone
that if a MITI contact was to start spouting the kind of absurd, intolerant,
bigoted, unscientific nonsense we read here, viz: "The experiment is crap, by
the way, what is it?" I would tell that MITI person, as the Japanese say, "go
to Hell, and have a nice trip."
 
Mr. Smith asks me to be civil, and to exhibit "professional behavior." Okay,
I will be civil with those who are civil and reasonable with me. On the other
hand, I have no desire and no intention of being civil with people who
deliberate defame me, or accuse me of committing fraud during important
International Conferences, or people who attack the work of my Japanese
colleagues even though they know absolutely nothing about the work, or the
scientists.
 
Let me repeat that we are not conducting some kind of cute word game here in
this forum, or in the newspapers, or elsewhere. This is politics. This is real
life. Words, as I said, have consequences, and they can lead to poisoning a
persons's reputation, they can cause that person to lose his job. "Professional
behavior" includes defending one's reputation against dangerous and scurrilous
attacks, and defending one's friends; such defenses are not made by Mr. Nice
Guy. You have to call a spade a spade, and you have to be blunt, forceful and
direct.
 
In this political battle the stakes are very high, possibly including our
nation's economic and national security. The so-called "skeptics" declared war
on cold fusion in 1989, and they have made every effort to discredit, attack,
and personally demean cold fusion workers; they think *nothing* of spreading
rumors that we are deliberate frauds, or that we are in cahoots with some kind
of stock market scam. If these "skeptics" went around posting unfounded attacks
on other groups of scientists or professionals, say, a group of doctors, they
would be up to their eyebrows in trouble. They have gotten away with it here
in the U.S. because CF scientists have been weak, frightened, and put-upon. I
am here to put a stop to this outrage. I am the sort of person who takes a
stand, and makes a loud noise, and does not suffer fools gladly. What other
kind of person would do this? You have to put up with a noisy, discontented,
loudmouth if you want this job done.
 
 
Jim Bowery does not realize just who invited Notoya to M.I.T. It was Drs.
Hagelstein and Smullin, who are quite convinced that cold fusion is real and
worth pursuing. CF has friends even at M.I.T. Mr. Bowery goes on to re-write
history:
 
"MIT, in an effort to counter the irrational hysteria surrounding the so-called
'cold nuclear fusion', has demanded strict scientific evidence and a reasonable
theory to support the expensive research that would have to go into it."
 
Let me set you straight Mr. Bowery: as soon as the CF story broke, some
professors at MIT, in an effort to crush CF, called newspaper writers and
personally attacked Pons and Fleischmann, and then denied they had ever said
anything, even though they knew the words were on audiotape. Then these
professors conducted a sloppy, unprofessional experiment, which gave them
positive results, much to their surprise. There is ample, perhaps overwhelming,
evidence that someone forged fake negative results, and published them. Two
years later, one of the leading scientists publicly said their results were no
good; useless. Yet they refuse to back down, or formally withdraw these
results. When discussions of CF up in the national press, their results are
frequently cited as "proof" that CF does not exist, so it is essential to that
the results be formally declared invalid -- as they have publicly admitted --
or forged, as the case may be.
 
They refuse to explain why, when and where the data was tampered with. When
asked, they stonewall, they obfuscate, or they give untenable and contradictory
explanations.
 
This behavior is irresponsible, outrageous, and against every tradition of
science and academia. These people have disgraced the good name of MIT,
embarrassed U.S. science, and held up the development of a vital new science
and technology. They have handed over an enormous advantage to our biggest and
most powerful economic competitors. When the full details of what they have
done, and the dreadful, continuing results of their actions become generally
know, I hope that the U.S. public demands a full investigation, and I hope they
are severely censured. Such behavior on the part of our scientific leaders and
decision makers must not be tolerated.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 / John Logajan /  Revenge of the Bubbles.  The final chapter.
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Revenge of the Bubbles.  The final chapter.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 09:47:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>How big were the bubbles? Seriously, much as I love simple, 'eyeball' methods
>of doing things, that sounds a little bit *too* simple.
 
The bubbles are about the size of a BB (as in a BB gun.)  I am making relative
measurements as opposed to absolute measurements.  I make no claim as to
whether I am getting too much gas or too little.  All I can claim is that gas
varies over a considerable range with a fixed current.
 
I've checked for gas leaks at all points on and around the rubber stopper with
a soap/water mixture.  No leaks.  I'd have to get a BB sized leak bubble every
minute just to throw my counts off by 1%.  But nothing.
 
When I cut the current from 200ma to 100ma, the bubble counts are cut nicely
in half.  This is good sanity check, and I think it demonstrates the linearity
and accuracy of the bubble counting method.
 
There really is not a lot that can go wrong with such a device.  But I'm
willing to entertain specific criticisms.  I'm willing to claim an accuracy
of 2 percent over short term transitions.
 
Current (and final) experiment status:
 
This morning the forward 200ma current was producing 87 bubbles a minute.
Ten hours later (getting home from my day job) the 200ma current was still
producing 87 bubbles a minute.
 
At 8:03PM I reversed the current and took a count three minutes later of
96 per minute.  By 8:15 the count was 103 per minute.  At 8:47 the bubbles
were 108 per minute.  At 12:10AM, about 3.5 hours later, the count was 107
bubbles per minute.
 
At 12:15AM I switched the current back to the forward direction.  Three minutes
later the counts per minute was 89.   I just checked it again (1:03 AM) and the
count is 94 bubbles per minute.
 
The highest count I ever got was initially 120 with reverse current.  The
lowest count I ever got was 80 a few hours after running forward current.
 
I agree with Farrell that even recombination such as I suspect here could
not possibly account for the HydroCatalysis Power Company's claimed 10 watts
V*I in and 100 watts heat out.  But I believe it does call into serious
question any Mills type cell producing less than V*I out in which a V-1.48
correction is assumed.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  Rothwell /  Tom is right again, as usual
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom is right again, as usual
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 17:20:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege's words really bear repeating, and emphasis:
 
"Workers in this field are not publishing complete experiments.  Q.E.D.
 
In fact, reading the Como paper again, I find some of the content downright
misleading, considering what McKubre knew at the time.  Please be aware that
I am not accusing McKubre of being in any way unethical.  He is being paid to
do this work and to keep the results secret until they can be given patent
protection.  He is operating under one set of rules - the paid researcher.  I
am operating under a different set of rules."
 
Exactly right! And let me add that when I ask people like McKubre, Pons and
Fleischmann, "have you published all of details of your experiment?" they
respond without hesitation, "no, and I have no intention of doing so." The
fact that these people are deliberately and consciously keeping secrets is
not a secret. For example, before he told the world about the aluminum, I was
at a meeting and I asked McKubre, "are you adding anything to the electrolyte?"
He simply answered something like, "I can't talk about that." That, to me,
is a perfectly reasonable and responsible answer.
 
I myself wish that they *would* publish complete experiments, but I don't see
how they could. People who work at a for-profit corporation cannot arbitrarily
rewrite the rules of commerce, business and economics. If you run a restaurant
downtown, the sight of those homeless, destitute people might break your heart,
but you cannot invite them in and let them eat up all of your food, because it
would instantly put you out of business. Scientists who criticize Technova or
SRI for keeping trade secrets secret are living in an idealized dream world
where money does not matter and corporations don't have to worry about profit
and loss.
 
On the other hand, there is a bold model of a CF corporation that *does* reveal
a remarkable number of trade secrets: HydroCatalysis Power Company. Right here
in this forum, no less! I don't know how they do it; they must have a superb
patent lawyer. I *hope* they do! Perhaps they have in mind an energy company
modeled on Sun Computer Company, which breaks all the rules about keeping
proprietary secrets, yet somehow thrives. Anyway, I take my hat off to Mills
and to Farrell, and I thank them for their continued 'open research.' Also,
sorry I called it 'CF.' I gotta call it something.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  /  Radioactive Waste Disposal
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactive Waste Disposal
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 19:32:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Not exactly the subject of this group, but I learned something during the
Washington trip that applies.
 
"An Improved Method of Radioactive Waste Disposal"
 
The scheme is to bury waste in deep wells in subduction
zones.  The waste comes back up millions of years later
by which time it has decayed.  The new information that
I have learned, is that at the great pressures in the
mantel, the material will decay faster!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  Bauer /       Misleading in science
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Misleading in science
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 21:19:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There has been a little back-and-forth on this net about people possibly
putting misleading info into publications. It seems that unquestionably
occurred in the race to high-temperature superconductors.
>From U. Felt & H. Nowotny, "Striking gold in the 1990s: the discovery of high-
temperature superconductivity and its impact on the science system", SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN VALUES, 17 #4 (Autumn 1992) 506-531--
"the famous "Woodstock of Physics",where thousands of conference participants
 at the...American Physical Society meeting.... led to the veritable explosion
of a new communication procedure, that is, "science by press conference""
NOTE: THIS IS THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY THAT DEPLORED COLD-FUSION SCIENCE BY PRESS-
RELEASE
P.519 "Chu.... First... submitted a paper containing two systematic mistakes
making it useless to any reader. ...second ... a press conference...
announcing--without giving any detail--the discovery of a new material
superconducting at about 98 K. Only... [then] did he send his corrections to
the journal";  citing for this, Wu et al., Physical Review Letters, 58:908 and
Kolata, SCIENCE, 236:663
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudfn cudlnBauer cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.23 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Naive questions
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Naive questions
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:16:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew) writes:
 
>       If not, seems like we have invented a new type of
> storage cell that releases heat in unpredicted ways.
>       BartB
 
This is definately considered, especially since most chemical explainations
involve storage of one sort or another.  Some people try to look for so much
heat that there is no way a chemical could store it, others do a before and
after chemical analysis.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Silicates and Aluminates
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates and Aluminates
Date: 24 Nov 92 15:00:06 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
 
I would like to publicly thank several people who have helped to clarify
the debate regarding the Notoya demonstration.  Jim Carr wrote a thorough
and well-written response to V. Noninski and others -- better than I did
I suppose.  Jed Rothwell's insider information should quell further debate;
he wrote:  "Hoping to pour oil on troubled waters, and not on a bonfire,
let me say David Buehler and Steve Jones are right, most of the time Notoya
left the control cell at lower power level than the CF cell, in order to
compensate for power lost to electrolysis."   Tom Droege was kind:  "Again
I would like to complement Jones and Buehler for excellent work in pointing
out problems with the Notoya demonstration."  (item 1683)
Tom Droege also makes some very interesting observations:
"I find the recent P&F publications much more consistent with trickery than
with honest publication.  Why spend so much journal space with justification
of their obscure calorimetry instead of telling us what they do to produce
"boiling cells"?  I assume they are commercial and that they are trying to
mislead us while publicly showing just enought to reassure their backers.
While the thought of publishing fake data horrifies any academic, when there
are billions to be gained, some may change their principles."  (item 1685)
 
Whew!  Here is one hypothesis regarding Pons' boiling cells:  suppose silicates
from the glass walls of the flask were electro-deposited onto an electrode.
Then the resistance in the electrolysis cell would increase.  But Pons was using
constant current, so the voltage and *power* would also rise.  As the
temperature then rose, more silicates would come from the glass flask, adding
to the feedback until the approx. 40 cc D2O boiled.  This is a scenario worked
by BYU Prof. Lee Hansen, Nate Hoffman, Dr. Criddle of Canada, a Japanese
researcher and myself.  There are other consequences of a silicate
coating which could be considered another time.  Note that Pons' cells were
open, that no H2O control was shown, and that no reference electrode was in
evidence.
Aluminates could have a similar effect as silicates.  Hence my considerable
interest in other comments by Tom Droege regarding McKubre's cells:  "One of
the things Mike McKubre presented at the (private) Washington meeting was
his experiment P-15.  This experiment is also discussed in the Como
proceedings.  I have now re-read the Como proceedings several times.  I can
find no mention of the addition of 200 ppm Aluminum.  Yet there it was on the
view graph last Tuesday."
Hmmmmm.
Has anyone else considered the effects of silicates and aluminates on apparent
"excess heat" in P&F-type cells?
 
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 /  Karol /  Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 09:19:59 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Concerning the allegation that under great pressure, nuclear power waste
will decay faster...I believe this is in error.  The radioactive decay
rates, half-lives, that are affected by pressure are electron capture
decays I believe.  And they are affected only slightly (few percent?).
Fission products are not electron capture nuclides but are beta-decay
nuclides for which extranuclear changes are considerably less
influential.
 
Am I wrong anyone?
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The Bigot Replies
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Bigot Replies
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 18:12:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has again put some very harsh words in my mouth.  He says I
called Yamaguchi "incompetent".  Did anyone else see that message?  If
I made any such statement I wish to apologize to Dr. Yamaguchi.  It is
the experiment that should be the issue, and I will try to keep my
questions and remarks centered on that issue.  Firstly, the results are
rather different, perhaps even in conflict with other CF results, and
may be the first example of a measurement of a specific nuclear ash in
significant quantity.  Since no other experiment has an equivalent
result, it seems reasonable to question whether the result is genuine.
 
Next I want to compliment John Logajan on having made some very
significant measurements with a simple setup of the sort that Jed
is usually very enthusiastic about.  I think the bubble counting
method John used is good enough to indicate that there is more to
this business than the Notoya-Rothwell demo will ever tell us.
Have any of the highly successful big guns in the H-Ni business
ever even looked for the effects John describes?
 
And now the contrast between industrial R&D practices and academic
science is once again brought to the fore.  All I have to say is
the industrial types are free to do it the way they want, but I
do object strongly when they pretend they are doing scientific research
and then seek to use the science community to legitimize their
"results".  There is no point in trying to resolve scientific
questions from a bringing together of different bits of information
if those providing the information are not participating in the
process as seekers after the truth.  You know if you flush the
results "published" at the Como conference and the recent circus
in Japan, there is still very little data to support the notion
that CF can been induced by electrolysis.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.24 / Paul Houle /  Re: Bubbles?
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles?
Date: 24 Nov 92 17:53:43 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <921124043233_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>This behavior is irresponsible, outrageous, and against every tradition of
>science and academia. These people have disgraced the good name of MIT,
>embarrassed U.S. science, and held up the development of a vital new science
>and technology. They have handed over an enormous advantage to our biggest and
>most powerful economic competitors. When the full details of what they have
>done, and the dreadful, continuing results of their actions become generally
>know, I hope that the U.S. public demands a full investigation, and I hope they
>are severely censured. Such behavior on the part of our scientific leaders and
>decision makers must not be tolerated.
>
>- Jed
 
        Yes,  I agree -- I think this "cold fusion" has gone on long enough!
In fact,  I think that whoever wants to talk about it should start a new group
such as sci.physics.not.fusion (For Mills,  the people from HPC,  and the
nuclear cluster model people),  or maybe alt.politics.lyndon.larouche (For
bashing MIT,  the world bank,  Henry Kissinger and Roy Cohn),  or prehaps
sci.pathological.  Leave this group to people who want to talk about real
fusion phenomena -- such as stellar fusion,  fusion in the early universe,
magnetic and inertial confinement fusion research,  and of course,  fusion
weapons.
 
        But seriously,  I think that anyone looking at "Cold Fusion" can
recognize the signs of pathological science.  Real phenomena are replicatable
in other people's labs,  whereas one of the hallmarks of "Cold Fusion" is
irreproducability.  Like other pathological phenomena,  interest in cold
fusion exploded after the initial press release (since most communication
about "Cold Fusion" is done in press releases and very little in peer-
reviewed journals:  and the rest is in "21st century science and technology".),
reached a peak near 50% acceptance and has since plummeted.  I could go
on and on,  but it seems very clear to me that "cold fusion" is going to end
up just like polywater or ESP.  The only real tragedy is that these people
are going to discredit work being done to bring fusion energy to the world.
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / John Logajan /  Bubble bubble who has the bubble
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubble bubble who has the bubble
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 21:42:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
>logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>: There really is not a lot that can go wrong with such a device.  But I'm
>: willing to entertain specific criticisms.
>
>It seems to me that the biggest assumption is that bubble size and/or
>composition will stay more or less constant over some range of temperature.
 
I did find a variable to be wary of.  The orientation of the hose exit
with respect to the gravitational vertical has a strong effect on the
size of the bubbles created before they break loose from the hose exit
and float up to the surface.
 
If the orientation changes, then you cannot meaningfully compare the
earlier results with the later results.
 
If the orientation is not disturbed, though, I get amazingly consistent
count results.  Over the course of 48 hours, I was getting counts of
87 or 88 per minute.   And in a test of 200ma and 100ma the count results
were proportional +or- 1 count.
 
The key point in all of this is that a reveral of current can cause
rather drastic changes in counts per minute within a time span no greater
than three minutes and no change in orientation of the hose exit.
 
Someone mentioned to me in a private conversation that I might consider
the delay effects of the bubbles on the metal, the "ginger ale effect" --
i.e. what happens if a vibration shakes them loose en masse.
 
As I understand the situation, a bubble created on the metal surface is
reflected at the hose exit as a systemic increase in volume.  It doesn't
have to rise to the surface first.  However, since it is created under
about 6" of water, the bubbles will expand about 2 percent (if I did my
calculation correctly) upon reaching the surface.
 
So such a mass migration, which could only last a fraction of a second,
would only change the flow rate by 2% -- but since I average over a minute,
I believe I'd never see such minute detail in transient flow rate change.
 
It has been suggested that I check over the period of several days/weeks
to see if H2 is going into the Ni.  Also it has been requested that I
collect the bubbles in a upsidedown water-filled vile as a double check
on my bubble rate.  I will attempt to do both.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.26 /  /  The Trouble With Bubbles
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Trouble With Bubbles
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 01:42:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Again John Logajan has done a nice simple experiment which demonstrates
the problem with the Mills type of experiment.  There is an Agouti in the
woodpile somewhere.  (Not the correct Kentucky expression, but I must be PC.)
 
I don't know exactly what the problem is with this experiment, but things do
not add up.  I find problems, Logajan finds problems, *** there is a problem
with this experiment ***.
 
There may even be "anomalous heat".  I don't know.  But I do know that the
simple experiment is meaningless.  I spilled mercury all over my basement
trying to separate the cell from the recombiner in a sure way.  In the end
it made no difference.  I think all the protestations about the catalyst
giving problems are just garbage to keep us from running a closed system
which does not show "anomalous heat".
 
I will admit that I did not continue this work to map out all the problems.
But sometimes I got about the right amount of gas, and sometimes I did not.
Each time I came to Mills with a problem he had a new explanation.  The design
of these experienmts is such that a lot of chemistry can go on for a long time.
When I ran with the cell outside the calorimeter and the recombiner in the
calorimeter, ** I did not see the correct amout of energy for 1.48*I **.
 
OK, John, you made a good try.  But you should not have used an Olive jar.
If you replace that with a Peanut Butter jar, I will then tell you that you
should not have used that too.  That is the way this game works.  I think
the light water work is a moving target.
 
In the end, I decided to go back to P&F.  The McKubre experiment are at least
an order of magnitude more believeable than the Mills work (to me).
 
Again, three cheers to John Logajan who again demonstrates that it is possible
to do a nice experiment on the kitchen table.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.27 /  morrison@vxpri /  Cold Fusion expts. with Pd and Ti in Kamiokande.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.decnet.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion expts. with Pd and Ti in Kamiokande.
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 07:32:28 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

                                                        12 NOVEMBER 1992.
 
  REVIEW OF COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS IN KAMIOKANDE WITH TITANIUM AND PALLADIUM
 
                  Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
ABSTRACT
    Jones et al. and Menlove et al. have claimed production by Cold Fusion,
of two types of bursts of neutrons, one lasting some hours and the other some
hundreds of microseconds. These experiments involving the penetration of
deuterium into palladium or titanium by gas pressure and by electrolysis,
have been repeated inside the 3000 ton Kamiokande detector. It is shown that
with the very low background levels attainable in Kamiokande, neither of these
two types of bursts of neutrons are observed and the upper limits are so low
that the previous claims are disproved.
 
INTRODUCTION
    A brief account of Kamiokande experiments on Cold Fusion using titanium and
palladium was given in a review of Cold Fusion given at the Third International
Cold Fusion Conference held in Nagoya, October 1992. A more complete account
is given here.
    Kamiokande is a detector consisting of 3000 tons of highly purified water
deep underground. The walls are covered with large photomultipliers which can
observe Cherenkov light from charged tracks. The basic idea is that Cold
Fusion cells be surrounded by a brine solution and put in the centre of the
Kamiokande detector. Any neutron from the cell has a good chance of being slowed
and absorbed by the chlorine in the brine to give an excited isotope which
decays by emitting an energetic electron which can give Cherenkov light.
    The Kamiokande experiment consisted of three parts. Was told that initially
only experiments using electrolysis with titanium and palladium cathodes and
gas loading of deuterium in titanium were foreseen. These appeared to give no
cold fusion effects so thirdly, gas loading of cement was tried (to follow up
the hypothesis that "Mother Earth" gives Cold Fusion) and effects were found.
The two earlier experiments were re-analysed and some effects were found.
    These three experiments are rather fully described in the thesis of
Taku Isheda (ICRR Report -277 -92-15 which deserves reading because of
its clearness and great detail). Figures referred to below are from this thesis.
    In my review of the Nagoya conference, Part 4, Saturday 24 October,
concerns talks by Jones, Yamaguchi, Miles, Iida, Kasagi, Cecil, Tsarev, Gozzi
and Morrison. Thus 4.1 was Jones - who talked of several subjects and described
the results of the Kamiokande experiments using cement, but did not describe
the two earlier experiments using electrolysis or gas loading of Pd and Ti.
Section 4.9 describes the review by Morrison; most of this talk was a general
review, plus the question of the two foundation experiments presented in
March 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons(press conference) and by Jones et al.
(word-of-mouth and BYU report). They are discussed as these two experiments,
which started all the Cold Fusion excitement, are now severely challenged. He
described the repeat in Kamiokande of the earlier experiments of Jones et al.
and of Menlove et al. which extended the original work.
    The March 1989 paper of Jones et al.[1] described 14 runs, one of which,
number 6, gave a neutron yield higher than background which lasted about 7 hours
and the Nature paper[1] quoted a rate of 0.4 neutrons per second. It was claimed
that this was a five standard deviation effect. Note the figure in Nature is
most unusual as for clarity of presentation, 10 counts were added to each bin,
thus 0 counts became 10 counts, one count became 11 counts, etc.
    Subsequently this rate was lowered by taking the average rate in a
different way - by averaging over all the 14 runs, this gave a rate of 0.06
neutrons per second.
    Thus two rates are quoted;
A - the rate during the burst - 0.4 n/s
B - rate averaged over all time - 0.06 n/s.
(note this would imply that the total time for 14 runs was about 47 hours).
    Later an experiment was performed jointly with Howard Menlove[2] and two
examples of enhancement of the neutron rate were observed for 17 and for 5 hours
in a total running time of 1703 hours[3]. This is the basis of the claim that
this "random" neutron emission occurs every 850 hours, this later was given as
900 hours when all runs were considered. Also a new phenomenon was observed,
in a time interval of 128 microseconds, short bursts of neutrons were observed.
    Thus now two phenomenon are claimed - short bursts and long bursts (the long
bursts are named "random" by some, but a better description is that which was
used in the original paper - "few-hour burst"). Thus the claims are for two
types of bursts, one of the order of 100 microseconds and the other lasting
hours. These two effects differ by more than a factor of ten million in
duration. It is surprising that have not seen anyone make this comment before -
an interesting challenge to theoretians to explain this factor of ten million.
    These two effects, few-hour bursts and micro-bursts, will be considered
in turn.
 
FEW-HOUR BURSTS
     Three few-hour bursts have been claimed, lasting 7, 17 and 5 hours.
During the bursts the rate, A, was 0.4 n/s for the first[1] with electrolysis
with a palladium cathode and 0.05 to 0.2 n/s for the other two[2] with
gas-loaded titanium. These latter few-hour bursts were just above the
background (about 10% in fig. 1-3e). The background for the 17-hour burst
was 0.39 counts/second and the values during the few-hour burst go from
0.405 to 0.46 counts/second - they fluctuate outside statistics. The
5-hour burst was at a rate of 0.26 counts/s above a background of 0.24 c/s.
    Thus it can be seen that the few-hour bursts are very small effects
just above background. Also the power claimed is extremely small,
about 10 E-13 Watts - this led Steve Jones to state from the beginning in 1989,
that his observations are in serious disagreement with the Fleischmann and Pons
observations. They indicate no hope of Cold Fusion giving useful energy.
    With Kamiokande having a background of about 100 to 1000 times lower than
0.05 to 0.2 n/s (see fig. 4-11), it was expected that the few-hour bursts
would be spectacularly above background.
    The results from Kamiokande are summarized at the beginning of Chapter 6,
"Random neutron emission(ie few-hour bursts) beyond the background level
has not been observed both for the cylinders (ie gas) and from the electrolysis
samples" (this excludes the cement results and runs done with both electrolytic
and cement cells in place at the same time). The numbers are;
 
Pressurized D2 gas;
   Flux upper limit = 0.00008 neutrons/second at 90% confidence limit.
                                      Total live time = 1310.7 hours.
 
Electrolytic Cells
  April set,  Flux upper limit = 0.000098 n/s at 90% CL
                                      Total live time = 387.2 hours.
  July set    Flux upper limit = 0.000057 n/s at 90% CL
                                      Total live time = 569.7 hours.
 
    Now it might be felt that this was rather strong evidence that these
results were in contradiction with the earlier results of Jones et al.
who had quoted 0.06 n/s for type B rates that is for the total time and this
is correct - the Kamiokande results are in severe disagreement with Jones et al.
   But as indicated in Ishida's thesis, there is a possible problem. This is
that Jones and Menlove claim that few-hour bursts occur only once in 900 hours.
For Menlove alone the numbers[3] are 2 bursts of 17 and 5 hours in 1703 hours
of running indicating one few-hour burst per 851 hours (have not been able to
find the numbers for the original Jones et al.[1] paper, but if they found
one burst, then that would have to have been over 1000 hours to obtain a
combined average of once per 900 hours? - on the other hand 47 hours was
calculated above?). Now the total Kamiokande running time is
1310.7 + 387.2 + 569.7 = 2267.4 hours
This is only 2.5 times 900 hours which is discouraging for few-hour emission
but not significant. Though how can the Kamiokande results be in severe
disagreement with Jones et al.[1]  but not with Jones[1] and Menlove[2]
taken together?
     However there is a crucial factor that appears not to have been
considered. This is that the masses of the metals used in the various
experiments were very different and a correction should be used for that.
     In the Jones et al. experiment the mass of titanium was only 3 grams.
In ref. 3, the average mass is given as 84 grams. Combining this one obtains
for the three few-hour bursts, about 57 grams average per few-hour burst.
     This is to be compared with the masses used in Kamiokande. For the
pressurised gas samples, they vary from 150 to 1700 grams, the average being
339 grams. Thus the 1310.7 hours should be multiplied by the factor of
(339 divided by 53 =) 6.4 giving 8379 hours. This is now significantly greater
than the 900 hours per burst claimed.
   The conclusion is that the Kamiokande results for gas -loading alone
do give a statistically significant result and invalidate the few-hour burst
claims of Jones et al.[1] (electrolysis) and Menlove et al.[2] (D2 gas).
   The masses of the titanium and palladium samples used for electrolysis are
not given directly in Ishida's thesis but the volumes are given. Since no
few-hour burst were observed in Kamiokande with electrolysis, this reinforces
the conclusion that the balance of evidence is against the existence of
few-hour bursts.
    A consequence of this is that all the calculations based on 0.4 n/s,
about the possibility of there being Cold Fusion in the Earth etc. given
in the paper to Nature, are also inappropriate by several orders of magnitude.
 
MICRO-BURSTS
       Menlove et al.[2] claimed that they had observed bursts of neutrons
in a gate of 128 microseconds. In fig 1-3b typical bursts of up to 60 neutrons
can be seen (elsewhere up to 85 neutrons in a burst) while the background only
goes up to bursts of about 5 neutrons. These are observed numbers of neutrons;
after correcting for efficiency, the number of neutrons in the burst coming
from the source can be calculated. In fig. 1-3(c) is shown the distribution
of source neutron multiplicities. It extends from 10 to 280 (the interval
0 to 10 is not taken as the background is too high). There are a total
of 69 bursts of which 31 are in the bin 10 to 20 neutrons, 14 between 20 and 50,
12 between 50 and 100 and 12 above 100. It is said on page 4 that Menlove et al.
ran for 9995 hours (note - this is for micro-bursts, for few-hour bursts it
seems that the running time was only 1703 hours)
      This experiment was repeated in Kamiokande. As the background was so
much lower, the gate was extended from 128 to 500 microseconds which improved
statistics slightly. Following Menlove et al., the cells were cooled to liquid
nitrogen temperature and then warmed up expecting that as previously (and
following the Frascatti results) that neutron emission would occur between
-50 and -10 C. A large volume was chosen so the neutron detection
efficiency was high - about 37.3%. Thus if 4 neutrons were observed, it was
taken that this corresponded to 10.6 source neutrons and if 3 neutrons
were observed this corresponded to about 8 source neutrons{section 6-1-2}).
 
A. RESULTS FROM GAS LOADING
     19 samples containing 87 cells, were run for 1305.3 hours with D2 gas
loading. One sample was run with H2 gas loading.
      5 bursts were found, 3 of multiplicity two and 2 of multiplicity three.
This implies there was no evidence for any bursts with multiplicity greater
than ten whereas for the smallest multiplicity bin. from 10 to 20, Menlove
et al. found 31 in 9995 hours, ie one per 322 hours, so in 1305 hours
4.2 bursts were expected and none were found. This is ignoring the
fact that the masses of the samples were quite different. The Menlove et
al. cells averaged 84 grams while the cells placed in Kamiokande
averaged 339 grams. Thus a correction factor of 339/84 = 4.0 should be applied.
Thus from the results of Menlove et al., one would expect 4.2 times 4.0
= 16.8 bursts with source multiplicity between 10 and 20 and zero were observed.
It must be concluded that the Kamiokande results are in serious disagreement
with the Menlove et al. bursts results - this is for the lowest multiplicities
that Menlove et al. could measure above their higher background, that is,
of 10 to 20 source neutrons.
     If one takes all multiplicities, Menlove et al. found 69 bursts with source
multiplicity above 10 in 9995 hours. Hence Kamiokande in 1305 hours would be
expected to have observed 9.3 bursts but observed none. If one corects for
the different average masses, then one would have expected 37 bursts and none
were observed - more exactly none were observed with a multiplicity greater
than three (since 3 observed neutrons corresponds to 8 source neutrons).
     The samples were cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature and warmed up.
Previously Menlove et al. claimed bursts in the region -50 to -10 C (as did
Frascatti) but as shown in fig. 6-4, none of the bursts occurred at such
temperatures - as Dr. Ishida writes on page 51, this clearly conflicts with
the results of ref. 2.
     Of the 19 samples, one sample (K-4) had four bursts, one had one burst
and the other 17 samples had no bursts.
      The overall conclusion is that the Kamiokande results with D2 gas filling,
are in disagreement with all the results of Menlove et al. also made with
gas filling.
 
B RESULTS WITH ELECTROLYSIS.
     Experiments were run for 1046.2 hours with Deuterium and 2617 hours with
Hydrogen as background runs. With deuterium 9 bursts were found with the
multiplicities of; 5 of multiplicity two, 2 of mult. three and 2 of mult. four.
With the hydrogen, 6 bursts were found; 5 had multiplicity two and 1 had
mult. three.
    It has been claimed that the rate of bursts at low multiplicities is
consistent with that observed by Menlove et al. in their experiments with
gas loading but different for higher multiplicities. The former claim will
be examined;
   By lowest multiplicities is meant the 10 to 20 bin of source neutrons
and only the two observed bursts of multiplicity four are concerned(there is a
second order effect if the spread of multiplicities is considered, but doing
a full correct calculation will not change the numbers in a significant way).
Thus Menlove et al. would predict one burst in this 10 to 20 source mult. bin
in 322 hours and hence 3.2 in 1044 hours - and this is consistent with the
2 observed in Kamiokande. Again one should correct for the different masses
of the samples. However this claim of agreement ignores that the fact that
the Menlove et al. experiment was done with gas loading; and the gas loading
results in Kamiokande are inconsistent with Menlove et al. So combining the two
experiments, gas plus electrolysis, there is no agreement for the lowest
multiplicities.
    Further if the Menlove et al. results were correct, then the very low
background experiment of Kamiokande should have shown very dramatically the
other multiplicities - the other low multiplicities from 20 to 50 where
14 bursts were claimed, but none found in Kamiokande, and the 22 bursts
claimed by Menlove et al. with multiplicities between 50 and 280 but
where again, none were observed in Kamiokande.
    There is the question of what was Kamiokande observing with the 5 + 9 + 6
events which were recorded with multiplicity greater than two. This question
is quite separate from the question of whether the Kamiokande results are
consistent with Menlove et al. results - that question has been settled.
   One obvious explanation is fission of contamination in the cells, for
example, fission by uranium. In Dr. Ishida's thesis this is considered and
two comments are made;
a) from calculations, the burst distribution for uranium for multiplicities
of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 observed neutrons, is expected to be 25.1%, 53.7%, 17.8%,
3.1% and 0.3% resp. Now multiplicities zero and one cannot easily be measured
but the multiplicites for 2, 3 and 4 neutrons looks slightly different, there
being more of multiplicities 3 and 4. So is this a new effect or is there
possibly an explanation that has not been considered?
b) Is there enough uranium in the titanium and in the palladium to account
for the effects observed? On page 51 it is noted that in sample K-4, 4 bursts
are observed in 608.4 hours and this would correspond to 1.3 +/- 0.7 milligrams
of uranium. Sample K-4 had 300 grams of Titanium - this would then give
(1.3 +/- 0.7 mg)/300 g = 4.5 +/- 2.3 ppm of U in Ti. The uranium background
was not measured in the cylinders (ie 300 g titanium and 2000 grams of holder)
but has been measured elsewhere when less than 1 ppm was found. This might seem
to settle the question and say it could not be uranium. However there are two
important factors neglected;
i) Only sample K-4 was taken out of the 19 samples with gas loading and the
16 samples with electrolysis. And of the 5 + 9 bursts recorded, no less than 4
were found in sample K-4. A full calculation taking all 19 + 16 = 35 samples
plus the 5 + 9 = 14 bursts, would reduce the ppm by a factor of ten and bring
the two numbers into approximative agreement.
ii) Kamiokande measures neutrons occurring in the water outside the brine and
the cells. It does not measure neutrons coming from the cells alone. Now when
there is fission, gammas as well as neutrons are emitted almost simultaneously.
These gammas can create neutrons by photo-disintegration. Hence the number of
neutrons created by the fission plus photdisintegration in the cell combined,
is higher than that from neutrons alone. Hence the table of multiplicities
given above from calculation, needs correcting and this correction will
increase the higher multiplicities and also decrease the amount of uranium
needed.
    A further important point is that it is unsafe to use hydrogen as a
background for deuterium because the gammas do cause photo-disintegration
of the deuterium to give additional neutrons but do not give additional
neutrons with hydrogen.
    Thus the choice of brine to detect neutrons in the special circumstances of
Kamiokande, does cause special problems. A better solution for a background run,
would be to place the cell in Kamiokande but not to switch on any
current.
 
OVERALL CONCLUSION
    The overall conclusion is that all the results obtained by Jones et al.
and by Menlove et al., are disproved by the Kamiokande experiment which has
much lower background and hence much lower limits.
 
Acknowledgements:
      Thanks are due to Steven Jones for comments and for answering many of
my questions - however this does not mean he necessarily agrees with all the
contents and conclusions. Again the scientific community must thank the
Kamiokande group who for the third time have performed a crucial experiment
in a field, the others being on Supernova neutrinos and Solar neutrinos.
 
References:
[1] S.E. Jones et al, Nature 338(1989)737
[2] H.O. Menlove et al. J. of Fusion Energy, 9(1990) 4
[3] A.A.Anderson and S.E. Jones, AIP conf. Proc. 228, "Anomalous Nuclear
    Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Eds. S.E. Jones, F. Scarramuzzi
and D. Worledge,AIP, New York,  p 24 1990.
 
                                           (c) Douglas R. O. Morrison.
Address; CERN, Geneva 23, Switzerland
Email: morrison@vxprix.decnet.cern.ch
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmorrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / Desiree Bradley /  Puzzled abt C. Fusion
     
Originally-From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Puzzled abt C. Fusion
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 19:40:04 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I have tried, off and on, to follow what is said about cold fusion ever since
the topic made the news a while back.  I have a question but, not being a
physicist, it may be a matter of not understanding what I read and hear.
Regarding the results of the Pons & Fleischmann experiments, are there only
three possible answers?
 
(1) The data was faked  (2) Hydrogen atoms were fused to form helium  (3) The
experiments were done in good faith, but there were some accidental errors in
the calculations, etc.
 
What about a FOURTH possibility: P&F stumbled on a type of chemical reaction
(or some sort of energy) that nobody had heard of before.
 
If this is what you have already been discussing in this group, there
probably not much point in answering my question.  After all, we all would
know that any answer would be lost on me.
 
Still, though I was skeptical from the very beginning (no offence to any of
you meant) about hydrogens fusing in a test tube, I did consider the idea/
that there might be something new found out.  (See my fourth possibility)
 
Desiree Bradley
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDesiree_Bradley cudfnDesiree cudlnBradley cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 16:00:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> The scheme is to bury waste in deep wells in subduction
> zones.  The waste comes back up millions of years later
> by which time it has decayed.  The new information that
> I have learned, is that at the great pressures in the
> mantel, the material will decay faster!
>
> Tom Droege
 
How do they plan on protecting the waste during the million years or so it
takes to be subducted?  This also sounds expensive, considering how deep the
ocean trenches are.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / Barry Wise /  Re: Bubbles?
     
Originally-From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles?
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 20:01:57 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Nov24.175343.19328@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
 
>       But seriously,  I think that anyone looking at "Cold Fusion" can
> recognize the signs of pathological science.  Real phenomena are replicatable
> in other people's labs,  whereas one of the hallmarks of "Cold Fusion" is
> irreproducability.
 
Your right, it is quite possible that this is pathological science, but as a
cautionary tale there were some results in the 20's/30's in the development of
semiconductors that were irreproducible because (as I understand it) they
didn't have the processing techniques to develop doped silicon. If CF exists
the research going on may be similar to cooking (a pinch of this a dash of
that) looking for the right recipe without knowing what the real effects are of
the mix.
 
On the other hand, I recommend Steven Gould's book _The Mismeasure of Man_ to
show how human frailty and prejudice (both scientific and racial) can distort
science. Some of the results and accusations on both sides of the question
being debated in this forum fit his descriptions to a T.
 
 
--
Barry Wise
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / R ALTSTATT /  Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
     
Originally-From: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 21:47:52 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

 
        I agree that the pressure might not be a factor,
but the temperature increase under pressure could certainly be valid.
What kind of storage tanks are being used?  The solutions
will certainly be freed and mixed under non- ideal conditions.
If these are medium to high level waste then the neutron interaction
could be moderated by other products and create a quicker "burn rate".
        The idea of storing radioactives in an unstable zone
needs more work.  What hasn't even been mentioned is that the decay products
are heavy metals.  These will be hazardous waste even when they are
no longer radioactive.  These need to be handled carefully and
not opened indiscriminately even underground.
                        R. Altstatt M.S.E.S.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrlaltsta cudfnRICHARD cudlnALTSTATT cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Revenge of the Bubbles. The final chapter.
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Bubbles. The final chapter.
Date: 25 Nov 92 18:00:13 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>I agree with Farrell that even recombination such as I suspect here could
>not possibly account for the HydroCatalysis Power Company's claimed 10 watts
>V*I in and 100 watts heat out.  But I believe it does call into serious
>question any Mills type cell producing less than V*I out in which a V-1.48
>correction is assumed.
 
I was always a fan of a chemical explination of the Mills type excess heat.
The main reason is that Potassium reacts with hydrogen vigorusly as has
been described before in this group.  While researching the reactions that
take place I found Ni and K can bond, so it is likely that a layer of some
NiK compound is formed.  This leads me to wonder if NiK can catalyize the
seperation of H2O.  This type of explination would resolve the apparent
discrepency between the amount of gasses evolved per unit power applied.
As John and Tom have noted, a catalyized seperation would also through
a monkey wrench in the V-1.48 correction.
 
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
I enjoyed the description of the experiment John.  Keeps us updated.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.25 / Larry Wall /  Re: Revenge of the Bubbles.  The final chapter.
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Bubbles.  The final chapter.
Date: 25 Nov 92 18:10:49 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <9211240728.AA02904@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
: There really is not a lot that can go wrong with such a device.  But I'm
: willing to entertain specific criticisms.
 
It seems to me that the biggest assumption is that bubble size and/or
composition will stay more or less constant over some range of temperature.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.26 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Academic or Commercial?
     
Originally-From: bugs@netsys.com (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Academic or Commercial?
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 06:36:18 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
 
>In general, I do not believe that conspiracy is possible.  But this is a
>special case.  Possibly only two know the secret.  My brother has a theory
>gleaned from many years in the early semiconductor work that if three or more
>people know a secret process, that the group will split and form separate
>businesses.  But here only two may know, and one at least is old enough to
>likely not have commercial ambition.
 
But Tom!  There was/is a third guy.  Wasn't there a grad student/gopher type
named Hawkings or Hawken .... something.  I'm sure he'd have some stories
to tell.  What are the reasons that he is silent on this I wonder?  Has he
not yet gotten his Phd out of them yet?  Does he have an exclusive contract
with Frank?
 
.....pressure makes radioactive isotopes decay faster.......?......
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.26 / John Logajan /  The Spiral of Doom
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Spiral of Doom
Date: 26 Nov 1992 17:33:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
Synopsis:  The Spiral of Doom forms tag team with Bouncy Bubbles.
 
The Bouncy Bubbles Bubble Chamber was joined in the ring today with new
tag team member, the foreboding Spiral of Doom.
 
The Spiral of Doom consists of the remaining 5'3" section of clear soft
flexible plastic tropical fishtank air hose.  It is wrapped six times
around the base of a 12 ounce unopened can of Hunt's All Natural Tomato
Paste.  The tomato can and the spiral are submersed in a water filled one
quart glass measuring pitcher.  At the bottom of the spiral is the hose
exit.  The 12-14 inch section of the hose from the top of the spiral goes
to the air hose connector coming out of the Mills type cell, where it can
easily be connected or disconnected.
 
When disconnected the natural water pressure fills the hose with water.
When reconnected the gas being created in the Mills cell slowly pushes the
water in the hose down and out the exit hole.  I start timing the gas flow
when the water/gas line first passes the weldment on the tomato can (this
delay gives me time to reconnect the hose, check the current setting, and
get my wristwatch handy.)  I stop timing the gas flow six loops later when
the very first gas bubble (had to keep that venerable feature!) pops out
of the air hose exit.
 
Here are the results:
 
          Current              Flow Time
Test #   Direction   Current    Seconds    Comments
------   ---------   -------   ---------   ---------------------------
  #1      Forward     200 ma      258      After 20+ hours undisturbed.
  #2      Forward     100 ma      525      Within 2% of 1/2.
  #3      Reverse     200 ma      198    * 30% more gas!  Started flow
                                           timing within 10 seconds of
                                           current reversal.
  #4      Reverse     200 ma      191      One hour later.
  #5      Reverse     100 ma      404      Within 6% of 1/2.
  #6      Forward     200 ma      217      10 minutes after current
                                           reversal -- still recovering.
  #7      Forward     200 ma      241      One hour later.
  #8      Forward     200 ma      245      One hour later.
  #9      Forward     200 ma      256      8 hours later.  In the groove.
 
 
There you have it folks.  A nice consistent 30% asymmetry, now measured
two different ways, several times.
 
There is some irony here.  For if there turns out to be something to CF
or Mills hydrogen, the first low level indications of it in open cells
were potentially false positives!
 
Tom Droege says sometimes he got the right amount of gas and sometimes he
didn't.  I wonder if this doesn't have to do with the physical geometry of
the cell.  In my cell, the Ni is a 1.5" deep pile of nodules on the bottom.
The Pt wire is messily spiraled from the top rubber stopper down about three
inches.  There is a one inch space between the end of the Pt wire and the
Ni nodules (this is quite a long distance I imagine for a cell and probably
accounts for my high running voltage of 5.01 volts.)
 
Most of the gas production is seen to be coming off the top most Ni nodules
and the end section of the Pt -- no doubt the points of the highest voltage
gradient in the electrolyte.  Thus we have the majority of the H2 and O2
gases flowing past the Pt wire both in the electrolyte and up in the gas
head space -- a possible favorable situation for recombination.
 
Maybe in Tom's case he had some sort of fluctuating electrolyte flow that
sometimes carried the gasses to a favorable recombination site, and
sometimes not.  ??
 
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Bubbles?
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles?
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 92 09:29:54 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Jed Rothwell writes:
>Jim Bowery does not realize just who invited Notoya to M.I.T. It was
Drs.
>Hagelstein and Smullin, who are quite convinced that cold fusion is real
and
>worth pursuing. CF has friends even at M.I.T. Mr. Bowery goes on to
re-write
>history:
>
>"MIT, in an effort to counter the irrational hysteria surrounding the
so-called
>'cold nuclear fusion', has demanded strict scientific evidence and a
reasonable
>theory to support the expensive research that would have to go into it."
 
Good grief, Jed!  I don't know how  you did it, but in just a few
lines you managed to:
 
1) Make it appear Hagelstein is something other than a technical
parasite who has managed to attach MIT's suckers to cold
fusion's main artery.
 
2) Attribute Thomas Kunich's words to me.
 
3) Do a more effective job of insulting me (through this particular
 misattribution) than my worst enemies could hope to.
 
Talk about rewriting history!  ;-)
 
What ARE you going to do for an encore performance?
 
>Let me set you straight Mr. Bowery: as soon as the CF story broke, some
>professors at MIT, in an effort to crush CF,
 
No, please, allow ME to set the record straight.
 
When Kunich posted his sickening apology for MIT, I wrote the
following response but then decided I would just let his fallacy
speak for itself rather than post the response.  Since you have
misattributed his words to me, I will now post my origional
response to Kunich's words:
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Thomas H. Kunichm writes:
>In article <eLXLuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com
> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>>Why any researcher who genuinely believes they have replicated
>>some aspect of the P&F "excess heat" would consider MIT worthy
>>of their attention is beyond me.  MIT has gone out of its way
>>to establish itself, along with Cal Tech and other major "academic"
>>institutions, as irrationally opposed to alternative fusion
>>technologies while irrationally favoring proven idiocy such as
>>the Tokamak.  They no longer have any credibility.
>>
>I think that a restatement of the above observations is that
>MIT, in an effort to counter the irrational hysteria surrounding
>the so-called 'cold nuclear fusion', has demanded strict scientific
>evidence and a reasonable theory to support the expensive research
>that would have to go into it.
 
You'll have to excuse me but I was under the impression that
"leadership" (which "leading" institutions such as MIT and Cal Tech
 are supposedly showing the world) involved doing the right thing
independent of others.  It does NOT give priority to reactionary
attempts to "counter" the positions taken by kooks, incomptentents
or charlatans.  The world has more than enough of the latter to keep
us all busy all the time.  Some of us have to get out there and do
some constructive work.  If MIT and Cal Tech have now abrogated that
role to others, then let us all dispense with the term "leading"
when speaking of these institutions.
 
But more realistically:
 
Their continued adherence to the Tokamak demonstrates they
are more akin to the Church of the Dark Ages than progressive
institutions emerging from the Age of Reason.  Their inability
to allow even one tenth of one percent of the money allocated to
the Tokamak to fall into the hands of other fusion technologies
(CNF being only one) shows that their attitude toward technology
is the attitude of Church authorities toward its dogmas and
heresies.  There is simply no excuse for such reactionary dogma
in "leading" technical institutions -- particularly when they
dominate the allocation our tax dollars.  Let them waste the
unsubsidized tuition of students foolish or unfortunate
enough to waste their money at those schools.
 
You say MIT/Cal Tech are protecting us from "expensive" work
on CNF without results.  Can you count powers of ten?  Read history?
Look at the results of the Tokamak.  Look at the exponents on the
budgets for the Tokamak vs both the actual and POTENTIAL costs of
other fusion technology efforts.  Once you have your facts straight
you might consider altering your servile posture toward these
world-menacing bureaucrats.  However, your response gives me
the distinct impression you like so many others, will simply go
with whoever has the most power/money at the moment regardless of
the merits.  We'll see.
 
>On this net we have seen Tom Droege, a fine scientist, make a few
>mistakes that led him to erroneously believe that he had positive
results.
 
Tom Droege is a leader.  He takes chances and bears the consequences.
He made a mistake on his own time and money.  He even put his own
money down on Pd futures prior to his retraction.  Had I lost money
on Pd due to his misannouncement, I would still respect the man and
his work as much as we all do now.  He still has a lot of credibility
to draw on.
 
On the other hand...
 
MIT and Cal Tech are a bunch of politically obsessed pussies bankrupted
of credibility by the Tokamak and decades of lies about it before
Congress so as to swindle an entire generation out of a more hopeful
future including viable fusion energy.  Their posture toward CNF is,
by Occam's Razor, reactionary intolerance toward Mother Nature for
leaving them in the dust -- they simply forgot that Mother Nature
isn't funded by Congress.
 
Nothing they do now will restore their credibility.
 
>But he checked his work and found his own errors. Notoya, with all due
>respect, certainly did not. And this is the sort of thing that MIT
>doesn't want to be associated with.
 
Apparently MIT and Cal Tech don't want to be associated with anything
except large quantities of our tax dollars for the Tokamak -- or
perhaps they can hire enough lawyers and buy enough judges and
politicians to make one of Haglestein's scatter-shot CNF patents
stick -- supporting such effort with our tax dollars, of course.
 
>And it seems imminently reasonable to me.
 
And understandable too if the only real "leadership" you show is
Byzantine gamesmanship.
 
PS:  I include the misdeeds of UCLA and General Atomic's ITER
program under the CalTech banner.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive Waste Disposal
Date: 26 Nov 92 20:37:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7600013@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
 Rauchfuss) writes:
 
>How do they plan on protecting the waste during the million years or so it
>takes to be subducted?  This also sounds expensive, considering how deep the
>ocean trenches are.
 
You don't leave the radioactive waste sitting about on the surface
waiting to be subducted. You dig a hole and bury it. You then know
aproximately where it is for the forseeable future.
 
The problem isn't with safely disposing with radioactive waste products,
but in getting the political power structure to stop trying to find a
100.000% failsafe method for doing so and then trying to convince
science illiterates to believe in it. The Jeremy Rifkin types will
always be amoungst us. And they _do_ serve a purpose for trying to keep
scientists aware of the fact that there is alot of fear of science out
there. But politicians have given these types far too much heed and
power.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Bubble bubble who has the bubble
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubble bubble who has the bubble
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 21:06:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9211251936.AA15034@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
>It has been suggested that I check over the period of several days/weeks
>to see if H2 is going into the Ni.  Also it has been requested that I
>collect the bubbles in a upsidedown water-filled vile as a double check
>on my bubble rate.  I will attempt to do both.
 
I find it interesting that people do not seem to understand basic science
in action. A hypothesis was formed that there was a problem with the
1.48 V figure from Notoya's experiment.
 
John built a quick and dirty experiment that would _obviously_ test
if there was a gross error in the 1.48 V constant. The results showed
such a large variation that it pretty much guarantees that Notoya will
find a error in that part of her experiment.
 
If this quick and dirty experiment had been a failure, it _still_ wouldn't
prove that there wasn't an error. It would only place an upper limit for
the error if it was present.
 
These sorts of experiments _may_ lead to erroneous conclusions. But since
it has proven a positive result the experiment is now being refined
to eliminate sources of errors and to more accurately identify the
variations.
 
I'd say that this experiment was competently carried out.
 
As was Steven Jones' that identified another problem with Notoya's setup
and then reproduced the calculated error temperature, thereby requiring
Notoya to up the ante for accuracy and error prevention on future
experiments.
 
Notoya's public demonstration, however, should have been held to a higher
standard than these experiments because she was trying to use this publis
demonstration to prove the proposition of CNF. She did a rather poor job
along those lines.
 
This is not a professional criticism of Notoya since I am only reading
others assessments. It is a criticism of her public demonstration that
contained several glaring errors that could have been prevented and so
not re-directed attention from possible results to probable mistakes
in experimental procedure. My belief is that she let her enthusiasm get
away from her and so she failed to critically examine her own work. (Like
this is rare or something -- it's the chief source of errors from all of
us.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.27 / Todd Green /  Re: Silicates and Aluminates
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates and Aluminates
Date: 27 Nov 92 15:49:18 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1992Nov24.150006.227@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>
>> "I find the recent P&F publications much more consistent with trickery than
>> with honest publication.  Why spend so much journal space with justification
>> of their obscure calorimetry instead of telling us what they do to produce
>> "boiling cells"?  I assume they are commercial and that they are trying to
>> mislead us while publicly showing just enought to reassure their backers.
>> While the thought of publishing fake data horrifies any academic, when there
>> are billions to be gained, some may change their principles."  (item 1685)
>
> Whew!  Here is one hypothesis regarding Pons' boiling cells:  suppose
 silicates
> from the glass walls of the flask were electro-deposited onto an electrode.
> Then the resistance in the electrolysis cell would increase.  But Pons was
 using
> constant current, so the voltage and *power* would also rise.  As the
> temperature then rose, more silicates would come from the glass flask, adding
> to the feedback until the approx. 40 cc D2O boiled.  This is a scenario worked
> by BYU Prof. Lee Hansen, Nate Hoffman, Dr. Criddle of Canada, a Japanese
> researcher and myself.  There are other consequences of a silicate
> coating which could be considered another time.  Note that Pons' cells were
> open, that no H2O control was shown, and that no reference electrode was in
> evidence.
 
This is certainly an interesting idea. In all the P&F data I've seen where
the cell approaches boiling, the cell voltage (i.e. input power) is steadily
rising as well. I've always thought that this was due to the gradual loss of the
electrolyte, but a resistive film on the cathode might also be a valid
explanation. Anyway, the question that goes begging is how much of the boiling
is due to excess heat and how much is due to the rising input power? As I've
said many times before, the dewar cells that F&P use only need a 10 to 15 watt
for a 'boil out' and the galvanostat can supply up to 100 watts, so I hope the
two effects can be separated out properly. As Dr. Jones points out there is also
a chance of a thermal run away e.g. as the evaporation occurs you are dumping
more power into a smaller volume of D2O which in turns raises the temperature
and evaporation rate further and so on.
 
For these reasons I don't find a video of a boiling cell even remotely credible
as scientific evidence. This is not to say F&P are wrong, just that they are not
providing the right kind of evidence to convince scientifically literate people.
 
The second point is  why do F&P persist in trying to do XS heat measurements
at high temperatures and in calorimeters where: a) the heat loss is so complex
(by a mix of conduction, radiation and evaporation) and b) where the calibration
is time dependent? If they used a flow calorimeter they could keep the cell
temperature much lower and would basically only be dealing with conductive
heat losses. It seems that most of P&F's experiments end prematurely when the
cells boil dry, but this could easily be avoided with the above system. I don't
understand P&F's reluctance to explore other types of calorimetery, particularly
when there is still a lot of doubt about their current methods.
 
----------
Todd Green
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.27 / Chuck Sites /  Re: The Trouble With Bubbles
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Trouble With Bubbles
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 08:40:31 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>I will admit that I did not continue this work to map out all the problems.
>But sometimes I got about the right amount of gas, and sometimes I did not.
>Each time I came to Mills with a problem he had a new explanation.  The design
>of these experienmts is such that a lot of chemistry can go on for a long time.
>When I ran with the cell outside the calorimeter and the recombiner in the
>calorimeter, ** I did not see the correct amout of energy for 1.48*I **.
 
Hi Tom,
 
   It's me again. I don't think I ever realize how important your
experiement was, but I'm now pretty certain it does show a catalytize
seperation of H2O.  What I think happens is K bonds with the Ni surface
lattice to form NiK.  Under electrolysis Ni attracts O and K attracts one
of the H's. (This is K + (H+)). the electrons transported by electrolysis
nutrualizes the KH bond. The result, is a catalyized reaction and the
release of excess gasses compaired to that 1.48*I normal gas release.
The recombiner proves that if it showed an excess heat compared to
that 1.48*I.
 
Have fun,
Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.27 / MIKE JAMISON /  SWAGs & Opinions
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SWAGs & Opinions
Date: 27 Nov 1992 11:12 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

First the SWAG (Scientific Wild A__ed Guess):
 
John Logajan's simple and effective bubble experiment shows 30% more
bubbles in the reverse direction than in the forward direction.  Chuck
Sites has commented that he believes there is some squirrely recombination
going on, reducing the forward current bubble production.
 
My addition to this is that, *whatever* chemistry is taking place, the end
result is that roughly 30% more power is going into the cell in the forward
direction than in the reverse direction, causing 30% *apparent* excess heat
  Sounds like the correct I*V correction is V - 1.0 volts, rather than V -
1.48 volts.
 
Now, the opinions:
 
Jim Bowery has some strong words against MIT and Cal Tech, voicing his
opinion on the Tokamak and the money it's *wasting*.  First, Jim, you
forgot Princeton :)
 
Second, exactly what do you mean by "wasted money".  I've been under the
impression that the Tokamak reactors used by these universities are really
just research reactors.  The main reason for their existence is to study
plasma dynamics.  They aren't *expected* to produce more energy than they
eat!
 
The Tokamak just happens to be a convenient design for studying high
temperature plasmas, at the moment.  My bet is that what we've *learned*
from these designs more than justifies the money spent on them.
 
The promising designs (like Paul Koloc's Plasmak) are based on what has
been learned from the failed attempts of reactors like the Tokamaks.
 
If you want an opinion on *wasted* money, here's mine:
 
Lawrence Livermoor's linear device.  Funding cut 3 weeks before the reactor
was to be powered up.  Although this device was not expected to reach break
-even, its operation would have filled in some gaps in the computer code
used for simulations.  i.e. We'd have learned a lot from it.
 
Seems like a major waste of money to almost complete something and then
scrap it.
 
How much money are we "wasting" on fusion, anyway?  Last I heard, it was
something like $300 million.  Consider that we're spending about $2 billion
per year on the Space Station Freedom.  Which will ultimately help us more?
 
My opinion is that we should *increase* spending on fusion research, using
a "shotgun" approach, spending about an order of magnitude more than we're
spending now.  Keep the Tokamak funding where it is now, devote all new
money to the most promising designs.
 
Alternatively, start a non-profit fusion research organization, sort of
like Carl Sagan's non-profit space organization.
 
Sorry for the long post.
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.27 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Liquid Helium
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Liquid Helium
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 16:06:55 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Tom Droege writes:
 
> Bruce Dunn has asked about the cost of liquid Helium in large quantities.
>
> I did find out about our "small" contract.  It is a three year contract for
> 200 to 300 five hundred liter dewars per year.  In this quantity (100000
 
        Thanks very much Tom.  I have received similar figures by mail from
other people.  This sets an upper limit on liquid helium prices, which is
what I needed.
        For those interested, the device needing the helium is a hypothetical
design for a large pressure fed liquid fueled rocket.  A single stage has a
mass of approximately 900 tons, and burns propane and hydrogen peroxide.  The
propellants are pressurized with helium gas, generated by pumping liquid
helium to 7.5 MPa, and vaporizing and warming it in a gas generator burning
propane and peroxide.  About 10 metric tons of liquid helium are needed for a
stage.  Payloads to orbit range from about 10 metric tons to 40 metric tons,
depending on configuration.  The booster is currently being discussed by
members of the "space-tech" mailing list, a group interested in the technical
aspects of space exploration.  If anyone wants further details, I will
happily E-mail them.
        I thank the fusion group for its indulgence in not flaming my posting
the original question here.  I was having trouble getting information on
liquid helium prices, and it occurred to me that if anyone had to deal with
large amounts of liquid helium, it was those using large superconducting
magnets.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  Rothwell /  NTT Sells Cold Fusion Reactor
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NTT Sells Cold Fusion Reactor
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:32:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
The Wall Street Journal reported today that NTT (Nippon Telegraph &
Telephone Corp) is selling a kit containing all instructions and equipment
needed to replicate the recently announced Yamaguchi experiment. The kit
costs $565,000. It will be available from Advanced Film Technology, Inc.,
a subsidiary 51% owned by NTT. It includes a vacuum chamber and sensing
equipment.
 
See: page B6, Nov. 27, 1992, "For Japan's Nuke-It-Yourselfer, NTT Offers
a $565,000 Cold-Fusion Kit."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  Rothwell /  Notoya Lecture Schedule Change
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notoya Lecture Schedule Change
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:32:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
PLEASE NOTE!
 
Dr. Reiko Notoya's formal lecture originally scheduled for Thursday Dec. 5
has been moved to Friday December 6, and the informal seminar and hands-
on demonstration will now be held on Thursday. Both events will be in the
same room, same time:
 
4:00 p.m.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Building 34
Room 34-401 A, the Greer Room
(Access from Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA)
 
This is the lecture titled: "Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of Potassium
Carbonate Solution with Nickel Electrodes," by Dr. Reiko Notoya, Catalysis
Research Center, Hokkaido National University, Japan. There will be a
formal demonstration during the Friday lecture.
 
I hope this schedule change does not inconvenience anyone. If you have
already purchased an airplane ticket for Thursday, I urge you to come
anyway, by all means. Dr. Notoya will be there to answer questions, we will
make available copies of her paper, and you will get a chance to look closely
at the cells. We should have multimeters and an oscilloscope available for
anyone who wishes to examine some aspect of the cell's performance. Please
feel free to come a little early, I plan to be in room 34-401 all afternoon.
This
change is due to an sudden and unexpected schedule conflict on the part of
some of the people who wished to attend the formal lecture.
 
Anyone wishing to contact me after Wednesday Dec. 2 should please fax Dr.
Peter Hagelstein's office at MIT: 617-258-7864. My numbers in Atlanta are:
ofc. 404-451-9890, Fax: 404-458-2404, home: 404-458-8107.
 
 
Also, I hope that all readers of this forum had a Happy Thanksgiving!
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 / John Logajan /  Chuck's excess gas
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck's excess gas
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:32:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>The result, is a catalyized reaction and the release of excess gasses compared
>to that 1.48*I normal gas release.
 
Has anyone reported absolute measures of excess gas?
 
Barring that objection, I might have missed something here, but what are you
proposing as the energy source?  If excess H2 and O2 gas is released, the law
of conservation of energy insists that it have extracted the energy to
seperate from the H2O from some source or other, since later on recombining,
it is going to give that excess energy up as heat.
 
We only have a few energy source possibilities.  Mills shrunken hydrogen (or
other anomalous source), pre-stored chemical energy in the cell components,
or heat pumping of the ambient thermal energy.
 
"Functioning" Mills cells are all supposed to run warmer than control cells,
which rules out the heat pump effect (i.e. the picking up of ambient heat
energy.)  In a heat pump, the Mills cell would run cooler than the ambient.
 
One down, two to go.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 / John Logajan /  My calculated "excess" power
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My calculated "excess" power
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:32:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>the end result is that roughly 30% more power is going into the cell in the
>forward direction than in the reverse direction, causing 30% *apparent*
>excess heat.  Sounds like the correct I*V correction is V - 1.0 volts, rather
>than V - 1.48 volts.
 
The precise statement would be that V-1.48*I overstates the correction in
my cell by 0.23 (see note.)  Since I was running a 200ma * 5.01 volts, the
actual "excess heat" (by calculation assuming 23% recombination) would be:
 
5.01-1.48=3.53v
 
3.53v*.2a=706mw  <-- Corrected input power (ala Mills)
 
1.48v*.2a*.23=68mw  <-- Recombination power (ala Mills NOT!)
 
68mw is about 10% of 706mw, so my cell probably would have indicated a 10%
amount of excess heat had I applied the Mills correction.  This is a guess,
since I did NOT measure the temperature difference.
 
I believe that both the recombination rate and the running voltage can vary
with the specific cell geometry, so it is hard to generalize a particular
value of expected "excess heat" percentage.  As I pointed out a few days ago,
the closer you can get the running voltage to 1.48, the bigger in comparison
the "excess heat" percentage appears.  In fact, it approaches division by
zero, resulting in astronomically large percentages.
 
 
(Note:  I said I saw "30% more gas in the reverse direction."  i.e. 100%+30%.
The inverse of 1.3 is 0.77, so gas production in the forward direction was
77%.  Therefore the actual correction for forward gas production power is
100%-77%=23%.)
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  /  Radioactive waste
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactive waste
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:33:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When I first started proposing to bury radioactive waste in subduction
zones, 4 or 5 years ago, I just did it to irritate my "green" friends.
Now I am told it is under serious consideration.  Some of you here have also
responded like it is being done rather than being my little joke.  I guess
I should have patented it.
 
Now I learn that pressure can change the decay rate, and you all are setting
me straight on what will decay faster and what will not.  Come on guys and
gals, its a joke.  We all know it is a political not a scientific or
engineering problem.
 
Someone worried that those nasty toxic heavy metals will come back up in
a zillion years.  Sorry to tell you, but common rocks are just full of nasty
toxic metals.  As a teenager, we took a trip to Palomar observatory.  As I
remember, the rocks there are just full of asbestos.  In fact I think that
could be said of the whole state of California.  So we better close it to
protect the citizens.
 
While we are using our national effort to remove asbestos floor tiles from
our schools, we are becomming a second class nation.  While the floor tiles
are unlikely to hurt anyone, becomming a declining nation will kill millions.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  Rothwell /  Sundry Observations
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sundry Observations
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:33:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas H. Kunich writes:
 
"John [Logajan] built a quick and dirty experiment that would _obviously_ test
if there was a gross error in the 1.48 V constant. The results showed such a
large variation that it pretty much guarantees that Notoya will find a error
in that part of her experiment."
 
This is incorrect. She has already looked, and found no error. She told me she
used a gas flowmeter, but I forget what type. I cannot communicate with her
until Thursday. For the fifteen zillionth time, let me re-emphasize that the
traveling demo is *not* her experiment, it is merely a look at a critical part
of her laboratory set-up.
 
I do not know why John's experiment found a variation between ordinary and
reverse electrolysis, perhaps Notoya will be able to offer some thoughts on the
matter. Also, with his latest additional method of measuring the gas, I would
not call John's experiment "quick and dirty" anymore. It is getting into the
realm of simple and clean. I like this kind of experiment. However, I hesitate
to jump to the conclusion that John's findings necessarily reflect on what
Notoya and Enyo did. For that matter, they might have made a similar
observation, we simply do not know, so we cannot say how this impacts on their
results. Also, as I have pointed out on many occasions, the total amount of
heat energy produced by their cell exceeds the total input power, so
recombination is not an issue.
 
Mr. Kunich also writes:
 
"I'd say that this experiment was competently carried out... As was Steven
Jones' that identified another problem with Notoya's setup and then reproduced
the calculated error temperature, thereby requiring Notoya to up the ante for
accuracy and error prevention on future experiments."
 
Steven Jones' experiment generated only two thirds of the heat needed to
"reproduce" Notoya's setup. Furthermore, his experiment was based upon the
supposition that 6 cm of thin silver wire offers as much resistance to 2 watts
of electric current as a 4 cm nichrome heater. This supposition is incorrect,
so Steve's experiment proves nothing at all. Please note that Steve did not
attempt to independently measure or prove that silver is as resistant as
nichrome, he took that as a given. He merely proved that if it *was* as
resistant, some, but not all, of Notoya's heat in one of her experiments would
be explained. He did not explain all of the heat; he did not explain why she
continued to get the same excess heat after she replaced the wires; he did not
explain why the temperature did not go up much after I moved the aligator clips
(and before she adjusted the input electricity); he did not explain why her
laboratory experiment got the heat; and he did not explain how Srinivasan,
Mills, Bush, Thermacore and many others might have gotten similar results. In
short, he did not explain much, so perhaps we should not credit him with
disproving her experiment just yet, especially since her experiment is in
Hokkaido, and Steve has never been there, never seen it, and does not know
anything about it.
 
Plus, as I said, the accuracy and error prevention in the laboratory experiment
is much greater than that of the demo. If you don't care for the demo, I
suggest you ignore it, and look at the full paper when it comes out.
 
 
Let me briefly tie together two comments. Steve Jones quotes someone (Tom
Droege?): "I assume they [P&F] are commercial and that they are trying to
mislead us while publicly showing just enough to reassure their backers."
 
And Todd Green: "I don't find a video of a boiling cell even remotely credible
as scientific evidence. This is not to say F&P are wrong, just that they are
not providing the right kind of evidence to convince scientifically literate
people."
 
P&F work for IMRA, a subsidiary of Technova, which is owned by Aisin Seiki,
which is primarily owned by Toyota Motors and the Toyoda family. This chain of
institutions constitute the "backers." They do not require any additional
reassurance or convincing from P&F as to the validity of the work for several
reasons: they have unimpeded access to the laboratories in France, where they
see far more detailed experimental evidence than those videos; they have
replicated the work in other laboratories, and measured the heat with other
methods, notably in Sapporo; they have sent experts into these and other
laboratories to verify and replicate various other aspects of the work. The
video and the literature offered at the IMRA booth at the Nagoya Conference
showed a wide variety of equipment in use, including calorimeters other than
the "open cell" test tube variety shown by P&F. There is, therefore, no
question whatsoever that IMRA and Technova have checked these results
carefully. They are not fools, they would not take P&F's word for anything, nor
would they rely on only one type of experiment to verify the effect, before
committing millions of dollars to the research.
 
It is naive of anyone to think that a major Japanese corporation would be so
stupid as to trust in one type of experiment, done at only one laboratory, by
one set of researchers, before committing or continuing with a multi-year
project on this scale. It is also perfectly silly to suggest that they should,
or ever would, publish more than a tiny fraction of their results. Under no
circumstances would *any* rational for-profit research organization reveal
anything more than a tantalizing glimpse at research. They will never
reveal specifics, and they will never provide a detailed accounting of their
calorimetry! It is simply out of the question and unthinkable, as anyone with
any experience in private industry knows. To suggest that a corporation has
some kind of moral obligation to reveal detailed, sensitive information about
new product development is outlandish and weird, like suggesting they have a
moral obligation to burn baskets of money in their parking lots. A corporation
has a clear moral, legal, and fiduciary responsibility to keep this kind of
information strictly secret. Keeping secrets is not the same as "misleading"
people. Pons, Fleishmann, McKubre and others have never denied that they are
keeping secrets; on the contrary, they have publicly stated that fact many
times, and told it to me.
 
The only reasons I can think of to reveal information of this nature would be:
 
1.    To put the fear of God into your competition;
2.    To sell products, by boasting of your technological abilities;
3.    To raise the value of your corporate stock.
 
Finally, let me add that I know lots and lots of highly scientifically literate
people who were very impressed and utterly convinced by those video shots. I
myself do not know enough about calorimetry to judge them as conclusively
negative as Todd Green did; or as conclusively positive as several well-know,
unnamed experts did. I agree that flow calorimetry would be easier to follow,
but, as I said, P&F are not interested in making it easier for people to
follow. Nobody in his right mind makes it easier for the competition.
 
 
Desiree Bradley suggests that "P&F [may have] stumbled on a type of chemical
reaction (or some sort of energy) that nobody had heard of before."
 
I suppose it may be "some sort of energy" other than nuclear energy, but it
cannot be chemical. This is intuitively obvious, as this 'thought experiment'
shows: suppose someone was to burn a small candle, generating only a few watts
of heat. Suppose the candle burned for, say, four months nonstop, without
smoking. When it finally was blown out, a careful examination with the best
instruments know to science revealed that no wax had been consumed, and that
the wick was not charred in the least. Such an event could not possibly be
caused by a chemical reaction. The limits of chemistry are well known, and
many, many cold fusion experiments have exceeded those limits by thousands, and
even tens of thousands of times. A 1 cm X 4 mm candle cannot burn for four
months, generating, say, 4 watts of heat continuously. It cannot even burn for
more than an hour, even at a very low flame. But a cold fusion device can,
therefore it is nothing like a chemical flame, or any other chemical reaction.
 
Ms. Bradley also suggests that perhaps: "The experiments were done in good
faith, but there were some accidental errors in the calculations, etc."
 
This is utterly impossible. The experiments have replicated at too many labs,
at levels of confidence much too high for this to be the case. A cold fusion
experiments require that the workers do two fundamental jobs: 1. Measure
electrical power in; and 2. Measure heat, in the form of elevated temperatures,
out. In the most convincing experiments, the power in is typically in the range
of 1 to 20 watts. With modern equipment, reasonably competent scientists can
measure 1/1000th of a watt. The temperature, that is, the difference between
the calibrated 'control' temperature and the CF device temperature depends upon
the type of calorimeter you use, and upon the amount of excess heat. With a
hugely successful experiment, like the work of P&F, Notoya or Srinivasan, this
difference can be as high as 20, 30 or even 50 degrees, and it persists
indefinitely. These phenomena have been seen in dozens and dozens of
laboratories, and repeated in some of these laboratories dozens of times. In
order for this to be a mistake, you would have to assume that about 1000 modern
scientists had suddenly and inexplicably lost the ability to measure electric
power and temperature at such high levels that any competent scientist,
anywhere in the world, could have measured them with absolute confidence in
1870.
 
It is possible that a handful of scientists might mistake 1 watt for 6 watts
of electricity, or think that a temperature of 30 degrees C is 50 degrees C.
I suppose this might happen. However, hundreds of scientists could not possibly
have been making such elementary errors for four years. The so-called
"skeptics" who claim that CF might be a mistake are not looking at the facts;
they are not taking into account the extremely high "sigma" levels of
confidence of these results. Scientists who *have* looked closely at the
results, like the experts at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry,
publicly declare that they are "absolutely convinced that the excess heat is
real."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  /  Misc.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc.
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:33:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones wonders about formation of aluminates and silicates in P&F
type cells.  I don't know about P&F, but I have looked carefully at the
McKubre experiment and questioned him in detail.  He has a good enough set
up, and is competent to measure the power into his cell.  He would not be
fooled by a power change due to rising cell voltage.  I should remind you
all that one of the signatures of excess heat seems to be a falling cell
voltage.  This from looking carefully at all the experiments that I can
get my eyes on that show "anomalous heat".  See for example the P&F
experiment in ACCF1.  Not a 100% feature, but common to many experiments.
 
Do any of you electrochemists out there want to comment on why the cell
voltage might decrease at constant current?  I have seen this and use it
to "hope" for "anomalous heat".  I have seen the cell voltage slowly
decrease for as long as a day.
 
John Logajan confirms similar things to what I measured on the Mills
experiment.  My typical run was for over a week.  Under some conditions I
was able to measure the expected gas rate to +/-2% or so.  This with my
syringe kludge and various cells.  I have also calibrated the syringe
kludge with a Pt-Pt cell with H2SO4, so I am pretty confident.  I quit doing
Mills when he kept changing his story.  At first it was supposed to take a
few hours (I recall 7 hours from the first Farrell note) to stabalize.  Then
Mills started telling me over the phone that there could be very long time
hydride formation.  With all that cathode area and the low current density,
it seems to me that chemistry can go on for a long time.
 
Dick Blue asks about "Big Guns" looking for gas anomalies.  I looked, and
put up the result here, Dick.  On 2 March 1992 I put up: "My results would
seem to indicate that there could be a problem with the calorimetry, or that
there is less gas than expected from 1.48*I, or that the gas which does come
off has less than 1.48*I heating value, or all or none of the above."  But
I am not a big gun.  Bochris also looked at this experiment, but you will
have to get the result from him.  So I think the Mills type experiment is
just chemistry.  But I am not yet convinced about P&F, and can not find any
problem with McKubre.
 
Now Dick would like me to have worked long enough to put Mills away.  At the
time I said that would take about six months careful work.  Since it looked
to me that it was likely hydride chemistry, I felt ill equiped to carry out
the work.  Besides, no one is paying me to debunk Mills, so I can do what I
damn well please.  That at the moment is to keep plugging away at my version
of P&F.
 
Dick says: "... but I do object strongly when they pretend they are doing
scientific research and then seek to use the science community to legitimize
their 'results'."  So do I Dick.  But from the opposite side of the question.
You seem to assume that their results are wrong, and object to their
unquestioned publication.  I assume that they might be right, and object
because the science community allows them to publish incomplete experiments.
I think that I have clearly caught McKubre at that.  No blame to McKubre, the
blame is to the sponsoring organizations.  Perhaps Dieter Britz is correct
after all, and we should only look at reviewed journals where some one has
a chance to ask "have you included all important details of the experiment?"
But I will take all the information I can get.  Perhaps we shoul just require
a cautionary label - "CAUTION - VITAL DETAIL MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THE
DESCRIPTION OF THIS EXPERIMENT"
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  /  The Third Man
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Third Man
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:33:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark Hittinger worries about "The Third Man", Marvin C. Hawkins, right off
his business card that is still in my wallet (next to that of Andrew M. Riley).
 
My brother used to call up Hawkins and try to pick his brains.  He could talk,
because as near as we could figure out, **** he was never allowed in the
back room where Pons and Fleischmann did their real work **** !!!  Last we
heard of Hawkins, he was off to Thiokol to make rockets.
 
So Lee's (my brother) rule still holds.  There were only two.
 
By the way, I think Hawkins got his PhD the first day of ACCF2.  I was on of
the first ones to call him Doctor.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  /  Calorimetry of P&F cells
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry of P&F cells
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:33:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tod Green makes some nice points about calorimetry.  But lets give P&F credit
for some minimal set of brains.  By now, with as much carping about power
measurement as there has been (Dick Garwin still made the best point), I figure
that they probably measure power right.  I would 100 times more believe that
they are practicing deliberate deception than that they are making a big
power measurement error.
 
Yes, I know that a good galvanostat (constant current supply) can put out a lot
of power.  And that the power into the load will increase as the cell
resistance goes up with loss of electrolyte.
 
Tod's points about flow calorimetry are well taken.  McKubre does it that way
and does not (yet) report boiling cells.  Or all that much heat.  But he does
report enough heat with high enough precision apparatus that either he has
those results, or is practicing deliberate deception.  I do not find enough
room for experimental error as the third alternative.
 
The reason P&F have not done an experiment that convinces us is that they are
not trying to, else they would follow Tod's suggestion.  Whether or not they
could do such an experiment if they wanted to is the $64B question.
 
There is a small chance that the reason P&F do experiments as high temperature
is that the effect is greater there.  Our next experiment will load at near
zero then ramp up to higher tempreature.  We are presently working on the
calibration problems for such an experiment.  It is not easy.  To move from
0 C to 40 C requires us to put 100,000 joules into the calorimeter.  We will
then want to balance to 3 joules per hour.  Gives you some idea of the
problem.  If we then think we see, say 300 joules per hour (83 mw) some one
of you will point out that we have stashed away 300 hours worth of such a
result.  If we ever get such a result, we might believe, but you won't.  But
that will be OK with me.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: Silicates and Aluminates
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates and Aluminates
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 06:53:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
It seems obvious that no invoking  of  witnesses,  supporters  or
dependents can ever substitute for the appropriate measurement of
excess heat and  the  honest  reporting  of  the  data  from  the
measurement. Concerning S.Jones' involvement  in  the  matter  of
excess heat from Notoya's cell:
 
1. The mock-up of Notoya's demo done by S.Jones in his lab is, to
say the least, confused.
 
2. The presentation of the data from Notoya's demo by S.Jones was
inappropriate -- he changed the data when he found out  that  the
figures he posted by him do not support his point.
 
Therefore,  the  debate  regarding  Notoya's  demo  is  far  from
clarified.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                              November 29, 1992
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvnoninski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 / John Logajan /  Ebb and flow of gas
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ebb and flow of gas
Date: 29 Nov 1992 07:29:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
I shut off the power of my Mills type cell to see how the gas flow would
respond.  Gas production comes to an almost instant stop, but not a
complete stop.  I had six loops of hose, and I shut it down just at
the beginning of the second loop (to allow for gas movement in either
direction.)  Gas volume seemed to reach a peek, possibly coming out of
solution, or out of the Ni, after a few hours -- as seen by its filling
another loop or so of hose.
 
But now, 11 hours later, the gas volume is in decline, back to the original
shut down volume.  A probable result of catalyzed recombination on the
bare Pt wire in the headspace of the testtube. (But this is such a slow
rate that I doubt the Pt in the head space can account for the 23% missing
gas measurement when running with forward current.)
 
Most of the gas in the system should be H2 or O2 with little N2 contamination.
Therefore it might just continue to suck in until water from the "flowmeter"
fills the testtube.  Time will tell.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Sundry Observations
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sundry Observations
Date: 29 Nov 1992 07:40:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) says:
>However, I hesitate
>to jump to the conclusion that John's findings necessarily reflect on what
>Notoya and Enyo did.
 
I concur with that.  What I think has been shown is that there is a non-zero
possibility for false positives -- from a parameter that should now be
precisely accounted for (if it isn't already) in all published findings with
low level (i.e. less that i*v) experiements.  I think this precludes open cell
experiments of low level output -- a warning that Tom Droege has sounded
many times from his observations.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 /  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: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 17:37:26 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 / R ALTSTATT /  Re: Radioactive waste
     
Originally-From: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive waste
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 21:40:18 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

 
In article <921127161048.20801476@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
|> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
|> Path:
 taco!gatech!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!cbnewsj!att
 -out!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
|> From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
|> Subject: Radioactive waste
|> Message-ID: <921127161048.20801476@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
|> Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
 
|> When I first started proposing to bury radioactive waste in subduction
|> zones, 4 or 5 years ago, I just did it to irritate my "green" friends.
|> Now I am told it is under serious consideration.  Some of you here have also
|> responded like it is being done rather than being my little joke.  I guess
|> I should have patented it.
 
        Russia has been dumping in a variety of places in both the ocean and
in rivers.  That you feel that the problem will be gone then is the new part.
This is what polititions are arguing about.
|>
|> Now I learn that pressure can change the decay rate, and you all are setting
|> me straight on what will decay faster and what will not.  Come on guys and
|> gals, its a joke.  We all know it is a political not a scientific or
|> engineering problem.
 
Nuclear disposal, burning or dumping is a real problem.  Nuclear reactions are
a powerfull and usefull form of energy and have the potential for being
extremely clean if the proper disposal techniques are used.  However, the
money for proper disposal is often denied so that people mistrust every form
of disposal as a cheap fix likely to haunt them.
|>
|> Someone worried that those nasty toxic heavy metals will come back up in
|> a zillion years.  Sorry to tell you, but common rocks are just full of nasty
|> toxic metals.  As a teenager, we took a trip to Palomar observatory.  As I
|> remember, the rocks there are just full of asbestos.  In fact I think that
|> could be said of the whole state of California.  So we better close it to
|> protect the citizens.
 
Common rocks are full of heavy metals and are likely to stay full of heavy
metals.  However, the heavy metals which have been removed from rocks are not
going to " go home " as soon as they are freed into nature.  What is the
lead concentration in your tap water?  Is it more than a few ppb?  Do you care?
You might not have to, but in some areas this could be a problem.  The
bigger danger is mercury which is fatal in EXPOSURE of small doses.  It also
is heavier than water but lighter than loose soil so that is accumulates in
shore and stream bed sediment.  Yes, wading in rivers in Russia can be
fatal.
        As a side note, people who mine asbestos wear protective clothing and
air filters to avoid dying of a cancerous formation that was compared in its
early stages as black lung.  It was extremely fatal. Asbestos fibers were
believed to be free from micronization or dust formation.  This was found
to be untrue.  I would not like to think about floor tiles scuffed each
day by thousands of children.  Sure its a small risk of cancer, but its an
unnecessary one.
|>
|> While we are using our national effort to remove asbestos floor tiles from
|> our schools, we are becomming a second class nation.  While the floor tiles
|> are unlikely to hurt anyone, becomming a declining nation will kill millions.
|>
|> Tom Droege
 
        First, I don't think that we are in any decline. The comparisons are
good as far as they go but our standard of education for all of our people is
fairly high.  We all want it to be higher, and it is good to focus on real
solutions.  However, the problem won't be solved in 10 years or 20.  There is
no need to sacrifice even a dozen children for a dozen million dollars.
        Secondly, the only people dying are those children.  Who else
is threatened by our "declining nation" status?  Do you predict wars over
the sucsession of one super power over another?  I don't want to argue history
but some change in world status is necessary.
        I think that you will probably argue this but I don't like your
statements standing unsuported.
                R. Altstatt
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrlaltsta cudfnRICHARD cudlnALTSTATT cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.29 / Jim Bowery /  DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.space,sci.energy
Subject: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 10:54:16 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

A panel of DoE funded experts in fusion technology have
recommended that electrostatic confinement fusion technology
be developed due to its superior potential for achieving
the  commercial goals of the EPRI (Electric Power Research
 Institute).
 
The specific technologies they evaluated were Energy Matter Conversion
Corporation's patented Ion Acceleration (IXL) and Electron Acceleration
(EXL).
 
The EPRI commissioned report was delivered on November 4, 1992.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
Date: 30 Nov 1992 00:47:11 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
: A panel of DoE funded experts in fusion technology have
: recommended that electrostatic confinement fusion technology
: be developed due to its superior potential for achieving
: the  commercial goals of the EPRI (Electric Power Research
:  Institute).
:
: The specific technologies they evaluated were Energy Matter Conversion
: Corporation's patented Ion Acceleration (IXL) and Electron Acceleration
: (EXL).
 
Can you give a brief overview of what the essentials of this technique
involve?
 
For example:
 
Inertial confinement fusion is an inherently nonequilibrium process
in which fusible fuel is imploded by electromagnetic radiation at
such a rate that significant fusion occurs as a result of the extremely
high density despite the short period of time the pellet remains at
such a high density.
 
 
Can I make a guess, simply from the title?
 
Electrostatic confinement fusion uses a non-neutral plasma of ions
as a means of improving confinement over solely magnetically confined
plasmas for the purpose of achieving thermonuclear fusion.  I.e. be
able to squeeze the plasma with high voltage rather than only through
magnetic fields.
 
 
Ideally more information would be better.
 
==============
 
A digression.
 
Isn't it conventional to say that "thermonuclear fusion" is one in
which the reaction sustains itself by producing high temperatures as
a result of previous fusion reactions?  By this measure, fusion in
stars and in tokamaks is in fact, thermonuclear, but we don't
really consider ICF to be "thermonuclear" fusion.
 
Consequently, a hydrogen bomb isn't really as "thermonuclear" weapon at
all.  (though the sinister end result certainly spreads alot of nuclei and
"therm"'s around, no doubt).
 
It seems that the "Classical Super" idea (the name for the first, and
fundamentally flawed H-bomb design) relied on triggering a real
thermonuclear shock wave.  But it doesn't work.
 
A piece of government deception, I wonder.
 
 
: The EPRI commissioned report was delivered on November 4, 1992.
:
: --
: INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
: UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
: NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
 
--
-Matt Kennel            mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Todd Green /  Bubbles
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubbles
Date: 30 Nov 92 06:03:49 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

John Logajan finds some anomalous results regarding gas yields in a Mills
cell, but we shouldn't forget that the Ni wire will be swallowing some of the
evolved hydrogen to form NiH0.5. This will mean that (at least initially)
the gas yield when the Ni is the cathode will be lower than than when the
Pt is the cathode.
 
When there is hydriding going on the 1.48 V correction won't be strictly
valid, which  means waiting for it to stop before commencing any calorimetry.
The trouble with nickel is that hydrogen diffuses very slowly through it
(1/8 the rate of H in Pd) and the hydride formation is rather prolonged (maybe
a week for a 1 mm diamter wire).
 
Elsewhere, Tom Droege asked why the cell voltage dips when there is excess
heat. This is due to the increase in the conductivity of the solution and
a decrease in the overpotentials at the anode and cathode with rising cell
temperature.
 
 
Todd Green
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 /  Harrison /  Mills/Notoya experiment
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills/Notoya experiment
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 15:23:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Mr. Farrell for advice posted here (FD592) on a control
cell.  The purpose of cell A is (1) to provide a reference for the "gas
analysis" section of cell B; and (2) to provide a thermal reference
with the same "electrolysis loss" as cell B.  After Bush's Fusion
Technology paper, I am nervous about Na2CO3 as control, also.  We are
still open for suggestion here.
 
A preliminary "quickie" test of gas analysis gave the following
anomolous result:
  cell:  H2SO4 electrolyte, Carbon cathode, Steel (nail) anode.
         Initial weight 94.047 g
  Dessicants:  D2 - first dryer - CaCl2, initial weight 74.672 g
         D1 - final dryer - CaCl2, initial weight 85.212 g
  Catalyst:  Hydrocap battery vent cap (3/4"); 15 g Pt(?) ceramic
  electrolysis current 500 ma +/-10% for 548 mins, 3.1 - 3.3 V
  Weight Changes during run:
     cell: -1.64 g;    D2:  +.017 g;    D1:  +.002 g
 
Note that 16440 amp-sec (.17 mol of electrons) appeared to electrolyze
1.64 g (.091 mol) of water, which is close the the expected 2:1
ratio.  However, none of the products wound up in the dessicant.
Tentative conclusion:  the Hydrocap catalyst doesn't work under this
condition.
 
We'll be looking again in the future, but overseas travel will prevent
any significant experiments until late December.
 -Chuck Harrison
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 768 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 768 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 16:42:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
Back to my old polite self, to bring you this crop. Frank Close has a Second
Edition out, in Penguin paperback; I count it as another book, although the
guts of it is the same, with an Epilogue added (which is the difference). It's
cheap. Then we have three new items out of Fusion Technology. Chien and Huang
find tritium, increasing with time as expected, and with electrode potential,
perhaps not expected; as well, there is a temperature effect. This looks like
a quality positive. The paper suffers a little from its mention of CIF, i.e.
the Beuhler et al work, now debunked. But the authors were not to know this at
the time of writing. Cluster impact fusion (CIF) was for a time thought to be
an effect related to CNF. Now it's not an effect at all, just a mistake.
 I had always wondered why electrochemists Fleischmann and Pons allowed the
gases to mix, and didn't use a divided cell, so that the deuterium and oxygen
go their separate paths. This has now been tried, by Ray et (many) al, and
they find no excess heat. You can see what you will in this; the authors see
it as evidence that traces of oxygen, transported across to the cathode, must
play a role in cold fusion. It has to be just traces, since everyone assures
us that the current efficiency is 1.00, i.e. no oxygen is lost again; traces
of O2 would be reduced at the cathode, lowering current efficiency.
 Then, Yasui takes a thorough look at fractofusion, and considers it as a
plausible mechanism for cold fusion, given the right conditions, some of which
are listed.
 As a sneak preview, I note that Matsumoto has a paper in the December issue
of FT, with "formation of stars" in the title. Hold your breath, goodlife.
>From gravity collapse through microscopic black holes... to star formation.
Seems reasonable, no?
 As a final note, I have perhaps packed too many items into the ..pap files,
and I'll pull back a little; I am supposed to stick to 150 kb and have gone
over this by a bit. So there may now be 6 'paps' in the archives from now on.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Nov-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 768
 
 
 
Books: file cnf-bks
^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F;       "Too Hot to Handle. The Race for Cold Fusion"
2nd Edition, Penguin paperback 1992, ISBN 0-14-015926-6.
** This is the same book as the first edition, with an Epilogue added. Most of
what has happened since the first edition, as far as the Epilogue is
concerned, is of a personal nature, rather than developments in cold fusion
itself. FC has obtained more details of the events in the 'gamma spectrum
affair' that precoccupies him. There are a few snippets of news on the
research front. More interestingly, there are accounts by cold fusion critics,
of how their viewpoint has affected their lives. Some of them feel that a lot
of their research time has been wasted as a result, but most are now settling
back into a normal life.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chien C-C, Huang TC;                          Fusion Technology 22 (1992) 391.
"Tritium production by electrolysis of heavy water".
** An effort of the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research in Taiwan. Mild
charging conditions were used, and tritium production measured as a function
of applied voltage and bath temperature. An open style cell was used, with
outlet vent holes, holes for D2O refilling and for insertion of a
thermocouple. Pd rods, 10 mm diameter and 10-20 mm long were used as cathodes
and thin Pt wire as anode, in 0.1M LiOD in D2O. A recirculating cooler kept
cell temperature constant. Acid etching and anodic pretreatments were tried.
Results show that tritium in the electrolyte increased roughly linearly with
time, the slope depending upon temperature; a rise in temperature during a run
(20 C to 30 C) clearly increased this slope. Similarly, increasing cell
voltage increased tritium production. Interruption of the current stopped
tritium production, but it could be revived by resuming electrolysis. Surface
treatment was important and showed that the reaction takes place near the
surface.                                                         Aug-91/Nov-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray MKS, Saini RD, Das D, Chattopadhyay G, Parthasarathy R, Garg SP,
Venkataramani R, Sen BK, Iyengar TS, Kutty KK, Wagh DN, Bajpai HN, Iyer CSP;
Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 395.
"The Fleischmann-Pons phenomenon - a different perspective".
** Lacking precise definitions of the conditions favourable for cold fusion,
this team tried a wide variety of physical, chemical and electromagnetic
perturbations of a cold fusion experiment in an attempt to elicit the effect.
A divided cell was chosen, which separates the evolved gases from the start.
The porous alumina membrane also acted as a thermal separator, increasing the
sensitivity of thermal transient measurement. Ti and Pd cathodes of various
shapes, size and metallurgical charactersistics were used, in various
concentraions of LiOH, LiOD, NaOH and NaOD, over electrolysis periods going up
to 300 h. The Pd electrodes were degassed at 800 C in vacuum. Loadings
exceeding 0.8 in Pd were repeatedly achieved, but none of the  perturbations
resulted in any tritium, neutron or temperature rise effects in any runs, and
no explosions took place; other attempts at perturbing the cell failed equally
(cooling with ice water, ultrasonics, cooling to liquid nitrogen temperature).
It is concluded that dividing the cell removes the effect. Three isolated
incidents, where oxygen was allowed to enter the cell, led to both tritium and
excess heat production; conventional (chemical) explanations having to do with
oxygen etc, were not sufficient to explain this. Thus it appears that oxygen
plays a role in cold fusion.                                     Oct-91/Nov-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yasui K;                                        Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 400.
"Fractofusion mechanism".
** There is a lot of experimental and theoretical evidence for the fracture
mechanism of cold fusion. Yasui addresses three important problems of this
theory: the origin of the electrical field; the necessary conditions; whether
cold fusion can in fact be ascribed to this effect. The first of these might
be crack formation, leading to separation of crystal faces with different work
functions. Considering the speed of crack formation and gas pressure within a
crack, a high resistance would be required around the crack, for a discharge
to occur. As well as this, cracks must form at grain boundaries with high
grain angles; the cracks must form rapidly and be wide; there must be many of
them. In general, cnf shows few neutrons, and these often in bursts, and the
Pd is deformed at the same time. All can be explained by fractofusion, so this
is a possible mechanism, roughly in line with observations, although some
other mechanism might be at work simultaneously.                 Jan-92/Nov-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Jim Bowery /  Re: SWAGs & Opinions
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SWAGs & Opinions
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 09:14:24 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

MIKE JAMISON writes:
>Jim Bowery has some strong words against MIT and Cal Tech, voicing his
>opinion on the Tokamak and the money it's *wasting*.  First, Jim, you
>forgot Princeton :)
 
Actually Princeton was at the top of my "hit list" until I discovered
that a new crew is taking over from the old Furth-mafia and that
they are not going to politically oppose non-Tokamak technologies.
While I am philisophically opposed to the way they are being funded,
I won't denounce them so long as they are at least making a good-faith
attempt to fulfill their public trust.
 
>Second, exactly what do you mean by "wasted money".  I've been under the
 
>impression that the Tokamak reactors used by these universities are
really
>just research reactors.
 
This is not true.  The ITER program is a case in point.
 
There are many regimes in which plasma exists and the one that exists
inside the Tokamak is very specific to that device.  The usefulness
of the Tokamak as a plasma physics research device, relative to its
expense compared to other plasma devices, was exhausted sometime in the
early to mid 70's.
 
The problem here really isn't "wasted money" so much as it is
"misappropriated credibility".
 
The primary damage done by the Tokamak program was the credibility it
gave to individuals who had a vested interest in suppressing independent
funding of alternate technologies.  If the DoE fusion program had been
terminated in its entirety about the time of the McCormick Act, I believe
we would be seeing the first prototypes of p-11B reactors coming into
operation today.
 
As it stands, the Tokamak program created powerful vested interests
that had every reason to advocate the infeasibility of alternate
technologies.  They did, in fact, manage to use their DoE-granted
credibility to successfully suppress both private and public funding
of alternate fusion technologies.
 
>How much money are we "wasting" on fusion, anyway?  Last I heard, it was
 
>something like $300 million.  Consider that we're spending about $2
billion
>per year on the Space Station Freedom.
 
I agree SSF wastes more money but as I said, the problem isn't wasted
money, it is misappropriated credibility.
 
>My opinion is that we should *increase* spending on fusion research,
using
>a "shotgun" approach, spending about an order of magnitude more than
we're
>spending now.
 
I agree this would almost certainly succeed in creating the technologies
we need, given the 20 year back-log of fusion technologies waiting for
funding in the wake of the Tokamak fiasco.  However, a more effective
use of money would be the establishment of near-term large prize awards
for substantial milestone achievements and matching funds for private
investments in achieving those milestones (ala the fusion technology
 incentives act which I posted here some months ago).
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Jim Bowery /  Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 09:18:42 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> : The specific technologies they evaluated were Energy Matter Conversion
> : Corporation's patented Ion Acceleration (IXL) and Electron Acceleration
> : (EXL).
>
> Can you give a brief overview of what the essentials of this technique
> involve?
 
Contact EMC2 in Manassas, VA or call me to copy my docs at 459-0935.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Donald Locker /  Re: NTT Sells Cold Fusion Reactor
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NTT Sells Cold Fusion Reactor
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 17:54:54 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc., Chelsea, MI

In article <921127175743_72240.1256_EHL39-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>The Wall Street Journal reported today that NTT (Nippon Telegraph &
>Telephone Corp) is selling a kit containing all instructions and equipment
>needed to replicate the recently announced Yamaguchi experiment. The kit
>costs $565,000. It will be available from Advanced Film Technology, Inc.,
>a subsidiary 51% owned by NTT. It includes a vacuum chamber and sensing
>equipment.
>
 
Know if there is a money-back guarantee if not completely satisfied????
 
>See: page B6, Nov. 27, 1992, "For Japan's Nuke-It-Yourselfer, NTT Offers
>a $565,000 Cold-Fusion Kit."
>
>- Jed
 
 
--
Donald.                                    Speaking only for myself.
 
I am not a wombat, but a friend of a friend plays an aardvark on TV.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / John Logajan /  Slow diffusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Slow diffusion
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 20:00:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green) writes:
> we shouldn't forget that the Ni wire will be swallowing some of the
> evolved hydrogen to form NiH0.5.
 
> The trouble with nickel is that hydrogen diffuses very slowly through it
> (1/8 the rate of H in Pd) and the hydride formation is rather prolonged
> (maybe a week for a 1 mm diamter wire).
 
Might I suggest that a very slow diffusion rate is inconsistent with a
continuous 23% loss of gas volume -- which would be 34% of the H2 gas.
This doesn't strike me as being "very slow."
 
On the other hand, I had a "lot" of Ni in the cell.
 
