1995.03.24 / Robert Horst / Re: What to do with the extra trip fund? Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst) Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What to do with the extra trip fund? Subject: E-Quest Helium Results Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 21:50:12 GMT Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:09:04 GMT Organization: Tandem Computers In article , scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) wrote: > > Suggested ventures: > > 1) Fund someone to bring their working cell(s) to Steve Jones' or Scott > Little's lab to search for signature radiation. > > 2) Fund SJ or SL to visit a lab for the same search. > > If Tom doesn't want to hold and disburse the funds, I am willing to step back > into the treasurer role. I agree with Scott that we should use the money for something more in line with the original charter. (Since Griggs alread has a modem and there was an offer of a free internet connection, he should not need the $300 that Tom has proposed.) My suggestion for using the funds would be to send someone to E-Quest to give us a first-hand report on their experiments and helium results. They have reported extraordinary results with multiple independent verifications of helium production. This would give us something other than calorimetry to discuss once in a while. (I have appended a portion of a previous post of E-Quest results for those that did not see it.) On Scott's other question, I support the idea that he continues as treasurer. He did a fine job in collecting the money and getting it to Tom. Thanks Scott. -- Bob Horst __________________ Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) Subject: E-Quest Helium Results Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:09:04 GMT 1. E-Quest now has verified helium production in excess heat-producing experiments that range from 50 watts excess to 500 watts excess. Experiments are done in their heavy water circulation system. Typically Pd is used in these experiments, though Ti works too, but gives a somewhat different response. They do not get excess heat in ordinary water or with stainless steel targets. The excess heat-producing runs to generate helium ranged from 3 hours to 72 hours duration. 2. Helium measurements have now been successfully made with gas samples from the E-Quest experiments --- samples were measured at the US Bureau of Mines (Amarillo, Texas), at SRI International, and most recently at Rockwell (the latter lab is known to be used for helium measurements by investigators in the hot fusion program). 3. Ten (10) runs have been analyzed for helium. ALL gave positive helium results. Earlier runs tended to be in the 50-60 ppm of helium-4 range. At least one sample measured at Rockwell recently was a remarkable 552 ppm (NO decimal point error: Yes, five-hundred fifty-two ppm) The error range: plus or minus 1 ppm. E-Quest believes this latter result accounts for nearly all of the excess heat evidenced in that run. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.23 / Steven Axdal / Re: Superconductors, OK. Superresistors? Originally-From: axdal@cdev.com (Steven H. A. Axdal) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Superconductors, OK. Superresistors? Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 17:57:02 GMT Organization: Computing Devices International In article <3kmn3f$1f2@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, (Ed) wrote: >In message <3klodf$qkv@jake.esu.edu>, bmk69346@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE >(Brad M. Kraft) writes: >>...Is it possible to somehow achieve a superresistor >>that resists thermal as well as electrical energy? > >You are talking about ceramics. Ceramics are very good electrical >and thermal insulators. Ah, a slight correction. Ceramics are excellent electrical insulators, but generally lousy thermal insulators. If some one points out the tiles on the Space Shuttle, I would claim that the thermal insulation properties there are largely a matter of the entrapped space. Having said that I check my local _Machine Design_ Materials selector Thermal Conductivity table to find Carbon, Solid, Type IIa 2600 W/mmK (All right, this came from CRC Handbook) Silver 244 Copper 226 cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenaxdal cudfnSteven cudlnAxdal cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Paul Koloc / Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 01:18:53 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <1995Mar13.185158.28913@il.us.swissbank.com> mgriffin@il.us.s issbank.com writes: >In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: >> mitchell swartz writes: >> >> >Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons underemphasized >> >that the reactions and materials are quite complex. >> - Jed > It is worth mentioning that the physics of fusion make it extremely unlikely > that actual fusion is taking place in these experiments. In fact, the fusion > cross-section at low temperature and atmospheric pressure would need to be 10 > orders of magnitude >larger for measureable amounts of heat to be produced. Pressure is a very important concept to appreciate relative to fusion. Actually, the claim of P&F as I first understood it was that the fuel was trapped within the interstices of the metal crystal and not at lattice sites (as replacement or substitution). Consequently, these regions are very restricted in volume so that the effect of the high packing generates very large pressures, which are very very much