 
- 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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Jim Carr /  Re: Misleading in science
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misleading in science
Date: 30 Nov 92 18:51:26 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <199211242040.AA10973@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Henry Bauer
 <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH> writes:
>
>There has been a little back-and-forth on this net about people possibly
>putting misleading info into publications. It seems that unquestionably
>occurred in the race to high-temperature superconductors.
 
I am not sure how close you were to that event, but as a very interested
observer who stopped in the FSU lab working to replicate the then-not-yet-
in-print results of Chu, I think your implication is not correct.
 
>>From U. Felt & H. Nowotny, "Striking gold in the 1990s: the discovery of high-
>temperature superconductivity and its impact on the science system", SCIENCE,
>TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN VALUES, 17 #4 (Autumn 1992) 506-531--
>"the famous "Woodstock of Physics",where thousands of conference participants
> at the...American Physical Society meeting.... led to the veritable explosion
>of a new communication procedure, that is, "science by press conference""
>NOTE: THIS IS THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY THAT DEPLORED COLD-FUSION SCIENCE BY PRESS-
>RELEASE
 
Two things are confused here.  There was the conference presentation, attended
by thousands (I was not there, but I did see the video the APS made from the
TV feed to the overflow room.  There was also the spread of information via
the media (press conference), which is acceptable or unacceptable depending
on the circumstances.  It is standard procedure to hold a press conference
announcing a new result on the day the paper appears in print, and sometimes
when it has been accepted.  I have posted on this subject here before, so
I will not list any of the many examples.  It is also standard procedure to
hold a press conference at APS meetings after each invited session, since
the work reported is now in the public domain and this keeps the press from
messing up the technical sessions with silly questions.  (You many not know
this happens, since most of these are not big news, but this is how Science
News gets some of the info for its stories, also the NYTimes.)
 
What is decried is announcing results before they have been reviewed, or
even written up!  Hence, what FPH did was correct (their paper was accepted,
although their other paper had not even been submitted) and what Georgia
Tech and others did was not correct.  Science by press conference is,
after all, at least as good as the third way (see below): by rumor.
 
>P.519 "Chu.... First... submitted a paper containing two systematic mistakes
>making it useless to any reader. ...second ... a press conference...
>announcing--without giving any detail--the discovery of a new material
>superconducting at about 98 K. Only... [then] did he send his corrections to
>the journal";  citing for this, Wu et al., Physical Review Letters, 58:908 and
>Kolata, SCIENCE, 236:663
 
The impication is that the mistakes were deliberate.  Only Chu knows for
sure, but I have heard suggestions that he did this to protect the work
from being leaked by the referee.  It did not interfere with the results
being duplicated by others after the press conference.  In fact, the most
interesting thing is that he announced the result when the paper was
accepted and scheduled for publication, more than a week before it would
appear in people's mail boxes.  Everyone started working immediately based
on what was said (which was not enough) and on what could be gleaned from
others (from their efforts and what they might have heard via word-of-mouth
about the detailed process from Chu's group).  The result was that the
group here at FSU, like about 10 other places, had duplicated Chu's
result even before the paper arrived in the mail!
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Radioactive waste
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive waste
Date: 30 Nov 92 20:33:29 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <921127161048.20801476@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
> When I first started proposing to bury radioactive waste in subduction
> zones, 4 or 5 years ago, I just did it to irritate my "green" friends.
> Now I am told it is under serious consideration.  Some of you here have also
> responded like it is being done rather than being my little joke.  I guess
> I should have patented it.
 
I can't seem to send you mail directly, or I'd send this by mail...
 
I've been hearing people suggest the use of subduction zones for
radioactive waste disposal for a lot longer than 4 or 5 years. I can
recall discussing the idea with my father, and he's been dead for
nearly 10 years.
 
                                Bob P.
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.11.30 / Cho-Kuen Ng /  tokomak models
     
Originally-From: cho@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu (Cho-Kuen Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tokomak models
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 17:31:02 GMT
Organization: SLAC, Stanford University

Could someone tell me where I can get or buy a 3D model of tokomak for
exhibition purpose?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencho cudfnCho-Kuen cudlnNg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.01 /  Rothwell /  Calendar Confusion
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calendar Confusion
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 01:30:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
A couple of people have written to me to point out that the dates on my previous
lecture notice were mixed up. The correct date of Notoya's formal lecture will
be Friday, December 4, 1992.
 
Readers of this forum can see why my wife and coworkers seldom trust me with
calendars, road maps, and checkbook ledgers, and why I have, more than once,
gotten lost and traveled 100 kilometers the wrong direction on the former
Japanese National Railway system.
 
Let me repeat, one last time, that there can be no assurance the Notoya demo
will work.
 
The Protocol I uploaded shows that preparing a cell is a painstaking process
that takes several hours. A lot can go wrong, I know people who failed the first
few times they ran this experiment. It is about as difficult and frustrating as
installing a personal computer hard disk was in 1981, or creating a program with
a new, untested, compiler. Nobody understands how it works. Tom Droege's
comments were right on the mark: "[experimenters advise] you should not have
used an Olive jar. If you replace that with a Peanut Butter jar, I will then
tell you that you should not have used that too." Or, as Bockris said of Pons
and Fleischmann in 1989, "I've talked to them six or seven times... each time
I've had hedged information. They'll give me something, they won't give me
something. They say some things, they contradict it. It's not a clear
situation... I don't think they know exactly the conditions themselves." (Fire
from Ice, p. 156)
 
I am reminded of what it was like calling in a bug for Release 1.0 of Turbo
Pascal, copy #65. "Tech Support" would tell you, "I don't know why, but I hear
that if you put add a comma and separate the statements with a null remark, it
sometimes works. Call me back if it does work, because 64 other people are
asking." Those who wish to do only clean, cut and dry, predictable, and easy
physics are well advised to stay away from cold fusion for a few more years,
while we finish ironing out the bugs. Leave this to people like me, who enjoy
wandering around lost in subterranean passages where the path is marked by
indecipherable 4000 year old Chinese ideographs, and where at any moment you can
find yourself inexorably swept 100 kilometers the wrong direction by a nonstop
train bound for Shimonoseki.
 
Notoya told me that she has run the experiment many times successfully in
Sapporo, and again in Nagoya (she believes), and then again back in Sapporo, but
she cannot guarantee that it will work on Thursday and Friday. She will do her
best. Everyone should remember that this is new physics, nobody understands in
detail how or why the cells work, and nobody should be shocked, outraged, or
derisive if it fails to work this time.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.01 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  No wax burned
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No wax burned
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 15:17:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell gave us a nice parable about how we know that CF is not
a chemical process.  The key to his argument would seem to be: "... the
best instruments known to science revealed that no wax had been
consumed".  Let us make the obvious extension to nuclear reaction products
and include consideration of the fact that if we are looking for evidence
to support the proposition that deuterion fusion is occuring the "best
instruments known to science" are at least a million times more sensitive
then those Jed wants us to rely on.   The cold fusion supporters have
fallen strangely silent as to what they would suggest is the process
fueling CF.  Maybe the Japanese megacorporations know a good deal more
about this than do me mortals, but I get the feeling they haven't
figured out what is burning.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.01 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Calendar Confusion
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calendar Confusion
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 15:54:58 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <921130212629_72240.1256_EHL70-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
> Everyone should remember that this is new physics, nobody understands
> in detail how or why the [Notoya] cells work, and nobody should be
> shocked, outraged, or derisive if it fails to work this time.
  ^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^
Eh?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.01 /  Rothwell /  Guarantee from NTT?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Guarantee from NTT?
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 21:26:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Donald H. Locker asks about the $565,000 NTT CF reactor kit: "[is] there is a
money-back guarantee if not completely satisfied????"
 
I do not know, I will ask Yamaguchi next time I talk to him. My guess, however,
is: Yes. I would be very, very surprised if there was not.
 
Japanese corporations are famous for their unconditional customer satisfaction
support. I knew someone who experienced a small problem with a new washing
machine, and she got a squad of technicians at her door that morning. If they
had not got the thing fixed, I had a feeling they might have committed mass
harakiri right there in her house. In a cross cultural study of product
reliability, researchers compared room airconditioners. Japanese room
airconditioners are not sold in the U.S., and ours are not sold there, so they
make a good independent test measure of reliability. The study found that the
U.S. products were 50 times more likely to fail at the customer site.
 
With a big ticket item like the CF reactor, you can bet you will get all the
handholding you want. Of course, it is not for amateurs. You have to follow 10
pages of instructions like, "set the samples in a vacuum chamber (Vieetech Inc.;
volume=61.37 l) of stainless steel, and anneal at 300 - 400 deg C for 18 - 22
hours under vacuum (< 5 X 10 ^ 7 torr)..."
 
As to whether it *can* work or not, you can be 110% certain of that. A company
with the size and reputation of NTT would never, in a million years, create a
fiasco and a public disgrace by shipping a product for $500 grand that cannot
do what they claim it can do. That is absolutely, positively out of the
question. You might as well expect Toyota Motor Company to hand over $15 million
to some professor without independently checking his work with a full and proper
calorimeter! These people did not take away 30% of the U.S. auto market by
acting like imbeciles, and making crazy, inexplicable, and totally avoidable
errors that any first year business student would advise against. You can be
sure that NTT is certain of their results, because they do not want see their
stock drop back down 10% (or more). If that happened, everyone involved in the
project would be instantly fired -- lifetime employment or not.
 
For readers who are unfamiliar with NTT Basic Research, by the way, it is
exactly analogous to Bell Laboratories, except it has more money (I believe).
These guys know what they are doing! For example, you can be sure they know how
to deal with glass and helium, because after all, they have been doing this for
four years, and everyone in the business is fully aware of potential problems
like that.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.01 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Chuck's excess gas
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chuck's excess gas
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 17:59:35 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>>The result, is a catalyized reaction and the release of excess gasses compared
>>to that 1.48*I normal gas release.
 
>Has anyone reported absolute measures of excess gas?
 
Ok, that was a bad idea.  I was all prepared to explain how -NiO.H.KH+
might work, but it looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't
exist, silly me.  So let me turn this around and around and suggest that
maybe K acts a catalyst to recombine H + OH, in solution.  This along
with Ni hydride formation and KH+ formation, might explain the apparent
*deficit* of gasses, and appearance excess heat which is really
recombination invitro.  But I think your already looking along
thoses lines so nothing new there.
 
Have fun,
Chuck
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.01 / G Aharonian /  Re: Guarantee from NTT?
     
Originally-From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Guarantee from NTT?
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 22:42:33 GMT
Organization: The World

About why NTT is offering a Colf Fusion kit, for those who are skeptics,
is as follows:  NTT benefitted in the billions with the run up in its stock
price after some cold fusion news.  Maybe this is illegal in Japan, unless
NTT can offer some product (maybe with hard to verify results) in cold
fusion so as to have some validity (no matter how tenuous) for the run up
in the stock market other than market manipulation.
 
Besides, if cold fusion really worked, NTT wouldn't be selling kits.  They
would be licensing with Westinghouse, Asea Brown Boveri, etc  to build
cold fusion plants and selling electricity.
 
Cold fusion is like neural networks in the stock market.  Most of what you
hear about is crap, and what isn't crap you don't hear about.
 
Greg Aharonian
--
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensrctran cudfnGregory cudlnAharonian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.02 / Peter King /  Review of Fusion Approaches
     
Originally-From: king@langmuir.physics.su.OZ.AU (Peter King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of Fusion Approaches
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 20:42:09 GMT
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia

        Does anyone know of any articles/books that summarises the state of
various high temperature fusion plasma experiments around?  Articles that
briefly describe the experiments and their aims?
 
        Thanks in advance.
 
                Peter
 
 
 
--
********************************************************************************
Peter King                               *         The home of TORTUS.
Plasma Physics Department                *   T
University of Sydney, NSW 2006           *   O
AUSTRALIA                                *   Roid of
    voice: 61 2 692 3371                 *   The
      FAX: 61 2 660 2903                 *   University of
    email: king@physics.su.OZ.AU         *   Sydney
********************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenking cudfnPeter cudlnKing cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Sad news;  NTT Cold Fusion Kit
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sad news;  NTT Cold Fusion Kit
Date: 2 Dec 92 10:21:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Dear Colleagues,
I have been off the net several days, due in part to the passing of my grand-
mother on Nov. 26 and then a airplane crash on Nov. 29 which killed my close
friend and colleague, Douglas Bennion, professor of chemical engineering at
Brigham Young University.  Some of you know Doug, a fine researcher.  Most
recently, he has worked with us on an effort to isolate the reaction
responsible for the evident neutron production in cement + D2O.  Neutron
emissions from cement+D2O are reported in the Kamiokande experiments as well
as in follow-on studies at BYU.  In particular, neutron emissions from U
or photodisintegration of deuterons have been systematically ruled out.  Doug
suggested we try a reaction of D2O steam with CaO, isolating one of the main
reactions in curing cement.  We have done this twice now, and I will report
results here when the analysis is done.
 
I owe a response to Dr. Morrison and will present this soon:  I am gathering
data to round out the picture painted by him.  The low-level nuclear emissions
are NOT precluded by the results of the Kamiokande experiment in my view, but
look for a posting perhaps this afternoon.
 
The bold offer of a kit for $565,000 to permit replication of Yamaguchi's cold
fusion experiment by NTT is remarkable.  J. Wall Street (11/27/92) quotes
NTT president Masashi Kojima as saying "the result will likely be the Nobel
Prize for Mr. Yamaguchi" if another scientist replicates Yamaguchi's
experiment.  J. Wall St. adds that NTT might "become a power company based on
cold fusion" -- again quoting NTT president Kojima.
 
Contrast these statements with those made by Yamaguchi himself in his written
paper distributed in Nagoya at the Oct. meeting, to be published in the
proceedings:  "It has also been found that these phenomena are induced by
D (H) transport due to the temperature gradients.  The following fact has
suggested that the excess heat was not produced by nuclear reactions; namely,
the same phenomena of excess heat generation etc. was easily occurred both
on Pd:H systems and on Pd:D system ..."
 
Look:  Yamaguchi is reporting that the excess heat is "not produced by nuclear
reactions."  This statement was not made by Yamaguchi in his public address
at the conference, but is clearly made in his paper.  I personally questioned
Yamaguchi about this very matter during a poster session in Nagoya, and he
stated that the heat was seen with Pd:H as well as Pd:D and that he doubted
that the excess heat was due to nuclear reactions.
 
Someone should inform NTT president Kojima, and the press.  One tires of the
tedious inevitability of hyped up claims and demonstrations.
 
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  regarding demonstrations
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: regarding demonstrations
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 00:30:26 GMT
Date: 2 Dec 92 10:21:09 -0700
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   Comments on "Sad news;  NTT Cold Fusion Kit"
Message-ID: <1992Dec2.102109.238@physc1.byu.edu>
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 2 Dec 92 10:21:09 -0700
 
  Therein, Steven Jones reports that Yamaguchi
 
>> "stated that the heat was seen with Pd:H as well as Pd:D
>> and that he doubted that the excess heat was due to nuclear
>> reactions."
 
    Dr. Yamaguchi's paper "Direct Evidences of Nuclear Fusion
 Reactions in Deuterated Palladium" (Yamaguchi Eiichi and
 Nishioka Takashi, NTT; courtesy of Dr. Mallove, Starbound)
 offers more additional insight into this.
 That paper states (from the abstract):
 
        "The amount of produced 4He gas was
        strongly correlated to the excess heat evolution,
        and was increased with increasing the loading ratio
        of D to Pd.  At maximal loading ratio of D to Pd,
        we have also observed T production by detecting HT."
 
    In examining his figure 4, the Pd:D and Pd:H
 temperature-time curves appear different (the setups may be
 identical, but some parameters appear to differ) with respect
 to peak level, dynamics.  As the authors further state:
 
        "Nevertheless this system Pd:H chaotically
         produces the excess heat both on sample A and B,
         as shown in Fig. 4(b)."
 
 
   In the same 12/2 missive, Steven Jones states:
 
>>  "One tires of the tedious inevitability of hyped up
>>   claims and demonstrations."
 
   To the respectful contrary; three rousing cheers to those
 who make demonstrations, since ** demonstrations **
 are an (presumed honest) attempt to lay out scientific
 and engineering prototypes and inventions.
 
           DEMONSTRATE:  From "demonstratus" (Latin)
          also "de-" and "monstrare"  to show  (French)
 
  with a definition of >> "to show clearly" or
                          "to prove or make clear
                         by reasoning or evidence" (Webster)
 
  Sounds good to me.
  Therefore linking "claims" to "demonstrations" in such
 a setting may be  less than optimal.
 
 
  In addition to the clarification, and disagreement,
  the author offers sincere apologies to SJ, and others,
  on the tragic losses.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.03 / paolo amoroso /  Info about MIGMA wanted
     
Originally-From: amoroso@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (paolo amoroso)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Info about MIGMA wanted
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 08:34:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University

I am a computer science student at the University of Milan (Italy). A friend
of mine, who is a physics student at the Univ. of Milan and does not have
access to this newsgroup, asked me to make this posting. He would appreciate
very much any information concerning recent papers about the MIGMA family of
plasma machines for studying fusion (developed by Bogdan C. Maglich).
If you can help him, please send e-mail to mauro@explora.sublink.ORG (Mauro
Arpino). Thanks in advance.
 
Paolo Amoroso - Via Pietro Boifava, 24 - 20142 Milano, ITALY
paolo@explora.sublink.ORG - amoroso@ghost.dsi.unimi.it
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenamoroso cudfnpaolo cudlnamoroso cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.03 / Chuck Sites /  Morrison's distortion of Kamiokande
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison's distortion of Kamiokande
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 18:18:27 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Dr. Jones was kind enough to send me copies of T. Ishda's thesis, and
a paper describing the Cement+D2O experiments.  After reading these,
and D. Morrision's summary of Kmaiokande, I thought a comment would be
worth while.  Dr. Jones has said he will respond to D. Morrison soon.
I look forward to that.  In the mean time,
 
> Subject: Cold Fusion expts. with Pd and Ti in Kamiokande.
> References: <9211262244.AA02691@dxmint.cern.ch>
 
  Dr. Morrision in his recent review of the Kamiokande experiments claims
that the results are in disagreement with Jones et al. (1989) and
Menlove et al (1990).  Part of his argument is to lump together the
total live time of 70 individual experiments (each one with it's own
variation in setup) and divide the total number of neutrons seen
during the live time to obtain flux levels. By analogy, this would
be like saying the the number of searchs for the Top quark has used
200 Hrs beam time. The number found is 0, so the flux of Top is 0/200Hr
= 0.00000 Tops/s. The point is, an average is a dubious statistic if
conditions of the experiment are changing.  Fusion in static solids
is truely an anomalous effect, and searching for the parameters where
the anomalies can be exagerated requires serveral varitions of
experimental conditions.  So it is not suprising to find the majority
of runs at Kamiokande NULLs.
 
   A number of runs showed counts above background but not at levels that
couldn't be explained by ppm contaminations of Uranium as Dr. Ishida
demonstrates.  However this doesn't explain every instance, and two runs
worthy of noting are K4 and B-5 gas experiments. An addendum from Jones,
shows runs K4 and B-5 gas experiments have results comparable to Menlove.
The argument with K4 and B-5 was that contamination from Uranium at a
level of 4.5 ppm could explain the low multilpicity burst seen in
Kamiokande.  When the titanium and steel casing from K4 and B5 were
examined directly, the U contamination was found to be 0.14 ppm in
the titanium and 0.01 ppm in the steel.  With these unknowns resolved,
the emmisions from these runs are comparable to rates found by Menlove.
This is a direct contradition of Morrison's thesis that the Kamiokande
results invalidate Jones et al. (1889) and Menlove et. al (1990).
 
   To be brief, many of the runs from Kamiokande would be expected to be
null as varitions were made in the apparatus. As reported in the Jones
addendum, several of the electrolytic experiments were in agreement
with Jones to a factor, and K4 and B-5 are in agreement with Menlove.
 
Have fun,
Chuck
chuck@coplex.com
 
Ps.  I would like to personally thank Dr. Jones for sending copies of
     T. Ishida thesis paper, and the paper describing the Cement+D2O
     experiments.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.03 / Brian Wood /  Re: Info about MIGMA wanted
     
Originally-From: woodbe@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Brian E. Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Info about MIGMA wanted
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 19:26:09 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University

amoroso@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (paolo amoroso) writes:
 
>I am a computer science student at the University of Milan (Italy). A friend
>of mine, who is a physics student at the Univ. of Milan and does not have
>access to this newsgroup, asked me to make this posting. He would appreciate
>very much any information concerning recent papers about the MIGMA family of
>plasma machines for studying fusion (developed by Bogdan C. Maglich).
>If you can help him, please send e-mail to mauro@explora.sublink.ORG (Mauro
>Arpino). Thanks in advance.
 
>Paolo Amoroso - Via Pietro Boifava, 24 - 20142 Milano, ITALY
>paolo@explora.sublink.ORG - amoroso@ghost.dsi.unimi.it
 
I am also interested in this type of fusion, and have not seen any articles
on it recently, so if anyone is able to respond, could you either post the
reply or also mail it to me???
 
Thanks...
 
 
Brian E. Wood           woodbe@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenwoodbe cudfnBrian cudlnWood cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 /  /  Holliday Plans
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Holliday Plans
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 03:21:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It has become a Christmas tradition in the Droege household to have a positive
"anomalous heat" result.  In '89 we were running our first P&F type experiment
and were getting the results published in ACCF1.  In '90 we were getting the
anomalous "anomalous heat" result caused by the limited common mode rejection
of the current amplifier.  In '91 we were getting the positive result from the
open Mills cell.  We are working very hard to keep up the tradition.
 
We now have a $1600 chiller and will soon have a $500 heater.  The idea is to
use the chiller to cool the water in a big picnic cooler.  The chiller is set
to run continuously.  The recirculating heater will warm up the water to the
set point.  Since (cheap) chillers (no bypass) run on or off, it is hard to
get better than 1 C control without a very large water volume.  The heaters
are run by phase controlled SCR's and so can do much better proportional
control.  We have just turned on the chiller and it looks like we will be able
to cover the range from 5 C to possibly up to 50 C.  We may be able to get
down to 0 C or even a little lower.
 
It looks like we do better in stability with the chiller than with the
old garbage can cooler, and are presently getting short term "noise"
measurements below 10 mw.  Long term is still below 1 mw. (both rms).  We are
now calling this calorimeter the modified Mark II or Mark V/II (Mark 2.5 in
roman numerals) Remember Mark III is coming, and what we learn on Mark V/II
is helping in the design.  But note that "better" is not all that much over
what we have been doing.  After the expense of the chiller and better power
supplies we have improved possibly 50%.  It is a tough business.
 
Can anyone easily look up where .1 M - 1 M LiOD will freeze.  Just rough, I
don't need it to 3 decimal places.
 
The message I got from McKubre was that it was important to be clean and pure.
As I recall, these were also the requirements for searching for the Holy
Grail.  So I will try, but it is a little late for me to learn such things.  I
have ordered a plastic glove bag.  (Thomas Scientific #5766-f23 $19.66 + $7.50
for minimum order + shipping.)  This is a big plastic bag with built in
plastic gloves and a folded up entry port.  You put your stuff in the bag and
seal the port up with tape.  After considering various ways to purge such a
bag, I have hit on the following scheme.  It was recommended by Jim Miles that
I put in a dish of Phosphorous Pentoxide to clean out the water vapor which is
the contaminant that worries me the most.  There is also the purge problem.
For this a dish of Liquid Nitrogen was proposed.  This I can probably bring
home from Fermilab.  Since I am nervous about having chemicals in my basement,
I decided that the Phosphorous was out, even though some of you will assure me
that it is safe.  So I have bought some Drierite.
 
If the bag does not contain a vent tube, I will add one with a bubbler. (Oil?)
 
So here is my plan for a clean operation.   Into the new (clean I hope) glove
bag I will put:
 
A small dewar of liquid nitrogen
A dish to expose the nitrogen
A new bottle of Drierite
A flat dish to expose Drierite
The clean cell
The bottle of Lithium wire (in Oil?)
Clean wire cutters to chop up the Li wire
Labels
Marker to label bottles
A flask to mix Li with the D2O
Clean new smaller bottles to store LiOD mix.
A scale
A new bottle of 99.9% D2O
An old bottle of D2O ? Purity
A paper towel in a dish
Additional paper towels
Tweezers
 
I will start by taping up the bag and mushing it down to remove most of the
gas.  Then I will use the gloves to open the Drierite and to put it out in the
dish.  I will also pour out a small quantity of the liquid nitrogen to purge
the bag.  Then let the whole mess sit for 24 hours to get as much water vapor
out of the system as possible.  The nitrogen dewar will provide a continuous
purge during this time.
 
After 24 hours, I will open the old D2O and pour some on the paper towel.  The
idea is to make sure that whatever water vapor is in the bag is mostly D2O.
Then wait another 24 hours.
 
Now I can open the new D2O and divide it out into smaller bottles.  These will
be labeled, weighed and sealed.  One at a time I can pour the contents of
these bottles into the mixing (pyrex) flask, and add little snips of the
Lithium which is wiped dry of the storage oil on the paper towels (is there a
better way to do this?).  I am aware that the addition of Li to D2O makes lots
of D2 and O2.  One way to stand this is to punch down the bag between addition
of snips (each one weighed on the scale).  I guess one needs to have burning
candles in the area for safety.  I will probably do all this upstairs in the
kitchen with the stove fan running.  The plan is to not worry to much about
the exact Lithium content of each batch.  I will try for between .8 and 1.0
molar.
 
Before opening up the bag, I will fill and seal the cell.
 
I would appreciate comments on this procedure.  I am particularly interested
in things that I will want that I have left out of the bag, as it is a 48 hour
wait to add something.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 /  /  Palladium
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 03:22:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I note the spot price for Palladium in today's Tribune was over $100.  Does
anyone know why?  I do not get a good newspaper, I get the Tribune, but at
least I know the value of the national debt.
 
I still have a March contract.  Sold the Dec's at a small profit.  Just trying
to finance the operation everybody.  My broker is worthless for informantion.
 
I note that Palladium and Mercury are about the only metals up significantly
over the year.  Perhaps someone has bought both "cold fusion" and the mercury
into gold scam.  Or should that be scams.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 / Peter Seidl /  tokamak parameters
     
Originally-From: seidl@next1.lbl.gov (Peter Seidl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tokamak parameters
Date: 4 Dec 1992 01:56:47 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA

Can anyone help with parameters for the (sub)set of tokamak experiments
in the table below?
 
 
TABLE of Tokamak Parameters
===========================
 
                        TEXT            PLT             ACL-C           DIII-D
===============================================================================
 
n T tau                 ???             0.05            1               2
(1020 keV sec/m3)
(fusion triple product)
 
R (m)                   1.0             1.34            0.64            1.63
 
a (m)                   0.26            0.4             0.16            0.63
 
B (T)                   2               3               6               2.2
 
plasma current (MA)     0.2             ???             0.3             <3
 
auxiliary power (MW)    ???             ???             ???             nb=2
                                                                        icrh=4
                                                                        ech =2
 
Physics start date      ???             ???             ???             1987
 
Physics finish date     ???             ???             ???             --
 
 
 
                        JT-60u          TFTR            JET             ITER
==============================================================================
 
n T t                   4.4             6               8-9             7-39
(1020 keV sec/m3)*
 
R (m)                   3.4             2.55            3.0             6.0
 
a (m)                   0.9             0.83            1.1             2.15
 
B (T)                   4               ???             4               4.9
 
plasma current (MA)     5               1.4             3.1             22
 
auxiliary power (MW)    nb=30           nb=33           nb=14-15        nb=54
                        icrh=2.5        icrh=7-12.5
                        lh-icrh=2.5
 
Physics start date      1992            ???             ???             --
 
Physics finish date     --              ???             ???             --
 
 
thanks,
 
 
--
Peter Seidl
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720
 
seidl@next1.lbl.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenseidl cudfnPeter cudlnSeidl cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 / A Amirtharaj /  Help need in getting ABSTRACTS/REF Number of Papers..
     
Originally-From: abi@cup.hp.com (Abraham Amirtharaj)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help need in getting ABSTRACTS/REF Number of Papers..
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 02:07:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

Hi Netters,
        My brother is doing his Phd in Nuclear physics in
Madras university (India). He wants to know if it is possible to get
the ABSTRACTS of papers from any nuclear physics journals with the following
keywords electronically (over e-mail etc) :
 
1. Moving sources 2. Shell structure or shell effects
3.Shell correction 4. Strutinsky 5. Nuclear rotation
6. Nuclear High spin states 7. Thermodynamics of nuclei
8. Separation energy 9. High angular momenta
10. Level densities.
 
        Or is it possible to get the reference numbers of these papers
some other way ?
        I would appreciate any help in this connection.
        I'm sorry if I've posted this in a wrong news group.
 
        Thanks in advance.
Bye
-Abraham Amirtharaj
e-mail : abi@cosl4.cup.hp.com
phone : (408)-733-0728 (Home)
        (408)-447-0520 (Office).
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenabi cudfnAbraham cudlnAmirtharaj cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  regarding demonstrations
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  regarding demonstrations
Date: 3 Dec 92 13:06:18 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitchell Swartz is correct, of course, in his defense of scientific
demonstrations in his posting of Dec. 3.  I was referring to "hyped up"
and I should add faulty demonstrations.  The demonstration in Nagoya
by Prof. Notoya seems to fit these descriptions, and that was what I was
specifically thinking of.  As reported earlier, BYU grad student D. Buehler
MEASURED the power dissipated into the air in the "control" cell due to
thin lead wires leading into this cell:  36% of the total joule heating
in this cell was dissipated into the air.  Since Prof. Notoya threw away
the very thin wire entering her "control" cell, according to a recent
posting by Jed Rothwell, one cannot further check our conclusions.  It does
seem to be less than standard scientific practice to throw away this wire,
which has been the subject of considerable debate (on this net).
 
I also agree that Yamaguchi seems to claim on the one hand that heat and
helium originate from nuclear reactions:  "The amount of produced 4He gas was
strongly correlated to the excess heat evolution..."
On the other hand, he clearly states in his Nagoya paper:
  "The following fact has suggested that the excess heat
was not produced by nuclear reactions;  namely, the same phenomena of
excess heat etc. was easily occurred both on Pd:H systems and on Pd:D
system..."
You sort it out.  To me, there seems to be a contradiction here.
 
In any case, I maintain that his claims that helium-4 was
"produced" are far from definitive:
the helium-4 which he reports could originate from the considerable
amount of glass that he now admits was in his experimental apparatus.
 
If anyone wants to buy a cold-fusion kit from NTT as offered (J. Wall St.,
11/27/92), he or she should be sure that there is no glass in the kit,
since glass provides a large reservoir for helium contamination.
 
Thanks for the condolences sent by Mitchell and privately by others
regarding recent passings.  I recommit myself to a search for the truth,
not to proving myself right.
 
Sincerely,
 
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE:  Kamiokande experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:  Kamiokande experiments
Date: 4 Dec 92 00:47:11 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
A few weeks ago, I posted the conclusions given in ICRR-Report-
277-92-15, "Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid- Deuterium
Systems," a Master Thesis by Taku Ishida.  This 131-page document
details the experimental method and results of an experiment performed
using the Kamiokande detector in Japan.  I reiterate of few of the
conclusions of this study, in an effort to balance the comments of
Douglas Morrison posted recently:
 
"Some burst neutron emissions were observed especially from the electro-
lytic cells.  The event rate (about 0.06 events bursts per hour) was
comparable to that of Menlove et al (1990), but the maximum multiplicity
was only limited to four (source neutrons of about 11, Fig. 7-2)."
 
The Menlove paper refers to results of the Los Alamos Nat'l Lab./BYU
collaboration, published in the Journal of Fusion Energy, Dec. 1990.
 
"Pressurized D2-gas type experiment:  We did not find random neutron
emission above background.  The flux limit is 8.0 * 10-5 neutrons per
second at the 90% confidence level.  But this limit is simply deduced
from the statistical error of 1311 hours of measurement, and is not
very meaningful because it is claimed that the neutron emission lasts
only for several tens of hours."
 
"Electrolytic cells experiment: ... We have observed 9 bursts with
maximum multiplicity of 4.  The probability that these bursts originate
in uranium contamination is less than 2 * 10-4, probably at the level of
10-6."
 
"Cement experiment:  We have found a clear random neutron emission from the
portland cement mixed with D2O at the level of 1 * 10-3 neutrons/second,
which is, however, difficult to explain based on radioactivity contamination
in the cement, though more data clearly needed."
 
The cement showed random neutron emission (as opposed to neutrons correlated
within 500 microseconds = burst emissions) during the curing period of the
cement.  The activity was sufficiently high that the Kamiokande leader asked
if we could continue the experiments elsewhere, since the neutron signals
interfered significantly with the studies of neutrinos in the Kamiokande.
Hence, we continue the studies in our new laboratory in a tunnel in the Wasatch
mountains near BYU, as posted earlier.
 
Contrast our conclusions as listed by Ishida-san with those of Dr. Morrison:
 
"The overall conclusion is that all the results obtained by Jones et al. and
by Menlove et al., are disproved by the Kamiokande experiment which has much
lower background and hence much lower limits."  (Posting 26 Nov. 1992)
 
Why the difference?  Consider Dr. Morrison's arguments:
"Now when there is fission, gammas as well as neutrons are emitted almost
simultaneously.  These gammas can create neutrons by photo-disintegration.
Hence the number of neutrons created by the fission plus photodisintegration
in the cell combined, is higher that that from neutrons alone."  Whoa -- where
are the numbers?  The runs (with the exception of D2Ocement, and two runs which
combined cement with electrolysis cells) show no neutron counts above
background, plus we know that the uranium contents are small, e.g., 0.14 ppm
in titanium chips used, less than 0.01 ppm in stainless steel.  So why does
he state that d(gamma,n)p reactions are significant?
Actually, we have measured the rate of deuteron photodisintegration in D2O
due to 238 U (see S.E. Jones et al., "Systematic investigations of neutron
emissions from cement prepared with heavy water, 1992, unpub'd but given to
Dr. Morrison and others):  0.31 +- 0.02 n/h*gU*gD2O , with cement present.
The rate increases by a factor of about 3 without cement, by our measurements.
We find that the rate of neutron production is less than 0.1 n/hour due to
U or Th -induced deuteron photodisintegration in either electrolytic or gas-
loaded experiments.  The probability that a d(gamma,n) reaction will produce
a neutron in the same 500 microsec window that contains a neutron from fission
is totally insignificant.  So no enhancement from this effect is found when
one troubles to be quantitative.
Incidentally, we have also experimentally ruled out (n,2n) and (alpha,n)
reactions as insignificant.
Another of Dr. Morrison's points is:  "Only sample K-4 was taken out of the 19
samples with gas loading and the 16 samples with electrolysis.  And of the
5+9 bursts recorded, no less than 4 were found in sample k-4.  A full
calculation taking all 19 + 16 = 35 samples plus the 5 + 9= 14 bursts,
would reduce the ppm by a factor of ten and bring the two numbers into
approximate agreement."
I don't think he has this straight.  We considered the gas-loaded samples
as a group, separately from the electrolysis cells.  Both K-4 AND B-5 samples
showed bursts with deuterium.  The hydrogen-gas-loaded cells showed no bursts.
(I.e., neutrons correlated within 500 microsec window.)  The Japanese team
evaluated the probability that the bursts could be due to contamination in the
gas-loaded cells using montecarlo methods and found P = 4 X 10-4.  I will check
whether the other D2-cells which were duds were properly considered.
The electrolytic cells were certainly handled all together, properly.
The data are as follows:
Sample  Hours  Observed Burst Multiplicity    Confidence level for 238U
        Run      2      3      4       5
238U    abt. 3   0.836  0.148  0.013   0.003     1
H2O     1350     3      1      0       0         0.51 (A. Anderson calc.)
D2O     1046     5      2      2       0         <0.001 (Japanese team)
 
Please note that the SAME metals, glass, etc. were used in the H2O and
D2O runs.  In one case, we ran with H2O first then with D2O.  In the other
set, we ran with D2O then saved the electrolyte separate while we did our
best to purge the D2 from the metals using heating-vacuum, hydrogen-flush
cycles (see Ishida thesis).
The principal question may not be whether the distribution of multiplicities
can be attributed to uranium.  Unless we are prepared to rule out ALL sources
of neutron bursts, the best we can do is to ask what is the probability that
we see the foreground distribution given the empirical evaluation of the
background.  What is the self-consistency of the two distributions above,
for H2O and D2O?  This we have not yet finished, but the probability of
obtaining the two distributions under the null hypothesis (nothing more
than a random fluctuation of the background) appears small.
 
Dr. Morrison argues extensively that episodes of random neutron emission
should be evaluated using the expected 1 episode per 900 hours estimate I
made in 1990 along with a normalization based on the grams present in the
Kamiokande experiments.  He says:  "The Menlove et al. cells averaged 84
grams whil the cells placed in Kamiokande averaged 339 grams.  Thus a
correction factor of 339/84 = 4.0 should be applied."  Which correction makes
the Kamiokande results disagree with expected neutron yields based on Los
Alamos/BYU experiments. (I find a similar mass-correction factor is applied
to both random and burst neutron emission, as I have defined these here, by
Dr. Morrison.)  First, as I have already written to Douglas privately, I am
not sure that a mass-correction factor is justified.  We admit that we do
not know how to scale the yields from electrolysis and D2-gas cells.  He is
tacitly assuming that the yields will scale with sample mass.  How about the
deuteron-loading ratios, or the surface areas, the current-density, etc?
In Ishida's thesis, we simply scaled by hours, which seems reasonable to me.
 
I also warned Douglas that the estimate of 1 few-hour episode of random-neutron
production per 900 hours made in 1990 was based on only TWO episodes.  Thus,
the error in this scaling factor is large, at least SQRT2 / 2.  The factor he
used is really not meaningful, then -- I told him I would review the data with
Menlove and others and come up with a better number to permit meaningful
comparisons, but this would take some time.  He said he could not wait.  I
understand, but his readers should at least be warned that his scale factor
is based on just 2runs/1800 hours.  Some patience is needed here to get
meaningful results.
 
A few general comments are in order.  Since 1986, the BYU team has been
conducting experiments involving deuteron loading into solids, and we have
claimed to observe 'anomalous nuclear effects.'  In particular, we report
the production of a very small number of neutrons by deuterided materials
which by current understanding should have produced none at all.  Since a
possible source of these neutrons was nuclear fusion of deuterons, the
experiments have concentrated on comparisons of substances using D with
H as controls.  Until our successes with cement+D2O, which we are still
scrutinizing, we assumed that whatever processes might be involved resulted
from serendipitous conditions and were of a transient nature, and therefore
lack of repeatability should not in itself prejudice their interpretation.
Nevertheless, it is this lack of repeatability along with the small signals
which have caused ourselves and others to question the reality of the effects
and to demand that any interpretations based on statistical arguments be
thoroughly rigorous.  This is not an easy task, and I appreciate the
comments of Morrison and others which challenge our rigor.  Our goal in the
Kamiokande experiments is to establish the probability that the signals
described above (and in Ishida's thesis; I have barely touched on the cement
results here) might result from nothing more than a random fluctuation of
backgrounds.  It is then up to the reader to decide whether other inter-
pretations have a greater likelihood.  Admittedly, the signals detected at
Kamiokande are smaller than those reported earlier.  Thus, with reduced
background, candidate signals are observed, but with apparently reduced
strength.  This is a red flag that we may be chasing noise, still the
Kamiokande signals appear significant.  It should be pointed out that
there is another variable which correlates with the reduced background of
the Kamiokande, that is the difficulty of access and sample handling.  (This
paragraph benefits greatly from communications with Al Anderson recently.)
 
Finally, I would point out that the Kamiokande experiments pointed us to
tests with cement+D2O and then with CaO+D2O as an isolated reaction.  While
we are encouraged by results obtained recently in the Provo Canyon laboratory
near BYU, we are still checking for possible systematic errors.  Our
ultimate goal is to find a strong, reproducible signal observed in different
detectors.  Until this is done, we cannot be sure of a new effect.  Our efforts
have benefitted from discussions with some very good physicists such as
Charlie Barnes, Al Mann, Steve Koonin and Al Anderson-- also Morrison,
Close, Huizenga, Nagamine, Totsuka, Wolf, Cecil and others.     After a thorough
review of our techniques and data, several have encouraged us to continue the
search.  We will do so.  Stay tuned.
 
Sincerely,
 
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 /  Karol /  History of science vis-a-vis CNF
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
Date: Fri,  4 Dec 1992 09:03:54 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Are there examples in the history of science during the past century
where acceptance of a major discovery has been significantly stymied by
a seemingly endless tension between contradictory results and difficulty
in independent confirmation and in which the protagonists were a
distinct minority?
 
[Prior to a century ago, a partial example is Avogadro's hypothesis
which was rejected by Dalton and-almost-everyone-else.  However, this
blockage was more attributable to Dalton's dominance of atomic science
than anything substantive.  The experiments were easily duplicated but
their significance ignored for almost a half century until Cannizzaro
showed that many (if not all) puzzling yet incontrovertible results
could be explained by Avogardro's molecular hypothesis.  This example is
not quite comparable to the CNF situation.  I site it only to try to
clarify my question.]
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfn cudlnKarol cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.004 / Jim Bowery /  Re: tokamak parameters
     
Originally-From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tokamak parameters
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 92 07:48:59 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

seidl@next1.lbl.gov (Peter Seidl) writes:
 
> Can anyone help with parameters for the (sub)set of tokamak experiments
> in the table below?
>
>
> TABLE of Tokamak Parameters
That this table would be considered anything but a minor footnote
in the history of government boondoggles, is a tribute to the
power of political propoganda that arises quite naturally from
the flow of hundreds of millions of unaccountable dollars/yr.
 
--
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 /  morrison@vxpri /  Reply to Dr. Sites
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dr. Sites
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 21:02:35 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

 
                REPLY TO DR. SITES
 
    There is an article entitled "Morrison's distortion of Kamiokande".
Most lawyers are fine moral people but there are some unscrupulous ones
who give the profession a bad name. One of their standard tactics is to take
a long piece of evidence, say containing 100 facts, and to take one or two
of them, and attack these facts, and then draw the conclusion that the other
98 must also be wrong. They create so much smoke that the fundamentals get lost.
 
    The first aim of the Kamiokande experiment was to lower the background
so much that the effects which were previously found barely above background,
would now be major and clear effects. Hence the first aim was to repeat the
earlier experiments and prove they existed.
 
  1).  Let's go back to the fundamentals of the 1989 Jones paper. The claim
was that Cold Fusion gave 0.4 neutrons per second. I cannot find anything to
justify that statement in the Kamiokande results.
   The Kamiokande results are expressed as upper limits with 90% confidence -
this is the correct way to present them.
   In all three cases the flux upper limit was less than 0.0001 neutrons/second
for runs lasting 1310.7, 387.2 and 569.7 hours.
   The total time of the 14 runs in the Jones et al. paper in Nature was not
given but from elementary calculations should be about 47 hours (have asked
several times for the precise value of this number but have not yet had a reply)
    The mass of titanium used in Jones et al. was 3 grams. The average weight
of titanium used in the gas experiments was 339 grams.
    The conclusion that the Kamiokande experiments have disproved the Nature
paper of Jones et al. seems reasonable.
 
2)  Menlove et al. made a claim to have observed bursts of neutrons in a time
of 128 microseconds. In real numbers they claimed to have seen many with
30, 40, 50, 60 and even 80 neutrons in the burst. Correcting for efficiency
they claimed between 10 and 280 source neutrons (below 10 was background).
Now this is a claim and a complete claim - it should ALL be true, not one little
corner. In the Kamiokande gas experiment there were zero bursts which gave
4 or more real neutrons, ie there were zero bursts giving 10 or more source
neutrons.
     This is the basis of the conclusion that the Kamiokande gas experiment
is in disagreement with the Menlove et al. claims.
 
3)  In the Kamiokande electrolysis experiment, two burst were found with a
multiplicity of four. That is two bursts had about 11 source neutrons.
But none were observed with between 15 and 280 source neutrons. That is
no bursts were observed for most of the the region 10 to 280 and two were
observed in a very small segment, 10 to 15. This a major disagreement and
is the basis for the conclusion that the Kamiokande electrolysis experiment
is in disagreement with the Menlove et al. claims.
 
    These are the fundamentals. There are lots of other items which could be
used as a discussion smokescreen. But first the fundamentals.
 
                                               Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmorrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
     
Originally-From: eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 19:10:23 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     The best recent example is plate tectonics.  Although the theory
(of continental drift) was first proposed in the 1930's, geologists
strongly contested every piece of evidence in favor of continental
drift until sea floor drilling showed that the Atlantic sea floor was
only a few million years old and that this age decreased to zero
approaching the mid-Atlantic ridge.
 
      The most famous example may be Semmelwiess and puerperal fever.
Semmelwiess tried to convince his colleages in obstetrics that they
were spreading the disease themselves by not washing their hands
between patients.  They literally locked him in a mental institution
convinced that his excessive hand-washing was an obsession...
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.05 /   /  Takahashi cold fusion
     
Originally-From: "C. Harrison" <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Takahashi cold fusion
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 00:37:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I expect to be able to visit Dr. Takahashi at his laboratory in
Osaka, Japan sometime next week.  Please post or e-mail any
questions.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1337 cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.05 / Bruce Dunn /  Working in a Glove Box
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Working in a Glove Box
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 17:28:22 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Tom Droege writes:
 
>
> Now I can open the new D2O and divide it out into smaller bottles.  These
> will
> be labeled, weighed and sealed.  One at a time I can pour the contents of
> these bottles into the mixing (pyrex) flask, and add little snips of the
> Lithium which is wiped dry of the storage oil on the paper towels (is there
> a
> better way to do this?).
 
 
        I am not too keen on paper towels inside the bag.  From experience,
using the towels will set loose paper fibers which will float around,
contributing milligram quantities of paper fiber here and there.  I am also
not sure that you will get all the oil off the lithium simply by wiping.  I
wonder if the following might be useful?
 
1)   Before the main preparation of the LiOD, set up your bag with dry
nitrogen, and place in it your lithium in oil, and four containers of a
volatile solvent such as hexane.  Remove the lithium from the oil, drip dry,
and place it in the first batch of hexane.  Agitate to wash the lithium, then
remove it.  Wash the lithium in the second and third batchs of hexane,
remove, and store in the fourth batch of hexane.  Seal the container and open
the bag.
 
2)  When making the LiOD, remove lithium from the hexane, and place on a
clean dish until the hexane has evaporated.  Drop into the D2O.
 
        I have never handled lithium, but this seems reasonable to me.  It
keeps the lithium away from moist air (which is what the oil is supposed to
do), while exchanging the oil for a solvent which can be evaporated.  A dummy
run with some aluminum might indicate how feasible this all is.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Kamiokande/Morrison and Sites
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kamiokande/Morrison and Sites
Date: 5 Dec 92 11:12:28 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Very interesting.  Dr. Sites posed a reasonable challenge to Dr. Morrison's
logic and conclusions (see Sites' Dec. 3 posting).  He noted that both K-4
and B-5 samples produced short neutron bursts in the Kamiokande (Morrison
only listed K-4) and explained why "it is not surprising to find the majority
of runs at Kamiokande NULLs."  He challenges Dr. Morrison's use of an average
flux.
In his reply, Dr. Morrison fails to address the specific points raised by
Dr. Sites. Instead, he refers to unscrupulous lawyers' tactics:  "they create
so much smoke that the fundamentals get lost."  He warns against items  "used
as a discussion smokescreen", and re-iterates his views of the fundamental
goals and conclusions of the Kamiokande experiment, without responding to
Sites' specific questions.
Without wishing to accuse Dr. Morrison of employing smokescreen himself, I
would respectfully ask that he address Dr. Sites' arguments directly.
 
I would address Dr. Morrison's statements regarding the conclusions of the
Kamiokande experiment, because I also feel he may be overlooking important
data as presented in Ishida's Thesis (ICRR-Report-277-92-15) regarding the
Kamiokande experiment.  For instance, Dr. Morrison states "The Kamiokande
results are expressed as upper limits with 90% confidence ..." and goes on
to conclude "The conclusion that the Kamiokande experiments have disproved
the Nature paper of Jones et al. seems reasonable."  (See Morrison's Dec. 4
posting, "Reply to Dr. Sites".)
In the Ishida report, the conclusions chapter states:  "We did not find random
neutron emission above background.  The flux limit 8.0 * 10-5 neutrons per
second at 90% confidence level.  BUT THIS LIMIT IS SIMPLY DEDUCED FROM THE
STATISTICAL ERROR OF 1311 HOURS OF MEASUREMENT, AND IS NOT VERY MEANINGFUL
BECAUSE IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE NEUTRON EMISSION LASTS ONLY FOR SEVERAL TENS
OF HOURS."  (Ishida report p. 69 regarding D2-loading expts; similar
statements are made regarding the electrolytic-type experiments.)
  I capitalized the last part so that it
would not be overlooked again.  Ishida here points out the danger of mis-
interpreting the upper limit as disproving the (Jones') claims of neutron
emission episodes which are limited to short, unpredictable periods.  It is
the issue of looking at an overall average of the neutron flux, the same
issue raised by Dr. Sites.  The conclusions are not so cut-and-dried as Dr.
Morrison suggests.
[Dr. Morrison asks the total time of the runs reported in our Nature paper.
The answer is:  79.3 hours of foreground (D2O) and 337.2 hours of background
runs, largely H2O.]
 
I disagree with Dr. Morrison's claim regarding the "first aim" of the Kamiokande
experiment:  "Hence the first aim was to repeat the earlier experiments and
prove they existed."  If this were really the "first aim", then Ishida's
conclusion stated above would mean that the experiment was a failure:  we did
not falsify (or verify) the earlier experiments.  But in reality a major thrust
of the experiments was to SEARCH FOR A TRIGGER MECHANISM, i.e., a means of
generating nuclear emissions from deuterided solids at will.  As our
experiments have proceeded at BYU and Los Alamos, we have found and emphati-
cally reported that the neutron emissions were rare and small.  (I am sorry
if this impression was not imparted by our original paper, we have certainly
endeavored to clarify the problematical nature of the possible phenomenon
we are dealing with.)  In order for the new field of investigation to make
progress, we judged that we must find a predictable means of triggering the
neutron (or charged-particle) emissions.  Only then could we hope to scale up
the yields and provide crucial data to the theorists.  The field would languish
with only rare and transient observations.  Our search program is outlined in
the paper "In quest of a trigger mechanism for neutron emissions from
deuterium/solid systems" published in AIP Conf. Proc. #228, 1991, p. 206 S.E.
Jones et al.).
 
Thus, the experiments performed at Kamiokande were wide ranging.  We tried most
of the approaches listed in the paper just cited, including:
Electrolysis, with numerous variations from the original paper
D2-gas loading, again with variations from the Menlove paper
Chemical reactions involving Pd (ND3)2 Cl and FeOOD reductions
Diamond-anvil cells with TiDx and PdDx under pressure (unfortunately,
  we only reached about 145 kbars so we must try again.  Recently we reached
  1.8 megabars with LiD and LiH under pressure, but the diamond anvils broke
  during transport.)
Shattering deuterided solids with an electric grinder inside the Kamiokande
  (not easy:  the test samples must be suspended under 8 m of water)
Barium titanate + D2 and KDP piezoelectric crystals, driven electrically to
  seek non-equilibrium conditions
Cement prepared with D2O (with control of same sample after curing at 80 C,
  also cement+H2O control).  This study was motivated by considerations
  of geological reactions and our natural geological fusion hypothesis.
 
This last-named effort was tried early in the Kamiokande and shows promise of
giving, at last, a reproducible trigger.  As reported by Ishida:  "We have
found a clear random neutron emission from the portland cement mixed with
D2O at the level of 1 * 10-3 neutrons/second..."  This rate is approx. ten
(10) times the sensitivity level of the Kamiokande experiments.  Since the
neutron emission rate during curing of the cement+D2O was sufficiently high
to interfere with neutrino studies in the Kamiokande, Prof. Totsuka asked me
to continue the studies elsewhere, hence followed our studies in the Provo
Canyon tunnel lab near BYU.  We are still finding "clear random neutron
emission" from cement+D2O during curing (which involves chemical reactions,
not drying).  And no conventional explanation for the signals has been found,
while many ( d(gamma,n), d(alpha,n), fission from U, Th contamination) have
been ruled out.  We are still looking and trying to isolate the reaction
responsible for the clear neutron emissions.
I will say that if the cement+D2O proves to provide a reproducible neutron-
emission signal during curing, devoid of a prosaic explanation, then the
Kamiokande experiments (which gave first evidence of this)  were indeed a
success.  Our goal of finding a trigger mechanism would be reached.  However,
I do not wish to overstate this conclusion yet, as we are still working (this
is really not so easy).  I do wish to emphasize that Dr. Morrison's contention
that "the Kamiokande experiments have disproved the Nature paper of Jones et
al." is premature.
Yours Truly,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.04 /  Beeler /   cold fusion "trip report"
     
Originally-From: wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond)
Originally-From:     Mike Beeler <beeler@BBN.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Notoya Lecture
Subject:  cold fusion "trip report"
Date: 5 Dec 92 16:21:16
Date:     Fri, 4 Dec 92 11:19:32 EST
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA

   Since the Notoya lecture was at MIT, and several of us are MIT graduates
now working in Cambridge, Mass. (the same city as MIT), we thought it'd be
interesting to attend.  Unfortunately, only one of us ended up actually going
(the rest of us computer software and hardware folks couldn't pry ourselves
away from work Friday).  Fortunately, Mike Beeler, who went Thursday (NOT the
day of the lecture) is a technical writer in addition to being a software
developer -- he took notes and wrote the message below for those of us that
didn't go.  I thought the message might be of interest to readers of this
newsgroup.
 -WBE
 
Date:     Fri, 4 Dec 92 11:19:32 EST
Originally-From:     Mike Beeler <beeler@BBN.COM>
Subject:  cold fusion "trip report"
 
I went to the cold fusion talk yesterday, and found it pretty interesting.
Here's a "trip report" FYI.  Forward it to anyone that might be interested.
 
Dr. Notoya's experiment was not ready for demonstration.  It took longer
to set up, due to misunderstandings.  MIT thought she needed water with
low metal ion content, but she cared much more about organic contaminants.
MIT didn't understand how very pure the hydrogen needed to be.  (The
hydrogen is used in some unspecified preparation of the nickel.)  After
scouting up these things, plus glassware, etc., Dr. Notoya was still
preparing the experiment in a clean room at time for the talk.  One
person helping her commented that she is more concerned about cleanliness
than anyone he's seen.  She did come talk very briefly, in slow and
difficult English, with a few slides.  However, her real talk will be
Friday (4:00, 34-401A, as Winston's message).  I won't be able to go.
 
Her cell uses sintered nickel electrodes, and about 0.6 molar potassium
carbonate.  It gets 3-4 times as hot as a comparison "standard cell" that
contains only a resistive heater.  The cell is open to the air.  She has
been working in electrochemistry, especially with nickel and hydrogen,
for several years, but has been doing cold fusion experiments for only
about three months.  One of the MIT guys saw her experiment in Japan,
where it worked.  One very curious graph she showed was the analysis of
calcium content in the electrolyte, before and after running the cell;
it went up.  She said something about why she thinks it wasn't trace
calcium leaching out of the nickel, but she seemed very tired and has
trouble with English.  (Friday she will have a translator.)  Another
person in the audience commented that some theorist claims there may be
a mechanism for potassium to capture a proton, making calcium.  Perhaps
Notoya's cell fuses K + H = Ca ??  Nobody was saying much about what the
real mechanism might be, just vague comments.  The major claim currently
is that there is "unexplained excess heat", not "cold fusion".
 
Prof. Louis Smullin asked whether anyone else in the audience is doing
similar work, with light (not heavy) water, and would like to speak
about it.  There was one guy, and his talk was largely what made the
session worthwhile.  He is from Thermacore, a division of DTX, in
Lancaster PA.  (He won't be there Friday.)  What follows is about their
cell.
 
The Thermacore cell is similar to Notoya's, but bigger.  It's in a
10-gallon Nalgene container, rather than glass.  It uses 40 pounds of
nickel wire (0.02-inch dia, .01 to .001 copper content and a few other
trace metal contaminants) wound in a dense coil, for the cathode.
Actually the wire is in two parts, one near the center and one near
the edge of the cell.  Between these are strips of platinum-plated
titanium mesh, used as the anode.  The electrolyte is 0.6 molar
potassium carbonate, as in Notoya's cell.  They are very careful to
avoid any organic contamination.  The cell preparation procedure
is proprietary.  Like Notoya's, the cell is open to the air (with a
cover keeping dust out); the hydrogen and oxygen gas produced simply
escape.
 
The Thermacore people have run their cell on DC, but seem to mostly
run it on pulses.  Typically, the pulse is 101 amperes, on for N
60ths of a second, repeated every second, where N is 3 to 25 (in the
graph he showed).  The voltage needed to get 101 A is 3 to 4 volts.
 
They've had their cell running 9 or 10 months now, pretty much
continuously.  When they turn it on (after whatever their special
preparation procedure is), it starts up right away; there is no
start-up time before excess heat is seen.  They call their cell a
"50 watt" cell.  This is as follows.  As the wattage (either DC or
pulsed) supplied to the cell is increased, the excess heat increases
from 0 at 0 watts in, up to 50 watts excess at some X watts in, and
then saturates -- it remains 50 watts excess even at higher than X
watts in.
 
The Thermacore people have not seen any radiation with a Geiger
counter.  They have not seen calcium increase in the electrolyte.
They have not analyzed the amount of heavy water in their cell,
and he said maybe they should.  (It is about 1:600 in seawater.)
Their cell "runs on water" in the sense that pure water is the only
thing they add.  The amount of water they add is equal to the sum
of the amounts expected from electrolytic production of H2 and O2,
and the (measured) amount lost by evaporation.  However, those
amounts have moderate error brackets, so if a little is being consumed
via some other process, they might not see it.  They shut the cell
down occasionally, but try not to because of the necessity of
re-doing their proprietary preparation process before starting it
up again.  After 30 days of operation, they shut it down briefly to
remove a small sample of the nickel wire.  He showed micrographs of
the surface and cross section; the wire did not seem to be consumed.
 
As someone said, this stuff is sort of out of the science lab and
into industry now.  I think Toyota is sponsoring Dr. Notoya.  The
Thermacore people are working on partners, financial backing, and
applications.  The excess heat they described (50 watts with 40
pounds of nickel) is not now ecenomical.  However, the 3.6 times
input energy they reported has been increased to 10 times (he hinted
this was due to different pulsing, and other things).  Someone said
Pons and Fleischmann have claimed pretty large energy densities.
While the excess heat is "low grade" energy, we burn a lot of "high
grade" fossil fuels just to produce low grade heat, such as to heat
buildings.  So this process could help reduce environmental pollution.
 
Apparently it's impossible to even be considered for patents on this
stuff, or even anything related to it.  One MIT guy, indicating another,
and said he's filed for six patents but the patent office just points
to a 1989 Washington Post article that says cold fusion is baloney,
and won't even look at the application.
 
Apparently it is common knowledge in electrochemistry
circles that it takes 1.482 volts to dissociate water, if you are very
careful to avoid contamination in the experiment.  Therefore, this
"hydrogen overvoltage" is often subtracted out when computing the power
going into a cold fusion cell.  Watts in = amps * (volts - 1.482).
This is supposed to give you the amount of power that should be
appearing as heat.  It increases the computed amount of "excess heat"
that the cell is producing.  However, cells (both Notoya's and
Thermacore's) produce significant excess heat even if this correction
is not applied.
 
It seems pretty definite that there is something really strange
happening in those cells.  Some people say pulsing at 500 Hertz is
better.  Some people say rubidium (or the original palladium) work.
Some people suggest sodium salts work.  The preparation of the
electrodes -- especially the cathode -- seems to be very important
and is kind of secret.
 
-- Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbeeler cudfn cudlnBeeler cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.06 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 03:40:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
I  would  like  to  submit  my  condolences  to  Dr.  S.Jones  in
connection with the tragic loss of his friend.
 
I would also like to tell Dr. Jones that I am  waiting  for  real
arguments  from  him,  based  on  proper  experiments,   in   the
discussion  concerning  F&P's  claims.  Attempts  to   save   his
viewpoint by repeating over and over doubtful  statements  do  no
serve the clarification of the issue.
 
Truly yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                                December 4, 1992
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenvnoninski cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.06 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 03:41:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
I would like to inform you that at a Phi  Beta  Kappa  initiation
ceremony at the Boston University on December 3, Dr.  Allen  Bard
delivered a lecture  entitled  "Cold  Fusion  --  An  Example  of
Pathological Science ?" Dr. Bard is the  Editor-in-Chief  of  The
Journal  of  American  Chemical   Society,   president   of   the
International Society for Electrochemistry and a  member  of  the
American Academy of Sciences. Dr. Bard has also been a member  of
the DoE panel, led by Dr. Ramsay and Dr. Huizenga, which in  1989
advised the US Government to virtually dismiss  CF  as  a  viable
phenomenon.
 
The overall impression from his talk was that  Dr.  Bard  answers
the question put in the title with a decisive  YES  despite  some
attempts on his part (in order to enhance the credibility of  his
statements) to give a "balanced" approach.
 
The arguments for the dismissal of F&P's claims were  those  same
deja vus and cartoons which have been in the air  for  more  than
three years. One wonders who owns the copyright to this  type  of
literature and who is to pay royalties to whom ?
 
As can be  seen  from  my  postings  on  this  net  and  from  my
publications elsewhere, I do not consider (based on the published
data so far) that there is a conclusive answer as to the  reality
of the main claim of F&P, namely the production of excess  energy
during electrolysis of water. As I have already mentioned on this
net, I am one of the co-authors of papers (published and  pending
publication in the peer-reviewed literature), analyzing the  main
negative calorimetric papers. Further analysis  of  these  papers
revealed that there are gross errors in the methods used  and  in
the authors' analyses of the experimental  results  presented  in
these papers. Also I do not think that cartoons should  serve  as
arguments in this important and difficult debate.
 
In connection with the  above  I  publicly  asked  Dr.  Bard  the
following:
 
1. To send me the raw data of his own negative experiments (which
he has never published).
 
2. I proposed to visit,  at  my  own  expense,  his  lab  at  the
University of Austin, Texas, where  I  would  like  him  to  show
conclusively,  through  a  well-understood  experiment,  that  no
excess  heat  is  generated  during  electrolysis  of  water   at
conditions of electrolysis proposed by me.
 
Dr. Bard mentioned several times that this is a simple experiment
and I hope that my request will not require investment of  a  lot
of his time and money. After this demonstration I would  preserve
the right to comment on the demonstration  in  the  peer-reviewed
literature where, of course, Dr. Bard may respond and  our  peers
will decide who is right.
 
Truly yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                                December 4, 1992
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenvnoninski cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.06 /  Garfinkle /       Re: Fusion Digest 606
     
Originally-From: Moishe Garfinkle <GARFINKM@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: Fusion Digest 606
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 05:41:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am a bit PO'd about the response I received about my article [Fusion
Technology; 22(Aug92)160]proposing a system of ion implantation to verify
unambigiously whether CF actually exists or that in fact it is not more
than a boondoggle, albeit on a smaller scale than hot fusion.  Of course
ion implantation has been previously proposed.  However, if anyone had
bothered reading the ntire article before commenting they might have
understood my point that neutrons or excess heat can arise from so many
non-CF processes that finding such impresses no one except those with a
spiritual faith in CF.  Only an unambiguous and simultaneous detection
or products such as T or He would be convincing, and only if the ratio of
the products changed in a repeatable fashion with changes in D/H ratio of
the feed gas.  If CF does occur, it would probably require localized
supersaturation of the lattice.  Electrolytic charging is not only sloppy
but can't supersaturate while conventional ion-implantation results in a
hot target which permits rapid diffusion from any locallized site, preventing
supersaturation.  Dammit, try reading something before you send me comments.
That is the least one can ask in this undisciplined, unscientific, folklore
filled, chicken-poop field!
Best regards, Moishe
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenGARFINKM cudfn cudlnGarfinkle cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.06 / John Logajan /  Pulse repetition rate
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pulse repetition rate
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 06:50:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Beeler <beeler@BBN.COM> writes:
>Typically, the pulse is 101 amperes, 3-25/60ths of a second
>The voltage needed to get 101 A is 3 to 4 volts.
 
>up to 50 watts excess
 
>a gain of 3.6
 
Mike also mentioned a gain of 10, but it sounded as if the other above
reported parameters were based upon the 3.6 gain case.
 
Furthermore, the wording of the post was unclear if the gain of 3.6 (or
10) was with or without the 1.48 correction, though a claim of excess
heat beyond the 1.48 correction was claimed (I'm just trying to nail down
the claimed result parameters.)
 
Also, unfortunately, not all the parameters are listed to do a self-consistency
check.  Missing is the pulse repetition rate.
 
At 50 watts excess and a gain of 3.6, the input power would be 13.89 watts.
At 3 volts and 101 amps, that is 303 watts.  That corresponds to a 21.8
ratio of off time to on time.  At 3/60ths of a second pulse, the time between
pulses would be 20 seconds.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.06 /   /  Fibrex nickel mat
     
Originally-From: "C. Harrison" <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fibrex nickel mat
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 07:18:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have in hand a sample of the Fibrex nickel mat which has been
mentioned here.  This sample is 80% Ni fiber of 0.025 mm dia and 20% high
purity nickel powder.  The fiber is not highly pure; the chemical
analysis gives:
  C 0.02%;  S <.003%;  Cu 0.95%;  Co 1.33%;  Fe 3.77%;  Mn 0.03%;
  Zn <.01%;  Mg .01%;  Na 0.54%;  Si 0.31%;  Al 0.10%;  Cr 0.013%;
  Ca 0.04%;  B 0.2%;  Pb 0.006%;  Sn 0.001%;  Bi 0.0005%;  Mo <.001%;
  V 0.001%;  Ag 0.001%;  Ti 0.005%.
This material is used for rechargeable batteries (Ni-Cd, I think).  It
is made by National-Standard, Mishawaka, IN, (219)259-8505.
  -Chuck Harrison
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1337 cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 / John Logajan /  Repetition rate correction
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Repetition rate correction
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 00:40:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>That corresponds to a 21.8
>ratio of off time to on time.  At 3/60ths of a second pulse, the time between
>pulses would be 20 seconds.
 
It was 2am when I wrote that, sorry.  3/60 is 1/20 so the pulses would be about
ever 1 second or so, obviously.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 / w Davidsen /  Re: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
     
Originally-From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
Date: 7 Dec 92 14:52:21 GMT
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <4f7qJ_K00UhWI1foRt@andrew.cmu.edu>, Paul Karol
 <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
| Are there examples in the history of science during the past century
| where acceptance of a major discovery has been significantly stymied by
| a seemingly endless tension between contradictory results and difficulty
| in independent confirmation and in which the protagonists were a
| distinct minority?
 
  As I remember, the discovery of the prism was challenged for over two
years, iwth the best scientists in Europe unable to replicate the
results. It seems the discoverer tried to present the original findings
at a conference on a cloudy day.
 
  If someone has or remembers details better please amplify. I ran
across this in a book I read almost 40 years ago, and I'm afraid it
didn't all stick.
 
| [Prior to a century ago, a partial example is Avogadro's hypothesis
| which was rejected by Dalton and-almost-everyone-else.  However, this
| blockage was more attributable to Dalton's dominance of atomic science
| than anything substantive.  The experiments were easily duplicated but
| their significance ignored for almost a half century until Cannizzaro
| showed that many (if not all) puzzling yet incontrovertible results
| could be explained by Avogardro's molecular hypothesis.  This example is
| not quite comparable to the CNF situation.  I site it only to try to
| clarify my question.]
|
| Paul J. Karol
| Nuclear Chemist
 
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendavidsen cudfnwilliam cudlnDavidsen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 / Rogier Wolff /  Where do YOU connect the 4 wires to your cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: wolff@liberator.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where do YOU connect the 4 wires to your cold fusion experiment?
Date: 7 Dec 92 12:58:42 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

Some people on this group are running experiments. There also
was a discussion a while ago about "only two" wires going into the
calorimeter (sp?) The "right" way to do such an experiment is to
perform the voltage measurement as close as possible to the experiment.
 
Now what I just realized is that you shouldn't do it close to the
experiment, but ON the edge of the calorimeter.
 
Also a thing that is likely to generate "positive" errors is that
I hear that some people measure the voltage and current only every
10 seconds or so. Now you might "average out" the variations, but
if you calculate the integrals, Pactual > Iavg * Vavg. (where Pactual
is the actual power, Iavg is the average current, and Vavg is the average
voltage.)
 
This should be pretty elementary, and if someone has been "bitten" by one
of these errors, you should feel pretty dumb. I am posting this because
I hope to get some "but off course we have thought about that" reactions.
 
 
                                        Roger.
--
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 /  /  Progress
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Progress
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 19:22:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We are making great progress in the calibration.  Latest measurements are 9 mw
rms for one minute samples.  For longer term, say and hour, it is more like
1 mw rms.  Most of the error can now be attributed to the furnace turning on
and off.  The Mark III will have two more layers of temperature controlled
shells to reduce this effect.
 
*****************************************************************************
* It now looks like the previously reported 24 hour effects were really due *
* to temperature variations.  The time constants are so large that before it*
* was hard to separate them.  Now it is winter and the conditions are more  *
* stable so it possible to make more accurate measurements.                 *
*****************************************************************************
 
I will have to look closely at the Lithium to see what it is stored in.  I
note that all the electrochemists are (i.e. comments on Dr. Natoya's
experiment) worried about hydrocarbon contamination.  If this turns out to
be critical, I will probably never get this experiment right.
 
Meanwhile, my March palladium contract is up to $107.50.  Bought, I think,
at $92.  I am tempted to sell now and pay for the chiller.  Barron Rothchild
said he never lost money by selling too soon.
 
I am calibrating over a range of operating temperature.  I can get down to
0 C cell voltage, but the balance accuracy is not good there.  It works
great at 4 C, where McKubre charges.  It is a slow process as it takes several
days at each point.  Will try to get up to 50 C.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 /  Bauer /       History of science: disputed discoveries
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      History of science: disputed discoveries
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 21:45:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In new discoveries, the protagonists are almost always initially in a
distinct minority.
How long qualifies as "seemingly endless"? The point really is that evidence
always seems conclusive to the protagonists--and to everyone BY HINDSIGHT--
long before the whole scientific community accepts it.
There are many relevant examples in Bernard Barber, "Resistance by scientists
to scientific discovery", SCIENCE 134 (1961) 596-602
A recent instance is Hannes Alfven's plasma cosmology: Stephen G. Brush, EOS 71
 #2 (1990) 19-33 and SCIENCE
 246 (1989) 1124-29
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfn cudlnBauer cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 /  hdgarner@acs.h /  Fusion & Gravity
     
Originally-From: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion & Gravity
Date: 7 Dec 92 16:23:56 -0500
Organization: Harding University

Does gravity affect fusion reactions? If so, in what way.
 
hdgarner@harding.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhdgarner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: History of science vis-a-vis CNF
Date: 7 Dec 92 21:03:40 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <4f7qJ_K00UhWI1foRt@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
 writes:
>Are there examples in the history of science during the past century
>where acceptance of a major discovery has been significantly stymied by
>a seemingly endless tension between contradictory results and difficulty
>in independent confirmation and in which the protagonists were a
>distinct minority?
 
Three years is hardly "seemingly endless" in my book...
 
 How about the quark hypothesis and neutral currents?
 
 Certainly the solar neutrino problem meets your criteria.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 / Pierre Hilaire /  Re: Fusion & Gravity
     
Originally-From: pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion & Gravity
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 02:45:06 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

 
>Does gravity affect fusion reactions? If so, in what way.
 
        No, it doesn't. Gravitational interactions are completely
negligible when compared to the strong interaction (responsible for
the fusion reaction itself) or the electromagnetic interaction
(responsible for the attraction/repulsion between charged particles).
 
Gravitational interactions become commensurate with the other
interactions only at extremely high energies, or equivalently at at a
very small scale (called the Planck scale). Such conditions are likely
to have occurred only within the first microsecond after the big
bang.
 
                                                Pierre St Hilaire
                                                MIT Media Lab
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpierre cudfnPierre cudlnHilaire cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reply to Dr. Sites
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dr. Sites
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 08:32:42 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Replying to Dr. Morrison,
 
>     There is an article entitled "Morrison's distortion of Kamiokande".
> Most lawyers are fine moral people but there are some unscrupulous ones
> who give the profession a bad name. One of their standard tactics is to take
> a long piece of evidence, say containing 100 facts, and to take one or two
> of them, and attack these facts, and then draw the conclusion that the other
> 98 must also be wrong. They create so much smoke that the fundamentals get
 lost.
 
Obviously there is more to your argument than I responded to. I assume
most of the readers of this group have read and understood the material
you have presented. If I have focused on only a few points it is because
those are the ones I saw first. In no way do I want to blow a smoke
screen in front of your argument. Some points are good.  I think the
comparison between total observed burst emissions/unit mass at Kamiokande
and that from Menlove is worthy of notice.  Yet there is a flip side
to the argument.  The lack of emissions/unit mass in the gas and
electrolytic experiments indicates a pretty low contamination/unit mass.
 
   You average 339 grams Ti for the gas experiments. I count 87 experiments
for a total of 29493 grams under consideration. The flux as you claim is
0.00008 n/s during a live time of 1310.7Hr, giving 377 events. Per unit
gram Ti this is 0.0128 events/gm.  Ti is 47.90 gm/mole, giving 615.7 moles.
At 6.02E26 atoms/mole this give 3.7E29 Ti's. I get 377 events for 3.7E29
atoms of Ti. This gives, 377/3.7E29 =7.47E-27 events/Ti. Assume all events
are due to contamination. In K4 there are 300gm Ti. K4 gives, 3.8E27 Ti's
and what should produce 2.8 event. At 30% detector effeciency, this is .85
events 9 events are reported. To me, this itself seems significant and
since these are burst events. Clustering of the counts to a small period
may be more important as an indicator of the mechanism of fusion in metals
than anything else reported to date.
 
>    The first aim of the Kamiokande experiment was to lower the background
> so much that the effects which were previously found barely above background,
> would now be major and clear effects. Hence the first aim was to repeat the
> earlier experiments and prove they existed.
>
>  1).  Let's go back to the fundamentals of the 1989 Jones paper. The claim
> was that Cold Fusion gave 0.4 neutrons per second. I cannot find anything to
> justify that statement in the Kamiokande results.
 
If I recall Jones(1989) was doing neutron spectroscopy and from what I saw
in PHYSICS TODAY (1989), the energy spectrum was signifcant, not so much
the counts. A small bump at 2.5MeV. I cannot think of anyway that can get
there except by d(d,n)p.  Still, 0.4 n/s is high, but this was for 1 run
of 14 nulls.  For K4, I see 0.00071 n/s reported for Nhits>29. (Table 6-3a
ICRR).  Similar 1E-4 n/s counts are found in the April and July electrolysis
sets. They are rigorous measurements, so I conceed that that for fusion in
*static* metals at 0.4n/s is a high value.  Still, the spectroscopic work
of 89 as seen in PT looks significant at any rate.
 
>    The Kamiokande results are expressed as upper limits with 90% confidence -
> this is the correct way to present them.
>    In all three cases the flux upper limit was less than 0.0001
 neutrons/second
> for runs lasting 1310.7, 387.2 and 569.7 hours.
 
This is true, but in the Ti Gas, there were 87 individual runs in that
1310hrs. This looks to me like and investigation trying to get a handle
on the reproducibility problems. I count 31 runs for the April electrolysis
set and 19 runs for July. For April set, 10 phase runs are made for a
total live time, 457.4 Hrs.  This gives an average of 45.7Hrs / run in
electrolysis experiments. I seriously wonder if a Pd cell can even
load to significantly high Pd/D ratios in that time. Much less enter a
beta phase transition.  Still to find 5/10 cells in the april set showing
bursts, and 1/6 in the July Forground set (Tab. 6-6 ICRR) seems remarkable.
Especially in light of the total upper flux you give.
 
>    The total time of the 14 runs in the Jones et al. paper in Nature was not
> given but from elementary calculations should be about 47 hours (have asked
> several times for the precise value of this number but have not yet had a
 reply)
>    The mass of titanium used in Jones et al. was 3 grams. The average weight
> of titanium used in the gas experiments was 339 grams.
 
   If I recall, Jones 89 was an electrolysis experiment, so 3 gm to
339 gm average for the gas experiments of Kamiokande doesn't suprise me,
considering that electrolysis can produce high electrostatic pressures near
the surface phases.  However, I couldn't find any corrilation of Ti to
bursts in the Apr or Jul sets, so this indicates Ti is not a magic
element for the production of bursts.
 
>    The conclusion that the Kamiokande experiments have disproved the Nature
> paper of Jones et al. seems reasonable.
 
I'm not so sure.  Kamiokande appears to me to have been exploritive for
the most part, and with low repeatability of an anomolous effect it's
hard to justify the experiment as total negative result. S.E.Jones et al
(1989) reported 1/14. Menlove et al. (1990) reports 14/47.  T. Ishada@
Kamikande (1992) has 8/36 FG runs with excellent experimetal controls.
Given that kind of overall reproducibility statistic (which relates
to unknown cause/effect),  I think Kamiokande is supportive of Jones89.
  What is claimed in Jones 89, is the observation of 1 cell in 14
producing an estimated  D+D fusion rate of (4.1 +- .8) E-3 f/s which
would give a range of 2.45E-3 to 1.6E-3 n/s.  APR3 has 6.95+-2.10E-4
n/s, APR7 has 0.36+-0.75 E-4 and APR8 has 1.58+-0.98E-4 n/s. These are
with in a factor or so of Jones 89 estimate, and considering the much
lower background of Kamiokande, they seem to fit.  Also, TAB 6-6B
calculates 9.82E-5 n/s CL 90% for April Nhit>24 and 5.71E-5 n/s CL 90%
Nhit>24 for July for random flux rates.  Since Jones 89 did not consider
random verses burst emissions they are all lumped together in the 89
estimate. Kamiokande certainly superceeds Jones, but I don't think
invalidates the orignal conclusions.
 
> 2)  Menlove et al. made a claim to have observed bursts of neutrons in a time
> of 128 microseconds. In real numbers they claimed to have seen many with
> 30, 40, 50, 60 and even 80 neutrons in the burst. Correcting for efficiency
> they claimed between 10 and 280 source neutrons (below 10 was background).
> Now this is a claim and a complete claim - it should ALL be true, not one
 little
> corner. In the Kamiokande gas experiment there were zero bursts which gave
> 4 or more real neutrons, ie there were zero bursts giving 10 or more source
> neutrons.
>     This is the basis of the conclusion that the Kamiokande gas experiment
> is in disagreement with the Menlove et al. claims.
 
There does appear to be a problem with the Ti/gas in the reproduction of
the multiplicity. I agree with that.  However, consider that of the 20 cells
run only two show bursts K-4 & B-5. 18 others are dudes. That makes these
the only samples that can be fairly compared.  Menlove reported only 14/47
gas cells showing avtivity. The ratios are in dispute by 19%.  Considering the
difference in backgrounds (assuming Menlove's work needs further refinement
for background) this seems in rough agreement with the rate of reproducibity.
 
> 3)  In the Kamiokande electrolysis experiment, two burst were found with a
> multiplicity of four. That is two bursts had about 11 source neutrons.
> But none were observed with between 15 and 280 source neutrons. That is
> no bursts were observed for most of the the region 10 to 280 and two were
> observed in a very small segment, 10 to 15. This a major disagreement and
> is the basis for the conclusion that the Kamiokande electrolysis experiment
> is in disagreement with the Menlove et al. claims.
 
I accept your argument about the problem of the reproduction of high
burst (ie. 10+ multiplicity), it does make me wonder where the source
of the difference comes from.  I see either background problems or
the reproducibility statitic as two solutions.  Maybe both.  Regardless,
I think Kamiokande is more important describing the fusion mechanism than
proving/or disproving Menlove.  The conclusion is perhaps more telling:
"Some burt neutron emissions were reported especially from
the electrolytic cells.  The event rate (0.06 burst per hour) was
comparible to that of Menlove et al (1990), ..."  Obviously there are
conclusions to be made.
 
>     These are the fundamentals. There are lots of other items which could be
> used as a discussion smokescreen. But first the fundamentals.
>
>
>
>                                               Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
The fundamentals are important to the debate of fusion in metals, if a
debate is what you want.  Kamiokande, if anything, shows there is
something to cold fusion.  Add in that the 8 cement+D2O experiments,
which is a much more dynamic enviroment during hydration than
metals, and I read a plus.  If Kamiokande has done anything, I think
it's to implicate the mechanism.  Allow me to draw a few conclusions:
 
1. If static forces are the mechanism, then statistically there
   should be a large flux.  This is absolutely ruled out by Kamiokande.
 
2. All events reported for metals are in bursts, so events are 3 body,
   or dramtic lattic changes are the source (al la, the fracture models
   in this case). The cement+D2O work says alot for dynamic effects
   so 3 body is out.  The most dynamic of the D+metal effects is
   Yamaguchi's method who has claimed 10E6 n/s in controlled bursts.
   Given this type of mechanism scaled down to naturally occuring
   repositions by lattice shifts, this might give counts of the range
   found in Kamiokande for metals, and explain the bursts/flux ratio.
 
 
 
Have fun,
Chuck SItes
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  morrison@vxpri /  Review of Third Intl. Cold Fusion Conference.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of Third Intl. Cold Fusion Conference.
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 15:23:34 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

 
Dear Colleagues,                                  1 November - 6 December1992.
 
                     COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
 
         THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE.
 
             Held in Nagoya, 21 to 25 October 1992.
 
It started with a NTT Press Conference but ended with a Whimper.
Cold Fusion is now claimed with NORMAL hydrogen.
Fewer published results but more funding.
Skeptics of Cold Fusion verbally attacked.
Original experiments of Fleischmmann and Pons and Jones criticised.
Fourth Annual Conference scheduled for Hawaii - scientific meeting?
OTHER NEWS - Lawyer Triggs writes to Frank Close.
 
SUMMARY
     The character of the annual Cold Fusion conference is changing. In the
Invited talks, only a few new results were presented which claimed excess heat
and nuclear products while many other claims were relegated to poster sessions.
These other claims included several groups saying that they observed excess
heat with normal water, ie light hydrogen - this is in contradiction with
Fleischmann and Pons and others who said it happens only with heavy hydrogen
(deuterium) and the proof that it is nuclear fusion is that it is NOT observed
with light hydrogen.
   There were a number of highly unusual papers available but not all presented,
claiming Cold Fusion in biology, in tiny black holes, in gravity decays and a
Purdue group claimed it would help the Solar Neutrino Problem; also
transmutation was claimed. On the other hand the most complete experiment
in Japan according to the book of Abstracts, has been carried out over three
years by Isagawa et al. at the National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, KEK
- it was not chosen for presentation and was not mentioned - their evidence
on excess heat, neutrons and tritium was against Cold Fusion although they
found many artifacts which at first had appeared as real effects.
     Near the start of the conference, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, NTT,
held a press conference where Drs. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka announced
that they had for the the first time succeeded in detecting excess heat and
helium during the experiment with high reproducibility. According to the
three-page article in Liberation of 27 October, this caused the NTT share
price to rise by over 11% (note NTT has the biggest share capitalisation
in Japan and at times in the World - the rise was worth some eight billion
dollars). The NTT share price fell quickly on subsequent days. Also it was
said that the helium was observed with deuterium and not with light hydrogen.
However at the Conference Round Table, Dr. Yamaguchi said that they had also
observed excess heat with light hydrogen. With other contradictions, it is
probably wiser to consider the press conference as premature since adequate
checks have not yet been made and the evidence for excess heat is uncertain
(see below). However NTT have offered to sell a Yamaguchi-style kit for
$565 000 and they forsee a Nobel prize for Dr. Yamaguchi(see Notes).
    S. Jones and H. Menlove have tried to detect neutrons in the large
(3000 ton) Kamiokande detector; with palladium and titanium, upper
limits corresponding to 10 E -14 Watts were found. Previously they had claimed
to have observed two types of bursts, some lasting for a few hours and the
others lasting only about a hundred microseconds. However such effects were
not observed in Kamiokande and with the much lower background, all the previous
claims were disproved. They then tried cement in Kamiokande and not unnaturally
in view of the high radioactivity of cement, observed counts.
    The fact that Cold Fusion is observed in some parts of the World but
not in others - called in an earlier Email "the Regionalization of Results" -
continues with  Dr. F. Scarramuzzi saying that "Behind the Alps, Cold Fusion
never existed".
    An expert on hydrogen in metals, Dr.  F. Fukai, explained that Cold Fusion
at the rates quoted, was impossible. D.R.O. Morrison reviewed all the
published papers (over 700) and noted that the numbers of papers
published had declined steeply and that only 8 experimental ones
have been published so far in 1992 and of these 6 found no effect,
one was positive and one undecided; he concluded "It has been said
that if Cold Fusion has a 1% chance of working, we should continue.
But the best estimate is not 1%. If one accepts the Kamiokande limit
of 10 E-4 neutrons/second which is 10 E-16 Watts, then it is not 1%
but (10 E-14)% or one hundred million millionth of a percent". Both
Fukai and Morrison were verbally attacked by Cold Fusion Believers.
   The meeting finished with a round table discussion where the speakers
mainly said that better experiments should be done, and then people drifted off
without any great show of enthusiasm.
   One fact that was not clearly stated at the conference, is that the vast
majority of the World's scientists do not believe that Cold Fusion could
give useful energy and most do not believe in Cold Fusion. However this fact
does seem to have been recognised as when one delegate said "Who has not been
ridiculed by his colleagues?", there was a sympathetic agreement and no one
objected.
    A major question is:
 "Can the Annual Cold Fusion Conferences be considered as scientific meetings"?
   Mr. Triggs, the lawyer of Stan Pons, has written a curious letter to Frank
Close about the facts of the curious way that the F&P peak at 2.5 MeV moved
to 2.2 MeV and the scale moved from 100 to 200 keV bins
 
SUBJECTS
1. Before and Organisation
2. Thursday 22 October; McKubre, Claytor, Kunimatso, Srinivasan, Oyama,
   Enyo, Thompson, Fukai, Sanchez, Chien.
3. Friday 23 October; Takahashi, Mallove, Celani, De Ninno, Pons, Smedley
4. Saturday 24 October; Jones, Yamaguchi, Miles, Iida, Kasagi, Cecil, Tsarev,
   Gozzi, Morrison
5. After Morrison's Invited talk
6. Sunday 25 October; Claytor, Bockris, Li (China), Tsarev(Russia),
   Scaramuzzi(Italy)
7. Round Table, End of Conference
8. Next Cold Fusion conference - scientific meeting?
9. Conclusions.
NOTES
OTHER NEWS
 
1. BEFORE AND ORGANISATION
    The conference was supported by 8 major Japanese Societies - one was the
Japanese Physical Society which I know well and which I respect, so expected
a normal scientific meeting with a balance of speakers chosen to present
different points of view and expected free and open discussion. Though not
emphasised, there was clearly some appreciable Japanese industrial support for
Cold Fusion.
    There were some 320 participants which was substantially more than the
first two meetings which had about 200 each. Of these 199 came from Japan and
about a third were from industrial organisations such as Mitsubushi, Toyota,
Fuji Electrical, Sumitomo Electric, Tokyo Gas, Hitachi, Tokyo Electrical Power
Co., Osaka Gas, NTT, Honda, Nomura, Nippon Steel, Kansai Electrical Power Co.,
Sanyo Electric, Aisin Saiki Co., NKK Co., Central Research Institute of the
Electric Power Industry, also the Japanese offices of two French companies (Air
Liquide and Cogema), plus the Director and Deputy Director of the Electrical
Power Division of MITI - note that most were observers and not reporting
results. This was quite an achievement for Dr. Hideo Ikegami, the Chairman of
the Conference. There were 55 listed from the USA, 20 from Italy, 16 from
Russia and the Ukraine, 11 from China and only 19 from the rest of the World,
(which includes Stan Pons listed as from IMRA in France and Martin Fleischmann
listed from the University of Southampton and the only person from the UK) so
that it can be seen that World coverage was non-uniform.
    There were only 23 talks - all of 20 minutes except Stan Pons who had
30 minutes. There were reviews of Cold Fusion in China, Russia and Italy. Also
there were two panel discussions and the meeting ended with a round table
discussion. From the abstracts it seemed that I was the only skeptic speaking.
75 papers were scheduled for the poster session - again mine seemed the only
paper presenting a skeptical viewpoint even though most of the World's
scientists think Cold Fusion is dead. The poster sessions in the afternoons
were of an unusual format - it was a very large room with many tables and the
"posters" were generally A4 pages which covered the table. Thus the morning
speakers could cover the table with their transparencies. This system worked
very well and allowed everyone a satisfactory chance of seeing the papers
and of discussing with the authors and with other participants. An afternoon was
devoted to visiting the Toyota car plant - this was very interesting as while
there was some robotization, what we saw was the production chain with many
men doing various operations - they worked steadily but did not seem to be
forced to go at too high a speed. At the end of the production line, the cars
were driven a few metres and tested immediately. (We have had Toyota cars in
the family for 19 years and they never break down so are thinking of buying
another one next year - what I saw of the production chain reinforced this
opinion).
    At the spectacular conference dinner, the representative from MITI said that
they would fund research in Cold Fusion in the near future (was told they would
give about $2.5 million next year and industry would give a comparable amount)
This was not to be taken that they believed in Cold fusion (they call it
Hydrogen Energy research) but that they thought it was worth further study.
A message was read from Minoru Toyoda who is a major figure in the Toyota car
company. He founded Technova in 1978 and IMRA in 1985. After Technova
received a joint research proposal from Professors Fleischmann and Pons, he
judged that they should work for IMRA Europe at the Science park near Nice.
IMRA Japan is now also working on Cold Fusion research. Mr Toyoda is like many
of us, greatly concerned by the World Energy problems and desires a harmonious
development of Science and Technology as proposed by President Mitterand
at the 1982 summit. His message is a very sincere one. (A review paper
"World Energy in the Next Century" which is based on my Invited Talk at the
November 1991 World Clean Energy Conference and presented at the 1992 Pugwash
meeting, was submitted to this conference but not listed nor displayed).
 
2. THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER.
McKUBRE, CLAYTOR, KUNIMATSU, SRINIVASAN, OYAMA, ENYO, THOMPSON, FUKAI,
SANCHEZ, CHIEN.
                        Missed the Welcome Party on Wednesday 21 October as
was at the excellent Neutrino Astrophysics conference at Takayama and Kamioka.
We also visited the famous KAMIOKANDE experiment which detected neutrinos from
Supernova 1987A and is measuring neutrinos from the Sun now. It has 3000 tons of
highly purified water and almost a thousand large photomultipliers in the walls
which measure Cherenkov radiation. Steve Jones and Howard Menlove have been
trying to repeat their Cold Fusion experiments in Kamiokande for over a year.
Kamiokande is one of the best detectors in the World with a strong well-funded
team led by Yoji Totsuka.
    On arriving was told by several people that excess heat was now being
observed in light hydrogen by several (five) groups - truely startling news as
previously the evidence that Cold Fusion was fusion of deuterium, was that the
excess heat effect was observed with deuterium but NOT with hydrogen! These
new claims change everything. In addition was taken aside and told that
transmutations were being observed! The alchemists dream come true. By an
unfortunate coincidence, none of the people telling me of these results
had been invited to speak though they could present their sensational
results at the poster sessions. Also they were not in contact with the press
as the press conferences were only for Invited Speakers.
2.1  The first talk was Mike McKUBRE of SRI who, as usual, gave an excellent
talk. He said over 200 experiments had been done on the loading of deuterium
into palladium. He showed a graph of the loading, (D/Pd = x) with a peak near
0.8 to 0.85 and a very broad shoulder going down to zero and a steeply
falling slope down to almost 1.1. He claimed that just below x = 0.93, four
experiments gave excess heat and two did not while above 0.93 all gave excess
heat. He uses closed cells. One of the fair aspects of his talk is that he
presented his excess heat results in terms of the three different ways of
expressing them;
Peak excess heat observed for a short period of time = 350%
Average excess heat during bursts = 2 to 50%
Overall excess heat from start of run = 1 to 2 to 3 to 4%.
   In proposing a system which would be useful for power production, it is the
last figure of 1 to 4% which is the relevent one for power companies. It would
be good if all groups would follow Mike's example and give their claims in
three ways - maximum effect, average during bursts, and average since start
of run. This comment applies to excess heat and to nuclear products.
2.2   Tom CLAYTOR of Los Alamos gave a serious talk on the work of Ed Storms who
could not attend. He said they have claimed an excess heat of about 20%, but
when asked privately, did not know if Storms had calculated the overall total
excess heat from the start of the run. The highest loading Storms had been able
to achieve was x = 0.82 but when he took out the used palladium rods and scraped
off the crud, the maximum loading was only 0.68 - troubling if one wishes to
use the palladium repeatedly over long periods in a power plant.
2.3 Next was Dr. KUNIMATSU of IMRA Japan Co. Ltd - this appears to be a research
foundation set up by Mr. Toyoda who is closely associated with the Toyota car
company. They have spent rather generously for the last two years on Cold
Fusion research. They find a maximum loading of x = 0.88. Excess heat of up
to 35% was observed.
2.4    Dr. M. SRINIVASAN of BARC, Bombay, gave a remarkable talk. He said that
the hottest topic was the Mills and Kneizys result that excess heat was
observed with H2O (light hydrogen) when K2CO3 salts were used with a nickel
cathode and platinium anode. This, he said, was explained by Mills with a
"crazy theory with compact hydrogen atoms." He said he did not believe it but
tried and found that 17 out of 18 cells gave excess heat and many gave tritium.
Also with other alkali salts, Li2CO3 and Na2CO3, excess heat was obtained.
Three groups at BARC obtained these results. (Note - the abstract does not
contain all these results and says checks are being done).
2.5   Dr. N. OYAMA reported on experiments on excess heat in closed cells (they
abandoned open cells because "the evaluation of excess heat is complicated").
They observed excess heat of 2.42% or 0.57W/cm3. This was only in one cell out
of five (does this mean the total excess heat was 2.42/5 = 0.484% ?).
No excess heat was observed with hydrogen.
2.6    Dr. M. ENYO gave a technical talk where he tried to compare loading
obtained by electrolysis with that obtained by gas pressure - his highest
value was H/Pd = 0.9 (note this is H and not D - usually D/Pd is 5 to 10% lower
than H/Pd) by electrolysis which corresponded to 10 000 atmospheres. He said
"the equivalent hydrogen pressure should not generally be related to the
hydrogen overpotential by a simple Nernst-type equation" - this is in
contradiction to Fleischmann and Pons who claimed an enormous equivalent
pressure of 10 E26 atmospheres.
2.7   Dr. D.T. THOMPSON of Johnson Mathey gave a technical talk whose relevance
was unclear - what people really wanted to know was how much helium was there
in the Fleischmann and Pons Palladium rods after their claims in 1989?
2.8    Dr. Y. FUKAI talk was entitled "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system"
and the abstract was rather calm. However the talk was shattering to Cold
Fusion Believers. He noted that in D2 gas the separation of the atoms is 0.74 A
and one needs a distance of 0.15 A to obtain 10 E-20 fusions per second. He
explained why normally no two atoms can be closer than 2.1 A in a Palladium
lattice. He also explained why it is difficult to load beyond 0.83. With
vacancies in the lattice, it is possible to have up to 6 deuterium nuclei
together but as Besenbacher showed, the separation is always greater than
1.85 A as some of the palladium nuclei are displaced by 0.3 A. Further he
pointed out that undulations in the potential can reach about 1 eV but this
is small compared with the 52 eV potential so that again the fusion rate will
not be enhanced usefully. He showed that the use of a screened Coulomb
potential was erroneous. It was suggested that before starting any new Cold
Fusion experiment, one should read Dr. Fukai's book due out next January.
Prof. Preparata of Milan said forcibly that something is missing - could you
tell me why metals exist? You could not answer; and if you would answer I
would shoot it down. People find heat. You think we are idiots but people
find things.
   I tried to find  Dr. Fukai later in the meeting but was unsuccessful.
2.9   Carlos SANCHEZ from Madrid talked of deuterium concentration in titanium.
He concluded that there was a limit to the loading of titanium at room
temperature of 1.65 to 1.70.
2.10   Dr. CHIEN of ROC(Taiwan) presented remarkable results claiming the power
out was 8 times the input power with values up to 100 times. He is now at
Texas A&M where he now again finds remarkably large amounts of tritium.
 
3. FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER.
TAKAHASHI, CELANI, MALLOVE, DE NINNO, OKAMOTO, PONS, SMEDLEY.
THEORY PANEL.
3.1   PANEL of Drs Takahashi, Okamoto, Mallove, Celani and de Ninno. The main
subject was the results of TAKAHASHI et al. who have claimed 200 W/cm3 excess
heat using a new technique of rapidly varying the input power with a 12-hour
period. However they are now unable to repeat their earlier high values. A very
unusual result was that the weak neutron emission (one neutron/sec) was
decreased when the excess heat level increased - contrary to all previous
results. However Dr. Takahashi can explain it in terms of his model where
fusion can occur between two, three and four deuterons - the potential
barrier apparently being not important - many physicists find this a very
remarkable theory. He also found particles of 3 to 5 MeV which is higher than
usual theories give.
3.2    Dr. F. CELANI reported on attempts to repeat the Takahashi experiment -
the results which are still preliminary, gave excess heat but of appreciably
lower levels, about 10%.
3.3   Dr. Eugene MALLOVE reported on his and other experiments using the dynamic
Takahashi technique( he is a journalist specialising in science who wrote
the pro-cold fusion book "Fire from Ice"). He and Mr. Rothwell built their
equipment for less than $10 000, found ambiguous effects during the first
60 days. In their second run with new palladium, they found heat balance to 5%,
ie no excess heat. He said that Tom DROEGE has a wonderful thermoelectric
device which is very accurate (DROM comment - Tom is a senior engineer at
Fermilab and did a great job of work in the building of their CDF detector
which is one of the most important Particle Physics experiments. His closed
cell works as a null experiment like the Wheatstone Bridge, so that as excess
heat is observed, the input heating is decreased to preserve a constant
temperature - this means that there are no complicated calculations of sudden
artificial temperature rises induced to observe the subsequent cooling curve
to calibrate the system. His system is accurate to a few mWatt. Between
mid-September and mid-October, he observed excess heat of just under 1% which
he described on the fusion electronic net, but since has found that there was
a subtle drift in his calibration so that there was no excess heat. It is
interesting that while most people who have announced an erroneous result and
then found their mistake, do not announce this, Tom has make an equally
public retraction on the net - a sign that he is a good scientist. Thus it
seems difficult to confirm the first Takahashi result).
3.4  Dr. DE NINNO of Frascati described the transport of deuterium in Palladium.
(She did not report any continuation of the Frascati experiments which caused
such excitement in April 1989. These involved warming up from liquid nitrogen
temperatures and claimed to observe neutron emission near -30 C).
3.5   Dr. M. OKAMOTO reported that they had repeated the Takahashi technique of
low and high loading and found neutron emission from 4 out of 8 runs but of very
low intensity. The neutrons had two components, a weak 2.45 MeV component and a
stronger component at higher energy whose origin is uncertain. They believe
that they have confirmed the Takahashi result (however the neutron intensity
seems very different - paper awaited).
3.6   Stan PONS began his talk by showing a short video of four cells with
different inputs. Each cell boiled off its liquid after a different number of
days. The cells seemed to be operated in the 60 to 80 C temperature range - it
was said that the condition for success was to operate near the boiling point.
This worried some as the corrections are much larger at high temperature.
Some felt this was impressive proof, others that there are many different
ways to make a cell with palladium boil (eg G. Kreysa et al., J Electroanal.
Chem. 266(1989)437). The demonstration was not convincing to scientists
as it needed more information - one would like to see the demonstration
repeated in the presence of someone like Tom Droege to watch and test and
preferably also with several video cameras.
     One striking feature of the video was the extremely small size of
the cell, barely thicker than the thumb of the person holding it. Later
the volume of the palladium was given as 0.0785 cm3 - this is much smaller
than in the original 1989 paper where it was written that results for bigger
cathodes of 2 cm diameter would be presented, but so far it seems that the
palladium used is getting smaller and smaller rather than bigger. When a serious
scientist who believes in Cold Fusion was asked about it, he replied that anyone
who works in electrochemistry knows that it is better to have small electrodes.
When it was suggested that this was bad for the commercial use of Cold Fusion
in large, one Gigawatt, power plants, he replied "Ah". In reply to a question
as to whether Cold Fusion was a surface or volume effect, Dr. Pons replied that
it was a volume effect.
    He said that they were just entering their new building at the IMRA
technical centre and showed photographs of it. He said they had 32 employees.
    What was remarkable about his talk is that he did not mention the recent
paper by himself {S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, Il Nuovo Cimento, 105(1992)763 }
entitled "Concerning the Detection of Neutrons and Gamma-rays from Cells
containing Palladium Cathodes Polarized in Heavy Water". This is an
interesting paper as it appears to be an attempt to answer criticisms and to
discredit the experiment of Mike Salamon et al. which was done in their Utah
laboratory beneath the table on which were 4 of their cells, and which found
nothing. Since this was not presented, it will be discussed in the Notes
at the end.
3.7    S.I. SMEDLEY of the Stanford Research Institute gave a talk on "Issues
relating to the Safe Operation of Electrolysis Cells" which was mainly about
the accident that cost Andy Riley his life. He said that many people had
experienced explosive situations with the electrolysis of Palladium but until
January without serious consequences. The pressure had risen to 30 atmospheres
before suddenly rising to 300 atm. so that a six-inch steel cylinder hit Andy.
There was no radiation. He suggested various safety precautions such as having a
strong shield against explosions and not removing the cell until it was sure
that the cell pressure was one atmosphere. Also he was wearing safety glasses
which surely saved his eyesight. He paid tribute to Andy as a fine person as
well as an excellent materials scientist, which was also my opinion as I greatly
appreciated Andy. This was not an easy talk to give, but Dr. Smedley gave a
sympathetic and well-balanced report.
3.8   PANEL on Theoretical Models, HAGELSTEIN, PREPARATA, ROMODANOV, VIGIER
Each participant talked of his theory. The Chairman asked if there was a
critical experiment. Peter Hagelstein replied that the observation of isotope
shifts was critical, 6Li to 7Li, 10B to 11B, potassium to calcium. Guiliano
Preparata said that Cold Fusion was complicated but the production of helium was
crucial. Dr. Romodanov said the only way to prove Cold Fusion was to do
reproducible experiments. Dr. Vigier said that this conference had proved that
excess heat was obtained with heavy water and probably also with light water;
the crucial experiment is to prove that light water gives excess heat - he
predicted that it would.
    Dr R.T. BUSH said that light water work is being done successfully
and correlated with excess heat - Bush, Fusion Tech. 22(1992)301. It is
called alkali-fusion since potassium is changed to calcium). Dr. MALLOVE
said that light water works. Dr. Vigier agreed and said the interpretation
was non-nuclear and one should vary the mixture of D2O and H2O to prove it.
Dr. Hagelstein said that claims of 200 MJ/mole implied 200 eV per atom which
was difficult to explain by chemical means.
     Dr. Preparata was asked if his theory was different from ordinary quantum
theory and if so what what other predictions were made. He replied many.
Dr. Chubb cried "That's wrong, that's wrong". Dr. Preparata, equally strongly,
cried "It is right".
 
4. SATURDAY 24 OCTOBER
    JONES, YAMAGUCHI, MILES, IIDA, KASAGI, CECIL, TSAREV, GOZZI, MORRISON.
 
4.1     Steve JONES started by emphasising that there was no correspondance
between the claims of excess heat and nuclear products - if the excess heat
claims were true, then for one Watt, about 10 E12  reactions per second were
required which would yield very large amounts of nuclear products or ash.
Thus for the DD reaction to give helium, some 2ml of helium should be produced
if this reaction gives 100MJ of energy, which should be easily identifiable.
      The critical test was observation of X-rays. They had done experiments
showing that the K(alpha) spectrum had a strong peak at 21 keV from
palladium. The attenuation in D2O liquid was only 60% after 2 cm. For
one watt, the 3 MeV protons should produce 600 K(alpha) X-rays per second.
They had now made a small X-ray detector which could be fitted inside an
experiment. He has offered this to Dr. Takahashi who agreed and a test will
take place on Tuesday October 27th (Note added - Steve went to Dr. Takahashi's
lab as agreed with his X-ray counter; but could not perform the measurement
of X-rays - Dr. Takahashi could not make his experiment give Cold Fusion plus
Steve had some trouble with his counter).
    They are running neutron counters in a low background (0.4 counts/hour)
tunnel (they call it Pico Gran Sasso) and have observed 12 neutron bursts. The
Provo Canyon lab has been set up with the support of EPRI and is a $1 million
facility. He said that they are given encouragement and advice from Al Mann,
Steve Koonin, Charles Barnes and others (suspect this does not mean that these
three people believe in Cold Fusion).
    Steve Jones reported on their work in Japan where they are running in the
Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector with cells with cement in them as they
are interested in Cold Fusion in Mother Earth. They ran in March/April 1991
and from October 1991 to February 1992. When loaded with deuterium gas they
observed neutron bursts, but not with hydrogen gas. With electrolysis
and titanium loaded with D2 gas, the number and multiplicity of the bursts
is different from that expected from uranium contamination. A plot was
shown of the multiplicity observed and that predicted from the earlier
Menlove et al. results where some agreement was obtained for low multiplicities
up to 20, but not for high multiplicities. These results are being
checked in the BYU tunnel where they are using fast-setting cement which
allows the cells to be prepared in one day and not weeks. The statistics are
low but agree. He finds this a good trigger for Cold Fusion and intends to
continue these studies in Utah.
    Note; The initial reason for the Kamiokande experiment was to repeat
the Jones et al. and Menlove et al. experiments using palladium and titanium.
These experiments which occupied most of the running in Kamiokande, were not
mentioned by Steve but are discussed in section 4.9 below. In earlier versions
it was intended not to discuss the cement experiments for reasons of
politeness, but following remonstrances and claims that the cement results
are very important, it seems that some comments are required though
reluctantly.
    The aim of the Kamiokande experiment was to measure nuclear products
from Cold Fusion cells, these nuclear products producing Cherenkov light
which is ultimately detected. Many nuclear products can do this - gammas,
electrons, alpha particles, neutrons, protons if energetic enough. The
Jones experiment was designed with the hope that the events would be mainly
produced by neutrons, though for example, 24 MeV gammas would also give events.
    Kamiokandee has made an enormous effort to remove radio-activity from the
water, from the air (since radon is always present in mines), and from the
materials used. To put palladium and titanium which are low in radio-active
contamination is reasonable and a fairly clean experiment can be done and
interpreted in an unambigous way. However the same cannot be said about cement.
Everyone working with neutron detection knows that cement and many other common
construction materials contain large amounts of radio-active materials and
should be avoided. The random neutron emission was so high that the
Kamiokande group found that it was interfering in a significant way, with
their solar neutrino studies and asked them to desist (Kamiokande
measures about one neutrino cominf from the Sun per ten days roughly, which
is why they make such an effort to reduce radio-active background).
    Recently on the Email net John Hawkinson gave a reference;
"Radioactivity in Consumer products" NUREG/cp-0001, US Regulatory Commission,
August 1978. Some numbers; generally cements have 1.1 pCi per gram for U-238
and 0.4 pCi per gram for Th-232. Gypsum from phosphate mining has appreciable
radioactive ores and phosogypsum from the manufacture of phosphate
fertilisers gives phosphogypsum and 20% of that goes into Portland Cement.
Phosphogypsum from Florida has 33pCi/gm of Ra-226, 6pCi/gm of U-238, and
13 pCi/gm of Th-230; from other states other rates. Since these cements
can produce a variety of radio-active decay or fission products, it would seem
normal to avoid them since it is unlikely that one can do a clean experiment
where one can interpret the results with confidence.
     The argument has been made that "Mother Earth" has Cold Fusion and that
is why cement should be used. Some points;
A) the justification for this hypothesis is that isotope ratios vary from
place to place in the earth - but it is normal to expect variations in isotope
ratios with atom bomb tests, accretions of radio-active material, cosmic ray
reactions, etc. Such normal causes should be invoked before assuming Cold
Fusion.
B) One should always try to arrange an experiment so that as far as possible
one knows what one is doing so that the results can be interpreted and have
some meaning. For example should one wish to study "Mother Earth", one should
start by finding out what "Mother earth" is. Most people do not consider cement
as "Mother Earth".
 
4.2    Dr. Eiichi YAMAGUCHI of NTT said many researchers had succeeded in
finding evidence for Cold Fusion but no one had direct evidence for nuclear
products detection "in situ". Now for the first time they have succeeded in
the real time observation of helium using a quadrupole mass spectrometer
of high resolution (0.001 amu at 4 amu). The amount of helium gas was strongly
correlated to the excess heat evolution and increased with increasing the
loading ratio of D to Pd. Also tritium production has been observed as HT.
But when the system is loaded with hydrogen, H, neither helium or tritium
production is observed. Simultaneous measurement of charged particles gave
alpha particles of 4.5 to 6 MeV as well as protons of 3 MeV but as the
amount was extremely small relative to helium production, this "strongly
suggests" the occurrence of a new class of nuclear fusion in the system Pd:D(H).
These are remarkable claims, so was very surprised to hear at the Round Table
next day Dr. Yamaguchi give some additional results when he stated that with
hydrated palladium (ie with light hydrogen), a heat increase was observed
but neither helium nor tritium was found(note that this is in their paper).
     They interpret their results by suggesting that the main reaction is;
             d  +  d  --->  4He  +  photons/phonons
This follows Nobel laureate Schwinger who said in Z. Phys. D, 15(1900)221
that the reaction
             p  +  d  --->  3He  +  photons/phonons
was favoured over the dd reaction. Since these reactions are less than
the normal strong reactions giving neutrons, tritium etc., then a "new
class of nuclear fusion is required in the system Pd:D(H)." This is a very
strong statement in their abstract.
Their basic idea is to cover one surface of a thin palladium plate with
an oxide barrier which is a surface barrier for the out-transport of
deuterium, then the Pd plate is loaded with D2 gas of about 0.5
atmospheres giving a measured loading of about x = 0.6. Then a thick gold
film is deposited on the other side to prevent d ions escaping there. Then a
vacuum is created on the oxide side. They mention their earlier work, reported
at the BYU conference (AIP 228(1990)354 ) where they claimed "gigantic neutron
bursts" of a few million neutrons for a few seconds and excess heat, but the
only evidence that they presented for excess heat was the statement that the
gold annealed to the palladium which they estimated gave a temperature of 800 C.
This is not usually considered evidence for excess heat as normally careful
controls and checks are done. In the next tests, strong currents - 5 to 7 A
are mentioned - were passed through the plates. There are two plates, A and B,
which are said to be "equivalent" but the curves of temperature variation
are different and no comment is made. The maximum temperature measured now, is
about 200 C and this seems to be taken as evidence of excess heat - again no
controls and calibrations are reported and no estimates of the amount, eg
watts/cm3, are given - unusual.
    The mass spectroscopy is only done near mass 4 (Dr. Yamaguchi said it
takes about a week to set up as it is so precise) and peaks are expected at
4.00260 amu for 4He, 4.02388 amu for HT and 4.02820 amu for D2 - the accuracy
claimed is 0.001 amu. It is claimed that with D2 gas a peak is seen at the
HT mass value and this is evidence for tritium - but this peak is bigger than
the D2 peak which is remarkable as it means the Tritium has to be produced
in very large quantities and has to be very efficient in finding H ions to
give such a big peak at the HT mass. Peaks are observed developing at the
4He mass as time increases - a major question is whether there is any
glass in the system for Nate Hoffman said he has spent 6 months repeating
the Paneth and Peters 1926/27 experiment and has shown that glass always
contaims some helium and if hydrogen( or deuterium) gas is passed over the
glass then some helium comes out and will give a signal - a question that
is not clear. Again no measurements are given of the quantity of helium and
tritium produced. (Note - at first the presence of glass in the apparatus
was denied, but it seems that there was probably some - Drs. Scarramuzzi and
Sanchez will be able to say since they were to visit the NTT laboratories
after the conference and their reports are eagerly awaited).
    The charged particle detectors give rather poor statistics (one peak seems
to have four events in it) and the interpretation is unclear.
    The plate undergoes plastic deformation which indictes that violent
processes are taking place - experience has shown that such violent processes
can cause artifacts eg false signals in a neutron counter, and it is wise to
perform many careful checks and quantitative measurements before claims
are made.
    Overall the experiment is unconvincing.
4.3    Drs M.H. MILES and B.F. Bush reported on a search for anomalous effects.
While earlier 2 palladium rods gave excess heat 7 times out of 8, a batch of
8 new palladium rods gave no significant excess heat. Studies of helium
production are hindered by this - earlier measurements gave 2 E11 helium
atoms/sec. Increases in tritium could be explainable by normal enrichment
during electrolysis.
4.4    Dr. T. IIDA (and Dr. A. Takahashi et al.) reported work with deuteron
plus He and H beams of 240 keV (ie lukewarm fusion). In addition to the
expected particles they also found peaks at 3.6 and 8.0 MeV of alpha particles.
Dr. TAKAHASHI explained these surprising results as being caused not by
lukewarm fusion but by Cold Fusion with multibody reactions, eg ddd, pdd
where the three ions react together according to the theory he has developed to
explain his surprising results (it is not clear how the high multi-Coulomb
barrier is overcome).
4.5    Dr. KASAGI studied lukewarm fusion using deuterium ions of 150 keV. Some
unusual peaks were observed.
4.6    Dr. F.E.CECIL - sorry have no notes on his talk but the abstract says
that charged particle emission was studied with silicon surface barrier
detectors, from titanium/palladium cathode glow discharges in D2 gas. The
voltage varied between 500 and 3000 V. It was concluded that some of the
observed burst events appear to be real particles from nuclear reactions at
the cathodes while others appear to be electrical pick-up by the
detectors from the randomly occurring sparking.
4.7    Dr. V. TSAREV was replaced by Drs. KALIEV and KUCHEROV who gave talks
claiming strong alpha particle and gamma emission which was reproducible.
Nate Hoffman commented that the waste material from Russian reactors contains
a high fraction of palladium - this waste material has been used to extract
palladium which is sold commercially at a very reasonable price. Hence
anyone using Russian palladium should check whether it was highly contaminated
with radioactive decay products which would give off many alpha and other
decay products.
4.8   Dr. GOZZI reported that they had 60 neutron detectors which in the 15 days
29 September to 12 October had given bursts of multiplicity up to 340 and which
were in coincidence with excess heat. No tritium was observed (note this is
the opposite of many groups who claim that tritium production is a thousand
to a hundred million times stronger than neutron production). Steve Jones
said that as neutrons were slowed down in the polythene to thermal velocities,
they should have been observed in all neutron counters not in just one sector.
Preparata - "You calibrated it". Gozzi replied by showing a graph of the
efficiency as a function of the group which showed that the efficiency
was very low except in a few groups where it rose to 0.06. Steve said he
still did not understand and they should discuss it later.
4.9   D.R.O. MORRISON gave a review of Cold Fusion Experiments. He emphasized
the Universality of Physics - the same physics laws apply on earth, in the
Sun, in Supernova, in pulsars where the density was 10 E14 times that on earth.
He recalled the basic reaction chains in the Sun noting that dd fusion was
not important, though if its rate was increased by 10 E 40 as some suggested
this might be noticeable. The dd reaction gave a compound nucleus which lasted
about 10 E-20 seconds before decaying and it always decayed the same way,
independent of its formation. The two main strong decays were to (3He + n) and
to (t + p) with a 1 to 1 branching ratio while the electromagnetic decay to
(4He + gamma) was lower by a factor of ten million (Frank Close explained
to me that there is another factor from spin apart from alpha, the fine
structure constant). This had been shown experimentally at the Second Annual
Cold Fusion Conference by Davis et al. who confirmed the ratios of 1:1: 10 E-7
down to about 2 keV. Dr. Preparata intervened and loudly said the speaker was
insulting us, this was an academic lecture and was all well known. After a
pause, the speaker continued and noted that these branching ratios of neutron
to tritium of one to one and helium4 being ten million times less, had
been confirmed at zero energy by muon catalysed fusion at which subject
Steve Jones is a world expert.
    With dd fusion, the primary products were neutrons, tritium, gammas, 4He,
3He and protons while an important secondary product was X-rays of 21 keV
produced when energetic charged particles such as 3 MeV protons, passed through
palladium. The first four of these (n, t, gammas, 4He) all had major problems
due to the ease of artifacts producing false readings. However 3He, protons and
21 keV X-rays were relatively clean and reliable measurements.
 As Cold Fusion is potentially so exciting, many fast experiments have been done
and presented before all checks have been made. Corrections and retractions
are not always presented using the same media. The problem is how to get a
fair unbiassed set of data to review. Have used the bibliography of Dieter Britz
which most people consider unbiassed. He takes only papers which have been
published and which therefore have been refereed. The set is up to 3 October
1992. It contains 727 relevant papers of which 256 are experimental results,
239 are theory and 232 are Others( 64 reviews, 76 technical, 35 comments,
6 rebuttals, 36 repeats and 15 {not cold fusion, eg lukewarm fusion). The
Experimental papers were 86 positive(ie supporting the existence of Cold Fusion)
and 136 null papers (finding no evidence and giving upper limits) while 34 were
indecisive or contradictory.
   There was a problem that some papers were very poor (eg 2 standard deviation
effects, no hydrogen control, no calibration, only one neutron counter, no
check for artifacts, etc.) but to be as kind as possible to Cold Fusion, and to
avoid any accusation of bias, all were taken as evidence of Cold Fusion if the
authors said they were evidence.
    A page of 11 figures was shown giving firstly the numbers of papers as a
function of the year - for experimental papers there were 72 in 1989(9 months),
128 in 1990, 48 in 1991 and 8 in 1992(9 months). Of the 8 in 1992, 6 were null,
one was positive and one was indecisive. Thus it can be seen that interest in
Cold Fusion peaked two years ago and is fading fast.
    Secondly on this page, the numbers of results for each kind of effect
(excess heat and nuclear products) were given. For each effect the number of
null results was greater than the number of positive results. For the case of
the three products which were relatively free from artifacts, the numbers were;
Protons - 11 null and one positive
3He - 8 null and one positive
X-rays - 7 null and zero positive.
   Although one says "do good experiments", many are still inadequate.
To list these is unsocial, hence the other alternative was adopted and good
experiments were selected. One criterion is number of effects measured - it was
shown that when many factors (eg excess heat, neutrons, tritium etc.) are
measured simultaneously, null results are much more frequently obtained.
Again the 727 papers listed were studied to see which ones Dieter Britz had
considered as "expert" - note this was his opinion, not that of the author.
The names of the first author of 'expert' papers are; Aberdam, Armstrong, Bacej,
Baranowski, Bennington, Besanbacher, Blaser, Bulloch, Case, Cheek, Chemla,
Divisia, Flanagan, Gottesfeld, Hayden, Ilic, Kreysa, D. Lewis( not the Lewis
from Caltech), McCracken, Menlove, Morrey, Naerger, Olofsson, Paneth, Porter,
Riley(who died tragically), Rugari, and Williams. It is to be hoped that
serious students of Cold Fusion have already read most of these papers, or if
not, will do so soon. These papers are classifed as one positive, 19 null,
2 unclear and 6 technical.
    Another criterion of good experimental technique, is that the authors make
a point of saying that they looked for artifacts. Dieter Britz mentions 18 such
papers which are composed of one positive, 14 null, 2 unclear and one technical.
Again most careful workers do not find any Cold Fusion effects.
    As loading is said by many to be crucial in achieving positive Cold Fusion
effects, the 727 papers were scanned for values of loadings measured. 52 papers
reported loadings - of these 16 were technical and 36 experimental; these
36 gave 3 positive, 31 null and 2 unclear. Taking only the graph of loading by
electrolysis of palladium, there is a broad peak in D/Pd near 0.8 to 0.85. Many
authors comment that there seems to be a maximum loading. This graph is very
similar to that of Mike McKubre with a peak in the same place near 0.83,
but with his higher statistics, his plot extends to higher values of just
over one, and also has a much wider tail down to zero (being unpublished the
McKubre results do not qualify). Other results quoted this week are Claytor
D/Pd = 0.82, Kumimatsu 0.88, Enyo 0.9 and Fukai 0.83. A further point is that
it seems a surprisingly high proportion of experiments with positive results
do not measure their loading.
    Note - the most reliable method of measuring loading is by diffraction -
the best is neutron diffraction though X-ray diffraction can also be used.
This could be used as a calibration for other techniques such as resistance
measurments, but these all have problems and should be considered as having
appreciable errors which vary with time and conditions. In one experiment the
cathode extended outside the cell and diffraction measurements were made
on this extension, but it was not too clear how one was sure that the loading
inside was the same as that outside.
    From a review by Ed Storms, a graph was shown of the log of the number
of neutrons against the log of the number of tritium atoms - it could be seen
that there was no correlation, the ratio of tritons to neutrons varying
from one thousand to one thousand million. A different explanation is that if
there are three standard deviation fluctuations in the measurement of neutrons
and three standard deviation fluctuations in the measurement of the tritium,
then such ratios are expected - the reason is that neutrons are measured
directly whereas since tritium has a half-life of 12 years, only the very
small fractionof tritium atoms which happen to decay, are measured during
the short time of the measurement. That is, this tritium/neutron ratio is
consistent with there being no Cold Fusion, only fluctuations.
    Another graph is of the log of excess power, watts/cm2, against the current
(linear scale); a line is drawn which does not fit the data but does indicate
that as the current is increased there is a saturation in the Watts/cm2 at about
one watt/cm2 which seem contrary to the idea that if only the current density is
high enough, then the loading will pass some critical threshold and Cold Fusion
will occur strongly. Another interesting point about the graph is that it shows
the original values of Fleischmann and Pons who found considerable excess heat
at the very low current density of 8 mA/cm2 (indeed in their paper they wrote
over 1000% excess heat is obtainable but the only occasion was with the lowest
current density of 8 mA/cm2). The point is that Dr. R.T. Bush finds that they
obtain excess heat with normal light water but when Morrison asked him whether
this was in contradiction to Fleischmann and Pons who find excess heat only
with deuterium and believe that it is fusion because they do not find it with
light hydrogen, Dr. Bush replied that it was different because he works only at
very low current densities, 1 to 20 mA/cm2, he said. However it was pointed
out that Fleischmann and Pons also obtained excess heat in that region with
8 mA/cm2. Dr. Bush then pointed out that he used nickel and not palladium,
but Morrison asked if in his theory, were nickel and palladium not the same -
Dr. Bush replied that they were and therefore light water should have given
excess heat with palladium (please note that the statement of the equivalence
of nickel and palladium in this context, was a theoretical statement of
Dr. Bush and not by anyone else).
    It is surprising at this conference that people do not jump up to point
out the contradiction that some people use light hydrogen as a control and
find no excess heat while others do find excess heat with light hydrogen.
    In March 1989 in Utah, the press conference announced that Cold Fusion
gave both excess heat and fusion products, that is it was a fusion process in
which mass was converted into energy. There were great hopes of a "Clean,
virtually inexhaustable source of energy" - though it must be said that Martin
Fleischmann demurred and was more cautious. However it was quickly realised that
there was an enormous contradiction as one watt of power should have given
a million million nuclear reaction products per second which would have killed
everyone around, but the measured nuclear products were many orders of
magnitude less - about a million million times less as Steve Jones pointed out.
Thus Cold Fusion claims split into two parts;
a) Excess heat - Fleischamnn and Pons - Watts/cm3
b) Fusion Products - 40 000 neutrons/second according to F&P
                   - 0.4 neutrons/second according to Jones
                   but 10 E12 neutrons/second were expected if fusion.
   An important point is that both Martin Fleischmann and Steve Jones said
that there was no secret - just a simple table-top experiment as one said. Thus
to obtain Cold Fusion there was no need for any dynamic process such as heating,
cooling, varying current as in Takahashi style. It should work just by simple
electrolysis even at low current densities such as 8 mA/cm2.
   Now these two original experiments have been severely contested over the
years and it is clear that if the two original experiments which began the
current Cold Fusion excitement, are shown to be untenable, then the very
foundations of Cold Fusion should crumble. In addition to these earlier
criticisms, recently two major results have appeared that would appear
to contradict the two foundation results. It is important to consider them
and their rebuttals.
    Initially Steve Jones et al. reported in Nature in 1989 that in 14 runs, one
of the runs gave a neutron rate of 0.4 n/second for 7 hours; this value was
re-evaluated later to 0.06n/s by taking the average over all 14 runs (from this
one can calculate that the total running time of the 14 runs was about 47 hours
but have been told recently the value is 79.3 hours) This was using
electrolysis with a palladium cathode. Later Steve and Howard Menlove
did another experiment with titanium which was lightly loaded with D2 gas,
in which they claimed large neutron bursts of up to 80 neutrons
counted ( corresponding to 280 source neutrons after correcting for efficiency)
in a time interval of 128 microseconds; they were especially frequent after
cooling with liquid nitrogen and then in warming up, the bursts being observed
near -30 C. They also observed two bursts of 17 and 5 hours in 1703 hours
running, or one burst per 850 hours.
Thus there were three effects claimed;
FEW-HOUR BURSTS; three bursts have been observed of several hours duration -
  it may be noted that the latter two bursts are only about 10% higher than the
  background but are statistically significant, though it is not clear
  whether they could be the tail of a large statistical distribution.
MICROBURSTS; bursts of neutrons lasting less than 128 microseconds.
TEMPERATURE EFFECT; the microbursts are preferentially emitted near -30 C.
Note - it does not seemed to have been commented that these two types of burst
differ in time by a factor of more than ten million - a theoretical explanation
does not seem to have been attempted.
    Steve Jones, Howard Menlove et al. have placed Cold Fusion cells in the
centre of the 3000 ton Kamiokande detector. As the Kamiokande detector
is in a mine (visited it on 21 October when at the Neutrino Astrophysics
conference held at Takayma and Kamioka - the experiment is impressive) and
as it has large veto counters and careful control of radon and other
possible radioactive backgrounds, very low backgrounds are obtained, hence
the previous values of 0.4 or 0.06 neutrons/second should now have been
very clear. The experiment is described in a thesis by Taku Ishida which is
admirably written and which explains all the corrections and results in
great detail - it is well worth reading just for the pleasure of its clarity,
apart from its interesting results.
    They started running in January 1991. At first they tried electrolysis
with palladium and titanium cathodes but observed almost nothing, then with
titanium loaded with D2 gas and again observed almost nothing. They then
switched to cement which gave so much activity that it was suggested that
they continue elsewhere. The results are;
FEW-HOUR BURSTS; Ishida writes "Random neutron emission (ie few-hour bursts)
beyond the background level has not been observed both for the cylinders (ie
gas) and from the electrolysis samples." the numbers are;
   Pressurized D2 gas
         Flux upper limit = 0.00008 neutrons/second at 90% confidence
                                 Total live time = 1310.7 hours
   Electrolytic cells
     April set,  Flux upper limit = 0.000098 n/s at 90% confidence
                                 Total live time = 387.2 hours.
     April set,  Flux upper limit = 0.000057 n/s at 90% confidence
                                  Total live time = 569.7 hours.
 Comparing these results with a total running time of 2267.4 hours, to
the 0.06 neutrons/second claimed by Jones et al. in 47 hours,
there would seem to be disagreement. (Further it may be noted that the
mass of the titanium in the Jones et al. experiment was 3 grams whereas the
average mass in the Kamiokande gas experiment was 339 grams).
MICROBURSTS
   i)  Menlove et al. made a claim to have observed bursts of neutrons in a time
of 128 microseconds. In real numbers they claimed to have seen many with
30, 40, 50, 60 and even 80 neutrons in the burst. Correcting for efficiency
they claimed between 10 and 280 source neutrons (below 10 was background).
In the Kamiokande gas experiment there were zero bursts which gave
4 or more real neutrons, ie there were zero bursts giving 10 or more source
neutrons.
     This is the basis of the conclusion that the Kamiokande gas experiment
is in disagreement with the Menlove et al. claims.
 
  ii) In the Kamiokande electrolysis experiment, two bursts were found with a
multiplicity of four. That is two bursts had about 11 source neutrons.
But none were observed with between 15 and 280 source neutrons. That is
no bursts were observed for most of the the region 10 to 280 and two were
observed in a very small segment, 10 to 15. Now the Menlove et al. claim is for
the range from 10 to 280 source neutrons - if it is correct, it should be
correct for the entire range not just a little corner. This a major disagreement
and is the basis for the conclusion that the Kamiokande electrolysis experiment
is in disagreement with the Menlove et al. claims.
TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
    With the experiments with titanium and D2 gas and warming up from liquid
nitrogen temperatures, "bursts" of 2 or 3 neutrons were observed (with an
extended interval of 500 microseconds, not 128 - not very important) but none
of these occured during the warming up period. It is concluded that there is
no evidence for a dynamic effect near -30 C as previously claimed.
 
     There has been some discussion as to what the observed bursts of 2, 3 or 4
neutrons could be. This may be intersting, but in no way changes the three
conclusions reached above.
    One obvious interpretation was that this was radioactive contamination
for uranium fission can give up to six neutrons and plutonium up to seven
which gives about the observed multiplicity distribution, but not exactly.
There have been claims that this may be a new phenomemon at an ultra low level.
Maybe, but it should be noted that
    a) Kamiokande does not measure neutrons - it measures Cherenkov light.
When an atom fissions, it emits not only neutrons directly but the fission
products plus the decay products of the short-lived elements formed. Thus there
is also emission of gammas, electrons, alphas as well and, if these are
energetic enough, they could also give Cherenkov light eventually. These
simultaneous (<500 microseconds) emissions would change the rate and the
multiplicity distribution. So the situation is complicated and not merely
the metal of the cathode must be considered, but all the components including
the brine and the deuterium.
    b) It is not safe to use hydrogen in place of deuterium as a background
because while gammas do not give photo-disintegration in hydrogen, they do give
photo-disintegration in deuterium producing neutrons. Such photo-disintegration
would give additional simultaneous neutrons which would change the rate and
multiplicity distribution.
    (NOTE - as these comments were contested, a complete
review of the Jones et al. experiments with palladium and titanium has been
written and is issued separately - the conclusion is that all the
experimental claims made in Jones et al. and in Menlove et al., are
disproved by the superior Kamiokande experiment with its very low background).
 
   The General Electric paper, Wilson et al., J. Electroanal. Chem 332(1992)1,
includes Fritz Will as an author before he left to become Director of the
National Cold Fusion Institute in Salt Lake City. It consists of two parts.
Part 1 is experimental. It describes briefly a long series of experiments
firstly repeating Fleischmann and Pons's experiments as exactly as possible
(since there is no secret, this is OK), and then variations and improvements
some of which gave very high quality experiments. They find no excess heat and
no neutrons nor tritium nor 4He.
     Part 2 is a very complete discussion of the analysis of the Fleischmann
and Pons experimental data. They find that the excess heat is generally
overestimated and that control samples using hydrogen which F&P claim gave
no excess heat, should have indicated excess heat if the analysis had been
performed as described. (More details of this are given in the Email
"Cold Fusion Update No. 6).
   The rebuttal of Fleischmann and Pons is given in the next paper,
J. Electroanal. Chem 332(1992)33. it says that the paper of Wilson et al. is
"a series of misconceptions and misrepresentations".... "gross errors". Then
follows 20 pages of calculations etc. with the comments;
1) Fleischmann and Pons say that Wilson et al. "have not provided sufficient
information". Agree, but one can ask GE for data and hope to get it. It would
be good for Science if both sides were to exchange data.
2) Wilson and others say that the use of non-linear regression analysis
and Kalman filtering is unnecessarily complicated (F&P say it is standard but
when the audience at Nagoya was asked if they had recently used a non-linear
regression analysis to obtain excess heat - no one answered).
3) Fleischmann and Pons say that "the precise control of the level of the
electrolyte is hardly feasible" and this justifies the complicated analysis, but
if a closed cell is used, then the level is constant.
4) This argument between leading scientists is disagreeable - in view of the
crucial importance of the Fleischmann and Pons experiment to Cold Fusion, it
should be resolved. Fortunately this can be done simply by Fleischmann and Pons
doing a clean simple experiment with few corrections in a closed cell immersed
in 3 constant temperature baths as was done by their good friend David Williams
at Harwell using the device used for evaluating the amount of plutonium in
samples. This is a null measurement like the Wheatstone bridge, ie if excess
heat is produced, the heaters that keep the 3 baths above room temperature,
are lowered to keep the temperatures constant. Thus nothing changes in the
temperatures so that no elaborate corrections are needed. Loading and
nuclear products should also be measured at the same time.
   It should be appreciated that the best way for Drs. Fleischmann and Pons to
answer critics would be to obtain positive results with a clean good apparatus
chosen to require few corrections as above.
   Some Conclusions;
1. There is a major separation between experiments which measure excess heat
and claim watts and experiments which measure nuclear products which find
10 E-6 to 10 E-16 watts.
2. The positive experimental claims are highly dispersed and inconsistent
with one another. Some experiments are poorly designed and artifact-prone with
the consequence that artifacts are claimed as results. Answer/recommendation is
to do only good fully-instrumented and fully-calibrated experiments that need
few and unimportant corrections. Always measure loading.
3. Several experiments claim that Cold Fusion occurs in normal light hydrogen.
This is in direct contradiction with most previous Cold Fusion claims which said
the reason one knew it was Cold Fusion was because it did occurred with
deuterium and did not occur with hydrogen. It is not possible to believe
both sets of claims simultaneously.
4. There are an enormous number experiments which describe the behaviour of
hydrogen and deuterium in metals and these show that the deuterium ions are
further apart in metals than in D2 gas - as described earlier by Dr. Fukai.
5. The two original experiments of Fleischman and Pons and of Jones et al.,
are contradicted by the General Electric Company's paper of Fritz Will and
others and by the Kamiokande experiment of Jones et al., respectively.
6. It has been said that if Cold Fusion has a 1% chance of working, then it
is worth further study. But the best estimate is not 1%. If one accepts the
results from the excellent Kamiokande experimental limit of 10 E-4 neutrons
per second, then the limit is not 1% but 10 E-14% or one hundred
million millionth of one percent.
 
5. AFTER MORRISON'S TALK
     After Dr. Preparata's loud intervention, the rest of Morrison's talk was
heard in silence, but after he finished the Co-Chairmen said nothing, but the
Conference Chairman, Dr H. Ikegami moved swiftly across and removed deftly the
microphone from the speaker's jacket and the battery from his pocket and
then quietened the tumult and booing by declaring that he wished to apologize
to the conference. He was surprised that a scientist of Dr. Morrison's
international reputation could make such a ridiculous talk and so on.
A noisy crowd then surrounded Morrison so that it was difficult for
the TV people to film this from close up. The loudest voices were essentially
Cold Fusion propagandists and it is interesting that none of their questions
or comments were direct to scientific issues but were of the nature "Have you
looked at the raw data?" One particularly interesting question was "in your
bibliography, did you include papers from 'Fusion Technology'?" This is
interesting because this journal has a reputation of being rather kind to papers
in favour of Cold Fusion - for example "Cold Fusion observed with ordinary
water", "Observation of quad-neutrons and gravity decay during Cold Fusion",
"Searching for tiny black holes during Cold Fusion" - was shown a photo of a
black hole! The editor says that more papers are refused than accepted. The
answer of Morrison was 'yes' - in order to be as kind as possible to
Cold Fusion and to avoid accusations of bias, all journals that claim to
have referees were taken, including Fusion Technology. (NOTE, have been told
that the paper on Cold Fusion and Black Holes was rejected by a referee, but
was still published to the referee's surprise - it will be interesting to
hear further comments on this).
     After a time Morrison was removed from the noisy crowd by an Organiser who
said he should attend a press conference downstairs. There Dr. Ikegami was
talking in Japanese to reporters. This went on for over an hour and the phrase
"Morrison-san" was heard frequently. Afterwards the meeting broke up and none
of the reporters asked Morrison any questions though they gave their cards.
    After lunch there was the poster session. As requested, Morrison spread
out copies of the 21 pages of transparencies on a table. Many gathered round
and accepted copies of the page with 11 graphs summarizing the number of
results. Dr Preparata came with his two acolytes and started attacking in a
very loud voice - interestingly enough none of his comments were scientific
and he did not question the accuracy of any of the 21 pages spread out.
One of his accolytes then started loudly and again none of his comments in any
way questioned the pages on the table though he did say he was spokesman of an
experiment. Dr. Preparata was offered a copy of the page of graphs - he took
it and ceremoniously tore it across and then tore it again and again before
moving away. Wonder if he also burns books?
    After that the poster session proceeded peacefully with many friendly
conversations and people were happy to have a copy of the page of graphs.
It was noticable that then and the next day, the serious scientists such
as Steve Jones, discussed but that the principals and other propagandists
avoided the poster table.
 
6 SUNDAY 25 OCTOBER
   CLAYTOR, BOCKRIS, LI(CHINA), TSAREV(RUSSIA), SCARAMUZZI(ITALY)
6.1  Tom CLAYTOR showed a very interesting graph of the D/Pd ratios versus the
gas pressure for many temperatures between -40C and +70C. In every case there
was a tendancy towards saturation at near 0.8 loading though further additional
pressure gave slowly increasing loadings. Also the loading was higher
the lower the temperature. This is a basic graph that all are interested in.
They used stacks of palladium and silicon and pulsed with a high current,
and deuterium gas. Tritium was measured on-line and where it appeared,
it was within 48 hours. The tritium production varied from 0.02 to 0.2 nCi
per hour; it increased with current.
6.2   John BOCKRIS working with C. Chien and Z. Minevski, obtained remarkably
large amounts of tritium as Chien had already found in Taiwan. Addition of
fresh D2O or vibrating with a gold rod stopped the tritium production but
after a few days it started again. Helium was also observed - about 1.6 E11
atoms. No 3He was observed.
6.3    Dr. X. LI gave an impressive list of institutions that are working on
Cold Fusion in different regions of China. Several groups have positive results
though the experiments are not too complex and there was no time to discuss
controls and checks. One lab used palladium from Russia.
6.4    Vladimir TSAREV summarised Cold Fusion in Russia - there are many labs
working and workshops have been held on it in Ekaterinburg and Donetsk.
Many of the results sounded most impressive with claims of 500% excess heat
and 100% reproduciblity but there was not time to determine the quality of the
checks and calibrations and to understand which labs were using Russian
palladium which could be heavily contaminated (according to Nate Hoffman).
Vladimir is an excellent cartoonist and people particularly enjoyed a drawing
of a lady in Japanese costume carrying a scroll on which the equation
E = mc2  is scored out and instead is written   E = CF . This was much
appreciated by some who found it an excellent summary, while others
just enjoyed it.
6.5 Dr F. SCARAMUZZI began by talking of the "strange geography of Cold Fusion".
He said that in Japan, Russia, China and India there was a co-ordinated effort.
In the USA there was a negative official position with exceptions (EPRI). In the
EEC, it was the same except in Spain and Italy; what is still stranger is
that behind the Alps, Cold Fusion never existed.
   In Italy, the INFN, CNR and ENEA all fund Cold Fusion to a total of about
$0.5 million (personnel not included). In the future it will be mainly INFN.
He listed 7 groups (10 institutes) which are working on Cold Fusion. Most
though not all are finding positive effects (he was one of the very few speakers
to say that not everyone finds Cold Fusion effects - however it is a pity he did
not mention the work of the Milano group of Ettore Fiorini who has the
reputation of being one of the best and most careful experimentalist in Italy
which is a country with a long tradition of excellent experimental work.
He has performed one of the most complete and careful experiments looking for
dd and pd fusion during electrolysis of palladium, plus mechanical straining
to look for fractofusion. No excess heat was found and no gammas, neutrons,
helium nor tritium - this in a very low background lab.).
 
7. CONCLUDING SESSION - ROUND TABLE
    MCKUBRE, FLEISCHMANN, YAMAGUCHI, PERNG, TAKAHASHI, JONES, HAGELSTEIN,
HANSEN; Followed by comments from the audience.
 
     The members of the Round Table were each asked to talk for a short time.
7.1    Mike McKUBRE said that the 3C's of Cold Fusion were Collaboration,
Co-operation and Correlation. After three and a half years there was no
excuse for working on a single variable. All of experiments should be
addressed and a correlation matrix established. The Harwell work which gave
a null result, had correlations, we can similarly get information. The
most interesting result is the correlation between excess power and D/Pd
loading - as the loading increases the excess power increases steeply.
We have to understand the role of light elements.
7.2     Martin FLEISCHMANN said most people would like to see excess heat, but
we say "No mystery". You must cram the deuterium in the lattice, let the
temperature rise and then get excess heat. There are three things to do -
(1) link material properties, (2) link electrochemical variables, and (3) do
more work.
     The Harwell experiment is a rich source of un-evaluated data.
     We will make great strides in the coming year.
7.3   Dr. E. YAMAGUCHI said the helium production was very clear in his
 experiment
and everyone should investigate, in situ, by real-time methods. He claimed
that they clearly saw charged particle emission. They cannot say if the
temperature rise is correlated with 4He production.
     With hydrogen there was no 4He rise and no tritium but (and he said the
data was not shown on Saturday) hydrated palladium did also give excess heat
ie with ORDINARY hydrogen.
7.4   Dr. T.P. PERNG (ROC) talked of materials and hydrogen behaviour.
7.5   Dr. A. TAKAHASHI spoke of the need to correlate the excess heat and
nuclear products - it was important to find out if there was a relation or not.
He gave a list of which labs had found what ( he seemed to mainly mention
9 labs except to say that many had observed neutrons - this list was much
shorter than others such as that of Ed Storms; also it was noticeable that he
did not give any numbers or rates to see if the various experiments agreed; also
he did not talk of the more numerous experiments that did not find any effect,
nor did he quote upper limits from these null experiments).
7.6    Steve JONES said there was one form of Cold Fusion that was irrefutable
- Muon Catalysed Fusion. Since 1982 it has been known that the yield depends
on temperature. The yield had been found to be greater than expected - 150
fusions per muon; it took 8 years before this was finally accepted.
    For Cold Fusion they would continue to look for a low-level trigger. This
they thought they had found - it is cement.
    Somoluminesence involves the collapse of a bubble and gives a temperature
of a million degrees and a megabar pressure - he now calls it somofusion. This
might be of interest for Cold Fusion.
7.7   Tulio BRESSANI said one should relate energy measurements and neutron
spectra - one expects a neutron of 2.5 MeV. Takahashi finds 4 to 6 MeV neutrons
as well. Their own group has observed 2.5 MeV neutrons and has some indication
 of
something in the 4 to 6 MeV region though their counters have lower efficiency
there.
7.8    Peter HAGELSTEIN emphasized the  strong relationship between theory
and experiment - he had found this out when working on X-ray lasers.
While he accepted heat from Pd/D in LiOD, did not feel the same way about
Ni/H system in K2CO3. He said he works in Theory but often hears "This
person should not be funded as he works on Cold Fusion".
    On his personal wish-list, he would like;
(1) the 6Li to 7Li ratio be measured
(2) to know the value of the energy change in going from tetrahedral to
    octahedral positions in palladium
(3) the measurement of radioactivity in the palladium after a Fleischmann
    and Pons experiment.
7.9    Dr. L. HANSEN of BYU said that while energy was on one side of the
equation, there must also be molten ash. This was a criteria to judge
measurements of excess heat.
7.10   DISCUSSION
        The Chairman, Dr. H. Ikegami invited comments from the audience.
Nate HOFFMAN noted that one should be aware of what critics think. There are
four artifacts that we should pay attention to;
1) A major problem. Helium diffuses through glass. Any glass in an apparatus
   has 4He in it and this can lead to false readings
2) gammas in Cosmic rays can give photo-disintegration of deuterium which
   can give neutrons
3) radon decay products can be very troublesome, giving 8 MeV alphas, also
   210Pb gives a 18 keV beta which can be mistaken for a tritium decay.
4) there is liable to be some radioactive palladium soon on the market place
   as palladium is being extracted from Russian reactors. Hence must take care
   and measure the radioactivity of Pd BEFORE the Cold Fusion experiment is
   done.
     Comments were then invited from the floor.
     Robert BUSH stated that there was very strong evidence for transmutation
of light elements in water (ie ORDINARY water). In one year overwhelming
evidence. Later in answer to a question, he said that his light water work was
in a closed cell.
    Dr. CHUBB said that there was a lack of internal review, especially of
light water work. It is necessary to have outside observers as credibility is
important. The loading should be given.
    Steve JONES announced that they are setting up to do an experiment (in D2O)
with picosecond timing.
    The Conference Chairman, Dr. IKEGAMI asked for futher comments - silence.
So everyone slowly got up and prepared to go. However after a while the
Chairman called the meeting to order again. He thanked people for their
presence at such an exciting meeting where we were informed that reproducible
and controllable Cold Fusion had been observed. Especial thanks to Drs.
Fleischmann and Pons and to Drs. Yamaguchi and Nishioka who had new and
remarkable results. He said we are working for the future generation of
energy in the 21st century.
    He said the International Advisory Committee had decide that the next
Conference would be in Hawaii.
    The meeting closed with half-hearted applause.
 
8. NEXT COLD FUSION CONFERENCE - SCIENTIFIC MEETING
 
      The Third Cold Fusion conference was sponsored by several respectable
scientific organisations who have a long tradition of free and balanced
scientific debate. After more that three years since the 1989 Fleischmann and
Pons press conference, it was well known that the majority of the World's
scientists did not believe in Cold Fusion and that there were many null
experiments. It was to have been expected that the Organising Committee and
the International Scientific Advisory Committee would have known this and when
inviting speakers, would have chosen a balance. But only one sceptic was
invited (Dr. Fukai was invited as a technical expert and it was a surprise
when he reported that Cold Fusion should not work from the accumulated knowledge
of many experiments). The token sceptic, who has never hidden his conclusions,
was apparently expected to advise on how to perform future experiments (though
the abstract also said that the experimental results will be reviewed).
     In a normal scientific conference, more sceptics should have been
invited to join the International Advisory Committee and then invited to speak
at the conference. And when the token sceptic spoke, an orderly discussion
should have followed. Instead of that for the Conference Chairman to take
over from the session chairmen, then insult the invited speaker and close the
session without any scientific discussion, cannot be considered normal
scientific behaviour. It must have come as a surprise to the scientific
societies that sponsored the conference.
    It was announced that a Fourth Cold Fusion conference will be held in
Hawaii in 1994. Will this be a scientific conference? Will it be sponsored
by any scientific society that believes in free and balanced debate?
It is unlikely to be sponsored by the University of Hawaii as the University
which initially took some responsibilty for the patents based on the Cold Fusion
claims of some of their employees, organised a committee to investigate these
claims and has now given up their interest in these patents.
 
10 CONCLUSIONS
 
  (1) Overall there were fewer presentations of positive results than in
previous annual conferences. This confirms the statistics on published papers.
  (2) Many of the positive results tended to be "exotic" and different from
the original Fleichmann and Pons and Jones techniques which were simple and
"passive" unlike the present tendency towards "active" methods such as
sharply varying the voltage or temperature.
  (3) The biggest result was that some five groups claimed that positive
effects were now being observed with LIGHT water. This was a shock as
previously the justification that fusion was being observed was that the
positive effect was observed with deuterium and NOT with hydrogen. However
this comment was not made by anyone other than myself, and I had no response.
  (4) Some of those claiming fusion with light water also claimed to have
observed transmutation - the alchemists dream!
  (5) The two experiments which started all the Cold Fusion effect, have both
been very seriously put in doubt. A GE group with Fritz Will, the former
Director of the Utah Cold Fusion Institute, found no effects in extensive
attempts to repeat the experiments. Further checked the calculations
(non-linear regression analysis with kalman filtering) and found that they had
major problems and had not proved excess heat existed. Also the original
experiment of Jones et al. is contradicted by the Kamiokande experiment.
Thus both the foundation experiments are unreliable.
   (6) The Takahashi et al. experiment which was welcomed and advertised,
cannot now repeat the original levels of the effect claimed (this often
happens to Cold Fusion groups, eg Huggins). Also he has the unique result that
the yield of neutrons goes down as the excess heat increases.
   (7) The NTT - Yamaguchi experiment was pre-announced by a press conference
before it was presented for scientific discussion and evaluation at a conference
- a procedure that is generally criticised. Afterwards there were serious
criticisms about glass in the apparatus and the method of measuring
excess heat. Further it was later announced that excess heat was also
obtained with light hydrogen.
     (8) The incredible 8 billion dollar movement in the NTT share value showed
the powerful attraction of the dream of Cold Fusion. However the reality, the
numbers, have to be looked at. After three and a half years the present claims
of Cold Fusion are not substantially greater than in March 1989. And the
majority of experiments find no excess heat. Further the better the quality
and care of the experiments, the smaller the proportion that make claims.
Further as Dr. Fukai showed, the thousands of experiments on deuterium and
hydrogen in metals are against Cold Fusion.
     (9) There is a major contradiction between the excess heat claimed of
the order of Watts, and power calculated from the nuclear products observed.
This is a question of factors of millions or billions or millions of millions -
completely incompatible. If the basic source of the energy is the
conversion of mass to energy, then there must be some nuclear products, but no
Believer has solved this problem. This alone is a major reason for concluding
that there is no fusion. Some believers in the existence of excess heat then
say it is not a nuclear process, but then what could it be that would be of
any practical interest?
     (10) Many Believers in Cold Fusion genuinely want the Annual Cold Fusion
conference to be a normal scientific meeting. But with the choice of speakers
and rules, they have not been. This Nagoya meeting made it obvious to all
that the Annual meeting is not scientific.
     (11) The Regionalisation of Results (CERN/PPE 90-159, 1990) is stronger
than ever and was described by Dr. Scaramuzzi to the embarrassment of the
audience, but without protest.
     (12) The overall funding of Cold Fusion is increasing. The previously
known funding is decreasing and only INFN and EPRI are continuing appreciably.
EPRI (US Electrical Power Research Institute) funding is partly used in the US
and makes serious contributions to certain countries abroad, especially to
Russia, China, etc. Figures of $3 to $12 million have been advanced but it
is seldom clear over how many years this is. At the Nagoya meeting, one
became aware of major Japanese funding from industry, especially Toyota and next
year MITI may invest some $3 million, but it comes under the umbrella of
"Hydrogen Energy Research".
     (13) In Japan the two most careful experiments have both given strong
evidence that Cold Fusion will not give excess heat. They are the KEK
experiment which was rather complete, and the Kamiokande experiment.
     (14) It is sometimes said that if Cold Fusion had a one percent chance
of giving excess heat that would be useful for power generation, then it
should be studied. But the experimental results from Kamiokande show that
this number is not one percent but is one hundred million millionth of one
percent.
     (15) If one takes all the factors, experiments, theories etc. together,
the balance of evidence is strongly against the existence of Cold Fusion.
Having looked at the evidence for and against, more than 99% of the World's
scientists do not believe that Cold Fusion could give useful energy.
 
NOTES.
    i) This is a long review with probably well over a thousand pieces of
information so there must be some mistakes.  Will be pleased to receive
corrections.
   From experience expect there will be some propagandists who will use the
technique employed by a few unscrupulous lawyers, of taking one error and saying
that hence all must be false. Scientists on the other hand, try and take ALL
data and theories and try and make sense of them - and as Dick Feynman would
point out, it is sometimes necessary to make sense of all the available
information, to assume that some experiments are mistaken. However doubt if
a few errors will change the overall impression of the conference which was
of a winding down with fewer new results than in previous conferences,
an increase of propaganda and an increase of regional funding plus some
extraordinary results, some of which (fusion in ORDINARY water), contradicted
previous work, plus some cranks. Also some errors will not change the
impression that this was not organised to be a normal scientific conference
since no serious attempt was made to report the many experimental results
which have made the majority of scientists disbelieve in Cold Fusion.
    ii)    In a note it is not possible to report everything - please ask the
people named for further details.
   iii)  CURIOUS STORY. In an early partial version, a curious story was added
describing how a demonstration had been set up by Dr. Notoya of Hokkaido on
a table just outside the conference room. It was said to show two identical
open cells with ORDINARY water but one with K2CO3 and nickel cathode, and
this latter cell was much hotter to the touch than the calibration cell. This
was claimed to show Cold Fusion with ordinary water. However David Buehler,
a student of Steve Jones, noticed that the electrical leads were not identical,
the one to the control cell was much thinner so that its resistance was higher
and energy was dissipated in the thin wire and not in the control cell as
advertised. He checked by moving the clip.
     He and Steve were savagely attacked (as usual!), but Steve showed from his
log-book that the effect was serious and then later after further exchanges,
they repeated the experiment in BYU based on these numbers, and showed a
10 degree temperature difference.
    Dr. Notoya will be visiting the States and is going to repeat her
demonstration at MIT on 4 December and it is said by her propagandist that
it will work, later he said it might not. Have the impression that some will
try and concentrate on the size of the wires which are sure to be the same
this time. However this is a red herring. The real problems are two-fold;
a) one of the voltages is 1.48 Volts higher to compensate for electrochemical
effects - but Tom Droege has already found that this number of 1.48 V is not
safe and others have also shown this recently. So this value of 1.48 V has
to be established first
b) only do good calorimetry with closed cells and several constant temperature
baths surrounding the cell. (It has been said one needs to do a non-linear
regression analysis to obtain a result with such an open cell!)
 
OTHER NEWS
 
   A).The Wall Street Journal of 27 November reported that NTT is selling a kit
containing all instructions and equipment needed to replicate the Yamaguchi and
Nishioka experiment. The price is $565 000 and it is obtainable from Advanced
Film Technology INC which is 51% owned by NTT. Steve Jones says the W.St.J.
quotes the NTT President, Masashi Kojima, as saying that "the result will
likely be a Nobel prize for Mr. Yamaguchi" if another scientist replicates
Yamaguchi's experiment, and says that NTT might "become a power company based
on cold fusion", quoting the NTT President. Have just checked the NTT share
price at the time of this announcement - there was no billion-dollar jump
in the share price this time.
 
    B). Frank Close has been following up the way in which a first graph of
Fleischmann and Pons showing a peak at 2.5 MeV moved to 2.2 MeV. He notes that
this was after a talk by Martin at Harwell on March 28th, when he was told
that while the neutrons should emerge with an expected energy of 2.5 MeV,
they should be slowed down to thermal energies before being captured, and hence
the peak should be at the lower value of 2.2 MeV. Frank says that at 09.32 on
the 30th March a Fax was sent from the University of Utah Chemistry Department
making the change.
  The graph was also changed in that the bin size switched from 100 to 200 keV,
but the shape of the distribution of data points on the graph did not change.
Fleischmann has written that this was a change caused by going from a linear
to a quadratic interpolation - but this makes no mathematical sense.
    A further change was that the number of counts jumped by a factor of nine.
    It is hard to see how these three changes from one graph to the other,
could be covered by patent secrecy. No doubt the judge in the La Repubblica
trial would like to study the documents.
    In reply to a recent letter from Frank to Martin, a letter has been
received from Mr. Triggs, the laywer of Stan Pons. He says that pending patent
applications, all documents relating to work in Utah are prime source materials
and are confidential. He warns Frank about the documents he has and says that
there were thefts from his clients' laboratory. Now this is a serious criminal
matter and it would be interesting to see the reports of the University
authorities and Police on these thefts - these documents would presumably not be
covered by patent problems. It should be noted that Frank has no intention of
revealing any sources or information which are not already in the public record.
 
  C) The Fleischmann and Pons paper mentioned in section 3.6, firstly describes
new measurements they have performed using a high resolution, but low
sensitivity (efficiency) Germanium detector. One of the points they wish to
make is that this is better than a low resolution, high efficiency detector
as used by those who found nothing. However their new Ge detector efficiency is
only 2 E-5 which is not so different from their old BF3 detector (dosimeter)
which was 2.4 E-6 (this why their old counting rate was so low even though
they claimed 40 000 neutrons per second after correcting for efficiency).
The gamma ray spectra they present show a smooth background with some very sharp
resolved peaks and there is a large sharp peak near 2.2 MeV where one expects
a peak from capture of slow neutrons, the actual value being 2.224 MeV. It takes
a minute to realise (and one is not told till much later) that this splendid
peak is background from 214Bi at 2.204 MeV and the miserable little bump to
the right of it, is the peak at 2.224 MeV - the relative peak heights is
19 to 1.
     Now there are neutrons everywhere, from cosmic rays, from the plaster,
concrete etc. so there should be a peak at 2.224 MeV especially as the
experiment has not been done deep underground nor is there special shielding.
So the question is how was the normal background measured? There is no
description in the paper of the measurement of this unavoidable background -
so it is possible that this small peak is 100% background. However there are two
measurements reported AFTER the current was switched off and these are said to
extend to two diffusional lifetimes, so it is tempting to consider these as
background measurements - and since small peaks are seen at 2.224 MeV of about
the same height as the ones observed, one would normally conclude that this
shows that there are no extra neutrons coming from Cold Fusion in addition
to the unavoidable background. However such is not the conclusion of
Fleischmann and Pons who instead conclude that this is an interesting and
significant effect lasting up to 30 days after the current was switched off.
Why did they not calibrate BEFORE the experiment began?
     They claim a rate of 5 to 50 neutrons per second per Watt which they note
is less than their previous value of 4000 neutrons per second (the 1989 paper
says 40 000 neutrons per second). They do not see this as a discrepancy, but
claim this must be due to them under-estimating the sensitivity of the previous
instrumentation (ie by several orders of magnitude).
     They claim that previous works, Petrasso et al. and Salamon et al.
were insensitive because with their poorer resolution, they would not have been
able to see the 2.224 MeV peak because it would be buried in the 2.204 MeV which
would now be wide - and they present a graph to illustrate this. Now if the
efficiency of these two experiments was as poor (2 E-5) as that of Fleischmann
and Pons, this would be true. But it is not true, because their efficiency
was very much higher so that for the suggested neutron rate, their peak would
have been much bigger than the 214 Bi peak at 2.204 MeV and been clearly
visible. To give some numbers, if their efficiency was as low as 2% which is
1000 times more than F&P's, their peak would have been 1000 times bigger and
this would have been 50 times bigger than the 214 Bi peak at 2.204 MeV.
    The conclusion is that the paper, as presented, gives no compelling
evidence of any neutrons from the Cold Fusion cells.
    Overall the measurement of neutrons at fairly low counting rates is not
easy as many have learnt, and it is best left to experts.
 
           HAVE A NICE TOMORROW
                 (this delightful phrase was seen in a Takayama shop window).
 
                                       (c)   Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmorrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszXL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  Britz /  Silver, shmilver, power play.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silver, shmilver, power play.
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 15:24:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
(This is a bit dated now, I made a mistake before, which prevented this from
being sent; nevertheless I send it now).
 
Jed, I don't want to beat this half-dead horse but on the other hand I don't
want you to get away with another piece of obfuscation. I have wiped the file
so I can only point to Digest #599, 29-Nov, where you say
 
"Please note that Steve did not attempt to independently measure or prove
that silver is as resistant as nichrome, he took that as given".
 
There are any number of handbooks that tell us the resistivity of Ag, and it's
less than that of nichrome. Steve would never take Ag to be "as resistant as
nichrome", he knows his materials.
Jed, you betray your lack of physical science background here. The reason I
needed to look up the resistivity of Ag was in order to calculate the
thickness of that famous wire, given the length and resistance. In order to
calculate how much heat is dissipated by the part of the wire sticking up in
the air, Prof. Jones didn't need to know it; all he needed to know was the
voltage across it and the current flowing. The heat dissipated is independent
of the material. I.e. the relation    Power = current * voltage applies, no
matter whether you have Ag or carbon fibre or a dead fish.
 
Incidentally, there has, in recent postings, been some cavalier playing around
with thermodynamics; the Mills & Farrell experiment is said to require a
correction of about current * 1V, not *1.48 V. This is perhaps operationally
so, if not all the current is going into the electrolysis of water, but that
1.48 V figure is a fixed thermodynamic quantity which you can maybe put some
more decimals to, but it is well known. It may be that cnf is based on some
hitherto unknown process, but it won't make changes to well established
thermodynamics. It might be more correct here to say that the power swallowed
by the electrolysis of water in a M&F cell is equal to 0.7 * current * 1.48 V,
with 0.7 the fraction of current going into the electrolysis, i.e. we have a
70% current efficiency. The other 30% are apparently wasted as heat. I would
accept this for a mile-long super-fine Ni wire as cathode (lots of scope for
recombination within the electrolyte), but regard it as unlikely for the sort
of Ni cathode described by M&F. My guess is that current efficiency is indeed
close to 100%, and they are indeed getting the right amount of gases.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Don't rush out to buy the NTT CF kit just yet.
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Don't rush out to buy the NTT CF kit just yet.
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 17:46:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell was kind enough to send me a brief account of Yamaguchi's
experiments so I am better informed as to what is involved in his
measurements.  Basically it boils down to whether you believe his
interpretation of the RGA scans or not.  I haven't had enough time
to sort out what scans were made at what pressures, but the problem
as I see it lies in how the peak shapes for the various mass 4 ions
vary as a function of pressure.  At low pressures (10-7 Torr) D2 and
helium ions could clearly be resolved, although he shows no helium
peaks, just D2 peaks under those conditions.  Those aren't the experimental
conditions underwhich the crucial spectra are recorded, however.  Those
scans are recorded at pressures perhaps as high as 10^-4 Torr and therein
lies the rub.  The D2 peak smears badly to the low mas side where the
He peak is.  At some pressures in clearly forms a plateau that could
mimic a helium signal.  Some of the scans Yamaguchi sees as Helium
do show another relative max, but it ain't overwhelming evidence.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: History of science: disputed discoveries
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: History of science: disputed discoveries
Date: 8 Dec 92 10:22:29 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

In article <199212072037.AA27510@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, Henry Bauer
 <ames!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!BAUERH> writes:
> In new discoveries, the protagonists are almost always initially in a
> distinct minority.
> How long qualifies as "seemingly endless"? The point really is that evidence
> always seems conclusive to the protagonists--and to everyone BY HINDSIGHT--
> long before the whole scientific community accepts it.
> There are many relevant examples in Bernard Barber, "Resistance by scientists
> to scientific discovery", SCIENCE 134 (1961) 596-602
> A recent instance is Hannes Alfven's plasma cosmology: Stephen G. Brush, EOS
 71
>  #2 (1990) 19-33 and SCIENCE
>  246 (1989) 1124-29
 
You need to take into account the magnitude of the difference
between the new and the currently accepted theories, the quantity and
quality of supporting evidence, and many other such factors.  Obviously
the more extreme the new theory, the greater the resistance.  Similarlly
any new theory supported with extensive accurate evidence is much more
likely to be taken seriously then claims with little or no marginal
evidence.
 
If science didn't take this approach, then valuable research time (and
money) would be expended trying to prove every crack pot's half backed
imaginings.  Just think if everytime someone came up with a new theory
in sci.physics.newtheories, a researcher in a government lab would be
assigned to investigate it (in-depth)!
 
You must also consider the fact that as far as we know the scientific
community keeps updating and correcting its theories and assumptions
so sooner or later the correct explanation will be found.  I think that
the current method is probably appropriate except I don't think the
scientific community should discourage research by individuals, especially
when these researchers are doing it on their own time and money (go Tom!),
into unsubstantiated phenomenon and/or censor their papers based upon the
topic of research from refereed journals on these.  If the paper is in-
appropriate for a journal for other reasons (lack of content, results,
whatever) that is another story.
 
 
 
NOTE to Tom:
 
I'm very sorry for the tone of my last post to you.  I did not intend
for it to be gruff or accusing (I posted in the morning before my
first cup of coffee and before my brain switched on).
 
In fact, I actually did think that my post never made it (net news
manager frequently has posting problems).
 
If you don't remember what I am referring to, then never mind (:.  I'll
try to improve the tone of my posts.
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
   Ruler of   | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
  Gaultheria  | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjbatka cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  /  Of Course!
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Of Course!
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 21:02:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Roger Wolf wants me to say "but of course we have thought about that".  OK,
I say it.  I have posted many long discussions on the proper way to measure
power into the calorimeter, including the V*I problem.  We measure the
potential with leads making contact to the current leads in the gap between
the "inside" of the calorimeter and the "outside" of the calorimeter which
in our design are at the exact same temperature (fractional millidegree rms).
 
Others have not been so careful.  That is why I have put up all the posts on
this subject.  For the power computation, see the previous discussion on
bandwidth limitation which allows integral sum V*I to get the correct answer.
See also my discussion of this in my paper in ACCF1 ( the Utah Cold Fusion
Conference - 1990).
 
Don't worry, I am making the correct measurement.  But then I get a null
result.  Hmmmm!  But I think McKubre is also measuring thing right.  And he
does not get a null result.  Hmmmm! Again!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  Rothwell /  Notoya Demo & Lecture
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Notoya Demo & Lecture
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 21:02:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Greetings everyone. I am desperately busy and just have time for some quick
notes on Notoya.
 
The demo did not work properly, but I thought the lecture went very well.
 
First, the demo:
 
When she demonstrated in San Francisco on Tuesday, she got a steady 100%
excess (a Delta T of about 8 C). However, there was clearly something amiss,
because in Nagoya and at Hokkaido U., she saw a Delta T of 15 C.
 
When she demonstrated at MIT on Thursday and Friday, she got only about 20% to
30% excess, which kept fading in and out. The control cell went up 11 deg over
ambient, to 31 C. The CF cell went up 11 degrees at first, and then fluctuated
up and down, reaching a peak of about 16 degrees over ambient. The bubbles on
the cathode would turn small and 'milky' and the temperature would rise. Then
20 minutes later, the bubbles would become large, the effect would fade, and
the temperature would drop back to exactly the same level as the control,
because the power in the CF cell was slightly higher, to make up for energy
lost to electrolysis. The cathode appeared to be darkened by oxidation. The
electrochemists watching the experiment all agreed that something was
contaminating the cathode. She tried a spare cathode and got similar results.
 
With a smooth cathode, it is relatively easy to remove contamination with acid
or pure water. However, with a highly rough, porous cathode like Notoya's it
is nearly impossible. Once it is damaged, you usually have to throw it away.
We tried leaving it in a strong flow of H2 gas overnight, which cleaned it up
a little bit, but not enough to generate a sustained reaction.
 
Reviewing results, it became obvious that something was cumulatively degrading
performance; the cathodes were getting worse. This points to packaging
material as the culprit. Sure enough, when she returned to Hokkaido, she
analyzed the plastic packaging material and found a film of organic oil on it,
which was probably being soaked up by the cathode over time. So, she plans to
supply some new cathodes to the people at MIT, and possibly pay an informal
return visit in the near future.
 
Even though the demo did not work well, as Peter Hagelstein said, "we all
learned a great deal watching her." There was quite a crowd of electrochemists
and others crowded into the lab watching from time to time, and they told me
they learned a lot and enjoyed themselves. On Thursday, she was exhausted by
the effort, and so was I, since we spent a long day and worked far into the
night fighting the recalcitrant H2 valves, a leaking portable cylinder, the
wrong kind of water, etc., etc. On Thursday afternoon she spoke only briefly.
She was exhausted, and madder than a wet hen at those valves. I am sorry she
was unable to share more with the crowd, which was bigger than we expected. If
anyone came on Thursday who was unable to come on Friday, please be sure to
contact me for a full set of viewgraphs.
 
Notoya's English is not good, particularly when she is speaking
extemporaneously. She refuses to let me interpret for her (lots of people,
particularly scientists, do not like having an interpreter). I was afraid that
she would not be understood, so at my urgent suggestion, she typed out lecture
notes and read it. I have given talks in Japanese, and I recommend to every
reader: if it is not your native language, write it out!
 
The lecture began with a lengthy introduction by Louis Smullin. Then Peter
Hagelstein gave a 20 or 30 minute talk on the Nagoya Conference, from an
informal paper that he plans to circulate soon. I will ask him to upload it
here. He concluded by describing the Notoya device in some detail.
 
Next, Notoya came to the table next to the experiment (which was turned off),
and gave a splendid talk with a number of viewgraphs. I have her notes and
viewgraphs, and an audio recording, and Gene Mallove and I are typing up a
summary of all the main points, which should be complete today. I would upload
it here, but I am afraid it contains too many graphs, subscripts and greek
letters. I will try. Some parts of her talk were extremely technical, and I
did not grasp them, naturally, but I think I can reproduce them with complete
accuracy.
 
I believe someone else already described the lecture here. It included a
description of the experiment, and a quick look at the calorimeter. She
measures power in to the nearest 0.0001 watt, and temperature to the nearest
0.01 deg, in a calorimeter with a temperature stable to the nearest 0.1 deg C.
She measures gas evolution, and finds that it conforms to the expected rate to
within 3%. She measured a maximum Delta T for excess heat of 25 C (2500 times
her minimum threshold). She runs 3 cells at a time: two CF cells and a joule
heater control. Each CF cell is also equipped with a joule heater for on-the-
fly calibration.
 
The bulk of the lecture was an in-depth look at the nickel hydrides and
electrochemistry. The main viewgraph showed the distribution of electrostatic
potential, the Fermi level, Helmholtz plane, and intermediate surface
intermetalic compounds that appear during the three main processes of
electrolysis. She described intermediate phase changes that occur in
milliseconds. In her 1966 work, she demonstrated that these phases can lead to
concentrations of sodium or platinum atoms at levels 8 * 10 ^ 15 higher than
normal, and she showed how this ties in as a probable cause of a nuclear
reaction. She also discussed the metallurgy and flamephotospectra of calcium,
which she believes is the reaction product. I will have these, and other
details, available soon.
 
There were several people at the lecture who have done the experiment with
other types of nickel cathodes, and seen clear excesses, well above I*V.
Typically, they get 120% to 170% of I*V, for example, one person reported
inputting 110 watts electricity and measuring 140 watts of heat. He hopes to
publish in next few months.
 
One final note: Both the CF cell and the joule heater control cell rose only
11 degrees over ambient during the maximum power-in phase. This temperature
rise is about the same as we saw in the control cell at Nagoya. Beuler and
Jones have suggested that in Nagoya the control cell was losing heat into the
atmosphere, because they say that thin silver wire is nearly as resistant as
nichrome wire. If they were correct, then at MIT we should have seen both
cells settle at around 45 C. Let me spell out exactly why, in order to end
this particular controversy once and for all:
 
1.   Both cells had new lead wires.
 
2.   Both cells were at the same temperature, this time, in sharp contrast to
Nagoya.
 
3.   The question is: was the Nagoya temperature difference due to an energy
gain in the CF cell, or a loss in the control cell?
 
4.   If it had been due to a loss in the control cell, then when the wires
were replaced, we would have seen the temperature of the control rise up to
the level of the CF cell: 45 C. As it was, we saw the CF cell temperature fall
14 degrees instead, because of a dud cathode.
 
Let me add that if Beuler and Jones had been correct, and silver really was
almost as resistant as nichrome (taking into account the different thicknesses
of the wires), that would have been a Nobel class discovery, since it would be
a simple and obvious piece of data that has eluded the best scientists for a
century or more. It would be totally at odds with the scientific literature,
and with common experience with hairdriers. It would be rather like finding
out that ice is heavier than water. Obviously, however, it is incorrect.
Furthermore, I feel that the very suggestion is preposterous, and that it
should not have been made in a serious forum in the first place.
 
Let me go just one step further: I feel that all similar ad-hoc, absurd,
science-fiction attempts to explain away the cold fusion effect should be
withdrawn, and that the people who have been spending their time dreaming up
these improbable scenarios should instead spend some time and effort in the
lab actually replicating the experiment. If there *is* something wrong with
the work, Beuler and Jones will find the problem very quickly in the lab,
using a proper calorimeter. Let them replicate the heat, and then show exactly
why and how it is an artifact. Let us not have any more dreamed-up Alice and
Wonderland explanations. When confronted with the Notoya cell, Huizenga said
to me, "there could be a thousand explanations for that heat," but he refused
to list even one or two, so I think he is kidding himself. Beuler and Jones
listed a possible explanation, but it was utterly at odds with common sense,
and they could have disproved it in five minutes, by comparing silver to
nichrome wire in their labs. I ask the so-called "skeptics" to get serious,
replicate the experiment, and see if you can come up with a real, viable
explanation. If you cannot, then for goodness sake stop the nonsense, and
accept the obvious fact that this effect is real, and that it generates far
more heat than any possible chemical reaction.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  NE28@DKAUNI2.B /  Re: tokamak parameters
     
Originally-From: NE28@DKAUNI2.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tokamak parameters
Date: 8 Dec 1992 20:47:27 +0100
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany

Actually i do have a list of the tokamak parameters, but since
it differs slightly from yours i will give you my hole list.
 
           TFTR         JET          NET/ITER          PLT
 ======================================================================
 R(m)      2.6          3.0          6                 1.3
 a1(m)     1            1.25         2.0               0.45
 a2(m)     1            2.0          4.5               0.45
 Btor(T)   4.9-5.2      3.5          5-6               3.5
 I(MA)     2.5-3        5-7          25                0.6
 T(keV)    10-20        10-20        ???               5.0
 n tau     1.5*10**20   2*10**20     ???               1*10**18
 (s/m3)
 aux. pow.
 (MW)      25 nb        22 nb        50 nb             5 (??)
           7 icrh       22 icrh      -----             ????
 I also have parameters for Alcator-C at MIT,i guess this is equivalent
 with your ACL-C but these differ enourmously from yours, and aditional-
 ly the parameters of Asdex upgrade
 (a1 and a2 denote minor and major radius of an eliptically confined
 Plasma)
           Asdex-U          Alcator-C
=======================================================================
 R(m)      1.65             0.64
 a1(m)     1.0              0.17
 a2(m)     1.6              0.17
 Btor(T)   3.9              14
 I(MA)     2                0.8
 T(keV)    ????             2.0
 n tau     ????             8*10**19
 aux. pow. 9 nb             1.0 (???)
           6 icrh           ---------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenNE28 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: History of science: disputed discoveries
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: History of science: disputed discoveries
Date: 8 Dec 92 19:18:47 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Dec8.102229.6128@desire.wright.edu> jbatka@desire.wright.edu
 writes:
>
>You need to take into account the magnitude of the difference
>between the new and the currently accepted theories, the quantity and
>quality of supporting evidence, and many other such factors.  Obviously
>the more extreme the new theory, the greater the resistance.  Similarlly
>any new theory supported with extensive accurate evidence is much more
>likely to be taken seriously then claims with little or no marginal
>evidence.
 
Not always (on 1), and point 2 contradicts point 1.
 
There is inertia against change, and I think there is more inertia against
modest (but non-trivial) changes than radical changes driven by data.  In
the former it always seems easier to tune the model to deal with the conflict
between it and some other model.  There is a lot of psychology at work, and
data only plays a supportive role.  There are, for example, cases where the
*newer* model is favored as much because it is new (and offers more options
for writing papers) than because it is better.  We do get bored with the old
sometimes, just as we often stick with the comfortable and friendly.
 
My favorite example is the quark model (now elevated to theory status).  It
hung around for a decade coexisting with the parton model, pretty much
ignored except for the 8-fold-way organization.  Two months before the
discovery of charm, you would get pretty vague answers to the question
"are quarks the partons you describe".
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  Rothwell /  Silver the same everywhere in the world
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silver the same everywhere in the world
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 00:25:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
A very bizarre and inexplicable comment from Steven Jones calls for a
response:
 
"Since Prof. Notoya threw away the very thin wire entering her "control" cell,
according to a recent posting by Jed Rothwell, one cannot further check our
conclusions."
 
This is quite an incredible thing to say. Any silver wire, and any nichrome
heater will do; they work the same way, everywhere in the world. All you have
to do is to measure the resistance at 2 watts input, and determine how thin
the silver wire would have to be in order for it to lose as much heat in 6 cm
as the 4 cm nichrome. I believe I posted this fact before, but to repeat, the
heater is: Ni-Cr two-ply wire (0.1 mm diameter, 40 mm length). Just find out
whether it is possible for any silver wire to generate as much heat as it
does. The silver wire has to fill two requirements:
 
1. It has to be at least thick enough to be visible to the naked eye.
 
2. It has to carry the 2 watts without melting.
 
The essence of science is replicablity in different laboratories. Notoya does
not have to perform every single experiment that other people dream up in
order to defend her work. If *you* think that silver and nichrome are the
same, or if Morrison believes that palladium and nickel are the same, it is up
to you to prove these hypothesis, and report back to us. As far as the seat of
the pants alligator clip measuring method goes -- I watched people struggle
with alligator clips at MIT, and I do not recommend them. The ones in Nagoya
were particularly bad: they were rusted. They make a very poor, unreliable
contact, and it is no surprise to me that the numbers on the power supplies
change in a radical and meaningless fashion. This is not a good way to measure
anything; use an ohmmeter next time. Also, I recommend those spring loaded
round copper connectors that retract into plastic sleeves rather than
alligator clips. They make a much more reliable connection.
 
Another obvious, simple and direct way to prove or disprove your theory, would
be set up a nickel light water cell with thick silver wires and see whether
you get any excess heat. That strikes me as the most sensible and direct
method imaginable, and the most pertinent.
 
Steve goes on to say:
 
"It does seem to be less than standard scientific practice to throw away this
wire, which has been the subject of considerable debate (on this net)."
 
Since the demo was not the experiment, and since Notoya has not and will not
publish anything about it, or lecture about it, I would say it does not count.
In any case, she was is completely unaware of the existence of this network,
and she has no idea there is any controversy here. She is aware of Jones'
comments only because I faxed them to her. She wrote only one response, in
English: "the discussion about wires is nonsense."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  /  The Bag
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Bag
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 00:26:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, I give up.  I have to do it right so I have ordered a cylender of Argon.
I finally read the label on the lithium and it says stored in mineral oil.  Do
not use Nitrogen gas.  I still need to figure out a cleaning proceedure.  Bruce
Dunn recommends hexane as a cleaning agent.  But can't I get butane by breaking
open some cigarette lighters?  I would rather something that I can buy in the
hardware store.  Lots of alcohol, xylene, paint thinner, acetone, and a lot
of other dangerous stuff that we cannot have at Fermilab is readily available
at Ace Hardware.  Any practical suggestions?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  /  Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Measurement
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 00:26:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The discussion about power measurement reminds me of a problem posed by my
mentor, Jack Riedel (RIP) one day at lunch at the PPA.
 
You are placed in a room with a compass and a voltmeter.  Through the room
pass two superconducting wires.  After you are locked in the room, a battery
is placed across one end of the pair, and a load resistance across the other.
Your problem, to save your life or win the fair maiden etc., is to tell which
side has the battery and which side has the load.  Theorists only get one
try at this problem, while experimentalists get an initial try to calibrate
their apparatus. (to get the sign right).
 
Understanding this problem explains where energy travels.  Will publically
acknowledge the first one to post the answer.  I think Dick Blue does not
qualify as he knew Jack Riedel.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  /  1.48*I
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1.48*I
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 00:26:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz points out some of the problems in running a Mills type cell.
And nicely points out one possible problem - the resistance of the cathode.
With the very long fine Ni wire, the drop down the wire is significant, that
is why we brought out taps along the wire.  We wanted to make sure that the
resistance was low, even though we "honey comb" wound the coil, and it
crossed itself many places.
 
I hold out the faint possibility (knowing nothing I can speculate) that the
Mills cell outputs a mixture of gasses, not just H2 and O2.  How about H2,
O2, and CO2?  Is this possible.  At least one experiment seemed to produce
the right amount of gass, but the wrong heating value???
 
But note that the cathode resistance does not explain differences in heating
value from 1.48*I.  It takes recombination or a resistive path between andode
and cathode to do this.
 
So Dieter, I don't think the Mills cell is 100% efficient.  I don't think
they are getting the right amount of gasses.  Something funny is going on.
But I am not equipped to find it.  Sounds like a good senior project to me for
someone who is at a University full of students needing exciting projects!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Rehash of Jones' Results
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rehash of Jones' Results
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 02:38:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites in defending the Jones results in discussion D. Morrison
makes a few statements that I would like to comment on.  If you refer
to the paper describing the detector used in the original BYU experiment,
take from that paper the stated gamma-ray rejection ratio, and incorporate
information as to the nature of the radiation background such detectors
would respond to in a normal laboratory environment, you will be led to
the conclusion that the pulse height spectra recorded by Jones was
dominated by gamma rays, NOT NEUTRONS.  Second point is that there were
some few net counts left after subtaction of a background only because
of a renormalization of the background.  And thirdly, while the detector
had some capability for determination of neutron energy if the signals
had been employed in one possible mode of operation, the mode used in
the Jones experiment was such that energy information would be washed out
due to the adding of a signal (with a finite noise width) that was not
dependent on neutron energy.  In short the results of that experiment
should be ignored.  They have no bearing on cold fusion.
 
At issue then as far as these very low level neutron detection experiments
are the Menlove-Jones colaboration and the Kamiokande experiments.
Both of these experiments involve the detection of events with neutron
multiplicities greater than 1.  This has the effect of greatly reducing
detector sensitivity to much of the background, but may in fact make
the experiment more sensitive to background events that have a higher
inherent higher multiplicity.  Cosmic-ray-induced nuclear spallation
and fission suggest themselves.  Chuck asserts that multiple neutron
emission may be a better signature for cold fusion than the singles
rate, but I disagree.  Until you have a specific model for the CF process
there is no reason to assume that there is any particular correlation
between events.
 
Steve Jones has indicated that fissionable impurities have been eliminated
as a possible explanation for the Kamiokande data by a Monte Carlo
simulation.  That assumes that the correct information was input into the
calculation and that the possible effects of both the fission neutrons and
the gamma rays from fission fragments were included.  In any case making
the Kamiokande results and the Menlove-Jones data "agree" takes some
doing.  Again until you have some model in mind it is not clear how
high multiplicity event rates should be scaled with respect to the
various experimental parameters.  Until someone makes a proposal as
to what mechanism could be producing "neutron bursts" I think the
fact that the effect is seen only as multiple neutron events is an
indication that it is a background of the type we have suggested.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 /  hdgarner@acs.h /  Re: Fusion & Gravity
     
Originally-From: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion & Gravity
Date: 8 Dec 92 20:28:27 -0500
Organization: Harding University

In article <1992Dec8.024506.14647@news.media.mit.edu>, pierre@media.mit.edu
 (Pierre St. Hilaire) writes:
>
>>Does gravity affect fusion reactions? If so, in what way.
>
>       No, it doesn't. Gravitational interactions are completely
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>negligible when compared to the strong interaction (responsible for
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the fusion reaction itself) or the electromagnetic interaction
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(responsible for the attraction/repulsion between charged particles).
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Gravitational interactions become commensurate with the other
>interactions only at extremely high energies, or equivalently at at a
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>very small scale (called the Planck scale). Such conditions are likely
>to have occurred only within the first microsecond after the big
>bang.
>
>                                               Pierre St Hilaire
>                                               MIT Media Lab
>
>
>
I am sure that you know much more about this than I, but the first statement
and then the statement about only at extremely high energies are somewhat
puzzeling. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't fusion occurr at extremely
high energies. Maybe you are referring to energy states or something. If you
could please clarify this for me I would appreciate it.
hdgarner@harding.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhdgarner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.08 / Perry Phillips /  Re: tokamak parameters
     
Originally-From: Phillips@peaches.ph.utexas.edu (Perry Phillips)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tokamak parameters
Date: 8 Dec 92 20:20:35 GMT
Organization: FRC

tokamak parameters
 
Here is some of the info you requested for TEXT.
 
==============================================
n, T, tau....... 6x10^13/cm^3, 0.9 keV, .02sec
R............... 1.0m
a............... 0.26m
B............... 3T
Plasma current.. 0.4MA
auxiliary power. 0.4MW
                 ECH (60gHz)
Physics start... 1981
Physics end..... ----
Upgrade......... 1992
                (add divertor)
==================================================
If you need anything else please ask.
 
Dr. Perry Phillips                phillips@peaches.ph.utexas.edu
 _
Fusion Research Center                                             \|/
 / |
University of Texas at Austin           ph. (512) 471-4393         O
---|  |
Austin, TX 78712                                fax (512) 471-6715
/|\     \_|
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPhillips cudfnPerry cudlnPhillips cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 / Sandra Chang /  email addresses
     
Originally-From: retentiv@athena.mit.edu (Sandra Chang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: email addresses
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 13:37:33 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Both for my files, and b/c I would to contact them, I need
either phone numbers or , perhaps best, email addresses for
douglas morrison
frank close (silly?, but where is he based?--Los Alamos?)
P&F
 
Can someone send them to me, or maybe they can contact me themselves.
 
John Travis
jstravis@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenretentiv cudfnSandra cudlnChang cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  Rothwell /  Not Notoya claim, MY claim
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not Notoya claim, MY claim
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 16:15:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
     One of the electrochemists who observed Notoya's experiment wrote me a
slightly huffy note saying that he did NOT observe a 20% to 30% excess that
faded in and out, and Notoya should not claim that happened.
 
     Let me clarify: those were my own informal observations. I was there
observing and kibitzing. Notoya and Smullin kept a notebook which I expect
they will 'publish' by and by. Notoya did not say a word about the demo in
public. All she has ever talked about, and all she has ever published, relates
to her full scale laboratory experiment at Hokkaido University. Again, this is
my informal judgement, but based upon my meager ability to understand her
private comments in English, Japanese and Russian, she was ready to heave the
whole thing out the fifth floor window by 9:00 p.m. Thursday. I have felt that
way many times during equipment installation and cut-over extravaganzas.
 
     I saw the temperature bob up and down on Thursday night. I was only there
for a half-an-hour on Friday, and I did not see it after she changed out the
cathode. I asked her and Louis "what happened?" and they said, "same old
thing." 20% or 30% is a seat of the pants estimate from me, based on the 2 to
5 deg C temperature rise that I observed. The temperatures did not stay high
for long. Notoya pointed out to me the differences in the bubbles. She and
some others said that small, milky bubbles are a healthy sign in an
electrochemical cell, since they indicate that the electric field is even, and
that all parts of the cathode are "turned on" and working. A contaminated
cathode develops dead spots and large bubbles, they say.
 
     If anyone else who was there observed something different, I encourage
you to post a message! By all means -- you are probably better at this than
me.
 
     There has been an interesting discussion here about conservatism versus
acceptance of new ideas in science. It may astound my faithful readers, but I
am generally conservative and extremely skeptical. I would not approve of a
lemming-like massive rush to study cold fusion, or any other new area of
science. I think that it would be best for a thousand or so well-funded
scientists to work on CF in a low key, world-wide effort in Universities and
National Laboratories like NIFS and Los Alamos. I think that $100 or $200
million per year should be spent on CF for a couple of years (about $100,000
per worker, to cover salary, overhead, and equipment.) A low key, long term
effort is needed. What we have now is the worst possible form or research: a
secret, corporate sponsored madcap rush in Japan on one hand, and absolutely
zero funding in the U.S. Zero! We need $10 million, or maybe $50 million, per
year. We need safe laboratories. We sure do not need a Manhattan Project -- it
would be counterproductive.
 
     Fleischmann is also conservative and skeptical. He wrote to me:
 
     "The situation with regard to new phenomena cannot be expected to change:
     inherent conservatism is very important, otherwise our society would
     become completely unstable." (Private letter 11/26/91)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  Close /   thermodynamics
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  thermodynamics
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 16:17:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD610 Dieter Britz writes "it wont make changes to well established
thermodynamics".
 
CN-F has brought us photos of mini black holes, gravitational collapse,
and proof of the non-conservation of energy. What odds on thermodynamics
Dieter? :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenUK cudfn cudlnClose cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 / MIKE JAMISON /  Computer performance benchmarks
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Computer performance benchmarks
Date:  9 Dec 1992 12:49 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Although not directly related to this group, many of you may find the
performance comparisons in "Performance of Various Computers Using Standard
Linear Equations Software" (by Jack J. Dongarra) quite interesting.
 
This paper includes three tables, measuring the performance of everything
from a Cray Y-MP C90 (16 processor, 4.2 ns cycle time) to an Atari ST and
the Apple Macintosh, using standard Linpack algorithms.
 
A postscript file of the paper can (supposedly) be obtained by sending e-
mail to:
 
netlib@ornl.gov
In the message type: send performance from benchmark.
 
Warning!  The file is about 420 kBytes long!
 
(The Cray came in at 479 MFLOPS, the Mac at 0.0038 MFLOPS, the Atari ST at
0.0051 MFLOPS.  A 33 MHz 486 and an Apple Quadra 700 both ranked at 1.4
MFLOPS, all on a test that does not allow big benefits from parallel
processing.  Theoretical max for the Cray is 15.24 GFLOPS).
 
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 / Pierre Hilaire /  Re: Fusion & Gravity
     
Originally-From: pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion & Gravity
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 17:45:55 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

 
>I am sure that you know much more about this than I, but the first statement
>and then the statement about only at extremely high energies are somewhat
>puzzeling. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't fusion occurr at extremely
>high energies. Maybe you are referring to energy states or something. If you
>could please clarify this for me I would appreciate it.
>hdgarner@harding.edu
>
 
        For a high energy physicist the energies involved in nuclear
events (in the MeV range) are lukewarm at best and do not qualify as
"high energies". Here is a small table to put things in perspective:
 
 
Visible light                                   10^0 eV
Typical nuclear reactions                       10^6 eV
Proton mass                                     10^9 eV
Electroweak unification -W and Z particles mass 10^11 eV
Highest collider beam energies (LEP,Tevatron)   10^12 eV
SSC (if it ever gets built)                     10^13 eV
strong interaction and electroweak interaction
become commensurate ("Grand Unification")       10^24 eV
Gravitational and other interactions become
commensurate ("Planck energy")                  10^28 eV
 
So there are 22 orders of magnitude difference between the Planck
energy and typical nuclear reaction energies. That is why we can
safely assume that gravitation plays no significant part in nuclear
reactions.
 
                                        Pierre St Hilaire
                                        MIT Media Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpierre cudfnPierre cudlnHilaire cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  /  The Room Problem
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Room Problem
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 22:56:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, two fair answers so far.  Franklin Antonio and Albert Boulanger.  But not
the sophisticated answer I was looking for.
 
Again the reason for putting up this problem here is to broaden the
understanding of the group about powere measurement, which seems to be
important for the ideas discussed.
 
Will put up the sophisticated answer in a few days.  Or at least it is Jack
Riedel's answer.  To me he had the best physical understanding of E&M of
anyone I have ever known.  Further he could use it to design very high power
stuff so that it did not arc and spark!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  Rothwell /  Experience counts
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experience counts
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 22:58:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege comments:
 
"Don't worry, I am making the correct [power] measurement. But then I get a
null result. Hmmmm!  But I think McKubre is also measuring thing right. And he
does not get a null result. Hmmmm! Again!"
 
Hmmm, indeed. This is the whole crux of the matter: why is it that some people
get the effect, and others do not? McKubre measures it with a confidence level
of sigma 90, and many other workers like P&F, Kunimatsu, Ikegami, and Mizuno
see the effect clearly, at extremely high sigma levels. Hundreds of people
have replicated the CF effect, yet hundreds of other skilled workers, like Tom
Droege, cannot seem to do it. Why? For that matter, looking at the two dozen
or so people I know who have performed the light water experiment, why do
their input:output ratio varies all over the lot, from 1:1.2 to 1:10? Why
can't they all get 1:10?
 
Here is my answer:
 
I have spent a lot of time, during the past year, visiting and talking to
electrochemists, like Tom's brother Lee John, and others who been in the field
for decades, like Bockris, Notoya, Enyo, and so on. I have also talked to many
working electrochemists at major corporations, like Rockwell and IBM. There
are, of course, many kinds of electrochemical devices ranging from crude,
massive industrial electroplating machines, to devices that deposit thin film
metals on computer chips. It is broad field. However, one thing stands out
clearly in my mind:
 
     Electrochemists, electrical engineers, and physicists play by different
     rules.
 
An electrochemist said to me, "a physicist trying to do a Pons Fleischmann
experiment is likely to use a Mason Jar, and wipe the electrode on the seat of
his pants. These people have no idea how to handle the materials." Another
commented that his standard operating procedure is to wash glassware 20 times
in hot water and 10 times in ultra-pure cold water before beginning an
experiment. One told me that with his thin film deposition electrochemistry,
if you touch the electrolyte with a yellow rubber glove for even a second or
two, just with the tip of one finger, you kill the reaction instantly and
destroy a vat full of electrolyte. I watched Notoya spend all morning washing
dishes with acid and ultra-pure water. She remarked that she was not satisfied
with the level of cleanliness.
 
With the light water CF experiment, you can get reasonable results without a
lot of cleanliness, but for ultimate good results, and a reaction that
increases in proportion to the electricity (instead of petering out at
high current density), you need a very rough, porous cathode. A rough cathode
is difficult to keep clean, and impossible to clean up once you mess it up.
So, a really good experiment requires a *really* clean setup.
 
In short, electrochemistry can be a very finicky business. Not every kind of
electrochemistry, not industrial electroplating, but evidently, CF is one kind
that requires the kind of care and precision the we routinely apply in the
computer industry, when we assemble and test hard disks. I know some
physicists who have worked in a sloppy and cavalier manner, even touching the
surface of the cathode with bare hands. During his lecture at Nagoya,
Srinivasan said that one of his light water experiments failed, and he found
fingerprints on the surface of the cathode. In his slide the fingerprints
showed up clearly after several days of running. He joked, "if we blow this
photo up, we will find out exactly who touched it!" Before Notoya's lecture, I
asked a group of electrochemists, "what would you do if you accidentally
touched a cathode?" There was chorus of laughter, and some jokes about
"washing it with Palmolive." [By the way, DON'T EVER DO THAT! IT IS A JOKE!].
Getting serious, they said they would throw it away. They would not bother
trying to clean it. They wear surgical gloves and masks around cathodes, or
use glove boxes.
 
Furthermore, with the Pd experiment, extremely talented, skillful, and
experienced people like Mizuno worked for months before getting results.
McKubre, who is a superb experimentalist, worked for *years* with a top-notch
staff, day and night, before he finally got results. Pd experiments can be a
nightmare, even for professionals. On the other hand, I know four rank
amateurs who got clear, positive results well above I*V the first time they
did a light water experiment. Each of them is far ahead of McKubre in
producing stable excess heat, at much higher input to output ratios than he
can achieve.
 
Performing any kind of CF experiment is as difficult for us as making an
incandescent light bulb was before Edison turned the process into a science.
The best scientists in the world said that light bulbs were finicky,
difficult, and dangerous, and would never be widely produced or used. The
experts were right, in a sense: if Edison and some other world-class geniuses
had not banged their heads against the problem for years, we would not be able
to produce a million light bulbs a day, and the bulbs would not work
flawlessly for thousands of hours. Not one person reading this forum knows
more about physics and chemistry than Edison and his people did (although some
of you know different, more up-to-date facts). No living person has more
hands-on laboratory experience than Edison. In fact, if I was to put you in a
fully equipped laboratory, circa 1890, you could not make a practical light
bulb in less than two months, even though you know exactly how the problem was
finally solved. So, do not expect to master a difficult new art overnight,
even though in the future, it will become a science, and a part of common
knowledge.
 
I don't know about Tom's case. I have never been to his house, but judging
from the photograph, and from the massive amount of cat hair in my house from
one old, thin cat, my guess is that his cells are contaminated. I don't know!
Who knows? Many people with clean labs, who work carefully, also fail to get
the effect with Pd:D systems, and some who are rather cavalier with Ni seem to
get it anyway, at low levels. Cleanliness is not sufficient, but it is
necessary.
 
The bottom line is: there is such a thing as being "skilled in the art." Any
art! Before you do a CF experiment, you would be well advised to spend two
weeks in the lab with someone like Notoya, who has been doing this sort of
thing for 30 years, and knows a million tricks you never imagined exist. I do
not care whether you have been a working physicist for 20 years, and you know
every trick in the book about finding Quarks; that is irrelevant. Unless you
have spent some hands-on time in a lab, you do not know beans about
electrochemistry. It is true of any job, in any industry. You cannot learn it
from a book, or a lecture, or by reading these E-Mail messages.
 
Let me draw an analogy from two other fields, with which I am closely
familiar. In 1989, Fleischmann said, "this experiment is relatively simple to
do." He meant it was relatively simple for him, or for someone else with 30 or
40 years experience. It was simpler than many other experiments that he had
performed during his career. He did *NOT* mean simple for just anybody, he
meant "relatively;" he was comparing it to other experiments he had performed
during a long career. It is exactly the same as if I was to declare, "a
program to parse Japanese parts of speech is relatively simple to write." It
is! I could probably do one in a year. However, you, my dear readers, would
take 10 years, unless you happen to have extensive experience programming and
you know Japanese grammar like the back of your hand.
 
In my case, when I say the program would be "relatively simple," I mean it
would be 10,000 lines long, and it would take six months to one man year (for
me). That is a heck of a lot simpler and easier than the programs I am used to
creating, which go for 100,000 lines and take 6 man years. Also, Japanese
parts of speech are far more regular and more recognizable than English,
German or Russian, so the problem is a lot simpler than it would be in these
other languages.
 
I have spent time hanging around with people from different walks of life. I
have noted that every trade and job on earth is hard, and every job requires
hands-on experience, training, and intuitive understanding of the tools. You
cannot cook a souffle, or change a diaper, sail a ship, pick up garbage cans
for 8 hours, or grow oranges properly if you are not experienced. You cannot
fleece a sheep, or fleece a customer at a used car lot, unless you have
learned how to do the job. No textbook on earth can teach you. You cannot do
an electrochemical experiment right the first time without coaching and help.
I don't care how much of a genius you are, you will probably not be able to do
a P&F Pd experiment at all, and you will not get 400% from a Ni experiment,
unless you are fantastically lucky. On the other hand, most people can pull
off a crude, low level Ni experiment and see 30% excess heat, so why not cut
your teeth on that one? Try the easy and predictable experiment first.
 
One last tip: follow directions exactly. TO THE LETTER! Don't question why.
Don't make up new variations and routines, don't substitute materials, just do
exactly, precisely, what they tell you to do, to the very best of your
ability, in every tiny detail. If the instructions say, "don't use a
recombiner" then don't ask questions why, just don't use one. Also, never --
in 1,000 years -- assume you know better than some fellow who has succeeded.
You know NOTHING if you have not succeeded in getting the effect yet. Just do
it his way. You can always go back and do it your own way later on. When you
start getting 3*I*V, then you can fool around with the kind of recombiner Bush
uses, but not before you have six months experience under your belt, and you
have made a dozen successful devices. Start humble: follow instructions, and
ask for help if you fail.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  /  Apology to Theorists
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apology to Theorists
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 03:03:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I was unfair to the theorists in my little problem.  If I give the
experimentalists a second try to get the sign right, I should give the
theorists an assistant to get the measurement right.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  /  Contamination
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Contamination
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 03:03:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Help, help.  Please all you electrochemists out there, what is hydrocarbon
contamination and why do you care?  Now that Natoya's MIT problems have
been described, she was very worried about something.  I rememember some
vague hints by P&F which implied that their fellow electrochemists would
know what to do, but that physicists might make terrible mistakes.
 