larger than one would find in a magnetically confined fuel of a tokamak. Tokamaks are on the order >10 atm, and P&F came up with number orders and orders higher in equivalent (electrochemical bounding) pressure to compress the d-d or D-Li of CF. Now, in such an environment, is there "lattice related funny business" that affects the "tunneling"?? Certainly could happen, but if so it probably requires new physics. That's considered to be too unlikely, but not impossible, for after all we don't yet know everything. Yet that's what makes this and other stuff fun. B Merriman says he likes fusion because he's working for the good of mankind?? well actually, I think he too has fun. >This is a difficulty that apparently isn't even understood by the sales guys >like Jed, never mind underestimated. And it's not expected to go away any >time soon! There seems to be a mismatch in understanding, engineering and fusion over a number of fusion approaches. >Mike Griffin >(speaking strictly for myself.) +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037 | | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 | | VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.24 / PaulBreed / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: 24 Mar 1995 21:54:16 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I like Toms Idea of a reward with the vote to be taken by s.p.f. Paul Breed cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.24 / jonesse@acoust / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: 24 Mar 95 13:07:48 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University In article , js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano) writes: > In article <3kstu2$p6e@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) > wrote: > >> Now that Marshall Dudley has offered to put Griggs on line for >> free, thank you Marshall, we still have the question of what to >> do with the left over money. Steve Jones has said he could get >> an addition to the money as a prize. I too would add to it if >> we can think up something that we can judge and test. The real >> problem is judgeing and testing. I vote for gamma rays or charged >> particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there >> is not much room for agrument. What do you all think? >> >> Remember man powered flight. A small prize can bring a big >> result! >> >> Tom Droege > > As a suggestion: The claim is often the production of T and He. If no > one can think of another way that these elements would be enriched apart > from some exotic reaction that is not currently known, maybe there should > be a prize for some given level of either or both of these two. I think > all of us would be equally excited if there was something unknown going > on, whether it is fusion or something else. The production of "excess > heat" seems to be a sticking point, what with calorimetry disputes and > all. However, excess T (or He) levels should be easy to detect, and would > perhaps be a better "acid test" as to whether or not SOMETHING is going > on. So, if there are no neutrons, but there IS tritium production, that > should be of interest in itself, eh? So, maybe a poster could be placed > at ICCF-5 stating the reward for X amount of tritium in a given time frame > produced by one of these cells under rigorous conditions (I know, the idea > needs a fair amount of refinement, but what the heck). Since it appears > that neutron (and x-ray) production is what the fusioneers want to see to > believe, but the claim by the CFers tends towards other things, let's make > some lemonade (if life gives you lemons...). > > Justa thought. > > JV > js_vetrano@pnl.gov > -- > The above opinions are mine, all mine. If tritium is indeed produced via nuclear reactions in cf cells containing deuterium, then the following secondary reaction will occur: t (25 keV or greater) + d --> 4He (3.5 MeV) + neutron (14.1 MeV). This secondary reaction produces neutrons, so if you say you have tritium without *any* neutrons, I say that tritium must be due to contamination. Thus, neutrons provide a sensitive test for tritium production via nuclear reactions whenever deuterium is present (as in typical cf cells). Likewise, Pd in the lattice will be excited due to collisions from nuclear end-products, and characteristic x-rays will be generated. Doesn't matter what the nuclear reaction involved is: if there are enough nuclear reactions to generate measurable tritium or helium -- or any other charged particles, Tom -- then there will be secondary x-rays in abundance, characteristic of Pd excitation. In particular, the 21.1 keV K-alpha line must show up prominently with nuclear reactions in Pd. So I repeat: a meaningful prize to promote crucial experiments should be given for unambiguous neutron OR x-ray production. I think that covers the bases admirably -- if any nuclear reactions are in fact involved in such cells. 'Unambiguous' means demonstration in a state-of-the-art detector, such as we have here for both neutrons and x-rays, but other sites could be chosen. I propose (again), therefore, demonstration of either 1. 700 neutrons in the BYU neutron detector, in the Provo Canyon Lab (underground), in a 24-hour period; or 2. 700 characteristic x-rays in an x-ray *spectrometer*, in a 24- hour period. If either demonstration is realized in Utah Valley (Micron is coming here!), then a local company will reward $1,000 to the first to accomplish the feat. This is independent of what Tom Droege does with the remainder of his trip $; however, as a contributor to *that* fund, I recommend that it be used also as reward money for cf demonstration along the lines proposed here and by Tom Droege. --Steven Jones P.S. -- Just heard from Tom Claytor of Los Alamos regarding his difficulties in getting tritium nowadays... hope Tom will publicly talk about this. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.24 / jonesse@acoust / cancel <1995Mar24.130241.2147@acoust.byu.edu> Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cancel <1995Mar24.130241.2147@acoust.byu.edu> Date: 24 Mar 95 13:08:43 -0700 cancel <1995Mar24.130241.2147@acoust.byu.edu> cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.24 / Dean Edmonds / Re: Griggs Connection Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Connection Date: 24 Mar 1995 15:14:14 -0500 Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd. In article <3ksju3$9kk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Jpmjpmjpm wrote: > >in this way I can actually start making sarcastic comments DIRECT to >Griggs. This brings up a good point: someone should warn Mr. Griggs of the, shall we say, `variety of investigative approaches' that he will encounter on the net. In other words, he should expect to get flamed, expect the flamers to be the most vociferous and not automatically assume that they represent the views of the group as a whole. ========================================================================= - deane cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / parsec@worf.in / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: parsec@worf.infonet.net () Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: 25 Mar 1995 08:19:45 GMT Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA In article , John Vetrano wrote: >In article <3kstu2$p6e@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) >wrote: > >> Steve Jones has said he could get >> an addition to the money as a prize. I too would add to it if >> we can think up something that we can judge and test. The real >> problem is judgeing and testing. I vote for gamma rays or charged >> particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there >> is not much room for agrument. What do you all think? >> >> Remember man powered flight. A small prize can bring a big >> result! >> >> Tom Droege > >As a suggestion: The claim is often the production of T and He. Or perhaps neutrons. Dr Jones offered to test a cell with a portable neutron detector, but how would possible contestants acquire some preliminary measurement? How complex/costly/rare are neutron detectors? cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenparsec cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Bradley Sherman / Re: What to do with the extra trip fund? Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What to do with the extra trip fund? Date: 25 Mar 1995 08:23:42 GMT Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees I say 50% to anyone who can get Jed to reduce the frequency of his postings by one-half. The other 50% to anyone who can get Jed to reduce the length of his postings by one-half. And the remaining 1% to get my Pentium replaced, --bks -- Bradley K. Sherman | Institute of Forest Genetics bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov | P.O. Box 245 510-559-6437 FAX:510-559-6440 | Berkeley, CA 94701 USA Dendrome Project cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / mitchell swartz / Reward Offer: Extend to X-rays Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Reward Offer: Extend to X-rays Subject: Reward offer: Extend to X-rays Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:59:56 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <1995Mar20.171436.2140@physc1.byu.edu> Subject: Reward offer: Extend to X-rays Steven Jones ( jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes: =Neutron production has been _claimed_ by P&F as accompanying excess heat =production, along with Mel Miles, Arata, A. Takahashi, Yamaguchi and a =number of others of lesser "fame." So it it not a matter of what we "want" =from cold fusion, is it? Is that true? additional information or misinformation? Many materials have now been successfully loaded with deuterium. Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division China Lake, CA have reported on "ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is helium-4. Their high caliber research demonstrated the linking of helium-4 with the excess heat. Their paper "HEAT AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED PALLADIUM" has the following important excerpts. Here is some information from Miles himself regarding his work: "Our previous results present a correlation between the measured excess poser and helium production in D2O-LiOD electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes. The measured rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield helium as a product. ***** Metal flasks were used to collect the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric contamination due to helium diffusion through glass. The helium concentrations in Table II support a detection limit of approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as reported previously. Mean values for the measured helium concentrations in these control experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL. ... For experiments producing excess power, five helium measurements using these same metal flasks have been completed. These experiments yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x 1011 4He/s*W after correcting for