So I want to know how you electrochemists would prepare a clean cell.  I also
want to know how you would clean up the Lithium in preparation for making
LiOD.
 
Does anyone know of a cell that was cleaned with alcohol or acetone that
was supposed to have shown excess heat?  Have any cells made out of anything
but glass shown excess heat?  (I think the Takahashi cell was made from some
obscure plastic - Rothwell I think sent to Japan for it).
 
In short I am beginning to think that success depends on some contaminate being
missing.  McKubre says the final cathode cleaning was with aqua regia.  I
thought at the time that this was a cathode surface preparation, but perhaps
he wants to remove something else!
 
I am close to starting a new run and I want the best shot at it!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 22:47:07 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

First, I wanted to thank Drs Jones and Morrison for the honorary degree.
That is kind, but Dr. Sites its still a few years off for me.
 
Now getting to Dick's comments, the K4 & B5 could arguably be caused
by contamination, and K4 is calculated to be 4.5+-2.3 ppm of U. It was
found to be 0.14 ppm in the Ti.  This makes the burst events even more
significant.  And the fact that all of the metal cells that showed
any activity (2/20 Ti/Gas, 5/10 Apr, 1/6 Jul) had counts in multiplicity
2 3 and 4, to me is more of an indicator of the mechanism than anything.
The flux is important but it's taken from the whole of experiments and
what is dude/hit ratios it could happen.  These two points taken
together make me think mechanism is based in the lattic like the
fracture models.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 / Paul Houle /  Re: Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power Measurement
Date: 9 Dec 92 04:23:37 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <921208171137.25c016d7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
 
>
>You are placed in a room with a compass and a voltmeter.  Through the room
>pass two superconducting wires.  After you are locked in the room, a battery
>is placed across one end of the pair, and a load resistance across the other.
>Your problem, to save your life or win the fair maiden etc., is to tell which
>side has the battery and which side has the load.  Theorists only get one
>try at this problem, while experimentalists get an initial try to calibrate
>their apparatus. (to get the sign right).
>
>Understanding this problem explains where energy travels.  Will publically
>acknowledge the first one to post the answer.  I think Dick Blue does not
>qualify as he knew Jack Riedel.
 
        Ok,  we attach the voltmeter in between the wires so that we can
get the direction of the electric field between them,  and then we put
the compass between the wires to get the direction of the magnetic field
so that we can then take the cross product and get the Poynting vector.  Since
E=0 inside a superconductor,  the Poynting vector should be zero inside
and all of the energy flows (at least according to Maxwell's equations,
which are known for producing strange and wonderful answers for energy
flux) happen outside the conductors.
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /   /  cleaning lithium of oil
     
Originally-From: "Jim Ott" <p00216@psilink.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cleaning lithium of oil
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 17:28:07 GMT
Organization: Ind. Research ,Akron,OH

  I have been using the following procedeure for nerely three years
to clean oil immersed lithium with very good results.  I dip the
lithium chunck in mineral spirits for weighing.  I then dip again in
another clean dish of mineral spirts.  Then I very quickly grab the
chunks with clean tweezers and place them in a ready-to-go vacuum
evaporator which I take down to 10^-5 torr for about one hour at room
temperature.  The relatively high vacuum dries any remaining mineral
oil or mineral spirits completely while protecting the lithium untill
I'm ready to add it to the D2O.  The vacuum system uses a silicon oil
diffusion pump and I fill the vapor trap with LN2 to get the vacuum
relatively clean.  I've used this procedure many dozens of times.  It
works much better than cleaning with more volitile hydrocarbons without
the vacuun cleaning
            -Jim
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenp00216 cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 07:05:44 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I note that since press conferences on transition metal hydride anomolies
are no longer causing massive swings in NTT stock, I will swallow very hard
and go ahead with a couple of Twist issues I had once meant to post.
 
Also, I've not only been matched but overtaken in general bizarreness by
the photographing of Tiny Black Holes causing Cold Something.  If these
conferences keep this up, Twist will begin to look like raging conservatism
by sometime early next year....  :)
 
Anyone reading the stuff below should please keep in mind that in terms of
personal priorities, writing up such speculations ranks waaaay after helping
my first-grader with his reading assignments.  Also, I own zero metal stocks
of any kind, zero NTT, zero anything whatsoever that is connected with "cnf,"
and I very firmly plan to keep it that way.  I remain absolutely appalled at
the overall handling of the recent "cnf" conference, and would suggest that
the scientific organizations who nominally sponsored it should be flatly
ashamed of their own negligence in not monitoring more closely how the
conference was being set up and run.
 
I also await in total boredom for confirmations of the reality of transition
metal hydride anomolies (heat and/or very-low-level-radiation) that can be
reproduced at will anywhere.  Preferably for less than 1/2 million smackeroos
a whack.
 
Anywho, on to a couple of questions/answers:
 
 
 Q:  Can Twist accommodate light hydrogen?
 
 A:  Yes and no.
 
     NO if heavy-particle band solitons are assumed to be required.  Light
     neutral hydrogen (H) is a composite boson.  With H you cannot form the
     prerequisite heavy-particle band structure.
 
     YES if you accept the TOTALLY assinine idea (mine, BTW) that the whole
     issue of transition metal hydride heat anomolies boils down to nothing
     more complex than the formation of discontinuous bound wavefunctions
     for whole atoms -- that is, the Born Violation idea I brought up a few
     weeks ago.
 
     Actually, neutral hydrogen enjoys some distinct advantages over D if
     discontinuities in bound wavefunctions are the ONLY issue at hand.
     Neutral ligh hydrogen is a lot easier to delocalize (check out the
     relative tunneling probabilities in Pd and such) than D, and it has
     no troublesome leftover 1/2 spin.  Presumably these kinds of issues
     would translate into easier experiments on such wavefunctions.
 
     I might note that in any case issue of relative difficulties of the
     various types of hydrogen fusion would simply be irrelevant to any
     Twist scenarios.  A Born violation that led to the "evaporation" of
     a particle would ultimately require resolution at a very fundamental
     level of QM and field theory, and such a resolution would have no
     correlation to how "easy" or "hard" multi-particle interactions
     (nuclear) reactions might be.
 
 
 Q:  Assuming that transition metal (ligh) hydride heat anomolies are both
     real and a consequence of the formation of discontinuou bound wave-
     functions of H atoms in a transition metal lattice, what are the
     experimental implications?
 
 A:  The simplest possible assumption is that the ONLY prerequisite for
     H "evaporation" is the formation of a macroscopically delocalized
     bound state.  This would imply that once an atom had formed a
     sufficiently pure bound momentum state (delocalized) within a metal
     lattice, it would simply go "poof!" into pure heat.  I might note
     that I personally find it very difficult to believe that this sort
     of thing would not happen in enough circumstances to make it pretty
     obvious.  Thus is seems to me a weak (readily disproved) hypothesis.
 
     The second simplest assumption is that the macroscopically delocalized
     state must be encounter at least one atomic-scale discontinuity that
     causes a phase shift between two regions.  Such a shift might be
     provided either by a sheet crystal dislocation, or possibly by a very
     clean boundary between two separate crystals.  The shift would have
     to be extremely short, no more than about one crystal lattice unit.
     This would drastically cut the likelihood of such arrangements coming
     about naturally, although it would still be far more likely than the
     soliton dependency scenario.
 
     For both of the above, the formation of very pure, very regular metal
     HYDRIDE crystals would seem a very reasonable place to begin.  I need
     emphasize "hydride" because starting with an equivalently very regular
     metal-only crystal does *not* guarantee that that same regular crystal
     lattice structure will continue to exist after hydration.
 
     Alas, hydration is generally devastating to the long-range lattice
     structure of transition metals.  Palladium crystals are pratically
     destroyed by the process;  they swell, twist, and literally turn
     as they are heavily hydrated.  This is just about the worst possible
     thing you could have if your goal is highly delocalized hydrogen,
     because delocalization requires "separating out" a reasonably pure
     momentum state (really just a sinusoidal function of x,y,z multiplied
     by a very broad Gaussian function).  Long-term regularity in the
     crystal lattice can behave like a diffraction grating to produce such
     pure states, but only if it is genuninely periodic and regular.
 
     Prediction?  Well, it might turn out that the best way to "treat" a
     metal crystal to encourage delocalization would be some kind of high
     or low temperature annealing of the *hydrated* form of the metal.
 
     The goal would be to get a set of really nice, highly regular hydride
     crystals in your medium.  Different metals respond differently, also.
     Palladium is one of the worst in terms of crystal structure retention;
     nickel (as best I can recall) does substantially better, but of course
     does not match palladium for the total hydrogen volume absorbed.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 07:12:24 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

ERRATA:  Yes, I meant to say "hydrogenated," not "hydrated."  Sorry 'bout that.
 
-- Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  Rothwell /  Yes, but why do it the hard way?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yes, but why do it the hard way?
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 17:16:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege comments:
 
"I think the Takahashi cell was made from some obscure plastic - Rothwell I
think sent to Japan for it."
 
It was just the opposite! Takahashi got U.S. made material from his local
supplier. It is called "Acrylite," which is a trade name for an widely used
type of plexiglass. It is manufactured by Cyro Industries, CT. We got ours
from a plastics supplier in Boston, MA: J. Freeman Co.
 
We assembled the box with a dissolvant glue. We had the chemicals mixed in a
good clean lab, and we took elaborate precautions to keep the Pd clean while
assembling the cell: we did not expose it to the air for long, we wore
surgical gloves, and so on.
 
However, this is not terribly useful information, because our cell did not
work worth beans. The only thing we proved was that Takahashi's calorimetry
worked just find, and you can easily measure 30 watts with one thermocouple in
one plastic box. Things like mixing and lack of insulation are not a problem.
Of course, Takahashi now has 4 thermocouples, which is better. One of these
days, the folks at MIT may fire it up our box again, with the best, newest
piece of palladium, from a set that has worked well in several other labs. I
suggest people who want to do Pd experiments should talk directly with
researchers like Storms and Oriani who have succeeded.
 
Quite frankly though, I cannot -- for the life of me -- imagine why anyone
would want to pursue this line of research. The nickel cells are infinitely
easier to replicate, more stable, far more powerful, and more predictable. The
palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them? The idea
is to get heat, not to bash you head against the wall for months and months
trying to replicate an experiment that cost SRI $2 million bucks to get
anywhere with. Why bother? Pons, Fleischmann, McKubre and many other people
are feeling very chagrined (to put it mildly!), but the fact is, they have
been leap-frogged by a new technology. From my point of view, Tom and the
others who are still working with palladium are setting up an expedition to
cross the American continent by Conestoga wagon, when they could just buy a
ticket and fly Delta. The object is to get there, not to suffer along the way.
 
Of course, Tom is not alone in his quest. Takahashi is still working with
palladium, and so are about 800 other people I know. The CF researchers have
split into hostile camps, and some Pd people are attacking and denigrating the
Ni camp! That is human nature for you -- inexplicable and crazy. People forget
the purpose of the research! I know my purpose: I am not out to generate
neutrons, or to perfect calorimetry, or rewrite physics; I want HEAT, because
you can sell HEAT for a ton of MONEY.
 
Some faithful readers have criticized Pons & Fleischmann, NTT, and me, for our
concern and focus on money. There is an ancient prejudice among scholars and
scientists against the profit motive. It is thought that greed may blind us to
experimental error, and lead us astray from the Holy Grail of True and Pure
Hearted Science. This is a very common idea; I believe it is taught in
graduate school, in courses funded by large corporations who wish to train
teams of scientists to work for peanuts while enriching other people. In any
case, let me set the record straight:
 
     Money is the best possible motivation for doing research, or any other
     line of work. It purifies the imagination, it forces you to face reality,
     and it removes obstacles faster and more efficiently than any other
     motivation. If you concentrate on making money, you will set a realistic
     goal that can be reached in some reasonable time frame, and you will do
     your best to reach that goal. If you work for any other reason, you will
     likely get sidetracked, and never accomplish anything of value to
     yourself, or to anyone else. Nothing has contributed so much to
     technology, progress, comfort and human civilization as the profit
     motive. That is why capitalism works splendidly, and communism was a
     miserable failure.
 
That is cold, hard reality. It is Life In The Big City, and those who do not
care for it should emigrate to some other space-time continuum. This is not to
say that nobody in history has ever worked for love, or ambition, or any other
motive; great things have been accomplished by people who did not care for
money. But for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill human being, money works best.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  Britz /  Clairvoyance and more silver
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clairvoyance and more silver
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 17:16:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>The demo did not work properly, but I thought the lecture went very well.
 
This reminds me of a Jewish Joke: The wonder rabbi of a village one day
suddenly strikes his forehead in anguish, and announces to his followers
that he has just had a vision of the neighbouring village, and he "saw"
that their rabbi has died. His listeners fall about weeping, wailing,
and gnashing their teeth. A man comes along and asks what troubles them.
When told, he says he just came from that village, and the rabbi is alive
and well. Well, they dry their tears; wonderful that the rabbi is not dead
after all - but anyway, what a wonderful vision, all the way to the
neighbouring village!
 
>Let me add that if Beuler and Jones had been correct, and silver really was
>almost as resistant as nichrome (taking into account the different thicknesses
>of the wires), that would have been a Nobel class discovery, since it would be
 
Again you put up a verbal smoke screen, mate: Jones said no such thing, as I
have explained; you are grabbing this out of the air. They pointed out that
power was being dissipated into the air, but was registered as going into the
cell. This observation has not been refuted.
 
Please remember, Jed, most people on this list are technical types - chemists,
physicists, computer freaks with a heavy technical background. If you answer a
technical point with a heap of waffle that is quite besides the point, you
lose credibility. E.g. this BS about silver vs nichrome or your endless waffle
about your favourite scientists' ability to read a thermometer. In fact, I am
sure you HAVE lost a lot of credibility here. It is ironic that, if cnf should
turn out to be real, and in 20 years time, we are all basking in a limitless
supply of cheap and benign energy, the history books might well say, what a
pity it was being pushed by these individuals in that excessively emotive
manner.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  Britz /  RE: The Bag
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The Bag
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 17:16:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>not use Nitrogen gas.  I still need to figure out a cleaning proceedure.  Bruce
>Dunn recommends hexane as a cleaning agent.  But can't I get butane by breaking
>open some cigarette lighters?  I would rather something that I can buy in the
>hardware store.  Lots of alcohol, xylene, paint thinner, acetone, and a lot
>of other dangerous stuff that we cannot have at Fermilab is readily available
>at Ace Hardware.  Any practical suggestions?
 
Dr. Notoya was quite right, as reported by the person who was at MIT: in
electrochemistry, you need ultraclean components. So I would go for a solvent
likely to be pure. Acetone might be about the best (alcohol is not too good
at mixing with oil). Additionally, I would scrape the Li surface to remove
surface layers, you are sure to have some oxide, despite the oil it's kept in,
most organic liquids dissolve a fair amount of oxygen, as well as water from
the air.
 
 
>Dieter Britz points out some of the problems in running a Mills type cell.
>And nicely points out one possible problem - the resistance of the cathode.
>With the very long fine Ni wire, the drop down the wire is significant, that
>is why we brought out taps along the wire.  We wanted to make sure that the
>resistance was low, even though we "honey comb" wound the coil, and it
>crossed itself many places.
 
Huh? Did I say that? No. I mentioned a mile-long fine wire only in the context
of recombination. I imagine the wire to criss-cross with itself (a lot of
short circuits!), and to more or less fill the cell volume. Somehow it must
be electrically insulated from the anode, but the oxygen bubbles will get
among the hydrogen ones, and all that Ni surface will surely favour
recombination.
 iR drop along the wire would not do the trick in itself - it would only
add to the known and measured cell voltage. To be sure, you would get a
cathodic potential gradient along the wire, but if there is only one possible
electrochemical reaction (reduction) this would not affect cell operation.
But, as you write,
 
>I hold out the faint possibility (knowing nothing I can speculate) that the
>Mills cell outputs a mixture of gasses, not just H2 and O2.  How about H2,
>O2, and CO2?  Is this possible.  At least one experiment seemed to produce
>the right amount of gass, but the wrong heating value???
 
you suggest other reduction processes. I don't know much about carbonate but
in principle, this is reducible; it corresponds to CO2, reducible to CO, e.g.
Some people are trying to make, e.g. oxalate (malate?) out of it. Maybe this
could explain the gas deficit observed by John Logajan. I am writing off the
top of my head here, I'd have to check; so take the above with a grain of
salt.
 
>So Dieter, I don't think the Mills cell is 100% efficient.  I don't think
>they are getting the right amount of gasses.  Something funny is going on.
>But I am not equipped to find it.  Sounds like a good senior project to me for
>someone who is at a University full of students needing exciting projects!
 
You could be right. Hm; I once suggested a cold-fusion-related project to a
prospective student (a good one, too), and he knocked me back, saying that it
sounded more like physics than chemistry. If the right one comes along,
though, I might just let him/her get stuck into this M&F business, just to
find out where this heat (if any) comes from. Don't hold your breath, though,
I don't get many grad students. The one I have now (also a good one) will
work with the quartz crystal microbalance - and nothing to do with PdDx.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  Britz /  RE: Contamination
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Contamination
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 17:17:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Help, help.  Please all you electrochemists out there, what is hydrocarbon
>contamination and why do you care?  Now that Natoya's MIT problems have
>been described, she was very worried about something.  I rememember some
>vague hints by P&F which implied that their fellow electrochemists would
>know what to do, but that physicists might make terrible mistakes.
 
All around us, there are organic compounds; in the air, and on all surfaces.
We can't get away from them, especially in this plastics age. An
electrochemical cell, and its electrodes, is coated with the stuff. So what?
These substances are hydrophobic, and when in solution, will adsorb at the
electrodes. An adsorbed layer will change the electrode kinetics - usually it
will slow reactions down, i.e. you require higher potentials for the same
current. But a layer can also change the reaction, by suppressing one and
allowing another to go. Gunk, then, is bad for you - usually. On the other
hand, some gunk might be good for you, by favouring the same reaction that
you favour. In our favour is the fact that at high potentials, many adsorbed
layers tend to be desorbed, but not all.
 
>So I want to know how you electrochemists would prepare a clean cell.  I also
>want to know how you would clean up the Lithium in preparation for making
>LiOD.
 
Bockris was the acknowledged master at this game, and presumably still is.
Apart from acid cleaning (and not any acid will do; e.g. chromic acid is OUT)
to remove soluble deposits, algae, fungi and some dust and organics, you then
have to prevent the formation of a new layer, out of the air. He sometimes
distilled his solvent directly into his cells. Another way is to percolate the
electrolyte through a column of active carbon, or even to add some to the
cell. It will make the electrolyte grey-black but will not, I think, interfere
with the processes. I am not sure enough of this to suggest that you do this
in your bag, though. It would need some trials. Needless to say the metal must
also be clean, no oxide layer. I have already posted on that.
 
>In short I am beginning to think that success depends on some contaminate being
>missing.  McKubre says the final cathode cleaning was with aqua regia.  I
>thought at the time that this was a cathode surface preparation, but perhaps
>he wants to remove something else!
 
If, on the other hand, the "secret" is that some gunk must be present, then
you have a real problem, and I have no suggestions.
 
There is a story in the electroplating world. An electroplater went on
holidays, and although he left precise instructions, his replacement couldn't
get the same bright and even platings. When he came back, he was watched. It
turned out that he ate his lunch by the side of the vat, and any bits he
didn't like, he'd spit into it.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  Britz /  RE: Experience counts
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Experience counts
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 17:17:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>An electrochemist said to me, "a physicist trying to do a Pons Fleischmann
>experiment is likely to use a Mason Jar, and wipe the electrode on the seat of
>his pants. These people have no idea how to handle the materials." Another
>commented that his standard operating procedure is to wash glassware 20 times
>in hot water and 10 times in ultra-pure cold water before beginning an
>experiment.
 
Etc, the point being that electrochemistry is not easy. I am happy that for
once we agree 100%, Jed. And so it is significant that most real
electrochemists doing electrochemical cold fusion experiments - with the
notable exception of Fleischmann and Bockris - find nothing. Many of those who
get positive results are not electrochemists and find artifacts, and consider
them excess heat. In all the published cnf literature, the majority of
electrochemists report null findings.
 I guess the same goes for the electrochemists who have played at amateur
physics, trying to measure neutrons, gamma radiation, etc. Some of these find
them. Experts in those fields tend to find nothing or - e.g. Jones - very low
levels, in no way commensurate with measurable excess heat.
 The logical reaction to this is to put together a team of experts in the
various fields. Again significantly, in most cases this yields a null result.
 Don't quote me the McKubre results. I have not seen a paper from them. I do
understand that they are a strong team. When they publish something, I'll read
it.
 
Back under my rock.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 17:22:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

ANALYTICAL ADDENDUM:  The Twist prediction would be that heat should be
generated either in individual crystals (simple delocalization) or pairs
of crystals (delocalization + phase shift between lattices).  If you take
this stuff more seriously than I currently do, I suggest you look at your
wires in IR then examine the corresponding crystal structure very closely.
If a strong correlation did by some bizarre chance pan out, AFM work on
cross-sections of the offending crystals might even be merited.
 
A delocalization scenario would show up simply as a roughly round area of
heat near the center of a crystal.
 
In the (to me) more interesting phase-shift case, the correct degree of
phase shift (we're talkin' *fractions* of an angstrom here) would provide
an unambiguous wavefunction discontinuity by creating a null region at the
very-slightly-dislocated crystal-to-crystal boundary.  If such discontinuous
wavefunctions really do have some sort of non-trivial Born violation signif-
icance, they should provide a heat profile that is pretty characteristic
and would look something like this (where # is maximum heat, = is a bit less,
- is less still, and . is negligible):
 
           Tm(H,D)x Crystal #1             Tm(H,D)x Crystal #2
      -------------------------------|-------------------------------
      |..............................|..............................|
      |..............................|..............................|
      |..............................|..............................|
      |...................------.....|.....------...................|
      |................---======-....|....-======---................|
      |...............---===##===-...|...-===##===---...............|
      |...............---==####==-...|...-==####==---...............|
      |...............---===##===-...|...-===##===---...............|
      |................---======-....|....-======---................|
      |...................------.....|.....------...................|
      |..............................|..............................|
      |..............................|..............................|
      |..............................|..............................|
      -------------------------------|-------------------------------
 
Some restriction of the dimensions of the crystal in the y,z plane probably
would not hurt, but probably would not be absolutely necessary, either.  Too
much restriction in y,z (a "quantum wire" along x) would probably actually
hurt rather than help, because in the y,z plane it would tend to fuzz the
formation of a clear null region.
 
If you haven't already gathered as much from my "fractions of an angstrom"
quote, such a pair would be tremedously sensitive to almost any form of
mechanical stress.  We're talking quite literally about scanning-tunneling
microscopy levels of sensitivity to movement here.  Not good for reproduc-
ibility.
 
There is not much literature on annealing Tm(H,D)x crystals, but if you
(UNLIKE ME!) take any of this seriously enough to want to try the annealing
idea, *PLEASE* be extremely careful.  Heating up transition metal hydride
crystals in a closed container classifies as a highly dangerous form of
entertainment.  Check with a real hydride expert -- DON'T assume yourself
to be one just because you've "read up" on the subject.
 
Crystals with cubic symmetry would be your best shot.  That includes Pd,
Ni, and silver and copper for that matter.  I'd suggest that you look
at metals that form alpha/beta hydride phases.  I've a strong suspicion
that such divisions reflect delocalization in a way that has never been
fully understood (or recognized).  Other such metals include tantalum,
niobium, and (remember?) titanium.  (These alpha/beta recommendations are
actually are actually old suggestions that I first made about three years
ago on this group, by the way.)
 
Setting your initial temperature to be comparable to the temperature
implied by the wavefunction would probably be a good idea, too.  You can
figure that one out by noting the crystal lattice unit size (generally
from somewhere between 1 and 2 angstroms, and closer to 2) and assuming
that to be the wavelength of the wavefunction.  Convert that to the
momentum (classic Planck's constant relationship) and use the mass of the
particle (e.g., neutral light H) to find the energy (temperature).  (The
result is not far from room temperature in most cases, as best I recall.)
 
I have no clear idea how current flow would affect the formation of these
types of bound wavefunctions, other than to say that they probably do have
some kind of modest impact and might somehow assist in the formation of
wavefunctions that cross crystal grain boundaries (if they exist).
 
Please be careful, please do not run yourself into debt trying to perform
stupid experiments (like the above) that will very likely result in nothing
of any interest, and please don't accuse me of being an "advocate" of this
stuff.  (Show me a hundred experiments that all produce enough energy to
literally run themselves and then I'll become an advocate, OK?  :)  )
 
                                Still grumpy,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Light Twist (of a Lemon??)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 20:30:55 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

ERRATA #2 -- Math correction to <1992Dec10.172218.10538@asl.dl.nec.com>:
 
>
> Setting your initial temperature to be comparable to the temperature
> implied by the wavefunction would probably be a good idea, too.  You can
> figure that one out by noting the crystal lattice unit size (generally
> from somewhere between 1 and 2 angstroms, and closer to 2) and assuming
> that to be [1/2] the wavelength of the wavefunction.  Convert that to the
             =====
> momentum (classic Planck's constant relationship) and use the mass of the
> particle (e.g., neutral light H) to find the energy (temperature).  (The
> result is not far from room temperature in most cases, as best I recall.)
>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 / Greg Kuperberg /  Maybe the neutrons will find you
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maybe the neutrons will find you
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 19:14:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <921210152138_72240.1256_EHL63-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>I know my purpose: I am not out to generate
>neutrons, or to perfect calorimetry, or rewrite physics; I want HEAT, because
>you can sell HEAT for a ton of MONEY.
 
Your claim is that you have found a new kind of fusion and maybe it
generates a few neutrons and maybe it doesn't, but it certainly
generates heat.  You think it is even a different kind of fusion
(Nickel-based with light water) than the Palladium-based fusion that
Pons and Fleischmann claim to have seen.  You don't care whether it
makes neutrons because you're in it for the money.
 
Jed, how badly do you want this money?  It is well-documented that many
kinds of nuclear fusion generate dangerous amounts of neutrons and
other radiation by the time they generate an appreciable amount of
heat.  Maybe in your research you will stumble across a third kind of
cold fusion that does generate a whole lot of neutrons just like solar
fusion, uncontrolled thermonuclear fusion, laser fusion, and magnetic
fusion do.  It's hard to enjoy your riches if you have cancer.
 
Do you wear a radiation monitor in your work?  Maybe even if you don't
find neutrons, the neutrons will find you.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / A Boulanger /  Re: Yes, but why do it the hard way?
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yes, but why do it the hard way?
Date: 11 Dec 92 04:36:32 GMT
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

 
In article(s) <921210152138_72240.1256_EHL63-1@CompuServe.COM>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
 
 
        Money is the best possible motivation for doing research, or any other
        line of work. It purifies the imagination, it forces you to face reality,
        and it removes obstacles faster and more efficiently than any other
        motivation. If you concentrate on making money, you will set a realistic
        goal that can be reached in some reasonable time frame, and you will do
        your best to reach that goal. If you work for any other reason, you will
        likely get sidetracked, and never accomplish anything of value to
        yourself, or to anyone else. Nothing has contributed so much to
        technology, progress, comfort and human civilization as the profit
        motive. That is why capitalism works splendidly, and communism was a
        miserable failure.
 
In a prior article he writes:
 
 Performing any kind of CF experiment is as difficult for us as making an
 incandescent light bulb was before Edison turned the process into a science.
 The best scientists in the world said that light bulbs were finicky,
 difficult, and dangerous, and would never be widely produced or used. The
 experts were right, in a sense: if Edison and some other world-class geniuses
 had not banged their heads against the problem for years, we would not be able
 to produce a million light bulbs a day, and the bulbs would not work
 flawlessly for thousands of hours. Not one person reading this forum knows
 more about physics and chemistry than Edison and his people did (although some
 of you know different, more up-to-date facts). No living person has more
 hands-on laboratory experience than Edison. In fact, if I was to put you in a
 fully equipped laboratory, circa 1890, you could not make a practical light
 bulb in less than two months, even though you know exactly how the problem was
 finally solved. So, do not expect to master a difficult new art overnight,
 even though in the future, it will become a science, and a part of common
 knowledge.
 
 
Ok, I wanted to post a ver good article about Edison earlier, but
this was enough to trigger me to do it:
 
"Edison the Scientist"
John A. Eddy
Applied Optics, 15 Nov. 1979,  Vol. 18, No 22 3736-3750
 
This article outlines Edison's development of the tasimeter, a type of
IR detector. It was a *very* sensitive qualitative instrument that
lead to some extent to Langley's development of the Bolometer, a
quantative instrument. I think after reading this tha you will see
that money purifies in only *some* dimensions.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 04:00:13 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
   I would like to follow up one more time.  Dick makes the point that
that the 2.5MeV peak seen in Jones et al.(1989) is mostly due to gamma
from background and the fusion neutrons would be overwelmed by
background flutuations.  That could be, but it's somewhat limited to
how well the statistics of the background are known and how much your
sample produces.  The fact that a live count minus a scaled background
produces a 4 sigma difference for that one peak is certainly an indicator
of a deuterium dependent effect.  It may be that the higher background
is causing some photdisintegrations of D adding to the effect. (At what
energies?)  But you would also need to explain why D2O or other
light deuteriated compounds do not show the effect.  It's just the
electron rich metals that seem to set the conditions for an effect.
 
    Menlove et. al (1990) speaks for itself, but Dr. Morrison has
made a good point regarding the higher multipicity seen in *some*
runs, when compared to Kamiokande.  Dick has some observations
regarding the photodisintegration induce by background & contaminations.
This could be.  I'm not so sure, but the point is well taken since
earlier experiment didn't really have a handle on the overall
background effect on deuterated metals.
 
     That was until Kamiokande. There the results indicate that when an
event occurs, it is in small bursts of 2 3 4 neutrons and implies a
dynamic source.  As Steve has said, the experiments of Kamiokande were
performed to find the trigger of an anomolous effect, so to compare
older experiments may not be justified, and this was what I was faulting
Douglas for, and Steve was kind enough to support.  Still there are
some conclusions that can be made as I touched on in my reply to
Douglas.
 
   The results of the metals is that if there is a mechanism, it needs
to explain the burst to flux ratio. The only mechanism that fits this is
a fracture type model.  Assume deuterium collects at a lattice defect.
If enough D is collected the displacement of the lattice by concentrations
D would induce a dramatic re-arrangment of the lattice.  The energy relieved
by the strain would then transfer to large clusters of deuterium. Not to
indivduals.  In some respects this might be like a micro-hot fusion event,
but there is quite a significant difference.  The lattice rearrangments
provide a large flux of energetic electrons to the cluster, and screening
would have the effect of reducing the Coulumb barrier quite sharply during
the highly kinetic event like this.  All of this combined in a very short
time, gives the bursts and low overall flux and randomness of Kamiokande
and others.
 
   Steve obviously recognized the mechanism and his Cement+D2O work is one
of the few that can exploit the effect. The hyderation process of cements
provides for a huge number of lattice shifts (from molecular levels on up)
and can be observed in the temprature rise drying process.  Kamiokande
showed a large number of singles and burst that can not be explained as
simple contamination induced disintegrations.  By the argument I raised
above the single events would appear to rule out a fracture model, but
that is not the case with this material.  There are huge number of minor
fractures that occur, not due to the large infusions of D, but by
chemical process in areas with smaller D concentrations.  So the thought
model still fits.
 
   Lastly, a question. The fracture models for metals suggests an electron
flux in addition to kinetic energies given to a group of deuteriums.
Considering these effects appliable, can the normal decay rates of
fissionable contaminates be effected by similar processes?
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com   (502)9688495 (502)4547218
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: The Bag
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Bag
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 04:16:10 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Tom Droege writes:
 
>
> OK, I give up.  I have to do it right so I have ordered a cylender of
> Argon.
> I finally read the label on the lithium and it says stored in mineral oil.
> Do
> not use Nitrogen gas.  I still need to figure out a cleaning proceedure.
> Bruce
> Dunn recommends hexane as a cleaning agent.  But can't I get butane by
> breaking
> open some cigarette lighters?  I would rather something that I can buy in
> the
> hardware store.  Lots of alcohol, xylene, paint thinner, acetone, and a lot
> of other dangerous stuff that we cannot have at Fermilab is readily
> available
> at Ace Hardware.  Any practical suggestions?
 
 
        Butane would be nice, but the moment you open a lighter the butane
will go poof - it boils at atmospheric pressure and room temperature.  The
trick is to get a solvent for the oil which itself can be evaporated without
leaving a residue.  From a hardware store, I think that your best bet might
be xylene, followed perhaps by paint thinner.  An alternative might be
lighter fluid (of the liquid type that you pour into a Zippo - it is largely
pentane and hexane).    Acetone and alcohol won't likely dissolve the oil,
which I think will be a mineral oil.  To check if a candidate solvent is any
good, pour some into a small glass (say a shot glass) and put a drop of oil
from the lithium container in it.  Stir with a toothpick - the oil should
dissolve in the solvent.  To roughly check whether a candidate solvent has
any non-volatile impurities which might remain after evaporation, clean a
small piece of glass or a mirror and evaporate a puddle of solvent on it.
Good solvent will leave no residue - bad solvent may leave a visible residue.
Certainly if you can see a residue on glass, you potentially can get it on
the lithium.
        Its too bad you don't have access to the stuff in a standard organic
chemistry lab.  High quality glass distilled hexane is not all that
expensive. It is wildely used for extractions, where the intention is to
subsequently remove the hexane by evaporation.  Residue-free hexane is thus a
common commodity in labs which for example do environmental analysis.
 
         Is there anyone within range of Tom who can help him out with
supplying chemicals?
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / C Neufeld /  Re: Fusion & Gravity
     
Originally-From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion & Gravity
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:25:50 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1992Dec8.024506.14647@news.media.mit.edu> pierre@media.mit.edu
 (Pierre St. Hilaire) writes:
>
>>Does gravity affect fusion reactions? If so, in what way.
>
>       No, it doesn't. Gravitational interactions are completely
>negligible when compared to the strong interaction (responsible for
>the fusion reaction itself) or the electromagnetic interaction
>(responsible for the attraction/repulsion between charged particles).
>
   Depending on the level of pedantry which this question requires, one
could argue that the sun's fusion is extremely dependent on the existence
of gravity. The force may be small between nucleons, but when 1E58 of
them gang up they can make their presence known.
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Entropy isn't what it
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | used to be.
 utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              |
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Corrections; Sonofusion at BYU
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrections; Sonofusion at BYU
Date: 10 Dec 92 13:41:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,                    December 10, 1992/BYU
 
I need to correct units used in reporting some Kamiokande results in my
posting of Dec. 9; here are the corrected units:
Run number  Sample                         Neutron emission rate(10E-4 n/s)
3210-3211   Cement+D2O (600g+190g),start      8.43 +- 2.62
              April 20, 1991
3459        SAME sample as runs 3210-3211,     0.02 +- 1.11
              start 11/25/91 (cured for months, 68% of initial D2O remains)
3462        Cement+H2O (1000g +200g),          -0.30 +- 1.17
              start 11/29/91               (Neg. due to subtraction of
                                         concurrent background in Kamiokande
                                         outside of volume surrounding sample)
 
As my Japanese colleague Ishida-san states, these (and other) data are
"difficult to explain based on radioactivity contamination in the cement."
(Ishida Thesis, p. 70)
 
Another correction for Dr. Morrison, who states:  "Steve Jones announced that
they are setting up to do an experiment (in D2O) with picosecond timing."
(Posting of Dec. 8, Cold Fusion Update No. 7.)
Even *we* are not *that* good, Douglas.  Seriously, our waveform digitizers
currently operate at 100 MHz, or 10 NANOsec timing, although they are capable
of 5 nanosec timing.  By digitizing all signals, we are able to record
pulse shape, height, area -- in particular, noise pulses are clearly distin-
guishable.  We make sure that pulses are shaped like those from plastic
scintillator, Li-doped glass scintillator (for neutron capture), or helium-3
proportional counter tube signals.
Douglas may have misunderstood a bit; it is true that we are setting up to
look for possible fusion during sonoluminescence, whose light bursts usually
last for less than 100 picoseconds. (See e.g. Nature, 7/25/92,p. 318.)
We are motivated by the possibility that deuterium-bubble cavitation could
cause low-level fusion in electrolytic cells, etc.  Perhaps this effect relates
to the phenomenon we reported in Nature in April 1989.
 
We have assembled a spherically-shaped piezoelectric, radially polarized,
which will be filled with D2O and driven at its
resonance frequency of about 26 kHz.  Other
workers have found that under such conditions, a single bubble at the center
of the sphere can be made to collapse repeatedly, with a light flash
accompanying each acoustic cycle.  Temperatures inside the collapsing bubble
may reach temperatures in excess of 50,000 K (R. Hiller et al., Phys. Rev.
Letters 8/24/92 p. 1182).  The high temperatures and extremely short durations
accompanying bubble-collapse events raises exciting questions.  Clearly,
sonoluminescence is a non-equilibrium phenomenon; it is even suggested
"As the phenomenon may be too fast for the establishment of local thermal
equilibrium we may be facing a situation in which focused acoustic stress
fields are converted directly into quantum excitations."  (L. Crum and S.
Putterman in Physics News in 1991, March 1992, p. 1, pub'd by APS.)
 
A graduate student at BYU, Jeannette Lawler, is involved in our search for
"sonofusion" in D2O.  This is her thesis topic, in fact.  We may also try
H2O+D2O (etc.) mixtures to look for other reactions than deuteron-deuteron
fusion.  It's good fun and we may even learn something.
 
Stay Tuned,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / I Dimitrovsky /  Re: Clairvoyance and more silver
     
Originally-From: dimitrov@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Clairvoyance and more silver
Date: 11 Dec 1992 08:33:49 GMT
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab

In article <B1E13B64A31F222821@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
>Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
>
>>The demo did not work properly, but I thought the lecture went very well.
>
>This reminds me of a Jewish Joke: The wonder rabbi of a village one day ...
 
I think another applicable Jewish joke is the following:
Three men are arguing about which has the greater rabbi:
"Once, when my rabbi was travelling from town to town he came
across a raging river with no crossing nearby. He simply said
`River go here, river go there'. In an instant the river vanished
and my rabbi continued on his way."
"That's nothing! Once *my* rabbi was travelling and came across
a huge mountain with no pass nearby. He simply said `Mountain go
here, mountain go there'. In an instant the mountain vanished
and my rabbi continued travelling."
"Hah! Mere child's play! Once *my* rabbi was travelling from
town to town when he realized that the Sabbath was approaching
and he would have to stop travelling. He simple said `Sabbath
go here, Sabbath go there' -- In an instant the Sabbath vanished
and my rabbi continued his journey!"
 
Isaac Dimitrovsky (dimitrov@lab.ultra.nyu.edu)
"Sincerity is *the* most important thing in show business -
  so once you learn to fake that you've got it made."
- Joe Franklin
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendimitrov cudfnIsaac cudlnDimitrovsky cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  Rothwell /  What Jones said
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Jones said
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:48:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Me: "if silver really was almost as resistant as nichrome (taking into account
the different thicknesses of the wires)..."
 
DB: "Jones said no such thing... They pointed out that power was being
dissipated into the air, but was registered as going into the cell. This
observation has not been refuted.... Please remember, Jed, most people on this
list are technical types - chemists, physicists, computer freaks with a heavy
technical background."
 
Technical type people know damn well that the only way 6 cm of one wire can
dissipate as much heat as 4 cm of another wire is if both have approximately
the same resistance. They also know that it would take an impossibly thin
silver wire to be as resistant as a 0.5 nichrome wire: at the power levels
seen in Nagoya, it would melt! Beuler and Jones claimed that by moving around
the alligator clips, they measured a high resistance in the silver wire.
Later, they claimed they ran an experiment with two equal resistors: one on
the outside of test tube of water, to simulate the silver wire, and one on the
inside, to simulate the nichrome. They claimed that this arrangement lowered
the temperature by 10 deg C. Actually, the temperature difference in Nagoya
was 15 deg C, so B&J are really claiming that the silver wire was dissipating
*more* heat than the nichrome.
 
If they are not claiming that the silver wire had the same resistance as the
nichrome, then what on earth did they mean? Why else does a wire get hot and
dissipate heat?
 
And when you finish explaining that mystery, why were both cells only up to
only 31 C at MIT? According to B&J, if they were at equal temperature, that
temperature would have to be 45 C; because B&J say there was no gain in the CF
cell, but only a loss in the control cell. No gain means the CF cell *should*
have been at 45, and so should the control cell, right? This is simply a lot
of preposterous nonsense! Why don't you, and B, and J, stop dragging out these
crazy red herrings, replicate the experiment properly, and *then* tell us why
the heat is not real. Go Ahead! What is stopping you? Don't give us these
cockamamie experiments with resisters hanging out of glasses, just do the very
same thing Notoya, Srinivasan, Bush, Noninski, and Mills did. You are an
electrochemist aren't you? Are you afraid to try a simple experiment with a
piece of nickel?
 
Now then, as to your evaluation of my background and knowledge, let me just
set you straight. I do happen to know that resistance varies with different
materials, and that it is a function of the thickness of the material. I
learned that when I was kid, and since I have been working with gadgets,
gizmos and computers ever since, I have not forgotten it. I also learned how
to measure temperature with a thermometer; I learned the laws of
thermodynamics and conservation of energy; and that the temperature of a pot
of water rises in proportion to the amount heat you put into it; and I learned
that a match will not burn for a month of Sundays without consuming any fuel.
You, on the other hand, apparently never learned these simple, obvious and
basic truths, so I know a heck of a lot more about science than you, Frank
Close, and Huizenga put together.
You people have your heads crammed so full of nonsense and esoterica about
neutrons and peer review, that you have forgotten the value of simple and
intuitively obvious experiments. The problem is not that I know too little, it
is that you know too much! You have knowledge galore, you lack wisdom.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  /  Cleanliness
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cleanliness
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First I would like to congradulate Paul Houle for the "right" answer.  The
Poynting vector "points" in the directon of the power flow.  The key thing is
that it is a vector product.  Since in the real world the vectors are almost
never at a perfect right angle to each other, corrections have to be made.  Not
bad for a steady state like a pure resistor and a battery, but put a little
capacity in the system and a little noise, and the answer starts to change.
 
It is very interesting that as soon as I started putting up questions about
cell cleaning procedures that Jed Rothwell has now put up a long message on
cleaning.  He also says that they used clean procedures in making their cell.
I do not remember him previously statint that they used surgical gloves in
assembling their cells.
 
So is it possible to separate the successes from the failures by the cleaning
procedures used?  It looks like what might be clean for semiconductor work is
not clean for electrochemistry.  I remember in a discussion with Mills that
we described a cleaning procedure that brother Lee uses for the preparation of
sheets for Nickel plating, and Mills did not like it.
 
So I am willing to accept that this might be a phenomena that requires ultra
purity somewhere.  I am not willing to accept Jed's command that we disconnect
our heads and copy another experiment exactly when we are not being told what
"exactly" is.  P&F as far as I can remember have never said you must use such
and such technique.  They have said "wink" "wink" that some of us will know the
right things to do.
 
As far as I am concerned, the invocation against a catalyst in the Ni- H2O
experiments is just garbage until someone can give a logical reason.
 
I regularly get better performance fro circuits on two layer printed circuit
boards than others achieve on 4 and 8 layer boards.  This is because I have
studied noise, signal transmission techniques, and the meaning of "ground".  So
I guess now that I have to study the meaning of clean.  Then I will be able to
get "clean" cells in my simple plastic glove bag.  I think I will study a while
before doing another experiment.
 
Tom Dro
 
Meanwhile, I would like to hear from electrochemists about "clean".
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / John Logajan /  Carbon
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Carbon
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk writes:
 
>All around us, there are organic compounds; in the air, and on all surfaces.
>We can't get away from them, especially in this plastics age. An
>electrochemical cell, and its electrodes, is coated with the stuff. So what?
 
Speaking of carbon... when I run my Mills type cell in reverse current mode,
the Ni (now) anode becomes coated with a dark black substance, which I presume
to be carbon.  It instantly disappears when the current is switched back to
the forward direction.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  /  Thanks to all
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks to all
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I thank all of you that have given me advice on cleaning, etc..  I can't wait
for someone to ask for advice on electronics.  "Start with some clean sand.
Reduce to form silicon ...".
 
Dieter Britz tell the electroplater's story.  He has cleaned it up for our
delicate ears.  You can guess what he does in my brother's version of the
story.
 
Note Dieter that I not only reported variable gas output from a Mills cell but
also a deficit in heating value.  But I retired from the field when I realized
I was not equipped to do the chemistry.  Perhaps I am not equipped to do the
P&F experiment either.  But I am getting better and better at calorimetry.
That is just conductors and insulators and machining and instrumentation.
 
My hope is still that it can be done with fair cleaning and good
instrumentation.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  Britz /  Money
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Money
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed lectures us about how to do real research, with MONEY as the carrot. This
is quite true; I know a couple of people doing good research just to keep
getting paid, and maybe make a lot of money. Without pointing the finger at
anybody (calm down now if you think it is YOU who is being addressed), may I
point out, however, that there is another way: you can also do "research". I
recently heard about an Australian company, based on some idea - I think it's
a new type of engine (no, not Sarich, he is fair dinkum). These people formed
a company, attracted quite a bit of share money, and are now set up in a shiny
and comfortable office in the most desirable part of Australia, and the main
bloke (director, I suppose) drives a Maserati and is generally living it up.
Research? Not a bit, it seems. They are slowly writing a number of patents,
but the promised prototype is not forthcoming. Meanwhile, a lot of money is
flowing into bank accounts and investments. No doubt one day the company will
go bust, but the principals will have a lot stashed away.
 I hope this is not happening with cold fusion. I have nothing against people
like Hal Fox - in principle anyway - making money from selling information,
and I would not feel ashamed if I were to start selling my bibliography (it
would be my Department that would get the money, anyway), which however I
will not; and it is a good thing cnf is being privatised. This way, it will
either come to something, or fizzle, in a reasonable time. The danger with
massive government financing is that it encourages make-work research, as I
believe hot fusion is, and Star Wars, where you have a huge effort doing maybe
some useful spin-off stuff and fundamental research, but the stated goal is
clearly unattainable. I note that, e.g., Hagelstein is just working on a
fine-focus x-ray laser, a useful device no doubt, but it doesn't justify the
USA spending all that money on comic-book space war technology.
 Again I find Jed and myself agreeing; I have said a couple of times that cnf
should be done by means of smallish efforts spread out, not by throwing a lot
of public money at it, exactly as Jed recently wrote. It is, of course, NOT
true that there is absolute zero funding of cnf in the USA. If you add up the
SRI contract, and the probably several NSF grants, plus the $25 million
pledged (according to Hal Fox) by a consortium of companies in the USA, there
is in fact quite a bit of money going that way. So stop complaining, use your
money, do that research, and let us have that prototype running on its own
steam and doing some useful work to boot.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Re: Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Rehash of Jones' Results
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:49:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to the following from Chuck Sites:
        < The fact that a live count minus a scaled background produces
        < a 4 sigma difference for that one peak is certainly an
        < indicator of a deuterium dependent effect.
 
First off I don't see how anything relating to the peak in question can
be called "a 4 sigma difference".  There are 4 data points that are 3
sigma away from zero, but because of the renormalization of the background
that zero is a rather arbitrary.  Secondly since both the effect and
the background have to be determined in extended running times, and the
cosmic ray contribution is know to be time dependent, there is no
reason to expect the background subtracted to be a good match in all
details.  The fact that 1 of 14 runs showed a net effect could very
well be pure chance.  As a side remark I also wonder whether the
detector has ever been calibrated with a monoenergetic neutron source.
If not the energy scale may also be shakey as well, in particular with
regard to peak shape.  In any case the "effect" seen is not due to
2.5 MeV neutrons, but most likely gammas of some lower energy so how
it would relate to cold fusion is very much a mystery.
 
Now on the Kamiokande:
        < When an even occurs it is in small bursts of 2 3 4 neutrons
        < implies a dynamic source....
 
        < to compare older experiments may not be justified.
 
I am not sure what you mean by a dynamic source.  Fision induced
background events could certainly produce such bursts in a very
static environment.  Reading from the Ishida thesis regarding the
pressurized D2 gas with titanium I find: "all of the bursts appeared
in the normal temperature, not during the warmup from the liquid
nitrogen temperature, as reported in many references." (See page 69)
That sounds kind of static to me.
 
The comparison to the earlier Menlove-Jones experiment was not initiated
by Douglas Morrison.  A believe the assertion that the Kamiokande result
confirmed that earlier worked has its origin with Steve Jones. Douglas
was merely pointing out the differences between the two results.  If
you want to say that there is no reason to expect the older experiments
to agree with the latest one, I won't argue that point.  We will then
agree that none of these low level neutron experiments has every been
reproduced.  That is par for the course in cold fusion research, and
it really ought to be telling you something.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / MIKE JAMISON /  Re: Power flow stuff (the Droege dilemma)
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power flow stuff (the Droege dilemma)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 14:52 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Paul Houle suggests finding the direction of the B field, the E field and
then determining the Poynting vector from this information.  There may be a
problem with finding the B field (where is your reference point,
specifically).
 
I suspect the "easiest" answer is to measure the voltage between the
superconductiing wires, noting the sign.  Use the compass to determine the
B field at one of the superconducting wires (remember that the B field
generated by a wire looks like a bunch of concentric circles with the wire
at the center, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of current flow in
the wire).
 
The compass will align with the B field (its B field will point opposite to
that of the wire).  Using the right hand rule, you can find the direction
of current flow in either of the wires, assuming you know which direction
the B field points on a compass (N to S or S to N, sorry, I can't remember
- Tom, can I take my EM book with me as a reference :))
 
Coupling the direction of current flow with the E-field information, you
can find out where the battery is.  Q.E.D.
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / James Crotinger /  Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:42:23 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> A digression.
 
> Isn't it conventional to say that "thermonuclear fusion" is one in
> which the reaction sustains itself by producing high temperatures as
> a result of previous fusion reactions?  By this measure, fusion in
> stars and in tokamaks is in fact, thermonuclear, but we don't
> really consider ICF to be "thermonuclear" fusion.
 
  Actually this is incorrect. Most modern ICF pellets are designed to
ignite at the center (the hot spot) and a burn wave then propagates
outward through the fuel. This burn wave is indeed the result of
previous fusion reactions.
 
  Jim
--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  Poulin /  Re: Holliday Plans
     
Originally-From: jimp@alcor.concordia.ca ( Jim Poulin )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Holliday Plans
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:21:06 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

 
In article <921203133542.20603ac7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>
>Can anyone easily look up where .1 M - 1 M LiOD will freeze.  Just rough, I
>don't need it to 3 decimal places.
>
>The message I got from McKubre was that it was important to be clean and pure.
 
And for that reason you should avoid using glass,PYREX, any silicate based
material in a strong alkaline solution, because it will be taken into solution.
(This is how "water glass" is produced - disolve silica in sodium hydroxide.)
The containers for you new experiment should use some alkali resistant platic,
possibly teflon.
 
>For this a dish of Liquid Nitrogen was proposed.  This I can probably bring
>home from Fermilab.  Since I am nervous about having chemicals in my basement,
>I decided that the Phosphorous was out, even though some of you will assure me
>that it is safe.  So I have bought some Drierite.
 
 
Phosporous Pentoxide is non flamable. It will produce Phophoric Acid when
it reacts with water(or vapour). I would only be concerned with this as a
source of contamination for your cells. It is however a very acidic
substance and corrosive.
>
>If the bag does not contain a vent tube, I will add one with a bubbler. (Oil?)
>
>So here is my plan for a clean operation.   Into the new (clean I hope) glove
>bag I will put:
>
>The bottle of Lithium wire (in Oil?)
 
If you can obtain Lithium in an inert gas atmosphere, contamination by
oil could be avoided. Depending on the type of oil (if any unsaturated
bonds) it could end up being hyrolyzed by the strong alkaline solution
and again end up as clutter in your cell.
 
>A flask to mix Li with the D2O
 
This reaction  is highly exothermic(evolution of deuterium)
. If there is any residual oxygen in the bag it will definitely ignite.
Keep a positive nitrogen flow through the bag from evaporating liquid
nitrogen. This removes the need for having D2O vapour, the wet paper towel
...
No need to wait 48 hours, only the time to flush with nitrogen.
 
>Clean new smaller bottles to store LiOD mix.
>Before opening up the bag, I will fill and seal the cell.
 
Jim Poulin
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjimp cudfn cudlnPoulin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 /  IGOR /  Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
     
Originally-From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:02 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services

 
I am kinda of puzzled by this cold fusion thing but I have an open mind
about it. The question I have is a question from a fluid mechanics
person and not that of a (nuclear) engineer :
 
How can one so precisely determine the amount of heat generated?
have they been fluid flow studies about this ? that is computer generated
calculation proving that what the sensor gets  is linked to a certain amount
a heat on the cell side.
I am working in two-phase flow ( I DO NOT use correlation) solving the
Navier-Stokes equation and I know that even phase change problem
(such as the one occuring in the boiling) is a bitch... how can people be
so sure of the heat generated ? My reasoning comes from my total distrust
of heat transfer coeficient used in nuclear engineering that are there
to give an estimate and not a TRUE value ( since they are mainly used
for design purposes)...
 
 
 
 
Igor Carron
PhD student
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeni0c0256 cudlnIGOR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / David Toland /  Re: The Bag
     
Originally-From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Bag
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:01:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <18345@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>pentane and hexane).    Acetone and alcohol won't likely dissolve the oil,
>which I think will be a mineral oil.  To check if a candidate solvent is any
 
Don't use alcohols or ketones on Li, you will get some degree of surface
reaction (particularly the alcohols).  Your best bet is some form of alkane.
If you can find starting ether, it is a mix of low boiling hydrocarbons
that will not react with the lithium or leave a residue, and they should
work very well in removing the mineral oil.  Diethyl ether will also
definitely work, but is hard to get and the extreme flammability hazard
definitely makes this a poorer choice IMHO.  One more warning, do *not*
use halogenated hydrocarbons (trichlor, etc).  I have heard of explosive
reactions, although I haven't experienced one myself.  I have, however,
seen lithium foil in contact with Teflon(!) turn the Teflon black by
reducing it down to carbon.
 
I see you've already discovered argon is the best choice for an atmosphere.
Nitrogen reacts with lithium to form a black lithium nitride layer.  Argon
is available from welding supply houses (I don't know if that's where
you've ordered from, if not from a welding house you now have another
shopping alternative).
 
 
 
 
 
--
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendet cudfnDavid cudlnToland cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:42:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <11DEC199218025457@zeus.tamu.edu> i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
 writes:
>
>I am kinda of puzzled by this cold fusion thing but I have an open mind
>about it. The question I have is a question from a fluid mechanics
>person and not that of a (nuclear) engineer :
>
>How can one so precisely determine the amount of heat generated?
>have they been fluid flow studies about this ? that is computer generated
>calculation proving that what the sensor gets  is linked to a certain amount
>a heat on the cell side.
>I am working in two-phase flow ( I DO NOT use correlation) solving the
>Navier-Stokes equation and I know that even phase change problem
>(such as the one occuring in the boiling) is a bitch... how can people be
>so sure of the heat generated ? My reasoning comes from my total distrust
>of heat transfer coeficient used in nuclear engineering that are there
>to give an estimate and not a TRUE value ( since they are mainly used
>for design purposes)...
 
     Energy balances are much easier than detailed flow calculations,
     especially when you aren't venting to the atmosphere. A seemingly
     good example of how to do so fairly accurately has been posted
     by Tom Droege regularly (in various incarnations).  Any more adverbs
     in the previous sentence, and I'll have to barf on my own prose.
 
     By the way, how do you do two-phase flow without correlations
     or constitutive relations based on correlations?
 
     Where do you get your computer?  Mine won't go that fast.
     People have difficulty computationally accounting for a single
     bubble interface, to say nothing of the generic interspersed
     turbulent two-phase flow.
 
     If you do have some magic approach, please tell me soon.  I'm finishing
     a dissertation on boiling two-phase flow calculations in cryogens
     using all sorts of averaging and jury-rigged constitutive relations.
     A more elegant approach would sure be appreciated.
 
                            dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.12 / Dave Andrews /  Re: Maybe the neutrons will find you
     
Originally-From: dandrews@bilver.uucp (Dave Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maybe the neutrons will find you
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:06:38 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL

In article <1992Dec10.191414.20023@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@dent.uchicago.edu
 (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>
>Your claim is that you have found a new kind of fusion.
 
Do you actually READ any of these posts?  Jed has repeatedly denied having
claimed ANY discovery or result.
 
>Maybe in your research you will stumble across a third kind of
>cold fusion that does generate a whole lot of neutrons just like solar
>fusion, uncontrolled thermonuclear fusion, laser fusion, and magnetic
>fusion do.  It's hard to enjoy your riches if you have cancer.
>Do you wear a radiation monitor in your work?  Maybe even if you don't
>find neutrons, the neutrons will find you.
 
What nonsense.  Please take pontification or religious arguments elsewhere.
 
- David Andrews
  dandrews@bilver.oau.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendandrews cudfnDave cudlnAndrews cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.11 / Jon Webb /  Re: Yes, but why do it the hard way?
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yes, but why do it the hard way?
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:22:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <921210152138_72240.1256_EHL63-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   ... The nickel cells are infinitely
   easier to replicate, more stable, far more powerful, and more predictable.
 The
   palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them? The
 idea
   is to get heat, not to bash you head against the wall for months and months
   trying to replicate an experiment that cost SRI $2 million bucks to get
   anywhere with. Why bother? ... From my point of view, Tom and the
   others who are still working with palladium are setting up an expedition to
   cross the American continent by Conestoga wagon, when they could just buy a
   ticket and fly Delta. The object is to get there, not to suffer along the
 way.
 
Well, your analogy almost works, but not quite.  It is really more
like travelling to Shangri-La by Conestoga wagon vs. Delta airlines.
In the beginning we had some people who said it's not hard to get
there, just get in your wagon and go, you can find it.  Unfortunately
they oculdn't show us how because of patent claims.  Then it turned
out it took weeks to get there, and was a lot harder than they said.
People who claimed to have been there weren't able to describe how to
get back again, their cameras didn't work or something while they were
there, etc.  Now, some new people come along and say forget the
Conestoga wagons, here's Delta air lines, it works, guaranteed.  Well,
not exactly *guaranteed*, it turns out it's harder than it looks, but
we can do it whenever we want, unfortunately we can't show you how we
do it because we want to make money off it, etc.
 
As Scotty on Star Trek said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me."  When Pons and Fleischmann first announced, I was
sort of willing to believe (based on their reputations) that two
miracles could occur: fusion could take place in palladium at room
temperature and the fusion would not produce copious amounts of
neutrons.  But I'm not willing to believe in a third miracle, namely
that it doesn't require special materials like deuterium.
*Especially* since the theory claimed to explain this kind of fusion
invokes sub-orbital states of hydrogen, which *really do* violate
quantum mechanics -- they are not just situations that might not have
been considered before, like deuterium in palladium with applied
electrical energy.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.12 / mitchell swartz /  silver (and other) wires
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: silver (and other) wires
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:55:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
    There has been, and continues to be, much talk on this forum
 regarding nichrome and silver conductivity.
 Some of the calculations (actually or rhetorically) requested
 have been trivial, but the 'debate' continues, and so this table
 and elementary exercise are provided.
 
  For example [sci.physics.fusion:4480;  Jed Rothwell; Subject:
 Silver the same everywhere in the world; Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992] states:
 
=     "the heater is: Ni-Cr two-ply wire (0.1 mm diameter, 40 mm length).
=   Just find out whether it is possible for any silver wire to generate
=   as much heat as it does."
 
  or [sci.physics.fusion:4515; Subject: What Jones said; 11 Dec 1992]:
 
=  "Technical type people know damn well that the only way 6 cm of one wire
=   can dissipate as much heat as 4 cm of another wire is if both
=   have approximately the same resistance. They also know that it would take
=   an impossibly thin silver wire to be as resistant as a 0.5 nichrome wire".
 
   Now that Prof. Droege has vaulted this forum into discussions of
 electrodynamics, an elementary reminder of practical electrostatics
 is in order.  Impossibly thin?  How thin --->
 
 
   The electrical resistance (lumped parameter) characterizing a
 rod-like material  is a function of the electrical resistivity,
 the physical length, and cross-sectional area (presumed circular,
 with total homogeneity of material properties therein) as in
 
     rho * L   =  Resistance [ohms]
    --------
        A
 
   So the resistivity [rho: ohms-cm] {micro-ohms-cm in the table below
 which has the various materials listed by nichrome type
 (including the constitutional elements composing the various types),
 a common variety, and of course silver.  Temperature coefficients
 of the electrical resistance, and the effective temperature of that
 Taylor series simplification are also listed.
 
 
  The nickel-chromiums were discovered in 1905 by Marsh, from which
 the electrical heating industry became generated.  A high resistance
 to oxidation, diverse patents based upon slight additions to the mix,
 and a need for such materials have generated diverse alloys.
 
  Notwithstanding the above, the electrical conductivity of a few
 can be compared to silver.
 
         ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF A FEW MATERIALS
 
 [based in part upon Chemical Rubber Tables, and  Engineering Materials
         Handbook (Mantell) and Rare Metals Handbook (Hampel) ]
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
       |MATERIAL|        | microhm-cm  |  Temp coef  | Temp Range  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ni   |   Cr   |   Fe   |             |             |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 100   |   0    |   0    |     7.8     |             |     20C     |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  0    |  100   |   0    |     13      |             |     20C     |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  0    |   0    |  100   |     10      |             |     20C     |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  80   |   20   |   0    |     108     |   0.00011   |    20-500C  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  60   |   16   |   24   |     112     |   0.00015   |    20-500C  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  35   |   20   |   45   |     100     |   0.00036   |    20-500C  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Inconel X (annealed)    |     122     | [m.p.1399C] |             |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Silver|        |        |    1.59     | [m.p. 960C] |     20C     |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   In short, in can be seen that the relative electrical resistivity
 for nichrome to silver (in this simple matter) is:
 
 
     rho (Nichrome)
     -------------    =  69.5   (average)
     rho  (silver)
 
                          with a range of 62.89  to   76.73
 
  for this exercise.  Therefore, one can use 70 as an general ratio.
 
   How thin must a silver wire be, to equal the nichrome wire?
 
   Hence a silver wire must be a little less than 1/8th the diameter
 of a nichrome wire to yield a relative area of 1/70th,  so as to insure
 an equivalent lumped parameter resistance, for an equal length of wire.
 
   Other length-area-resistivity problems are similarly calculated.
 
   Disclaimer: Of course, this ignores contact potentials, inhomogeneities,
        method of contacting said wire, surface vs. volume conductions, and
        the impact of electric and magnetic fields, &tc.
 
 
     As for melting, the melting temperatures of the respective materials
 are listed in the Table above.   The next interested respondent
 is welcome to estimate the thermal barriers surrounding this gendanken
 wire, given any putative applied (thermally dissipative) electrical load.
 
===================================================================
       Mitchell R. Swartz              JET Technology
       mica@world.std.com              (617) 239-8383
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  Rothwell /  A safe distance
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A safe distance
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:47:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Greg Kuperberg asks, "Maybe in your research you will stumble across a third
kind of cold fusion that does generate a whole lot of neutrons just like solar
fusion, uncontrolled thermonuclear fusion, laser fusion, and magnetic
fusion do...  Do you wear a radiation monitor in your work?"
 
I am at a very safe distance. The experiment is in MIT, and I am in Atlanta,
Georgia. My contribution was to pay for the equipment, and analyze the data,
which I downloaded into my computer by phone. However, your point is VERY WELL
TAKEN, and it should be engraved on the wall of every cold fusion laboratory:
SAFETY FIRST.
 
This is another excellent reason why this work *should* be properly funded,
and *should* be performed in National Laboratories, with safety precautions.
The level of safety and cleanliness at most US CF "labs" I have seen is
dreadful. You cannot blame the workers. They are doing the best they can with
zero money, under trying circumstances, usually in their own homes. Most of
them are professionals who are well aware of the danger, but they cannot
afford the necessary safety equipment. One of them, who has been in the hot
fusion program for 30 years, told me, "my curiosity is stronger than my fear,
I am driven to do this, even though I know it is rather foolhardy under these
circumstances." It is a frightening situation. There have been serious,
unreported accidents. The products of the reaction may not be "commensurate,"
but the 3000 bq/ml of tritium in the recent BARC nickel experiments is a grave
concern to me. In one lab with very powerful CF devices, the radiation alarms
trip so frequently that the safety officer quit. I joked with them, suggesting
that they hire Richard Blue as a replacement. I told them, "he is so convinced
the reaction is impossible, and the products cannot be real, that he will
fearlessly stroll into the abandoned lab, reset the alarms, and vent the gas.
He will think it must be a false alarm, because CF cannot be nuclear." But
actually, this is no laughing matter.
 
Today I wish was at a less safe distance, because that Unstoppable Force of
Nature Reiko Notoya is back at work at MIT with a new set of cathodes.
Yesterday, at low power, she only got a stable 70% excess heat, with a 7 deg C
Delta T, and at high power she got only about 25% excess, about 5 deg C, also
stable. Still not good enough...
 
She figured out the problem with the last set of cathodes, by the way. She
opens a small hole in the cathode to connect the power wire. In the lab in
California, they had several brand new cathodes, and they drilled holes in
them. Unfortunately, they used a power drill which apparently sprayed a very
fine mist of lubricating machine oil. They took precautions, but the oil got
onto the surface of the cathodes and degraded performance. The moral of the
story is: before you do an important demo, always use the exact same tools,
and follow the exact same procedures, in the exact same lab, as you did in
previously successful runs. On the other hand, it was good that she did so
much over here U.S., because a dozen top electrochemists got to look over her
shoulder during the preparation of the cathode and at other critical stages.
As Peter H. said, "it was a learning experience." Most of these people have
successfully done the P&F experiment, so they should have no trouble
replicating this one.
 
DB posted a strange old joke, comparing CF to a village miracle. I suppose the
analogy, or implication, is that the Notoya demo at MIT was the one and only,
make-or-break, last chance to do a public CF experiment, and that since it did
not work very well, the whole business will just disappear off the face of the
earth, because it could not have worked in the laboratory either. DB
apparently does not know the difference between religious miracles, scientific
experiments, and public demonstrations. Since I have spent a lifetime working
with machinery, and I have performed dozens of public demonstrations before
important clients with computers and computer software, I *do* understand
these things. I know that a public demonstration is always somewhat ad-hoc and
unpredictable, no matter how carefully you try to arrange it in advance. I
know that any experiment in a new field of science can fail inexplicably for
reasons that nobody understands -- because it is new science. One or two blown
experiments, or even 100, or 1000, make no difference at all. I have crashed
my computer thousands of times while debugging software. So what? My programs
work eventually, although they fail inexplicably from time to time, as do all
programs.
 
Technology is not a perfect miracle, it can never be 100% reliable or
predictable. People like DB, who think that an experiment is an all-or-
nothing, absolute proposition, don't have the foggiest idea how real
technological progress is made, how real products are developed, or how real
science is done. That was the first public demo of CF in the US (there have
been several in Japan). It was not the last. This one failed, and the next one
may fail too.
 
It will not matter if 100 demonstrations fail. These are not exercises in
Public Relations. This was not a press conference either, as a matter of fact,
we threw CNN out of the lab and did not let them film the lecture. Reporters
can sit and take notes, or make audio recordings, just like anyone else, but
we will not allow any more disruption or media circuses in this field. A demo
is a serious, scientific, public session to show the scientific community at
large, and the other CF scientists, what the work looks like. A demo is like a
lecture, only you learn a lot more, whether the gadget works that day or not.
In the early days of aviation, airplanes frequently did not get off the ground
because of engine failures, cracked struts, and so on. Eventually CF systems
will become robust enough to bring out of the laboratory and demonstrate. For
now, the laboratory data alone will convince any scientist smart enough to
know how a thermometer works.
 
 
In another oddball exchange with DB:
 
Me: "An electrochemist said to me, 'a physicist [can't replicate P&F]...'"
 
DB: "[Agreeing] electrochemistry is not easy. And so it is significant that
most real electrochemists doing electrochemical cold fusion experiments - with
the notable exception of Fleischmann and Bockris - find nothing."
 
Actually, the particular electrochemist who made that statement had very
little trouble replicating P&F, and he did Mills on the first try. I know
dozens of electrochemists who have replicated P&F. Of course, it takes months
of hard work, and you do not get the kind of control and predictability EPRI
paid $3 million bucks for. I also know dozens of physicists who have
replicated P&F. The trick is: if you are a physicist, go visit an
electrochemist for a couple of weeks, or hire one. If you are an
electrochemist who wants to measure neutrons, go spend some time in the
neutron labs and learn the ropes. Learn some lessons, get some humility in
your heart first, and you will succeed. If you think you such a smart cookie
you don't need any advice from anyone, you are bound to fail. I know many
smart cookies who regularly bolix up their computers and lose vital data
simply because they are too proud and too vain to ask for a little help.
 
DB does not realize that any "real electrochemist" who gets serious, has the
money, and does palladium CF for a year or two will invariably succeed. Any
electrochemist who does nickel CF for a month will succeed. DB thinks that he
will read about all of the people who have succeeded by looking in the so-
called peer reviewed literature, but this is absurd, because most
electrochemists who have succeeded will never publish that fact. They work for
corporations that would instantly fire them if they published, and they will
never come onto this network and said, "sure, I have done it, and here is how
much heat I got, and here is how you can replicate me." That is about as
likely as a guy from Microsoft uploading the source code for DOS. CF is not an
open, academic, ivory tower discipline, it is top secret corporate hot stuff
-- like the latest RAM chip production technology. DB is looking for reports
in the peer reviewed published literature, which is like looking for hot stock
market tips in your local newspaper. It is last, least likely place to find
any timely information of value.
 
When P&F discovered CF, they did not publish details, they kept as much of it
secret as they could. They have done everything within reasonable, legal, and
ethical bounds to keep it secret after that. They did not come of the lab and
hand it over to the waiting world, they went and cut a deal with Toyota Motor
Company. They revealed just enough to show they were for real, and to attract
the kind of deal they wanted, from a major player.
 
Okay, I am businessman - programmer - jack-of-all-trades, and what do I think
of P&F's actions? I think it is absolutely brilliant! Genius! I could not have
done it better in a million years. Is it ethical? Of course! Was it ethical
for Edison to build General Electric? Was it ethical for A.G. Bell to found
AT&T? Naturally, it is ethical to cash in on an invention. It is the most
above board, honorable, All-American, and sensible action imaginable. If P&F
had not done exactly that, no businessman (like me) would ever have taken them
seriously. If they had not kept it secret, and not cut a serious deal, I would
have written them off as flakes and nutcases.
 
Anybody with an ounce of sense would do exactly what they did. Only, most of
us would not be talented enough to snag a company like Toyota. Somebody here
mentioned -- with a note of disbelief -- that they shut their graduate student
out of the lab. Well, Good Grief! Of course they did! I shut my employees out
of my computer too. If I ever caught one monkeying and prying into source
code, I would fire him immediately, and send the sheriff to his house with a
warrant to search for stolen property that afternoon. I don't let people steal
my livelihood, and P&F do not casually throw away a fortune. This is the real
world, folks. P&F had a secret worth billions of dollars in that room. If they
had not shut out that grad student, they would have been criminally stupid and
grossly negligent. Heck, I would have hired an armed guard. This is not a
game.
 
 
Several people responded to my comments about money. Hey, guys, I never said
that money is the ONLY thing that motivates people, I just said that for the
run-of-the-mill, ordinary person, it motivates more often, and more
consistently than other rewards, like the urge to have fun, or to create, or
to exercise power over others. It is the principal motivating force in
society, but not the only one, by any means. Someone here said that Edison
invented some relatively impractical gadgets, not for money. Naturally, he
did, he was a world-class inventor who accomplished more every day before
breakfast that most of us do in a year. He must have invented dozens of purely
scientific devices as well as practical, salable devices. However, his main
accomplishment was building the General Electric Company, which is a profit
making, profit oriented organization if ever there was one.
 
Also, when I said, "money purifies," I meant that it keeps people on track,
and it keeps them from kidding themselves and lying. If you are building a
gadget, like a computer, you know that you cannot fool the customers. They
will not buy the product if it does not work better than the competition. As
the builder, you know that there is no point to lying or quibbling about
performance. People only pay for real products, they do not pay for the
designer's wishful thinking or silly delusions. When money and jobs are on the
line, it "concentrates the mind wonderfully" as Twain said about a death
sentence. Nobody on earth tests software more exhastively than some poor
S.O.B. who has to go install a package next week. That is why I say, "money
purifies" and keeps you honest.
 
 
Tom Droege says, "I do not remember [Jed] previously stating that they used
surgical gloves in assembling their cells."
 
Oh, I am quite sure I said that explicitly, many times. I say it every time
the subject comes up. In the protocol it is under note # 3, and in the quote
from Noninsky. Use surgical gloves, NEVER the yellow rubber kind.
 
Tom also said: "It looks like what might be clean for semiconductor work is
not clean for electrochemistry." Definitely right! I have that straight from
the horse's mouth (IBM). They look for different kinds of contamination. Stuff
that bothers one does not affect the other.
 
The kinds of questions and concerns that Tom is bringing up here illustrate
EXACTLY what I have been saying: there is art to electrochemistry! It is not
in the textbooks, and the only way to learn it is first hand, in the lab, from
an experienced person. That is true of every laboratory science, from physics
to biology. You learn by doing, not by reading e-mail messages. If you try
hard you can probably succeed in the nickel experiment without help, but your
chances of getting heat from palladium are zero to none. You might as well
expect an electrochemist could build a television or a neutron detector
without ever having seen one, and without a textbook, simply by reading
fragmentary e-mail notes. CF just got invented, there are no textbooks yet,
and even the experts struggle with it. We got LOTS of expert help with our
experiments, and they failed anyway. If you insist on working with palladium,
which is doing it the hard way, then at least give yourself every possible
advantage, and get first hand help. Heck, why not just ask someone to make a
cell for you? That's what we did, more or less.
 
Tom: "I am not willing to accept Jed's command that we disconnect our heads
and copy another experiment exactly when we are not being told what "exactly"
is."
 
You don't know what 'exactly' is, but electrochemists generally do. That is
why they get an effect, and you don't. Also because they work at CF full time
for years before they get anywhere, and they have fully equipped labs without
cats (an unfair advantage). If you don't know what 'exactly' is, then go spend
a week in Hokkaido, or the University of Minnesota, TAMU, or wherever, and
find out. Watch, take notes, ask questions, and you will learn. First, copy
the master exactly in every detail. When you succeed, strike out on your own.
 
I think that it is good for a person to disconnect the head from time to time,
forget the ego, follow orders, and learn from the master. I recommend it.
Perhaps it is an alien, Oriental tradition, but we can all learn from Japan,
can't we? If you want to succeed at CF, act as child would, and begin by
watching, imitating and learning from others. It takes humility, guts, moral
courage, and a sense of humor, but there is no other way to master this new
art, because nobody on earth can explain it yet. It can only be grasped by
intuition, and experiments only work by trial and error. Later, we will make
it into a science.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  /  Trying to keep clean
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trying to keep clean
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:47:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One of the things I try to do in these posts is to expose the scientific
thought process.  Not the computational analysis that the text books are full
of, but the decision making process of how a research path is selected.
 
You may recall that when I was faced with building a calorimeter I
purposefully did not look to see how others did it.  Now I am asking everyone
how they clean things.  What gives?
 
With the calorimeter I wanted to try to extend the art.  I felt I had a chance
of beating it.  With cleaning, I have no such ambition.  I will be content if
I can figure out how to do a workman like job.
 
The advice I have received is wonderfully diverse.  Some of it you have seen
here, some has been sent privately.  Us commercial glass cleaner some say
(contain chromic acid), others say DON'T USE CHROMIC ACID!  So I have to look
at everything that has been sent and what I can read, weigh my assessment of
each advisors qualifications, and make a decision.  There is no one to tell me
if I have made the right decision.
 
The apparatus tells me that much later.  As Dieter Britz has pointed out, not
all electrochemists (who it is assumed do the cleaning right) get a positive
result.  Possibly I have to do something wrong.
 
My brother is pushing me to build a vapor degreaser.  The plan at the moment
is to buy a 24 cup coffee maker and to put a copper cooling coil in the top of
it and to load it with perchlorethylene.  I guess this will then be a
perchlorethylene percolator.  (The basket is of course removed.)  This should
work great to clean the Lithium.  The problem is then to get it into an inert
atmosphere before it oxidizes.
 
My present scheme is to flow argon gas into the needle end of a large syringe.
The plunger will be removed an the Lithium quickly brought from the degreaser
to the syringe.  Then I put in the plunger, turn off the gas with a three way
valve and push in the plunger, switching the valve to the sealed position as
the argone is pushed out.  With luck, I end up with very little gas and even
less oxygen in the syringe.  Then the syringe can be moved into the argon
atmosphere of the glove bag which will be kept free of solvents.
 
One universal piece of advice that I have received is "No Soap".  OK, No Soap.
I bought a box of vinyl gloves a while back with the idea of making my own
glove box.  Now I am worried that they are not safe to use as they are likely
full of plasticizer(sp?).  Would rubber gloves be better?
 
Once I build the degreaser, I will use it to clean all the cell parts that
will stand it.  I see that the Polypropylene cell I plan to use does not stand
it, but everything else looks OK (A in the Cole-Parmer table).  Then rinses
with acids and finally deionized water.  Looking for suggestions on the
sequence here.
 
Please keep all the good advice coming.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  Rothwell /  Harder than she thought
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harder than she thought
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:47:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Well, Notoya-san had to go off to another appointment in the U.S. I don't
know what they plan to do next, but I think she will mail cathodes to people
here in the U.S. who will try them in full-scale, careful calorimeters. I will
suggest to her that she wrap them carefully in containers filled with inert
gas. The glass-bottle demo approach is a good learning experience, because
it is fast and it lets you watch the electrolysis, but obviously red alcohol
thermometers and alligator clips are no substitute for real thermocouples
attached to data collection computers, solid electrical connections, on-the-fly
calibration heaters, and closed calorimeters with stable temperatures.
 
Jon Webb thinks it is a "lot harder" to do nickel CF than I said. He and I
have vastly different standards about what is "hard" and what is "easy."
Suppose the people at MIT (or elsewhere) work at nickel CF for six months,
day and night, go through 10 cathodes from Notoya, and finally replicate
her 400% excess. I will call that "dead simple." A ride on Delta! Compared to
palladium, it would be a cinch. Perhaps Mr. Webb is not familiar with just
how difficult and frustrating basic research and product development is. I
once spent six months just writing screen display software (back in the
prehistoric of microcomputers; now that sort of thing comes out of a box),
so I think six months of hard work is nothing. My idea of a "lot harder" is
what EPRI had to do in order to replicate P&F's palladium CF: three years
of work with a large staff, $3 million in expenses, and 200 experiments,
yielding 40 positive runs (a 20% success rate). So far, at MIT, we saw 2 out
2 nickel experiments work, although the rate of heat generation and the
stability were disappointing.
 
Since she only got a 70% excess at low power, obviously Notoya's cathode
and chemicals do not travel as well as she thought they would. Practically
anyone who makes a serious effort to do this experiment with porous nickel
will see excess heat in the range of 30% to 70%. Under clean, controlled
laboratory conditions back in Hokkaido, Notoya sees a lot more than that.
Compared to Mills, Noninsky, Srinivasan, and the others who have seen this
effect, her claims are different quantitatively, but not qualitatively.
Obviously, there is more art to it than she realized. I would say she got lucky
at Nagoya. Plus -- as I said all along -- B&J were partly right, when she
measured resistance she admitted that the silver wire was more resistant
than she thought, and the temperature did rise when we moved the clips, so
perhaps the Nagoya demo was also roughly in the range of 100% excess,
rather than 150% (my seat-of-the-pants estimate based on 15 C delta T). I
thank Mitchell Swartz for putting that discussion on a qualitative,
numerical basis. Why don't we put it aside for the time being, and try the
actual nickel experiment? That seems like the conventional course of action
to me.
 
I am not sure how you make a sintered nickel cathode. I gather it is in a
small forge or hot press. Several people have written to me suggesting that
it would be a good idea to grab the cathode from the forge when it is still
cooling with a pair clean tweezers, drill a hole in it, mount the lead wire,
and plop it into the electrolyte. They say, "do not let it lie around for a
week." One electrochemist, who is not working on CF, told me that in the
time it takes him to carry a newly forged cathode across the room, it turns
slightly black with oxidation. In the future, if CF devices are manufactured,
I expect they will be protected from the environment like computer chips
or hard disks, in automated production lines. The cathodes will go straight
from the forge into the sealed device, and never be exposed to tweezers,
dandruff, machine oil or air. With automated production machinery, it is
relatively easy to get the fanatical level of cleanliness the electrochemists
want. You do not need to manually wash glassware 20 times with hot water
and 10 times with cold water.
 
Cameron Bass reminds us that "energy balances are much easier than
detailed flow calculations." Let me add that steady state energy balances are
easier than balances during ramping, or changing energy flows. I don't know
why. I should be able to tell the computer to chop up the run and compute
a balance for every reading. But, for some reason, I have found that the
balance comes closer to zero when you put in a steady flow of electricity.
Doubling the rate of data collection does not fix the problem completely.
The difference is not large, but for best results, hold the power steady for
a couple of hours.
 
DB has the impression that there is $25 million in funding available in the
U.S. for CF. Did Hal Fox say that? I don't know exactly what Hal said, but
I am quite certain there is not even one tenth that amount available per
anum in all of North American. Perhaps Hal was referring to the total
capitalization that he expected would be possible from his venture. I am not
familiar with his affairs; I know nothing about his venture, but I can tell
by looking that he does not have that kind of ready cash. I speak to
researchers on a daily basis, and if there was any funding on that scale --
anywhere -- it would attract them like sugar attracts ants.
 
Another comment of Jon Webb's deserves comment, because it is a classic
case of pathological non-science. It violates the rule established by Kepler
while examining the data of Tycho Brahe: the Data is Right, You are Wrong.
This is the whole ball of wax, the very basis of science and of the
Renaissance, and the Jon Webbs of this world are still -- literally -- living
in the Dark Ages, intellectually. I am not kidding. Let me pull apart his
statement, piece by piece.
 
"When Pons and Fleischmann first announced, I was sort of willing to
believe (based on their reputations) that two miracles could occur: fusion
could take place in palladium at room temperature and the fusion would not
produce copious amounts of neutrons.  But I'm not willing to believe in a
third miracle, namely that it doesn't require special materials like
deuterium. *Especially* since the theory claimed to explain this kind of
fusion invokes sub-orbital states of hydrogen..."
 
First: you must never, ever, believe or disbelieve any results based upon the
reputation of the scientists involved. It does not matter who reports a result.
No data means anything until it has been widely replicated. The only proper
response to a new and startling report is to suspend judgment for a couple of
years.
 
Second: the number of "miracles" required to explain a result makes no
difference whatsoever. God does not care how surprised you are. X-Rays
came as a terrible shock, and so did atom bombs (to most scientists). It does
not matter if it take 100 miracles, or 1000. The only thing that matters --
THE ONLY THING -- is the sigma level of confidence in the results
measured by the instruments. Suppose you woke up and found that the laws
of gravity had changed overnight; suppose you, and many other scientists,
ran a series of replicated experiments that proved convincingly that objects
now fall at a steady rate (not accelerated). Well, miracle or not, that would
be The Truth. Newton would be proved wrong, and everything you ever
"knew" about gravity would be incorrect. A scientist's job is to judge results
based on instruments and replications. Nothing else matters! Previous ideas
about what is possible, what is rational, what fits and what does not fit,
have absolutely no role in science. Data is truth, and all else is speculation.
A 90 sigma result, like McKubre's, overthrows any and all theory no matter
how well established. If an experiment was to prove that ESP exists, or that
black people were inherently more intelligent that whites, that would be
Truth and you would have to accept it unconditionally.
 
You must deliberately put all theoretical considerations aside when judging
results. It is like Zen meditation; you start by clearing your mind of all
preconceptions, prejudice, value judgements, and conscious ideas, you must
make it a blank slate. The only questions are: how do the instruments work,
and what is the signal to noise ratio? The whole *point* and *purpose* of
science is to get rid of preconceived ideas, to dynamite away old theories,
and to build on the first-hand, unfiltered lessons of Nature as shown by the
instruments.
 
It is no more of a "miracle" is that ordinary light water works than that
heavy water works. Both are extraordinarily surprising. (Besides, it might
be the fraction of D2O in ordinary water that is reacting.) The only reason
to that light water might be more of a surprise is this: people have been
using various light water - nickel electrochemical devices for a long time,
and light water is more common than concentrated D2O, so you might think
that people should have observed nickel CF excess heat a long time ago.
However, researchers working with nickel CF tell me that this would be
extremely unlikely. Under normal circumstances, with ordinary nickel, you
get between 0% and 3% excess, which would be easily overlooked, and you
can kill the reaction easily. You have to deliberately and consciously set out
to make a CF cell, and you have to carefully enhance the effect. Let me
draw a few analogies: by the late 18th century, people had been building
astrolobes and surveying devices, and they had been using mirrors and half-
silvered mirrors for hundreds of years, but nobody ever accidentally put
together a sextant. It took a deliberate, planned effort, and a great deal of
hard work. In an example closer to CF, people experimented with "cats
whisker" radios and they knew a lot about electricity, but Bell Labs did not
stumble over the transistor; it took a deliberate, planned effort.
 
Also, this part is really crazy: "*Especially* since the theory claimed to
explain this kind of fusion invokes sub-orbital states of hydrogen, which
*really do* violate quantum mechanics..."
 
There must always be a clear, solid wall in your mind between data and
theory. The data can be right, and the theory utterly incorrect. The viability
of the Mills theory has nothing whatever to do with the data from his
experiment, or from the many replications of that experiment. Data and
theory must be forever separate and distinct. Beginning in the middle ages
people used leaches to cure certain diseases; this practice did not die out
until the late eighteenth century. The theory behind this practice was some
kind of medieval nonsense about "humors" in the body (I believe), or some
other balderdash. However, this theory had nothing to do with whether or
not leaches are therapeutically effective at preventing blood clots and
speeding recovery. They are! Leaches work! They are now coming back into
widespread use for certain conditions. The theory was wrong, but the
medicine worked. This sort of thing happens all the time, in every branch
of science, medicine and technology.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.12 / mitchell swartz /  quality, quantity, location
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: quality, quantity, location
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:56:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In
       sci.physics.fusion:4525, and earlier postings
       [eg. <1992Dec10.191414.20023@midway.uchicago.edu>
       greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)]>
 
   there are discussions of neutrons and their role in
 biological systems.   Quality, quantity, location.
 
  In many such postings and in many lectures in this field,
 read and heard, there have been banterings that if "cold
 fusion" were "real" then everyone between the electrochemical
 cell and Central Square [Cambridge, MA, but substitute the
 radius of your choice] would be "dead". (Usually followed
 by laughter from the audience)
 
  FACT: Neutrons, like other particles, and like high-energy
 ionizing radiation, may cause cancer, but also cure it.
 
  Quantity is important, just as the quality is confused.
 
   As a cold fusion experimenter and theoretician,
 who has experience of having also treated scores of people
 afflicted with solid oncologic malignancies, I have used
 particle beams and am familiar with the role
 of neutrons to both cause, and to contribute to the cure of,
 cancer.  [For example, for soft tissue sarcomata of the
 extremities neutrons can increase the local and regional
 control rates after a conservative surgical resection.
 I admit that the cosmetic aspects of neutron therapy is poor
 in comparison to protracted ionizing radiation or protons,
 but for elderly patients where such late secondary effect is
 minor in comparison to amputation or tumor-recurrence
 neutrons are a reasonable option.]
 
  The facts are that neutrons absolutely do present a risk,
 but there is no evidence that "cold fusion" in a solid
 necessarily must generate the quantity of neutrons expected
 as predicted by neutron production rates in other neutron
 producing processes.
 
  Therefore, people as erudite as  grace this forum,
 and scientific meetings on this subject, should simply not
 denigrate particles and radiation which has been used as
 tools in our armamentarium to cure cancer
    [the 100th anniversary of the discovery of x-rays
     and their use to treat cancer is fast approaching].
 
 
 
  Incidentally, the paucity of generated neutrons in these
 reactions has led to my suggestion several years ago that
 such "cold fusion" reactions be called
 
  neutronpenic = "weak" in neutrons
                 that is, being void of the (relative) normal
                 expected quantities of neutrons.
 
  so as to distinguish them from plasma (and other types
 productive of mucho neutrons) fusion.
 
 
   Even given the general past observations of neutronpenic
 response, however, there is the possibility that advanced
 cold fusion reactors and systems, and successful primitive
 cells, may have both explosive potential
                                     (of numerous etiologies)
 
 as well as possibility of becoming irradiators of significant
 quantities of neutrons and other radiations.
    All involved should always plan on such accordingly.
 
==============================================================
       Mitchell R. Swartz              JET Technology
       mica@world.std.com              (617) 239-8383
 
   "Advanced technology may appear to be magic to primitives,
 but physics and technology remain a tough ride."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  Rothwell /  Different kinds of claims
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Different kinds of claims
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:48:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Some correspondents have accused me of contradicting myself for stating, on
one hand:
 
     "you must never, ever, believe or disbelieve any results based upon the
     reputation of the scientists involved;"
 
     While, on the other hand, saying the claims of NTT, IMRA, the NHEP, have
     great credence because they come from large, established corporations,
     and that statements from MITI like "we are certain the heat is real"
     should be taken seriously because MITI is the most successful government
     technology development agency in history.
 
This may appear to be a contradiction, but it is not, because I am looking at
the situation from a business point of view, and I am making two completely
different kinds of statements, about different kinds of scientific claims:
 
1. A small, revolutionary science breakthrough claim.
 
A claim that a primitive basement experiment has yielded a barely measurable
level of excess heat that continued for such a long time that it added up to
far more energy than any possible chemical reaction can yield. This is
incredible. It should never be believed -- or dismissed -- until years have
passed, and it has been widely replicated. Anybody could have performed the
original P&F type experiments; a graduate student or high school chemistry
teacher would have had access to the tools and materials needed, just as any
bicycle mechanic could have built a primitive airplane in 1903.
 
2. Big, industrial strength breakthrough claims.
 
A claim that a lab has performed 200 experiments costing $3 million. Or, a
claim that a group of scientists has used $560,000 worth of sophisticated
equipment for 4 years to make a CF reactor; and their company is so certain
they are right, it is about to market the equipment in an OEM deal. This kind
of thing is believable coming from a large, established corporation. If the
Atlanta Screen & Trapdoor Fusion Power Company announced a $560,000 OEM deal
for a CF reactor, you would be wise to assume it was a scam. If the world's
largest telephone company announces that deal, you better believe they mean
it. You would a fool to bet they are mistaken. NTT has a "track record" of
being right, and NTT never, ever, takes unnecessary, foolhardy chances, and
never jumps to conclusions.
 
Going back to my 1903 example, anyone could have built a 1903 Kitty Hawk
Flyer. A 1918 model Sopwith Camel was enormously larger, more powerful, more
sophisticated, and could not possibly have been built by a pair of bicycle
mechanics in their spare time.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  /  Black Stuff
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Black Stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes "when I run my Mills type cell in reverse current mode,
the Ni (now) anode becomes coated with a dark black substance, ...)
 
Let me be the 200 th person to tell you it is likely Ni hydride.  Mills, I
think, will tell you that you should never do that, and that it permanently
kills the effect.  I wanted to do it as a means of calibration since a nice
way to check such a reaction is to run reverse at the same cell power.  This
should duplicate everything but the "mystery" power.  So a nice experiment
would be to operate periods of forward and reverse.  Enough reversals and
you could compare forward temperature with reverse temperature and draw some
conclusion.  Alas, Mills says this kills the effect.  So does running with
a catalyst according to Mills.  So he carefully eliminates the good ways to
do this experiment.  This leaves only looking for Hydrinos.  I have done that
without success.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  /  Christmas Suggestions
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Christmas Suggestions
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:35:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I got an early morning phone call from my brother.  It seems the NTT $565,000
cold fusion kit has made one the lists of things to buy those that have
everything in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.  This is not news.  What is news is
that they say that "two have been sold."  I wonder who bought them.
 
Tom Droege   Droege@fnal.fnald
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  /  Cleaning
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cleaning
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:56:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I wish to thank all that have helped me with cleaning procedures.  Bruce Dunn,
Jed Rothwell, Dieter Britz, Carl Ijames (or I. James?), Jim Miles, Roger
Stout, Albert Boulanger, Jim Poulin, Lee John Droege, David Touland, Jim Ott,
and Tod Green have all contributed.  Apologies to anyone that I have left out.
Some of the suggestions made great sense, but are beyond my facilities.  I
have tried to select the best features of the things that I can do.
 
A little knowledge is sure discouraging.  Possibly I should go back to trying
to build a 17 nanosecond conversion time, 0.1%, 10,000 to 1 dynamic range ADC.
That is what the SSC needs if it is to take useful data.  (I have been working
on a true log converter scheme - but not much hope to get it to 17 ns.)
 
The coffeepot degreaser works great.  For those who have never seen such a
thing, it consists of a 24 cup standard stainless steel american party coffee
pot with several turns of 1/4" copper tubing wound around the outside at the
top.  Put about 1" of 1,1,1,trichlorethylene in it and turn it on.  The tri-
chlor boils and the pot fills with a mist up to the line of the cooling coil.
(To anyone copying this scheme, the coffee pot has too much power, I have to
use a Variac to cut down the voltage.)  A part, say a screw driver blade,
inserted into the mist drips with condensed vapor.  Thus this device hot
cleans with freshly distilled solvent.  Not much vapor seems to get out into
the room.
 
Several have told me that Lithium is explosive in chlorinated solvents.  So
now that I have built the nice degreaser, I cannot use it.  I am back to
cleaning the Lithium with Xylene and drying it off with argon gas.  No, fans,
I will not put Xylene in the coffee pot.  Possibly out doors in the spring not
too near any favorite shrub.
 
No plastic, no paper towels, no nitrogen, no chromic acid, go glass, no
alcohols, no keytones, no tri-chlor, no air, etc., I am told.  It is like what
you can talk about in the officers ward room (dining hall) in the Navy.  The
list is so long (no women, politics, etc.) that all that is left is the
weather.
 
Now that I have it, is it safe to use the coffee pot with trichlorethylene as
a pre-cleaner?  It sure does a great job of removing grease.  I would use it
first, followed by baking, acid clean (aqua regia?), distilled water, baking,
xylene, acetone, distilled water, baking, multiple rinses each step.
 
I would plan to fill the cell in the argon filled plastic bag.  Just try to
flow enough gas through the bag so that the plasticizer content is low in the
atmosphere.  Make the LiOD in the bag.  Fill and seal the cell.  At this point
(after waiting for the D2 and O2 to clear) I have an argon atmosphere in the
cell.  Hmmm.  I wonder what the merits are of putting out some catalyst in the
bag to recombine the D2 and O2 as they are made.  Would this be safer than
flowing lots of Argon to get rid of this explosive mixture as it is made?
Brother Lee made the LiOD before by just using a narrow necked flask in the
open and depending on the exiting gas to retard water vapor contamination from
the air (besides it is pretty dry where he lives at 9500 feet).
 
For the fans of my futures market operations, I just sold the last (March)
contract.  Bought at $92 sold at $109.50.  The Nagoya speculation period will
just about pay for the chiller (after net of tax effects and lost interest).
I think the run up had nothing to do with "cold fusion".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / John Logajan /  Black stuff
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Black stuff
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>John Logajan writes "when I run my Mills type cell in reverse current mode,
>the Ni (now) anode becomes coated with a dark black substance, ...)
>
>Let me be the 200 th person to tell you it is likely Ni hydride.
 
Actually you are the first.  The other two people said it was Ni oxide.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  Britz /  Ag vs nichrome
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ag vs nichrome
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
Jed,
You are, as usual, let us politely say, *obscure*, when you say
 
>Technical type people know damn well that the only way 6 cm of one wire can
>dissipate as much heat as 4 cm of another wire is if both have approximately
>the same resistance. They also know that it would take an impossibly thin
>silver wire to be as resistant as a 0.5 nichrome wire: at the power levels
>seen in Nagoya, it would melt! Beuler and Jones claimed that by moving around
>the alligator clips, they measured a high resistance in the silver wire.
...
>If they are not claiming that the silver wire had the same resistance as the
>nichrome, then what on earth did they mean? Why else does a wire get hot and
>dissipate heat?
 
Etc, etc, etc. The fact is, despite all your verbal output, Jones's grad
student did measure a certain voltage and a certain current, which by accepted
physics means a certain power, being dissipated into the air. No matter what
pretty words you concatenate, you can't escape this. This is accepted science.
It doesn't matter what you think about nichrome wire vs silver wire; the above
facts hold. You have also made noise about how "impossibly thin" a Ag wire
would have to be etc etc - well, you may recall I calculated that, it came to
about 50 microns, not impossibly thin and, in fact, a commercial size, and
quite visible, if thin.
 
Ditto for
 
>same thing Notoya, Srinivasan, Bush, Noninski, and Mills did. You are an
>electrochemist aren't you? Are you afraid to try a simple experiment with a
>piece of nickel?
 
Yes, indeed I am an electrochemist, but what about it? Do I have to accept any
statement from a TB of CNF? Why should I try any nonsense? It is up to you to
convince me with sufficient evidence to make it interesting, not me to prove
you wrong. Otherwise I am not interested. Oh yeah, another bloke making a
claim, ho hum. By the way, does the Clustron theory in fact encompass light
water, nickel and potassium carbonate, originally, or is this a convenient
ad-hoc add-on? Wasn't Brightsen's theory about deuterium?
 
You are trying to drown the issue in a flood of meaningless words. Let us
stick to technical issues to do with fusion (remember the subject of this
list?), and not set up artificial flame wars. If you must have these, there
are other groups for just that. If you have something other than shrill
responses, e.g. some real information, let us by all means have it. Tell us,
for example, about the prototype that is supposed to be out end of this year.
I presume this will clearly demonstrate a net energy profit; now that would
be interesting. I believe you are involved in the consortium that has promised
it. And how about Clustron Inc.? How's it going? Is a prototype forthcoming?
It's so easy, you keep telling us, so OK, build one. Good advertising for
you, too, and all free on this net. And your shareholders will know they have
made a wise investment.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  Britz /  RE: Trying to keep clean
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Trying to keep clean
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
Exactly what cleaning procedure you use depends on what you are trying to keep
out. Is it trace metals, that might deposit and change the electrode
characteristics? Or is it organics, that might settle on the cathode and
inhibit a reaction? The one unusual thing about cnf electrolysis is that very
long times are involved. No matter how carefully you purify everything, there
will remain enough of anything to make at least a monolayer on the cathode,
given enough time. A monolayer is about 1E-12 mol/cm**2, not much in about 100
ml solution. Certainly oil should be kept away, and I recommend running your
water directly into your cell through an active carbon column. You don't need
"20 washes with hot water and 10 with cold"; soak your glassware (or better:
your quartzware, but polypropylene might be OK - I'd prefer teflon) in hot
conc HCl, then wash with triply quartz-distilled water, something like 5 times
will do. Keep away rubber, use teflon stoppers.
 