background levels of helium measured in control studies (Table II). This value is once again the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield 4He as a product. " Perhaps Steve Jones will detail the exact references starting with the very first member of his list, MEL MILES, specifically the Jones-reported Miles reference for "neutron production" which he claims, because it must have missed my attention. Thanks in advance. Back to the actual experiments. The 93 expts used metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination. All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 production rate normalized to power, and the helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines). The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma above background. {Questions to Steve Jones [or any of the other TB-skeptics]) Comments on that, Steve? And what might be some implications? Miles' well-controlled autoradiography work stands to document the ionizing radiation, albeit not the spectrum beyond suggestive evidence that it probably includes photons in the photoelectric range over some areas of the active electrode. Given a 12 sigma signal, why would anyone focus solely on neutrons which are not emitted or are so in neutronpenic amounts? With a Qt of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction of H4) this data would put the ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected. Because there may not be only one pathway; and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth considering. If you do not agree, why not? Best wishes, Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com] cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / mitchell swartz / Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Now what to do with $700 Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:20:37 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <1995Mar24.130748.2148@acoust.byu.edu> Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Steven Jones [jonesse@acoust.byu.edu] writes: =If tritium is indeed produced via nuclear reactions in cf cells containing =deuterium, then the following secondary reaction will occur: = t (25 keV or greater) + d --> 4He (3.5 MeV) + neutron (14.1 MeV). Could be true dependent upon the pathway. =This secondary reaction produces neutrons, so if you say you have tritium =without *any* neutrons, I say that tritium must be due to contamination. Depends on the production rate, and the rather low sensitivity and cone-angle subtended by your system. =Thus, neutrons provide a sensitive test for tritium production via nuclear =reactions whenever deuterium is present (as in typical cf cells). Not true. Helium is produced. So the S/N is set ridiculously low. Also the low sensitivity and cone-angle issues. Neutrons are a vapor-test. =Likewise, Pd in the lattice will be excited due to collisions from nuclear =end-products, and characteristic x-rays will be generated. Doesn't matter =what the nuclear reaction involved is: if there are enough nuclear reactions =to generate measurable tritium or helium -- or any other charged particles, Not necessarily true with respect to the number of these events. It has not been demonstrated that such high momentum produced characteristics x-rays are necessary in the solid state. What is ignored, again, is helium and heat which are the trademarks of the reactions in the solid state. Here is some information from Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division China Lake, CA who have reported on "ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is helium-4. Their high caliber research demonstrated the linking of helium-4 with the excess heat. Their paper "HEAT AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED PALLADIUM" has the following important excerpts. "Our previous results present a correlation between the measured excess poser and helium production in D2O-LiOD electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes. The measured rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield helium as a product. ***** Metal flasks were used to collect the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric contamination due to helium diffusion through glass. The helium concentrations in Table II support a detection limit of approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as reported previously. Mean values for the measured helium concentrations in these control experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL. ... For experiments producing excess power, five helium measurements using these same metal flasks have been completed. These experiments yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x 1011 4He/s*W after correcting for background levels of helium measured in control studies (Table II). This value is once again the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield 4He as a product. " The 93 expts used metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination. All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 production rate normalized to power, and the helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines). The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma above background. {Question to Steve Jones) why keep looking for the wrong signals? Best wishes, Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com] cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Kennel / Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error Date: 25 Mar 1995 16:42:45 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) > > "If there is no evidence that the device can ever make more than 30% > excess heat out over power in, there is no evidence that it will ever > be a net thermodynamical generator of *power* and thus *$$$$*." > > There is *tons* of evidence that the device can be made to work at over 30% > excess. Similar devices routinely work at 300% (but at poor Carnot efficiency > I believe), and once or twice 500% excesses have been achieved for brief > periods. > > There is no evidence at all that the device is limited to 30%, and no reason > to think that. I was responding to a previous message where you stated that: ***** Message-ID: That is impossible. The excess rarely goes above 30% It would have to 500% or so. ***** matt > - Jed Just brief bursts of 500% do not give tremendous support that there is a very powerful fumdamental source of energy. One could say that this demonstrates that there is some physical mechanism for substantial energy storage. What does it mean for "a similar device to work at 300% but at poor Carnot efficiency?" matt cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Kennel / Bottom line? Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Bottom line? Date: 25 Mar 1995 16:58:34 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN Tom, what is the bottom line with your evaluation of the Griggs thingy? In your opinion: Is it worthwhile enough for us to care? Should we even bother with trying to get Hydrodynamics to do a better experiment? matt cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Kennel / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: 25 Mar 1995 17:04:17 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote: > In Message-ID: <1995Mar24.130748.2148@acoust.byu.edu> > Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 > Steven Jones [jonesse@acoust.byu.edu] writes: > =If tritium is indeed produced via nuclear reactions in cf cells containing > =deuterium, then the following secondary reaction will occur: > = t (25 keV or greater) + d --> 4He (3.5 MeV) + neutron (14.1 MeV). > Could be true dependent upon the pathway. > =This secondary reaction produces neutrons, so if you say you have tritium > =without *any* neutrons, I say that tritium must be due to contamination. > Depends on the production rate, and the rather low sensitivity and cone-angle > subtended by your system. For a production rate necessary to be a source of the excess heat these requirements are achieved by huge orders of magnitude. > Not true. Helium is produced. So the S/N is set ridiculously low. > Also the low sensitivity and cone-angle issues. > Neutrons are a vapor-test. Why? Do you know how many reactions per second one watt is? Do you know how good modern nuclear detectors are? > =Likewise, Pd in the lattice will be excited due to collisions from nuclear > =end-products, and characteristic x-rays will be generated. Doesn't matter > =what the nuclear reaction involved is: if there are enough nuclear reactions > =to generate measurable tritium or helium -- or any other charged particles, > Not necessarily true with respect to the number of these events. > It has not been demonstrated that such high momentum produced > characteristics x-rays are necessary in the solid state. What are you talking about? Prof. Jones experimentally demonstrated that a known radiation source produced clear observable electronic x-ray line in *solid state palladium*. > What is ignored, again, is helium and heat which are the > trademarks of the reactions in the solid state. Conveniently hard to measure unambiguously. > Question to Steve Jones) > why keep looking for the wrong signals? Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, convervation of baryon number, ratio of strong to electromagnetic forces, causal limits of special relativity, among others. > Best wishes, > Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com] cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / mitchell swartz / Now what to do with $700 (low S/N signals) Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Now what to do with $700 (low S/N signals) Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 17:45:11 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <3l1ieh$p71@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Matt Kennel (kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov) wrote: > =If tritium is indeed produced via nuclear reactions in cf cells containing > =deuterium, then the following secondary reaction will occur: > = t (25 keV or greater) + d --> 4He (3.5 MeV) + neutron (14.1 MeV). > Could be true dependent upon the pathway. > =This secondary reaction produces neutrons, so if you say you have tritium > =without *any* neutrons, I say that tritium must be due to contamination. > Depends on the production rate, and the rather low sensitivity and cone-angle > subtended by your system. =For a production rate necessary to be a source of the excess heat =these requirements are achieved by huge orders of magnitude. Actually, you are wrong. The production rate depends upon the branching ratio, doesn't it? and therefore there are not required that many neutrons. Perhaps you might reread the CF literature. > Not true. Helium is produced. So the S/N is set ridiculously low. > Also the low sensitivity and cone-angle issues. > Neutrons are a vapor-test. =Why? Do you know how many reactions per second one watt is? Do =you know how good modern nuclear detectors are? Of course. Posted it here. And elsewhere. Yes. And the angle subtended, too. Do you? You