If you were a scientist in a lab, I'd suggest fighting gunk with gunk; i.e.
deliberately adding a surfactant, in the hope that a friendly surfactant might
replace an unknown, possibly harmful one, at the surface. But you'd need to
try a lot of different kinds, and you are not doing fundamental studies in
your basement.
 
Degrease your Li, sure. Oxide layers might not matter that much, since, when
you dissolve Li2O in water later, it turns into LiOH (or LiOD) anyway. But
grease, yes, that's an unknown, possibly harmful gunk. I am not too happy
about touching anything that is to go into the cell, with surgical gloves
either. Chemists wear these not so that they can touch things, but to protect
their hands against accidental spills. They will be full of gunk on the
surface. Use metal (or teflon?) tweezers to handle the Li.
 
If you think you have to exclude oxygen during some phase, remember that most
plastics, and I'll bet the latex that those gloves are made out of, will let
oxygen through. So you'd have to keep the argon flowing to minimise oxygen in
your glove bag.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  Britz /  Electrochemistry; CNF finance.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrochemistry; CNF finance.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I want to prevent a misunderstanding that Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@compuserve.com> inadvertently might be causing. The word now is
that CNF is terribly difficult, and that it is not
 
>relatively easy to get the fanatical level of cleanliness the electrochemists
>want. You do not need to manually wash glassware 20 times with hot water
>and 10 times with cold water.
 
I have already referred to the bit about "20 times.." etc. What I want to
correct here is the idea that electrochemists always "want" such fanatical
levels of cleanliness. This might put off some younger readers of this group
from going into electrochemistry. It all depends on what you are doing;
electrochemistry is a very wide area. Industrial electrolysis is dirty as
hell, and so is organic electrosynthesis. Electrolytic removal of metals from
solution, who cares about cleanliness? In some electroanalysis, a trace of
gunk might not matter either. But if you are investigating, say, double layer
behaviour at a solid metal, then yes, indeed, ultrapure everything - the sort
of thing Bockris used to do and is still famous for. You, Jed, have seen only
one leg of the elephant electrochemistry, but there are many other aspects to
it. I find it a bit hard to swallow that ultracleanliness should be The
Secret. It sounds to me like an ad hoc explanation for why group A gets
results, and group B does not. I could be wrong.
 
Then, Jed, you are badly informed when you write
 
>DB has the impression that there is $25 million in funding available in the
>U.S. for CF. Did Hal Fox say that? I don't know exactly what Hal said, but
>I am quite certain there is not even one tenth that amount available per
>anum in all of North American. Perhaps Hal was referring to the total
>capitalization that he expected would be possible from his venture. I am not
 
In Fusion Facts Vol.3, no. 8, Feb-92, page 2, you will find the statement
"With a release time of 12 noon, Saturday, February 22, 1992, it has been
announced that a consortium of Utah and Washington corporations have pledged
over $25 million over the next few years for the development of cold fusion
energy systems. The participating corporations include two Utah corporations
and one Washington corporation. Fusion Energy Applied Technology, Inc. (FEAT),
Fusion Information Center, Inc. (FIC), and Eden-Barn Industries, Inc., joined
to make the annoucement. [... info on these corporations...].
The goal of this consortium of American corporations is to begin immediately
to commercialise cold fusion and have the first manufacturing prototype
completed by the end of 1992".
 
There you go, lots of money. As you yourself said a day or so ago, there are
lots of people in the US working on this, so stop griping about the lack of
money for cold fusion.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.12 / Paul Houle /  Re: Power flow stuff (the Droege dilemma)
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power flow stuff (the Droege dilemma)
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:13:47 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <11DEC199214524483@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
 (MIKE JAMISON) writes:
>Paul Houle suggests finding the direction of the B field, the E field and
>then determining the Poynting vector from this information.  There may be a
>problem with finding the B field (where is your reference point,
>specifically).
>
>I suspect the "easiest" answer is to measure the voltage between the
>superconductiing wires, noting the sign.  Use the compass to determine the
>B field at one of the superconducting wires (remember that the B field
>generated by a wire looks like a bunch of concentric circles with the wire
>at the center, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of current flow in
>the wire).
>
>The compass will align with the B field (its B field will point opposite to
>that of the wire).  Using the right hand rule, you can find the direction
>of current flow in either of the wires, assuming you know which direction
>the B field points on a compass (N to S or S to N, sorry, I can't remember
>- Tom, can I take my EM book with me as a reference :))
>
>Coupling the direction of current flow with the E-field information, you
>can find out where the battery is.  Q.E.D.
 
        Yes, I actually got a little confused about this later and
thought it out from your perspective and I got the same answer.  I was
a little bit bothered about what the actual physical difference
between the source and sink of energy are, but then I thought how the
current flows from - to + on a battery and + to - on a sink. The right
hand rule works for my first answer too -- S = E X B (where X is the cross
product), so you can, say, take your right hand and point your middle
finger along the E field, and point your thumb along the B field and
then your pointing finger is the poynting vector,  and that is the way that
energy is flowing.  (Try it!)  Using your right hand lets you instruct a
small child (but training a dog or most physics students might be harder)
to do it without any thinking about currents.
 
        Frames of reference create no problems,  since the equations for
electromagnetism are Lorenz invariant and the energy flux will come out
right for whatever frame you are in.
 
        It might actually be interesting to set something like this up for
physics students (very smart high school students or average college
students) with ordinary wire (Just make it thick enough and the voltmeter
cheap enough (The leads short enough!) that one could not detect voltage
drop.  Then let five or six of them into the room (omit a blackboard if
you are cruel) and let them argue about the answer.
 
 
 
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.13 / Greg Kuperberg /  Quality and quantity neutrons in your location
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quality and quantity neutrons in your location
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:28:09 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <Bz5zHy.3sC@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>  The facts are that neutrons absolutely do present a risk,
> but there is no evidence that "cold fusion" in a solid
> necessarily must generate the quantity of neutrons expected
> as predicted by neutron production rates in other neutron
> producing processes.
 
My point is not that you know that there will be dangerous amounts
neutrons if there is cold fusion, but rather that there might be.  You
don't just take an umbrella when you know it will rain, you take one
when you think it might rain, or else you might get wet.  Similarly you
might get wet with a lethal dose of neutron radiation unless you shield
yourself from your fusion experiments properly.
 
I must confess that I do not research cold fusion.  But if I did in the
hope of actually finding it, I would be prepared for the possibility
of lots and lots of neutrons.
 
>  FACT: Neutrons, like other particles, and like high-energy
> ionizing radiation, may cause cancer, but also cure it.
 
I certainly didn't mean to denigrate neutrons.  They are a noble
particle species.  But I was not informed of their healing effects.  In
fact I don't see how a massive neutron burst from a cold fusion
experiment could help you more than it hurts you, but if you say it
can, I'll consider that possibility.
 
If that's really so, then if you have cancer, you should consider
working on cold fusion as a form of radiation therapy.
 
>  Quantity is important, just as the quality is confused.
 
I see.  If you're going to do cold fusion experiments in the hope
that they will cure your cancer, you should first have a reason to
believe that the experiment will produce Quality neutrons rather
than mundane neutrons.
 
>  Incidentally, the paucity of generated neutrons in these
> reactions has led to my suggestion several years ago that
> such "cold fusion" reactions be called
>
>  neutronpenic = "weak" in neutrons
>                 that is, being void of the (relative) normal
>                 expected quantities of neutrons.
>
>  so as to distinguish them from plasma (and other types
> productive of mucho neutrons) fusion.
 
Since this was several years ago, you must have been thinking of
Pons-Fleischmann-style experiments which, in Jed Rothwell's
terminology, exhibit Conestoga Wagon cold fusion.  Jed says that Notoya
et al have moved way beyond that and are now doing Delta Airlines cold
fusion.  Do we really know that DACF is neutronpenic just as CWCF is?
And what if a third kind of cold fusion, say F15 cold fusion or at
least Air Canada cold fusion, is discovered by accident in Notoya's
lab?  Will F15CF be neutronpenic also?
 
>   Even given the general past observations of neutronpenic
> response, however, there is the possibility that advanced
> cold fusion reactors and systems, and successful primitive
> cells, may have both explosive potential (of numerous etiologies)
> as well as possibility of becoming irradiators of significant
> quantities of neutrons and other radiations.
>    All involved should always plan on such accordingly.
 
I agree completely.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.13 / mitchell swartz /  quantity and quality at your location
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: quantity and quality at your location
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:02:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In    [sci.physics.fusion:4530 [13 Dec 1992];
        greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) states
 
 
=  "My point is not that you know that there will be dangerous
=   amounts neutrons if there is cold fusion, but rather that there
=   might be.
 
    This is a very reasonable position, and in fact was supported by
 the very posting to which Greg Kuperberg was referring.  This
 caution is thus well reasoned.
 
 
=   "But I was not informed of their (neutrons, and high energy
=    radiation) healing effects.  In fact I don't see how a massive
=    neutron burst from a cold fusion experiment could help you more
=    than it hurts you, but if you say it can, I'll consider that
=    possibility.
 
   This statement, coupled with an admission of a failure to be
 "informed", is a broad quick leap from logic.
   The Kuperberg interpretation is uncorroborated by the missive to
 which Kuperberg refers.  In fact, reading the original posting
 reveals that Kuperberg's statement simply does not portray
 that which the posting contained.
 
   The posting discussed misstatements made by "skeptics", and was
 in response to years of hearing such silliness upon which the
 skeptics have depended in this matter.
 
 
    Radiation therapy (use of electrons, high energy x- (or
 gamma depending upon source) rays, and infrequently protons and
 neutrons to treat cancer) involves careful control of the irradiator,
 shielding of the normal tissues, and planning planning planning.
    Obviously that is technology not available in "cold fusion"
 laboratory (or almost any other), nor are the products which
 are used by the radiation therapist even normally generated in such
 a laboratory, let alone controlled.
 
   Therefore, and in summary, the skeptics of "cf" continue to
 denigrate workers, theoreticians, and students in the "cf" field by
 falsely claiming that "megavoltage x-rays" and "neutrons" would
 "kill them all".  That statement is not necessarily true.  That is
 why the posting was made.
 
   So why the prolonged confusion anyway?  (a few hypotheses)
 
  --  Could this be a diversion from, or a result of, the  "hot
 fusion" laboratories attempting to obscure their contaminations
 of their own laboratories, equipment, etc?
 
  --  Perhaps, Dr. Kuperberg might give his analysis [Given that the
 origin of his missive is U. of Chicago] of the remnant activity in
 some buildings there which are reported to have within them
 significant induced radiation accruing from past experiments.
 
  --  Perhaps he (of the math dept.?) can give us an estimate of
 such induced radioactivity in the facilities of his own
 University, and/or some "hot fusion" labs.
 
  --  Is the confusion, and the leap (fall?) from logic,  here,
 yet another corroboration of the fragile shell(s) upon which the
 skeptics attempt to stand?
 
 
==========================================================
       Mitchell R. Swartz              JET Technology
       mica@world.std.com              (617) 239-8383
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion & Gravity
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion & Gravity
Date: 13 Dec 92 13:30:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Bz30J3.BrD@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.024506.14647@news.media.mit.edu> pierre@media.mit.edu
 (Pierre St. Hilaire) writes:
>>
>>>Does gravity affect fusion reactions? If so, in what way.
>>
>>      No, it doesn't. Gravitational interactions are completely
>>negligible when compared to the strong interaction (responsible for
>>the fusion reaction itself) or the electromagnetic interaction
>>(responsible for the attraction/repulsion between charged particles).
 
>   Depending on the level of pedantry which this question requires, one
>could argue that the sun's fusion is extremely dependent on the existence
>of gravity. The force may be small between nucleons, but when 1E58 of
>them gang up they can make their presence known.
 
COLLECTIVE effects are often overlooked.  Another example is lifetimes
of energetic or relativistic particles that may exist in quasi stable
magneto-plasma configurations.  The kinetic energy or magnetic energy
the average individual particle would not be sufficient to drive it
long against mildly dissipative low angle scattering collisions even in
a slightly collisional plasma.  However, relativistic electron currents
(carrying the bulk of the current) in a high field plasma have
substantial (collective inductive) energy and consequently considerably
extended lifetimes.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.12 / John Hassler /  Re: Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: HASSLER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John Hassler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power Measurement
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:04:07 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

In article <921208171137.25c016d7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
says:
>
>The discussion about power measurement reminds me of a problem posed by my
>mentor, Jack Riedel (RIP) one day at lunch at the PPA.
>
>You are placed in a room with a compass and a voltmeter.  Through the room
>pass two superconducting wires.  After you are locked in the room, a battery
>is placed across one end of the pair, and a load resistance across the other.
>Your problem, to save your life or win the fair maiden etc., is to tell which
>side has the battery and which side has the load.  Theorists only get one
>try at this problem, while experimentalists get an initial try to calibrate
>their apparatus. (to get the sign right).
>
      You left out engineers.  I'd cut the wires.  Then the answer is
obvious.  (Your problem statement, above, does not exclude this solution.)
==========================================================================
J. C. Hassler              Chem. Eng.             U. of Maine
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenHASSLER cudfnJohn cudlnHassler cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  Rothwell /  My opinions and data are my own
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My opinions and data are my own
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:19:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
A slightly miffed, slight upset correspondent asked me 'if that was an open
demo, where is Notoya's data? Why haven't you uploaded it?' (Those are not the
exact words.)
 
I did upload it. I wrote a message describing what I saw, and uploaded it. It
wasn't much of a message, I will grant, but I did not see much, either. During
Notoya's demo, it was pretty crowded in the lab, and I was in the way, so I
did not observe for long. I went to the library, and let the real scientists
watch. It is a shame they could not do it in a larger space, I gather the
reason had to do with hydrogen gas, but I don't know the details. I mentioned
that during the second run, they got 70% excess. That news came to me from
Notoya-san during a three minute telephone conversation. She was busy, and I
did not bother her for details. I was down here in sunny Atlanta, and she was
up in the North Pole (a.k.a. Cambridge, MA.)
 
I have said this before, but let me repeat: I am not affiliated with MIT or
with MITI; I am not Reiko Notoya; I am not in charge of things; I did not
invite people; I don't know who was there. Other people were there, and
perhaps they will upload their observations and data in the fullness of time.
That is up to them. I never upload other people's data. From time to time, I
upload Lecture Notices and Announcements that come in the mail. If the lecture
is at MIT, that means MIT makes arrangements, and invites people, not me. I
upload notes and comments from people like Yamaguchi, for example, when Steve
Jones asks about the heat, or someone else asks about the glass, I fax
comments to Yamaguchi, or ask him during a conversation. That makes me a
translator, an informal intermediary, a helpful kinda guy, not an official
spokesman for NTT! Let's keep that in mind, please.
 
If you want data, if you want the straight dope, don't come to me, ask the
researcher who did the work. If you REALLY want data, for goodness sake do the
experiment yourself.
 
Tom Droege says he has been getting a lot of "wonderfully diverse"
contradictory information: "Use commercial glass cleaner some say (contains
chromic acid), others say DON'T USE CHROMIC ACID!"
 
That is exactly what happens to me when I talk to CF workers. One person says
do it this way, another says that's wrong, do just the opposite. Let me point
out though, the very same thing happens when I go to two different doctors
with some strange malady. One says it is serious, the other says ignore it.
Also, in the software biz, some say OOP is great, some say it stinks. It is
true in every profession and line of work. The best advice I can offer to Tom
is:
 
     Do not pay much attention to people (like me) who have not successfully
     run the experiment. If you want the straight dope, go right to the
     sources. People who have not actually generated excess heat are just
     talkin' all out their heads, as Jimmy Yancey used to say.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.13 /  IGOR /  Re: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
     
Originally-From: i0c0256@rigel.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluid mechanics question.. how crude is the heat estimate?
Date: 13 Dec 1992 18:20 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Dec12.004233.13433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <11DEC199218025457@zeus.tamu.edu> i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
 writes:
>>
>>I am kinda of puzzled by this cold fusion thing but I have an open mind
>>about it. The question I have is a question from a fluid mechanics
>>person and not that of a (nuclear) engineer :
>>
>>How can one so precisely determine the amount of heat generated?
>>have they been fluid flow studies about this ? that is computer generated
>>calculation proving that what the sensor gets  is linked to a certain amount
>>a heat on the cell side.
>>I am working in two-phase flow ( I DO NOT use correlation) solving the
>>Navier-Stokes equation and I know that even phase change problem
>>(such as the one occuring in the boiling) is a bitch... how can people be
>>so sure of the heat generated ? My reasoning comes from my total distrust
>>of heat transfer coeficient used in nuclear engineering that are there
>>to give an estimate and not a TRUE value ( since they are mainly used
>>for design purposes)...
>
>     Energy balances are much easier than detailed flow calculations,
>     especially when you aren't venting to the atmosphere. A seemingly
>     good example of how to do so fairly accurately has been posted
>     by Tom Droege regularly (in various incarnations).  Any more adverbs
>     in the previous sentence, and I'll have to barf on my own prose.
>
>     By the way, how do you do two-phase flow without correlations
>     or constitutive relations based on correlations?
 
 The only constitutive relations I use are the NS equations and
jump conditions for the interface...Even though those are still mass-averaged
solutions of the true flow of particles...
 
 
>
>     Where do you get your computer?  Mine won't go that fast.
 
        Cray and other Maspars help.. but they are indeed very slow :-))
 
>     People have difficulty computationally accounting for a single
>     bubble interface, to say nothing of the generic interspersed
>     turbulent two-phase flow.
 
        Nothing indeed.
 
>
>     If you do have some magic approach, please tell me soon.  I'm finishing
>     a dissertation on boiling two-phase flow calculations in cryogens
>     using all sorts of averaging and jury-rigged constitutive relations.
 
Yes I know I used to work on the same kind of problem, but I prefered
to be purer :-))) seriously, I just cannot picture being able to give an
information on a system ( two-phase flow) when the topology is given adhoc
( when do you know when to apply inverted annular config. or the annular
config.) and also when one looks at an ideal case, the phase space
is 7 times bigger than a comparable single phase flow. Since the correlation
were adopted from monophasic flow methodology
how can one accept that this success story
would apply to more complex flows ????
 
>     A more elegant approach would sure be appreciated.
 
                Indeed again.
 
I would not like to attract the wrath of thermodynamicians, but I am not
extremely
 comfortable with those energy balances.. since they are themselves valid
in media where the flow is averaged (in time and physically),
 at rest and is most probably overlooked.
 Thermodynamics works, it is just a question of 'can we apply it here '.
Shouldn't we be looking at the
exact flow close to the cell (streamlines....)to make damm sure that we have
excess heat supply....?. I have the underlying feeling that this excess heat
COULD be the result of what is happening when one tries to compute heat fluxes
in traditional nuclear engineering with correlations! The overestimation is
due to the tools used.
This idea came last year when a guy from some japanese university came to
Texas A&M and showed us his results which where based on pulsing the cells
which is to me far from a steady process. Then again I listened very well
since my job may not exist if it reveals to be true:-)))).
Can somebody dissipate my surely erroneous beliefs :-)?
 
 
 
Igor Carron
PhD Student in Nuclear Engineering
Texas A&M University
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudeni0c0256 cudlnIGOR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 / Les Earnest /  Re: Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power Measurement
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:40:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

 
Tom Droege said:
   You are placed in a room with a compass and a voltmeter.  Through the room
   pass two superconducting wires.  [.  .  .]
 
John Hassler answers:
         You left out engineers.  I'd cut the wires.  Then the answer is
   obvious.  (Your problem statement, above, does not exclude this solution.)
 
Doesn't work -- you were not given wirecutters.
 
This kind of solution reminds me of a Request For Proposals that was
issued by the U.S. Air Force about 30 years ago.  They were concerned
about possible ambiguities in the chain of command after a nuclear
attack and wanted a system developed that would determine with
certainty whether the President was still alive.
 
Inasmuch as I was in a nonprofit corporation that was doing systems
engineering for them, I proposed that they build a small radio-
controlled device to be attached to the President at all times.  In
case of uncertainty, the device would be remotely activated and a
small bomb inside would go off, thus resolving the uncertainty.
While this met their specifications, they found it unacceptable for
some reason.
 
--
Les Earnest           Phone:  415 941-3984    Fax: 415 941-3934
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.13 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: quantity and quality at your location
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: quantity and quality at your location
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:26:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <Bz7GJI.12r@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>=   "But I was not informed of their (neutrons, and high energy
>=    radiation) healing effects.  In fact I don't see how a massive
>=    neutron burst from a cold fusion experiment could help you more
>=    than it hurts you, but if you say it can, I'll consider that
>=    possibility.
>   This statement, coupled with an admission of a failure to be
> "informed", is a broad quick leap from logic.
 
I must confess that I was being silly.  If it's a first for
sci.physics.fusion, I apologize.
 
I add that I was being silly on purpose.
 
I disclaim that I am and was informed that high-energy radiation is
used in tumor therapy, just not neutrons specifically.
 
>   Therefore, and in summary, the skeptics of "cf" continue to
> denigrate workers, theoreticians, and students in the "cf" field by
> falsely claiming that "megavoltage x-rays" and "neutrons" would
> "kill them all".  That statement is not necessarily true.  That is
> why the posting was made.
 
Well if a nuclear reaction produces a few watts of heat in aggregate,
it stands to reason that it should produce a few watts of radiation
also.  In fact, assuming that only one charged nucleus is formed in a
given indivisible fusion reaction, conservation of energy, momentum,
and charge mandate some radiation.  I think the skeptics would say that
a quantity of radiation to match the observed heat would warrant
writing a will, or at least visiting the doctor, given that so many
cold fusion researchers avoid the planning planning planning that you
and I have both recommended.  Indeed, is the Notoya (Delta Airlines)
Cold Fusion demonstration shielded from its spectators?
 
I assume that Notoya et al think that their demo is neutronpenic, which
makes me wonder why it isn't called Cold Neutronpenision instead, but
it also reassures me that David Beuhler (or whoever it was) isn't going
to die because he tampered with the alligator clips.  Perhaps it's
radiationpenic because a team of three protons and one electron produce
a spanking new 3He atom and a momentous neutrino, neutrinos being a
harmless form of radiation to most fusion researchers.  Perhaps it
doesn't matter because Jed Rothwell, one of the caretakers of the demo,
only cares about money and by extension heat.
 
>  --  Could this be a diversion from, or a result of, the  "hot
> fusion" laboratories attempting to obscure their contaminations
> of their own laboratories, equipment, etc?
 
I see.  Perhaps the hot fusion labs have far too many neutrons for
their own good, and in a vein of sour grapes, accuse of the cold fusion
labs of having too few.
 
>  --  Perhaps, Dr. Kuperberg might give his analysis [Given that the
> origin of his missive is U. of Chicago] of the remnant activity in
> some buildings there which are reported to have within them
> significant induced radiation accruing from past experiments.
 
Thanks for calling me doctor, although I am merely a Ph. D. and not a
real doctor.  When you call me Kuperberg, I can't say it's untrue, but
it's usually improper grammar to address someone in third person.  If
it's ok, I'll continue addressing Swartz as "you".
 
I am not aware of any fusion experiments at Chicago, now or ever.
It is true that we're the home of the world's first controlled
fission experiment.  Every day on my way to work I walk by a plaque
and a sculpture at the very spot where it was conducted and I give
it a mental salute.  As you suggest, we're radioactive and proud
of it.
 
I'm told that some of the uranium was stored in the very building
where I research and teach, but I'm sorry to report that I have
conducted no analysis.  I'm a topologist, not an analyst.  However,
I am confident that someone has done an analysis, because they know
that if I suffer adverse health effects, they will have to pay my
medical bills.  I'm on their health plan.
 
>  --  Is the confusion, and the leap (fall?) from logic,  here,
> yet another corroboration of the fragile shell(s) upon which the
> skeptics attempt to stand?
 
Did I claim I was a skeptic?  Even if I did, I would never attempt to
stand upon a fragile shell.  That would be silly.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 / mitchell swartz /  a 2 dimensional argument
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a 2 dimensional argument
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:07:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion; 4536; [Subject: Re: quantity and quality at your
 location];  13 Dec 1992, greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) states:
 
 
=   "Well if a nuclear reaction produces a few watts of heat in aggregate,
=  it stands to reason that it should produce a few watts of radiation
=  also.  In fact, assuming that only one charged nucleus is formed in a
=  given indivisible fusion reaction, conservation of energy, momentum,
=  and charge mandate some radiation. I think the skeptics would say
=  that a quantity of radiation to match the observed heat would warrant
=  writing a will, or at least visiting the doctor, given that so many
=  cold fusion researchers avoid the planning planning planning that you
=  and I have both recommended.
 
    Greg, if "it stands to reason", what exactly is the reason? Why?
 
 
    Your suggestion would seem to not include the "observed heat" as a
 "quantity of radiation".   Rather than considering that the "heat"
 actually observed may, itself, consist of infrared radiation, and phonon
 radiation (of more than one type), the logic that you purport (and are not
 alone in claiming) decrees to limit how nature must work.  In your forced
 scheme the existence of phonon and infrared radiation requires the
 presence of neutrons (etc., and whatever).  Why?
 
    The only such similar couplings of which I am aware of are those
 through Hilbert Space wherein the polarization(s) that a material does
 undergo when wrought with an applied electric (or magnetic field in the
 equivalent) are linked to the conduction(s) which that material also
 undergoes.  The polarization(s) is linked through Hilbert Space to the
 conduction because as the material physically reorganizes (eg. as it
 polarizes with atomic separation, dipole rotation, ion drift, etc. etc.)
 in the applied electric field, the physical movements of those
 reorganization(s) are precisely those which cause the conduction.
 
    Where is a similar argument, or reason, for the linking of phonons and
 infrared radiation to neutron production?
 
 
   [Given your topology background, one more question.  I assume the field
 has advanced considerably since I was painting donuts almost four decades
 ago to find the chromatic number (7, I think) required to paint a
 maximally-colored-yet-distinct map on its outer toroidal surface.
   Was that not 3 more needed colors than flat-landers could conceive of
 being required?
   Perhaps the skeptics are merely 2 dimensional in their thinking?]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: a 2 dimensional argument
     
Originally-From: greg@marvin.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a 2 dimensional argument
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:14:10 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago

In article <Bz90C5.7p1@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>    Your suggestion would seem to not include the "observed heat" as a
> "quantity of radiation".   Rather than considering that the "heat"
> actually observed may, itself, consist of infrared radiation, and phonon
> radiation (of more than one type), the logic that you purport (and are not
> alone in claiming) decrees to limit how nature must work.  In your forced
> scheme the existence of phonon and infrared radiation requires the
> presence of neutrons (etc., and whatever).  Why?
 
Wherefore art thou, neutrons and gammas?
 
It's not the logic that I purport, it's the logic that the skeptics
purport, and of course I'm not alone in claiming it, since I'm deliberately
parroting what other people say.
 
You suggest that a nuclear reaction, rather than producing one or two
gamma photons, might produce ten million infrared photons.  You're
right, I overlooked that possibility.  I guess that means my goose is
cooked and my scheme is forced.  Or at least that of the unruly gang of
skeptics, to which I may or may not belong.
 
The next time I meet someone in the Cold Fusion Skeptics Society, I'll
ask him whether or not there is an orthodoxy yet for whether, why, and
under what circumstances nuclear reactions produce infrared photons.
Also ultraviolet, microwave, and visible photons, as well as phonons,
polarons, magnetons, gravitons, and naked beauty (known as naked bottom
to the crudes in the US).
 
>    The only such similar couplings of which I am aware of are those
> through Hilbert Space wherein the polarization(s) that a material does
> undergo when wrought with an applied electric (or magnetic field in the
> equivalent) are linked to the conduction(s) which that material also
> undergoes.
 
Hilbert Space, Banach Space, Lobatchevsky Space, Minkowski Space, Phase
Space, Eilenberg-MacLane Space, no doubt the couplings occur through one
of these spaces.
 
>   [Given your topology background, one more question.  I assume the field
> has advanced considerably since I was painting donuts almost four decades
> ago to find the chromatic number (7, I think) required to paint a
> maximally-colored-yet-distinct map on its outer toroidal surface.
 
The chromatic number of toroidal maps is indeed 7, assuming that
countries have no isolated pieces as Russia and the United States do.
I'm told that on a 17-holed torus it's 17.  Two guys with a computer
code claim that it's 4 for the sphere, but I personally think
that the argument has no hole when the surface does, and vice-versa.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The Bag
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Bag
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:52:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <18345@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>The
>trick is to get a solvent for the oil which itself can be evaporated without
>leaving a residue.  From a hardware store, I think that your best bet might
>be xylene, followed perhaps by paint thinner.  An alternative might be
>lighter fluid (of the liquid type that you pour into a Zippo - it is largely
>pentane and hexane).
 
I seem to recall that all of these chemicals are pretty impure. If memory
serves, we used to oil fine machinery like watchworks with lighter fluid
because it would penetrate and leave behind a layer of oil.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / mitchell swartz /  a skeptical 2-dimensional argument
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a skeptical 2-dimensional argument
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:09:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In  sci.physics.fusion:4542;14 Dec 1992; greg@marvin.uchicago.edu
     (Greg Kuperberg) states in "Re: a 2 dimensional argument":
 
 
=  "It's not the logic that I purport, it's the logic that the skeptics
=  purport, and of course I'm not alone in claiming it, since I'm
=  deliberately parroting what other people say."
 
   Deliberately and also sedulously by your own admission.
 
 
=  "You suggest that a nuclear reaction, rather than producing one or two
=   gamma photons, might produce ten million infrared photons.  You're
=   right, I overlooked that possibility.  I guess that means my goose is
=   cooked and my scheme is forced.  Or at least that of the unruly gang of
=   skeptics, to which I may or may not belong."
 
    I hope you can shield your goose; try books or hydrocarbons.
    Some inaccuracies, however, are also here.
 
   ** re: the 1-2 gamma -> 10,000,000 IR
      All sorts of new branches and branch ratios may be possible in the
 condensed phase.    My humble suggestion was to include the full range and
 diversity of radiation.  I stand corrected, and augmented, by your list;
 and also suggest the addition of plasmons and domainons to the possible
 exiting flux.   As to actual mix: please check the experimental
 (and other) literature.
 
   ** re: the "unruly gang"
   Many skeptics, to which we may or may not belong, based upon my
 observations appear to be neither unruly.  Nor may they all
 purport such illogical schemes.
          [Perhaps there is more than one "Society"?]
 
  In summary, although your prose remains fascinating, however, the
  "parroted" logic is simply not explained.
 
 
   Where is the well-performed experimental paper (with data
  available if needed) disproving cold fusion, which obtained
 adequate measured loadings for sufficient confinement times?
 
   Why do skeptics so easily dismiss so many grounded
 correlations of this new technology based upon their outdated
 newspaper reports?
 
   Where is a single paper, or calculation, proving that fusion
 which occurs in a solid material ** must ** necessarily generate
 neutrons at the expected plasma-equivalent levels?
 
 
   When can the proponents and skeptics work together to solve
 the most important energy problem, and potential solutions,
 facing the people of the world?
 
 
     Mitchell Swartz
          mica@world
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Trying to keep clean
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trying to keep clean
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:40:12 GMT
Organization: NIH

In article <921211171031.20400aba@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE wrote:
[munch]
> here, some has been sent privately.  Us commercial glass cleaner some say
> (contain chromic acid), others say DON'T USE CHROMIC ACID!  So I have to look
 
The problem with chromic acid is that chromium(VII) is toxic and not nice
to put down drains.  Chromic acid is a great glass cleaner, but other,
alkaline systems are as good and less toxic.
 
> My brother is pushing me to build a vapor degreaser.  The plan at the moment
> is to buy a 24 cup coffee maker and to put a copper cooling coil in the top of
> it and to load it with perchlorethylene.  I guess this will then be a
> perchlorethylene percolator.  (The basket is of course removed.)  This should
> work great to clean the Lithium.  The problem is then to get it into an inert
> atmosphere before it oxidizes.
 
Of course, the lithium will react with the perchloroethylene, especially
after you heat it up.
 
Why not rinse the oil off of the lithium with xylene or hexane, leave it
covered with a small amount of xylene, place it in your glove bag, and then
remove it from the solvent and let it dry?  If you keep a flow of argon
through the bag the solvent vapors will be swept out.
 
> I bought a box of vinyl gloves a while back with the idea of making my own
> glove box.  Now I am worried that they are not safe to use as they are likely
> full of plasticizer(sp?).  Would rubber gloves be better?
 
We use thin cotton gloves to handle pieces (like sources and lenses) that
go into mass spectrometer vacuum systems.  This assumes the gloves are
clean
and that we will not sweat through them.  The gloves are cleaned by washing
in water, then acetone, then hexane.
 
> Please keep all the good advice coming.
>
> Tom Droege
 
We'll keep it coming, you have to decide how good it is.
 
Regards,
Carl Ijames
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Rusty alligator clips.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rusty alligator clips.
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:43:03 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed Rothwell incorrectly states (8 Dec 1992, and similar statements in various
postings):  "Beuhler and Jones have suggested that in Nagoya the control cell
was losing heat into the atmosphere, because they say that thin silver wire is
nearly as resistant as nichrome wire. ... Let me add that if Beuler and Jones
had been correct, and silver really was almost as resistant as nichrome
(taking into account the different thicknesses of the wires), that would have
been a Nobel class discovery..."
 
David Beuhler and I never claimed that "thin silver wire is nearly as
resistant as nichrome wire."  Rather, at my suggestion, David spoke to Dr.
Notoya who moved the alligator clips on the thin wires entering the control
cell to points near the cell.  David recorded the voltages and currents before
and after the move.  From these data, we determined that considerable power
was being dissipated into the air:  about 36% of the total joule heating in
the "control" was evidently lost into the air.  We did not need to know the
material of which the thin wires leading to the control cell were made
(as Dieter Britz also explained in his "Silver,
schmilver, power play" posting).  Perhaps the very thin wire was kinked or
had high resistance for some other reason.  Unfortunately, Dr. Notoya
"tossed the old silver wire, so she can't say how resistant it was",
quoting Rothwell.
 
Perhaps Jed has given us a clue as to where the heat was lost that
does not require the thin lead wires themselves to be high in resistance.
In his posting of 9 Dec. 1992 ("Silver the same everywhere in the world"), he
notes:  "As far as the seat of the pants alligator clip measuring method goes
-- I watched people struggle with alligator clips at MIT, and I do not
recommend them.  THE ONES IN NAGOYA WERE PARTICULARLY BAD:  THEY WERE RUSTED.
They make a very poor, unreliable contact..."  (J. Rothwell posting, 9Dec.,
capitalization added.)
 
Hmmmmm. Rusty alligator clips.  This seems inconsistent with Jed's
posting regarding the need for cleanliness and skill in such experiments:
"So, a really good experiment requires a *really* clean setup. ...  Before
you do a CF experiment, you would be well advised to spend two weeks in the lab
with someone like Notoya, who has been doing this sort of thing for 30 years,
and knows a million tricks you never imagined exist."  ("Experience counts",
9 Dec. 1992)
 
There were clearly problems in the Notoya xs heat "demonstration",
not the least of which is that at MIT, "The demo did not work properly..."
(Rothwell, 8 Dec., "Notoya Demo & Lecture").
I suggest we move on to other things now.
 
 
Note that the wires leading to the Pd plates in Akito Takahashi's xs heat
experiment in Osaka were simply looped through a hole in the top of the each
plate.  The plate and loop of wire were both exposed to electrolytic processes
which could alter the conductivity of the connection.
I expressed my concern about this to Dr. Takahashi during my visit to his lab,
in October. (I was most surprised to see the questionable connections.)
I warned Dr. Takahashi that this would result in unreliable contacts.
 
I agree that extreme care is required for a definitive experiment.
Hopefully, when problems such as these are pointed out, they will be
corrected (or answered) by the experimenters.  I think that good scientists
will respond to such criticisms with a degree of appreciation, and will
not resort to  ad hominem attacks on the critic.   Moreover, skepticism about
the conclusions of the experiments are justified as long as such problems
persist.
 
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Terry Bollinger /  Profit incentives
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Profit incentives
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:21:55 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I might add a remark or two about why I'm so adamant about *not* investing
in any way in TmDxHy (that's transition metal hydrides/deuterides, folks)
heat anomolies:
 
 a) Thanks primarily to Jed Rothwell's recent prolific writings, I'm no
    longer sure I believe in their existence.  (Go figger, Jed.)
 
 b) On the off-hand chance that TmDxHy heat anomolies are real and are
    a significant energy source, then nothing would delight me more than
    to see *dozens* of people (expecially experimenters like Tom Droege
    and others) to get good solid patents and make mucho bucks off of them.
 
    Contrariwise, I would hate to see only one or two patents by large
    groups, because that would just kill the profit incentive that would
    really make the technology take off.
 
    Thus it is that I really do hope Twist proves correct, because I've
    now had it published in a public medium for a sufficently long period
    of time to ensure that the basic points in it *cannot* be patented.
 
    Assuming Twist is valid, patents would instead need to be based on
    serious experimental work and techniques for using the basic idea,
    rather than on the basic TMC concept.  That would delight me greatly,
    because it would mean that some of the hard-working types who have
    invested their own time and energy (yes Jed, that would of course
    include you) would have a decent shot at making a valid patent.
    (That is, IF any of it is real at all, of course!)
 
    Me?  Goodness, if I *was* right, I don't think I'd be *that* bad off,
    do you?  Plus I've known several people with mucho gobbos of buckos
    and have perceived no correclation whatsoever between the degree of
    mucho gobbos they owned and their actual level of satisfaction with life
    and living.  Having a really enjoyable and fun life seems to depend
    much more on how you go about living it and how you treat those around
    you, I think.  (Wow, I'm starting to sound like a Christmas ad!)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: a skeptical 2-dimensional argument
     
Originally-From: greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a skeptical 2-dimensional argument
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:22:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <Bz9xr5.8qx@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>=  I'm deliberately parroting what other people say.
>   Deliberately and also sedulously by your own admission.
 
Sedulous.  Now there's a word I had to look up.  I like it.  But I
never claimed I was sedulous.  I'm not.
 
sci.physics.fusion:  Where the sedulous meet the incredulous.
 
>      All sorts of new branches and branch ratios may be possible in the
> condensed phase.
 
I think someone forgot to tell the nuclei that they are in a condensed
phase.  Otherwise we'd have quarks-a-hopping.
 
>  In summary, although your prose remains fascinating, however, the
>  "parroted" logic is simply not explained.
 
Maybe it's religious dogma like everything else the skeptics do.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Think About It.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Think About It.
Date: 9 Dec 92 18:38:06 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
In his "Review of Third Intl. Cold Fusion Conf.", Dr. Morrison states:
"S. Jones and H. Menlove have tried to detect neutrons in the large
(3000 ton) Kamiokande detector; with palladium and titanium, upper limits
corresponding to 10 E -14 Watts were found.  Previously they had claimed
to have observed two types of bursts, some lasting for a few hours and
the others lasting only about a hundred microseconds.  However such
effects were not observed in Kamiokande and with the much lower background,
all the previous claims were disproved.  They then tried cement in
Kamiokande and not unnaturally in view of the high radioactivity of cement,
observed counts."
 
These remarks are incorrect.  I hope Douglas will take time to respond to
my postings addressing similar earlier remarks, posted by me on 3 and
5 Dec.  In the meantime, I will quote briefly again
 (this is becoming rather tedious by now)
from a Master's Thesis on the Kamiokande/BYU/Los Alamos Nat'l Lab experiment:
 
"Some BURST NEUTRON EMISSIONS WERE OBSERVED especially from the electrolytic
cells.  The event rate (about 0.06 bursts per hour) was COMPARABLE to that of
Menlove et al. (1990), but the maximum multiplicity was limited to four (source
neutrons of about 11, Fig. 7-2)."
"Electrolytic cells experiment"  "We have OBSERVED 9 BURSTS with maximum
multiplicity of 4.  The probability that these bursts originate in uranium
contamination is less than 2 * 10 -4, probably at the level of 10 -6."
"Cement experiment"  "We have found a CLEAR RANDOM NEUTRON EMISSION from the
portland cement mixed with D2O at the level of 1 * 10-3 neutrons/second, which
is, however, difficult to explain based on radioactivity contamination in the
cement..."
 
Beginning on p. 63 of his thesis, Ishida-san describes the cement experiments.
Please note that the first sample was run on April 20, 1991, shortly after we
began the first electrolysis experiments in Kamiokande in mid-April.  During
curing, the neutron yield was 8.43 +- 2.62 10 -4 n/s (observed, photomultiplier
tubes hit > 28).  After curing, the SAME sample gave 0.02 +- 1.11 n/s observed,
which is consistent with zero.  Explain that.
(It was the high neutron yields during the CURING of the D2O+cement that led
Prof. Totsuka to ask us to continue the experiments at BYU, since these yields
interfered with the neutrino measurements.  The cement itself was not the
problem.)
                     Similar time dependences of the neutron yields
are reported by Ishida and seen in studies which followed his writing (both in
Kamiokande and in the Provo Canyon Lab. near BYU):  unexplained neutron
emissions are seen DURING cement+D2O curing (chemical reactions giving
non-equilibrium conditions).  The magnitude of the change cannot be
accounted for by loss of D2O -- we checked.  We also checked for conventional
explanations due to radon, uranium, thorium contaminations -- including effects
of gammas and alphas such as deuteron disintegration, and have ruled these out,
as far as we have been able.  A crucial check was to run using the BYU detector
which discriminates against low-energy neutrons, E<1MeV, e.g., from deuteron
photodisintegration due to 2.6 MeV gammas from Thallium-208 decay (thorium
decay chain.)
(See Ishida's thesis and "Systematic Investigations of Neutron Emissions from
Cement Prepared with Heavy Water", BYU 1992).
 
A prosaic explanation for these data should be prepared to account for the
TIME DEPENDENCE in the neutron production rate for the cements prepared with
D2O.  Note also that no neutron signal was detected with cement prepared with
H2O, e.g. run 3462 yield = -0.30 +- 1.17 n/h during curing.  (Ishida Thesis
p. 63).
 
Therefore, Dr. Morrison's statements that the observed neutron emissions
are due to "the high radioactivity content of cement" are very misleading.
The results of the Kamiokande experiments to the BYU and Los Alamos experiments
are not so devastating as Dr. Morrison would have us believe.  (See postings
also by Dr. Chuck Sites who has read the Ishida thesis.)
 
Part Two.
I find that much of the remainder of Dr. Morrison's review is useful and
enlightening.    However, he does a terrible disservice in linking too
closely the efforts of Jones with the dissimilar claims of Pons and
Fleischmann:
"Now these two original experiments have been severely contested over the
years and it is clear that if the two original experiments which began the
current Cold Fusion excitement, are shown to be untenable, then the very
foundations of of Cold Fusion should crumble."  (Morrison posting Dec. 8)
 
This seems to be a key point to Dr. Morrison, almost a crusade.
If the low-level emissions such as we have reported are shown wrong, will
the nuclear-excess-heat claims "crumble?"  No.  The xs heat boys have since
moved on to exotic (even unknown) nuclear reactions.  Our tiny effects even
if real in no way support the nuclear-xs heat claims-- they are far too small.
 
There are a number of good physicists continuing to
investigate the low-level nuclear effects in deuterided materials, including
Menlove (a fellow of the Los Alamos Nat'l Lab), Kevin Wolf, Ed Cecil, Graham
Hubler, Bart Czirr, Paul Palmer, to name a few in the U.S., and
good geophysicists such as Gary McMurtry (U. Hawaii) and Fraser Goff (Los
Alamos Nat'l Lab).  Their work is conducted quietly for the most part, in
large measure because of the concern of most that their results would be
used as a prop for those claiming that excess heat is nuclear in origin.
 
Suppose -- for the sake of argument now -- that one of these finds definitive
evidence for low-level nuclear reactions, e.g., (non-prosaic) tritium
from magmatic waters from volcanic fumaroles, or neutrons and other
emissions from electrolytic cells -- at small but non-zero levels.
Does this mean that the excess heat claimed by Pons and Fleischmann is nuclear
in origin?  Of course not:  the two claims are distinct and are separated by
many orders of magnitude.  What a sham to connect them!
 
If Dr. Morrison could only separate these "two original experiments," I think
his presentations would be more fair.
To bring this point into perspective further, I would ask Morrison and other
readers of this net:  "Is Jones a 'True Believer' (in the sense used previously
by Douglas Morrison)?"        Pondering this question would disclose, I trust,
distinct differences between myself and Pons/ Fleischmann.
I am happy to note that Frank Close makes a clear distinction between the
two experiments in his noteworthy book, as does John Huizenga:
"The thirteen orders of magnitude difference between watts of excess power
and his claim of neutrons are irreconcilable to Jones and most other nuclear
physicists.  Jones has taken this position from the beginning.  ... Only time
will tell whether there are processes such as, for example, 'fracto-fusion'
that can account for very low levels of fusion products."  (p. 214 of
Huizenga's book, which book I heartily recommend to all readers.)
I agree with Huizenga (as I am confident does Douglas Morrison):
 
"Room-temperature nuclear fusion without commensurate amounts of fusion
products is a delusion and qualifies as pathological science."
 
That is a clear warning to which all should pay careful heed.
 
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Greg Kuperberg /  Making it big.
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Making it big.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:14:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <921211231651_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>My contribution was to pay for the equipment, and analyze the data,
>which I downloaded into my computer by phone.
 
Wow!  I didn't know you paid for the equipment!  Here I am with a
savings account earning a modest interest and you're putting your money
where your mouth is on cold fusion.  You're a braver man than I.
 
Sometimes I wonder if I could make it big, and I'm envious of
the people who have.  There are a few different ways to do it.  Bill
Gates is the richest man in the country and he did it with some
brilliant marketing ideas.  You can tell he's really made it now.  He's
building his own salmon run and his own electronic art gallery where
you can press a button and see any art masterpiece you want.  And
that's just the beginning.  He's got so much left over, he's
untouchable.  He's the founder of his family.  His descendants will
point to his picture on the wall and say he was the one who started it
all.  To build a fairly safe savings account and pay for your
children's college tuition is nice, but to pay for your children's
children's children's college tuition, and to know that you have such a
large, diversied portfolio that you just *can't* lose it all, is really
something.
 
Gates may have made 5 or 10 billion, but he hasn't made it scot-free.
He's created some hard feelings by guarding his software rights.  At
least he's an honest businessman as far as I know, not like Milken or
Boesky.  Milken may have set a new standard for annual income, but it's
no fun being a billionaire if you'll burn in hell afterwards and
you're behind bars.
 
But then there are those few rich men who don't have to worry about
jail or even undue jealousy or suspicion, who are actually *admired* by
their peers and countrymen.  These are people like Edison and Bell, and
more recently Edwin Land, who clearly created so much wealth for
society that it didn't really matter that each took a large slice of
the pie.  Heck, the pies were so big that maybe they weren't large
slices.  Maybe they were teeny-weeny slices of titanic pies.  Even most
of those freeloaders who claim not to covet money do not begrudge
Bell's billion dollars because of his morally upright service to
humanity.
 
It's been a little while since anyone made it that big with a single
invention.  Maybe cold fusion will be the next one.  And maybe you,
Jed, will have a small portion (percentage-wise) of the resulting pie.
I doubt it though.  Cold fusion is a long shot.  I'd give
at least 20 to 1 odds against.  But good luck anyway.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / mitchell swartz /  according to Webster
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: according to Webster
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:07:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In sci.physics.fusion:4556 [15 Dec 1992] and a previous
 post; greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) states":
 
 
=   "I'm deliberately parroting what other people say."
                        ***
=   "Sedulous.  Now there's a word I had to look up.
=    I like it.  But I never claimed I was sedulous.
=    I'm not."
 
 
    To help finally correct this matter, because it is
 important that truth prevail (generally and especially here):
 
   From Webster's Dictionary [Merriam Co, 1961, page 613]:
 
 *** parrot ***
  1: any of numerous widely distributed tropical zygodactyl
     birds that have a distinctive stout curved hooked bill
     and are often crested and brightly variegated and
     excellent mimics
  2: a person who sedulously echoes the words of another
 
 
     Therefore according to your very own words you apparently
 are, at least according to the current denotation.
 
 
  Of much more importance, however, and most pertinent to this
 net:  We still are, respectfully, waiting for the (or
 whatever) logic - which your prose continues to avoid - but
 which is the basis for your parroted claims.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Robert Virzi /  CF Kits for sale
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Kits for sale
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:14:39 GMT

I came across the following posting by Dave Leibold in
comp.dcom.telecom, of all places.  It seems like something
relevant to this group, and I have not seen any mention of
it.
 
I'd also like to say, that as a long time reader, first time
poster, this is the most fascinating group on the internet to
follow.  I do hope someone studying the progress of science
has captured all this and will be reporting on it.  Truly
amazing process.
 
Anyway, the post of interest, submitted to another group by
Dave Leibold and duplicated without permission:
 
 --------------------------------------
 
The Dow Jones news service (by way of {The Globe and Mail}) reported
that a Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) subsidiary, Advanced Film
Technology, will offer a $725 000 (USD) science kit that purports to
be an apparatus for "cold fusion" experiments. The kit comes complete
with vacuum chamber, sensing equipment, and a how-to guide on making
your very own cold fusion experiments.
 
NTT researcher Eiichi Yamaguchi claims to have successfully set up a
"cold fusion" reaction last month. Theoretically, a workable cold
fusion process will generate vast amounts of energy using cheap raw
materials.
 
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
 
 --------------------------------------
 
end of copied message.
 
 
 
 
--
 
-Bob Virzi                | Think Globally. ...               |
 rvirzi@gte.com           |                 ... Act Locally.  |
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / John McCauley /  Ampere tension and fusion
     
Originally-From: jsm@beam.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ampere tension and fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:27:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I found an article put up on a bulletin board entitled 'Fusion trials
challenge EM theory' (Electronic Engineering Times, April 6, 1992, p 36).
It sounds rather interesting. Anyone have more info?
 
In summary, one idea actively pursued by fusion researchers is to drive lots
of current (1 MA @ 1 ns) down a frozen deuterium wire. Neutrons and gammas
are observed.  They calculate a maximum temperature of about 1 million degrees
centigrade, which is not hot enough to explain the observed neutron production.
They need 100 million degrees!
 
So, what is causing the enhanced fusion? Some speculate that Ampere tension
is responsible. This is a repulsulve force on a conductor
that is parallel to the direction of current flow and is proportional to the
square of the current. Apparantly this force can explain the neutron
production.
 
The hitch is that Ampere tension is not predicted directly by modern E+M
theory and sounds hard to prove or disprove.  As usual, patents have
already been filed (for fusion using Ampere tension).
 
        Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  In defense of Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In defense of Steven Jones
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:38:02 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Assertion:
 
 o  If you claim massive TmHxYx heat, you are STUCK with something at
    least as bizarre as Twist (or Hydrinos, or Black Holes, etc.)
 
 o  If you claim only very low level radiation of relatively ordinary
    profiles, you are NOT required to presume Twist-level weirdness,
    nor necessarily any fundamentally new physics at all.
 
In short, I don't think its at all fair to stuff work like that of Steve
Jones into the same peculiar basket that I firmly believe must contain
all claims for high-level, radiation-clean TmDxHy heat.
 
If Steven Jones work is valid, then about the worst you would need to
assume intially is that somewhere in the complexity of condensed matter
physics a mechanism for whacking a couple or more atoms together really
hard has been overlooked.  *That* is the sort of thing you should be
looking if you acheive reproducibility of low-level radiation, not some
kind of exotic new twist (heh!) on well-known particle physics.
 
Cavitation is an effect that helps point this out.  It doesn't exactly
jump out at the casual observer that a tiny collapsing bubble could
create phenomenally high pressures and accelerations, yet it does.
A simple and common event achieves an enormous compression of energy,
with the motion of very large numbers of atoms being collectively applied
to a very small (say millions) number of atoms.  Pretty impressive, really.
 
Do we really have such a totally wrapped-up understanding of condensed
matter that the possibility of some even more intense cavitation-like
event that might be able to whack just a very few atoms together *really*
hard?  Sorry,but I just *don't* believe our understanding of condensed
matter is that comprehensive or persuasive.  For example, if that energy
of cavitation could in some cases be focused further from millions of
atoms to just a handful, you could easily acheive the Steven Jones style
of "hot-in-cold" fusion (that is, hot events occurring in a cold matrix).
 
Can that happen?  Well that's sort of the point, isn't it?...  That is, I
honestly don't think anyone can anwer such a question with either a flat
"yes" or a flat "no."
 
So if you believe the Jones et all results to be accurate, then I'd say
you should be looking for unexpectely effective focusing mechanisms (not
necessarily mechanical) in which the energy of many millions or billions
of atoms can, for a very short time, be brought together and applied to
a mere handful atoms.  Cavitation provides one model, so why not look for
ways in which that model might be improved and/or translated into some
other kind of condensed matter energy transfer event?
 
You should ask questions like this:  Why *does* cavitation work?  (I'll
give you one hint: the very uniform spherical symmetry of very small
bubbles is critical.)  What makes it stop working?  (Another hint:
turbulence, the same bugaboo that hits the plasma physicists -- the
spherical symmetry of the collapsing bubble falls apart as very small
imperfections in the original bubble symmetry are amplified during the
collapse process.)  Can the same mathematical characteristics (e.g.,
the spherical symmetry) be transferred postulated for any other systems
that exist in condensed matter?
 
Rather than banging on Steve Jones and others for their claims of low-
level radiation, I'm surprised more physicists and mathematical physicists
don't view it as an interesting problem for stretching both their intuition
and their ability to model condensed matter phenomena.
 
.....
 
Now for the high-heat folk:  Sorry guys, YOU are flat out STUCK.
 
I said it before and I'll say it again: If you accept the reality of trans-
chemical levels of clean heat from TmDxHy systems, then you are either:
a) converting whole atoms directly into heat, or
b) creating energy from the vacuum.
 
The "cold fusion" line is a total crock, and I think the majority of the
high-heat folks know it by now.  (Evidence?  Interest in Mills' "hydrino"
idea, which is a modified (a) theory -- after all, how *else* are you going
to get that silly "hydrino" to perform its marvelous disappearing act?)
But on it goes, since it helps minimize scathing reviews from Nature and
probably helps preserve the hope of a patent or too.
 
Face it guys, you are asking for a MAJOR humdinger of a violation of physics.
Good luck, 'cause yer gonna need it!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Trying to keep clean
     
Originally-From: eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trying to keep clean
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:46:44 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I just realized that in all our advice to Tom we may be barking
up the wrong tree.  Why not start with a Lithium salt--if you can get
Reagent quality LiCO3, all you have to do is drop it in D2O, then get
rid of the CO2.  (How do you get rid of the CO2, well you can use
LiOH... :-) Seriously, boiling the lithium carbonate with a condenser
connected would, if properly done, get you to pure LiOD with no
organics.  But follow the suggestions about using teflon and ceramics.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / G Aharonian /  Re: CF Kits for sale
     
Originally-From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Kits for sale
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:28:16 GMT
Organization: The World

    Recently I attended the Material Research Society conference in
Boston.  The conference has a trade show, with lots of stuff on cryogenics,
superconductors, materials processing equipment, etc.
        One company was exhibiting some cryogenic or vacuum equipment
(I don't remember which).  One of their products is a HUGH assembly used
in the NTT kit.  If you are going to buy one, you better have a barn
available.
 
Greg Aharonian
--
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensrctran cudfnGregory cudlnAharonian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Making it big.
     
Originally-From: greg@marvin.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making it big.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:00:20 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec15.171426.2660@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@dent.uchicago.edu
 (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>At least he's an honest businessman as far as I know, not like Milken or
>Boesky.  Milken may have set a new standard for annual income, but it's
>no fun being a billionaire if you'll burn in hell afterwards and
>you're behind bars.
 
I was contacted by e-mail by someone believes that Milken was
tossed in jail by dishonest prosecutors.
 
I must disclaim that everything I said about about Milken and
Boesky is based on reports in the New York Times and my characterization
of those reports may be completely inacurrate, as well as the reports
themselves.
 
Nevertheless I think it's unequivocal that he's behind bars and
that this can be a drawback to being a billoinaire.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: according to Webster
     
Originally-From: greg@marvin.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: according to Webster
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:18:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago

In article <BzBEGA.Jr8@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>  Of much more importance, however, and most pertinent to this
> net:  We still are, respectfully, waiting for the (or
> whatever) logic - which your prose continues to avoid - but
> which is the basis for your parroted claims.
 
Aha!  This is a pressure tactic!
 
If I've parrotted the claim, as we've agreed that I have, then it's not
my claim to defend.  I said that the skeptics claim that you would have
to have neutrons or some other obvious fusion products and you agree
that they do claim that.  Fine.
 
Actually, even if I did claim myself what I merely am stating that
other people claim (I'll admit that I do believe it), why should I give
you any more of an explanation than you've already received?  If I
don't, you might *choose not to believe me*.  What a horror that would
be.  It might even drive me back to my real work.
 
Please don't wait on me any more.  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Original BYU expts/reply to D. Blue
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Original BYU expts/reply to D. Blue
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:58:52 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
Dick Blue has raised a number of questions/comments regarding the original
BYU experiments that I should like to answer.  I will refer to the following
publications:
1.  S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr et al., "Observation of cold nuclear
fusion in condensed matter," Nature, 338:737 (27 April 1989)
2.  S.E. Jones, D.L. Decker, H.D. Tolley, Scientific Correspondance, Nature,
343:703 (22 Feb 1990)
3.  S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr et al., "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions
in Condensed Matter:  Recent Results and Open Questions," J. Fusion Energy,
9:199-208 (Dec 1990)
4.  H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, M.C. Miller, M.A. Paciotti, R.R.
ryan, and S.E. Jones, "Measurement of Neutron Emission from Ti and Pd in
Pressurized D2 Gas and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion Energy, 9:495-
506 (Dec. 1990)
5.  A. Bertin et al., "First Experimental Results at the Gran Sasso Labora-
tory on Cold Nuclear Fusion in Titanium Electrodes," J. Fusion Energy 9:209-
213 (Dec. 1990), also same authors (including me) in Il Nuovo cimento
A101:997 (June 1989)
6.  AIP Proc. 228, "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems,"
Provo,UT 1990 conference, S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi, D. Worledge editors,
Am. Institute of Physics, NY, 1991.  (Over 1000 pages.  I have a few copies
left essentially at cost, $68, or can be purchased from AIP.)
7.  T. Ishida, "Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid/Deuterium
Systems," Masters Thesis printed as ICCR-Report-277-92-15, Univ. of Tokyo,
Feb. 1992
8.  S.E. Jones, "Current issues in cold fusion research:  heat, helium,
tritium, and energetic particles," Surface and Coatings Tech. 51:283-289 (1992)
9.  S.E. Jones, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker et al., "Response to queries regarding
"Observations of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter," RAL-90-022, Ruther-
ford Lab., Proc. of Internat. Symposium on Mu-Cat. Fusion, 1990.
 
Let us begin with Dr. Blue's 11 Dec. posting, "Re:  Rehash of Jones' Results."
Blue:  "First off I don't see how anything relating to the peak in question can
be called a '4 sigma difference.' "
The statistical significance of the originally-reported peak is calculated in
several different ways in refs 1&2, with significance approx. 4 sigma each time.
E.g., ref. 2 states:  "Reanalysis of the original data set of ref. 1.  This
method of analysis illustrates the merit of using an energy-sensitive neutron
spectrometer.  [details - please read in Nature 1990 correspondance] ...
The statistical significance of the peak is greater than 4 sigma, including
correlations between the parameters.  The centre of the gaussian is at channel
97 +- 16 with a full width at half maximum of 60 +- 11 channels.  Both the
position and width of this feature are consistent with expected for 2.5-MeV
neutrons detected in the BYU neutron spectrometer, based on calibrations with
neutrons of known energy.  This result adds to our confidence that the feature
represents neutrons generated by fusion of deuterons."
 
This also addresses Blue's question:  "I also wonder whether the detector
has ever been calibrated with a monoenergetic neutron source.  If not the
energy scale may also be shakey as well, in particular with regard to peak
shape."  In ref. 6, Fig. 4 on p. 402 juxtaposes the neutron- energy spectrum
obtained using the d-d reaction facility at Colorado School of Mines (2.5 MeV)
with that obtained at BYU, original "cold-fusion" data:  the peak shapes are
similar.
 
The reason we re-analyzed the original data and published the result in Feb.
1990 Nature was primarily to check the assertion of Douglas Morrison that the
data had a significance of only 2.2 sigma (e.g., Baltimore APS meeting May
1989).   We found otherwise as noted above,
and furthermore checked Morrison's data set and found that the numbers used in
his analysis MATCHED those presented by me at CERN for a SUBSET of the data, so
that his conclusions were not valid for the entire data set. (See ref. 9 for
details.)
 
Blue:  "We will then agree that none of these low level neutron experiments has
ever been reproduced."
Au contraire, the results have been reproduced in the Gran
Sasso Laboratory:  "The results obtained provide a neutron emission rate
comparable in size to the one recently reported by Jones et al. " (ref. 5),
and at Los Alamos National Laboratory by Menlove et al.:  "Experiments using
high-efficiency neutron detectors have detected neutron emission from various
forms of Pd and Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas cells and D2O electrolysis
cells. ..Both random neutrons (0.05-0.2 n/s) and time-correlated neutron bursts
(10-280 n) of =< 100-microsec duration were measured..."  (Ref. 4)
Numerous other laboratories have reported similar effects, and many have not
detected the effect although often the sensitivity level of the latter was
insufficient to preclude our results.  (Quantitative juxtapostion of numerous
results is provided in ref. 9.)
 
At Kamiokande in Japan, "Some burst neutron emissions were observed especially
from the electrolytic cells.  The event rate (about 0.06 bursts per hour) was
comparable to that of Menlove et al."  "We have found a clear random neutron
emission from portland cement mixed with D2O at the level of 1*10E-4 neutrons/
second, which is, however, difficult to explain based on radioactivity
contamination in the cement..." (Ref. 7, see also my previous postings on
the Kamiokande experiment; I do not claim that all Kamiokande results are
consistent with earlier experiments.  In particular, we did not find bursts
larger than 20 n, so large bursts found at Los Alamos are indeed suspicious.)
 
Note that both multiple neutron bursts and random-neutron emissions
(i.e., uncorrelated in approx. 100 microseconds) are reported in the latter two
experiments.  Thus, Dr. Blue is incorrect in his Dec. 9 assertion:  "Both of
these experiments [Menlove-Jones collaboration and Kamiokande] involve the
detection of events with neutron multiplicities greater than 1. ... Until
someone makes a proposal as to what mechanism could be producing "neutron
bursts" I think the fact that the effect is seen ONLY as multiple neutron events
is an indication that it is a background of the type we have suggested." (Blue:
capitalization added for emphasis.)  These statements and the conclusions that
follow from them are simply incorrect:  both random and burst-type events are
reported both at Kamiokande and Los Alamos.
 
Blue (9Dec posting):  "the pulse height spectra recorded by Jones was dominated
by gamma rays, NOT NEUTRONS."  (His caps.)  Not true.
In our original experimental paper, we reported:
  "By comparing energy spectra from gamma-ray
and neutron sources we have determined that approximately one-fourth of the
observed background events arise from accidental coincidences of gamma-rays
and three-fourths from ambient neutrons." (ref. 1)  I rechecked this with
Bart Czirr; he wonders where Dr. Blue developed his misunderstanding.
 
Blue:  "Second point is that there were some few net counts left after
subtraction of the background only because of a renormalization of the
background."     There were fewer hours of foreground than of background,
so scaling is clearly needed; there were roughly 100 net counts;
see refs. 1 and 2 for details.
 
Blue:  "And thirdly, while the detector has some capability for determination
of neutron energy  if the signals had been employed in one possible mode of
operation, the mode used in the Jones experiment was such that energy
information would be washed out due to the adding of a signal (with a finite
noise width) that was not dependent on neutron energy.  In short the results
of that experiment should be ignored.  They have no bearing on cold fusion."
 
Balderdash.  The fact is that the experiment was run in such a way as to
provide information on the neutron energies, a clear peak was observed,
and "both the position and width of this feature are consistent with those
expected for 2.5-MeV neutrons detected in the BYU neutron spectrometer, based
on calibrations with neutrons of known energy."  (ref. 2)
 
The original BYU experiments cannot be so easily dismissed.  We have looked
and are still looking for possible errors, however.  (See esp. ref. 2)
 
Yours Truly,
Steven E. Jones
 
P.s.  Thanks to Terry Bollinger for his remarks on cavitation in D2O, which
seem to complement remarks I made on "Sonofusion at BYU" Dec. 11, I believe.
Sonoluminescence (SL) is indeed an intriguing phenomenon, and we aim to
determine whether SL in D2O can be accompanied by fusion.  If so, we may yet
understand our original findings.  Still having fun, SEJ.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:14:50 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Correction:  my earlier discussion of possible cavitation of deuterium bubbles
in our original electrolytic experiments and the possible relation of this to
sonoluminescence and to our claims of low-level d-d fusion in such
experiments is posted in "Sonofusion at BYU" dated 10 Dec. 1992 (rather than
11 Dec).  I hope that others will comment on this posting and Terry Bollinger's
15 Dec. speculations along similar lines.  We hope to carry out SL experiments
in D2O in the BYU tunnel laboratory, looking for neutron generation,
during the next few months.  Stay tuned.
 
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1992Dec15.190931.281@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Dec15.190931.281@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:16:17 -0700

cancel <1992Dec15.190931.281@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.14 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: a 2 dimensional argument
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a 2 dimensional argument
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:56:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>     Greg, if "it stands to reason", what exactly is the reason? Why?
 
I remember our "Twist of a Ribbon" theorist (I'm sorry, I can't remember your
name right now...)  put up a paper which described this in great detail.
Assuming that it is some sort of fusion or fission, the problem is that all
known fusion reactions (especially D-D) produce energy in terms of very fast
nuclear particles, which if it is to be observed as heat, must be transfered to
the general atomic lattice.  The fast particles will collide with other
particles, producing various forms of radiation like X-Rays, neutrons, etc.
Heat will be formed, but only after many other forms of radiation are emitted.
 
To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a very creative
explanation, which is generally not forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions
is pretty the only way to go, and then you have to explain why this strange
reaction is not observed in the rest of the world.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
bdr@fc.hp.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:28:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Dec15.191450.282@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Correction:  my earlier discussion of possible cavitation of deuterium bubbles
>in our original electrolytic experiments and the possible relation of this to
>sonoluminescence and to our claims of low-level d-d fusion in such
>experiments is posted in "Sonofusion at BYU" dated 10 Dec. 1992 (rather than
>11 Dec).  I hope that others will comment on this posting and Terry Bollinger's
>15 Dec. speculations along similar lines.  We hope to carry out SL experiments
>in D2O in the BYU tunnel laboratory, looking for neutron generation,
>during the next few months.  Stay tuned.
 
    Will this be in the stable single-cavity configuration like
    that of Crum and Gaitan (c.f. J acoust Soc Am Suppl 87:S141 (1990))?
    Are you set up to observe things other than neutrons?
 
    The reason I ask is that this configuration presumably allows some
    'focusing' (for want of a better word) of the sound energy into
    a much more localized excitation.  If one is to assume that
    this energy can be further localized to nuclear scales (a further
    miracle beyond the apparently demonstrated miracle of sonoluminescence),
    one might see x-rays and gamma rays before and while seeing neutrons being
    kicked about.
 
                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Edward Lewis /  airplanes
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: airplanes
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:57:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Lately, people have written about airplanes.  Someone, (Greg), speculated
about F15 CF.  I suspect this is premature.  Before there were such planes,
there were big jumbos.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  Britz /  Bibliography; a plea for help
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography; a plea for help
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello y'all,
 
is there anyone out there who has easy access to the Russian journal, in the
original Russian i.e., Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz? If so, could you maybe check to
see where in vol. 17, 1991, there is a paper by Konenkov et al, entitled
(in Russian, of course) "Quadrupole mass-spectrometric analysis of hydrogen
isotopes during deuterium implantation in titanium"? It seems that the Chem.
Abstracts entry is erroneous and from here, it is hard for me to find the
correct reference. I'd be grateful for any help. Thank you in advance. This
sounds like an interesting paper, Moishe Garfinkle, take note.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  CF radiation safety and where are we?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF radiation safety and where are we?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz points out the fact that finding a simple way to produce
neutrons wouldn't be such a bad thing.  IF (and that is a big if) cold
fusion did produce neutrons it would have applications far beyond the
inefficient water heaters that seem to be about all CF developers can
offer at present.
 
Now Jed Rothwell really does tend to carry on a bit much in his attempt
to turn all his villians into fools.  Jed, I deal with real radiation
safety issues involving real neutron sources as part of my job, and
I don't take senseless risks or expect others to do so.  I certainly
have never urged anyone to attempt to produce nuclear fusion without
any means of detecting fusion if it should occur.  You, on the
other hand, have been quite involved in activities such as public
demonstrations of cold fusion that may been a little less than perfectly
safe, perhaps.
 
So if, as we have been told, the light water nickel systems are now
where it's at as far as cold fusion goes what has been learned to
date about this form of cold fusion?  I wish that anyone reporting
performance figures would always provide a set of absolute numbers
rather than just some percent surplus relative to break even.  Then
when all can see that high percent surpluses all result at low
pwer inputs, it will be easier to assess how truly wonderful such
results may be.  And with regard to radiation hazards associated
with this process, I have not heard word one about anyone reporting
radiation of any sort other than the tritium at BARC.  Does anyone
care to speculate as to what process burns water to produce heat
and tritium but no neutrons or gammas ?  Let's see.  Three protons
stick together in a lattice to form 3Li which then interacts with
magic particle X coherently to emit a virtual neutron that can't
escape.  That leaves 3He which does it again to form 3H and even
though it violates energy conservation we get tritium plus some
energy.  Meanwhile the virtual neutrons are absorbed by the nickel,
but there are no gammas and the isotope ratios of the nickel are
not changed because they too are in a lattice and nuclear physics
does not apply.  How's that for a theory?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  Rothwell /  Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Something I didn't know
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
For once DB has scooped me. He announces: "Tell us, for example, about the
prototype that is supposed to be out end of this year."
 
You got your sources mixed up, Dieter. That news did not come from me. Who
announced a prototype? A prototype of what, a reactor? Please find out, and
tell us more.
 
DB asks, "why should I try any nonsense?" Answer: because lots of other people
say it is not nonsense, and your job as a scientist is to find out by first-
hand experiment whether it is nonsense or not.
 
Let me get something straight here. You are an electrochemist. You have been
pontificating and making these statements all these years, and you even got
cited by Morrison at Nagoya (you lucky dog!). Are you telling us that you have
never even performed an experiment? Not with palladium, not with nickel?
Nothing? Do I understand this correctly? Have you ever been in a lab where a
CF experiment was underway? Ever been to a meeting, at least?
 
If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the people who have,
then you have no business passing judgement on CF like some kind of expert.
Shame on you! You cannot judge a brand new field of science if you are not
even willing to run an experiment or two. At least you should get a feel for
the procedures and problems involved. It is absurd. Other people have done the
Mills experiment dozens of times, they have published papers, uploaded
comments, raw data, and suggestions. You haven't even lifted your little
finger (I gather), yet you claim to know more than them. Your opinion is worth
more than Srinivasan's experimental data? Where did you learn science, K-Mart?
 
Here you are in a fully equipped electrochemical lab, and you not even willing
to spend a couple of days running a simple little Mills cell! What kind of a
scientist are you? You cannot not learn science by reading papers and
uploading cynical comments about them. If you are so darn sure it does not
work, then you should have the guts to do an experiment or two, and tell us
what happens. If you have time to do all this librarian work, surely you have
time to mix up some potassium carbonate.
 
You sound just like one of those old line COBOL programmers I used to know,
who never wrote a single line of Pascal, but who used to rail on about
"structured languages are a bunch of nonsense and garbage." You never did it,
you never saw it, you don't know anything about it. Period.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  /  Misc.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, John Logajan, I can quickly side with the "other two".  i.e. I believe
that it is Ni oxide.  In any case it is black, and quickly forms and
disappears as the current is switched.  Never take anything I say about
chemistry seriously.  I repeat that Mills says you should not do that if yor
you are to see the effect.
 
I add to my list "don't bake".  At least not between rinses.  Baking just
hardens any residue making it harder to remove at the next cleaning stage.
 
I take heart from Diter Britz's statement that all electrochemists do not
have success either.  So there is still hope that I can luck into a solution.
 
I warn the "secret" workers that there is a loose cannon on the deck.  If I
find the "secret" first I will tell all.  So you better put your "teaching"
in your patent applications or you could lose all.  The patent disclosures I
have seen to date would not protect anything!  Remember you must "teach" one
"trained in the art" how to do it.  Since Dieter Britz says not all
electrochemists can do it and he is an electrochemist, then you must do more
than assume that the "class" of electrochemists are "trained in the art".
Looks to me like you better spell out what electrochemical procedures are
the right ones to use.
 
Since I don't see this sort of thing in the patent applications, I assume that
either the patent filers do not know what it takes, there is no effect, or that
there is an effect and the procedures are not being disclosed.  If the last,
then the patents I have seen so far would be ruled invalid.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  /  Natoya Nagoya Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Natoya Nagoya Experiment
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since the debate over the "silver" wire has not died down, I would like to
know if the wire was really "silver" or only "silver colored".  My bet is
that it was platinum and thus "silver colored".
 
Don't see why there would be any Ag wire around an electrochemistry lab.  What
use is it?
 
Jed keeps telling us we should "copy the master exactly".  And then mostly
tells us we should go to Japan.  Remember both the Ni and Pd work started here,
and by people who obviously did not copy "masters".
 
Has everyone but me forgotten the significance of the bottle of Jack Daniels?
And in Utah no less!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  Britz /  RE: Re: quantity and quality at your location
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: quantity and quality at your location
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:21:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) (alias "you"):
 
>I must confess that I was being silly.  If it's a first for
>sci.physics.fusion, I apologize.
 
No no no no! This is the norm here! As someone recently remarked, if you have
nothing to say, this is the list for you.
 
Actually, your postings are at least entertaining and do not cause wear on my
teeth, as some others do.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  Rothwell /  Eventually
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eventually
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:07:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I thank DB for posting the Hal Fox's quote about "$25 million over the next
few years..." I missed that article. However, the wording explains everything.
$25 million eventually, over the next "few" years is not the same as a real
$25 million annual budget in the bank right now. You cannot write a check on
money that may become available over the next few years. There is not $25
million available today in all of North America and Europe, in fact, I would
be very surprised if there was $2 million.
 
DB also comments: "You, Jed, have seen only one leg of the elephant
electrochemistry, but there are many other aspects to it.
 
You are ignoring most of what I said, and quoting me selectively to distort my
words. I said, "There are, of course, many kinds of electrochemical devices
ranging from crude, massive industrial electroplating machines, to devices
that deposit thin film metals on computer chips. It is broad field."
 
DB comments: "I find it a bit hard to swallow that ultracleanliness should be
The Secret."
 
So do I. I never said that, and neither did anyone else. There is no single
"secret" with CF, any more than there was a "secret" 100 years ago when Edison
and his staff struggled to make the first lightbulb. There were dozens of
secrets back then, about filaments, vacuum pumps, glass and metalurgy, and
Edison figured them all out, one at a time, with fantastic perserverance and
intelligence. There is no one "secret" to writing good programs either, there
are hundreds.
 
Getting back to cleanliness, I said that many electrochemists are more
concerned about cleanliness than physicists, and way better at materials
science. I said, and repeated many times, that cleanliness appears to help a
great deal, especially with Pd CF. I said that Ni CF appears to be much more
forgiving, and works okay with reasonable cleanliness, but some people have
reported it works better with ultracleanliness. The fellow who washed the
glassware so many times, by the way, was not running a CF experiment when he
did that.
 
 
Greg Kuperberg says, "My point is not that you know that there will be
dangerous amounts neutrons if there is cold fusion, but rather that there
might be.  You don't just take an umbrella when you know it will rain, you
take one when you think it might rain, or else you might get wet."
 
AMEN! Exactly right.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  NTT, Yamaguchi, and $565,000 can't be wrong?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NTT, Yamaguchi, and $565,000 can't be wrong?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:08:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed, Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
make mistakes, but then we have an example laid before us that contradicts
that.  There are several things wrong with the Yamaguchi experiment.  It
really should be refined in some rather obvious and relatively inexpensive
ways.  And I take the fact that NTT has not recognized this fact as a clear
indication that their research establishment isn't as good as it really
ought to be.
 
First let me give a summary of the basic features of Yamaguchi's experiment.
Sample preparation starts with loading palladium foil with either hydrogen
or deuterium by exposure of a heated foil to the appropriate atmosphere.
The sample is then coated by a layer of gold on one side and a layer of
magnesium oxide on the other side.  Samples of this type are then installed
in a vacuum chamber pumped to 10^-8 Torr by a turbomolecular pump.  The
principle analytic instrument is a high resolution RGA set to scan for ions
in the mass 4 range.  A form of differential pumping is used that is
said to maintain a factor of 10 better pressure in the RGA than in the
sample chamber, but only the single turbo pump is employed.
 
With the sample in place and the chamber pumped down, the sample is heated
by applying a current by either electron or ion bombardment.  I haven't
sorted out which it is, but apparantly the power input is regulated.  The
temperature of the sample is monitored and the evolution of gas which
produces mass 4 ions is recorded in a series of scans.  Initially the
pressure rises rapidily to a peak, then falls to a plateau where it
remains for some time before it begins to return toward base pressure.
In Yamaguchi's interpretation, there are two correlated effects which
occur at the end of this pressure plateau.  The temperature of the
sample rises and the RGA scan shows the production of helium if the
gas loading was deuterium.  For hydrogen-loaded samples the temperature
rise appears to be the same, but there are no mass 4 ions in the RGA
scan.
 
What are the problems with this experiment as I see them?  Remember this
kit costs $565K so another $10 to $20K spent on improvements should be
no big deal for NTT.  First off the RGA should have its own turbo pump
so that operating pressure in the RGA could be better controlled.  As
the chamber pressure rises and falls in the transitions where the effect
is supposed to occur, partial pressures for light gasses relative to
other residuals can vary dramatically.  Both the turbo pump and the RGA
are operating outside the pressure ranges where than can be expected to
give their best performance.  For example the turbo pump may not be
pumping hydrogen and deuterium at all during the crucial parts of the
measurement.
 
It would seem that the sample temperature could also be dramatically
influence by the base pressure in the chamber (also the composition of
the residual gas).  Cooling by convection is probably significant until
the pressure starts to drop, and guess when the temperature rise is
observed?
 
As for the RGA scans, the mass 4 spectral region is dominated by
D2+ molecular ions and the peak width is strongly influenced by
pressure.  The scans that are supposed showing 4He are pretty ugly
so extracting the helium intensity is not straight forward.  It
must involve the subtraction of a D2+ peak shape as a function of
pressure, but there may be transient effects that are not duplicated
when the peak shapes are determined by the introduction of D2 gas
into the system.  I think the mass scans need to be made under more
stable and reproducible pressure conditions before they can be
given much credence.  As an alternative or suppliment I would recommend
some form of optical spectroscopy to provide a helium signal less
subject to confusion.
 
The improvements I have suggested can be paid for many times over from
the profits on the sale of two of these kits.  Off the top of my head
I would say you could assemble the kit yourself for less than half the
asking price.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / mitchell swartz /  the due diligence of a parroteer
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the due diligence of a parroteer
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:35:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
    In article sci.physics.fusion:4566 [15 Dec 1992],
 greg@marvin.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes
 with wiry logic:
>>  "Aha!  This is a pressure tactic!"
 
  Greg.  There was no pressuse, just a simple suggestion for
    a follow-up of diligence.
  If there was pressure, then there would have been a force.
  With your logic (vide infra) and with the vaporesponse
    characterizing the exchange, there has been neither
    displacement, nor energy exerted.
                   ergo: No force.
 
 
==  "If I've parrotted the claim, as we've agreed that I have,
==     then it's not my claim to defend.
==                    ***
==   why should I give you any more of an dxplanation than
==   you'v alseady received?  If I don't, you might *choose
==   not to believe me*.
==   What a horror that would be.  It might even drive me back
==   to my real work."
 
    Greg, as denotated and brought to your careful attention
       "parroting" requires sedulous behavior.
 
    From Webster's, two quotes now follow [ibid]:
 
    "sedulous [L sedulus, fr. sedulo sincerely, diligently
       1.  diligent in application or pursuit"
 
    "diligent
       1.  characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic
           application and effort.  Painstaking
 
  Your logic thus appears to be paradoxical, your banter
   unsupported.
 
  Perhaps such "parrot-doxical" thinking ought to come with an
  emissions label if it continues into the new year,
  given otr national coming-of-age re: truth-in-labeling.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / mitchell swartz /  the development of a multidimensional argument
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the development of a multidimensional argument
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:37:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
 
   In article  sci.physics.fusion:4569 {14 Dec 1992},
 rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
==    "Assuming that it is some sort of fusion or fission, the
==   problem is that all known fusion reactions (especially D-D)
==   produce energy in terms of very fast nuclear particler, which
==   if it is tk be observed as heat, must be transfered to the
==   general atomic lattice.  The fast particles will collide with
==   other particles, producing various forms of radiation like
==   X-Rays, neutrons, etc. Heat will be formed, but only after
==  many other forms of radiation are emitted.
 
  With all due respect, "all known fusion reactions" does not
 include those reactions which scientists catalogue
 thereafter, or fail to catalogue at all.
 
 
 
==  "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
==   very creative explanation, which is generally not
==   forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
==   only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
==   strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
==   world."
 
   Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
  (or other sentient) creative explanations.
   There may not be a "perceived sound" or a "thought" without us,
   but the reactions, all physical reactions, proceed in their own
   indomitable way.  Certainly one can gdt "production" without
   adequate theory.
 
   As to why this reaction is not observed in "the rest of the
 world", it is obvious to any serious reader of this net and the
 literature, that such reactions may apparently go on in the "rest
 of the world" and beyond.  Steven Jones and many others have
 promulgated several ideas in which geologic physics and
 extraterrestial physics may have had some surprises for
 conventional thinking.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / mitchell swartz /  neutrons, neutrons, everywhere?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutrons, neutrons, everywhere?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:51:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
In article sci.physics.fusion:4576; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
 (Dick Blue) writes:
 
 
=   "Mitchell Swartz points out the fact that finding a simple
=  way to produce neutrons wouldn't be such a bad thing.
=  IF (and that is a big if) cold fusion did produce neutrons
=  it would have applications far beyond the inefficient water
=  heaters that seem to be about all CF developers can offer at
= present."
 
   Although I concur with much of Dick Blue's comments regarding
 radiation protection (and remain neutral but interested with
 respect to his theories) the above quote purporting what I
 have stated is not correct.
 
   A review of the postings indicates that I pointed out that:
 
  1.  ... the literature indicates that what are called "cold
 fusion" reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these reactions
 appear to be deficient in the expected (with respect to other
 fusion environments) number of neutrons.
 
  2.  ... all experimenters should consider and anticipate
 output fluxes.  (Also I mentioned explosive hazards, but
 forgot to mention inhalation toxicity potential from some of
 the chemical agents discussed on the net - some of which are
 very hepatotoxic)
 
  3.  ... neutrons are very infrequently used in the radiation
 therapy of malignant solid tumors, although it was noted that
 my preference is very heavily towards the use of 2 to 18 MeV
 x-rays and electrons of various  energies.
 
  4.  ... neutrons in fact can give rise to induced
 radioactivity, which might be not desired, as well as
 biological problems.
 
  5.  ...  there was still a request for any proof that
 neutrons must be emitted in the condensed phase at the levels
 demanded by some theoreticians extrapolating from other
 systems, during whatever reaction(s) are occurring in the
 "cold fusion" (and other similar) systems.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  MANN@YaleVM.YC /  Re: Christmas Suggestions
     
Originally-From: MANN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Christmas Suggestions
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:50:00 EST
Organization: Yale University

In article <921214130816.20400eba@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>
>I got an early morning phone call from my brother.  It seems the NTT $565,000
>cold fusion kit has made one the lists of things to buy those that have
>everything in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.  This is not news.  What is news is
>that they say that "two have been sold."  I wonder who bought them.
>
>Tom Droege   Droege@fnal.fnald
 
Shucks! With this InterNet thing it's getting harder and harder to keep
a secret, and darn near making my job impossible!
 
SANTA
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenMANN cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  Rothwell /  Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:44:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Greg Kuperberg comments, "Here I am with a savings account earning a modest
interest and you're putting your money where your mouth is on cold fusion.
You're a braver man than I."
 
Goodness, it wasn't all that much money! It came to around $12,000 when all
was said and done, and we still have enough materials for several more runs.
Also, we got a lot of generous help, and some donated equipment from our
friends. The main expense was for a new Apple computer, which did not work
well, and for an old IBM XT, which did. The Apple is now being used for
conventional computing elsewhere. Also, we purchased used equipment: a cooler,
several sets of power supplies, and we have gone though two new expensive
flowmeters, which I highly recommend.
 
Greg also comments:  "Gates may have made 5 or 10 billion, but he hasn't made
it scot-free. He's created some hard feelings by guarding his software
rights... But then there are those few rich men who don't have to worry...
jealousy or suspicion, who are actually *admired* by their peers and
countrymen. These are people like Edison and Bell..."
 
Every successful businessman creates hard feelings. It is inevitable. For one
thing, you can only succeed by driving other people out of business and
ruining their lives. Also, only very tough, ruthless people can survive. Some
of them are personally very nice, and most are completely honest, honorable,
and good citizens. But, they have to be hard-hearted in their business
affairs, and they have to enjoy destroying other people. It is similar to
warfare: a good soldier enjoys killing people. I have known many good
soldiers, some of them are fine, loving, decent and good people, except when
you put them in a Mitsubishi Zero Fighter and tell them to kill as many of
their fellow men as possible. The human heart is complex and unknowable.
 
I am in the software business, and I admire Bill Gates a great deal. You are
wrong about Edison and Bell, lots of people were extremely jealous of them,
and they were both very tough customers, who drove hard bargains.
 
Greg comments: "Cold fusion is a long shot." Not in my opinion, but in the
eyes of the world, yes, it is. If it was not considered a long shot, it would
not be a high-return investment. The rate of return for a sure-fire
investment, like a CD, has to be lower than the rate of return for a risky
investment. The perception of risk, plus dumb luck, are the two factors that
make a fabulously good return on investment. The trick is to find something
that looks dangerous to other people, but actually is not dangerous, because
that keeps competition to a minimum.
 
 
 
Terry Bollinger comments: "[Regarding] TmDxHy [nickel CF] heat anomalies...
Thanks primarily to Jed Rothwell's recent prolific writings, I'm no longer
sure I believe in their existence.  (Go figger, Jed.)
 
Your response is easy to "figger" out. I have seen it many times in the
software business and elsewhere. For example, in the early '80's, it became
increasingly obvious that microcomputers would displace mini and mainframe
computers. I had many customers and friends in major corporations, and in
places like NCR, Data General and IBM, who made a living programming or
selling large computers. As the evidence became stronger and more inescapable,
and as microcomputer sales skyrocketed, they protested more and more
vigorously that microcomputers were useless toys which could not do the real
jobs of data processing, and that there was no future in them. The stronger
the evidence, the stronger their denial became.
 
These people did every thing they could to avoid purchasing, or working with,
or even looking at microcomputers. Many so-called "skeptics" in CF act the
same way; I tell them how to perform a simple nickel experiment that will
probably show them the phenomenon. Instead of spending a few days on the
experiment, they give me a thousand reasons why they cannot or will not do it.
They struggle to avoid facing reality. Your reaction reminds me of what
Huizenga said when Business World asked him about the recent reports of high
heat. He said the results are so preposterous, "you can dismiss them out of
hand." What you and Huizenga are saying is that the higher the sigma level of
confidence, the *less* likely the results are real.
 
Your reaction is a common and understandable fault of human nature; everyone,
including me, falls into the same trap from time to time. I have seen this
kind of irrational denial in people who were seriously or terminally ill, but
who kept insisting that the doctors were wrong and they would get better.
While this is understandable, you should realize that your emotions are
talking, not your intellect, and that this kind of irrational, dysfunctional
behavior can lead to serious personal problems if it gets out of hand, as it
has with poor Dr. Huizenga. You need to take a deep breath, go back to basics,
and try to sort out in your mind some fundamental rules of science.
 
Your biggest problem is that you have forgotten the difference between theory
and evidence. For example, you say: "The 'cold fusion' line is a total crock,
and I think the majority of the high-heat folks know it by now.  (Evidence?
Interest in Mills' "hydrino" idea, which is a modified (a) theory...)"
 
You do not understand the use of the word "evidence." Data is evidence. A
theory, like the Mills' idea, is not evidence, and plays no role in judging
whether or not the phenomenon exists. Mills might have the wrong theory, but
his data has been replicated by dozens of people at levels far beyond possible
experimental errors. A theory can never, ever, prove or disprove anything in
science, only experimental data can do that.
 
You go on to say, "you are asking for a MAJOR humdinger of a violation of
physics." This is totally irrelevant. Ten Million Major Humdingers would not
make one iota of difference. The only scientifically valid questions are:
 
1. What do the instruments show?
 
2. What is the signal to noise ratio?
 
The instruments show Delta T temperature differences as high as 50 C, at sigma
levels greater than 90, therefore CF exists. Nothing else matters, and no
theory can have any effect on the conclusion that the heat is real, and far
beyond the limits of chemistry. Theory plays no role in this conclusion
whatsoever, and cannot be used to attack or defend it. Please stop confusing
the roles of theory and evidence. These roles were firmly established by
Kepler, Galileo, and other early scientists, and they have not changed one
bit. Science is built upon observation, evidence and data. In all cases, when
data of sufficiently high sigma conflicts with theory, theory is wrong.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  /  Cold Fusion Finance
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Finance
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:45:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz quotes Fusion Facts:
 
"... a consortium of Utah and Washington corporations have pledged over $25
million over the next few years ..."
 
Yea, but how much have they got.  I have this corporation that I use as a
shield against possible law suits because I make some dumb mistake.  Not
really a tax shelter as it is Sub Chapter S.
 
Environmental Optics Corp. pledges to spend $100 million over the next five
years to promote Cold Fusion research.
 
You heard it here first folks.  It would be improper and would make you all
mad if I were to announce it in a press conference, so I quietly present it
here.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  Plans for FY 93 (based on previous years) are to spend $10,000.  But the
year after that ... .
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  /  The Problem
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Problem
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:21:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Don't realy want to use up too much space with this, as it was only intended to
encourage clear thinking about power measurement.  But John Hassler suggests
cutting the wires and another suggested using the voltmeter leads to short
the wires.
 
Having engineered a superconducting device or two (flux pumps) I would not
advise either, but in general cutting the wires is more dangerous than
shorting them.  There is always some stray inductance, and with zero
resistance this makes whatever voltage it must to keep the current flowing.
 
I learned all this the hard way.  I had a power amplifier driving a
superconducting transformet.  Every time we made some mistake in the drive
program we would have to replace about 50 power transistiors.  The current
just keeps going, and going, and going!!!  Eventually we learned that there
always has to be an alternate current path for protection.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  /  Cell Power Measurement 101
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell Power Measurement 101
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:21:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells and all I see
is two clip leads.
 
Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.  (McKuber
seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.)  Two leads carry
the current, two connected to the cell on the other side of the clip leads
measure the potential across the cell.  These leads carry very small current.
 
There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you a 1%
measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power Measurement 201,
301, 401, ... .  Sorry that is McKubre.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  /  Science 101
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science 101
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:56:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While I am offering Cell Power Measurement 101, I cannot recal getting
Science 101 in my many hours of course work.  Looks like you have to get
it by osmosis.  I am not surprised that Jed Rothwell does no recognize
Dieter Britz's (and also in this field Douglas Morrison) valuable
contribution.  Some in science choose to do experimentation.  Some choose
to do theory.  Others choose to read everything and to try to make sense
of it.
 
So Jed, Dieter is doing a very valuable job.  He could not do the same job
if he also did experimentation.  It is wrong, I think, to criticize him.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:17:08 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
 
A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
someone out there will actually give it a try.
 
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
bubbles collapse.
 
 
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR INCREASING MAXIMUM CAVITATION PRESSURES
 
Key feature which I would assert are necessary for achieving unusually
high pressures with cavitation:
 
 1) USE OF LIQUIDS WITH VERY HIGH SURFACE TENSION
 
    This requirement is derived from the need for the caviation bubbles to
    have and maintain a high degree of spherical symmetry.  Also, the
    surface tension acts as a "rubber band" that helps force the collapse
    of the bubble.  The higher the surface tension, the better.
 
    Surprisingly, ordinary water is one of the best (and possibly the
    best) fluid available by this criterion.  Hydrogen floride has
    stronger hydrogen bonding, but lacks the important "branching" effect
    of H2O that allows large groups of molecules to cohere tightly.
 
    Another family of liquids that might meet this general criterion fairly
    well would be the glycerols (?), or compounds with the generic formula
    (CH20)nH2.
 
 2) USE OF LIQUIDS WITH LOW MOLECULAR SIZE
 
    This is a lesser criteria, but still important, I suspect.  If you
    use really big molecules the final compression stages of the bubble
    are going to get more complicated and will probably slow down due
    to the difficulty of "moving out" large molecules from the inner
    surface of the bubble.  Again, H20 rates about as high as any high
    surface tension compound could by this criterion.
 
 3) USE OF HARD-TO-BREAK-DOWN MOLECULES
 
    If the molecule is too fragile, it is likely to break down at the
    inner bubble surface as higher pressures are reached.  H20 is (yet
    again) a good choice in terms of resistance to breadown.
 
 4) USE OF VERY-LOW-VAPOR-PRESSURE MOLECULES
 
    Here's one for which H2O does not rate as well.  I suspect that one
    of the most important limiting factors in final cavitation pressure
    is the number of gases and vapor-phase molecules existing within the
    bubble.  The bubble is like a collapsing baloon whose final size (and
    thus pressure) is determined largely by the volume of gas contained
    in it when it began collapsing.  Very little gas means that the
    bubble can collapse to a much smaller size before gas pressure halts
    the collapse.
 
    A quite important source of such gases is vaporization of the fluid
    itself.  Thus the more resistant the fluid is to vaporizing in a
    vacuum, the less it will contribute to premature bubble slow-down.
 
    For this criterion compounds such as glycerin that (I believe; haven't
    looked it up) have lower vapor pressure than water would rate better
    than H20.  Using anti-freeze style mixtures of fluids might also be
    worth checking out.
 
    LOW temperatures -- as close as possible to the freezing point, or even
    below if you can manage to supercool in the presence of cavitation --
    would very likely help.  (That would be an interesting irony, would
    it not -- obtaining higher cavitation temperatures by using lower
    temperature in the fluids?)
 
 5) USE OF FLUIDS WITH VERY FEW DISSOLVED GASES
 
    This one is critical, I suspect.  If your fluid is chock full of, say,
    dissolved nitrogen and/or oxygen, those bubbles are going to receive
    signficant shots of those gases in their interiors, and the result
    will be a premature halt of the collapse process.  If that logic is
    valid, then you should try to obtain very, *very* low concentrations
    of dissolved gases to increase the final bubble collapse pressure.
    This might even prove to be the dominant factor in determining the
    final pressure produced by bubble collapse.
 
 6) USE OF LOW-PARTICULATE-COUNT FLUIDS
 
    Less critical, but still important, would be that the fluid be clean
    and not have a lot of microscopic junk floating around in it.  Very
    tiny debris will reduce the number of highly symmetrical bubbles that
    can form and then collapse.
 
 
HOW HIGH CAN YOU GO, JOE?
 
All of the above can be translated into an interesting and quite serious
proposal for attempting to produce Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure
(HICCUP) Fusion, by which I mean some kind of real (but possibly very small)
increase in the average rate of nuclear fusion events in a cold fluid by
introducing very high pressures and temperatures into cavitaion
bubbles.
 
One version of the experiment might be as follows:
 
 1) Start with very pure (ordinary) water.  (You may of course wish to
    "bypass the middle man" and use heavy water instead, so that vapor
     pressure water molecules inside the cavitation bubbles will have a
     better chance of accomplishing something useful by donating D atoms.)
 
 2) Use vacuum distillation methods to create a container of water that
    is extremely low in all types of dissolved gases.
 
 3) Introduce an *extremely* small level of pure deuterium gas into the
    purified water (or tritium if you are equipped for that sort of thing
    and want the easiest possible fusion reactions).  Ideally, the quantity
    of fusion-fuel gas introduced should be so small that there should be
    only a few molecules per cavitation bubble interior.  Practically,
    however, the number of molecules will need to be at least of the same
    order as the number of remaining impurity gases and vapor-phase fluid
    molecules that will also be in the interior of the bubble, so that the
    introduced gas can reasonably "compete" with other gas molecules for
    the energy deposited by the collapse of the bubble.
 
 4) Cool the water to 4 degrees C or lower (4 degrees being the point of
    maximum density).
 
 5) Use ultrasound to induce cavitation.  High intensities obviously make
    sense to try, but might also interfere with bubble regularity and the
    collapse process.  Thus experimenting with a range of intensities and
    frequencies.
 
 6) Look for very-low-level signatures of classic D-D, D-T, or T-T fusion
    reactions, depending on what you loaded the fluid with.  (Steve Jones
    could probably give excellent advice in this area.)
 
 
Well, that about wraps up my proposal for HICCUP fusion.  If someone
actually tries it an gets interesting results, feel free to put in a
patent disclosure on it -- you will get no argument from me, provided
only that you have the courtesy of saying you got the idea here.
 
To be honest, however, I see no persuasive reason to think that HICCUP
would have any practical applications as an energy source, even if it
really did work.  A successful demonstration would be very interesting
from a scientific viewpoint, however.
 
My thanks to Dale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) for poking me
in a private email about how interesting the cavitation effect is.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Sonofusion at BYU
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion at BYU
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:33:42 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Dec16.082828.20031@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas
.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> In article <1992Dec15.191450.282@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
> writes:
>>Correction:  my earlier discussion of possible cavitation of deuterium bubbles
>>in our original electrolytic experiments and the possible relation of this to
>>sonoluminescence and to our claims of low-level d-d fusion in such
>>experiments is posted in "Sonofusion at BYU" dated 10 Dec. 1992 (rather than
>>11 Dec).  I hope that others will comment on this posting and Terry
 Bollinger's
>>15 Dec. speculations along similar lines.
 
>     Will this be in the stable single-cavity configuration like
>     that of Crum and Gaitan (c.f. J acoust Soc Am Suppl 87:S141 (1990))?
>     Are you set up to observe things other than neutrons?
>
>     The reason I ask is that this configuration presumably allows some
>     'focusing' (for want of a better word) of the sound energy into
>     a much more localized excitation.  If one is to assume that
>     this energy can be further localized to nuclear scales (a further
>     miracle beyond the apparently demonstrated miracle of sonoluminescence),
>     one might see x-rays and gamma rays before and while seeing neutrons being
>     kicked about.
>
>                               dale bass
 
Thanks for the comments.  Yes, we will use the single-bubble configuration
as used by Crum, Gaitan, Putterman and others, but with D2O and D2 in the
bubble, hopefully.                Yes, we are set up to look for
x-rays as well as neutrons (neutrons are more penetrating and therefore more
readily observed).  We intend to add a gamma detector:  3" or 5" NaI are
available here but not yet installed in our deep lab in the Wasatch mountains.
One idea I had was to use an H2O+D2O mixture, to look for p-d gammas (5.4 MeV)
as well as for d-d neutrons (2.5 MeV).  In other words, IF we see neutrons from
d-d fusion (a big IF), then it would be interesting to compare the d-d and p-d
yields.  Such information would go a long way to sorting out the mechanism for
for the fusion reactions. (This is admittedly wishful thinking; more:  should
we add Li salts?).
Regarding miracles in sonoluminescence(SL), I agree with you and Terry Bollinger
that there are mysteries here to be solved.  In a colloquium at BYU some weeks
ago, Seth Putterman of UCLA indicated that they had reached 100,000 C in recent
SL experiments, and that he thought 1 million C was possible.  I share his
excitement about SL.  Well before his visit, we had put 2+2 together, realizing
that D2-bubble collapse in our D2O electrolytic cells could POSSIBLY account for
our observations of a few neutrons.  Repeatable SL allows a means of
 reproducibly
causing bubble collapse, so of course we are strongly motivated to look for
nuclear emissions in SL in D2O and H2O+D2O (etc.).
It's a wild hunch at this stage.
 
Merry Christmas,
Steven E. Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:46:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>
>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>bubbles collapse.
>
>PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR INCREASING MAXIMUM CAVITATION PRESSURES
>
>Key feature which I would assert are necessary for achieving unusually
>high pressures with cavitation:
>
> 1) USE OF LIQUIDS WITH VERY HIGH SURFACE TENSION
 
     The only problem is that 'pressure' itself does not seem to
     be sufficient to even get to electronic levels much less
     to nuclear levels.  The entire concept of fluid surface tension
     breaks down long before getting to the level of nuclear
     interactions.  I am also not sure that high surface tension
     has much effect on the so-called stable sonoluminescence, which
     is a cavitation phenomenon of the sort you envision.
 
> 3) USE OF HARD-TO-BREAK-DOWN MOLECULES
>
>    If the molecule is too fragile, it is likely to break down at the
>    inner bubble surface as higher pressures are reached.  H20 is (yet
>    again) a good choice in terms of resistance to breadown.
 
    Again, the phenomenon of breaking molecular bonds a) requires
    much less energy than fusion and b) is localized on much larger
    scales than fusion.  Why would such localized energy not
    simply destroy any molecule first?
 
> 4) USE OF VERY-LOW-VAPOR-PRESSURE MOLECULES
>
>    Here's one for which H2O does not rate as well.  I suspect that one
>    of the most important limiting factors in final cavitation pressure
>    is the number of gases and vapor-phase molecules existing within the
>    bubble.  The bubble is like a collapsing baloon whose final size (and
>    thus pressure) is determined largely by the volume of gas contained
>    in it when it began collapsing.  Very little gas means that the
>    bubble can collapse to a much smaller size before gas pressure halts
>    the collapse.
 
     I suspect if your aim is to produce large cavitation pressures, then
     the character of the sound field is probably much more important
     than vapour pressures.
 
>HOW HIGH CAN YOU GO, JOE?
 
     Since I've never seen a good full spectrum of sonoluminescence from
     cavitation, the question is still unanswered.
 
>Well, that about wraps up my proposal for HICCUP fusion.  If someone
>actually tries it an gets interesting results, feel free to put in a
>patent disclosure on it -- you will get no argument from me, provided
>only that you have the courtesy of saying you got the idea here.
 
>My thanks to Dale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) for poking me
>in a private email about how interesting the cavitation effect is.
 
     You'll get no argument from me either, provided that someone gives me
     a hint as to how cavitation sonoluminescence works in the process.
 
                            dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonofusion at BYU
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion at BYU
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:19:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Dec16.113342.285@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>that there are mysteries here to be solved.  In a colloquium at BYU some weeks
>ago, Seth Putterman of UCLA indicated that they had reached 100,000 C in recent
>SL experiments, and that he thought 1 million C was possible.  I share his
>excitement about SL.  Well before his visit, we had put 2+2 together, realizing
 
     Is Putterman showing graphs with peaks?  Or are they still curves that
     indicate a peak at higher temperature?
 
     Also, I've never been sure how physically well-defined temperature is
     in this context. It is clear that 10^5 C probably doesn't correspond
     to any equilibrium process.
 
     By the way, wild hunches seem to make life interesting.
 
                                   dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:55:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <921215181833_72240.1256_EHL69-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the people who have,
>then you have no business passing judgement on CF like some kind of expert.
>
Well, I guess this about puts the cork in the bottle as far as Rothwell
is concerned. One must wonder if he knows _anything_ about science.
 
Though we rail at mentioning Britz in the same paragraph with Einstein,
perhaps Rothwell would tell us what experiments Einstein performed to
derive the special theory?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Natoya Nagoya Experiment
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Natoya Nagoya Experiment
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:24:33 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <921215135233.204026b8@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
 
> Has everyone but me forgotten the significance of the bottle of Jack Daniels?
> And in Utah no less!
 
I don't think I've ever heard this story. And I was IN Utah when this
all started. Fill us in.
 
                        Bob P.
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.16 / Greg Kuperberg /  Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:46:36 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <009652BA.BCF0F0E0.7270@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
 writes:
>Jed, Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
>make mistakes,...
 
Let's not make sweeping generalizations here.  On very rare occasions
they might make some teeny-weeny mistakes.
 
For example, when Sony lost hundreds of millions of dollars marketing
Betamax, it did resemble a mistake.
 
Also, when major securities firms in Japan were caught transferring
funds from small clients to big clients, some company officials
admitted that mistakes were made.
 
And then there was MITI's recently concluded Fifth Generation Computer
Project, which was supposed to make million-Cray-power computers that
could think like Homo Sapiens.  Maybe some of the original claims about
the project were a mistake.
 
And finally, nearly every stock market player in Japan has taken a bath
in the past couple of years.  A country's stock index losing half
of its value is usually evidence of mistakes.
 
But other than those four minor errors, major Japanese companies never,
never, ever make mistakes.  Certainly not the Nippon Telephone and
Telegraph company.  With the Yamaguchi Cold Fusion kit, its
reputation is really on the line.  If the kit fails to deliver excess
heat as no one has promised, no Japanese citizen will ever place a
phone call with NTT again.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / mitchell swartz /  Electric Power Input 101
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electric Power Input 101
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:58:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4593
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE (Tom Droege) on the subject
     "Cell Power Measurement 101" states:
 
 
==  "I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells
==  and all I see is two clip leads.
==  Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.
==  (McKuber seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.)
==  Two leads carry  the current, two connected to the cell on the other
==  side of the clip leads measure the potential across the cell.
==  These leads carry very small current.
==  There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you
==  a 1% measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power
==  Measurement 201, 301, 401, ... ."
 
    This truth in this is worth repeating and further considering,
 since there seems to be diversity in opinion as to what exactly is
 "equal input electrical power".
 
    Quaerie:
 
     Some experimentalists do not give a clear indication of what was the
 power input to the "control" cell.  That is, was the electrical power
 input (from a black-box consideration) equal for the two cells.
 
     For example, one group  applies an electric power to the "reactor"
 cell of I0 * V0  watts,  but applies only  I0 * (V0 - x) watts to the
 "control".  x here is circa 1.4, and has been discussed elsewhere.
     Another group uses identical input powers.   Can there be uniformity
 and a clearer distinction?
 
 
    When readers hear 70% excess heat (or whatever value), unless it is
 clearly stated, many presume that the electrical input power was the same
 for the two (or more) cells.
 
    Perhaps there can be a distinguishing label as to this Quality Factor
 characterizing any given system, which will clue a reader into *** how ***
 exactly the experiment was conducted.  Any thoughts?
 
    For example, when calculating, and posting, the "temperature
 differential", or the "delta-T" between the two systems, as an alternative
 equal electrical power input can be delivered to both the reactor and the
 control cell.   The description can then report the "equal power input
 delta-T" and then also calculate the further derived increase in putative
 excess heat by the addition of the "x"-term?  Equal power input delta-T
 could clue in the reader as to what was done.
 
    It would interesting to know what the folks here think.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  Rothwell /  Pd - Pt connections
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd - Pt connections
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:50:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones notes:
 
"Note that the wires leading to the Pd plates in Akito Takahashi's xs heat
experiment in Osaka were simply looped through a hole in the top of the each
plate.  The plate and loop of wire were both exposed to electrolytic processes
which could alter the conductivity of the connection..."
 
There is more to it than that. The Pt wire goes down to the cathode, and loops
around it, as noted here, but he also has a watertight plastic covering over
the Pt, which is split at the end so that it partly covers the plate. It looks
like a gorblimey way to do it, but Gene and I tried several other methods, and
so did Takahashi, and we found this was the best and most reliable method by
far. We trashed two cathodes trying to do things like melt wires on to them.
The wires break off, and the cathode gets discolored, and people say the heat
damages the metal.
 
We use connections like that in the telephone business all the time, and they
work out okay.
 
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Takahashi got excess heat, and so did
four other people I know who used the exact same method of attaching the wire,
so it sure works!
 
 
Steve also emphasizes, correctly, my comment about them alligator clips: "THE
ONES IN NAGOYA WERE PARTICULARLY BAD:  THEY WERE RUSTED. They make a very
poor, unreliable contact..."
 
Exactly right, and if *you* got a lot of resistance, I bet you were touching a
rusty spot, or a weak spot, or you had the wire crimped, or whatever. When
Notoya moved those clips around, she was very careful to look at the
connection, pull the wire to make sure it was tight, and measure with a meter
afterwards. She doesn't trust those clips any more than I do. You have to
watch those darn things. I prefer the little round copper connectors.
 
She leased the power supplies from a Japanese version of Lease-a-metric, and
she had to take what they gave her. Those of us who have gone out on technical
sales demos will appreciate her plight! People who want replicate this
experiment are well advised to do it the way she does it in Hokkaido, with the
proper type of equipment.
 
 
Now a question from me:
 
Does anyone out there in the Cybernetic Continuum know how to mill and cut
sintered nickel? The stuff is brittle as heck. If you could recommend a tool,
and a place I could buy or lease that tool, I would appreciate it.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  Britz /  RE: Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Something I didn't know
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:51:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>You got your sources mixed up, Dieter. That news did not come from me. Who
>announced a prototype? A prototype of what, a reactor? Please find out, and
>tell us more.
 
OK, I mistakenly thought you were involved in that consortium that plans a
prototype for the end of 1992. So sorry. ARE you (i.e. Clustron) planning
one?
 
>Let me get something straight here. You are an electrochemist. You have been
>pontificating and making these statements all these years, and you even got
>cited by Morrison at Nagoya (you lucky dog!). Are you telling us that you have
>never even performed an experiment? Not with palladium, not with nickel?
>Nothing? Do I understand this correctly? Have you ever been in a lab where a
>CF experiment was underway? Ever been to a meeting, at least?
 
No, no, no, no, yes, no and no, resp. Look here: I have normal duties that
don't involve wild goose chases. I have in fact given a large slice of my
time collecting that bibliography and I am glad that most scientists have
voted with their feet, as it were, so that what is coming now is just a
trickle. For a while, I felt guilty giving it so much time. But I never have
seen the sort of evidence that drives me into the lab to try a cold fusion
experiment. Ni and plain water? You must be joking. I look at it this way.
There is hardly anyone besides Mills and maybe Farrell, who takes the Mills
"theory" seriously. A lot of people insist, however, that never mind the
theory, the experiment works. But the likelihood of a far-out dubious "theory"
accidentally hitting the mark and predicting an experiment that evokes a
completely unrelated but unknown effect, is so small that it is not worth my
time to have a go at it.
Actually, if the right grad student comes along, I might just get him/her to
do that experiment, just to find out what known effect or error or whatever
IS producing that heat, or the appearance of it. Myself, no thanks, I have
my ongoing research to get on with.
 
I don't believe I pontificate, but I do comment, and I do perhaps get a bit
cynical now and then, in the face of garbage purporting to be science. Yes.
Please get this straight, Jed: I have never closed my mind to the possibility
of cold fusion. I have said countless times that I favour fractofusion, if I
favour anything, as the likely mechanism for, say, Jones-level results. There
may even be some mechanism producing heat in FPH-type cells, though almost
everything I read points to an error. As I also have said countless times,
there is that Belzner et al paper, though, to give pause. So I wait for
more believable results. I will get cynical and derisive, if you offer me
nonsensical theories or nonsensical violations of known science, or weak
ad-hoc justifications or dubious evasions. While I don't really want to join
those skeptics who exempt Professor Jones from criticism (after all, his
claim, 13 orders of magnitude lower than FPH's, is still 40-70 OOM higher
than known fusion theory), I do say that he is one of the few who have
conducted themselves like real scientists. He calmly defends, in a rational
manner, his 4 sigmas; he double- and triple-checks, he distrusts his own
results; he has never, to my knowledge, defended indefensible results with
new explanations of why they are significant. He does not hedge with vague
allusions to parabolic interpolations or fancy Kalman filtering. If one day
he does an experiment that points to everything so far being an error, he will
be the first to say so, I am sure. This I can accept. Amateurish, hot-under-
the-collar rantings, no.
 
You once told me, Jed (before I became your favourite enemy) that a particular
bit of raving you did (on the SKEPTICS list, remember?) was just an act.
Maybe you are still doing this act. Believe me, it doesn't do you much good
here, on the contrary, it damages - has damaged - your credibility.
 
>If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the people who have,
>then you have no business passing judgement on CF like some kind of expert.
>Shame on you! You cannot judge a brand new field of science if you are not
>even willing to run an experiment or two. At least you should get a feel for
>the procedures and problems involved. It is absurd. Other people have done the
>Mills experiment dozens of times, they have published papers, uploaded
>comments, raw data, and suggestions. You haven't even lifted your little
>finger (I gather), yet you claim to know more than them. Your opinion is worth
>more than Srinivasan's experimental data? Where did you learn science, K-Mart?
...
>Here you are in a fully equipped electrochemical lab, and you not even willing
>to spend a couple of days running a simple little Mills cell! What kind of a
>scientist are you? You cannot not learn science by reading papers and
>uploading cynical comments about them. If you are so darn sure it does not
>work, then you should have the guts to do an experiment or two, and tell us
>what happens. If you have time to do all this librarian work, surely you have
>time to mix up some potassium carbonate.
 
Wipe off the froth, take a few deep breaths and calm down. I am not obliged to
do anything you think I should, nor am I obliged to believe anything you tell
me. But I note in the above that you are back with saying that it's so easy
anyone can (and should) do it. Only the other day you were telling us how
terribly difficult it all is, which is why that demo didn't work.
 
>You sound just like one of those old line COBOL programmers I used to know,
>who never wrote a single line of Pascal, but who used to rail on about
>"structured languages are a bunch of nonsense and garbage." You never did it,
>you never saw it, you don't know anything about it. Period.
 
I mostly use FORTRAN.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  Close /   cold not-fusion from alpha to zero
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  cold not-fusion from alpha to zero
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:51:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
 
 
There has been much recent challenging of ``skeptics" to explain their
position regarding the (lack of) radiation from cold (not)-fusion cells.
These remarks were discussed at length earlier this year but new subscribers
probably are unaware of them and are rediscovering the wheel.
 
I refer here only to claims, such as recently made by Fleischmann and Pons,
that their cells produce over 100 watts of power for up to ten minutes.
This is equivalent to over 10**4joules.
 
 
When I pressed MF on this in August, he claimed that the energy was
due to dd fusion producing helium as the ``ash".
The following remarks refer to his claims and assume only energy conservation.
 
A proton or neutron's rest energy (mass) is roughly 1 GeV (10**3 MeV).
This is the maximum that could be released in ANY reaction involving a
single nucleon (in a real nuclear reaction the release is only a fraction of
this, which makes the following problems even worse).
 
10**4joules = 10**14Gev (orders of magnitude).
To release 10**14GeV with less than 1GeV available per neutron or proton
will require AT LEAST 10**14 reactions (more like
10**17 if nuclear binding energies rather than the full proton-neutron
mass energy were involved). The products of these 10**14 reactions
are either emitted from the cell or remain behind as ``ash". If a nuclear
reaction is responsible the products include nuclear particles (in
Fleischmanns case these would be 10**17 helium nuclei).
It is straightforward to look for nuclear products at this level. Indeed
anything above 10**5 should be relatively easy. Contrary to some statements
that have appeared on this net, there has been NO measured helium detected
at such a level.
 
There have been claims by Jed Rothwell's collaborator that this helium is
undetected because it escapes with an energy of 5GeV. Such a claim violates
energy conservation if the helium is produced by dd fusion since two deuterons
have a rest energy of (less than) 4GeV and so cannot produce 5GeV of anything.
 
As Dick Blue and others have pointed out it is easy to mistake helium
from the air for ``produced" helium. Indeed, in the front page of my book
I quoted Rutherford from 1932 who referred to this very example when he wrote
``In every case the observation of an element has been mistaken for its
creation". One way (among several) to test for the source of any helium
is by measuring the relative amounts of helium, argon and other elements
whose relative abundance in air is known. If you have an excess of helium
relative to these then you may eliminate air as the sole culprit.
 
 
I note too that I challenged Martin Fleischmann on the helium ash in August
and he agreed that measurements had to be done. However, as of last week,
all that was on view was the boiling cell. No helium has revealed itself
to explain the 100 watts for ``660 seconds". (BTW, the four cells shown on
video at the Royal Institution last week appeared to have different parameters
than the single cell reported in August, but the boiling time of 660 seconds
was the same. So either they have discovered a new form of precision time
piece or the 660 seconds is a measurement period within a longer period
of boiling. If the latter, then the phenomenon is even more incredible
and the amounts of unobserved helium, or mini black holes, even larger.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Words for cold fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Words for cold fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:51:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell is trying to use words to paper over several weak points
in the case for cold fusion so let's examine a few of his arguments with
some words of our own.
 
        <With all due respects, 'All known fusion reactions' does not
        <include those reactions which scientists catalogue thereafter,
        <or fail to catalogue at all.
 
This is an unbeatable argument.  I have no factual basis for asserting
that there is no such thing as an Abdominal Snowman until every remote
mountain on earth has been searched.  All I ask of Jed (and others
resorting to this argument) is that they respect existing data equally
with anything new they wish to put forward.  Beyond that they should
stop trying to shift the burden of proof away from where it properly
belongs, with those asserting that they have evidence for a new
phenomenon.  In any case, Jed, it has been some time since anyone
has made any very explicite suggestions as to what the cold fusion
reaction is in detail.  Maybe, that is because there is no possible
reaction that will explain the mess of contradictory results that
have been offered as evidence for cold fusion.
 
        <Cold fusion reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these
        <reactions appear to be deficient in the expected number
        <of neutrons...
 
So we have a new word to play with here.  Cold fusion advocates
have been trying to have their cake and eat it too with regard
to neutron detection.  They want to use an assortment of poor
attempts at neutron detection as evidence for the occurance of
nuclear fusion without owning up to the fact that all these
attempts at neutron detection are really indicating a null
result.  Say "neutron-penic" and the contridiction goes away
without any thought as to what degree of magic is required to
keep most, but not all, neutrons hidden.  It's is pure bunk!
 
        <Proof that neutrons must be emitted...
 
This goes back to what basic laws of physics do you seek to overturn.
Let us start by assuming the conservaton of energy, baryon number,
lepton number, linear and angular momentum.  Then there are some
things more specific to nuclear reactions such as time reversal
invariance, parity conservation, and the basic symmetries, strengths,
ranges, of strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.  In
this context you may suggest nuclear processes that are not expected
to emit neutrons.  The difficulty is in coming up with any evidence
to support the notion that those reactions are occuring, and at the
same time finding any possible reason for their being favored.
 
        <Instruments show a delta T.... therefore cold fusion is real
 
It's the logic that fills in the .... you need to work on.  An
excellent instrument in the hands of a bumbling fool can provide
a false reading.  Unfortunately it is not essential that you be
a bumbling fool in order to obtain an experimental result that is
faulty.  It is neccessary that each measurement be evaluated in the
context of our present understanding.  The reality of cold fusion
can never be established by calorimetry alone, at least not by
calorimetric measurements of less than the highest caliber.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  /  More on the Natoya demo.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on the Natoya demo.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:25:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I forgot that you still have to collect the gas and compare both gas volume
produced and heating value of the gas.  Gas analysis does not do it.  If we
believe we are making funny hydrogen, then we also have to test that we
are not making funny exhaust gasses with less than expected heating value.  It
should be hard to burn funny hydrogen so if what is coming off is H2, fH, and
O2 then the fH (funny H) would likely not burn.  Note I have written it as fH1
but we do not know what it would do.
 
So I repeat, the Natoya demo is meaningless, even if it "works".
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  /  Jack Daniels and interesting life.
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jack Daniels and interesting life.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:25:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

dale bass says: "By the way, wild hunches seem to make life interesting."
 
Bob Daniels asks about the Jack Daniels.  From TIME May 8, 1989:
 
"We came down from the hike," recalls Pons, "and then we stood around the
table in my kitchen, had a couple of Jack Daniel's and started drawing
pictures."
 
Sorry that was Bob Pendleton that asked.
 
If I was forced to do the Natoya type of calorimeter demo, I would be very
careful to match the two cells.  I would likely try a Pt - Pt cell for the
control, and adjuct the electrolyte and the anode and cathode areas so that
the control cell had about the same voltage drop at the test cell current.
The problem is that you can't afford the Pt wire to make a Mills cell copy
with Pt - Pt electrodes.
 
Then I would adjust the reference cell *** power input *** until the reference
cell was at the same *** temperature *** as the cell under test.  Not very
easy to do for a  *** human *** but a well trained machine can do a pretty
good job.
 
Even this has a lot of problems unless you are willing to invest in all that
Pt wire.  That is because with smaller electrodes, the heat is not liberated
in exactly the same place.
 
Jed Rothwell will say that the hotter cell clearly indicates more power.  Well
maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't.  At least this scheme gets away from the
1.48*I correction, or greatly reduces the correction required depending on
how close the cell current is matched when the system temperatures match.
I would use one of my TED devices to sense the difference in cell temperature.
 
The more I think about it, the more I see problems with the Natoya demo.  I
think it is just meaningless.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  Rothwell /  1992 Acronym Award
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1992 Acronym Award
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:57:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I nominate Terry Bollinger for most inspired Acronym Award, for:
 
"HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion"
 
Truly Great! Plus - seriously now - I think the sonoluminescence and the
Portland cement experiments of Jones et al are fun and wonderful.
 
 
Tom Droege, with whom I usually agree, says:
 
"I am not surprised that Jed Rothwell does no recognize Dieter Britz's (and
also in this field Douglas Morrison) valuable contribution. Some in science
choose to do experimentation.  Some choose to do theory. So Jed, Dieter is
doing a very valuable job... It is wrong, I think, to criticize him."
 
If he was doing theory, or looking at the literature objectively, then I would
agree. But I don't see it that way. I know only a little bit about certain
specific areas of CF. The discussions of neutrons and theory are completely
over my head, so I never make any comments about them, and as far as I know,
DB and DM are doing a great job there. I cannot judge. However, I *can* judge
his comments about the Ni experiments, protocols, ultracleanliness, and
calorimetry, because I know a lot about these subjects. Plus, I can judge the
soundness of his accusations in 1991 against Dr. Farrell, and in 1992 against
Dr. Notoya and me. Here is my evaluation:
 
     Regarding unltracleanliness and calorimetry, he puts words in my mouth,
     he makes things up, and he evades the key, central issue, which is the
     sigma level of experiments like McKubre's, Notoya's and Srinivasan's. He
     will not tell us whether he believes thermocouples measure temperatures
     or not. He weasels, he bluffs, he avoids the main issue, he refuses to
     confront the evidence. This is even more true of DM, who says McKubre's
     work is "excellent." Well, if he really thinks so, then he must believe
     McKubre's 90 sigma results show CF is real. What else can 90 sigma
     possibly mean? If CF is real -- that is, beyond chemistry -- then all
     skeptical arguments against it collapse, and DM is catastrophically
     wrong. There is a wrenching, irreconcilable contradiction here. DM says,
     in effect, "the work is impeccable, the confidence level is
     astronomically high, the evidence of heat is inescapable... so I think it
     must be impossible, nonsensical and wrong."
 
     DB's evaluation of Farrell, Notoya and me showed signs of paranoid
     hostility. People who make baseless, slanderous accusations for no
     earthly reason destroy their own credibility; I will never again take his
     word for *anything*. I do not like to play psychiatrist, but I have been
     around long enough to know stuff like that when I see it. He apologized,
     and I am sure he won't do it again, so I would not think of suing or
     anything like that. On the other hand, he has no credibility and I will
     warn people never to trust him. If a customer rips you off and then pays
     up later on, you forgive him, naturally, but you don't ever ship him any
     more product!
 
     Regarding his evaluation of the literature, he is just kidding,
     nitpicking and kibitzing.
 
Morrison, by the way, is not like DB at all: he is a gentleman and a scholar.
As far as I know, he has never accused me or anyone else of fraud. I watched
Morrison under the most trying circumstances imaginable, and he never said an
impolite word; he kept his cool like a samurai, while I was shouting at that
Italian loudmouth to shut up!
 
Alas, however, I think that DM does not understand the fundamentals of
science: he does not understand the difference between theory and evidence, or
the role of theory. He does not understand elementary thermodynamics and the
conservation of energy; he does not even know how thermometers and
calorimeters work. His evaluation of the field is about as useful as a
creationist's essay on biology. His was the most bizarre and outlandish
lecture that I have ever heard in my life, outside of the Philosophy
Department of Cornell University; it stood the fundamentals and traditions of
science upside down and backwards. But, by golly, he is smart, he knows how to
act, and I like him! I admire his guts. He reminds me of The Bishop "Soapy Sam"
Wilberforce, who was also a heck of a lot smarter than he appeared.
Wilberforce went down in history as a fool who destroyed his own reputation in
the famous 1860 debate with Huxley.
 
Let us award Morrison the Right Honorable Bishop Wilberforce Memorial Award
for 1992. Morrison should note that at the time of the famous debate, most
commentators and eyewitnesses thought that Wilberforce had won, because he
spoke so well. Huxley was young, he mumbled, and made a poor impression; he
was not the hero he himself described in his memoirs. Years later it dawned
upon people that Wilberforce had made a fool of himself. He made a mockery of
his great learning, he perverted the traditions of science, muddied the
issues, and he did not reveal a single "new fact or new argument," but
merely rehashed the old, irrelevant ones.
 
 
Let me address this other juicy comment: "Some in science choose to do
experimentation. Some choose to do theory."
 
That's true. I myself mostly type, translate and look at data, rather than
getting my hands dirty in the ultraclean lab.
 
But, let us put this in perspective. There are different kinds of science; some
are cerebral, and some are more oriented to the laboratory. Biology, computer
sciences and CF are example of the latter. All biologists look at specimens,
or perform experiments, or go out in the field. There is no such thing as a
computer expert who does not design or build hardware, or program it, or at
least look at it frequently. CF was not discovered on the blackboard or in a
computer simulation. It was discovered, and it is now being explicated, in the
laboratory. At this stage in its development, it remains a purely laboratory
based science. DB is posing as an expert in the CF field. Would anyone here
believe a hot fusion expert who has never actually seen a Tokamak reactor --
at least a partial, nonfunctioning reactor, under construction, like most of
them forever are? Would you believe an astronomer who had never looked at
photo or a computer display from a telescope? Would you believe a software
expert who had never written a line of code?
 
Some sciences are more cerebral than CF. With some sciences, it is difficult
to do real, physical experiments. For example, cosmologists have trouble
recreating the universe from scratch, and people who design thermonuclear
weapons rarely get a chance to test them in basement experiments. However, CF
is not a bit difficult or inaccessible. People who are seriously interested in
it, and people like DB who comment on it, owe themselves and their readers a
little fieldwork. You don't have to run a successful experiment. You don't
have to actually do any experiment. But you need some real-time, visceral
exposure to the real thing. You have to see raw data, and you have to
experience, first-hand, what a credible, serious CF scientist does, or at
least you have to spend a few hours in meetings with CF scientists looking at
raw data. There is no substitute for seeing something like this up close, in
real life.
 
Of course, it is a free country, and if DB and other electrochemists want to
snipe and kibitz at CF instead of doing it, so what? It does no real harm. It
doesn't contribute anything, either, which is a shame. There he is, an
electrochemist, *right* *there* in a lab where he could do an Ni or Pd
experiment anytime he wants, with minimum effort and expense. Why doesn't he
do it? I think he owes it to himself to at least get his feet wet, and see
what it feels like. I am not saying he has to spend $3 million and perform 200
experiments. If he doesn't want to, okay -- fine. However, a guy sitting in an
electrochemistry lab who has never actually done any experiments does not
deserve to be taken seriously. CF is too easy for that.
 
That is not how real scientists, in real labs, behave. When people like
Farrell, Noninski, Srinivasan, or Notoya report a positive result, a real
scientist takes them seriously, and gives them the benefit of the doubt. A
real scientist assumes they are right, unless he spots an error and has some
reason to believe they are wrong. If he spots an error, he does the experiment
himself to prove his point. If DB thinks Srinivasan's data is "nonsense," as
he put it, let DB show us *his* data. Is this a showdown? Srinivasan's data
versus DB's opinion? Srinivasan wins by default. Data can be proven right, or
it can proven wrong, by replicating the experiment. But an opinion cannot be
proven either way, so mere opinion has no value and no standing in science.
You have to bring in the numbers from the laboratory to back up what you say.
 
My biggest objection to DB, and DM, and RB, and the others is philosophical:
CF is not based on theory. It is not cosmology. Theoretical objections and
critiques have no role whatsoever in proving or disproving laboratory data.
There are two sharply separate domains in science: theory and evidence. We are
dealing with evidence here: data. You can never counter or repudiate
laboratory data by pointing to a theory, you have to critique the physical
experiment. You have to show how the instruments or the layout was faulty. The
only way to disprove CF is to go into the lab (or look at a diagram), and show
exactly why the heat is not really there, with that particular setup. You have
to find a specific, systematic, mistake in *that* *experiment*. An appeal to
theory does not address the question.
 
Generalities about other experiments performed in other labs, back in 1989,
are also irrelevant. You have to show exactly why a particular experiment is
in error, and you have to disprove it utterly and completely. It is not enough
to say that a 6 deg C Delta T might actually have been 5.8 C, or even 4. You
have to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the Delta T was so close to
zero that it was insignificant, because if there is any heat at all, and it
persists long enough, the reaction must be real. A little nitpicking here and
there will not do, you have to demolish the entire thing, all 6 degrees in one
experiment, all 30 degrees in another.
 
To disprove the existence of nickel CF, for example, you have to show
convincingly why every single one of Srinivasan's 29 published experiments are
wrong. Every single heat and every single tritium reading -- including the
ones at 1454 and 3390 bq/ml -- has to be completely wrong. You have to
demonstrate exactly how and why three independent teams of experts who have
been measuring tritium for 40 years, and who can easily measure amounts as
small as 4.0 bq/ml to the nearest 0.1, have catastrophically mismeasured
tritium time after time, for 9 months. If you cannot prove how such high sigma
results are wrong, then the results stand, by definition. How else does
science work? These are not marginal, arguable results, with weak signal to
noise ratios. When the evidence points very strongly and clearly in direction
A, and *you* say it is B instead, then *you* have to come up with amazing and
convincing reasons to justify your argument. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.
 
If you encounter even ONE experiment -- like McKubre's -- where you can find
no holes, and no possible objections, then the game is over, you lose, the
heat is real, and CF is real. That means that the other good experimenters,
like Kunimatsu, Mizuno, P&F, Takahashi, and the others are right too, although
they do not have such convincing data sets.
 
 
I nominate myself for the Verbosity Award of 1992. My only excuse is that I am
writing a book, and my saving grace is that you, Gentle Reader, are free to
press the Down Page button!
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  /  Cell Assembly and Cleaning Plans
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell Assembly and Cleaning Plans
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:57:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have done my best to listen to all of you, now here is the plan.  Will
probably do this this weekend.
 
There is a cell innerds, the cell test tube, and Lithium to consider.  With
care I should be able do do everything handling only the parts of the
completed cell which are "outside" while operating.  Will wear the plastic
gloves which I realize are only useful to protect me since they will put
plasticizer on the parts that are touched.
 
I have some "old" D2O which was opened long ago in air and so likely has some
H2O contamination.  I consider that this should be good enough for a final
rinse.
 
The following steps will be done in the kitchen (no open fires, the stove has
electronic ignition) under the "hood".
 
The cell innerds have been used before, and so have the "yellow crud".  Since
this is cleaned nicely with HCl will start:
 
Dilute HCl in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes  - get rid of "yellow crud"
1,1,1 - Triclorethane in the vapor degreaser.   - get rid of grease
xylene in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes
acetone in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes
de-ionized water in ultrasonic cleaner - two changes
rinse in "old" D2O and store in cell test tube wet.
 
The cell test tube is Polypropylene.  New one so it is not clear that cleaning
does not make it dirty but:
 
Dilute HCl in ultrasonic cleaner
de-ionized water in ultrasonic cleaner -two changes
rinse in "old" D2O - combine ingredients as above.
 
Lithium:
 
Rinse in xylene, three changes
Move to clean glass bottle, and dry under argon gas.
Quickly close bottle while flushing with gas.
Will live with the resulting oxygen contamination, as there is lots of oxygen
in the final system.  Want to keep the xylene out of the glove bag.
 
Now I move into the glove bag, and turn on the argon gas.
 
After flowing long enough for several exchanges I weigh and mix the LiOD.  The
plan is to break down about half of the 1 liter bottle of D2O into 100 ml
bottles.  These are new polypropylene bottles that came with screw caps on
them.  I assume that I will just dirty them if I try to clean them, though
some of you could likely make them cleaner.
 
I will put out a dish of Driright and a dish of catalyst.  The previously
cleaned cell will be opened in the bag but the cell inside will not be allowed
to touch anything.  Now I can fill the cell in the argon atmosphere, and seal
it.  Later when I hook it into the gas system, it will be done in a way to
minimize gas contamination, by clamping and cutting the tubing.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  /  Yes?
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yes?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:20:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the 17 Dec. 1992 17:51 message Dieter Britze says:
 
"No, no, no, no, yes, no and no, ... "
 
Dieter, are you sure about the yes?  Hint: You could say "no".
 
Frank Close computes the number of joules in 100 watts for ten minutes and
comes up with "over 10**4joules".  Seems like an unnecessary understatement
to me.  Frank, you could easily give the rest of the order of magnitude to
the "true believers" and still make your point.  It does not seem to me to
require "a new form of precision time piece" to have similar cells boil away
in the same time.  Likely some self limiting feature of a boiling system
could cause similar times.  But please don't think I am a believer.
 
Dick Blue says "The reality of cold fusion can never be established by
calorimetry alone, ... .  I agree Dick.  But "anomalous heat" can be
established by calorimetry alone.  Confirmed "anomalous heat" would be very
interesting - no matter how small.  And besides, it is fun to build ever
more accurate instruments.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  Rothwell /  Wrong Guy!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wrong Guy!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:20:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue mixed me up with Mitchell Swartz, which is very flattering to
me. Hey, I could never say anything like this:
 
"Cold fusion reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these reactions appear to
be deficient in the expected number of neutrons..."
 
I have never even *heard* of neutron-penic. I better look it up in my
Sanseido Electronic Technical Dictionary. Mitch has a ton of advanced
degrees, and he can run rings around me. Richard must have used my name out
of force of habit. Ha! Ha! I do the human interest and business columns
here, I leave neutrons to you experts.
 
I gotta question for Richard, by the way. Seriously, no sarcasm. Please
summarize you comments about Yamaguchi. I gather you think you could improve
on his work. Fair enough, I never saw a software package I did not think I
could improve on with a few inexpensive tweaks, especially somebody else's
package (mine are close to perfect). But, are you saying that the
deficiencies are so bad that Yamaguchi's results are invalid? Or, are you
just saying it could have been done better, but the basic results stand? I
don't follow your lingo enough to read your bottom line here -- please spell
it out in plain English.
 
Season's greetings to all. Make that Neutron-Penic Greetings to all!
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  /  Student Project
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Student Project
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:20:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says "Actually if the right grad student comes along, ... .
 
Let me argue why this would be a good student projece.  Most things a student
might do, no one cares about.  Here is a project that is guaranteed thorough
review and comment no matter what the result.  The student is likely not to
do a very good job the first time.  He/she will then find the results torn
apart and it will have to be done again.  By the time all this is completed,
the student will know a lot about how to do a good experiment, and will likely
spend much more time than anticipated.  Who knows, they might even learn some
electrochemistry.  I would think this would be a great way to prepare a student
to do a thesis.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  Britz /  Loudmouths and Paranoids
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Loudmouths and Paranoids
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:15:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed, just a shortish response here. This debate must be getting on people's
nerves. Let us agree to disagree. You think I am a paranoid hyena living under
a rock, I think you are all mouth and don't realise what a mess,
scientifically speaking, you have got yourself into. Not being a theorist and
having a tendency to bow before eminence like Schwinger who surely will not
promote a theory without using all his Nobel-level knowledge, I can just take
on the possibility that cold fusion somehow produces helium and heat, and
nothing else. OK, where is that helium? However, when people claim to find
tritium, then it looks more like normal fusion, and they must also find the
protons and a heap of secondaries (lots of neutrons, x-rays, and maybe more),
otherwise they are in trouble.
 
Anyway, let us stick to the subject and terminate these personal exchanges;
feel free to abuse me privately by direct email, then only I will get bored.
I would be very interested in real evidence, as I say, e.g. a prototype,
producing a net energy gain; preferably running off its own juice. But a
scientific paper in a refereed journal, describing a set-up that others can
put together and which reproducibly yields unexplained heat, would also do.
I understand that it might be a long way from such a device to the prototype
that shows a positive energy budget, so I won't insist on that. Meanwhile, I
will continue to abstract those few real scientific papers in refereed
journals, that are still appearing. I look forward to adding your book to the
list when it gets published.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 770 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 770 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:18:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Prosje Panstwo!
Not much coming through here, so I fire these off. Cerofolini & Para are a bit
out of date; they have an explanation for CIF, which can also explain CNF;
unfortunately, CIF has now been dropped, it was an artifact. I resist the
temptation to tell another Jewish joke. Then there is a series of papers in
a house journal called Forum, published by The U of Tennessee and Oak Ridge
Nat. Lab; I take this to be an accessible journal, and hope that the papers
are reviewed (I am not sure). The only paper which I could give the stamp of
approval as a new contribution to cold fusion is, as you see, that by Bruce
Lewenstein. It goes under soc-sci but does treat the subject in a scientific
manner, arriving at new results (in this case, viewpoints). So in it goes. The
others, as far as I could see, were "only" comments or boil-downs of earlier
statements, so they went into the Comments section. If you have a quarrel with
me about this, you can mentally adjust my papers count to your own or (heh
heh) set up your own bibliography. Hal Fox of FF (FIC) has in fact done just
that, and a fat file it is, too.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 18-Dec-1992
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 770
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerofolini CF, Para AF;
Springer Proc. Phys. 59 (Exot. At. Condens. Matter) (1992) 129.
"Alternatives in low energy fusion?"
** While hot fusion meets with increasing problems as it approaches break-
even, there are appearing many claims for low-energy [cold] fusion. Here, cold
fusion and the related cluster impact fusion (CIF) are examined and a unified
model proposed to explain them, including their poor reproducibility. Muon
catalysis, fractofusion, electrolytic fusion and CIF are discussed. The
authors' "hot cloud" theory of CIF also implies that deuterium atoms
explosively released from supercharged titanium deuteride might fuse at the
levels found by Jones et al. At these levels, one is about 5 orders of
magnitude below break-even.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewenstein B;                   Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 67.
"Cold fusion saga: Lesson in science".
** The author examines the question whether cnf is a unique phenomenon in the
science sociological sense. He briefly outlines the history of events for the
three years up to the time of writing, and then finds that the characteristics
one might name for cold fusion, are in fact not anything new after all. The
role of the press, press conferences, the intrusion of politics, competition
between universities, double discovery (Jones and FPH), controversy; all are
fairly normal in science. The one special feature might be the confluence of
all these in a single issue.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris JO'M;                   Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 91.
"Hesitant birth of cold fusion".
** Bockris summarises his view of cold fusion. He mentions attacks on its
proponents and relates some personal experiences to show that the scientific
establishment is suppressing the field of study. Peer review is in doubt.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F;                        Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 84.
"Test-tube fusion: The loud beginning".
** A condensation of FC's book on the subject, focussing especially on the
mobile gamma peak. Nuclear effects seem to be ruled out.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huizenga JR;                    Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 78.
"Cold fusion labeled 'Fiasco of Century'".
** JRH here condenses what he wrote in his book. CNF is an example of bad
science, which cost $50-100 million to be found wanting. But science remains
healthy.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones SE;                       Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 94.
"Cold fusion: Need to keep door wide open".
** Drawing on his experience of muon catalysed cold fusion, Jones has no
problem accepting the reality of cold fusion. He describes some of his own
involvement, going back to 1985. He appeals for more tolerance by the majority
for this nascent area of physics. Researchers should be encouraged to publish,
so that results can be scrutinised.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fogle PW;                       Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 98.
"Media and science: Differing perspectives".
** The director of Public Relations at the U of Utah looks at some issues in
cold fusion, such as peer review, media coverage, secrecy, the role of law,
patent issues, reporter objectivity and the personal heat engendered by the
field.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindley D;                     Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 7(4) (1992) 104.
"Role of the press in cold fusion saga".
** David Lindley, an editor of the journal Nature, which has distanced itself
from cold fusion, gives an account of the story of the (non-) publication,
and comments on press coverage vs peer review. High temperature
superconductivity is compared with CNF; the former also received press
attention, but proved itself by means of demonstrable results, unlike CNF.
Attention by the press does not put peer review out of action.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / G Aharonian /  Re: NTT, Yamaguchi, and $565,000 can't be wrong?
     
Originally-From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NTT, Yamaguchi, and $565,000 can't be wrong?
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:20:55 GMT
Organization: The World

 
    Considering Japan's Fifth Generation project lack of breakthrough results,
and the current crisis with Japanese banks (ie loan loss exposure due to
big drops in real estate and stock holding equity), as just a few of many
Japanese companies' screwups (like the ones we have here in the US), and
it becomes less impressive that a big Japanese company is lending its name
(and stock price) to cold fusion.
    Also, much of Japan's great physics research comes out of the Japanese
Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI).  That you haven't heard much out
of these guys is not reassuring to the big company theory.
 
Greg Aharonian
--
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensrctran cudfnGregory cudlnAharonian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Todd Green /  Re: Christmas Suggestionsdir
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Christmas Suggestionsdir
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:15:48 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <921214130816.20400eba@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
> I got an early morning phone call from my brother.  It seems the NTT $565,000
> cold fusion kit has made one the lists of things to buy those that have
> everything in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.  This is not news.  What is news is
> that they say that "two have been sold."  I wonder who bought them.
>
> Tom Droege   Droege@fnal.fnald
 
In Fusion Briefings (Nov 1992) it is mentioned that "They [NTT] have already
sold 2 kits to other NTT subsidaries" so the sales are in fact not too exciting.
 
----
Todd
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:22:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <921216170326_72240.1256_EHL68-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>You're a braver man than I.
>
>Goodness, it wasn't all that much money! It came to around $12,000 when all
>was said and done, and we still have enough materials for several more runs.
 
If it was only $12,000 then I am only moderately impressed.  It's still
$12,000 more than I've invested in cold fusion.
 
But if, as you believe, cold fusion isn't really a long shot, you
should get a great return on your investment, to the tune of about a
million percent.  If you managed that, I would really be impressed.
 
Is $12,000 enough?  I was thinking about how much you'd need to
build a prototype power supply.  It seems to me that a 400% energy
surplus should be enough to keep a turbine going, but you want to make
sure that it's efficient enough to power the electrolysis and and have
some left over.  If you got something like that to work it should
convince any remaining die-hard skeptic who has any sense.
 
>I am in the software business, and I admire Bill Gates a great deal. You are
>wrong about Edison and Bell, lots of people were extremely jealous of them,
>and they were both very tough customers, who drove hard bargains.
 
Ok, I overstated my case.  What I meant to say is that Edison and Bell
have gone done in history as heroes, while Gates will probably be
remembered as just another businessman.  Sure, there is some lingering
bad press about Edison, but still his achievements make the overall view
of him positive.  In fact I saw a school play about Edison as miracle
worker, Edison inspired by God, Edison as Jesus.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / COLIN HENDERSON /  Re: Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:18:06 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <921215181833_72240.1256_EHL69-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
 
>Let me get something straight here. You are an electrochemist. You have been
>pontificating and making these statements all these years, and you even got
>cited by Morrison at Nagoya (you lucky dog!). Are you telling us that you have
>never even performed an experiment? Not with palladium, not with nickel?
>Nothing? Do I understand this correctly? Have you ever been in a lab where a
>CF experiment was underway? Ever been to a meeting, at least?
 
>If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the people who have,
>then you have no business passing judgement on CF like some kind of expert.
 
The way science is supposed to work, someone in his field should
be able to be an expert just by reading all the literature.  That's the
whole point of publishing.  If Dieter, an expert electrochemist, can't be an
expert in CF by reading the papers, and I think we'll all agree that he
has :-), then there's something wrong with the way the papers have been
written.
 
> You cannot judge a brand new field of science if you are not
>even willing to run an experiment or two.
 
I suppose a referee of a journal has to do every experiment submitted to the
journal?
 
> At least you should get a feel for
>the procedures and problems involved.
 
Any scientist gets a feel for the routine and not so routine procedures in
his field, by performing them in various experiments.  We can infer from
the literature that CF experiments (as no-one it seems to me has explicitly
stated the contrary) can be performed using standard electrochemical
techniques, so an electrochemist should know, and have a feel for, exactly
what's involved.
 
> It is absurd. Other people have done the
>Mills experiment dozens of times, they have published papers, uploaded
>comments, raw data, and suggestions. You haven't even lifted your little
>finger (I gather), yet you claim to know more than them.
 
I think Dieter's complaint is that quality of the papers seems to imply that
the validity of the data is in doubt.  You can't just do an experiment.  You
can't even just do it properly.  You must also write it up properly.  It's
called "division of labour".
 
>Your opinion is worth
>more than Srinivasan's experimental data? Where did you learn science, K-Mart?
 
All data is not created equal.  I need to be convinced that it's good.  S's
data means very little to me.  So I ask an expert opinion.
 
 
>Here you are in a fully equipped electrochemical lab, and you not even willing
>to spend a couple of days running a simple little Mills cell! What kind of a
>scientist are you? You cannot not learn science by reading papers and
>uploading cynical comments about them.
 
Now this is dead against the philosophy of science.  All theorists cut down
at a stroke!
 
> If you are so darn sure it does not
>work,
 
Dieter's never claimed that.  He's remained *unconvinced* that it *does*
work.  Two vastly different concepts.
 
> then you should have the guts to do an experiment or two, and tell us
>what happens. If you have time to do all this librarian work, surely you have
>time to mix up some potassium carbonate.
 
There's no point in doing an experiment unless you do it properly, so that
you can trust your results 100%, so that  you're prepared to put your head
on a block in defense of your experiment, etc etc.  For Dieter to do
anything worthwhile in the CF field experimentally, he'd have to spend as
much time and money as Tom at it.  He's employed to spend his time doing
other things.
 
You can't say in one breath that the experiments are very difficult, need
much care, time, money, etc., even for an electrochemist, and then say that
Dieter must rattle one up which passes the stringent peer review tests in
his spare time.  We can't all be experimenters on every experiment.  Some of
us must be peer reviewing at some time :-).
 
>You sound just like one of those old line COBOL programmers I used to know,
>who never wrote a single line of Pascal, but who used to rail on about
>"structured languages are a bunch of nonsense and garbage." You never did it,
>you never saw it, you don't know anything about it. Period.
 
Crap.  If you were saying that about me, then you'd be correct, because I'm
a nuclear physicist (I like to think), not an electrochemist.  So I'm a
programmer, but I don't write your language.  Now Dieter's in the field, so
he's a Pascal (if you insist) programmer.  You're saying: "you've never
written a programme to do x (which is a subset of the programmes Deiter's
expected to be have been able to write during his career) therefore any
comments you make about other people's attempts to write such things are
garbage."
 
I'd strongly suggest some reading of the philosophy of science is in order
here.
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Eric Silver /  Neuclionics Weekly
     
Originally-From: silver.e@zooid.guild.org (Eric Silver)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neuclionics Weekly
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:46:57 GMT

Forgive the intrusion;
  Are there readers of Neuclionics (sp?) Weekly in this newsgroup?
Would readers please suggest other newsgroups concerning the nuclear
industry, particularly Nuclear Power Generation.
Thank you,
 
Eric Silver - York, Upper Canada.
silver.e@zooid.guild.org
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudene cudfnEric cudlnSilver cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / COLIN HENDERSON /  Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 13:06:49 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <921216170326_72240.1256_EHL68-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <
72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
 
[ ... deleted ... ]
 
>has with poor Dr. Huizenga. You need to take a deep breath, go back to
basics,>and try to sort out in your mind some fundamental rules of science.
 
>Your biggest problem is that you have forgotten the difference between theory
>and evidence. For example, you say: "The 'cold fusion' line is a total crock,
>and I think the majority of the high-heat folks know it by now.  (Evidence?
>Interest in Mills' "hydrino" idea, which is a modified (a) theory...)"
 
>You do not understand the use of the word "evidence." Data is evidence. A
>theory, like the Mills' idea, is not evidence, and plays no role in judging
>whether or not the phenomenon exists. Mills might have the wrong theory, but
>his data has been replicated by dozens of people at levels far beyond possible
>experimental errors. A theory can never, ever, prove or disprove anything in
>science, only experimental data can do that.
 
>You go on to say, "you are asking for a MAJOR humdinger of a violation of
>physics." This is totally irrelevant. Ten Million Major Humdingers would not
>make one iota of difference. The only scientifically valid questions are:
 
>1. What do the instruments show?
 
>2. What is the signal to noise ratio?
 
Add to this: (NNNNB)
 
3. What is your systematic error?
   (a) Do you understand it?
   (b) How big is it?
   (c) How hard have you tried to eliminate it?
 
Most "sigmas" account for random errors.  They are a bit meaningless if the
systematic error is far larger.  Vide Tom's measurements earlier this year,
when he got many "sigmas" of excess heat, and then discovered that the
systematic errors in his experiment were also of the order of many sigmas.
 
>The instruments show Delta T temperature differences as high as 50 C, at sigma
>levels greater than 90, therefore CF exists.
 
As yet, no-one has convinced the experts (except, possibly, McKubre) that
they have sufficiently addressed point 3. above.  Ergo, we cannot be sure
that CF exists.
 
> Nothing else matters,...
 
See point 3.
 
>...  and no
>theory can have any effect on the conclusion ...
                                      [whether or not]
>                                        ...(that) the heat is real, and far
>beyond the limits of chemistry. Theory plays no role in this conclusion
>whatsoever, and cannot be used to attack or defend it.
 
I agree here.
 
 
>Please stop confusing
>the roles of theory and evidence.
 
We will if you start being a bit more careful about what is evidence and
what is not.
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:55:13 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <colin.32@physci.uct.ac.za>, by colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN
 HENDERSON):
 
>>You sound just like one of those old line COBOL programmers I used to know,
>>who never wrote a single line of Pascal, but who used to rail on about
>>"structured languages are a bunch of nonsense and garbage." You never did it,
>>you never saw it, you don't know anything about it. Period.
>
> Crap.  If you were saying that about me, then you'd be correct, because I'm
> a nuclear physicist (I like to think), not an electrochemist.  So I'm a
> programmer, but I don't write your language.  Now Dieter's in the field, so
> he's a Pascal (if you insist) programmer.  You're saying: "you've never
> written a programme to do x (which is a subset of the programmes Deiter's
> expected to be have been able to write during his career) therefore any
> comments you make about other people's attempts to write such things are
> garbage."
 
Be careful of arguing by analogy. Sad, to say, but what Jed said is,
IMHO true of SOFTWARE people (I'm a software type, I've lived the
battles Jeds implies.) But, software is not science. And there is
little similarity between software development and scientific
research.
 
In other words, I think you are both making invalid arguments in this
case.
 
To say more than I should...
 
I've written in both COBOL and Pascal. Last time I counted, about 16
years ago, I'd programmed in something over 40 lanaguages. And the
main language you use does affect how you see problems and what
problems you can deal with.
 
                        Bob P.
 
 
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / mitchell swartz /  origins of "experts"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: origins of "experts"
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:57:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4601;
 ==  colin@physci.uct.ac.za  (COLIN HENDERSON) retorts
 ::  Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>:
 
 
::  "If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the
:: people who have, then you have no business passing judgement
::  on CF like some kind of expert.
        [Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>]
 
 
==   "The way science is supposed to work, someone in his
==  field should be able to be an expert just by reading all the
==  literature.  That's the whole point of publishing.
==  If Dieter, an expert electrochemist, can't be an expert in
==  CF by reading the papers, and I think we'll all agree that he
==  has :-), then there's something wrong with the way the papers
==  have been written."
         [colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)]
 
 
    Deiter Britz has done a very credible and great service by his
 magnum opus of compilations.  Notwithstanding that, science is
 systematized knowledge.  People get education from experience.
 
 
  {From Webster's [ibid.]}
 
   "experience   from the Latin  experientia act of trying
 
      2a: direct participation in events
      4 : something personally encountered, undergone,
          or lived through"
 
 
    Experience (the quality presumably characterizing an expert)
is gained by reading, doing, teaching, doing and then realizing the
 mistakes you made.
  Of the other fields I studied [including surgery and
 positron-emission imaging (dual photon)] several just didn't enter
 my mind either by osmosis or just reading.
  Same goes for ciruit design or any of a number of spectroscopies.
 
 
 
==  "There's no point in doing an experiment unless you do it
==  properly, so that you can trust your results 100%,
==  so that  you're prepared to put your head on a block in
==  defense of your experiment, etc etc."
 
  The "head should be on the block", with the realization total
 diligence is important, tempered by the understanding that
 retrospect often makes you finally realize the experiment
 could have been done better.
 
   Corrolary:  15 years ago after a decade as an electrical engineer
 (electrophysics), I spent a few years intensively in operating
 rooms, and  was performing a below knee amputation on an
 unfortunate end-stage diabetic man.  The hospital was fantastic
 at minimizing surgery, and maximizing the length of time a slowly
 deteriorating lower limb would take to reach catastrophe (by
 infection or compromised blood flow).  My own engineering
 background made me want to carefully round off the rough bone
 surfaces after sawing through the man's proximal tibia.  File.
 File. File.  Smooth. Smooth. File.   Finally, a tap to my shoulder,
 as the surgical Chief, exasperated andworn of patience, said into
 my ear:
             "Perfection is the enemy of good".
 
 
    It remains insightful and true.  And applicable elsewhere.
    An experiment should be very good.    but 100%?  A priori?
 
    I'll take 3 experiments with clean data,  evolving rough-&-ready
 towards a polished experiment over one "100% a-priori" type.
 
    Science and knowledge ring true but tardive.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:46:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Terry writes:
>
> One version of the experiment might be as follows:
>
>  1) Start with very pure (ordinary) water.  (You may of course wish to
>     "bypass the middle man" and use heavy water instead, so that vapor
>      pressure water molecules inside the cavitation bubbles will have a
>      better chance of accomplishing something useful by donating D atoms.)
>
>  2) Use vacuum distillation methods to create a container of water that
>     is extremely low in all types of dissolved gases.
>
> etc.
>
 
 
        If anyone is contemplating this, talk to a biochemist or analytical
chemist who routinely uses High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).  This
analytical technique pumps 1 or 2 ml of water or organic solvents through
small columns (4 x 250 mm inside diameter) packed with 5 or 10 micron
particles of chromatography material.  The pressures involved are up to 2000
or 3000 psi.  The experience of your friend doing HPLC is useful because:
 
1)  The water used for HPLC must be very pure - HPLC grade water is sold for
those who haven't the apparatus to make their own.
 
2)  The water used in HPLC is often degassed before being used.  This is
because the water is often mixed on the high pressure side of the pumps with
high pressure methanol or other organic solvents.  The solubility of gases in
the mixture of solvents is less than the solubility in the original
components.  If solvents are not degassed, bubbles will then form in the low
pressure solvent emerging from the column.  This interferes with your ability
to use most detectors.  Typical water degassing procedures involve:
 
- using a vacuum with agitation (no distillation involved)
- heating the water to near boiling
- bubbling helium through the solvent (the solubility of helium is slow, and
the resident gas partitions into the helium and is flushed from the
container).
- sonication (cavitation effects create microscopic areas of low pressure,
which encourage gas to come out of solution and rise to the surface as
bubbles)
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Bruce Dunn /  Making clean LiOD
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Making clean LiOD
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:54:35 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

To avoid the potential problems associated with organic material from the
surface of lithium (ie oil residues) getting into the LiOD, would it be
feasible to do the following?
 
1) Clean the oil from the Li with your favorite procedure
 
2) In an argon atmosphere, dip the lithium briefly into a container of D2O.
The resulting reaction will strip off the outer layer of lithium, and
presumably the organic material and any oxidation products etc.
 
3) Before too much of the lithium has reacted, move the freshly stripped
lithium to a second container of D2O, leaving behind the crud in beaker
number 1.
 
        Having never worked with lithium, I don't know its physical form and
whether this is feasible.  Comments?
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / nod sivad /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:22:22 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>
>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>bubbles collapse.
 
Is it possible to generate a "cavitation effect" in a solid?  Like palladium
or nickel for instance ;-)  Wouldn't "cavitation" in a solid lattice offer
still higher pressures and temperatures than a liquid?  Perhaps this could
serve as (still another wild) mechanism for cold fusion.  I don't suppose,
though, it would explain the lack of fusion products.
 
                                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / nod sivad /  Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:38:08 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>Your reaction is a common and understandable fault of human nature; everyone,
>including me, falls into the same trap from time to time. I have seen this
>kind of irrational denial in people who were seriously or terminally ill, but
>who kept insisting that the doctors were wrong and they would get better.
 
Hmmm.  Jed, you were applying this observation to one of the "non-believers"
but my sense of irony forces me to point out it could equally apply to
a CF believer who refuses to admit the effect is dead.
 
Anyway, keep up the good work.  Sometimes I wonder about the informational
content of your postings, but they certainly are entertaining.  As I say to
everyone attempting to give the world cheap and abundant energy: "I hope
you succeed."
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Greg Kuperberg /  A serious post, finally.
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A serious post, finally.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:00:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <BzEv0E.B9n@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>    Deiter Britz has done a very credible and great service by his
> magnum opus of compilations.  Notwithstanding that, science is
> systematized knowledge.  People get education from experience.
 
There is a very famous incident in the early days of experiments with
weak interactions in which Richard Feynman looked at an experiment
that didn't agree with theory and concluded that the experiment must be
wrong.  He didn't know why it was wrong, but his basic position was
that the theory in opposition to it was a sober assessment of the
implications of many previous experiments and had more credibility
than a difficult experiment.  It was bold and controversial, but
in the end Feynman was right.  There was a subtle error in the data
analysis of the experiment.
 
In the case of cold fusion, a large number of very good physicists and
physical chemists have looked at the excess heat experiments, often
with the advantage over Feynman of full knowledge of the data analysis,
if not the experimental procedure.  Their conclusion is that they
aren't interested in some BS that can come out of using rusty alligator
clips and throwing out all "bad runs".  To say that they don't have to
do experiments themselves is an understatement.  There is no reason
for them to do their own experiments.  But at first many of them took
Fleischmann and Pons at their word and did their own experiments
anyway.  Although many of them did a first-rate job, they only got
denigrated for getting negative results.
 
The conclusion of many people in this group is that all these
physicists aren't so smart after all and they are weighed down by
conservatism and establishmentism.  But somehow these very same
flunkies managed to temporarily repeal their titanic inertia and accept
two other revolutions in physical chemistry, high-Tc superconductors
and buckyballs, just as their thesis advisors accepted semiconductors
and their colleagues went to Silicon Valley and made a billion dollars.
Think about it.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:50:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Dec17.172222.3467@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen (nod sivad)
 writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>>
>>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>>
>>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>>bubbles collapse.
>
>Is it possible to generate a "cavitation effect" in a solid?  Like palladium
>or nickel for instance ;-)  Wouldn't "cavitation" in a solid lattice offer
>still higher pressures and temperatures than a liquid?  Perhaps this could
>serve as (still another wild) mechanism for cold fusion.  I don't suppose,
>though, it would explain the lack of fusion products.
 
     Some current theories call for sonoluminescence to be caused by
     true shocks.  It is difficult to imagine the process that would
     create an analogy to a spherical fluid dynamic shock within a solid
     without turning it into a fluid.
 
                                  dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
     
Originally-From: wolff@einstein.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:12:38 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes:
 
>I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells and all I see
>is two clip leads.
 
>Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.  (McKuber
>seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.)  Two leads carry
>the current, two connected to the cell on the other side of the clip leads
>measure the potential across the cell.  These leads carry very small current.
 
Volt meters are much closer to ideal than ammeters. Thus 10v max, 10Mohm,
-> 1uA -> 10uW. (you can correct for that: the amperes running though the
cell is 0.1 to 1uA lower than what you actually measure)
 
Next: the two extra leads that Tom talks about should be connected to the
cell _AT_ the insulating barrier. If you connect them closer to the actual
experiment, you are neglecting the power developed in the leads from the
insulation to the cell. This can easily build up to figures in the
milliwatts range.
 
>There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you a 1%
>measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power Measurement 201,
>301, 401, ... .  Sorry that is McKubre.
 
Tom knows much more about this than I do. Trust me. (and him :-).
 
>Tom Droege
 
 
                                        Roger
--
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / mitchell swartz /  signal to noise (helium) reconsidered
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: signal to noise (helium) reconsidered
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:37:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4612 Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
 discusses helium production and states that
 
==  "Contrary to some statements that have appeared on this net,
==   there has been NO measured helium detected at such a level."
 
    He bases this on the fact that:
 
==   "It is straightforward to look for nuclear products at this
==   level. Indeed anything above 10**5 should be relatively easy."
 
 
  Would it really be "easy" as Frank Close has claimed?
 
  What is the background of Helium?
 
  What if the putative ash of "cf" is helium-4, will that matter?
 
  If there are no neutrons, and one allows unexpected physics one had
 better consider the possibility of  D + D + ? --> He-4 + ?
 
  The problems are that helium  is peculiar in most of its physical
 properties and mainly a helium-4 isotope ( 99.99987 %).
 
 
   The atmospheric prevelance of Helium is:
 
                       5.24  +/- .004 ppM by volume (CRC)
                      .00052 % (sea level)   [after Heslop, Inor Chem]
 
  so lets take 5 parts per million by volume.
 
  Use Avogadro's number, and a rough and ready STP calculation puts
 circa 10**14 helium-4 in each cubic centimeter of air.
 
  Given the fact, per Frank Close's calculation, that 10**14 putative
 helium-ash may be created over 600 seconds, it becomes obvious that
 this is the same order of magnitude as there are helium-4 atoms in
 each cc of an open system.  This obviously offers serious
 difficulties in using that putative "ash" as a detector in an open
 system.
 
   In summary, the problem is that the production rate (see above,
 10**14 over 10 minutes in an open system) is dwarfed by the helium
 content in the ambient.
 
==   "One way (among several) to test for the source of any helium is by
==  measuring the relative amounts of helium, argon and other elements
==  whose relative abundance in air is known. If you have an excess of
==  helium relative to these then you may eliminate air as the sole
==  culprit."
 
   Argon lobs in at 0.93% of the atmosphere.  S/N experts, enjoy.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / mitchell swartz /  A study of words
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A study of words
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:38:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
 
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4613, blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
(Dick Blue) states:
 
 
== <Cold fusion reactions are neutron-penic, that is, these
== <reactions appear to be deficient in the expected number
== <of neutrons...
 
==   "So we have a new word to play with here.  Cold fusion
==  advocates have been trying to have their cake and eat it too
==  with regard to neutron detection.  They want to use an
==  assortment of poor attempts at neutron detection as evidence
==  for the occurance of nuclear fusion without owning up to the
==  fact that all these attempts at neutron detection are really
==  indicating a null result.  Say "neutron-penic" and the
==  contridiction goes away without any thought as to what degree
==  of magic is required to keep most, but not all, neutrons
==  hidden.  It's is pure bunk!"
 
    Neutronpenic is a descriptive adjective describing what
has been seen, and  is based upon solid observation.
 
    Period.  It describes what has been measured and reported in some
 laboratories.
 
 
    If the neutron detection has been poor, as Dick Blue claims
 above, it would hardly matter in a neutronpenic system.
 
    There is never a contradiction in describing what is in front of
 one's eyes, although it is relatively difficult.
 
    Whereas I do not, and have not worked with magic
  no comment can be made on the rest.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  Ted_Eugene_Vie /  Re: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
     
Originally-From: Ted_Eugene_Viens@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:11:44 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>In article <009652BA.BCF0F0E0.7270@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.e
d
>u writes:
>>Jed, Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
>>make mistakes,...
>
>Let's not make sweeping generalizations here.  On very rare occasions
>they might make some teeny-weeny mistakes.
>
>For example, when Sony lost hundreds of millions of dollars marketing
>Betamax, it did resemble a mistake.
>
>Also, when major securities firms in Japan were caught transferring
>funds from small clients to big clients, some company officials
>admitted that mistakes were made.
>
>And then there was MITI's recently concluded Fifth Generation Computer
>Project, which was supposed to make million-Cray-power computers that
>could think like Homo Sapiens.  Maybe some of the original claims about
>the project were a mistake.
>
>And finally, nearly every stock market player in Japan has taken a bath
>in the past couple of years.  A country's stock index losing half
>of its value is usually evidence of mistakes.
>
>But other than those four minor errors, major Japanese companies never,
>never, ever make mistakes.  Certainly not the Nippon Telephone and
>Telegraph company.  With the Yamaguchi Cold Fusion kit, its
>reputation is really on the line.  If the kit fails to deliver excess
>heat as no one has promised, no Japanese citizen will ever place a
>phone call with NTT again.
>
Gee, Greg.  Thanks for going through this effort to illustrate our large and
very dangerous misunderstanding of Japanese business.
   Sony _earned_ 'hundred of millions of dollars' with Betamax.  They only
failed to earn a few hundred more when VHS swept the US market.  Then they
quickly licensed VHS and sell a wide range of VCRs and blank tape here.
I am sure that Mr. SONY put you up to trying to fool us with this remark...
   One or two brokers may have even have committed Hari Kari over the
securities flap.  But few Japanese businessmen thought this a real mistake...
   Much of the Fifth Generation Computer Project was spent importing
breaking technology from around the world until current state of the art
eclipsed the original design statement.  Not too many corporate heads lament
the lack of a showroom product....
   Since in Japan most major corporations sell the vastly controlling share
of their stocks to related corporations, they only pretend to be publically
owned.  The Japanese market could fall to zero tomorrow and the major
companies and banks would only pretend to be affected.  Of course, the major
banks would immediately call in loans on many small companies and stock-
holders causing them great pain.  But MIDI would tell them of their patriotic
duties and they would pick up and carry on.  The major corporations are now
really cash based not stock based.  We would dumbly be amazed at their
resiliency....
   And if NTT loses face from their CNF kits, and subsequently some unrelated
major contracts, they will with little public protest raise their phone rates
to protect their research and developement funding....
   There may be the perception of mistakes here somewhere...  But I don't
think they can be found in Japan...
Ted...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenTed_Eugene_Viens cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: NTT Cold Fusion Kit/ JAERI
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NTT Cold Fusion Kit/ JAERI
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:13:59 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec16232055@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com
 (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>     Considering Japan's Fifth Generation project lack of breakthrough results,
> and the current crisis with Japanese banks (ie loan loss exposure due to
> big drops in real estate and stock holding equity), as just a few of many
> Japanese companies' screwups (like the ones we have here in the US), and
> it becomes less impressive that a big Japanese company is lending its name
> (and stock price) to cold fusion.
>     Also, much of Japan's great physics research comes out of the Japanese
> Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI).  That you haven't heard much out
> of these guys is not reassuring to the big company theory.
>
> Greg Aharonian
 
Agreed.  A fax I received yesterday from Dr. Yoshida of JAERI may provide
further insight:
"We in Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute have conducted cold-fusion
experiments by various types of wet and dry methods to verify the phenomena
during 18 months after March 1989.  We, at least myself, concluded on the
basis of our results that a large amount of excess heat as well as neutron
or tritium cannot be produced by the so-called cold fusion reaction,
except a possibility of unknown nuclear reaction with a generation of very
small quantity of neutrons.  As we experienced, I understand that it is very
difficult to measure precisely a low level neutron and it will be required
much longer time to confirm this which may cut a path into a new field of
science."
 
Respectfully submitted,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: the development of a multidimensional argument
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the development of a multidimensional argument
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:53:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
> ==  "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
> ==   very creative explanation, which is generally not
> ==   forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
> ==   only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
> ==   strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
> ==   world."
>
>    Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
>   (or other sentient) creative explanations.
 
We were talking about the theories involved, and how those theories are
constrained by the evidence.  Not whether the results actually appear.
 
There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion world, I am just
not sure if these are funny physics or funny human nature, or perhaps both.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / mitchell swartz /  the sounds of multidimensional mirth
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the sounds of multidimensional mirth
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:30:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  In sci.physics.fusion:4628, rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
    (Brian Rauchfuss) states and discusses
    (with the fuller relevant quotes here from 4569 and 4574):
 
::   "We were talking about the theories involved, and how those
::   theories are constrained by the evidence.  Not whether the
::   results actually appear."
 
  Actually the text appears to have been about physics,
  and presumptions.  Attention is directed to the actual text below.
  Perhaps the second paragraph might have begun "To produce a nuclear
  heat theory without fast ..." with the word "theory" to clarify what
  was meant.   The actual text is:
 
::    "Assuming that it is some sort of fusion or fission, the problem
::  is that all known fusion reactions (especially D-D) produce energy
::  in terms of very fast nuclear particles, which if it is to be
::  observed as heat, must be transfered to the general atomic
::  lattice.  The fast particles will collide with other particles,
::  producing various forms of radiation like X-Rays, neutrons, etc.
::  Heat will be formed, but only after many other forms of
::  radiation are emitted.
::    "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
::  very creative explanation, which is generally not
::  forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
::  only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
::  strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
::  world."
      [sci.physics.fusion, 4569, Brian Rauchfuss, 14 Dec 1992]
 
==    Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
==   (or other sentient) creative explanations.  There may not be a
==  "perceived sound" or a "thought" without us, but the reactions,
==  all physical reactions, proceed in their own indomitable way.
==    Certainly one can get "production" without adequate theory."
     [sci.physics.fusion:4574, mitchell swartz, 16 Dec 1992]
 
 
 
  Also says Brian Rauchfauss:
 
==  "There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion
==  world, I am just not sure if these are funny physics or funny
==  human nature, or perhaps both."
 
   I respectfully submit that neither the physics, if anomalous,
 nor human nature, partially examined to date, at this point appear
 "funny".
    [as in affording light mirth and laughter" (Webster, ibid.)].
 
  Many of the postings on this net containing wit, novel theories,
and banter which, however, are.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Jon Webb /  Re: Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:55:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <AC70C12C1FDF202A6F@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
 
   ... But I never have
   seen the sort of evidence that drives me into the lab to try a cold fusion
   experiment. Ni and plain water? You must be joking. I look at it this way.
   There is hardly anyone besides Mills and maybe Farrell, who takes the Mills
   "theory" seriously. A lot of people insist, however, that never mind the
   theory, the experiment works. But the likelihood of a far-out dubious
 "theory"
   accidentally hitting the mark and predicting an experiment that evokes a
   completely unrelated but unknown effect, is so small that it is not worth my
   time to have a go at it.
 
But Dieter, you must admit that there is no tenable theory to explain
excess heat in *any* cold fusion experiments.  Mills has a theory that
must be wrong, but he's no worse off than Pons and Fleischmann who
seem to be claiming D+D->4He, or any of the really wild theories
(twist of ribbon, mini-black holes, multi-particle interactions).  All
we have to go on is data, and Mills's data is probably about as good
as any of the second-tier experiments.  So I don't see a good reason
for doing, say, heavy water+palladium experiments instead of ordinary
water+nickel -- if you're going to do an experiment at all, that is.
At least if you do a Mills-style experiment the materials are cheaper
and the claimed effect is stronger.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Greg Kuperberg /  Why is Neutronpenision called Fusion?
     
Originally-From: greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why is Neutronpenision called Fusion?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:55:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

I am now seriously wondering why neutronpenision, the observation of
excess heat without neutrons, was ever called fusion.  Assuming it's a
real effect, how do we know it isn't fission instead?  As long as we're
inventing our own branch ratios, maybe what happens is something like:
 
Pd + D --> smaller nuclei
 
Alternatively, since proton decay has been predicted by several grand
unified theories, maybe what we're seeing in the Notoya experiment,
again assuming that the experiment is good, is nickel-catalyzed proton
decay, NCPD.
 
In any case it seems terribly misleading to me to call something fusion
when you don't know what it is and neutronpenision is as good a name as
any.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: origins of "experts"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: origins of "experts"
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:06:33 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <BzEv0E.B9n@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>
>::  "If you have not done an experiment, and not even met with the
>:: people who have, then you have no business passing judgement
>::  on CF like some kind of expert.
>        [Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>]
 
There is a difference between not having done _an_ experiment and
not having done a _particular_ experiment.  I trust a person who
has done many electrochemical experiments to interpret a written
description of an experiment they have not done.  If it is not
possible to reproduce an experiment from the written description,
and the person attempting same is an expert in the field, the
person describing the experiment probably did not do their job
very well.  Further, we who are expert in particular areas can
tell when someone has taken due care with the little things.
 
If we each could travel somewhere to see the apparatus, there would
be no need for all those articles in Phys. Rev. and Nucl. Inst. and
Methods, etc.  After all, the folks at MIT brought Notoya over and
they could have learned just as much (if not more) if they had a
description that spelled out the requirements for the setup.
 
>==   "The way science is supposed to work, someone in his
>==  field should be able to be an expert just by reading all the
>==  literature.  That's the whole point of publishing.
>==  If Dieter, an expert electrochemist, can't be an expert in
>==  CF by reading the papers, and I think we'll all agree that he
>==  has :-), then there's something wrong with the way the papers
>==  have been written."
>         [colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)]
 
On the other hand, this is simply not possible.  You cannot stay
expert without doing some of the dirty work.  The point of publishing
is to tell other people doing some equally dirty work about what you
have learned from your work, with enough detail that they can tell if
it was done properly enough that the results are reliable and/or so
they could switch over and try your approach.  One of the things
students learn in a Ph.D. program is how much they do not know about
Quantum Mechanics (to pick one example) until they try to use it in
a research problem.  In the process, you learn about a lot of things
that tell you if a certain result is reliable or not.
 
>    Deiter Britz has done a very credible and great service by his
> magnum opus of compilations.  Notwithstanding that, science is
> systematized knowledge.  People get education from experience.
 
A colleague here, who did research in chemistry at just the right
time to have studined polywater in some detail, got quite an education
from that experience.  He is the most skeptical person I know with
regard to cold fusion.  Similar skepticism resides among those here
whose experience included a rush to judgement about the existence of
superheavy nuclei in mica inclusions from Madagascar.
 
>             "Perfection is the enemy of good".
 
Very nice.  That goes on my wall.  Right next to "Haste makes Waste."
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / mitchell swartz /  Neutronpenision on your mind
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutronpenision on your mind
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:43:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion:4633 greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu
  (Greg Kuperberg) invents a new word: Neutronpenision.
 
  In past posting I had recommended calling some the reported
 experimental results in this field "neutronpenic".
 
  Both words appear to show "neutron" as a base.
 
***  Penic?   I made up my word - neutronpenic - based upon
 
   -penia, from the Greek 'penia' indicating
      - "poverty, lack of, less than usual"
             [cf. Scientific Words, Flood, ibid.]
 
   As is obvious, there are "less than usual" numbers of
 neutrons in whatever these systems do.
   Therefore neutronpenic is a logical word.
 
 
***  Penision?  Greg Kuperberg has finally sent me to the
 dictionary again [making me wonder if it is time to invest in
 a thicker dictionary]
 
   - penis,   "male organ of copulation" [Webster's ibid.]
 
   Now if my memory of linguistics is at all correct
 (doubtful) 'sion' means or implies "act of".
 
   So exactly what does Kuperberg seem to have on his mind.
 
      .......
 
      .......
 
     Chesire-cat English?
 
     If the logic and mathematics of Dr. Kuperberg (a real
 doctor) matches the level of diligent prose seen here, then
 it may more probably be in the imaginary-realm or along
 another Reimann surface.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:58:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <71919@cup.portal.com> Ted_Eugene_Viens@cup.portal.com writes:
 
>Gee, Greg.  Thanks for going through this effort to illustrate our large and
>very dangerous misunderstanding of Japanese business.
 
Perhaps you think that it's healthy to believe that Japanese businesses are
infallible?
 
>   Sony _earned_ 'hundred of millions of dollars' with Betamax.  They only
>failed to earn a few hundred more when VHS swept the US market.  Then they
>quickly licensed VHS and sell a wide range of VCRs and blank tape here.
 
It is doubtful if Sony recovered the development costs (if they paid for
them in the first place.)
 
>   One or two brokers may have even have committed Hari Kari over the
>securities flap.  But few Japanese businessmen thought this a real mistake...
 
This is, indeed, true.
 
>   Much of the Fifth Generation Computer Project was spent importing
>breaking technology from around the world until current state of the art
>eclipsed the original design statement.  Not too many corporate heads lament
>the lack of a showroom product....
 
As far as I know, virtually _none_ of the goals set for the 'fifth generation
computer' _as_originally_envisioned_ were met. This isn't a criticism
of Japanese ability, but of the original goals.
 
I find it distressing that so many people have gotten the idea that
Japan has some sort of 'magic' when it comes to product development.
The only real advantage that I've perceived is that Japanese management
tends to be a great deal more flexible in accepting ideas NIH. They
also treat their employees with much more respect. This is the major
reason that American companies have so much labor trouble while Japanese
companies only rarely so.
 
Do not confuse this with the belief that Japanese companies have any greater
reliance on their employees -- they do NOT. The American worker is far
more productive when treated in a proper manner.
 
I have always said that if the average American manager was _half_ as
competent at his job as the average American worker, there would be no
business troubles in the U.S.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  When does an observation become a result?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: When does an observation become a result?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a continuing effort to teach Jed about the proper workings of science
I will respond to his question as to whether I consider Yamaguchi's
results "invalid".
 
Stripped down to the basics, Yamaguchi's experiment involves two observations
that are correlated: a rise in sample temperature and a change in the
peak shape and amplitude for an RGA scan for nominally mass 4 ions.  I
have no basis for doubting that these observations have been made just
as reported.  Let us agree to call these observations "valid".  These
observations do not, however, constitute a scientific result.
Yamaguchi must make an interpretation of these observations which he
then puts forward as a scientific result.  I disagree with his
interpretation, for reasons I have stated at length in my earlier
message, and therefore suggest that his experimental results are
not valid as evidence for a cold fusion process.
 
Interestingly Yamaguchi's observations themselves contain a potential
for being selfcontradictory if one were to attempt to extend the
interpretation of the observations into a proposed model for the
fusion process.  Because samples containing hydrogen show the same
temperature rise as those containing deuterium, simple logic says
that either the temperature rise is not related to a nuclear reaction
process, or the change in the mass 4 peak is not a significant indication
of the process, or there are two different processes producing the heat
and only one produces results in a distortion of the mass 4 ion peak.
 
and only one of the processes results in a mass 4 ion peak.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  Rothwell /  The Big Picture; and, e-mail ethics
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Big Picture; and, e-mail ethics
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Greg Kuperberg made some uninformed statements about me, and about Japan:
 
"Jed Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
make mistakes"
 
Nonsense. I have been dealing with Japan for half my life, I have been ripped
off, cheated, and done in by Outrageous Japanese Corporate Incompetence more
times than I care to think about. I merely said that they have an excellent
track record, overall. Babe Ruth frequently struck out, but that did not make
him a poor baseball player. You have to look at the big picture, and compare
overall wins to losses in order to judge a corporation, or a nation. You
cannot zero in on a handful or failures, or successes. Also, you cannot judge
NTT by the actions of Hitachi or Nippon Steel. I happen to know a number of
top managers in NTT, and I have spoken with Yamaguchi several times over the
last few years, so I know that the people involved in this project are very
sharp. I can judge their behavior, and the likelihood of their success. I would
not, in a million years, be so bold as to predict the success of some unknown
start-up Japanese company; or even the success of, say, Toshiba, had I not
personally asked questions, read the paper, and talked to the researchers.
 
"For example, when Sony lost hundreds of millions of dollars marketing
Betamax, it did resemble a mistake." Quite right, even Homer nods. The
question is: over a period of many years, does Sony make a profit, and does it
develop more successful products than failures? How does Sony compare to U.S.
VCR, television and consumer electronics manufacturers? No company on earth is
perfect; they all make mistakes, and they all mismarket products from time to
time. You cannot judge Sony's performance in a vacuum, without reference to
the performance of other companies in the same business.
 
"Also, when major securities firms in Japan were caught transferring funds
from small clients to big clients, some company officials admitted that
mistakes were made." Those were not mistakes, that was deliberate, planned,
criminal behavior. We have seen similar incidents here in the U.S. recently.
In fact, Boesky and the S&L gangs have stolen and/or lost $500 billion
dollars, whereas the Japanese stock brokers stole about $5 billion, I believe.
We are two orders of magnitude ahead of them in this field, at least.
 
"MITI's recently concluded Fifth Generation Computer Project, which was
supposed to make million-Cray-power computers that could think like Homo
Sapiens." Incorrect. Nobody ever made such exaggerated claims or set such
unrealistic goals. I read a great deal about that project, and this
characterization: "think like Homo Sapiens" is silly. "Think like a chicken"
would be closer to the mark. However, as you point out, they did not even get
that far. A great deal of the project was devoted to machine translation and
other linguistic computation. That part did not work well because not enough
is known about linguistics or about the English language. In my opinion,
nobody has analyzed English with the kind of depth, precision and genius that
Martin brought to Japanese, for example. The groundwork has not been laid yet,
the algorithms have not been invented, so they cannot be programmed.
 
"And finally, nearly every stock market player in Japan has taken a bath in
the past couple of years." The Japanese stock market crash proves that there
are fools, liars, thieves, scoundrels, criminals and villains in Japan, just
as there are in any country. What did you expect? After all, look what they
did in China and the Pacific during the Second World War.
 
 
DB comments:
 
"You once told me, Jed (before I became your favorite enemy) that a particular
bit of raving you did (on the SKEPTICS list, remember?) was just an act. Maybe
you are still doing this act. Believe me, it doesn't do you much good here, on
the contrary, it damages - has damaged - your credibility."
 
Right, it is an act to some extent. Posting these messages is a hobby, not a
job. I do not get the least bit upset when people accuse me of being a fool,
or of raving, or anything else -- I rather enjoy it -- and I like to respond
in the same tone. It is a form of verbal dueling, it is good therapy, and it
sharpens and clarifies one's thought processes. I do not take it personally or
seriously, any more than I take it personally when I play chess or poker, or
when I help a Democratic candidate run for office. It is not good to take
these things too seriously, life is stressful enough already.
 
HOWEVER, as you point out, you are my favorite enemy. And you claim I have
damaged my credibility. Well, well, well... That is a very odd thing for you
to say, of all people. Let me put aside all kidding and sarcasm. Please do not
think that I am harping on this incident, but you apparently still do not get
it. I think you do not understand the gravity and seriousness of your own
actions. I may lose a little credibility from time to time, but what *you* did
was disastrous, crazy, and very serious, and as far as I am concerned, you
destroyed your own credibility forever. You are not my "favorite enemy" for no
reason. What you did was not some minor transgression, or an unplanned
outburst of rotten manners, like Prepparata's outburst at Nagoya. This is not
some minor tiff, some forgivable outburst of bad manners.
 
No, indeed. What you did was to deliberately and consciously post a series of
messages that might easily have shredded my reputation and destroyed me. If
MITI, Ikegami, or some other important contact had heard about your nonsense,
and believed it, I would have been up shit creek without a paddle. I am quite
certain you know that, so I have to conclude that you were deliberately,
mischievously, and maliciously trying to monkey into my affairs and cause me
terrible trouble. You are an adult, you know how the world works. What else
could I possibly conclude?
 
Let me make this perfectly clear: in the world of business -- where I come
from -- the action you took would have led to instant, grave, legal
consequences. Insulting a person is perfectly okay; denigrating the
competition is standard operating procedure; saying that Notoya or Rothwell
are incompetent fools who made a dumb mistake is fine (that is an opinion; you
have every right to express your opinion). But, spreading malicious and false
rumors about deliberate *actions* taken by people is unthinkable, and totally
unacceptable! In business, unless you have ironclad written proof, and
witnesses, even if you suspect fraud or some other serious *action* you never,
ever, accuse someone of it in writing. Certainly you would not make such an
accusation in a public forum! You have to realize that from my perspective --
as a businessman -- what you did was outrageous, unthinkable and incredible.
 
Perhaps I am exaggerating. Perhaps I do not understand the ethics of academia
or of these informal public electronic forums. That is why I am willing to cut
you slack, and not make a big deal about it. However, I would like to explain
my reaction here... so that everyone understands where I am coming from, and
what the rules are where I live. I want you, and my cadre of Gentle Readers,
to understand that I have not lost one iota of credibility, whereas you have
committed permanent credibility suicide. Let us imagine that an incident like
this had occurred in the world of business. Suppose this happened:
 
     Some guy from Dell, or NCR, or someplace, hears a rumor about Comdex,
     which is most important annual computer show (equivalent to the Nagoya
     Conference). He posts a message on Compuserve, and sends letters to
     various customers saying:
 
     "XYZ Corporation demonstrated a new computer at Comdex which they claimed
     was running at 66 MHZ and doing the Byte Benchmark in 20 seconds.
     However, I have inside information that they were lying, the computer was
     only running at 33 MHZ, and that it was running a doctored, fake version
     of the benchmark. I am convinced that it was a deliberate, preplanned
     fraud. There was some controversy, and one of them said there might have
     been a mistake, it might have been an old version of the benchmark. Let
     me tell you: he is lying."
 
     Please notice, I am not supposing that the guy simply sniped, or
     belittled XYZ's product, with a common retort like: "The Byte benchmark
     doesn't really show the kind of performance that matters. We could design
     our product to run that benchmark fast too, but our design is more
     oriented to real world applications, and bla, bla, bla..." No, I am
     saying the guy publicly accuses XYZ of lying during the most important
     annual computer conference.
 
Now, what do you think would happen to a person who posts a message like that?
What do you think would happen to his company? I'll tell you what: he would be
instantly fired. If his company had any sense at all, it would issue a
contrite series of apologies. If XYZ Co. sued, his company would be wise to
settle quickly out of court. In business, this kind of slanderous accusation
is VERY SERIOUS.
 
That is why I reacted so harshly. You have to understand my background and my
values. That is why you have zero credibility with me, and I will not *ever*
believe you are capable of fairly, impartially judging a scientific paper or
experiment. Quite frankly, I am forced to assume that you might be tearing
apart some other person's reputation with the same kind of incredible,
thoughtless, irresponsibility you showed when you tried to tear apart mine. I
don't believe a word you say, and I never will. I don't disbelieve you either;
I have no way of knowing whether you are lying or telling the truth. I do not
*ever* forget when somebody makes a serious effort to destroy me. I forgive,
but I do not forget.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Re: The first S. Jones low-level CF result
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The first S. Jones low-level CF result
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since this will probably be my last opportunity to comment before
taking off for the holidays,  I want to let Steve know that I am not
just ducking out replying to him.  I would like to see some of the
issues I have raised aired out a bit, and to have any errors I have
made corrected.  I believe the basic issue centers on the characteristics
of the neutron detector used in the initial experiment, and I rely on
the description of that detector as contained in the reference:
 
"A neutron coincidence spectrometer," Czirr and Jensen, Nuclear Instruments
and Methods A284 (1989) 365-369.
 
This paper does indicate that this spectrometer was used in the "capture-
spectrum mode" for the "recent cold-fusion experiments".  See page 369.
In a nut shell, the spectrometer consists of a cylindrical volume of
liquid scintillator, BC-505, 12.7 cm dia. by 12 cm length.  The volume
is divided roughly in quarters by three circular plates of 6Li glass
scintillator.  The liquid and the glass are viewed by two PM tubes
which form the ends of the cylinder.
 
The neutron detection characteristics of the liquid are primarily
determined by elastic scattering events in which an incident neutron
imparts some or all of its kinetic energy to a recoiling proton that
in turn produces a scintillation light pulse in proportion to the
recoil energy.  Hence the signal generated is proportional to the
neutron energy loss with a maximum pulse height which corresponds to
the total neutron energy.
 
The 6Li glass on the other hand, reponds to neutrons via the reaction
6Li(n,t)4He + 4.78 MeV.  That energy is shared by the two particles
in the final state and determines the pulse height, essentially
independent of neutron energy because the reaction generally occurs
at or near thermal energies.  Hence no neutron energy information
can be derived from this signal!
 
The average path length for one scattering by a 2.5 MeV neutron
in the liquid is about 9 cm, and another 6 cm for a second scattering
so a far fraction of the neutrons escape from this detector without
depositing their full energy.
 
With these facts in mind I want Steve Jones to explain how a peak
corresponding to 2.45 MeV energy gets generated in this detector and
what the calibration method was that determined the peak shape and
position.  I am aware of the Figure 6 in the Czirr and Jensen paper
which shows an experimentally determined peak shape for 2.9 MeV
neutrons, but it also shows the response going off scale as it rises
toward channel zero.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  Rothwell /  The experimental basis of relativity
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The experimental basis of relativity
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas H. Kunich asks, "perhaps Rothwell would tell us what experiments
Einstein performed to derive the special theory?"
 
He did not perform them, Michelson and Morely did. He derived his theory from
their experimental observations, and then verified aspects of the general
theory for the first time with the observations of the solar eclipse in 1919
(I believe it was). If someone had come along and shown that M&M had been
wrong, and that the speed of light actually did vary from point to point; or,
if the eclipse had not shown that light from the stars was "bent" by the
gravity of the sun, then relativity would have been proven false. It would
have been discarded, because science must always be based upon -- and must
always conform to -- observations and data.
 
Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear reactions can occur
in metal lattices, theories must be devised to explain this. Any theory that
predicts that these reactions cannot occur must be discarded.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Paul Houle /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:14:24 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>
>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>bubbles collapse.
>
 
        Is there any reason why this couldn't be done in,  say,  liquid
D2?  Would the ultrasound necessarily vaporize the D2 before the cavitation
process is set up?
--
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.17 / Paul Houle /  Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:25:16 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <921216170326_72240.1256_EHL68-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>You go on to say, "you are asking for a MAJOR humdinger of a violation of
>physics." This is totally irrelevant. Ten Million Major Humdingers would not
>make one iota of difference. The only scientifically valid questions are:
>
>1. What do the instruments show?
>
>2. What is the signal to noise ratio?
>
>The instruments show Delta T temperature differences as high as 50 C, at sigma
>levels greater than 90, therefore CF exists. Nothing else matters, and no
>theory can have any effect on the conclusion that the heat is real, and far
>beyond the limits of chemistry. Theory plays no role in this conclusion
>whatsoever, and cannot be used to attack or defend it. Please stop confusing
>the roles of theory and evidence. These roles were firmly established by
>Kepler, Galileo, and other early scientists, and they have not changed one
>bit. Science is built upon observation, evidence and data. In all cases, when
>data of sufficiently high sigma conflicts with theory, theory is wrong.
 
        Yes,  but we often wonder what the real value for sigma in many of
these experiments are.  Joseph Newman tells us that he has a motor that
charges the batteries that it runs off.  There are people out there who
still believe that Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind.
There are many claims of over-unity devices.
 
        I happen to believe that Beyesian statistics provides the best
framework for us to analyze information.  To take an informal example,  if
you come by my office and you have a suitcase and I ask you what is in
it,  I would be much more likely to believe you if you say "a tuna fish
sandwich" than if you say "a million dollars in cash".  As such,  any kind
of experimental result that deviates far from the dominant paradigm will and
should be subject to more scrutiny than a result that is closer.  If an
undergraduate does NMR in senior lab and announces that the gyromagnetic
ratio of the proton is 5.57 +- .02 nuclear magnetons,  we are more likely
to take this seriously than if he measures it to be 12.211 +- .002 nuclear
magnetons.
 
        The history of science is full of examples of pathological science.
The people who worked with the Allison effect,  N-Rays,  and polywater and
ESP all made extraordinary claims and they all took them absolutely seriously;
they found explanations for all their critics.  It is still too early to
tell,  but cold fusion shows almost all of the scientific and sociological
danger signs of being pathological science.  This doesn't mean that it's
bogus,  but I am suspect about it.  Think of all the false results (such
as monojets) at particle accelerators that have produced a flurry of
theoretical papers that are utterly irrelevant to real-world physics.  The
proliferation of very extreme theories to explain cold-fusion is a warning
sign.  The fact is that the vast majority of results that are "inexplicable"
in a given paradigm are indeed wrong.
 
        When you add big money to the equation, things get even worse.
To take an example, this Joe Newman character came to New Mexico Tech
because these real-estate investors from Albuquerque were smart enough
to know that they are scientifically illiterate and wanted to check
with some real scientists about it before they give Joe $2 million
dollars for his free energy motor.  Anyway,  the professors all come in
and say that this is crazy and the school can't have anything to do with
it and it violates the laws of thermodynamics,  so the only people left
are some undergrads and lab technicians.  That night I borrowed the keys
to one of the labs and set up a demonstration that would show exactly
why Newman's measurement techniques were invalid,  but because these
technicians had such a great plan about how to measure the performance of
the machine,  I didn't show it.  They move to a psychology student's
garage and essentially repeat Newman's demonstration (which just shows that
the motor makes alot of RF noise and that it befuddles clip-on and power
company wattmeters) without taking any valid measurements.  They get some
"people" to come down from Sandia National labs (who might have been
janitors for all I know) who were impressed,  so these investors decide
they are going to give Joe the money.
 
        Problem is,  Joe is an inventive paranoid schizophrenic.  The
investors finally realized this because they had to keep calming him
down so he could talk to people.  They decide to try to screw Joe and
give $1 million to the lab technician who saw the inside of the motor to
build a new one.  Anyway,  he tells Joe because he is "the most honest\
and brilliant person in the world".  Joe calls the deal off.  That
lab technican has since had a religious conversion (now he listens to
christian heavy metal instead of the good stuff (Jeff Beck,  Yes)) that
he used to listen to),  thinks that his phone is tapped,  that the CIA
and the school administration is trying to kill him,  and is planning
to go to missippi to make a pilgrimate to the Gyro master's workshop.
 
        The moral is that I won't take cold fusion seriously as
science because people are willing to spend money on it.  Lots of
people spend lots of money on Dianetics and Scientology.  Does it mean
that those are valid?  Of course not.  I am not impressed that NTT is
spending money on it or "offering a kit" -- why don't they just
publish a paper?  I am not impressed any more that MITI is funding
Pons and Fleischman than I would be that thousands of elderly ladies
are giving their life savings to Oral Roberts.
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Neutronpenision on your mind
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutronpenision on your mind
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:11:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <BzGxCw.7zu@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>***  Penic?   I made up my word - neutronpenic - based upon
>   -penia, from the Greek 'penia' indicating
>      - "poverty, lack of, less than usual"
 
You've elided the "a", and so have I.  If you had called it
neutronpeniaic, I would have called it neutronpeniasion.
 
>   - penis,   "male organ of copulation" [Webster's ibid.]
...
>   So exactly what does Kuperberg seem to have on his mind.
 
How can you accuse me having a dirty mind?  You're the one putting male
organs of copulation into the discussion.
 
To be honest, I was making a pun.   But don't tell anyone.
 
>     Chesire-cat English?
 
The "a" in neutronpenic and neutronpenision does seem to be something
of a Chesire cat, I agree.  Otherwise I don't see the relevance.
Only the cat's smile was left, not any other body part.
 
>     If the logic and mathematics of Dr. Kuperberg (a real
> doctor) matches the level of diligent prose seen here, then
> it may more probably be in the imaginary-realm or along
> another Reimann surface.
 
Are you accusing me of being silly again?
 
By the way, you're wrong about parroting being meaning sedulous
imitation.  Even if it were then "sedulously parroting" would be
redundant.  My dictionary, which is more recent than yours, says that
parroting means "mindlessly imitating".
 
In any case, I'm not sedulous.  Sedulous means diligent, and if I
were diligent I would be working and not talking to you.
 
sci.physics.fusion:  Where the sedulous meet the incredulous.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:31:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Dec17.221424.6404@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>HICCUP Fusion: Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure Fusion
>>
>>A humorous name, yes, but the suggestion you are about to read for totally
>>conventional Jones-level "hot-in-cold" fusion is entirely serious.  I hope
>>someone out there will actually give it a try.
>>
>>For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "cavitation" refers to the
>>creation -- often via ultrasound -- and subsequent collapse of very tiny
>>bubbles in a fluid.  Exceptionally high pressures are generated as the
>>bubbles collapse.
>>
>
>       Is there any reason why this couldn't be done in,  say,  liquid
>D2?  Would the ultrasound necessarily vaporize the D2 before the cavitation
>process is set up?
>--
 
     It would be very expensive.  Otherwise, no there's no reason.
 
                            dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / W Rolph /  Re: the development of a multidimensional argument
     
Originally-From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the development of a multidimensional argument
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:03:04 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA

 
In article <7600015@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian
 Rauchfuss) writes:
|> In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
|>
|> > ==  "To produce nuclear heat without fast particles requires a
|> > ==   very creative explanation, which is generally not
|> > ==   forthcoming.  Making up strange reactions is pretty the
|> > ==   only way to go, and then you have to explain why this
|> > ==   strange reaction is not observed in the rest of the
|> > ==   world."
|> >
|> >    Any physical reaction continues with or without any of our
|> >   (or other sentient) creative explanations.
|>
|> We were talking about the theories involved, and how those theories are
|> constrained by the evidence.  Not whether the results actually appear.
|>
|> There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion world, I am
 just
|> not sure if these are funny physics or funny human nature, or perhaps both.
|>
|> BDR
 
Furthermore are the funny things (I think I agree that funny things are going
 on)
fusion orsomething else?
--
 
Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudena722756 cudfnW cudlnRolph cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Sonoluminescence References
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence References
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:14:10 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Chuck Sites asks by e-mail for recommended reading on sonoluminescence (SL).
Here are some references, posted in case others are also interested.
 
D.F. Gaitan, L.A. Crum, C.C. Church, R.A. Roy, "Sonoluminescence and bubble
dynamics for a single, stable, cavitation bubble," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91(6):
3166 (June 1992)
  "High-amplitude radial pulsations of a single gas bubble in several
glycerine and water mixtures have been observed in an acoustic stationary wave
system at acoustic pressure amplitudes on the order of 150 kPa (1.5 atm) at
21-25 kHz.  Sonoluminescence (SL), aphenomenon generally attributed to the
high temperatures generated during the collapse of cavitation bubbles, was
observed as short light pulses occurring once every acoustic period."
   "Despite the extensive amount of research done on both acoustic cavitation
and SL, many important questions relating to the nature and dynamics of these
phenomena remain unanswered."
 
R. Hiller, S.J. Putterman, B.P. Barber, "Spectrum of Synchronous Picosecond
SL", Physical Rev. Letters, 69:1182 (24 Aug. 1992)
"For an air bubble trapped in filtered, distilled, degassed water we also find
... the intensity of SL increases by over a factor of 10 and becomes more
heavily skewed towards the UV when the water is cooled below 10 C."
(Note that Terry Bollinger made remarks along these lines recently.)
 
B.P. Barber, S.J. Putterman, "Observation of synchronous picosecond SL",
Nature, 352:318, 25 July 1991.
"The phenomenon of SL involves an extraordinary degree of energy focusing.
... [from sound to light energy,] this phenomenon involves a focusing or
amplification of about eleven orders of magnitude.  The size of the spontaneous
energy concentration that characterizes SL is so large that one must wonder
about the limits of amplification that can be achieved with this type of non-
equilibrium phenomenon."
 
Note the emphasis on "non-equilibrium" conditions, which we claimed in Nature
April 1989 was critical also for neutron emissions observed in electrolysis
in D2O.  This paper stimulated our search for possible d-d fusion during SL.
Our search accelerated in Sept.-Oct. 1992 when BYU graduate
student Jeannette Lawler chose as her Ph.D. thesis project to look for fusion
associated with SL in D2O (also H2O+D2O, etc.).  Experiments involving our
sensitive neutron detector (later, NaI detector) and D2O in a radially-
polarized, spherical piezoelectric drive should begin in a few weeks.  I
reported on our efforts to look for "sonofusion" at the Nagoya meeting in Oct.,
as mentioned in D. Morrison's conference review on this net some 3 weeks ago.
 
B.P. Barber, R. Hiller, K. Arisaka, H. Fetterman, S. Putterman, "Resolving the
picosecond characteristics of synchronous SL", J. Acoust. Soc. Am 91:3061,
May 1992.
"The flash widths are now found to be considerably less than 50 ps and the
jitter in the time between flashes can also be substantially less than 50 ps."
"Since the photons must originate from a region of molecular dimensions and
since photon energies are measured in eV wheras sound energies are measured
in ergs/cc, SL involves a spontaneous amplification that spans 12 orders of
magnitude."
Notice how calm these gentlemen are when describing something so exciting.
 
L.A. Crum, S. Putterman, "Sonoluminescence", AIP Physics News of 1991, p. 1.
"As the phenomenon may be too fast for the establishment of local thermal
equilibrium we may be facing a situation in which focused acoustic stress
fields are converted directly into quantum excitations."
 
Happy reading,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Open-minded versus empty-minded
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Open-minded versus empty-minded
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:34:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

This is reposted from 16 Dec. since Jed Rothwell said he had not seen it
when I checked with him via e-mail.  It responds also to Jed's comments that
if xs heat is real, CF is also real.  I heartily disagree.  If energetic
nuclear products are found, a nuclear reaction can be claimed.  Other
explanations have been found for xs heat (see e.g. my posting "Silicates
and Aluminates" in November).  Helium, as in Yamaguchi's experiment, can
be accounted for as contamination from glass or from the atmosphere in
every case I've seen (P/F therefore withdrew their claims of helium
production in Pd in 1989 as did Paneth and Peters back in the late 1920's.)
Any connection between xs heat and nuclear reactions remains unproved.
 
 
In his 14 Dec. posting "Harder than she thought," Jed Rothwell makes the
following statements:
"Another comment of Jon Webb's deserves comment, because it is a classic
case of pathological non-science.  It violates the rule established by
Kepler while examining the data of Tycho Brahe:  the Data is Right, You
are Wrong.  This is the whole ball of wax, the very basis of science and
of the Renaissance, and the Jon Webbs of this world are still -- literally
-- living in the Dark Ages, intellectually.  I am not kidding."
"A scientist's job is to judge results based on instruments and replica-
tions. Nothing else matters!  Previous ideas about what is possible,
what is rational, what fits and what does not fit, have absolutely no role
in science.  Data is truth, all else is speculation."
"You must deliberately put all theoretical considerations aside when
judging results.  It is like Zen meditation; you start by clearing your
mind of all preconceptions, prejudice, value judgements, and conscious
ideas, you must make it a blank state."
 
Not so fast, Jed.  (Such statements have been rather common in the "Cold
Fusion" series of quasi-scientific conferences, incidentally.)
 
The scientific principles we work and judge by are correlated with a large
data base.  Of course these principles are subject to modification, but only
within the realms of prior (correct) experimental data.  We cannot just throw
this accumulated data base away.
 
We can be open-minded without being empty-minded.
 
Consider Einstein's equation  E = mc2.  This was logically deduced in 1905, I
believe, but since has been tested EXPERIMENTALLY many, many times.  If someone
says that he has produced heat (E) by nuclear reactions without corresponding
mass(m) change, or (equivalently) commensurate nuclear products, he (or she) is
not just going against the grain of the establishment or of speculation, he is
challenging thousands of experiments which have tested the relation E = mc2.
 
Note that there is an equals sign here; it is not enough to have a handful of
neutrons (as some claim, I among them) then to say that the xs heat of Pons/F.
or McKubre is therefore nuclear.  Nonsense.  The neutron fluxes we report
are a factor of roughly 10 trillion less than required to produce one watt of
xs power.  Properly interpreted using E = mc2, then, our results REFUTE the
claims of P/F of xs heat production by nuclear d-d fusion.  Even now, NO ONE
has shown bona fide nuclear products commensurate with xs heat.  (Not even
Yamaguchi -- see my earlier postings on this.  Certainly not P/F or Takahashi or
Notoya or McKubre or Mills or Bush or Storms or Srinivasan.)
 
If a very small nuclear effect exists, as we have claimed, I predict it will
fit in with other experiments and E=Mc2 in particular.  Such a result may
dramatically alter notions about helium-3 and tritium production in the earth,
for example.  But in a way consistent with existing observations.  We don't
empty our minds of these.
 
While I was doing my PhD. thesis work at SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center), I remember a joke (possibly by Bjorken) as follows:  scientists when
they die are allowed to fiddle with nature, but they are constrained by
experiments which have already been performed.  This story may help clarify
my argument:  discoveries we may make will be consistent with previous,
verified discoveries, though not necessarily with theories which extrapolate
beyond the data base.  (And there is certainly a possibility of error in
putative discoveries.)  There is for good reason inertia in the scientific
community about claimed discoveries, and a peer-review and replication system
is naturally in place.  It is attempts to do end-runs around peer-scrutiny, such
as hyped-up press conferences and other misuses of the media,
direct appeals to legislative bodies for money, use of lawyers to
threaten other scientists, shifting of energy scales in gamma-ray spectra
 -- such actions most scientists find reprehensible, even pathological.
 
Yours Truly,
Steven E. Jones
 
P.S.
The notion of energy transfer to a metal lattice, without emission of energetic
nuclear products, I explore in "Nuclear reactions in deuterided solids versus
excess heat claims" (Jones, Fusion Technology, 20:915-923, Dec. 1991).  I
argue that this notion is inconsistent with speed-of-light constraints coupled
with Heisenberg uncertainty and conservation of energy and momentum principles.
There exists a large body of data consistent with these principles.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1992Dec16.130536.286@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Dec16.130536.286@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:35:14 -0700

cancel <1992Dec16.130536.286@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Original BYU expts/reply to D. Blue
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Original BYU expts/reply to D. Blue
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:41:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Having apparently lost another posting, and having received no response
on this posting, I re-submit it hoping to respond to questions previously
raised on this net.  It was originally posted on 15 Dec. 1992.
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
Dick Blue has raised a number of questions/comments regarding the original
BYU experiments that I should like to answer.  I will refer to the following
publications:
1.  S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr et al., "Observation of cold nuclear
fusion in condensed matter," Nature, 338:737 (27 April 1989)
2.  S.E. Jones, D.L. Decker, H.D. Tolley, Scientific Correspondance, Nature,
343:703 (22 Feb 1990)
3.  S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr et al., "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions
in Condensed Matter:  Recent Results and Open Questions," J. Fusion Energy,
9:199-208 (Dec 1990)
4.  H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, M.C. Miller, M.A. Paciotti, R.R.
ryan, and S.E. Jones, "Measurement of Neutron Emission from Ti and Pd in
Pressurized D2 Gas and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion Energy, 9:495-
506 (Dec. 1990)
5.  A. Bertin et al., "First Experimental Results at the Gran Sasso Labora-
tory on Cold Nuclear Fusion in Titanium Electrodes," J. Fusion Energy 9:209-
213 (Dec. 1990), also same authors (including me) in Il Nuovo cimento
A101:997 (June 1989)
6.  AIP Proc. 228, "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems,"
Provo,UT 1990 conference, S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi, D. Worledge editors,
Am. Institute of Physics, NY, 1991.  (Over 1000 pages.  I have a few copies
left essentially at cost, $68, or can be purchased from AIP.)
7.  T. Ishida, "Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid/Deuterium
Systems," Masters Thesis printed as ICCR-Report-277-92-15, Univ. of Tokyo,
Feb. 1992
8.  S.E. Jones, "Current issues in cold fusion research:  heat, helium,
tritium, and energetic particles," Surface and Coatings Tech. 51:283-289 (1992)
9.  S.E. Jones, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker et al., "Response to queries regarding
"Observations of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter," RAL-90-022, Ruther-
ford Lab., Proc. of Internat. Symposium on Mu-Cat. Fusion, 1990.
 
Let us begin with Dr. Blue's 11 Dec. posting, "Re:  Rehash of Jones' Results."
Blue:  "First off I don't see how anything relating to the peak in question can
be called a '4 sigma difference.' "
The statistical significance of the originally-reported peak is calculated in
several different ways in refs 1&2, with significance approx. 4 sigma each time.
E.g., ref. 2 states:  "Reanalysis of the original data set of ref. 1.  This
method of analysis illustrates the merit of using an energy-sensitive neutron
spectrometer.  [details - please read in Nature 1990 correspondance] ...
The statistical significance of the peak is greater than 4 sigma, including
correlations between the parameters.  The centre of the gaussian is at channel
97 +- 16 with a full width at half maximum of 60 +- 11 channels.  Both the
position and width of this feature are consistent with expected for 2.5-MeV
neutrons detected in the BYU neutron spectrometer, based on calibrations with
neutrons of known energy.  This result adds to our confidence that the feature
represents neutrons generated by fusion of deuterons."
 
This also addresses Blue's question:  "I also wonder whether the detector
has ever been calibrated with a monoenergetic neutron source.  If not the
energy scale may also be shakey as well, in particular with regard to peak
shape."  In ref. 6, Fig. 4 on p. 402 juxtaposes the neutron- energy spectrum
obtained using the d-d reaction facility at Colorado School of Mines (2.5 MeV)
with that obtained at BYU, original "cold-fusion" data:  the peak shapes are
similar.
 
The reason we re-analyzed the original data and published the result in Feb.
1990 Nature was primarily to check the assertion of Douglas Morrison that the
data had a significance of only 2.2 sigma (e.g., Baltimore APS meeting May
1989).   We found otherwise as noted above,
and furthermore checked Morrison's data set and found that the numbers used in
his analysis MATCHED those presented by me at CERN for a SUBSET of the data, so
that his conclusions were not valid for the entire data set. (See ref. 9 for
details.)
 
Blue:  "We will then agree that none of these low level neutron experiments has
ever been reproduced."
Au contraire, the results have been reproduced in the Gran
Sasso Laboratory:  "The results obtained provide a neutron emission rate
comparable in size to the one recently reported by Jones et al. " (ref. 5),
and at Los Alamos National Laboratory by Menlove et al.:  "Experiments using
high-efficiency neutron detectors have detected neutron emission from various
forms of Pd and Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas cells and D2O electrolysis
cells. ..Both random neutrons (0.05-0.2 n/s) and time-correlated neutron bursts
(10-280 n) of =< 100-microsec duration were measured..."  (Ref. 4)
Numerous other laboratories have reported similar effects, and many have not
detected the effect although often the sensitivity level of the latter was
insufficient to preclude our results.  (Quantitative juxtapostion of numerous
results is provided in ref. 9.)
 
At Kamiokande in Japan, "Some burst neutron emissions were observed especially
from the electrolytic cells.  The event rate (about 0.06 bursts per hour) was
comparable to that of Menlove et al."  "We have found a clear random neutron
emission from portland cement mixed with D2O at the level of 1*10E-4 neutrons/
second, which is, however, difficult to explain based on radioactivity
contamination in the cement..." (Ref. 7, see also my previous postings on
the Kamiokande experiment; I do not claim that all Kamiokande results are
consistent with earlier experiments.  In particular, we did not find bursts
larger than 20 n, so large bursts found at Los Alamos are indeed suspicious.)
 
Note that both multiple neutron bursts and random-neutron emissions
(i.e., uncorrelated in approx. 100 microseconds) are reported in the latter two
experiments.  Thus, Dr. Blue is incorrect in his Dec. 9 assertion:  "Both of
these experiments [Menlove-Jones collaboration and Kamiokande] involve the
detection of events with neutron multiplicities greater than 1. ... Until
someone makes a proposal as to what mechanism could be producing "neutron
bursts" I think the fact that the effect is seen ONLY as multiple neutron events
is an indication that it is a background of the type we have suggested." (Blue:
capitalization added for emphasis.)  These statements and the conclusions that
follow from them are simply incorrect:  both random and burst-type events are
reported both at Kamiokande and Los Alamos.
 
Blue (9Dec posting):  "the pulse height spectra recorded by Jones was dominated
by gamma rays, NOT NEUTRONS."  (His caps.)  Not true.
In our original experimental paper, we reported:
  "By comparing energy spectra from gamma-ray
and neutron sources we have determined that approximately one-fourth of the
observed background events arise from accidental coincidences of gamma-rays
and three-fourths from ambient neutrons." (ref. 1)  I rechecked this with
Bart Czirr; he wonders where Dr. Blue developed his misunderstanding.
 
Blue:  "Second point is that there were some few net counts left after
subtraction of the background only because of a renormalization of the
background."     There were fewer hours of foreground than of background,
so scaling is clearly needed; there were roughly 100 net counts;
see refs. 1 and 2 for details.
 
Blue:  "And thirdly, while the detector has some capability for determination
of neutron energy  if the signals had been employed in one possible mode of
operation, the mode used in the Jones experiment was such that energy
information would be washed out due to the adding of a signal (with a finite
noise width) that was not dependent on neutron energy.  In short the results
of that experiment should be ignored.  They have no bearing on cold fusion."
 
Balderdash.  The fact is that the experiment was run in such a way as to
provide information on the neutron energies, a clear peak was observed,
and "both the position and width of this feature are consistent with those
expected for 2.5-MeV neutrons detected in the BYU neutron spectrometer, based
on calibrations with neutrons of known energy."  (ref. 2)
 
The original BYU experiments cannot be so easily dismissed.  We have looked
and are still looking for possible errors, however.  (See esp. ref. 2)
 
Yours Truly,
Steven E. Jones
 
P.s.  Thanks to Terry Bollinger for his remarks on cavitation in D2O, which
seem to complement remarks I made on "Sonofusion at BYU" Dec. 11, I believe.
Sonoluminescence (SL) is indeed an intriguing phenomenon, and we aim to
determine whether SL in D2O can be accompanied by fusion.  If so, we may yet
understand our original findings.  Still having fun, SEJ.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1992Dec15.185852.280@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1992Dec15.185852.280@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:42:49 -0700

cancel <1992Dec15.185852.280@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  What I said is not what you said I said, and I have more to say
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What I said is not what you said I said, and I have more to say
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:22:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <921218174341_72240.1256_EHL52-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>Greg Kuperberg made some uninformed statements about me, and about Japan:
>
>"Jed Rothwell keeps assuring us that corporate giants (in Japan) don't
>make mistakes"
 
If I had said this then you might have been right that I made an
uninformed statement about you.  But that's a big "if".
 
As for my statements about Japan, you suggested that most
of them were true but had the wrong emphasis.  For example this one:
 
>"For example, when Sony lost hundreds of millions of dollars marketing
>Betamax, it did resemble a mistake." Quite right, even Homer nods.
 
See?  Even you agree.  Then you go on to say:
 
>The question is: over a period of many years, does Sony make a profit...
 
To profit or not to profit, that is question.  You agree with me and I
will return the favor and agree with you.
 
Now you and I can go back, respectively, to my analysis of manifolds
and your data analysis of neutronpenision.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.19 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The experimental basis of relativity
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The experimental basis of relativity
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:56:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <921218195256_72240.1256_EHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>He did not perform them, Michelson and Morely did. He derived his theory from
>their experimental observations, and then verified aspects of the general
>theory for the first time with the observations of the solar eclipse in 1919
>(I believe it was).
 
Well, if Einstein didn't even perform his own experiments then how could
he call himself a scientist? That was your statement concerning Deiter
Britz was it not?
 
>Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear reactions can occur
>in metal lattices, theories must be devised to explain this. Any theory that
>predicts that these reactions cannot occur must be discarded.
>
Jed, I can tell you how to convince the most arden skeptic; build an
industrial sized CNF reactor that developed several kilowatts of excess
heat from a few watts in. Since CNF is a fact this is something well within
not only reason, but necessity, in order to build on all of the research.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: the sounds of multidimensional mirth
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the sounds of multidimensional mirth
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:05:49 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   Actually the text appears to have been about physics,
>   and presumptions.  Attention is directed to the actual text below.
>   Perhaps the second paragraph might have begun "To produce a nuclear
>   heat theory without fast ..." with the word "theory" to clarify what
>   was meant.   The actual text is:
 
Yes, "theory" should be inserted there.
 
>   Also says Brian Rauchfuss:
>
> ==  "There are definately funny things going on in the cold fusion
> ==  world, I am just not sure if these are funny physics or funny
> ==  human nature, or perhaps both."
>
>    I respectfully submit that neither the physics, if anomalous,
>  nor human nature, partially examined to date, at this point appear
>  "funny".
>     [as in affording light mirth and laughter" (Webster, ibid.)].
 
Definition 2 (in American Heritage) is more appropiate.  "Strange and odd"
physics if CF is true, and either "strange and odd" physics/chemistry or human
behavior if it is not.  I will be astonished either way.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Words for cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Words for cold fusion
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:33:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
> Jed Rothwell is trying to use words to paper over several weak points
> in the case for cold fusion so let's examine a few of his arguments with
> some words of our own.
>
>       <With all due respects, 'All known fusion reactions' does not
>       <include those reactions which scientists catalogue thereafter,
>       <or fail to catalogue at all.
 
I have to point out that Jed Rothwell is innocent of the above script, it
was written by Mitchell Swartz.
 
BDR
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.18 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: 1992 Acronym Award
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 1992 Acronym Award
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:09:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

 
I think there is a difference in philosophy here:
 
In sci.physics.fusion, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
> That is not how real scientists, in real labs, behave. When people like
> Farrell, Noninski, Srinivasan, or Notoya report a positive result, a real
> scientist takes them seriously, and gives them the benefit of the doubt. A
> real scientist assumes they are right, unless he spots an error and has some
> reason to believe they are wrong. If he spots an error, he does the experiment
> himself to prove his point.
 
No, he only does the experiment if he does *not* spot an error; why do the
experiment when (presumably) you can just communcate the error?  Do the
experiment when it has a chance to confirm an unusual effect, not when you are
just trying to prove it doesn't work.
 
> Generalities about other experiments performed in other labs, back in 1989,
> are also irrelevant. You have to show exactly why a particular experiment is
> in error, and you have to disprove it utterly and completely. It is not enough
> to say that a 6 deg C Delta T might actually have been 5.8 C, or even 4. You
> have to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the Delta T was so close to
> zero that it was insignificant, because if there is any heat at all, and it
> persists long enough, the reaction must be real. A little nitpicking here and
> there will not do, you have to demolish the entire thing, all 6 degrees in one
> experiment, all 30 degrees in another.
 
Here is a major difference in philosophy too: I think that if reasonable doubt
is thrown on the results of an experiment, most people will wait for a better
result before they accept it (others will try to replicate the result without
the problems that lead to the doubt).
 
> If you encounter even ONE experiment -- like McKubre's -- where you can find
> no holes, and no possible objections, then the game is over, you lose, the
> heat is real, and CF is real. That means that the other good experimenters,
> like Kunimatsu, Mizuno, P&F, Takahashi, and the others are right too, although
> they do not have such convincing data sets.
 
Science usually requires replications (with the replications being convincing
too!), though one convincing experiment can do wonders.  I think CF should be
taken more seriously due to results like McKubre's.
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.19 / Chuck Sites /  Postmortem analysis of Tom's cells
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Postmortem analysis of Tom's cells
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:06:29 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Hi folks,
 
    As Tom has noted in the past, I have been doing a postmortem of some of
his cathodes with an SEM looking for anything interesting that might appear.
So far I've looked at two cells and one unused control cell.  This SEM is
outfitted with and EDAX X-ray backscatter system for element analysis, which
we were using to look for any measurable transmutaions of Pd from cold
fusion.  We were hoping to find a smoking gun to the age old question of
"where is the ash."  We didn't find any smoking gun, but there is enough
good material in the form of surface effects, complex chemistry, and Pd
crystal formations that I think everyone in this group would say it's worth
while.  Over the next weeks, I will be posting some uuencoded GIFs of what
was seen. From the point of view of a electronmicroscopist, a picture is
worth a million words (and getting better).
 
   The question about fusion ash in Pd, can take two tracts.  One is the
direct measurements of neutrons, charge particles, x-rays, etc.  The other
is to look postmortem at the casing in which fusion took place.  This is
based on the simple assumption that:
 
Transmutations/gm*Pd = Fusions/gm*Pd/s * Cross_section_Pd * s
 
   While this would seem simple to calculate, the reality it is far more
complicated.  For example simple geometries present a problem (for localized
fusion like 'fracto-fusion').  Also It ignores the fact that there are several
isotopes of Pd and with each the cross section and reaction products change.
Additionally since the final number of transmuations are dependent on upon the
previous isotope volumes, which in turn was dependent upon the earlier
transmuations, and the fusion rates of the time, it's difficult even to
estimate.  This is an interesting problem that could be solved with a computer
program if the cross section data and reaction products is available. I haven't
persuaded this mainly because of the lack of cross section information and
reaction product tables.  If someone has such a table, please let me know
because such estimates could be important to this method of CF analysis.
 
    Of the transmuations from a DD fusion in Pd, the only obvious one that
I know of is d(d,t)p -> Pd(p, gamma)Ag.  So it is that interaction I was
looking for first.  With all expectations of finding a distinct signature
of silver in the Pd, the whole idea of finding trace amounts of silver in
Pd by  backscatter X-ray was nearly shot down when we found that Pd and
Ag are so close in the main peaks, that the Pd peak easily overwhelms any
Ag peak that could be used to indicate postmortem fusion ash. These spectral
lines are so close in the X-ray K-bands and L-bands, trace amounts of one or
the other can not be distiguised.  Except one spectral peak.  This is known
as the escape peak.  In Tom's first cell (what I called "fractured
electrode"), I did see a very-very small peak at this location that did
not appear in the control.  But because this is easily a localized
contamination or perhaps fracto-fusion (in this case I was looking at
the fracture edge of one of Tom's electrodes), the parts per million
range seems very probable, all I can ask is are we looking at a Jones level,
slightly above, or background?  Honestly folks, I just can't say either way
with quantitative certainty. What I can say is we did observe a blip where
the Ag escape should be in the cell I labeled "Fractured electrode".
 
COMING CLEAN:
 
    Tom's was asked whether there are micro-fractures in his cells.
I did not see any except in his first cell where there are several
nodual like fractal separations from the main alpha-beta phase induced
split. Let me change that.  In all of the active cathodes we looked
at, all showed some fracturing around the connection lead wire and
cathode. The first cell is so profoundly fractured, (it was split
open like a burst hot dog) that fracto-fusion residual was my first
thought and was one of the reasons I asked Tom to look at his cells.
The other was that he offered the net access to his cells for further
analysis.  It sounded interesting so in May, we did our first runs.
Anyway back to the question of micro-fractures.  There are several
scratches left over from grinding, but I was surprised to find that
there is very-very little residual material left over from this process.
We didn't see anything significant.
 
    Tom runs his cells with very clean pure Pd cathodes from what we see.
While the scratches might lead to some minor localized effects, their depth
is is minor compared to the bulk, and the frequency is small compared to
surface area. In the last cell we looked at, the surface was so smooth, the
only micro fracturing we saw, was around the connection between cathode
lead and the cathode.  Again, this looks like stress induced fracturing
due to a difference in expansion rates.  On this cell there is a visible
dark spot near the center of a flat sheet Pd cathode. (This was Tom's
Takahashi style experiment).  The dark spot looks like heat stress, and
we did observe some small faceted crystals of what looks like electrolyte
material in the area.  The hot spot occurs where the end of the cathode
lead wire (I assume this was Pt) ends in the cell.  The gap between these
two metals may be a collecting point for D gas, and a potential hot spot
for cold fusion, so the next time I get beam time, I'll look at this area
closer.  It's on my list of places to look.
 
SURFACE FUN:
 
   The active cathodes I've looked at have some wild chemistry going on.
In the first cell, Tom was using D2SO4 for an electrolyte, and as
one would expect, sulfur was a predominate peak in our analysis.
I think John Logajan's comments about D2O2 formation as a source of
heat when using sulfur based electrolytes is probably correct. If
cathode surface chemistry is the key, then there should be by-products.
D2O2 or even H2O2 would be tricky to observe except by fine changes
in pH, and anomalies in the recombination of escaping gases.  In our
postmortums we did find several metals on the surface apparently
transported by the electrolytes that include Pt, Cu, Zn, S.  These
were not minor concentrations, and the source of Cu, Zn was from a
brass connector  that made contact with the electrolyte. In the other
active cathode (Takahashi style) we saw Pt, Cu, Fe, Zn.  This cell had
an inactive stainless steel part submerged in the solution. To me, it
is some what amazing that stainless steel which is pretty inert and
fairly resistive to chemical attacks, becomes apparent in our analysis
even though its not suppose to be an active electrolysis participant.
It was only in contact with the electrolyte, and yet we see deposits Fe
on the Pd cathode. Tom mentioned to me that stainless should have Ni in it.
It I recall it could also have Vanadium too.  If it does, these weren't
apparent in our analysis. It may be that that the electrolytic etching of
the electrodes is somewhat selective, since neither of these metals migrated
to the Pd. Obviously metal transport in an electrolyte is not new, (can you say
electroplating?) but to find something as inert as a Pt anode and metals
from an inactive stainless steel component this active in the electrolyte
deposits, was a surprise to me. Regardless, it suggest that all thermocouples
that are used in these types of experiments should be protected by some type
of sheath. I think glass would be good. Ahh, but what about Si?.  We did see
this too, but only when glass was in direct contact with the Pd.  Si does
not appear to migrate naturally under electrolysis from what we see.
 
EQUIPMENT:
 
   We used an ISI600 SEM (scanning electron microscope) outfitted with
an EDAX backscatter X-ray spectrometer for materials analysis. The EDAX
uses x-rays created by the SEM's electron beam on the surface area being
examined to determine the areas composition.  Its detection capabilities
are in the parts per million but it is limited. It cannot detect elements
below boron, and due to the potential of damaging the SiLi detector from
D and Li residual in the cathode cells, we ran the system with the light
element window closed. This limited us to elements above Oxygen.  Also the
system cannot resolve isotopes of a specific elements so we cannot say there
is or isn't isotope shifts indicating a nuclear ash. This leaves us with
only the ability to observe direct transmutation (like Pd->Ag if fusion of
rates occurs) and surface composition indicating the cell's chemistry for
heavier elements.
 
   The ISI600 is not a High-res SEM, but it is mature. The same is true of
the EDAX system.  If I had to fault EDAX's maturity it would be that their
auto peak analysis has a tendency to pick K lines over other M lines for
identification of elements.  This lead to a problem where we thought we
found a strong Yttrium K-alpha line, which was actually a strong Pt-M
line.  Because Y is pretty rare, this sent several of us scrambling thinking
we had the smoking gun. Pd and other transition metals can be fissioned
into various light elements, and Y is one candidate from Pd+d.  Alas, it
wasn't true. It was a software design presumption that the K lines would
be stronger than the L and M's. This happened again where the in the
Takahashi style experiment, Tm was chosen over Si. As Tom has said, we
all learn from mistakes and those of others. This was mine.
 
PRELIMINARY DATA:
 
   Here is the data. The first column is unprocessed data.  The ZAFS
is a correction to the spectrum based on the atomic weight and atomic
number (Z & A) of the elements and is the better value.  CPS is the
Counts per Second for the channel numbers expected for that peak.
The %Wt is the percent weight for the sample under beam.
 
LIVE TIME: 159.842 sec
11-JUN-92 21:21:37                11-JUN-92 21:21:50
Sample: Fractured Electrode       Sample: Fractured Electrode
Inside Edge. Photo 47.            Inside Edge. Photo 47.  (After ZAFS)
Element    CPS      %Wt           Element    CPS      %Wt
-------- ------- --------         -------- ------- --------
Pt M      19.156    5.808         Pt M      19.1564   7.67
S  K      18.280    1.616         S  K      18.2604   3.33
Pd L      77.155   16.974         Pd L      77.1553  24.79
Ag L       5.362    1.332         Ag L       5.3615   1.63
Cu K     271.561   62.857         Cu K     271.5612  53.40
Zn K      12.938    3.474         Zn K      12.9377   2.94
Pt L       8.077    5.939         Pt L       8.0767   6.24
 
Note: This samples was done at an area where the metal edge of
      the fracture was peeking through electrolyte build up.
      The surface was extremely etched, looking like a sponge.
      The Ag could be an artifact of Pd L.
 
LIVE TIME: 176.573 sec.
11-JUN-92 20:11:02                11-JUN-92 20:11:50
Sample: Fractured Electrode       Sample: Fractured Electrode
Cleaned area. Photo 32.           Cleaned area. Photo 32.  (After ZAFS)
Element    CPS      %Wt           Element    CPS      %Wt
-------- ------- --------         -------- ------- --------
Pd L     224.491   97.740         Pd L     224.4907  97.64
Pt L       1.303    1.696         Pt M       1.3026   1.83
Y  K       0.176    0.564  *      Y  K       0.1756   0.53  *
 
* We used this one to prove to ourselves that Y peak we had
  found in an earlier runs was probably an artifact of the
  Pt M spectra. The values suggest what to expect from the
  possibility of Pd-L to Ag-K spectral artifact. The area
  was cleaned by scraping a deep gouge out of the surface
  with a razor.
 
LIVE TIME: 178.728 sec.
11-JUN-92 20:39:03                11-JUN-92 20:39:15
Sample: Fractured Electrode       Sample: Fractured Electrode
Surface (Cross) Photo 33.         Surface (Cross) Photo 33. (After ZAFS)
Element    CPS      %Wt           Element    CPS      %Wt
-------- ------- --------         -------- ------- --------
Pt M       8.079    4.996         Pt M       8.0793   4.83
S  K       4.792    0.864         S  K       4.7920   1.27
Pd L     172.222   86.375         Pd L     172.2224  86.61
Cu K       7.242    3.419         Cu K       7.2424   3.07
Pt L       2.898    4.346         Pt L       2.8983   4.23
 
Note: This was a spectular Pd crystal formation we found on the
      surface. We speculate it formed during electrolysis due to
      it's relative purity and lack of electrolyte deposits.
 
LIVE TIME: 174.524 sec.
25-OCT-92 13:36:59                25-OCT-92 13:37:43
Sample: Pd Takahashi Style        Sample: Pd Takahashi Style
Blackened Surface (No Photo)      Blackened Surface        (After ZAFS)
Element    CPS      %Wt           Element    CPS      %Wt
-------- ------- --------         -------- ------- --------
Na K       1.954    0.587         Na K       1.9539   1.73
Pd L     130.280   45.258         Pd L     130.2798  48.76
Ag L       3.586    1.259         Ag L       3.5857   1.32
Fe K      17.350    6.340         Fe K      17.3500   5.03
Cu K       6.716    4.924         Cu K       6.7154   3.77
Zn K       8.423    8.109         Zn K       8.4228   6.19
Pt L       7.766   33.489         Pt L       7.7665  33.58
 
Note:  This was from the blacked surface of Tom's Takahashi style
       experiment.  The electrolyte was LiDO and thus we can't
       resolve the true surface chemistry.  Na K may be an artifact.
 
LIVE TIME: 177.078 sec.
25-OCT-92 13:55:48                25-OCT-92 13:56:35
Sample: Pd Takahashi Style        Sample: Pd Takahashi Style
Clean edges      (No Photo)       Clean Edges             (After ZAFS)
Element    CPS      %Wt           Element    CPS      %Wt
-------- ------- --------         -------- ------- --------
Tm M      31.268    5.703  *(1)   Tm M      31.2687   8.91   *(1)
Pd L     204.870   75.258         Pd L     204.8701  78.68
Fe K       0.988    0.413         Fe K       0.9883   0.34
Cu K       3.089    2.589         Cu K       3.0890   2.05
Zn K       1.502    1.635         Zn K       1.5002   1.29
Pt L       0.384    1.892         Pt L       0.3838   1.94
Pb L       0.361    6.398         Pb L       0.3614   6.79
 
* Tm M is misidentified.  It should be Si K.  The %Wt is thus wrong.
Note:  This was where a glass holder pinched onto the surface.  This
       left a clean edge about 2 mm on two sides.  The Pb was
       probably from the glass.
 
CONCLUSIONS:
 
   When we first started this work, it was done to briefly get a
run down of the constituents of the surface specifically looking
for transmutation without regard to quantitative analysis.  This
hap-hazard approach was good in that it allowed us to get a handle
on what to expect, but it also caused some problems for us when we
did comparative analysis and couldn't use our initial quantitative
work.  We plan to do one more run where all three samples will be
looked at simulataniously and a good comparative analysis can be
made and allow us to verify Ag contents.
 
   Still, in all of our analysis we did find significant surface
deposits of Pt, up to 33% in one case, and this leads me to wonder if
these deposits are catalyizing the recombination of H + OH -> H2O. In a
closed cell, this would be of no consequence, but in an open cell where
recombination is considered 0, this could give the appearance of excess
heat. The heat of a cell is given as P = V I = [(V - k*1.48)*I] + k[1.48*I]
where k represents the recombination factor (from 0 to 1).  If in-solution
remcombination is taking place at the cathode, this should create a
solution higher in hydrogen, which might be seen as a change in pH to
acid or neutral in the case of alkali solution.  This pH change may even
be seen in closed cells, as un-recombined oxygen fills the head space of
the recombiner leaving a higher hydrogen concentration in the electrolyte.
This may be something to look for.
 
   Finally, while our analysis could not prove the presents of Ag as
a fusion by-product, and metal transport problems may religate further
analysis moot if the anode is Ag bearing (at least for surface analysis).
Still this method does suggest a new method for CF exploration. If an alloy
can be made that indicates the distinct effects of irradiation by a distinct
low energy induced transmutation, this type of postmortem analysis could be
a valuable tool.
 
Happy Holidays,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.19 /  Ted_Eugene_Vie /  Re: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
     
Originally-From: Ted_Eugene_Viens@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Do major Japanese companies make mistakes?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 01:25:56 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>In article <71919@cup.portal.com> Ted_Eugene_Viens@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>>Gee, Greg.  Thanks for going through this effort to illustrate our large and
>>very dangerous misunderstanding of Japanese business.
>
>Perhaps you think that it's healthy to believe that Japanese businesses are
>infallible?
>
>>   Sony _earned_ 'hundred of millions of dollars' with Betamax.  They only
>>failed to earn a few hundred more when VHS swept the US market.  Then they
>>quickly licensed VHS and sell a wide range of VCRs and blank tape here.
>
>It is doubtful if Sony recovered the development costs (if they paid for
>them in the first place.)
>
>>   One or two brokers may have even have committed Hari Kari over the
>>securities flap.  But few Japanese businessmen thought this a real mistake...
>
>This is, indeed, true.
>
>>   Much of the Fifth Generation Computer Project was spent importing
>>breaking technology from around the world until current state of the art
>>eclipsed the original design statement.  Not too many corporate heads lament
>>the lack of a showroom product....
>
>As far as I know, virtually _none_ of the goals set for the 'fifth generation
>computer' _as_originally_envisioned_ were met. This isn't a criticism
>of Japanese ability, but of the original goals.
>
>I find it distressing that so many people have gotten the idea that
>Japan has some sort of 'magic' when it comes to product development.
>The only real advantage that I've perceived is that Japanese management
>tends to be a great deal more flexible in accepting ideas NIH. They
>also treat their employees with much more respect. This is the major
>reason that American companies have so much labor trouble while Japanese
>companies only rarely so.
>
>Do not confuse this with the belief that Japanese companies have any greater
>reliance on their employees -- they do NOT. The American worker is far
>more productive when treated in a proper manner.
>
>I have always said that if the average American manager was _half_ as
>competent at his job as the average American worker, there would be no
>business troubles in the U.S.
>
Truth is I agree with Tom K. almost completely.  Management style as reflected
in our respective corporate, social, and cultural values IS the Magic that
differentiates our two countries...  I was meaning to imply no major advantage
to the Japanese in wisdom, intelligence or infallability.  Much of their manage
-
ment principles were learned from US sources in the fifties and sixties.  Again
,
they were willing to intensely pursue what they percieved as productive practic
es.
And again, as a nation, the Japanese willingness to define and follow their col
l-
ective interest in the 30's drove their armies across Asia and the Pacific.  An
d
now, in the 90's, this drives their industries across the western economy.
   There is no magic here.  Just a willingness to see and yield to their collec
-
tive interest.  This they can and will do in times of war and in times of peace
and prosperity.  This is something the US appears to do only in times of war.
Perhaps there is a value statement here???
   I still 'believe' that sony found the betamax a very profitable product. May
be
a 'disinherited' former Sony financial officer on the net would bravely spill t
he
beans.  And, I still believe that the Japanese got their moneys worth out of
the Fifth Generation Computer Project in research, development, and acquired
technology.  They realized that more advanced US development had created new
technologies to pursue and chose not to ride a lame horse.  Again it is our
cultural differences that leads us to call this a failure...
Who knows???   Ted..
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenTed_Eugene_Viens cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.19 / mitchell swartz /  Postmortem Analysis of Tom's Cells
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Postmortem Analysis of Tom's Cells
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:28:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4655 chuck@coplex.com
 (Chuck Sites)discusses his analyses of SEM outfitted
 with EDAX X-ray backscatter system for element analysis.
 
   A very good discussion to his electrode analyses
 are presented, and therein he says:
 
==   "In our postmortums we did find several metals on the
== surface apparently transported by the electrolytes that
==  include Pt, Cu, Zn, S.  These were not minor concentrations,
==  and the source of Cu, Zn was from a brass connector  that
==  made contact with the electrolyte. In the other active
==  cathode (Takahashi style) we saw Pt, Cu, Fe, Zn.  This cell
==  had an inactive stainless steel part submerged in the
==  solution. To me, it is some what amazing that stainless steel
==  which is pretty inert and fairly resistive to chemical
==  attacks, becomes apparent in our analysis even though its not
==  suppose to be an active electrolysis participant.  It was
==  only in contact with the electrolyte, and yet we see deposits
==  Fe on the Pd cathode. Tom mentioned to me that stainless
==  should have Ni in it.   It I recall it could also have
==  Vanadium too.  If it does, these weren't apparent in our
==  analysis."
 
   The stainless steels date from 1820
 
      [J. Stodart and M. Faraday, U.K.]
    with the reports of usual corrosion resistance displayed
 by these iron chromium allows.
 
   The addition of Ni creates the austenitic stainless steels.
   Small quantities V (also Mo, W, and Ti) yield desirable alloys.
 
Suggestions re stainless steel:
 
   Perhaps you could identify the type?
 
   It would be obvious if electic fields inadvertently
 corroded the metal, so lets assume the intrepid experimenters
 have ruled that out.
 
   Second, the stainless steels actually corrode slowly,
 but slowly over their entire surface, so as to avoid dreaded pitting corrosion.
  Therefore, one must also consider that
 
   1) the metallic atoms will enter the solution anyway
 
and
 
   2) in the presence of oxidized chalcogens (and the sulfur
 is that and not a metal; specifically thiosulfates),
 stainless steel loses its resistance.
 
   Could these be formed in the S-containing solutions in
 which the experiment was conducted?
 
   Contaminants such as oxidizing chlorides, and organic acids
 also will perform a similar function.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.19 / Larry Wall /  Re: Why is Neutronpenision called Fusion?
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why is Neutronpenision called Fusion?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:28:17 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992Dec18.165526.3894@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@zaphod.uchicago.edu
 (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
: In any case it seems terribly misleading to me to call something fusion
: when you don't know what it is...
 
That part's true.
 
: and neutronpenision is as good a name as any.
 
And that part's not true.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.20 / COLIN HENDERSON /  What's in an experiment? (was: Re: The experimental basis of
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's in an experiment? (was: Re: The experimental basis of
 relativity)
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:19:15 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <921218195256_72240.1256_EHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
 
>Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear reactions can occur
>in metal lattices, theories must be devised to explain this. Any theory that
>predicts that these reactions cannot occur must be discarded.
 
Sure, we all agree that *if* the first part of the sentence is true, the
second follows.  Any dimbulb knows that.
 
I maintain that your theory that the few experiments showing excess heat,
and the few experiments showing nuclear products (and these are not
necessarily mutually inclusive) indicate that aneutronic nuclear reactions
can occur in metal lattices has insufficient basis.  I would think that even
if I believed the heat measurements.  Not that I exclude the possibility
that the CF measurements are right, let me hasten to add.  They are just not
convincing.  Especially the nuclear product measurements.  Now your theory
runs contrary to a well established theory called (wait for it, and here
I admit that the name is emotionally charged - no, that's not the
phrase) "The Standard Model".  Hence I will reject your theory until the CF
brigade come up with more believable (in the sense of the measurement)
data - or until they come up with a more - established sounding name than "
The Standard Model".
 
There is almost always a layer of theory between the measurement (raw
data) and the published data.  Often even before the measurement.  It is
quite possible to get different results from one set of measurements.  It
just depends on how you apply the "laws" or theory.  Heck, even a
temperature measurement's like this.  You can't measure heat directly.  You
need to measure the temperature.  Simplistically, you have a theory that
mecury expands when it gets hot.  Then you say "I have a rise in
temperature - that means there's a flow or source of heat".  Only then do
you get to your watts.
 
It is you who are confused between evidence and theory.  (Can our honourable
grammarians Mitchell or Greg examine this parting shot?  It looks wrong.)
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.20 / mitchell swartz /  a experiment into relativity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a experiment into relativity
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:48:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion:4659, and others,
 colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON) and
 Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> [with whom I am honored
     to have been confused on occasion, and who is innocent of the
     quotes purported to him of which he is not the author]
 
  and others discuss: theory, evidence, experimentation,experts.
 
  IMHO the arguments reflect ignoring that there are ** both **
  theoretical and physical experimentations.
  A theoretician may sweat weeks to solve; an experimentalist may have
  similar travail.
 
            Both are work (force * distance)
 
                      Both make experts.
 
 
   If you think thought experiments are not work (and don't make experts)
 try the following thought experiment Einstein went through to prove
 E=mc2.  Such gendanken-though has  been alluded to here.
   This is insightful and  is work.
   Just make bilateral two photon emission from a fixed frame of
 reference, and from a moving one.  Add in Doppler shift, and note that
 a delta-energy is needed.   Solve for it.   It is a mystical problem
 set, and therefore is highly recommended.
 
 
==  "You need to measure the temperature.  Simplistically, you
==  have a theory that mecury expands when it gets hot.  Then you
==  say "I have a rise in temperature - that means there's a flow
==  or source of heat".  Only then do you get to your watts."
        [after colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)]
 
 
  "Evidence":  One person's interpretation from the conversion of data
   into information, which is not always done correctly.
        [?Garbage in, garbage out]
 
  This is a good example with thermometers.  Observation came first.
  Increase in volume with temperature.   Then with calibration,
 what is a qualitative description metamorphoses into a semiquantitative
 calibrated result  [---> F, K, C].
 
 
  One final comment on describing the neutron output of cf experiments.
 
==  "Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear
==  reactions can occur in metal lattices, theories must be
==  devised to explain this."
          [after Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>]
 
  Many claim that their experimental results are not "aneutronic".
 
                (aneutronic = void of neutrons)
 
   including many luminaries on this channel.
 
   It would be wrong to avoid and ignore their considerable efforts,
 teaching, and contribution.   Some of these claims involve very
 low (or very very very very very low) levels of neutrons,
 
      hence: neutronpenic results.
 
 
 
 SUMMARY: Although many cf experimenters report no neutron production
 (presumably within the limits of their system), others report
  neutronpenic results.
 
 
 IMPORTANCE: To some, the aneutronic experiments are NULL experiments.
 
  That may or may not be true, but the neutronpenic results
  are not NULLS, if properly performed.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: signal to noise (helium) reconsidered
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: signal to noise (helium) reconsidered
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:14:07 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <BzFArB.JFu@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 writes:
>
 concerning the detection of helium-4 from CNF
 
>                 ....                        it becomes obvious that
> this is the same order of magnitude as there are helium-4 atoms in
> each cc of an open system.  This obviously offers serious
> difficulties in using that putative "ash" as a detector in an open
> system.
 
Which means it is obvious that you should not look for helium production
from an open system ... which is not surprising since I know of no
sensible scientist who would suggest such an experiment.  What you
should be worrying about is the background in a well-designed experiment,
not the kind of calculation everyone in the world did several years ago.
 
I think Frank was pulling your leg with "easy" in his post.  I suspect
he was talking in comparison to the measurement of neutrino elastic
scattering or such commonplace experiments as the measurement of the
polarization and energy of a neutron produced by a (p,n) reaction
that has a relatively small cross section.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: The experimental basis of relativity
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The experimental basis of relativity
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:36:45 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <921218195256_72240.1256_EHL29-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Thomas H. Kunich asks, "perhaps Rothwell would tell us what experiments
>Einstein performed to derive the special theory?"
>
>He did not perform them, Michelson and Morely did. He derived his theory from
>their experimental observations, and then verified aspects of the general
>theory for the first time with the observations of the solar eclipse in 1919
 
Both of you are wrong in assuming there was some inductive, experiment-based
process for obtaining the special theory of relativity.  It is still a matter
of dispute as to whether Einstein knew of the Michelson+Morley experiment
(his auto-bio suggests not, but some letters suggest maybe), but it is clear
he did not base his theory on this observation.  He based his theory on the
question "what would light look like if I was traveling along side a light
beam at the speed of light?" and the different answers he looked at.
 
Einstein, like many theorists, did not trust experiments because they
contain uncertainties and errors and their results change from time to
time.  We do not have to look any further than the "Oops-Leon" particle
that anticipated (to be polite) the discovery of the Upsilon, or the
history of Polywater to find cases where data proved to be the results
of experiments, and nothing more.
 
>Now that CF experiments have shown that aneutronic nuclear reactions can occur
>in metal lattices, theories must be devised to explain this. Any theory that
>predicts that these reactions cannot occur must be discarded.
 
Umm, the experiments must show that they _do_ occur in metal lattices in such
a way that no protons or gamma rays are released either.  I do not think any
experiment has been done with sufficient controls to establish such a fact.
There are claims of helium accompanying heat, but the amount of helium is not
equal to that required to explain the heat, and the same experimenter sees
heat without helium under other conditions.  Not very convincing.
 
Numbers matter.  If I need a nuclear reaction releasing 20 TeV to the lattice
for every helium, the solution is in the laboratory, not some theory.  If I
need to find a source for 20 eV per helium, it could be atomic in origin
and helium is being undercounted.
 
--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  /  The Experiment
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Experiment
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:21:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have not said much about the experiment lately, but it runs continuously.
I am trying to understand the systematic errors.  Because I will try the
next run over a wide temperature range, and because it will mostly run at
60 C, I cannot operate the shell servo.  This means that I can be affected
more by the ambient temperature.  Almost any test gives me a 0.5% rms
calorimeter.  Mostly I measure a 0.1% calorimeter.  But because I sometimes
get a larger error than I expect, it will be hard to claim the smaller
number.  Too bad I can't run the shell servo.  Really good measurements will
have to await the Mark III.
 
So I now announce that 1 sigma for the upcoming experiment is 35 mw.  This
means that 100 mw or so is needed to attract attention, and several hundred
milliwatts is needed for publication as a possible positive result.  3.5 watts
would be 100 sigma, and would really make me excited as it would be beyond
any possible error.
 
If a few weeks from now I start saying a few tens of milliwatts is significant,
remind me of this post.
 
Fortunately this is the prime heating season in Chicago.  No chance now for a
warm spell where the furnace would turn off until February.  So the basement
temperature is quite constant.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  Rothwell /  Brilliant as usual, wrong as always
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brilliant as usual, wrong as always
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:21:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I gotta respond to that great essay that Steve Jones wrote! Marvelous! But
flat out wrong and incorrect, like Doug Morrison. You guys are brilliant, but
you miss the point.
 
 
"Any connection between xs heat and nuclear reactions remains unproved."
 
First of all, since the excess heat exceeds the known limits of chemistry (15
or 20 electron volts per atom) by many orders of magnitude, then it is must be
either a nuclear reaction, or something completely unknown to science, like
shrinking hydrogen. Let us agree about this once and for all, please. We can
be absolutely certain, by now, that CF heat is not chemical, so the most
conservative conclusion is that it must be nuclear. You would have to have
some mind-boggling evidence to prove anything more exotic, like shrinking
atoms.
 
Second, let's go back to Hume's causality here. If it gets hot nearly every
time the sun comes up, we don't need to know the chain of causality, we are
forced to assume there is a connection between sunlight and heat. Sciences
like biology, epidemiology and sociology would never work if this wasn't the
case. If Srinivasan sees excess heat every time, and varying levels of tritium
nearly every time, and he runs the experiment often enough, then we have to
conclude:
 
1. There is a reaction that generates excess heat far beyond the limits of
chemistry.
 
2. This reaction also generates tritium, neutrons and other nuclear products,
in curious and inexplicably varying amounts; HOWEVER, only a nuclear reaction
can make tritium; it cannot come from a chemical reaction.
 
Conclusion: since nuclear event 2 is always accompanied by heat event 1, they
must be related together by some unknown causal connection. If it happens
often enough, it is surely connected, says David Hume and me. There must be a
nuclear component to the CF heat reaction. Okay, maybe CF is partly due to
shrinking atoms or who knows what, but various kinds nuclear events are also
occurring -- with absolute certainty! -- and they *must* *have* a causal
connection to the heat. The connection does not have to be simple, or
proportional, and it does not have to happen in every case. To give two
examples from other fields:
 
     Sunlight does not cause the temperature to go up to exactly the same
     level every day. Furthermore, the causal connection is overshadowed by
     other factors from time to time. Often in the winter, the weather gets
     colder after the sun rises, when a cold front moves in.
 
     Exposure to AIDS virus in unsafe sex does not always result in infection.
     The causality is absolute, and unquestionable, even though event 2 does
     not always follow event 1.
 
CF tritium generation varies all over the place and sometimes appears to go
away altogether. That observation does not, and cannot, prove that
measurements of 3000 bq/ml were wrong. It proves that whatever the reaction
is, it is complicated, and it works in different ways to generate different
amounts of product, depending upon unknown circumstances. Fission bomb
explosions also produce different amounts of product and types of product
depending on the bomb ingredients and upon length and intensity of the
reaction. I will grant, the amounts do not vary as much as they do in CF, but
my point it, not all nuclear reactions are a simple and predictable as d-d
reactions in plasma. I am confident that some kind of product will be found,
eventually, from every variation of CF, however many variations there turn out
to be. Lots of tritium in one case, lots of helium in another; the products
must be there, and they will be found. On a winter day, when the sun comes up
but the weather turns colder anyway, that does not mean that the heat
mystically disappeared, or that causality is disproved; it just means there is
more to the problem than you thought, and something has interfered with the
heat and overshadowed the effect of the sun.
 
You do not have to know the precise mechanism to be certain that a causal
connection exists. We know that smoking causes cancer, even though we don't
know exactly why yet. Physicists may not like approximations and Hume's
causality; they may not feel comfortable with it, but the rest of us chemists,
biologists, computer programmers, engineers, and chefs depend upon it! It
better work, or we are in big trouble. You have to believe that high
temperature superconductors exist now, and will exist tomorrow, even though
you don't know know what causes them to work.
 
 
Another point of disagreement. Steve says:
 
"The scientific principles we work and judge by are correlated with a large
data base. Of course these principles are subject to modification, but only
within the realms of prior (correct) experimental data.  We cannot just throw
this accumulated data base away."
 
Oh yes we can, and yes we must! That is our karma. If you measure excess heat,
and you are certain of your results, then you must throw away absolutely any
theory that says the heat can't be there. I have a kind of vision, or a
dreamlike scenario of how science works. Childish perhaps, but imagine, if you
will, a gigantic, old fashioned laboratory scale:
 
     On one side sits a small glass jar with a thermometer sticking out of it,
     registering, say, 80 degrees C.
 
     On the other side sit the entire faculty of MIT, CalTech, and Tokyo
     University, a pile of 100,000 textbooks, and the accumulated weight of
     theories from Newton to Feynman.
 
Which is heavier? Which is Truth? Which wins? The experiment, of course. The
instruments never lie, and in the end, when enough people have checked, and
the experiments have been replicated enough -- as they have been now -- the
instruments are always right. The weight of 10,000 theories and 100,000
principles, precedents, and preconceptions cannot make one tiny bit of
difference! They have no role to play in the debate! Experimental evidence;
data -- is the Voice Of God, and you cannot overrule it, or naysay it, or
ignore it.
 
One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing database,
no matter how certain or long established it may be. One conclusive fact that
does not correlate with the database means that the entire database structure
is wrong, the entire house of cards has collapsed, because you can never
overrule nature. Man is *always* wrong, and nature is *always* right, and it
does not matter one bit how surprised that makes us, or how profoundly
ignorant we have been all these years, before we found CF. God does not care
what we thought we knew, or how surprised we are when we find out we are wrong
again, as usual. People have been wrong, and wrong, and dreadfully wrong about
the laws of physics and nature time after time throughout the history of
science. I do not think that any mortal creature can be certain of nature's
secrets. There will always be more in heaven and earth than dreamt of in our
philosophy.
 
Devices and machines that no scientist would have believed could exist, and
that no scientist could have begun to understand 120 years ago, are
commonplace today: computers, atom bombs, X-ray machines, televisions,
superconductors... These things would be far more weird, inexplicable, and
incomprehensible to a scientist in 1870 than CF is to you. The development of
modern science has violated and overthrow far more theories than CF now
threatens.
 
I don't think that questions about the mass change and nuclear products of CF
have been answered yet. The heat is certain, but the products have yet to be
measured definitely. But pretend, for the sake of argument, they have been. We
know already that CF is nearly aneutronic. Okay, suppose, for sake of
argument, that it turns out to be D-D fusion after all, because it is late
1994 and lots of other people have replicated Yamaguchi with a variety of
different experiments. Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed
that E = mc^2. So what? Every single one of them was wrong. Period. It does
not work in metal lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out
wrong. His law turned out to be an approximation, or a generalization, or a
special case that does not work in every domain. It works okay in a plasma,
but it fails in condensed matter. So what? Einstein showed that Newton's laws
were limited and did not work near the speed of light; so maybe CF will show
that Einstein's theories work in a plasma, but not in a metal lattice. If that
is what CF shows, then that is what it shows, and too bad for Albert. I am
sure he would not mind.
 
If that happens, it will be back to the drawing board for you. You will have to
reinvent the whole works. The number of previous experiments; the number of
failed experiments; the central importance of the theory that gets overthrown;
the previous experiments in different domains that supported the theory... all
these factors are completely irrelevant. You must forget them; you must not
even consider them for one moment as you examine experimental data. Put the
whole history of science, and everything you ever knew, out of your mind. The
only question you ask is: what does this thermometer tell me? Thermometers
speak truth; textbooks and theories are speculation and guesswork.
 
Of course, this process of overthrowing old ideas does not, and should not,
happen in an instant. It should take years. Naturally, my "image" here of the
"Scales Of Truth" is far too simple -- I am just painting a mental picture. We
all agree that in real life an experiment in a glass jar does not cut the
mustard; you have to do hundreds of experiments, in dozens of different
calorimeters, and you have to measure the power in, the gas out, and so on,
and so forth, very carefully. However, that has been done in spades! Look at
McKubre, look at Srinvasan, Mizuno, Notoya, Kunimatsu, P&F, Storms, Oriani,
Celani, De Ninno... you have conclusive data already! If that doesn't satisfy
you, for goodness sake do an experiment yourself. You will see it if you try
hard enough; if it works in California, it will work anywhere.
 
Maybe it will turn out, as you say, that "The notion of energy transfer to a
metal lattice, without emission of energetic nuclear products... is
inconsistent with speed-of-light constraints coupled with Heisenberg
uncertainty and conservation of energy and momentum principles. There exists a
large body of data consistent with these principles..."
 
Maybe you are right about that. If so, that whole large body has to be taken
to the graveyard and buried along with all the other bodies of wonderful but
incorrect knowledge. Mankind has been burying it's favorite theories for
centuries, and I am sure there is plenty more room left in that graveyard,
because you and I are no smarter than Newton, Darwin, or the ancient Greek
philosophers and mathematicians, and they believed all kinds of crazy
nonsense. So, it stands to reason that almost everything you and I believe is
also silly, incorrect, incomplete nonsense, and that people in 300 years will
consider us only a little smarter than cavemen. They will say our science was
slightly better than superstition, our medicine a shade more effective than
voodoo. They will say that we did the best we could, given the absurd ideas we
inherited, the primitive state of our instruments, our wretched education
system, and the barbaric, medieval turmoil of war, chaos, famine, poverty and
plague that has beset our poor 20th century. But, even when they grant we had
a lot misery and limitations to overcome, people will still marvel at our
stupidity, just as we are amazed and disappointed to read that Newton devoted
much of his genius to alchemy.
 
Don't fret about having to toss out poor Heisenberg just yet; you may not have
too. It is much too early to get all worked up over losing him. In retrospect,
most changes and revolutions are not as dire and disastrous as they appeared
at the time they happened. In 50 years, everyone will take the heat from CF
for granted, and they will wonder why we thought it would wreck so many
theories. My bet is that CF will *not* overthrow Heisenberg, you will find a
loophole for him somewhere. But if you are right, and CF buries him along with
all the other Incorrect Geniuses, too bad for him. No theory lasts forever,
they will all eventually be found wrong, or incomplete, or merely special
cases. Don't fret about losing them, you can always invent new ones.
 
Remember always that data is the Holy Grail of science. You don't believe in
ESP or mind reading, and neither do I. Not one bit. But suppose some guy I
have never met walks up to me, and tells me *exactly* what I am thinking, in
every detail, and he keeps it up for hour after hour. He comes back the next
day and does it again. Suppose he tells me the innermost secrets from my
childhood; suppose I think of a number, and he tells me what it is, and I
think of another, and another, and he gets it right 100 times in a row. Okay,
so then I will believe in mind-reading! Absolutely. You would too. Any
rational person would. If you see definitive proof of something, right in
front of your eyes, then you *must* believe it because you are a scientist,
and scientists always believe what they see, not what they have been taught,
and not what they want to believe. Definitive evidence, no matter how shocking
or mind-boggling it may be, is Truth, and Truth Is All. That is why scientists
came to believe in X-Rays, atoms bombs, black holes, and other mind-boggling
phenomena, which -- in their day -- were a heck of a lot stranger than CF.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  Britz /  Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:21:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
 
>But Dieter, you must admit that there is no tenable theory to explain
>excess heat in *any* cold fusion experiments.  Mills has a theory that
>must be wrong, but he's no worse off than Pons and Fleischmann who
>seem to be claiming D+D->4He, or any of the really wild theories
>(twist of ribbon, mini-black holes, multi-particle interactions).  All
>we have to go on is data, and Mills's data is probably about as good
>as any of the second-tier experiments.  So I don't see a good reason
>for doing, say, heavy water+palladium experiments instead of ordinary
>water+nickel -- if you're going to do an experiment at all, that is.
>At least if you do a Mills-style experiment the materials are cheaper
>and the claimed effect is stronger.
 
The cheapness and ease is about the only attractive feature. But the scenario
is worse than you describe. It's true that if this experiment unambiguously,
easily and reproducibly produced oodles of excess heat, one would have to
accept that it's good evidence. But it is not like that. Have you forgotten
that when it is conducted in a closed system, the effect goes away? In other
words, you get the effect only when doing a sloppy experiment, when you do
it better, no go. There is a totally meaningless explanation for this from
M&F. This kind of thing will not convince anybody except those who want to
believe.
 
F&P did at some stage start with a sort of "theory" or at least a hunch, that
they just might be able to generate sufficient pressure, or whatever, within
PdD to get fusion. To give them credit, they didn't set up an elaborate new
detailed theory that means rewriting QM and is full of holes; their theory
amounted to converting an overpotential, by use of the Nernst equation, to an
enormous "pressure". While I have my reservations about this, it is at least
controversial, i.e. not wholly nutty. If Bockris is willing to entertain it,
maybe I should, too. F&P knew they were not theoretical physicists, and left
it at their hunch, and went for the experiment.
 
A scientist learns to be selective. Not all papers are equally significant.
Oyama et al thought they found excess heat but it turns out they took
temperature peaks only, in a convecting solution. I can easily dismiss the
Russian work where two solutions were mixed and neutrons measured - except
as an instance of some of the bizarre outgrowths of this field; likewise for
black holes (or dust mites) and star formation. Weeding out all the rubbish
does leave a fair body of quality work, and even a tiny residue of quality
positives. But not "hundreds".
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  Rothwell /  Hilarious Misspelling
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hilarious Misspelling
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:21:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I accidentally uploaded the funniest misspellings I have ever perpetrated in
my life:
 
"Let's ask the American Tabasco Association what they think of lung cancer
research."
 
I meant the American TOBACCO Association. Actually, honestly, I do not even
know if there is such an organization or not, but there has to be some kind of
Lobbying & Influence Peddling Association to keep Congress on it's toes. I am
sure they have a tough, thankless job too: imagine having to convince
lawmakers that your industry should be allowed to kill 300,000 people per year
with impunity. It must cost a pretty penny in payola and PR, but it is nothing
compared to the lawsuits they would face if they were held to ordinary legal
standards. Imagine how far the Bungee Jumping & Ultralight Association would
get if they tried try to ramp themselves up to killing, say, 10,000 people per
year.
 
Ah, me, when I re-read "Tabasco" I laughed until tears came into my eyes. What
would we do without automatic spell-check programs? Perhaps the American
Tabasco Association is campaigning against research into heartburn and Taste
Bud Devastation Syndrome.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  Rothwell /  Breeder Reactor Fiasco
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breeder Reactor Fiasco
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:21:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
There is an excellent article in the New York Times, December 20, 1992,
Business Section 3, page 1, titled: "Japan's Nuclear Fiasco." This is about
the Japanese fission breeder reactor project that has been in the news lately
because the Japanese government is importing several tons of plutonium from
Europe in order to power the reactor. The project is the most dreadful fiscal
and technological white elephant in postwar Japanese history, the worst
blunder in the history of MITI, and the worst environmental screw-up since the
Minamata disaster. Plus, if they misplace a few kilos of that plutonium, or
accidently spray it into the air... All Hell will break lose. A speck of it is
enough to cause cancer, and I think 20 or 30 kilos would be enough to
manufacture a fission bomb. Imagine having to keep track of tons of the damned
stuff!
 
A senior Japanese official who asked not to be identified is quoted, "It is
almost inconceivable that such a good idea would have turned this bad. We
spent the last 20 years building this project, and we'll probably spend the
next 20 killing it."
 
I like the name of the reactor: Monju, the bodhisattva of wisdom and
intellect.
 
I note that Steven Jones has been in communication with Dr. Yoshida of the
Japanese Atomic Energy Institute (JAERI). I would be fascinated to hear what
Yoshida has to say about the breeder reactor program. Perhaps he could also
fill us in on the other recent triumphs of Japanese fission and hot fusion
technology, like that nuclear powered ship the Mutsu, which requires boiled
rice and socks stuffed into the reactor to stop leaks, and the recent flurry
of cracked heat exchanger pipes in the fission plants.
 
JAERI is one of those organizations with a mission and an agenda that might
tend to prejudice it against CF, so I do not think we should not pay much
attention to Yoshida's opinion. If we want a sample of similar opinions, let's
also ask the Minister of Oil in Kuwait, the President of Exxon, and the MIT
Plasma Physics Lab what they think of CF, and let's ask the American Tabasco
Association what they think of lung cancer research. Better yet, let's have a
look at the opinion of neutral, third party, like the conservative Yomiuri
Newspaper, which reported on October 17:
 
          "[MITI's] decision to study cold fusion shocked the scientists who
     are researching orthodox "hot" fusion, in MITI's Technology Research
     agency. It is no wonder they were surprised; under the auspices of the
     Nuclear Power Division, this group has been spending several trillions of
     yen per year to develop a gigantic hot fusion reactor, the 'JT-60.'
 
          The Nuclear Power Division had performed cold fusion replication
     experiments for two years, and judged that cold fusion was not suitable
     as a source of energy. When the cold fusion program was announced, the
     Nuclear Power Division retaliated by declaring that, 'the kind of fusion
     energy that the nation has decided to proceed with is hot fusion. Cold
     fusion development is not part of this plan.'
 
          Taking a dim view of this petty bureaucratic squabble, industry has
     become excited by prospects for cold fusion..."
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  Britz /  RE: Postmortem analysis of Tom's cells
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Postmortem analysis of Tom's cells
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:22:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 
>transported by the electrolytes that include Pt, Cu, Zn, S.  These
>were not minor concentrations, and the source of Cu, Zn was from a
>brass connector  that made contact with the electrolyte. In the other
>active cathode (Takahashi style) we saw Pt, Cu, Fe, Zn.  This cell had
>an inactive stainless steel part submerged in the solution. To me, it
>is some what amazing that stainless steel which is pretty inert and
>fairly resistive to chemical attacks, becomes apparent in our analysis
>even though its not suppose to be an active electrolysis participant.
>It was only in contact with the electrolyte, and yet we see deposits Fe
>on the Pd cathode. Tom mentioned to me that stainless should have Ni in it.
>It I recall it could also have Vanadium too.  If it does, these weren't
>apparent in our analysis. It may be that that the electrolytic etching of
 
Good on you, Chuck, for doing this analysis. Let me comment on one aspect of
this. Jed Rothwell has been talking about ultrapurity that electrochemists
always insist upon and I have minimised this. Reading the above, I think he
may be right, after all. It's all a matter of where you set your levels. It
amazes me that someone doing a long-term electrolysis in an aggressive medium
would allow brass to contact the electrolyte, or stainless steel. "Stainless
steel" certainly does corrode. I recently read that we get most of our
chromium from the stainless steel kitchen ware we use these days. Even Pt
corrodes to some extent in cnf cells, hence its presence on the Pd after a
time. Brass - well, it just dissolves, if we are talking about traces.
 
If you think that acid cleaning, the use of triple distilled water, avoidance
of rubber or plastics or oil films or hardware store solvents is ultrapurity,
then Jed is right. For an electrochemist, all these things are routine in
most experiments except maybe large-scale industrial work. For us, ultrapurity
is another world beyond all that elementary stuff, where you might use a
clean room with very little dust in the air, and expensive "suprapure" reagents
(very expensive, pro analysi is not good enough) and worry about metals
leaching out of glass, or organics in the air. This level is not, I believe,
standard in cold fusion.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  WILLIAM /  wavelength vs temperature
     
Originally-From: "BERNECKY WILLIAM R" <BERNECKY@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: wavelength vs temperature
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:22:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Using the following relations:
 
   (1)  mv= h/lambda              h= 6.626 x 10E-34 J s
   (2)  E= (1/2)m v^2             m(of D)= 3.34 x 10E-27 kg
   (3)  (1/2) m v^2 = (3/2) kT    k= 1.38 x 10E-23 J/(molecule K)
 
we have
   (4)  T (in Kelvins) = (h^2)/(3km) x (1/lambda^2)
 
We can use this simple-minded approach to calculate the quantum wavelength of
D and H in a Pd lattice.  I am using a D-D separation distance of 2.83 Angstroms
for D's in the octahedral sites, and a separation of 1.73 A for D in the
tetrahedral sites. (Are these reasonable numbers?)
 
We can calculate T for some interesting wave lengths, which are those where
there is maximum constructive and destructive addition of adjacent wave forms.
 
Table 1:  Distance between H species 2.83 A.
 
  spacing         lambda        T(H)         T(D)
 
   2lambda         1.42 A       317 K        158 K         constructive
   3lambda/2       1.87         181           91           destructive
   lambda          2.83          79           40           constructive
   lambda/2        5.66          20           10           destructive
 
 
Table 2:  Distance between H species 1.73 A.
 
  spacing         lambda        T(H)         T(D)
 
   2lambda         0.86 A       847 K        424 K         constructive
   3lambda/2       1.15         479          240           destructive
   lambda          1.73         212          106           constructive
   lambda/2        3.46          53           26           destructive
 
The "spacing" column refers to the D-D (or H-H) separation as a function of
the atom's wavelength,e.g. 2lambda spacing indicates that D's are separated
by twice their wavelength. . Lambda is the wavelength, T(H) is the temperature
in Kelvins at which H has the indicated wavelength, T(D) the temperature for D.
 
Question:  should there be anything interesting about D (or H) spaced
exactly 1 lambda (or 2lambda) apart over some large spatial extent?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBERNECKY cudfn cudlnWILLIAM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  /  Misc
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misc
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:02:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thomas Kunich writes "...idea that Japan has some sort of magic when it comes
to product development.  ... tends to be a great deal more flexible in
accepting ideas NIH.  They also treat their employees wit much more respect."
 
The problem is that Japan *is* a monolythinc society, and we can make
generalizations about Japan.  The US is very much ***not***.  In comparing
US to Japan, we tend to think of the stodgy 19th century management of General
Motors, US Steel, Goodyear Tire, Western Union, and IBM.  These companies are
walking dead.  New companies with new management styles who treat their
employees much better than Japan does are growing and puching out the "walking
dead" of the last century.  So take heart, there is a new breed of companies
who do not kill their employess with overwork as the Japanese do.  They will
take over corporate america.  As the companies that produced unions die out,
so will the practices of the unions that reduce our productivity.  The new
corporations do not generate unions because they treat their employees in a
way that makes them part of the effort.
 
Steven Jones recalls a joke by Bjorken.  It was a bet with bj that got me into
this business.  I ended up winning $2 on a $100 to $2 bet.  bj bet the $2 that
"cold fusion" would be demonstrated within a year.  What did he know!  I have
never worked so hard to try to loose a bet in my life1
 
Paul Houle asks "Is ther any reason why this couldn't be done in , say liquid
D2? ... "
 
Don't see why not.  I recall that only about 15 mw per cc is needed to start
cavitation in H2O.  This if for general cleaning purposes.  The devices used
in medical labs to break up cells deliver a few watts per cc.
 
But much more efficient devices can be made with parabolic shaped transducers
that focus the "ultrasound" at a point.  Like they use to work on kidney
stones, etc.  I see no problems (well only the common ones that take 4 - 5
years of work in a well equipped laboratory with trained assistants) to making
such a device and doing experiments.  If a focused device were "popped" once
a second, you could do a lot of experiments in a short time.  I estimete on
the back of an envelope that it would take about 2 millijoules per pop for a
rather large device.  Remember "all that" energy is going into a very small
bubble (or a few bubbles).  So I don't think you would have to worry about
heat loss as the dewar losses would be much larger.  I have worked with a
consultant who would love to design such a device!  dale bass says it would
be "very expensive".  But expense is relative.  Given motivation I could do
it in my basement, and at about my current "cold fusion" expense rate.  So
on the scale of the SSC and Tokamaks, it would be very cheap!  The only real
problem might be if the electrostriction somehow quits at liquid H2
temperatures.  It does quit above the curie tempreature, but that is a high
temperature limit.  I am building such devices for the "water machine" spin
off and might even learn to make them work.
 
"Amen" brother Rauchfuss for some very nice comments on how to do science.  If
I ever get a positive result ( actually multiple, repeatable, positive results)
I will be up here telling you all exactly what I did and debating what might
be wrong until I convince a few of you to try to repeat it.  None of you have
to try, so it will be up to me to "sell" you on the merits of my work.  The
other path is to use the effect to build something useful, then I frankly won't
give a damn.  But I am too old to get rich, so I will likely try the former.
 
Thanks to Chuck Sites for some nice work.  Slowly a team comes together.  We
are all just learning to do this experiment and to generate results that we
can trust.  We are almost ready to get a good measurement should we get an
"event".
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  /  Status #1 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #1 Cell 4A3
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:02:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This weekend I went through the cleaning procedure and loaded a cell.  I give
myself D- on the job.  I can now just imagine what a lab looks like to do this
work properly.  This is intended as a practice run for the new polished
cathodes when I get them.  This cell was loaded with a cathode that was rolled
and then "polished" by me.  The result is a surface that is worse that that
which I started with.  But I must be running on Christmas day.  It is also a
practice run for the Mark V/II calorimeter and for a lot of new code.  Who
knows what will happen when I tell it to ramp up to 60 C from the 4 C loading
point.
 
There is also a new gas system switch.  It turns out the old one leaked and
was the source of some of the mysterious gas measurements.  The gas system
looks really tight and held well within a cc for over a week, with all the
changes due to room temperature.
 
The present plan is to charge with a ramp that increases the cell current by
about 20 ma per sq cm per 24 hours.  I know this is not a copy of anybody's
supposed successful result, but one has to use his head to try to guess what
should work.  So I am going for a very gentle loading of the lattice, and hope
to get high loading by allowing plenty of time for things to move around.
 
We put 200 ppm of Al into the electrolyte.  We are also running a "dummy" Pt
cathode as the most negitive electrode in the cell.  This was turned on last
night so it is likely cleaning out the 200 ppm Aluminum.  We will be able to
add more Al loaded electrolyte as does Mckubre as we run.
 
This cell also has a heater on the catalyst.  Earlier the catalyst would stop
working at these low temperatures.
 
We will start the ramp up in current at 4 C tonight.
 
OK, Santa, I know they are scarce at the North Pole, but how about some joules
for Christmas?  I will settle for Epiphany as the charge time will better match
January 6.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  /  Clean
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clean
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:38:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I blush when I read Dieter Britz's comments about clean.  OK, I am slowly
learning.  The brass came from a gold plated connecter in the gas at the top
of the cell.  At high currents the cell must be full of churning hot vapor.
At least it ate the gold and then the brass.  That design was at least a year
old.  We do better now.
 
Mitchell Swartz asked about the stainless steel.  It was likely #304W, but it
could have been #316.  There is still a piece of stainless steel in the
present cell.  Also glass, teflon, Pd and Pd.
 
Forgot Polypropylene and the catalyst which is proprietary Pd compound on
an alumina substrate.  The next generation cell will be Teflon, Pd, and Pd.
With the catalyst in a second compartment.  Still if bad stuff leaches out
of the catalyst, I will be in trouble.  This is an argument for using the
hot Pt wire technique as used by Scott.  Or better still, hot Pd wire.
Once it gets going the current through the wire can be turned off.  My fancy
electronic system allows me to do such things while maintaining a balance.
 
I know my hardware store bought solvents and clean technique look awful to
you Dieter.  I learn every day, and hope to get up to a C or so in clean from
my present D- or E.
 
I note that most of the experiments I have seen (with the exception of McKubre)
are just as bad from an electronic measurement standpoint as my level of clean.
Two clip leads indeed!
 
This is an argument for getting us together.  I will be able to take the next
generation calorimeter apart, put it in my car, and take it somewhere where
an electrochemist with a clean lab can put something nice into it.  Sorry
Dieter, I cannot drive to Denmark.  But I am open to nearby offers.
 
Since no one in the US wants to pay to put together a good team (except EPRI
and they are after commercial interests) then we have to piece it together
as well as we can.  So I tell all on the net and you beat me up.  With each
blow I get stronger.
 
Since I follow the semiconductor industry I can reveal to you all that often
the only difference between a 10 cent transistor and a $10 dollar transistor
is that the $10 unit has been tested.  Are there solvents that I can use that
are naturally clean by the way that they are made?  Where ultrapure means they
have taken standard production stuff and measured and certified a purity level?
 
I think the difference that Jed Rothwell has with many of us is that he choosed
to believe the measurements that he has heard about.  Some of us have to see
enough detail of the measurements to make them credible to us.  Most of the
positive results that Jed relies on are not yet in Dieter Britz's bibliography.
To a large extent, I agree with Dieter not reading work that has not been
reviewed and published in a journal.  I am particularly upset with McKubre.  He
has had plenty of time, and his work is good enough for publication.  So Mike,
put your reputation on the line and submit a paper!  Or shut up and go
completely secret!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.21 /  /  Stainless Steel
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stainless Steel
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:38:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter, in my defense, I did look up Stainless Steel in the Cole-Parmet catalog
chemical resistance table.  They gave it an "A" for Sodium Hydroxide, the
closest thing I could find (periodic table wise) to Lithium Hydroxide.  "A"
means "No effect - Excellent".  But I guess there is Excellent and Excellent.
 
In any case, that is why I used it.  But the next design will be Teflon, Pd,
and Pt.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.22 / Mike Pelt /  Re: Breeder Reactor Fiasco
     
Originally-From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breeder Reactor Fiasco
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:56:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <921221154739_72240.1256_EHL67-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
[Much plutonium-hysteria deleted]
>enough to cause cancer, and I think 20 or 30 kilos would be enough to
>manufacture a fission bomb.
[Much more plutonium-hysteria deleted]
 
This is plutonium from reprocessed power plant fuel, right?  So, it's
going to be something like 20% Pu240.  You don't make bombs out of
Pu240-contaminated plutonium.  The high neutron background from Pu240's
spontaneous fissions makes your bomb pre-detonate and fizzle.
 
--
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmvp cudfnMike cudlnPelt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.22 /  /  wavelength vs temperature
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: wavelength vs temperature
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:49:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

William R. Bernecky has posted some interesting temperatures.  Ones useful to
me are between 280 and 340 K.  I see the 317 for H.  What is the next one up
in the T (D) table?
 
The rumor has it that P&F are running fairly hot.  Would love to sit on a
resonant point.  I could hold a temperature about 0.01 C rms.  But I would
be lucky to know where I was to better than 1 C rms.  I could also set up to
slowly scan back and forth over a region.
 
On a very old experiment on the Mark I calorimeter, I did a very slow current
scan and seemed to see power bumps.  This is why I continued work and built the
Mark II.  Because of the way the Mark I worked, a current scan also produced a
temperature scan.  But for this experiment, I would need a theory that produced
bumps at order 1 C intervals.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.22 / Allan Duncan /  Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:44:59 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

I have been watching this discussion on cell power measurement with
detached amusement, but finally feel moved to put in my oar:
 
 
From article <921216140317.20203489@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by
 ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE:
> I keep looking a photographs of supposed "cold fusion" cells and all I see
> is two clip leads.
>
> Folks, you have to have four leads to make a decent measurement.  (McKuber
> seems to do this right but have not seen any one else.)  Two leads carry
> the current, two connected to the cell on the other side of the clip leads
> measure the potential across the cell.  These leads carry very small current.
>
> There is lots more to worry about, but the above will likely get you a 1%
> measurement.  For more accuracy you have to take Cell Power Measurement 201,
> 301, 401, ... .  Sorry that is McKubre.
 
I hope that the distant pair of leads pass off through an ammeter (or
better still, a precision resistor and precision voltmeter) and that
people are not _inferring_ what the value of the resistance is while it
is not attached to an (inevitably non-precision) ohmmeter.  And while we
are considering potential sources of error, you _did_ use a CRO to check
that is _is_ DC that you are measuring, didn't you?
 
Power = Volts x Amps, folks.  And if it is varying quickly, keep that phase
info, you'll need it when you get precise enough.
Allan Duncan            ACSnet   a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708         Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
Fax    253 6664         UUCP     {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
    Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.22 /  Close /   helium noise
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  helium noise
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:21:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz has questioned some of my remarks about helium and Jim Carr
has partly come to my rescue. Thanks to you both.
 
First MS is right about the S/N with argon;I meant to write neon(about 3 times
more abundant than 4He in air). One inert element is much like another to
an inert physicist:-)
 
Now to numbers; the 100W for 10minutes produces some 10**16 not 10**14 helium
atoms when you put in the proper numbers for the energy release per reaction.
So this should be measurable above background unless one is rather careless.
(It may amuse readers to look at Huizenga's account of the original Pons and
Hawkins claims to have found helium, as reported by Simons and Walling in
April/May 89. The actual amounts *exceeded* by far the numbers expected for
fusion! The reason was that helium in the air - not even traces absorbed in
the rods -  was being measured.)
 
Jim Carr commented on this problem for open cells. Jim implicitly higlights
here a recurring problem that plagues this field: if you want to measure subtle
effects, take care to eliminate sources of error. Someone recently commented
on systematic errors; it is the awareness of these that is part of the standard
particle/nuclear physics experimentalist training but seems to be poorly
understood by some on this net who advertise multi-sigma heat uncritically.
 
10**5 is "easy" (relatively speaking as Jim notes) *if* you have eliminated
background. If you havent, then you may easily "detect" 10**14 (say)
from the air. Mitchell has done an interesting service here; he has
advertised *numbers*, which too often are missing from this supposedly
scientific discussion net, and shown how dangerous helium measurements
can be if not done carefully. Look at the claims to have found helium
in the literature. Recall Bush et al; their *best* measurement saw helium
at about 1 part in 100 of that needed to explain their claimed heat.
This magnitude is quite consistent with the sort of numbers that Mitchell
is warning about from air.
 
In measurements of helium in the FP rods, conducted by various labs in
a double blind test (see Huizenga), limits of less than 10**14 were
clearly established. So the bottom line is that properly controlled
expts can limit 4He at levels far below that required by FP claims that
dd fusion is producing helium.
 
Also note that I am urging measurement of helium *in the rods* not
simply the gas phase.
 
The 10**5 number I wouldnt defend particularly except in the case of 3He
(whose presence in air is nugatory, though the source of even this
trifling amount is tantalising - see my book's account of Steve Jones group's
interest in terrestrial fusion that was motivated in part by this).
Limits of 3He at this level were established in some expts reported to
the ERAB panel in 1989. Note that tritium beta decays into 3He and so
measurements of 3He also imply stringent limits on tritium. Jed Rothwell
keeps insisting that tritium has been measured but *what* is actually
measured? Not trititum; one *infers* tritium from a chain of arguments
that may or may not be right. An example from 1989; FPH claimed to find
tritium from an electron spectrum of supposed beta decays. (Actually it
wasnt FPH who did the measurements but some unacknowledged colleagues
from the UU campus). But what was there to show whether these electrons
were from tritium decay as against e.g. radioactive potassium (of which there
is plenty around?). The care needed in some tritium expts was widely advertised
at the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1989; not everyone seems to have been
listening.
 
Chuck Sites is making isotope and other measurements on some of Tom's used
rods. Has Tom produced some heat or are these control measurements?
In particular, it will be interesting if you can measure the ratio of
Pd isotopes in these "non-nuked" samples. One of the orignial claims that
some heat producing rods had anomalous Pd isotopes arose because of
misidentification of ZrO (my notes are not handy;maybe someone can remember
details). So, what is the ratio of masses in the 104 to 108 range?
A deviation from the expected Pd in the control samples may be due to
compounds. A deviation *after* a heat production may be due to anomalous
isotopic abundances, and evidence of a nuclear process, or it may be
compounds!) First establish whether you can resolve these slight differences
in mass.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFEC cudfn cudlnClose cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.23 /  Rothwell /  Miscellaneous
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miscellaneous
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:45:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege comments: The problem is that Japan *is* a monolithic society, and
we can make generalizations about Japan.  The US is very much ***not***."
 
Actually, the way I see, they pretend they are monolithic, but they aren't,
and we pretend to be multicultural, but we aren't. Japanese society is
characterized by cut-throat competition, politics and rivalry. The magazines
and newspapers are usual cynical and mean spirited, and shot through with
sexual frustration and exploitation. Not very monolithic, certainly not
unified.
 
This "multicultural" business in the U.S. is a bunch of nonsense in my
opinion. I will grant that an immigrant brings a completely different culture
to the U.S., but her kids are 100% True Red White & Blue Americans, like it
or not. People who think they have some 'ethnic' traits in their behavior are
mostly kidding themselves. We are a surprisingly homogenous nation of
television and mall culture. I have spent a lot of time with Japanese -
Americans, including several first generation (issei) people who were
interned in the U.S. camps during WWII. The first generation are quite
Japanese, as you would expect. The second generation -- even the ones who
were interned -- can barely speak a word of Japanese. Compared to me, they
know nothing about the culture, literature, mores or politics of Japan. As
for Chinese - Americans, if I showed one of them a genuine reburial ceremony
they would choke! I remember one time in a seminar, after we had watched
several hours of field anthropology films of reburial, money burning, and other
ghost related ceremonies from Taiwan, and we had spent a week going over the
details, one young lady asked, "wait a minute professor. Do these people
actually *believe* in these ghosts and stuff?" The professor kept his cool
and answered, "Yes, of course they do. Don't you?"
 
Tom also comments: "I think the difference that Jed Rothwell has with many of
us is that he chooses to believe the measurements that he has heard about..."
 
Not every one of them! Not by a long shot. And generally, not until I see a
full paper, raw data, and have a nice talk with the researcher. If you are
talking about heat, I prefer a fairly hefty signal, say 2 watts in, 3 out. I
do not pay much attention to people who put in one tenth watt and claim 3%
excess. I *much* prefer the guy who puts in 110, ignores gas evolution, and
measures 140 watts out. I don't like having to account for every little tiny
bit of heat -- I prefer people who have such a strong signal they can ignore
gas recombination and minor heat losses, and still come out with as much
excess heat as a small incandescent lightbulb. I like simple, straightforward
calorimetry, with a temperature Delta T least 3 Deg C, and preferable 30 C.
 
I like unambiguous heat at a level so high that you could not miss it no
matter how poor your instruments are. Plus, I like those pretty little
thermometers from HP that cost $20 or $30 grand and can measure temperature
to nearest 0.0001 Deg C. Combine a 30 C temperature with one of those babies
and you have absolute certainty to many decimal places. That's what I like!
 
Tom expresses everyone's frustrations in saying: "I am particularly upset
with McKubre. He has had plenty of time, and his work is good enough for
publication. So Mike, put your reputation on the line and submit a paper!  Or
shut up and go completely secret!"
 
Hey, cut the poor man some slack, Tom. He doesn't make the rules, he just
works there. Mike doesn't tell SRI what to do; and SRI doesn't own the
information either -- it belongs to EPRI. For that matter, what do you want
EPRI to do? Do you want them to hand out a $3 million result for free, out of
the goodness of their hearts? Why not ask Microsoft to distribute all
software for free? Why not ask Ford to give everyone a free car?
 
Actually, though, technically, EPRI is some kind of semi-public utility, so I
gather they may not be perfectly within their rights keeping this stuff
secret. Their expenses are paid by public power companies, so I have heard
some legal opinions bandied about to the effect that they owe this information
to people who own the power companies (you and me).
 
 
Dieter Britz comments, regarding the nickel cells:
 
"Have you forgotten that when it is conducted in a closed system, the effect
goes away?"
 
This is incorrect. Bob Bush and a couple of other people I know are running
closed nickel cells with not trouble at all. You have to use the right kind
of catalyst, which is one that is very clean and does not add filth to the
electrolyte. I will ask Bob what he uses when he gets back from Christmas
vacation. I think some other people are using some kind of fuel cell
arrangement.
 
Tom got negative results when he put a recombiner in the cell. Maybe he had
the wrong kind of catalyst? Who knows? He got no result with a recombiner
in a second jar. I cannot imagine why.
 
Mills does not recommend a recombiner; I believe he has some theoretical
reason, but I do not know the details. Others, however, report no trouble at
all. I personally think it is much safer and better to put the gas out the
window, or burn it with a nice hot flame outside the calorimeter. I like to
be absolutely certain there is no hydrogen gas around. I don't trust those
recombiners at all. I have heard they are not designed to work at low
temperatures. Storms had terrible trouble with a recombiner (in a Pd CF
experiment). A couple of people I know have come home to find calorimeter
shards all over their kitchens or basements from failed recombiners. Who needs
that kind of risk? Just toss out the gas and don't count excess until it gets
comfortably above I*V. Also, always build a low pressure escape value (or a
trapdoor-like thing) to prevent explosions.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.22 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cell Power Measurement 101
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:41:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan) writes:
 
> I hope that the distant pair of leads pass off through an ammeter (or
> better still, a precision resistor and precision voltmeter) and that
> people are not _inferring_ what the value of the resistance is while it
> is not attached to an (inevitably non-precision) ohmmeter.  And while we
> are considering potential sources of error, you _did_ use a CRO to check
> that is _is_ DC that you are measuring, didn't you?
 
Especially since the resistance is time-varying and (I think) non-linear, you
have to keep continuous current measurements.
 
> Allan Duncan          ACSnet   a.duncan@trl.oz
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.22 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Brilliant as usual, wrong as always
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Brilliant as usual, wrong as always
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:18:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
What a long note!
 
>If that happens, it will be back to the drawing board for you. You will have to
>reinvent the whole works. The number of previous experiments; the number of
>failed experiments; the central importance of the theory that gets overthrown;
>the previous experiments in different domains that supported the theory... all
>these factors are completely irrelevant. You must forget them; you must not
>even consider them for one moment as you examine experimental data. Put the
 
Surely you don't mean that the results of good experiments in the past are to
be thrown out because of new results?  I hope you mean to discard old theories,
not experiments.  Any new theory should explain both the old and new results.
 
It might be neccessary to have a theory which claims special nuclear physics
for metal lattices (a very strange idea), but it will not be nearly as well
accepted as one that can be supported by previous results.
 
 
BDR
 
 
BTW, how much hydrogen is in the iron-nickel core of the earth?  Would we
expect the earth to explode due to CF in the nickel (electrical currents due to
the core rotating) soon after it formed?  Of course, it isn't very clean. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Replies to D. Blue/Original BYU Expts.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to D. Blue/Original BYU Expts.
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:25:07 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
Dick Blue has challenged the original BYU experiments on cold fusion in
recent postings.  While I have responded (e.g.,"Original BYU expts/reply
to D. Blue" posted 15 Dec), others at BYU have also written answers which
I now post in their behalf.
 
In article posted 9 Dec. by D. Blue, "Rehash of Jones' Results," we find:
"If you refer to the paper describing the detector used in the original BYU
experiment, take from that paper the stated gamm-ray rejection ratio, and
incorporate information as to the nature of the radiation background such
detectors would respond to in a normal laboratory environment, you will be
led to the conclusion that the pulse height spectra recorded by Jones was
dominated by gamma rays, NOT NEUTRONS.  Second point is that there were some
few net counts left after subtraction of a background only because of a
renormalization of the background.  And thirdly, while the detector had some
capability for determination of neutron energy if the signals had been
employed in one possible mode of operation, the mode used in the Jones
experiment was such that energy information would be washed out due to the
adding of a signal (with a finite noise width) that was not dependent on
neutron energy.  In short the results of that experiment should be ignored."
 
BYU Professor Gary Jensen replies:
First point:  The background included mostly cosmic-ray neutrons and some
gamma rays; we knew this when the paper was published.  [As we stated in
our Nature paper, only about 1/4 of background was due to gammas.]
Second point:  The background HAD to be normalized [approx. 4 times more
background than foreground hours], but the background was featureless and
could not generate a peak.
Third point:  The only mode used in the experiment was the standard
spectrometer mode.  Nothing was added to the signal.  The "capture-spectrum"
mode was not developed until after the data used in the Nature paper were
taken.  We did use it to investigate the nature of the background.
 
The spectrometer is a COINCIDENCE spectrometer.  The pulse from the liquid
scintillator that carries energy information is rejected unless a capture
pulse from the glass is also produced within the coincidence gate time.
Monoenergetic neutrons therefore produce a peak that correlates with neutron
energy.  From the calibration data at 5.5 MeV and 2.9 MeV, a reasonable
extrapolation shows where the 2.45 MeV peak should occur.
In short, the comments in paragraph 1 [Dr. Blue's comments cited above] should
be ignored.
[End of Prof. Jensen's comments.]
 
In his posting of 18 Dec "The first S. Jones low-level CF result", Dick cites
the Nuclear Instruments and Methods paper of Gary Jensen and Bart Czirr (A284:
365 [1989]) and states:
"this paper does indicate that this spectrometer was used in the "capture-
spectrum mode" for the 'recent cold-fusion experiments'". ... "With these facts
in mind I want Steve Jones to explain how a peak corresponding to 2.45 MeV gets
generated in this detector and what the calibration method was that determined
the peak shape and position.  I am aware of the Figure 6 in the Czirr and
Jensen paper which shows an experimentally determined peak shape for 2.9 MeV
neutrons, but it also shows the response going off scale as it rises toward
channel zero."  [Please see Dr. Blue's posting for further details.]
 
Gary Jensen answered some of these points above.  In particular, the "capture-
spectrum mode" was NOT used in collecting the foreground data for the Nature
paper, but was used to investigate the nature of the background spectrum.  I
hope this clarifies an evident misunderstanding of Dr. Blue's, that
the "capture-spectrum mode" was used for foreground data collection.
 
I will now quote from BYU Professor Paul Palmer's reply to Dr. Blue:
 
Our neutron spectrometer is a delayed-time-coincidence spectrometer.  When a
slowed neutron is captured in the 6Li-containing scintillator glass, the light
flash produced by the resulting triton/slpha pair is characteristic of the
process.  This pulse does not give neutron-energy information.  It is a confir-
mation pulse indicating that a NEUTRON stopped inside the detector.  Any
neutron leaking out of the system does not produce this confirmation pulse
and is lost.  This reduces the efficiency of this capture process to about 25%
in detectors of the size which we commonly use now.  In our original
spectrometer, this efficiency was less than 10%.
If this characteristic pulse is seen, a search is then made for the preceeding
pulse which was generated by a high-energy neutron being thermalized in a
hydrogenous scintillator material.  This early pulse contains the energy
information about the neutron.  This pulse must occur prior to the 6Li-glass
confirmation pulse, within a couple of neutron mean-capture-times in the
particular detector.  If the properly timed and sized pulses do not appear, the
event is rejected, as being caused by an ambient thermal neutron wandering into
the system or by accidental gamma events.
The probability of the proper thermalization pulse occurring is about 50% in
our present detectors.  It was less than 10% in our original detector.
Our current spectrometer designs have an overall efficiency of about 12% in
detecting fusion-energy neutrons.  The original detector had an efficiency of
about 0.6%.
 
Current designs reduce the accidental gamma coincidence rate by a factor of 10
E6.  In a tunnel to shield against high-energy cosmic rays and with modest
shielding (copper and bags of salt) to shield against gammas, and with timing
and pulse-shape and pulse-size discrimination to reduce muons and ambient
gammas, the rate of false background events is about one every three hours.
 
Monoenergetic calibration neutrons produce a peak in pulse-size distribution
that correlates neutron energy.  From the calibration data at 5.5 MeV and
2.9 MeV a reasonable extrapolation shows where the 2.45 MeV peak should be.
The capture-spectrum mode was not well developed until the data used in the
Nature paper were taken.  The nature of the background began to be investigated
prior to publication of the paper.  The signal data produced a broad bump
above background in the proper energy region.
[End of reply by Paul Palmer,BYU.]
 
I might add that the peak in the energy spectrum arises since all the light
generated by a neutron slowing in the liquid scintillator (BC 505) is added
to determine the neutron energy, not just the light from the first recoil
proton.  A delayed coincidence of the scintillator pulse with a distinctive
pulse from the 6Li-doped glass is required to complete the event trigger.
 
The low energy response in Figure 6 in the Czirr/Jensen paper arose
due to the presence of low-energy neutrons from unwanted deuteron-beam
interactions, evidently in the beam line.  Since then, we have succeeded in
generating a clean, monoenergetic neutron beam using one of the Van de Graaf
accelerators at BYU.  This beam produces a peak in the neutron spectrometer
(we now have about four working spectrometers, two of which are in the new
Tunnel Lab in Provo Canyon near BYU, and the neutron beam is used to calibrate
each detector), whose shape is similar to that of the spectral peak generated
by D2O-electrolytic cells in the original BYU paper published in Nature.
The roughly 2.5-MeV energy corresponding to this peak suggests a d-d fusion
origin.  We still stand by this claim, having found no combination of portable
sources or noise-events or backgrounds that produce such a distinctive peak.
 
The reported RATE of neutron production was approximately 10 E13 below that
required to produce one watt of excess power and thus does not support claims
by some that xs heat produced in (ostensibly) similar cells originates from
d-d fusion.
 
Respectfully,
Steven Jones  - with submissions also from Profs. Jensen and Palmer at BYU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.26 /  an1060@anon.pe /  SuperStrings
     
Originally-From: an1060@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SuperStrings
Date: 26 Dec 92 16:53:25 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

X-Anon-To: sci.physics.fusion
 
 
Hello,
 
I have the following 2-volume set for sale:
 
 
SuperString Theory, by Green, Schwarz, & Witten, 1987.
  Vol. 1 (list price $39.50)
  Vol. 2 (list price $54.50)
 
Both volumes are in new condition with their jackets.
 
Asking $85 or best offer (make me an offer)!!!
 
Please respond to:  mantell@ams.sunysb.edu
 
Abe
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenan1060 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.27 / Jon Noring /  Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.misc,sci.o
 ptics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:36:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

Hello,
 
I just received the following abstract from Tom Bearden.  Now before you
hit 'n', let me say that this abstract contains some curious information
and is somewhat of a departure from his usual style.  Of course, I'd like
critical feedback on his claims, etc., although the lack of supporting
information (because this is an abstract combined with the ability Bearden
has of talking around issues), may make critiquing difficult.
 
I am also cross-posting this to sci.optics since he talks about a very unusual
destructive effect sometimes observed in large fiber optic systems, a "fiber
optic fuse", which I'd like more information about.  He speculates that this is
a *real-world* observation of vacuum energy extraction.  In addition, he talks
about aspects of non-linear optics.  I am also cross-posting this to
sci.electronics, since he seems to be making (cryptically at least) some
recommendations for experimental work that may fall into that area.  And, of
course, my apologies to the sci.physics.fusion crowd, but he does make some
speculations in this area as well.
 
(Actually, I believe he is revealing a few more tidbits about the Sweet device,
which he's been doing the last two years in his various papers, etc.  The Sweet
device *supposedly* has been observed to produce excess electrical power,
apparently from the vacuum.  Bearden claims that if one reads between the lines
in several of his papers, and tries to understand his theory (which he admits
may not prove correct in the long-run), that an experimentalist should be able
to reproduce the Sweet device.  For example, in prior papers he talks about
using barium doped materials, such as non-linear optics people use in their
pumped conjugate wave devices.  In fact, he says the Sweet device is very
similar to these devices, except that it is pumped at very low frequencies
rather than at optical frequencies.  Is barium the dopant he talks about here
for copper?  Bearden *claims* that he is prevented by confidentiality agreement
from actually describing details of the Sweet device, but he sees no problem in
talking about "physics".  I know, I know, lots of unsubstantiated claims, but
if nothing else it makes interesting bed-time reading.)
 
I look forward to seeing the full paper, which I should receive fairly
soon.  I won't, however, post it to Usenet until it has been presented at
the intended meeting in the Fall of '93.  You'll just have to wait.
 
Enjoy.
 
Jon Noring
 
(p.s., if you'd like the other Bearden/Puthoff/etc. papers dealing with
the possibilities of tapping the vacuum energy, you can find them at
anonymous ftp site lupulus.ssc.gov, in subdirectory /papers ).
 
 
===========================================================================
 
      On the Possibility of Extracting Energy From the Vacuum-Driven
                 Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
 
 
A quantum field theoretic view is taken of the free electron gas (FEG) in
normal electromagnetic circuits, to examine the virtual photon flux exchange
between the vacuum and the electron gas.  It is well-known that the amount
of power transmitted through the circuit in the conventional sense is
negligible compared to the enormous power exchange occuring in and on the
electrons in the FEG.  Utilizing calculated average electron velocity,
average collision frequency per electron, and average acceleration and
deceleration work performed upon each electron in each collision, a simplified
calculation of the FEG power exchange in a copper wire of one cm^3 volume is
presented.  Approximately 4x10^12 megawatts of power actually exists in the
copper conductor - the equivalent of 4 billion large electric power plants,
each of 1000 megawatt capacity.  The author stresses that this power is
electromagnetic, not nuclear, and is driven by lattice interactions and the
virtual particle flux of the vacuum.  Possible means to extract useful energy
from the driven FEG are discussed, and effects and experiments that may be
actual examples are pointed out.
 
Utilizing a rigorous definition of the scalar EM potential, the bounded FEG
can be taken as a scalar EM potential.  Utilizing Whittaker/Ziolkowski/
Ignatovich (WZI) decomposition of the scalar EM potential into a harmonic
set of paired bidirectional EM waves, the FEG-as-a-potential can be decomposed
into ordered waves.  In the WZI decomposition, the biwaves essentially form
*pump* waves, in the nonlinear optics sense.  Since copper wire has impurities,
the copper may be regarded as a nearly *degenerate semiconductor*.  With more
deliberate doping, the approximation is improved.  If the doped copper can be
induced to act as an extremely low efficiency phase conjugate mirror (PCM)
with the WZI decomposition biwaves as pump waves, then 4-wave mixing theory
will allow some of the FEG power to be extracted.  It would appear, however,
that the doping must also increase the relaxation time, which in normal copper
is ~1.5x10^-19 s, but ranges up to ~10 days in fused quartz.
 
As a possible example of actually tapping the FEG energy, the little-known
fiber fuse effect in fiber optics cables is discussed.  Once initiated with
only a slight heat input, this replicable effect yields anomalous excess
energy that destructively propagates upstream at about 1 m/s velocity,
blowing out material from the inner core, leaving small bullet-shaped holes
at regular intervals (typically every centimeter or so) and ruining the
cable.  Even more strangely, under certain conditions material previously
blown out of the holes can be caused to reinsert itself *back into the
holes*, healing the inner core and restoring the cable's normal function.
The author argues that the excess energy and strange reversibility may
possibly be explained by four-wave mixing (FWM) effects in the WZI biwave
decomposition of the FEG-as-a-potential, with the core as a pumped PCM.
If so, it is a *replicable* example of tapping the FEG power.
 
Several other experiments that produce anomalous excess EM energy are
discussed, including Meyer's water electrolysis by pulses of potential and
Graneau's electromagnetic explosions in water.  Also, it is hypothesized
that the small percentage of cold fusion experiments with deuterium-doped
palladium electrodes that succeed, may be utilizing the same FWM effect
to extract energy from the virtual photon flux-driven trapped deuterium
nuclei.
 
That the vacuum VPF-driven FEG power exists in such enormous magnitude is
factual.  That useful power can be extracted from it to power an external
load is an hypothesis.  Evidence to date appears encouraging, but not yet
decisive.  The author urges scientists and engineers to interest themselves
in this unconventional enormous source of power exchange, and to explore
the possibility of developing FEG-driven power extraction processes and
devices.
 
**********************end of abstract**************************
 
 
--
 
Charter Member of the INFJ Club.
 
Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.
 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.27 / Eugen Raicu /  Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
     
Originally-From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.misc,sci.o
 ptics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:49:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I am not very knowledgeable, but I thought the energy of virtual particles
is an effect of the uncertainty principle and is available only on very
limited time scales after which it must be given up.
--
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
1912 Addison Street Apt. 15, Berkeley, CA 94704-1128
(510) 644 3204
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenraicu cudfnEugen cudlnRaicu cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  /  Status #2 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #2 Cell 4A3
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:56:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When we first tried to ramp up cell 4A3, nothing happened with the gas.  After
a struggle, it was determined (at 3 AM) that there was a gas leak.  The new
servo switch was balanced so well that it just sat at one spot with a leak.
Will have to set it for a positive pressure for the next run to more quickly
expose leaks.  What wonders Tom Edison could have performed had he had 5
minute epoxy!  But the result of all this struggle was that there was likely
0.05 to 0.1 D/Pd absorption.
 
The cell was then run reverse for 24 hours with only a couple of cc of gas
evolution.  We are not sure that this will remove absorbed gas, especially at
the very low reverse current that we used.
 
We then ramped up cell 4A3 at 1 ma per sq cm per hour.  After 17 hours it hit
the limit at about 0.8 D/Pd.  At this point the current density was 17 ma per
sq cm.  After another half day with the slow cell current ramp still on, and
little or no change in loading, we increased the ramp to 50 ma per sq cm per
hour.  This caused an immediate indication of increased loading.  Eventually
we appeared to get to 2 D/Pd.
 
I say "appeared" since what was likely happening was that the catalyst was
becoming less efficient.  What is required to explain the result is that the
catalyst needs higher and higher concentrations of D2 and O2 to operate as the
watts per unit surface area increase.  But the numbers are not large, the
catalyst efficiency has only to change from 100% efficient to 90% efficient to
get my result.  In other words, the catalyst was failing, but was still
converting most of the evolved gas.
 
By the time we got to 2 D/Pd (remember we measure excess gas - presumed oxygen
from the D2 that was absorbed) the excess gas was accelerating even faster
than the current was increasing so it was suspicious.  We then backed down the
current and the excess gas decreased, indicating that there really was un-
recombined D2 and O2 in the cell (or that the cathode was outgassing - just
can't tell).  Still we could only get it down to an indicated 1.6 D/Pd no
matter what we did, including turning up the heat on the catalyst.  (Except
for the resulting transient, my computer keeps track of all this so that such
things can be done while still maintaining an energy balance.)
 
So it is a tough business.  I think the 0.8 number is conservative, especially
in view of the unknown amount of charging when the cell was leaking.  This was
also measured at very low current and with the catalyst heater on to insure
that it would be working.  But I just don't know about the larger numbers.  We
really need to measure the gas and the cathode resistance at the same time and
make comparisons, but it is so hard to get all those leads into the cell!
 
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:57:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After a nice discussion of the Helium measurement problem, Frank Close brings
up the Chuck Sites measurements of my cathodes and asks "Has Tom produced some
heat or are these control measurements?"  I would say neither.  We are learning
how to do this experiment, Frank.  Chuck has both cathodes that have run and
cathodes that are like the ones run.  It is not yet a program with carefully
designed controls.  We are still working the mistakes out of our technique.
 
I once spent two years designing amplifiers for liquid argon experiments.
After all that time on the bench, the amplifier circuit looked just like the
one I started with.  Only it worked.  This is very much the same kind of
effort.  After nearly four years I am beginning to be able to make
measurements that I can believe.  This does not mean that there are no
problems (see today's other post) but that I now usually recognize them.
To all who think that I should have learned how to make these measurement in
less than four years, I say that is what it takes for me.  In fact, the
amplifier (actually a whole measurement scheme) was done in two years but
only after about 20 years of thinking about and building amplifiers.  P&F had
that kind of head start on me (and in fact claimed to have been working five
years before the press conference - and I believe them).  But then I bet I can
out measure them!
 
I remind all again that this is not publication.  This is an experiment in
scientific communication.  You are looking over our shoulders in the lab.  The
only statement that I have made about results was in a "Proceedings" and was
so guarded that Huizinga liked it enough to include it three times in his
book.  I say this because I detect a slight note of "Tom is not being
scientific" in Frank's posting.
 
I would like to remind Jed Rothwell that the Nickel cell heat went away with a
Mercury bubbler between the cell and the catalyst.  You tell me how the cell
knew the catalyst was there.  Perhaps it is an ESP experiment!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  /  Measurement 101
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measurement 101
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:57:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Yes, Brian Rauchfuss, the cell resistance is time varing, and temperature
varying, and current varying, and ... .  And all not linear as Santa's
reindeer's horns.  Yes, Allan Duncan, there is a scope on.  We try to think
 
correctly about power, as ExH.  But it is very hard to do it right, and
whenever we are not humble we get bit!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  Rothwell /  Some old data be wrong
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some old data be wrong
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:58:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I commented that if the heat from CF overturns previous theories, they must
go, along with some previous experiments, and a lot of dud CF experiments
from 1989 that did not show any heat. Actually, my bet is that Steven Jones
is wrong, and only a handful of old theories will be overturned, but I don't
know -- he is an expert, and if he says that the heat may hurt Einstein, let
us take him seriously, maybe he is right. Einstein has lasted longer than
most, so he is due for a modification or two I suppose.
 
Brian Rauchfuss asks:
 
"Surely you don't mean that the results of good experiments in the past are
to be thrown out because of new results?  I hope you mean to discard old
theories, not experiments.  Any new theory should explain both the old and
new results."
 
First of all, let me reiterate that Steve Jones thinks the old theories
stand in the way of the heat. Lots of equally qualified people, like
Schwinger and Hagelstein say: No, its not so bad, we can fit the heat into
existing physics without too much trouble; atomic plasma and metal lattices
are two completely different domains, and the theories that work with plasma
do not apply to lattices. I myself cannot judge whether Jones or Schwinger
is right, I am not taking sides in this debate. The only thing that I am
sure of is that the effect must be real -- since any fool can measure 30
watts -- so any theory or data standing in the way is manifestly wrong,
obsolete, and dead. I do not think we can say just which theories will be
impacted yet, to what extent.
 
But, to address your question: a tiny fraction of the old data may also
perish too. The old data will be found to work in the old domains to the
extent that the old instruments could measure it, but not in the new domain.
Perhaps new instruments, techniques or experiments will be developed to see
a CF-like effect even in atomic plasma. In other words, the old data will
shown to cover a limited range, a set of special cases. There may be very
slight inaccuracies that were written off as experimental errors, or were
too close to the noise to see previously. The same sort of thing has
happened many times before. For example, Newtonian physics appeared worked
just fine, and it is still used, of course, to compute the flight paths of
satellites, or to determine when two ships approaching one anther in the
ocean will pass. But special relativity showed that there is a slight,
undetectable error in these computations. In the case of the ships at sea,
you could not measure it with the best instruments on earth, but we know
that their relative speed does not quite add up correctly. Perhaps, if Steve
Jones and Yamaguchi are both right, we will someday look back at the plasma
physics experiments and see a slight error that points towards other types
of D-D fusion, that are enhanced by many, many orders of magnitude in metal
lattices, where 'regular' D-D fusion cannot occur, as everyone knows.
 
This is pure speculation. As I said, it is *Steve's* speculation, not mine.
I think it is much too early to say which theories appear to prevent CF from
occurring.
 
Also, of course, I take the traditional, rational, Western view that if any
theory does get in the way, it must be wrong, because nothing can stand in
the way of replicated data at 90 sigma. Jones, Huizenga, Morrison, and Close
believe in a new form of religion -- not science -- because they believe
that Man Knows Everything, and if Nature disagrees, however vehemently, She
is Wrong. They apparently believe that Theory overrules Facts. I thought
this mode of thinking died out with the Renaissance, I am shocked to
discover that people seriously believe it now. I am even more shocked to
find that people who call themselves "scientists" believe such topsy-turvy
nonsense. There is an old joke about an aeronautical engineer who looks at
a bumble bee and decides it cannot fly. Huizenga and Close apparently never
saw the humor in that: they have written books declaring war on the bumble
bee, and lambasting the poor creature for thinking she can fly. Fortunately,
the bees and the thermometers in this world do not care what fools say; they
go on doing what they have always done.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  Harrison /  New book: Hydrogen in Metals
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New book: Hydrogen in Metals
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:59:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I quote verbatim from the recent Springer newsletter:
Y. Fukai, Chuo Univ, Tokyo, Japan
_The Metal-Hydrogen System_
Basic Bulk Properties
Emphasizing the physics of underlying properties, this book provides a
coherent description of the basic bulk properties of the metal-hydrogen
system including phase relations over ranges of pressure, temperature,
and composition (pure metal to hydrogen), site preference,
quantum-mechanical states, and motion of interstitial hydrogen atoms.
1992/approx 396pp., 217illus., 48 tabs.
Hardcover/$98.00/ISBN 0-387-55637-0
Springer Series in Materials Science, Vol. 21
 
I'm afraid it's a bit steep for me, but if you want it, call Springer
at 800 777 4643.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  Harrison /  heterostructure conjecture
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: heterostructure conjecture
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:59:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I notice that several CNF workers in electrolysis, particle-beam, and
gas-loaded experiments, claim 'anomolous' results in conjunction with a
surface layer on the hydrided metal.  I also note that many experiments
claim a correlation between 'anomalies' and dynamic perturbations of
the system.  I toss out the following conjecture:
  The boundary of the base metal (e.g. Pd) with the surface layer
(e.g. Al, electrolytically deposited) forms a mechanically weak
heterostructure.  During dynamic stimulation (current cycling,
temperature change) dislocations readily form and move at this
interface.  This gives rise to transient perturbations in the electron
density & E-field reminiscent of fracto-fusion.  Highly mobile p or d
nuclei in the base metal lattice are accelerated to high enough energy
(during the transient) to generate nuclear interactions.
  I realize that this covers only half the twin miracle of CNF: 'how do
you get nuclear interactions?'.  No comment on the other half: 'where
are the high-energy products?'.  But the recent data I saw from beam
experiments _did_ have high-energy products, so those experiments, at
least, need only half a miracle.
  Merry Christmas   Chuck
 ------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  Harrison /  Brave new information age
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brave new information age
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:00:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

  Does anybody out there have experience with WAIS (wide area
information servers)?  I've just found out about this Internet feature
and I think it's a hot ticket for Dieter's bibliography -- with WAIS,
you could search the bibliography, by keywords, on-line.
  WAIS would also be a good way to archive the graphics files that many
of us yearn for but which don't fit in a mail format very well.
  So, anyone with WAIS experience, speak up!
  Happy holidays  -- Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1337 cudfn cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  Britz /  RE: Stainless Steel
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Stainless Steel
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:01:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 
>Dieter, in my defense, I did look up Stainless Steel in the Cole-Parmet catalog
>chemical resistance table.  They gave it an "A" for Sodium Hydroxide, the
>closest thing I could find (periodic table wise) to Lithium Hydroxide.  "A"
>means "No effect - Excellent".  But I guess there is Excellent and Excellent.
>In any case, that is why I used it.  But the next design will be Teflon, Pd,
>and Pt.
 
At the risk of repeating myself, the above is quite correct but it depends on
your point of view. Clearly, the stainless steel kitchenware we use does its
job. We have a set we bought when we got married in 1965, still perfectly good
(Norwegian). But it has undoubtedly been feeding us chromium all that time
(and Fe, Ni, Mo etc etc). From the point of view of the pots and pans, they
don't corrode, and would stand NaOH OK, too. In an electrochemical cell,
though, a few picomoles of these metals dissolving, that wouldn't even take
the shine off the metal, would settle on the cathode and gum up the works,
maybe. Or - like the unintended chromium supplement we've been getting - have
a beneficial effect, maybe, and quite unreproducible.
 Anyway, Tom, good luck with the new run. I'll remember that 35 mW error bar.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Natural Fusion in Earth Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Natural Fusion in Earth Hypothesis
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:11:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

         COMMENTS ON POSSIBLE NATURAL FUSION IN THE EARTH
 
In a 23 Dec. posting, Brian Rauchfuss asks:
"BTW, how much hydrogen is in the iron-nickel core of the earth?  Would
we expect the earth to explode due to CF in the nickel (electrical currents due
to the core rotating) soon after it formed?"
 
It was the hypothesis of natural fusion in the earth that led BYU Profs. Paul
Palmer, G. Jensen, B. Czirr, J. Thorne and myself (and others here) to begin
experimental work on isotopic hydrogen fusion in various solids in May 1986.
(See e.g. books by Close, Peat, Huizenga on "cold fusion.")  Even further back,
Clint Van Siclen and I raised a similar question:  "It is interesting to
consider whether piezonuclear fusion within the liquid metallic hydrogen core
of Jupiter can account for the excess heat radiated from the planet." (J.
Physics G 12:213, March 1986, submitted June 1985:  "Piezonuclear fusion in
isotopic hydrogen molecules.")
 
The natural fusion hypothesis was further discussed in our Nature paper in April
1989.  3He is released in abundance from hot spots on the earth's
crust, such as volcanoes.  The prevailing model or paradigm
to account for these observations is that 3He was trapped inside the
earth during its formation, and that this primordial gas is released through
hot spots that tap the mantle.  There are problems with this theory, however.
For example, neon appears to have been outgassed from the earth, presumably
when it was hot (molten).  Then why was not 3He similarly outgassed?
 
Our hypothesis, which challenges the prevailing paradigm, is that at least
some of the observed 3He may be produced in the earth by p-d or d-d fusion
reactions:
     p + d -->  3He + gamma (5.4 MeV)
     d + d -->  3He + neutron
   or      -->  t + p (where the triton decays to 3He with a 12.4 yr
half-life).
 
  We also proposed that a critical experiment would be to look for
tritium coming from volcanoes or other hot spots, since tritium would be a
tracer for d-d fusion yet has just a 12.4-year half-life.  Thus, if tritium
were present in magmatic water (as opposed to meteoric water which contains
tritium from H-bomb tests) -- in quantities that could not be accounted for
by n+Li or other conventional reactions -- then this would be evidence for
natural fusion.  (For much more detail, see the original 1989 Nature paper,
and S.E. Jones et al., J. Fusion Energy Dec. 1990.)  Any primordial tritium
would have decayed away by now.
 
Thus, our hypothesis of natural fusion in the earth has motivated searches
for tritium from volcanoes.  The BYU group has been in close contact with
geologists Fraser Goff of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Gary McMurtry
of the U. of Hawaii who have conducted just such a search.
They have looked for tritium in magmatic water (collected
from high-temperature fumaroles) of Kilauea and Mt.St. Helens volcanoes.
Their invited paper to the 1992 Spring Meeting of the American Geophysical
Union is titled:  "Anomalous Deuterium and Tritium in Magmatic Water from
Kilauea and Mount St. Helens:  Implications for Deep Earth Processes."  The
oral paper states (quoting from their abstract):
"The delta-D, delta-18Oxygen and 3H contents of meteoric waters, fumarole
condensates, and volcanic rocks at Mt. St. Helens and Kilauea (Pu'u O'o)
volcanoes are used to define the delta-D and 3H values of primary magmatic
water. The results show that the ... 3H of magmatic water at both volcanoes
is ~ 3 T.U.  ... [Conventional explanations are discussed.]  In the absence
of simple conventional explanations, the 3H in these magmatic waters may
result from natural fusion in the earth.  If so, the short (12.5 yr) half-
life of this isotope has implications for the depth and magnitude of this
process, as well as for magmagenesis, plume ascent rates, and global heat
and He budgets."        (Frank Close please take careful note.)
 
More recently, these geologists have found tritium in the Picaya volcano in
central America, and they will soon take samples at Galeras in Columbia.  So
our humble hypothesis (not as earth-shaking as that of P/F, or is it?) has
led to novel experimental searches.  In this sense, our hypothesis is USEFUL to
science, whatever the ultimate outcome of this research.
 
An aside esp. for Jed Rothwell:  note the process of science here.  We do not
discard earlier experimental observations, such as release of 3He from earth's
hotspots.  Rather, we build on sound existing data, suggesting that tritium
may also be released.
At the same time, we strongly challenge the popular paradigm that
the 3He was trapped during the earth's formation and is being released now.
We hypothesize that 3He is PRODUCED (along with heat and
tritium) by natural fusion in the earth, contemporaneously.  This may add to
3He and heat from other sources.
We proposed an experimentum crucis to discern between the older model (actually
only about 15 years old) and our new hypothesis of natural fusion in the earth:
Is tritium found in the earth's magma?  Scientists are looking now, and at
least some are finding anomalous tritium.  This adds to our data base, and
may ultimately re-shape our models regarding the earth (and fusion, too).
 
Let's contrast this "path of logical science" (with apologies to Douglas
Morrison who speaks of "pathological science") with recent postings by Jed:
 
"One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing database,
no matter how certain or long established it may be. ...Okay, a million,
million previous experiments showed that E=mc2.  So what?  Every single one of
them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal lattices under electro-
lysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."  (J. Rothwell posting "Brilliant as
usual, wrong as always," 21 Dec. 1992).  I think Jed got a bit carried away
here, but will let the reader decide between his approach and mine.
 
Finally, I return to B. Rauchfuss's question about the amount of hydrogen
in the iron-nickel core of the earth, which is clearly relevant to the BYU
hypothesis of natural fusion.  In 1990, I presented a colloquium on this
hypothesis at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., and spoke to
geologists Russell Hemley and H.K. Mao who do work with diamond-anvil cells.
Since then, they have performed studies of iron hydrides under high pressures.
They conclude:  "If we assume core temperatures of 4000 to 6000 K and values
for the thermal expansion coefficient assumed for iron under these conditions
(8 X 10 -6 to 16 X 10 -6 K-1), we find that a mole fraction of iron hydride
in the core ranging from 40 to 95% can be consistent with the measured core
density.  The effect of other light elements and the amount of hydrogen
retained in Earth following accretion needs to be examined.  Our results
show that a large hydrogen component of the core is compatible with
current seismological data."  (Badding, Hemley and Mao, Science 253:421-424,
26 July 1991.)
 
Thus, recent experiments point to much larger hydrogen (and
concomitant deuterium) concentrations than were previously thought to exist
in the earth's core.  Interesting, yes?
 
Thanks, Brian for asking an intriguing question.  You see, there are scientists
who are very interested in finding the answer.  (Even if a commercial
power reactor does not result.)
 
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /   /  looking for 3-d code for Sperical Pintch
     
Originally-From: B7WA@MUSICT.MCGILL.CA (B7WA)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: looking for 3-d code for Sperical Pintch
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: McGill University

I am looking for 3-d code for sperical pintch computation
Please return to me > Thanks a lot.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenB7WA cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 /  /  Christmas News
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Christmas News
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:59:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

SANTA BRINGS JOULES FOR CHRISTMAS (We are having them appraised.)
 
In keeping with Christmas tradition in the Droege household, we began to see
"anomalous heat" on Christmas evening.  After pushing the current up as far as
it would go without causing gas unloading (350 ma per sq cm), we turned on the
temperature ramp and started up towards 60 C from 4 C (The cell thermometer
actually read 12 C at this point, but the calorimeter "insides" was at 4 C.)
 
At the same time, the current ramp was turned on to ramp up to 500 ma per sq
cm while the temperature was increasing.  The idea of all this was to push
harder to hold the little D's in the Palladium lattice as they got hotter and
wanted to get out.  After 8 hours we were up to 60 C and an indicated D/Pd of
1.57.  The balance point was 7.131 watts compared to a calibration of 7.788
+/- .035 watts taken over most of the month of December at this operating
point.
 
This indicates that we have an "anomalous heat" of 0.657 watts in a
calorimeter which we believe was very conservatively rated with a one sigma
0.035 error by several months of calibration.  This would be 6.57 watts per cc
of Palladium as the cathode is 0.1 cc..  We have also measured D/Pd loading of
as high as 3.
 
I don't believe either and neither should you.
 
Of the two, I have more faith in the loading.  At one point, the gas loading
had stabilized at 112.2 cc of evolved gas at a current density of 500 ma per
sq cm.  If this is oxygen, then 224.4 cc of D2 had been absorbed into the 0.1
cc Palladium cathode.  If I am computing things right this is a D/Pd ratio of
1.77.  In an experiment to check the loading, the current was then backed down
to 50 ma per sq cm.  37.5 cc of gas disappeared from the system over a 12
minute period.  About one cc could be attributed due to the temperature change
in the cell.  This would mean that 73 cc of D2 gas evolved from the cathode
amounting to 0.57 D/Pd, and this is far from the condition that would evolve
it all.  We are making appropriate temperature corrections on the gas volume.
Barometric corrections are too small to be significant, but we do worry about
unusual weather conditions.  The rest of the change is apparently a real
evolution of gas from the cathode, and was confirmed by the catalyst first
getting hotter due to the increased gas evolution load, then getting colder
due to the lower long term gas load.
 
One possibility is that the catalyst changes in efficiency with load.  It
could make sense that a richer mixture is required at high current density
that at low, and thus excess gas builds up in the cell volume.  But this is
hard to accept as higher currents make the catalyst hotter, where we believe
it is even more efficient.  It is also hard to imagine that such a condition
would be stable.  The gas loading will sometimes be steady for many hours in
a row.  There is the further problem that we have different indicated loadings
i.e 150 cc and 200 cc under exactly the same conditions of temperature and
current.  The cell gas volume is only 50 cc so this would require that the
increase in D2-O2 gas mixture completely fill the cell.  I thus think that the
gas measurement is a real absorption somewhere.  It will be very interesting
to see if all the gas is evolved (i.e. enough D comes back out to eat up the
accumulated Oxygen) at the end of the run.
 
The apparent excess heat is a different problem.  I think it is just a change
in calorimeter zero.  This because it just came up and sat there.  I will need
heat that comes and goes for belief.  After it is run the required 30 days or
so, I will reverse the cell and run it at the same power level reversed.  We
shall then see what zero it finds.
 
This brings up a point of contention with Jed Rothwell.  We both see runs by
Takahashi, Mills, Nagoya and others that seem to show excess heat.  I keep
doing very long calibration experiments that would appear to show a very
stable apparatus.  Depending on whether I run at fixed room temperature with
the shell servo on or at variable temperature with it off I get calibration
runs with stability of 1 mw or 35 mw.  But from time to time, there are
changes in calibration that I cannot explain.  These seem to always come
during an experiment and have always been in the direction of "anomalous
heat".  Why don't I believe that these are true "anomalous heat" events?
Because they do not match my profile of what an event should look like.
 
While I struggle and struggle and still sometimes have 10% jumps in my
measurements, I see very little detail of the calorimetry (except McKubre) of
those that claim heat.  What I do see does not impress me.  Since I have
problems and am using relatively sophisticated apparatus, it is hard to
believe that the others making quite casual measurements do not have them too.
There is also the possibility that all those measurements just get in the way,
and it is better to just use a simple temperature bath, a dewar, and a
thermometer as done by P&F.  But I don't think so!
 
While there are a number of checks built into this calorimeter design, there
are not enough.  The next generation calorimeter will have a conduction
calorimeter built inside the null balance calorimeter.  This is sort of the
design now, but the conduction measurement is not good enough to check the
null balance calorimeter calibration to the required accuracy.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.28 / Jon Webb /  Re: Some old data be wrong
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some old data be wrong
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:06:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <921224233714_72240.1256_EHL53-1@CompuServe.COM>
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
   Also, of course, I take the traditional, rational, Western view that if any
   theory does get in the way, it must be wrong, because nothing can stand in
   the way of replicated data at 90 sigma. Jones, Huizenga, Morrison, and Close
   believe in a new form of religion -- not science -- because they believe
   that Man Knows Everything, and if Nature disagrees, however vehemently, She
   is Wrong. They apparently believe that Theory overrules Facts...
 
No, Jed, they don't believe that theory overrules facts; they just
don't accept the "Facts" you claim as being real.  As I understand it,
you think that cold fusion exists, and can sometimes be done using
heavy water, and other times with light water; that it can be done in
a wide variety of experimental situations, ranging from electrolysis
of palladium or nickel to titanium soaked in deuterium gas to
outgassing from palladium plates; that it sometimes produces tritium
or He3 or He4 or neutrons or gamma rays, and sometimes not; etc.
Basically, you seem to believe every paper published that claims a
positive result for cold fusion, and disbelieve every paper that
claims a negative result.  With that perspective, I imagine you must
think that cold fusion is one of the most easily reproduced phenomena
in existence.
 
The scientists you cite as skeptics look at the history of cold fusion
experiments and see this pattern over and over: someone claims a
positive result, then withdraws it later (or it just somehow
disappears, being reported at a conference and then never heard from
again); or someone claims to have gotten cold fusion to work, then
can't get it to work anymore; or someone tries a cold fusion
experiment with apparently careful technique, and it doesn't work.
They just don't see any reason to throw out all this carefully
developed theory in light of a collection of mutually contradictory
experiments with inconsistent approaches and often demonstratably
sloppy technique.
 
You claim that anyone can get 90 sigma.  Well, it seems to me that Tom
Droege has been trying to do that for quite a while now, and has not
succeeded.  You yourself tried, and didn't succeed.  What is wrong?
Is Tom part of the anti-cold fusion conspiracy?  Are you?
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.29 /  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, 29 Dec 1992 15:16:10 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 (but 'anonymous' seems
   also to work). 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. The index is large, so this
   restriction saves a lot of time; if you should type in a global DIR, you
   can terminate the endless stream with CTRL-C, which gets you what the
   system calls an amicable abort. To transfer a given 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). There is also the file cnf-brif, which
   has all the references of the -pap* files but without annotations, all in
   one file.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
                                                                      Dieter
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfn cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.29 /  system@cc.usu. /  electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: system@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: electrostatic fusion
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:28:35 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Introduction:  Researchers at Hill Air Force Base have recently
submitted a patent application concerning the use of electrostatic
devices for creating nuclear fusion.  On Dec 7, an announcement
appeared on the network about using electrostatics for controlling
nuclear fusion.  We are making this disclosure in order to clarify
our contribution to these developments.
 
 
 
                    Obtaining Nuclear Fusion
                   Using Electrostatic Devices
 
                     Lloyd G. Allred, Ph. D.
                    Software Support Division
                    Hill Air Force Base, Utah
 
1.   Executive Summary.
 
1.1  Overview.  The announcement of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and
Martin Fleishmann is probably the most controversial scientific
claim of this century.  Pons and Fleishmann felt that their
experience in electrochemistry gave them the unique ability to
concentrate electric fields, and that fusion was the result of this
claim.  While Pons and Fleishmann were widely acclaimed in the
field of electrochemistry, mainstream physicists were quick to
condemn Pons and Fleishmann's work, even though their experimental
results have not yet been explained.  This document presents
underlying physical principals which will explain the results of
Pons and Fleishmann, and describe how to build practical devices to
produce large amounts of power from nuclear fusion on a repeatable
basis.  This document also explains why prior researchers have been
unable to get repeatable results.
 
It is interesting to note that the main thrust of the experiments
and apparatus of Pons and Fleishmann was directed more toward
charging up the palladium rods with positive deuterium ions.  The
issue of electric field focusing was ignored.  In particular,
electrostatic fields are focused by putting sharp points on
electrostatic objects.  The sharp points produce enormous fields.
In the phenomena known as Saint Elmo's fire, a corona is observed
at the edges of leaves where the charge on the leaves leaks off
into the surrounding atmosphere.  The observed corona is caused by
the ionization of the air caused by the electric field
concentration.  Returning to the experiments of Pons and
Fleishmann, the sharp points on the palladium rods were smoothed
off when an explosion occurred.  The two experimenters may have
thus eliminated the very effect they were trying to create.
 
1.2  Approach.  Some two years ago, I made the conjecture that cold
fusion could be induced by focusing electric fields using
electrostatic devices, in particular, that electric fields at the
corners of such devices could be made sufficient to induce
thermonuclear fusion.  It seemed to me that it would be relatively
simple to solve for the electrical fields surrounding a pointed
object, such as a cone.  After researching this field, I quickly
came to the conclusion that the general solution of electrostatic
fields is one of the unsolved problems of modern physics.  While
the study of electrostatic fields is a required subject in most
college physics classes, the published solutions, using Gauss's
law, have been solved only for very simplified cases.  The
published solutions for a charged wire and a cylinder violate the
underlying assumptions, and are essentially wrong!
 
1.3  Summary.  It has taken me some two years to find a method
which would solve this problem.  The results indicate that electric
fields, sufficient to cause nuclear fusion, can be obtained using
a cone with a half angle of 15 to 20 degrees, and using rather
moderate positive
voltages.
 
1.4  Claims.  I claim the right to all thermonuclear fusion devices
which employ charging a metal with deuterium and which apply an
electrostatic charge (e.g. positive voltage) to the metal, and
which use a pointed tip to focus the electrostatic fields.  I also
claim the rights to the process of fuzzy genetic algorithms for
solving the charge distribution associated with a arbitrary
electrostatic objects and for applications of such solutions.  I
also offer the U.S. American government free use of this idea, but
reserve all applications in the private sector.
 
2.   Theory.  This document is provided without references.  The
underlying physics can be found in any college physics textbook or
physics handbook.
 
2.1  Electrostatic Charges.  Coulomb's law portrays the force, F,
exerted between two electronic charges, q and q0, at spacial
positions X and X0 and can be computed by
 
       - q q0 (X - X0)
  F  =  ________________                                        (1)
                     3
         e0 3 X - X 3
 
Coulombs law can be extended to calculate the electric potential or
voltage of any point in space.
 
        1                   - rho(X) dS
  V  = ________ Integral   ________________                     (2)
                   S
       4 pi e0                3 X - X 3
 
Electric potential is closely related to potential energy.  In
particular, it expresses the amount of potential energy per unit of
charge for at any point in space.  The electric field is defined as
the gradient of the electric potential,
       partial V       1               rho(X) (X-X0) dS
  E =  _________ =  _______  Integral  ________________         (3)
                                                  3
       partial X    4 pi e0     S       3 X - X0 3
 
In the presence of a non-zero electric field, a charged particle
will be accelerated in the direction of the field, inducing an
electric current.  At any point in the interior of a conductive
device, the electric field must therefore be zero, otherwise, any
electron at that point would be accelerated, thus changing the
distribution of the electric charges and the corresponding electric
fields and the electric fields would not therefore be static.  At
the surface of a conductive device, an electric field can be
resolved into two components, one parallel to the surface, and one
perpendicular to the surface.  The parallel component must be zero
(otherwise a current would be generated parallel to the surface of
the conductor), hence the electric field must be perpendicular to
the surface of the charged conductive object.
 
Gauss's law relates the integral of an electrostatic field over an
arbitrary surface to the enclosed charge.
    1
 _______ Integral  E . dA = Q                                 (4)
 4 pi e0    A
 
This equation can be employed to produce some very strange results.
Electric charges in a charged conductor tend to repel each other.
As a result, they get as far away from each other as is possible.
Taking a surface just inside the charged device, the above equation
implies that the enclosed charge is zero!  As a consequence, the
charge must be distributed entirely on the surface of the object.
Additionally, the charge density at the surface is directly
proportional to the electric field over the surface.  If one
considers a surface consisting of two connected parallel plates,
both parallel to the surface with one above the surface, and one
below.  Because the one below the surface is inside the metal, the
electric field is zero.  It follows that
    1
 _______ Integral  E . dA = Q = rho dA                        (5)
 4 pi e0    A
 
Consequently
 
  E = rho 4 pi 0                                              (6)
 
 
For an electrostatic object of a cone, we intend to show that the
electric field approaches infinity as one approaches the tip of the
cone.  Because the charge density at the tip is proportional to the
electric field at the tip, then, byt the above equation, the charge
density also approaches infinity.  If the charges consist of
positively charged deuterium ion,s then nuclear fusion will occur.
 
 
2.2  Supportive Evidence.  In the phenomena known as Saint Elmo's
fire, a corona is observed at the edges of leaves where the charge
on the leaves leaks off into the surrounding atmosphere.  The
observed corona is caused by the ionization of the air caused by
the electric field concentration.
 
Some metals, such as platinum, palladium, titanium, and nickel have
the ability to absorb large amounts of hydrogen and deuterium.
After absorption, the hydrogen nucleus and electron separate.  An
ionized hydrogen nucleus, having no shell, is free to wander
throughout the metal in the same manner as a free electron.  If the
conductive metal becomes positively charged, the hydrogen nuclei
will congregate at the sharp points of the surface, and be ejected
from the surface.  It was trace amounts of tritium and helium,
observed by Russian scientists in nickel deposits, which first
prompted the initial investigations into cold fusion.
 
2.3  "Antimatter".  In the past, electric field confinement has
been rejected as a method for obtaining fusion.  In particular, a
theorem exists that a charged particle cannot be confined by an
electrostatic field.  In practice, confinement is not required.
One example is the production of fusion obtained by imploding
spheres of frozen hydrogen.  While confinement is not achieved in
this process, the imploding deuterium nuclei come crashing into
each other.  The resulting fusion has been observed in the
laboratory; unfortunately, however, the resulting fusion has not
been not sufficient to achieve a positive energy return.
 
3.0  Proposed Mechanics.  I fully understand that infinite
electrical fields are an impossibility.  As a consequence, static
conditions cannot be achieved on an object with a tip because the
charge leaks off into empty space.  The charge at such a tip will
be less than
infinite.  However, as the subsequent discussions will show, the
electric fields at the tip are caused by the focusing of the
electric fields of charges away from the tip.  As a result, the
charged particles within the device will be accelerated toward the
tipDthese accelerations approach infinity as the charges move
toward the tip.  Inasmuch as fusion has been produced by
accelerating protons together by implosion, it would seem that
fusion could be obtained by accelerating protons together by
focusing electric fields. In the case of the cone, the charges are
all concentrated on the surface of the cone.  As a consequence, the
electric fields are all
directed towards the tip of the cone.  If the metal contains
positively charged hydrogen ions, they will be accelerated toward
the tip.  Electric currents move at the speed of light.  While the
individual electrons and protons will move at speeds somewhat less
than the speed of light, I suspect the accelerations, even at short
distances, are enormous.  I would be greatly surprised
if fusion did not occur.
 
3.1  Caveats.  Surface conditions would be very critical to this
process.  Rough surfaces would tend to leak the hydrogen off.
Smooth surfaces seem to be a rudimentary requirement in existing
cold fusion experiments.  Metals such as titanium and aluminum form
an oxide coatingDI suspect that protons may not be the principal
charge carriers on the surface of these metals, perhaps explaining
the failure to produce positive cold fusion results using these
metals.  While hydrogen absorption and the corresponding metal
embrittlement is observed in many metals, much better absorption
characteristics are obtained using nickel, palladium, and platinum.
 
4.   Problem Solution.
 
4.1  Traditional Analytical Methods.  College textbooks usually
employ Gauss's equation to solve for the distribution of charge on
a surface.  For a sphere, for example, one can argue, by symmetry,
that the electric field is equal for all points of the sphere.
Gauss's equation reduces to
    1                       E 4 pi R R
 _______ Integral  E . dA   __________  =    Q                  (7)
 4 pi e0    A                4 pi e0
 
Solving for the electric field, E,
      Q e0
  E = ____                                                      (8)
         2
        R
 
For applications to objects such as an electrical wire, the
textbooks say, "assume that the charge density is distributed
equally along the length of the wire".  We could equally assume
that the world is flat, or that we have a spherical cow.
 
If one had such a charge distribution along a wire, compute the
electric field at a point on the left side of the wire.  Applying
Equation (3) to our example of a wire of length extending in x
direction,
          1        1      rho(x) (x-x0) dS
  E =  ________ Integral  ________________                     (9)
                                      3
       4 pi e0     0       3 x - x0 3
 
 
 
The integral splits into two parts, one for x < x0 and x > x0.
Substituting x = t + x0,
 
   x0     rho(x0-t) dt       1-x0      rho(x0+t) dt
 Integral ____________   =  Integral  _____________           (10)
   0           2              0             2
              t                            t
 
The above equations pointedly illustrate the problems with
attempting to deal with charged particles using traditional math.
The above two integrals are both infinite!  Solution of Equation
(9) to get a zero electric field requires the subtraction of two
infinities.  To obtain practical solutions to Equation (11)
requires that we treat the electric densities in terms of
individual charges, and that the electric field, acting on each
charge, approaches zero.  Taking this point of view, individual
charges are separated by a minimal subatomic distance, m.  The
above equation becomes
 
   x0     rho(x0-t) dt       1-x0      rho(x0+t) dt
 Integral ____________   =  Integral  _____________           (11)
   m           2              m             2
              t                            t
 
 
For uniform density, the above equation cannot be met unless x0 =
1 - x0, or x0 = 0.5, at the midpoint on the wire.  For a point on
the left of the midpoint of the wire, there is more total charge on
the right side of the wire, so the electric field points to the
left.  The bottom line is that the charge distribution along a
fixed wire cannot be uniform.
 
What is the charge distribution along a wire?  As x0 decreases, the
integration distance of the left integral decreases, so the
corresponding values of ~ must increase to compensate. Conversely,
the integral on the right, Ir must increase.  Not only does the
integration distance increase, but as x0 increases, the integral on
the right begins to incorporate some of those increased ~ values
which were created to compensate for increases in Ir for slightly
larger values of x0 and so forth.  Applying the mean value theorem
of integral calculus to the above equation, there exist some point
xL, 0 s xL s x0.
 
   x0     rho(x0-t) dt
 Integral ____________   =  Ir                                (12)
   m           2
              t
 
Integrating,
 
  rho(XL) (-1/x0 + 1/m) = Ir                                  (13)
 
Collecting terms,
 
  rho(xL) = m x0 Ir / (x0 - m)
 
As x0 decreases toward m, the right side of the above equation
approaches infinity.  The mean value theorem of integral calculus
states that ~(xL) can be interpreted as an average value of the
density function rho between m and x0.  As x0 decrease to m, this
average density approaches infinity!  Similar arguments can be
presented for charges near the tip of the cone.  Unfortunately, the
above mathematical arguments do not provide quantitative analysis
for the solution of the charge densities, nor can qualitative
mathematical arguments be employed to arrive at a fixed hardware
design.
 
4.2  Finite element approximations.  My attempts at solving various
forms of Equation (11) over a two year time-span met with dismal
failure.  The reasons for this failure have some interesting
physical ramifications.  Suppose that one attempts some finite
approximation to Equation (11) with a number of charges at fixed
positions, then the failure to achieve zero in Equation (11) can be
interpreted as a force on the individual charge.  I attempted to
solve the equations through gradient search techniques, equivalent
to move each charge according to the applied force.  As one moves
toward the tip of the wire, the forces become infinite, and the set
of simultaneous equations becomes unstable and will not converge!
The tracking of the individual charges is equivalent to solving for
the standing waves of the individual electrons on the wire.
Standing waves in a conductive media are real physical phenomena;
unfortunately, the standing waves have little to do with the
electrostatic solution we seek.
 
After many attempts at solving the electrostatic fields surrounding
a pointed cone, I was able to obtain a solution by modifying a
method proposed by a Dr. Magdy K. Iskander of the University of
Utah [Electromagnetic Fields, Prentice Hall].  Iskander's method
approximates the electric potential in Equation (2) by a finite
sum, by evaluated at a finite number of points, X1,...,Xn.
 
 
By definition, the voltage potential, V, is constant for any point
on the conductor.  For a fixed selection of n points,
~(Y1),~(Y2),...~(Yn), the above formula will generate a linear
equation for
any point Xi within the conductive object.  The resulting equations
are linear in the ~(Yj) and
 
          1      n     - rho(Yj) dSj
  V  = ________ Sum   ________________                     (2)
                j=1
       4 pi e0            3 X - X 3
 
can be solved by traditional linear equation methods.  The
resulting solution for a charged wire, published by Iskander,
conforms to my solution, Equation (14).  Unfortunately, the method
is highly sensitive to the selection of the X's and the Y's.  In
particular, the X's and the Y's cannot coincide, otherwise
numerical division errors occur.  In addition, finite
approximations are not exact, so the  voltages resulting from the
finite approximation are not uniform across the object.  As one
increases the number of elements, the equations become singular,
and cannot be solved. While able to reproduce Iskander's results,
I was not able to refine the results by taking smaller step sizes
for a charged wire.  I was also unable to apply the technique to
surfaces of revolution, such as spheres and cones.
 
5.0  Solution Using Self-Organizing Systems.  Over the past four
years, my software group, the Neural Engineering Research and
Development Section (NERDS) have been solving difficult problems
using self-organizing systems.  One such method employs a fuzzy
differential genetic algorithm.  During a simulation, individuals
are created with genetic code which is represented as binary bits.
The binary bits are interpreted as the distribution of charges
along the cone.  Using this charge distribution, the voltage is
then calculated at various points on the cone, and an individual's
fitness is evaluated based on how uniform the resulting voltage
potential is.  Using simulated natural selection individuals are
selected to breed (survival of the fittest), and using simulated
sexual reproduction succeeding generations of individuals are
generated.  Through the process of simulated natural selection, an
individual is found which solves the charge distribution along the
cone.
 
The fuzzy genetic algorithm was able to obtain solutions to the
electrostatic charge for a variety of physical shapes.  Equilibrium
is achieved as the voltage approaches uniformity across the shape's
surface.  (See attached figures).  In roughly 15 minutes, the
program will solve for the charge distribution for an arbitrary
surface of revolution.  Validation of the software was achieve by
solving for the known charge distribution for a sphere.
 
For objects containing tips, such as wires and cones, the electric
fields approached infinite as one moves toward the tips.  While
mathematical techniques may prove that the charge density
approaches infinity as one approaches the tip of the cone, the
mathematical techniques offer no clue toward finding an optimal
cone design.  The fuzzy genetic algorithm was employed to solve for
the charge distribution for a variety of cone angles, giving
effective delivered proton compression for each shape.  Simulations
for an optimized cone shape are presented in the next section.
 
6.0  Engineering Considerations for Building a Prototype.
 
Some metals, such as platinum, palladium, titanium, and nickel have
the ability to absorb large amounts of hydrogen and deuterium.
After absorption, the hydrogen nucleus and electron separate.  The
lone proton (or paired proton/neutron) separate.  An ionized
hydrogen nucleus, having no shell, is free to wander throughout the
metal in the same manner as a free electron.  Titanium is not
recommended because of surface conditions involving titanium oxide.
Metal oxides are generally poor conductors of electricity, and the
oxide will probably limit the ejection of protons from the cone's
surface.
 
An electrolysis process is involved (shades of Pons and Fleishmann)
to saturate the metal of the cone with hydrogen.  During this
process, a slight negative voltage should be applied to the
conductor to insure that the protons will not leave the cone.  Once
the metal is charged, a high positive voltage will be applied to
the cone.  It is recommended that the cone be mounted so that tip
of the cone penetrates the tub of the water chamber into a second
chamber, or be pointed upward, out of the water.  We also recommend
that the second chamber be evacuated.  This is done to insure that
the discharging of the cone be accomplished by ejection of protons,
and not by the ionization of molecules which happen to reside at
the tip of the cone.  Obtaining nuclear fusion requires more than
intense electric fields.  It also requires that two protons be
force toward each other with sufficient velocity to overcome the
repulsion of the two particles.  In the sun, it is achieved by
temperatures of millions of degrees.  It has also been achieved in
particle accelerators, and by imploding frozen hydrogen pellets.
 
Suppose that one has a cone charged up with deuterium ions.
Applying a positive voltage pulse to the cone, deuterium ions will
be accelerated toward the tip.  When the particle densities exceed
critical values, deuterium ions will be ejected from the tip,
causing disequilibrium.  Protons inside the cone will be
accelerated toward the tip at enormous velocities.  As they
approach the tip, the magnitude of the acceleration will approach
infinity because the electric field at he tip are caused by the
focusing of the electric fields of charges away from the tip.  The
protons will therefore implode at the tip of the cone.
 
Consider two deuterium ions, being ejected from the cone at the
same time from opposite directions.  If the cone is pointed up,
then the vertical velocities of each deuterium ion will be the
same, and it would appear, relative to each ion, that the other ion
is headed directly toward it.  It is a fairly straight forward
application of classical physics that if the accelerations are
strong enough, then sufficient velocities can be achieved to cause
nuclear fusion, similar to that which occurs in more traditional
particle accelerators.
 
It is here that we deviate from traditional attempts of cold
fusion.  To increase the acceleration of the charged particles
requires that we increase the magnitude of the applied voltage.
The applied voltage can be scaled up considerably using
conventional voltage amplification devices or electronic pulsers.
(This has not been attempted in traditional cold fusion
applications).  It is also important that material be evacuated
from the tip of the cone either by penetrating the side of the
water bath, or by pointing the cone upward out of the water bath.
In particular, the ionization of the water will provide electrons,
which when attracted toward the cone, neutralizing the positive
charge of the cone, and mitigating the effect we are trying to
produce.  This has not been attempted in traditional cold fusion
applications.  In addition, we are reconfiguring the geometry by
using pointed shapes as opposed to smoothed shapes.  The angle of
the point must be optimized to produced the maximal result.
 
Although the electric fields become very large for a variety of
cone shapes, the delivery of an infinite electric field will be
mitigated by errors in cone geometry and by charge leakage at the
tip.  To compare the effectiveness of the various geometries, we
compute a delivered electric field as the electric field at a point
a slight distance from the tip, namely at a distance 1% of the
length of the cone.  Returning our attention to the two deuterium
ions being ejected from the cone at the same time, the
accelerations on the two ions have two componentsDone component
accelerates them in the same direction, the other accelerates them
toward each other.  The effective implosive force per charge is the
effective acceleration per charge toward each other is the
delivered electric field times the cosine of the cone angle.  A
plot of effective implosive force for a variety of cone shapes is
presented in the figure.  The optimal half-cone angle is about 15
deg.
 
Compromises for practical device construction will involve rods
made of nickel or palladium which will have one end spherically
rounded and the other end to be ground down to a 15 deg point.  Our
results with wire simulations show that increasing the length of
the rod increases the electric field at the end.
 
At present we have many ideas for improvement of the basic design,
ideas for energy recovery, and so forth.  These ideas can wait
until we prove the basic feasibility.
 
 
Lloyd G. Allred
26 Oct 92
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lloyd G. Allred
OO-ALC/TISAA
Hill AFB, Utah 84056
 
Electrostatic Field Computations
 
 
Don Baker
Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
1.   Thank you for your review and comments regarding electrostatic
fields.  You raise some interesting points.  I do not claim to have
all of the answers.  What I am hoping to do is shed some light on
some obscure aspects of physics and suggest some experiments which
might have some unusual outcomes.  With this in mind, I will
attempt to address some of the points you have made, and suggest
some further investigations.
 
2.   Since the electrostatic fields are normal to the surface won't
the particles be emitted in the high field region before reaching
the point?  I am reasonably confident that particle emissions will
be a significant factor in these processes.  This is just as well,
as we are not trying to make a 20 megaton bomb.  The issue here is
will the density at the tip be sufficient to induce nuclear fusion?
I think the hypothetical equilibrium solution for a static
conditions sheds some light on this subject.  The solution predicts
infinite density for static conditions.  You and I both know that
infinite density cannot be achievedDother processes, such as
emission, etc., will intervene to mitigate these factors.  The
question I raise is as follows:  during the attempt of the system
to achieve equilibrium, will the induced fusion be sufficient to
achieve a positive energy return?
 
3.   ... fusion cross-sections have not been measured below 5
Kev...Since the particles get their energy from an electrostatic
field, they must fall through potentials equal to the kinetic
energies required.  How do you explain the positive results in
previous cold fusion results using low voltages?  What you analysis
does suggest, however, is that we include in our design the ability
to crank up to 20 kilovolts.  I should point out that when
inductances are considered, that net particle accelerations can
exceed the applied voltages.  A similar effect can be observed with
the earth's tides which raise the sea level some six feet.  There
are certain bays and fjords which focus the tidal energy, producing
tides in excess of 20 feet.  This effect is observed
electronically, when a voltage pulse is sent down a wire.  When the
pulse reaches the end of the wire, it is reflected, thus doubling
the voltages.  When one considers a collection of positive ions
converging on the tip, and the associated reflections, the
resulting energies will exceed the amount computed by falling to
the potential of the nominal applied voltage.
 
4.   ...one must overcome ... the Coulomb barrier ... before ...
tunneling becomes appreciable.  My experience with electronic
response of zener diodes has taught me that tunneling is probably
the controlling factor in most barrier phenomena.  I do not see why
Coulomb barrier potential should be exceptional.  I suspect that
the traditional M.I.T. sledge-hammer approach to fusion may have
overlooked the more subtle effects of tunnelingDincluding the
initial energy of Helium 4 nucleas and the resulting decay.  This
could be a whole new ball game.
 
5.   Is it clear that the hydrogen isotopes can be highly
accelerated through the lattice?  Won't they be impeded by
collisions?  In Rutherford's seminal work on particle physics, he
bombarded a thin metal foil with a stream of protons.  Proton
deflections were extremely rare events.  These experiments showed
that matter consists of mostly empty space.  To a positively
charged proton, the interior of the metal appears to be so much
empty space.  Won't the protons be impeded by collisions?  Oh God!
I hope so.  May be we'll get some fusion when they collide!
 
6.   I would like to know more about the calculation method.  In
the classical electrostatic case, the problem is represented as a
problem in genetics.  Individuals are created at random; their
genetic material is interpreted as a potential solution to the
electrostatic problem.  Through a process of simulated natural
selection and simulated reproduction, succeeding generations
ofindividuals are created which better solve the problem until a
solution is reached.  We have developed a tool which we call a
differential fuzzy genetic algorithm which an optimize general
problems of this kind.  In many respects, the details of the
differential fuzzy genetic algorithm are transparent to the user.
The user need only write a procedure which evaluates how well a
hypothetical problem solutions works.
 
In the electrostatic problem, finite charges are distributed around
the surface of the electrostatic device, and the electronic
potential is calculated at points centered between the charges.
The process is repeated until the variance of the electronic
potential is minimized, creating electrostatic equilibrium.  Our
software program can solve the charge distribution problem for a
general surface of revolution such as a wire, a cone, or a sphere.
The program produces uniform distribution for a sphere, and the
solution for the wire agrees with the published solutions.  Once
the placement of charges has been determined, one then calculates
the electric field at the points centered between the charges.  On
obtain a set of points, x1,...,xn, with corresponding electric
fields E1,...,En.  This points can be smoothed to obtain a curve,
y = f(x).  To obtain a more accurate representation of the curve,
one places more points in the simulation.  I am not intending to
patronizeDI only want this point to be made perfectly clear.  This
fill-in-the-points process is employed in all computer-based
representations of continuous processes.  As the number of points
approaches infinity, one approaches the continuous curve.  In
application to a 15 degree cone, the curve is y = k / x0.6.  This
curve approaches infinity as one approaches the tip of the cone.
 
7.   A real difficulty is that the jump from ideal field
calculations treating the conducting particles as a continuous
fluid in a perfect conductor to a realistic quantum-mechanical
many-body problem calculation is a long way off.  No kidding.  To
my understanding, the many body problem has not been generally
solved for simple moleculesDthe solutions which do exist (such as
diatomic hydrogen) can take weeks to run on a Cray using
traditional techniques.  It might interest you to know that the
technique which we used to solve the electrostatic problem may
prove equally applicable to the quantum mechanical problem.  In
particular, both problems involve solving the probability
distributions of particle placement.  Using a similar method, one
can compare various hypothetical distributions, and through a
process of natural selection, find the one which best describes the
problem.  My experience with Schroedinger's equation shows that
excellent solutions can be obtained by fitting the solution with
piece-wise linear solutions to the wave equations.  A similar
approach could be obtained in application to the multi-body
problem, or to the distribution of charges along a cone.  The
Schroedinger equation is usually solved for application where the
electric potential is known (such as a barrier well); however, one
could extend the method to simultaneously solve for the electric
potential for a hypothetical placement of particles in a multi-body
problem.  While I do extra curricular work in support of students,
various universities, and various research projects, I also have a
large family, and I cannot afford to undertake such a task on my
spare time.  In my career plans, I never anticipated researching in
fundamental particle physics.  For a nominal fee, we could be
persuaded.  Send money.  Our organization is industrially funded,
which means that we have to find a customer to pay for our time.
My going rate is about $200,000 per year.  This includes support
staff and equipment.  These algorithms we are investigating are
directly amenable to parallel processing; routinely solving these
kind of problems warrants the purchase of a massively parallel
machine.
 
8.   One question, not using your accelerator ideas.  How high a
density can one pack the fusion particles in the pointed region in
the static case?  Good question.  As I understand the process of
hydrogen adsorption, hydrogen can be regularly distributed
throughout the metal lattice.  I have read descriptions of enormous
adsorption capabilities of platinum, but do not have the sources at
my disposal.  I would be interested to see the actual figures.
 
 
 
DR LLOYD G ALLRED, Technical Lead
Neural Engineering Research and Development Support (NERDS) Team
Aircraft Software Development Branch
Software Engineering Division
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensystem cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.29 /  Rothwell /  A Straw Man & Calorimeter Drift
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Straw Man & Calorimeter Drift
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:38:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Steve Jones is not playing by the rules. He says:
 
"We do not discard earlier experimental observations, such as release of 3He
from earth's hotspots.  Rather, we build on sound existing data..."
 
No fair! You set up a straw man yourself, knocked it down, and you blame me.
*You* are the one who wants to throw away old data, not me! You are the one
who asserts that the excess heat violates e=mc^2. You say so, but many good
physicists like Schwinger, Hagelstein and Ikegami disagree. They say the
excess heat will fit into current physics without disturbing or overthrowing
any major theory. They say the old data was right, and so is the new data.
*You* are the one who wants to overthrow Einstein.
 
I don't know whether you are right, or Schwinger is right. I am neutral. I am
not arguing with your premises, I say your conclusion is wrong. You assert:
 
1. The data disagrees with Einstein, therefore:
 
2. The data is wrong.
 
I say that if statement 1 is true, than the only logical conclusion is:
 
2. Einstein was wrong.
 
Anyway, stop trying to prove or disprove experimental data by invoking
theory. To disprove an experimental result, your arguments must be restricted
to a discussion of the specific instruments and techniques used in that
particular experiment. If you assert that McKubre did not find heat, then you
have to show *specifically* what McKubre did wrong. I understand how flow
calorimetry works (because it is delightfully simple, straightforward and
mechanical), and I see no mistake in his work, or in the work of Ikegami,
Kunimatsu, Srinivasan, Mizuno, Storms or several dozen other people. If you
*do* see a mistake, the ball is in your court: tell us what McKubre did
wrong. If you cannot, then you lose, and the heat is real. Stick to the
rules, please.
 
And while we are on that subject: You ask people to take your Kamiokande data
seriously, and I agree, I think they should. I gather you have a couple dozen
neutrons, at sigma 2 or 3. (Correct me if I am wrong about these details.)
Okay, fine, everyone should take that seriously. However, you can't change
the rules. If your 2 or 3 sigma means something, than what about McKubre's 90
sigma? Do you want us to ignore him, and believe you? Why? It is much, much
easier for him to measure heat than it is for you to measure neutrons. When a
simple, trustworthy thermocouple shows a temperature Delta T, I am far more
inclined to believe it than I am to believe that the huge and complex
Kamiokande detector functioned flawlessly for weeks. The smaller and simpler
the instrument, the more likely it is to work, and the more believable it is.
 
For that matter, why should we believe in your handful of neutrons, and say
that Yamaguchi's are wrong? You got a few dozen, he got a million per second
for several seconds along with massive excess heat. It seems to me that he
has a lot more going for him than you do. The most logical conclusion is that
you are both right: Jones is seeing a tiny effect, and Yamaguchi, Takahashi
and many others are seeing a much more massive effect. You see a spark, they
see a bonfire. What's the matter with that?
 
Let us remember that neutron detection is an obscure, arcane scientific art,
whereas people measure temperature and heat in practically every industry on
earth, from automaking to bread baking, from doctor's offices to hospitals to
fishbreeding. It has been an exact science since 1847, when Joule measured
temperatures to the nearest 0.01 F; it is one of the most commonplace,
trustworthy, and practiced skills of all. To argue that Srinivasan cannot
measure 10 C is exactly like arguing that a weatherman cannot tell the
difference between winter and summer. Dick Blue and other experts can find
endless ways to quibble with neutron measurements, but they never argue that
thermocouples cannot measure 10 C. That is why Blue, Huizenga and others
never say a word about the high temperatures: they know perfectly well that
calorimetry proves they are wrong, so they avoid the issue.
 
Getting back to instruments that function flawlessly for weeks, let me
address this crucial point brought up by Tom Droege:
 
"I keep doing very long calibration experiments that would appear to show a
very stable apparatus.  Depending on whether I run at fixed room temperature
with the shell servo on or at variable temperature with it off I get
calibration runs with stability of 1 mw or 35 mw.  But from time to time,
there are changes in calibration that I cannot explain. These seem to always
come during an experiment and have always been in the direction of 'anomalous
heat.'"
 
Amen. I disagree with the last statement only: with other kinds of
calorimeters, I have seen drift in the direction of "anomalous cold,"
especially in Autumn. Maybe your calorimeter tends to drift up, but with
most, the drift is inherently random. After a month, a flow calorimeter can
go a little bonkers for all kinds of reasons, like changes in ambient
temperature, humidity, sand in the hoses... The point is well taken; this is
an important problem. Here are two clear and obvious solutions:
 
     Don't do long experiments.
 
     Ignore marginal results.
 
Do short experiments only. With a palladium Takahashi experiment, if you
don't see heat in two weeks, toss out the cathode: it ain't working. With
nickel, you should see heat in 30 minutes; if nothing happens after a few
hours, forget it. Clean up everything, get new electrolyte and new nickel,
and try again. If it still doesn't work, call me.
 
That is, of course, one of the many reasons nickel experiments are so much
better and easier than palladium experiments: you get results right away,
positive or negative. You can calibrate 5 points in the morning, let the box
cool down for half an hour, and run a conclusive experiment before lunch. A
calorimeter will not drift measurably in that amount of time. If a 1 watt
joule heater drives the temperature from 20 C to 30 C at 10:00 a.m., and a 1
watt CF device drives it up to 40 C at 11:00, you have a definite, 100%
excess. Naturally, it is a good idea to leave the gadget running a week, to
be sure it exceeds the limits of chemistry.
 
If you insist on doing a slow palladium experiment, I recommend an on-the-fly
recalibration with a auxiliary electric heater every week or so. Also, try
slowing the flow for an hour or two. And for goodness sake, measure the flow
with a simple liter bottle and a stopwatch. Precision flowmeters can lie like
any other instrument. Another good idea: after you see positive results for a
week or two, leave the cell running, tear the calorimeter apart, and replace
vital parts like the power supplies, thermocouples, flowmeter, and computer
interface board with backups and spare parts. As you replace each part, check
to be sure the heat is still there.
 
"Ignore marginal results" should be clear to all readers. Ignore
recombination -- toss out the gas and look for an excess like 1.7*I*V. Ignore
teeny, tiny excesses, like 3%. Other people are getting 70%, 200%, 1000%, so
why bother reporting if you can only get 3%? This is not 1989 any more. Drown
out the noise: put in lots of electricity, like 100 watts, and look for 170
out (or at least, 130). Look for BIG and obvious results. When you see a 70%
excess, you can write off all the nasty little marginal errors that creep
into measuring heat (or measuring anything else). Assume the worst case;
assume that every possible error is in the positive direction. Maybe that
pushes the excess down to 60%. So what? Who cares? Big is easier to measure
than small. You might be wrong about a 0.1 C temperature, but you can never
be wrong when the temperature climbs 10 C.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.29 /  Rothwell /  Webb is right
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Webb is right
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:38:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jon Webb puts a great many words in my mouth, and then denies them all. I
agree completely. The following is rubbish and nonsense:
 
"Basically, you seem to believe every paper published that claims a positive
result for cold fusion, and disbelieve every paper that claims a negative
result." Good Grief no!
 
"You claim that anyone can get 90 sigma..." That is the craziest thing I have
ever heard. That is like claiming that anyone can build a functional RAM chip
in their basement. If you want 90 sigma palladium results, you must do what
SRI did: hire the best electrochemists in North America, work for 3 years,
and spend $3 million dollars. It does not happen by accident.
 
"The scientists you cite as skeptics look at the history of cold fusion
experiments and see this pattern over and over: someone claims a positive
result, then withdraws it later (or it just somehow disappears, being
reported at a conference and then never heard from again)..."
 
I hear from everyone in the field, at regular intervals. Whenever I call or
fax, they tell me what they are up to. Who the Hell are you talking about?
 
"Or someone claims to have gotten cold fusion to work, then can't get it to
work anymore..." What do you mean "anymore?" Do you mean it does not always
work the second or third time? Naturally. Sometimes you gotta try it again
for weeks or months before it works again. The same thing happens when you
program a computer, or learn to bake a torte. There is nothing unusual,
unexpected or unscientific about that. Anyone who has ever developed a new
product or learned a new skill has experienced that sort of disappointment.
 
"Or someone tries a cold fusion experiment with apparently careful technique,
and it doesn't work..."
 
Who did you have in mind? Tom Droege? Me? He has done a handful of
experiments, I have done three. So what? To succeed at Pd CF, you sometimes
have to do hundreds of experiments. You have be prepared to work for years --
full time -- with no results at all. Tom and I are not even in the running.
Tom would have to hire half a dozen people, or 32 people, and spend million
of bucks before he could authoritatively tell us what does or does not work.
Tom is a great guy, but he is not playing in the same league as the Big Guns
who get positive results every time they run the experiment. He and I are
mere amateurs, puttering around part time, and you cannot draw any
conclusions from the handful of meager experiments we have performed.
 
What is your idea of 'apparently careful technique' anyway? One experiment?
10 experiments? Try 200 and call me back in three years. 'Apparently careful'
to who? I have seen some vaunted, world-famous 'experiments' from supposedly
careful people that were laughable. I could tell in an instant what they had
done wrong: I mean, in one case, they left the cathode half out of the water!
This is not a game for beginners. There is no room in this field for quitters
who stop after one or two experiments without ever consulting with the
experts. Are you saying that because the experiment is difficult, the
phenomenon does not exist? Okay: light bulbs don't exist. It took Edison
years to make a reliable one, didn't it? Airplanes and computer software
don't exist. Recombinant DNA applications, and stable high-temperature
superconductors will never exist. Balderdash!
 
"As I understand it, you think that cold fusion exists... that it can be done
in a wide variety of experimental situations, ranging from electrolysis of
palladium or nickel to titanium soaked in deuterium gas to outgassing from
palladium plates; that it sometimes produces tritium or He3 or He4 or
neutrons or gamma rays..."
 
You understand very little, but you got that partly right. I don't know
anything about He3 or gamma rays, though, and you left out the single most
important, most overriding and undeniable product; the key to the whole
riddle:
 
     Heat
 
Don't forget that! It is the easiest thing to measure, and the most
conclusive, by far.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:39:59 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <921224131629.20c03af9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>I would like to remind Jed Rothwell that the Nickel cell heat went away with a
>Mercury bubbler between the cell and the catalyst.  You tell me how the cell
>knew the catalyst was there.  Perhaps it is an ESP experiment!
>
 
No one's said this yet, so I'll stick my neck out.  Maybe the cell
knew the *bubbler* was there, not the catalyst.  I don't know how a
mercury bubbler is constructed, but it seems there must be a
gas-mercury interface on both sides of the bubbler.  I've heard that
mercury evaporates slowly at room temperature, enough to be a health
hazard if a lot of it is spilled.  So maybe the cathode is being
contaminated by mercury!  (An argument against SSFreedom on
sci.physics a few months ago asked what would happen if mercury were
spilled in the station, and suggested that there would be no good way
to make it habitable again.)  BTW, did you say you had spilled mercury
in your basement once?  Even if you cleaned it up below health-hazard
levels, there might be enough vapor running around to poison
everything you don't do under argon.
 
--
A person without religion is like a fish without a hook.
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-737-2061
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 / Jon Webb /  Re: Webb is right
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Webb is right
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:51:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <921229215812_72240.1256_EHL60-1@CompuServe.COM>
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
   "Basically, you seem to believe every paper published that claims a positive
   result for cold fusion, and disbelieve every paper that claims a negative
   result." Good Grief no!
 
Well, I must have misunderstood your posts.  What cold fusion
phenomena *do you* believe in, and what don't you believe in?  You
seem to accept all the positive Japanese results at face value, and
also Mills and Farrell.  What class of cold fusion phenomena does that
omit?
 
   "You claim that anyone can get 90 sigma..." That is the craziest thing I have
   ever heard. That is like claiming that anyone can build a functional RAM chip
   in their basement.
 
You *did* say, "Any fool can measure 90 sigma."  Perhaps I'm
misinterpreting your statement, but, to me, that sounds like what I
said.
 
   "The scientists you cite as skeptics look at the history of cold fusion
   experiments and see this pattern over and over: someone claims a positive
   result, then withdraws it later (or it just somehow disappears, being
   reported at a conference and then never heard from again)..."
 
   I hear from everyone in the field, at regular intervals. Whenever I call or
   fax, they tell me what they are up to. Who the Hell are you talking about?
 
Many many early cold fusion results were withdrawn.  As for results
that have disappeared, there are the China Lake results, for example.
Also a year or so ago there was a place in central Florida claiming
easy cold fusion through stimulation by radiation, and we've never
heard from them again.  Even McKubre has not seen fit to publish in a
journal.
 
   "Or someone claims to have gotten cold fusion to work, then can't get it to
   work anymore..." What do you mean "anymore?"
 
I mean never again, despite the most careful effort.  E.g., Huggins.
 
   "Or someone tries a cold fusion experiment with apparently careful technique,
   and it doesn't work..."   Who did you have in mind?
 
I mean many many experiments that you can find in Dieter Britz's
bibliography.  There are several instances where someone put together
a good team of electrochemists and physicists and couldn't get the
thing to work.
 
   I don't know
   anything about He3 or gamma rays, though, and you left out the single most
   important, most overriding and undeniable product; the key to the whole
   riddle:
 
        Heat
 
   Don't forget that! It is the easiest thing to measure, and the most
   conclusive, by far.
 
Actually, it's not that easy to measure.  You have a system into which
you're putting a certain, fairly large, amount of energy, and in which
you want to measure the excess energy emerging.  But (partly depending
on where the system is open or closed) some of the energy is going
into evaporation, some is going into disassociation of water, some is
going into the palladium as it absorbs hydrogen or deuterium
(apparently this is sometimes endothermic, sometimes exothermic), some
is going into or emerging from various chemical reactions, some places
in the experiment are hotter than others, etc., etc.
 
By contrast, a detector of radiation products can be made far more
reliable, since it gives a signal that has few other sources in the
environment (namely cosmic rays or radioactive impurities in the
experiment, which can be dealt with by various means), and which
emerges instantaneously, in the case of gamma rays and neutrons.  If
the experiment produces radiation or He3 or tritium that wasn't there
before, and it didn't come from cosmic rays or radioactive impurities,
well, then, you've got a success.  No messing around with figuring the
heat balance or worrying about turbulence or anything else.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 /  /  Status #5 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #5 Cell 4A3
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:59:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #5 Cell 4A3
 
We have now run cell 4A3 for 184 hours (yesterday's post said about 200 but
that was not looking at the log book).  For the last 60 hours or so the
calorimeter has been in balance at 7.250 watts with an rms balance noise of
0.006 watts rms using the one hour average data.  Using the one minute data,
the rms value of the variation is 0.025 watts.  To noise experts, this
probably tells all, but not to me.
 
In any case, since 60 hours is long compared to the primary calorimeter time
constant of 1/4 hour, we think this is the true calorimeter balance point and
the calibration taken as 7.788 watts has just changed for some reason
(probably the large changes in temperature have changed the gain of the
thermoelectric devices).
 
We will now sit here until we see something or give up.
 
Gas continues to increase in the motor driven syringe, indicating evolved
Oxygen from absorbed Deuterium until we learn better.  Presently we have
accumulated 170.4 cc for a 2.69/1 D/Pd ratio.  I just report what I measure
and how I do it folks, I make no claims about it being right.  You may
remember earlier I reported that we were over 200 cc for over 3/1 ratio, but
various experiments to try to verify the loading caused a loss of loading -
but with some assurance that the measurements are correct.  The structure of
the gas absorption looks just like the experiments that I have done on the
bench with open cells where the gas can be seen to be boiling out of the Pd
cathode during discharge conditions, and when there are just no bubbles at the
cathode during absorption.
 
>From time to time there are also the little time constant bumps where it looks
like the cell suddenly gets hot.  However, since this is the observation of
noise, I can also find spots where it looks like the cathode suddenly gets
cold with a time constant.  I believe the positive pulses prevail, and
remember analysis of previous runs does show an asymmetry in the delta
temperature distribution.
 
Because of the problems with this run, we are re-designing the Mark III.  The
plan is to put a conduction calorimeter (like the device used by Appleby)
inside of our null balance calorimeter.  Then we will run the null balance
calorimeter at a constant 0 C, and warm up the experiment to the desired
temperature inside the constant 0 C environment.  We already know by
experiment that this will make the null balance calorimeter quieter, so
everything should get better.  By having two calorimeters making the same
measurement, we can check one against the other.  While the conduction
calorimeter will be less accurate, we should still be able to do 0.1% on the
cross check.  To those wondering why it takes so long to get it right,
remember that the Wheatstone bridge was not a very precise device for a long
time.  Even in the 1950's long after bridges were in use, I did some work on
precision resistor stability at NADC Johnsville.  Over a several year
measurement program the precision wire wound resistors we were testing would
wander around 0.1% or so.  So I do not feel so bad, even with a 7% change.  I
just have to learn how to do it right.  There is plenty of indication of long
periods of stability.  I just have to learn what can cause a change.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 /  /  Status #4 Cell 4A3 (Sorry if this is a duplicate send)
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #4 Cell 4A3 (Sorry if this is a duplicate send)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:59:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #4 Cell 4A3
 
If I don't believe a large shift in the calorimeter what do I believe?  Why do
I keep doing these experiments?
 
First the calorimeter has been steady within a few milliwatts the last day or
so at 7.248 watts with a calibration at 7.788.  This means that the balance
point has changed 0.540 watts in the direction of "anomalous heat".  For the
moment I am assuming that this is a shift in balance point brought on by the
temperature cycling between 4 C and 60 C.  I have already been told by someone
(sorry I have forgotten the name - please claim credit - I really appreciate
the information) that thermoelectric devices age when they are temperature
cycled, so I should have done more up-down cycles than I did during
calibration to watch for this.  It is very hard to do enough calibrations when
they take so long.  The sign of the change is such that if the temperature
cycling is the cause, then the thermoelectric device became a less efficient
pump.  This is exactly what one would expect if the temperature changes are
breaking up the crystal structure.
 
There is something in the data that to me would more indicate that interesting
things are going on.  From time to time there are small up spikes in the cell
temperature.  A typical one jumps up 0.1 degree in temperature between one
minute samples and then decays with about a 2 minute time constant.  This
decay time is quite reasonable for the dimensions of the cell.  One thing that
could cause such spikes would be a jump in cell voltage, but that is not
there.  The spikes are accompanied by an energy deposit, and the inner loop
servo moves in a direction to remove heat from the cell.  Generally there is
no matching temperature spike in the catalyst one way or the other.  This
would seem to rule out catalyst artifacts or recombination in the cell.
 
I am thus quite convinced that the cell from time to time puts out heat pulses
with an magnitude of 1 to 20 joules.  More typical 5 to 10 joules.  Please
note that I do not claim that these are net heat pulses, but only that they
are sudden releases of heat which could have been stored up in some chemical
relaxation oscillator process.  Note that we have also seen this on previous
runs and have looked at a lot of cell temperature data and found that the
distribution of temperature changes is not symmetrical as one would expect
(I think) from noise.
 
Since last night, there has also been a small upward trend in the "anomalous
heat.  But less than 10 milliwatts.  We are about 200 hours into the run.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 /  Rothwell /  Sounds plausible to me
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sounds plausible to me
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:59:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege asked me:
 
"I would like to remind Jed Rothwell that the Nickel cell heat went away with
a Mercury bubbler between the cell and the catalyst.  You tell me how the
cell knew the catalyst was there.  Perhaps it is an ESP experiment!"
 
...and Chris Phoenix came back with an interesting and plausible idea that
might answer the question:
 
"Maybe the cell knew the *bubbler* was there, not the catalyst.  I don't know
how a mercury bubbler is constructed, but it seems there must be a
gas-mercury interface on both sides of the bubbler. I've heard that mercury
evaporates slowly at room temperature..."
 
Right. Maybe you should try 6 or 8 different kinds of bubblers. I think
people use oil bubblers, but that is a definite no no with a nickel cell. You
want a viscous, non-organic liquid. I would try no bubbler (that is, a tube
directly from the cell to another cell with a recombiner in it). If a person
was to work on that particular question, full-time for 6 months or so, I am
pretty sure he would find the answer. I would start with a whole series of
experiments, and find out a lot more about bubblers than I now know, which is
zero. I would also try exposing a working, open cell to mercury fumes, to see
if that kills the reaction. It does not take much to murder this reaction. If
these cells are ever commercialized, they will have to be sealed like
rechargeable batteries or hard disks.
 
I don't know why nickel cells don't work well with recombiners. I don't like
recombiners anyway, they cause endless trouble, and when they fail they can
cause grave danger. I would never fool with one at this stage. If anyone out
there is determined to use a recombiner with a nickel cell, wait a couple of
weeks until I reach Bob Bush and ask him what kind he uses. Why reinvent the
wheel? Find out what works, you can save months of heartbreaking wasted time.
 
This raises a Very Important Point: there is a lot to be learned here.
Furthermore, we cannot go chasing off after every weird anomaly that crops up
along the way. Why does a mercury bubbler + recombiner poison a nickel cell?
Who knows? Is it worth the time and effort required to find out? Nope. I
don't think so. Maybe later, after we all get 10 times input excess heat.
Right now, the best thing to do is to make an open nickel cell that works
splendidly: way, way above I*V. After you wring it out, then go back to
recombiners, or -- better yet -- fuel cells. In all cases, learn from what
other people have done, don't waste your time trying to find a recombiner
that works if other people already know.
 
I just heard from another nickel experimenter who reports "substantial
recombination" on the cathode, along with substantial excess heat above I*V.
Actually, if we can most of the gas to recombine on the cathode every time
with assurance, it would be a great thing: we will not need to worry so much
about explosive gas. Notoya and others believe that the reaction occurs
midway through the electrolytic decomposition of water, during the formation
of an intermetalic intermediate compound. If they are right, then by time you
get free hydrogen and oxygen, the reaction is over, you might as well put the
two back together then and there. They say there is no need to build up a
supply of free hydrogen at the metal surface or near surface, and you
certainly do not want free oxygen in the cell.
 
My hunch is that recombination on the cathode occurs with certain cathode
geometries, but not with others. Perhaps it is also a function of the cathode
surface temperature. I do not have a handle on the problem.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 / Larry Wall /  Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups:
 alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.misc,sci.o
 ptics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:11:12 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992Dec27.174901.7159@netcom.com> raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
 writes:
: I am not very knowledgeable, but I thought the energy of virtual particles
: is an effect of the uncertainty principle and is available only on very
: limited time scales after which it must be given up.
 
That's backwards, I think.  The uncertainty principle is a description
of the way virtual particles make things look.  The virtual particles
aren't a consequence of the uncertainty principle, except maybe in the
sense that evolution is a consequence of how we classify various living
things.  One generally prefers to state it the other way: that how we
describe things is a consequence of how things came about.
 
In a very real sense, it would appear that there are *no* real particles,
but *only* virtual particles that, by some clever accounting tricks, add
up to make it look like there's a real particle here, or maybe there.
Even the speed of light is not a real barrier to virtual particles--some
can go faster than that, and some slower, but they all average out
to make it look like the speed of light is what it is.
 
That's basically a layman's interpretation of how Diagram Dick explained
QED, so the professionals might want to disagree or amplify or obfuscate.
 
Be that as it may, it is believed by many that, while virtual particles
*generally* annihilate rapidly, there are ways to cheat when you get
near singularities.  If you can get a singularity, such as a black hole,
to embezzle half of a virtual pair of particles, the other half now looks
like a real credit (or is that a debit?), and wanders off looking like a
real particle.
 
The question before the house is whether there is a way to get the
"vacuum" of the universe to embezzle from itself long enough (or far
enough away) that *you* aren't the person who has to cover the debt.
Presumably the debt has to be paid sometime--in the case of a black
hole, the black hole pays by shrinking.  It's not clear to me who would
pay for a vacuum energy device.  Perhaps the universe as a whole, or
perhaps just nearby masses of energy.  Perhaps all mass evaporates
eventually and we can just help it along a little, for a tidy little
profit, in a piratical sort of way.  Perhaps one can pull and/or push
virtual particles into or out of existence with electromagnetic
singularities just as gravitational singularities are thought to do.
Perhaps one can construct some kind of weird heat pipe between the
Sun's core and the laboratory, using "vacuum" as the transmission
medium.  Perhaps there is really some kind of twisty singularity in
certain crystals of nickel or palladium that can fool the universal
auditor briefly.  Perhaps, if we're elvish enough, we cheat the
universe of its gold by temporarily lending it dry leaves.  Perhaps.
 
And perhaps not.  We're having fun yet.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.30 /  /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:38:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell, the trouble with writing so much is that it is like the Bible, I
can use your words to prove anything I want.
 
You write:
 
"Who did you have in mind?  Tom Droege?  Me?  He has done a handful of
experiments, I have done three.  So what?  To succeed at Pd CF, you sometimes
have to do hundreds of experiments.  You have be prepared to work for years --
full time -- with no results at all.  Tom and I are not even in the running.
Tom would have to hire half a dozen people, or 32 people, and spend million
of bucks before he could authoritatively tell us what does or does not work."
(Quote tactfully ended before Jed says "Tom is a great guy ... .")
 
Speak for yourself, Jed, I am very much "in the running".
 
Later Jed says "There is no room in this field for quitters who stop after one
or two experiments ... ."
 
Or three, Jed?  You were warned!
 
Just because I am working at home in my basement, Jed, it does not mean I am
doing second class work.  I am doing the best calorimetry in the field, even
if I admit errors of 7% when I do something sloppy.  I bet I have taken more
measurements, and to higher precision than anybody.  Roughly 10E10 at the last
count.  With 10E8 recorded.  Most to 16++ bit precision.  I will further bet I
am in the top 10 in the number of Pd CF experiments performed, and at least in
the top 20 of Ni - H2O experiments performed.  I estimate 30,000 experimental
running hours.  That 4A3 in my progress reports means series 4, cell A,
cathode 3 in cell A.  P&F and Storms (most of Storms D absorption only) have
run more cells than I have, but I have done more cells than McKubre, for
example, of the big shots.  I also think I beat everybody in the quality of
the measurements.  Sure I wish I had a hood and a chemical sink.  But I am
learning how to work around the chemical problems.  So don't say I am not in
the running.  Most are not in the running with me!
 
Most of the people that you seem to weigh heavily like Nagoya and Takahashi
are not very convincing to me.  The only good write up that I have seen is
that by McKubre.  The many watts that you seem to like from Takahashi are not
very convincing to me.  In fact, the raw data plots from Takahashi that you
nicely sent can be interpreted as no heat at all (when Takahashi claims 100
watts or so) by transient analysis.
 
Further, it is not clear that 32 people and a bunch of money would help.  (I
have regularly turned down offers of financial support.  But not help to do
things.)  I know how long it takes to build a productive group of 32 people as
I have just done it for CDF.  It takes about 5 years to hire and fit together
a group of that size.  My guess is that hiring all those people has slowed
down the effort by P&F to a standstill.  The only hope is that they had a
number of people with whom they had previously worked that they could persuade
to join the effort.
 
It takes very little time or people to "authoritatively tell us what does ...
work."  No number of people are enough to tell us "what ... does not work."
 
Here is how it works, Jed.  I figure out how to do the experiment.  Any of the
schemes under discussion.   Then by the theoretical rules of science I am
supposed to publish my experiment and the details of how to do it in a
refereed journal.  Then someone reads it and decides to duplicate it.  If this
succeeds, then this result is published too, and a few more try it.  After a
while one of two things happens.  Enough people try the experiment and agree
that it works until every one in the field knows someone they trust who has
done the experiment and so all agree that it works, or enough people try the
experiment and fail so that everyone in the field knows someone they believe
who has failed.
 
Of course, the whole process falls apart when the workers in the field think
that there are "trillions" of dollars involved since they tend to leave out
crucial details.
 
The actual rules of science are somewhat different today.  I write something
up and fax it to a colleague with instructions to keep quiet about it until I
can publish the result.  About 30 minutes later, everyone in the world with
any possible interest in the subject has a copy.  As results are obtained, the
process continues.  Several years later the first papers appear in the
journals.  Only slightly exaggerated.
 
But Jed, we are not yet even to the stage one fax on Pd CF.  If we count the
Mills procedure as a stage one fax, then there is the problem that some do not
agree (like me and I think also Bockris) that it works.
 
Jed, you do us all one service, and that is to force us to think a little on
how science works.  Mostly it is a subject never mentioned in school, at least
not in *my* educational process of 250 or so semester hours.  So it is good to
think about it.  How about it out there - Has anyone ever sat in a lecture of
their major and been told "here are the rules of science in xxx"?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Chris Phoenix
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Chris Phoenix
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:24:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chris Phoenix worries that possibly the Mills experiment failed because
there was a mercury bubbler in the calorimeter.  There was a water bubbler
there first.  But Mills said the back pressure would not be high enough.
There was also and oil bubbler, then the Mercury.  Mills seems to me to be
a moving target.  Whenever a careful measurement does not work, you get to
do something different.  But his first experiment "works" if done as he
describes.  But then you find that a more complete experiment does not work,
then Mills tells you to try something else ... .
 
As to Mercury making Freedom non habitable, while I agree that it is likely
not good for you, the human body can stand a lot, and I bet that the over all
risk of a Mercury spill is a lot less than the toxicity of a bad "O" ring.
I assure you that as a child, the breaking of a mercury thermometer was a "fun"
moment.  We would pick up and hord the mercury drops until we got a dime.  Not
very often in my childhood.  In those days dimes were made of silver and a
small drop on the dime if worked long enough would makd the dime very shiny
and slippery.  We likely also licked them, though I was broght up to never put
money in my mouth as it was "dirty".  Please note that this involved of
working the mercury into the dime with the fingers.  If mercury were that toxic
I would be shaking like the Mad Hatter as I must have "silvered" dozens of
dimes.
 
Our logic on toxicity seems to be that if a milligram will kill a person, then
a milligram spread over a thousand persons will kill one of them.  Because
we can now measure fantasticlly small concentrations of materials known to be
toxic in high concentrations, we are afraid of everything.  In the end, fear
will kill more of us than a few parts per billion of almost anyting.
 
My grandmother said "you have to eat a peck of dirt before you die".  I think
our bodies were designed to cope with the toxic equivalent of that peck of
dirt, and it is only when overwhelmed by a massive dose of toxic material that
the defense mechanisms fail.
 
Tom Droege
 
* For those who don't know, a peck is 1/4 bushel.  Now what is a bushel?
"A unit of dry measure containing four pecks" says my dictionary.  But it
also says 2150.42 cu inches.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic fusion
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:24:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Lloyd G. Allred, Ph. D. writes:
>The sharp points produce enormous fields.
 
It is true that the gradients can be over very short distances, but a
proton falling through, say, 20kv has the same final kinetic energy
whether the 20kv gradient is spread over a meter or an angstrom.
 
>I made the conjecture that cold fusion could be induced by focusing
>electric fields using electrostatic devices, in particular, that electric
>fields at the corners of such devices could be made sufficient to induce
>thermonuclear fusion.
 
If the mode of fusion is kinetic energy induced coulomb barrier penetration,
then I'd be inclined to doubt it.  However,  if the applied gradient is
used to directly oppose and nullify the coulomb repulsion of the nucleus,
that might be something to consider.
 
>At any point in the interior of a conductive
>device, the electric field must therefore be zero, otherwise, any
>electron at that point would be accelerated, thus changing the
>distribution of the electric charges and the corresponding electric
>fields and the electric fields would not therefore be static.
 
This is a useful insight into basic physics.  Thanks.
 
>For an electrostatic object of a cone, we intend to show that the
>electric field approaches infinity as one approaches the tip of the
>cone.
 
I'll have to beg off on understanding the calculations used to show this,
but on an intuative level it seems an overstatement.  You have a finite
charge (X electrons) and a non-infinitely small distance (Y meters) and
therefore the inverse product of the two is going to result in a finite
density or gradient.   To appeal to infinities in this case seems to be
a bit of marketing hyperbola.
 
>If the conductive metal becomes positively charged, the hydrogen nuclei
>will congregate at the sharp points of the surface, and be ejected
>from the surface.
 
I believe you just argued against this above where you said that the
electric field gradient would be zero at all points inside and on the
surface of the conductor.  Thus, rather than a congregation of nucleium
at the point, it would, due to the higher external charge gradient, see
the exact opposite, a lower population of nuclei than at other locations
on the charged surface.
 
You can, as you suggest, however, expect some ejection or ionization at the
point due to the geometry of the system generating a high field gradient at
the point.
 
>I fully understand that infinite electrical fields are an impossibility.
>As a consequence, static conditions cannot be achieved on an object with a
>tip because the charge leaks off into empty space.  The charge at such a
>tip will be less than infinite.
 
As pointed out above, even without leakage, the gradient would be finite.
 
>As a result, the charged particles within the device will be accelerated
>toward the tip these accelerations approach infinity as the charges move
>toward the tip.
 
Again, there will be no current unless it is to replace ejected charges
(or under startup transient conditions).  When an ejection deficit does
occur, the high gradient will accelerate the nuclie quicker, but over a
correspondingly shorter distance, the net result is that the final kinetic
energy is never more than that associated with the applied voltage (for
instance, you mentioned 20kv.)
 
I see that latter on you appeal to tidal analogues.  While this is an
interesting possibility, the exact mechanism by which this would occur is
not sufficiently spelled out.
 
 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 /  Rothwell /  Why should it be simple?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why should it be simple?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:22:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Jon is the one-zillionth person to come up with the weird, naive, and
counter-intuitive argument that the CF reaction cannot exist because it
happens too easily, in too many places, under too many conditions, with too
many different products. Huizenga said to me, "first you say it happens in
palladium, now nickel. Which is it? Make up your mind!" Is there a rule it
can't be both? What on earth makes people think that a natural phenomena
must be simple, straightforward, and can only work in one fashion? Why must
there be one and only one way to start a CF reaction? Let us have a look
at another well know reaction:
 
Me: "Look here: I have dried grass and sticks. I can start a 'fire' by
rubbing the sticks together, or by focusing sunlight with this magnifying
glass, or even by striking these pieces of flint together near the grass.
It has to be flint, though; other kinds of rocks don't work."
 
Skeptic: "You must be talking about three different phenomena. The
conditions that trigger this reaction are totally different: friction is
nothing like sunlight, and your rock experiment can't be right. Why should
it work with flint but not with granite or sandstone? If it works with one
kind of rock, it should work with all the others the same way. So anyway,
how do you quench the reaction?"
 
Me: "Now, that brings up a very odd point: To quench the reaction, I pour
water on it. But, I have observed, there is a slow, long term version of
fire that works in just the opposite fashion. You get a large pile of dried
grass, wet it down, bale it up, and put it in a barn. In a couple of
months, it is likely to burst into flames spontaneously. It doesn't happen
every time, it is not as predictable as the 'fast' methods. To avoid the
'slow' reaction, be sure the grass is nice and dry before you bale it, and
throw some salt on the bales to help keep it dry. But, if you do get this
water-induced fire, you can quench it by putting a much larger amount of
water on it: several orders of magnitude larger."
 
Skeptic: "First of all, this is crazy and contradictory! How can water stop
the reaction in one case and promote it in another?!? Furthermore, how can
there be 'slow' fire that takes weeks to get going, and 'fast' fire that
you start in a few minutes by banging rocks together. [Slow Pd CF, fast Ni
CF]. It has to work the same way, at the same speed, or it is not the same
reaction."
 
Me: "Look, it's complicated, I don't know why or how it works. But come and
observe, or try it yourself. It will burn if you do it right. Just remember
the recipes and rules of thumb: dry for fast fire, wet for slow. Don't use
any rock but flint. If you want to use the stick rubbing method, don't wet
or lubricate the stick to make it go faster, but do rub it as fast as you
can. For a slow fire, compress the grass into tight bales [high loading],
but for a fast fire, make a loose pile of grass to allow plenty of air,
and..."
 
Skeptic: "Stop giving me all these ad hoc, contradictory rules! I don't
have to look. I can see that the whole story is full of contradictions, and
it is far too complicated. It can't work in so many different ways under
different conditions! Nature is always simple, straightforward and logical.
If I cannot understand this phenomenon merely by thinking about it, and
comparing it to previously discovered phenomena according to the known
laws, then it can't exist. I don't have to do any experiments, I am an
expert already."
 
Moral: If you don't understand a phonomenon, then it does not appear to make
any sense. CF looks far more complicated than it really is. *After* we learn
what CF is, and how it works, all of the appearent, mind-boggling
contradictions will vanish, the disparate data will fit together, and CF will
fit in neatly with everything else we know about nature.
 
Note: every statement here has a close analogy in the CF debate. "All rocks
must work the same way" equates to Morrison's Law: "Palladium and nickel are
the same thing." I write these analogies carefully.
 
This, by the way, will be my last posting for a while, as my many Gentle
Readers will be pleased to hear. I thank you for your responses here, and
by private e-mail.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1256 cudfn cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Sounds plausible to me
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sounds plausible to me
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:39:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>I don't know why nickel cells don't work well with recombiners.
 
>Why does a mercury bubbler + recombiner poison a nickel cell?
 
I think this mis-categorizes Droege's experiments.  It was, as I recall,
only when the recombiner and the cell were in the calorimeter at the
same time that the anomalous heat went away.  When the recombiner was
placed outside the calorimeter but still connected and functioning, the
anomalous heat returned.
 
>I just heard from another nickel experimenter who reports "substantial
>recombination" on the cathode, along with substantial excess heat above I*V.
>
>My hunch is that recombination on the cathode occurs with certain cathode
>geometries, but not with others. Perhaps it is also a function of the cathode
>surface temperature. I do not have a handle on the problem.
 
My own measurements of 23% shortage of gases also pointed to recombination
(or parallel current paths.)
 
On the basis of these recombination reports, it is now almost certain that any
result less than I*V is "down in the noise" unless extremely careful accounting
is made of evolved gases.  There might be anomalous heat in less than I*V
open cells, but it is competely masked by the uncertainty of the recombination
potential.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: electrostatic fusion
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:51:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
(No, I have not disappeared.  I will be sending a largish contribution on
the issue of cavitation fairly soon.  It scared the daylights out of me when
my off-the-cuff ramblings came so close to real experiments of which I had
no knowledge.  Cold glycerin/water cavitation _really does_ give UV?  Wow!)
 
 
In article <1992Dec29.112835.62319@cc.usu.edu> system@cc.usu.edu writes:
 
> Introduction:  Researchers at Hill Air Force Base have recently
> submitted a patent application concerning the use of electrostatic
> devices for creating nuclear fusion ...
> The sharp points produce enormous fields. In the phenomena known as
> Saint Elmo's fire, a corona is observed at the edges of leaves where
> the charge on the leaves leaks off into the surrounding atmosphere.
 
Sigh.  While I like seeing this kind of serious entry, this one immediately
raised a red flag.  Sharp points do indeed increase field gradients, and this
in combination with quantum tunneling permits very sharp points to release
electrons from room temperature cathodes.
 
However, there is an entire mini-electronics-industry in the process of
forming around this very effect, mainly because thin-film diamonds happen to
be very good at releasing elecrons from such sharp points.  In the not-to-far
future you are likely to see extremely tiny true vacuum tubes being made with
this effect, since to this day there are things you can do with triods that
you just cannot achieve very easily with true solid state devices.
 
In short, there is a _lot_ of literature on the subject of the field emission
effect.  I recall field-effect microscopes from back in my childhood days, and
quantification of the effect mathematically extends well before that, I'm sure.
 
The thing to remember about these field emission effects is that while they
do permit electrons to stream off in a decidedly non-classical fashion from
a cold needle, the total acceleration provided by the effect is no higher
than it would be for the same voltage differential without the sharp points.
 
Why?  Because the region of extremely high field gradient is also very, very
short.  It has to be -- a voltage difference is a voltage difference is a
voltage difference, and if you "use up" most of the gradient in a very short
distance, the rest of the gradient will just be very shallow.  E.g.:
 
        +5V -  _                            +5V ---------------
                  -  _                                         \
                        -  _                                    \
                              - 0V                               \ 0V
 
The curve to the right ends with a whopper of a voltage gradient, but just as
a rock released on either of the gravitational equivalent of these two slopes
would still hit with (ideally) exactly the same energy at the end of the slope,
the final energy of the electron will be determined only by the difference
in height (volage), not by how steeply the voltage changes in some regions.
 
I have not read through the article in detail, and so will of course cannot
say for sure how I will react to their arguments.  But I am very, very sure
that field gradients due to physically sharp points do not produce phenomenally
high final accelerations _unless_ a very large voltage difference already
exists -- which would make the whole issue rather moot, since no one denies
that very high voltages can accelerate ions to very high speeds.
 
Additionally, there are some quantum issues that cannot be ignored.  Even the
intial "acceleration" of the electron in a field effect needle is not really
a traditional acceleration, but a type of tunneling -- the electron more-or-
less "loses itself" for a brief time and finds itself suddenly on the wrong
side of an "impassible" energy barrier at the surface of the metal.  It then
moseys on out at a rather modest acceleration and final velocity.
 
At any rate, best of luck to the authors and I hope they will continue to
work on this one.  But I would strongly recommend a detailed search of the
literature on the field emmission effect and "cold cathode" electronics.
 
(And by the way, one of the reasons I'm a bit adamant is that I followed
pretty much this same path about two years ago and eventually abandoned it
when I realized that I had been confusing some of the issues of field
gradients and voltage differences.  It's very interesting stuff, at any
rate, and well worth a closer look by anyone interested in oddball solid
state effects.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 / Tom Kunich /  Re: Status #4 Cell 4A3 (Sorry if this is a duplicate send)
     
Originally-From: tomk@seer.gentoo.com (Tom Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #4 Cell 4A3 (Sorry if this is a duplicate send)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:25:10 GMT
Organization: Brad Lanam,  Walnut Creek, CA

In article <921230135548.20c05e3b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
 writes:
>I have already been told by someone
>(sorry I have forgotten the name - please claim credit - I really appreciate
>the information) that thermoelectric devices age when they are temperature
>cycled, so I should have done more up-down cycles than I did during
>calibration to watch for this.
 
I assume that you mean me. Here is what I know about Peltier devices:
 
When broadly cycled from limit to limit, the crystals comprising
the structure of the device will fracture. As these devices are built
of multitudes of these crystals each loss is very small and shows up
as a decrease in efficiency. Eventually enough of the device is destroyed
so that it simply no longer operates.
 
The temperatures at which I observed this was temperature cycling between
about 0 degrees C and 100 degrees C.
 
I have not tried to find this failure at smaller temperature swings as
we had other fish to fry. I wouldn't be suprised, however, to find that
both milder temperature swings and/or mechanical stress would cause the same
failures though at a much reduced rate.
 
I am suspicious that the temperature swings cause mechanical stress via
the end plates and that the crysals (some sort of boron mixture?) are
by their very nature quite brittle.
 
If I understand Peltier devices, there is no special reason to use crystals
other than silicon. Maybe someone can enlighten us both on that subject.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentomk cudfnTom cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
processed with cud.prl ver. 0.3