might check the physical data and literature in the area, too. (or even read up on power meters ;-). > =Likewise, Pd in the lattice will be excited due to collisions from nuclear > =end-products, and characteristic x-rays will be generated. Doesn't matter > =what the nuclear reaction involved is: if there are enough nuclear reactions > =to generate measurable tritium or helium -- or any other charged particles, > Not necessarily true with respect to the number of these events. > It has not been demonstrated that such high momentum produced > characteristics x-rays are necessary in the solid state. =What are you talking about? Prof. Jones experimentally demonstrated =that a known radiation source produced clear observable electronic =x-ray line in *solid state palladium*. What are you talking about? Mr. Jones did not even get excess heat. Or so he said. Or has it changed again. And if not, what difference do other experiments using other systems matter. > What is ignored, again, is helium and heat which are the > trademarks of the reactions in the solid state. = Conveniently hard to measure unambiguously. It is the signal. S/N, sensitivity and selectivity are the issues. > Question to Steve Jones) > why keep looking for the wrong signals? =Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, convervation =of baryon number, ratio of strong to electromagnetic forces, =causal limits of special relativity, among others. Not impressed at all. These are not reasons to look for LOW S/N ratio signals, are they? You would help yourself to read up on signal processing. We note that you did not answer the question about helium (other post) or about the mis-attention and mis-direction to the wrong signal here, but it is probably easier to both ignore them and the science associated with them. Best wishes, Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com] cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / John Logajan / Another www site Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Another www site Date: 25 Mar 1995 18:10:15 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Russ George of E-Quest has a www home page available for browsing at: http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeorge There is some discussion there of the E-Quest cavitation results. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / ElliotKenl / Re: Reward Offer: Extend to X-rays Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Reward Offer: Extend to X-rays Date: 25 Mar 1995 13:45:01 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) For my two cents, I think the community should consider the possibility that there are multiple reactions which occur, resulting in the generation of tritium, helium and possibly He-3. In many cases, excess heat is not accompanied by commensurate amounts of fusion reactants. I think we should be open to the possibility that the palladium participates in the reaction; and that He-4 could be alpha emission from some intermediate nucleus. Tritium could be the result of neutron transfer from Pd or other nuclei to D. Since very little evidence exists to specify what nuclei are involved, there is no reason not to consider a reaction involving Pd, not just light isotopes. Incidentally, I appreciate Dr. Jones' humor here. Clearly there is much more at stake than $700, and no experiment capable of resolving the differences between advocates and skeptics can be performed for that amount of money. Best regards, Elliot Kennel cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:50 -0500 (EST) In article <3kstu2$p6e@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says -> Now that Marshall Dudley has offered to put Griggs on line for -> free, thank you Marshall, we still have the question of what to -> do with the left over money. Steve Jones has said he could get -> an addition to the money as a prize. I too would add to it if -> we can think up something that we can judge and test. The real -> problem is judgeing and testing. I vote for gamma rays or charged -> particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there -> is not much room for agrument. What do you all think? Mind you, I have been unable to speak with Griggs about it. He was out of town yesterday, so I will try again Monday. There is no guarantee that he will accept my offer. Although I can give him free service, we are not a local call for him. Therefore, he may feel that $10 a month is a better deal than paying the long distance charges if he intends to spend a lot of time in Usenet. The break even point will probably be about 2 hours a month. I would suggest wating until we can at least allow Griggs to decide how he wants to proceed before jumping to any conlusions. I will continue trying to reach him and determine what direction he wishes to take. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: What to do with the extra trip fund? Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What to do with the extra trip fund? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:52 -0500 (EST) bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes: -> I say 50% to anyone who can get Jed to reduce the -> frequency of his postings by one-half. The other -> 50% to anyone who can get Jed to reduce the length -> of his postings by one-half. -> -> And the remaining 1% to get my Pentium replaced, -> --bks If you figure out how to do that, you should become a banker. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Tom Droege / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: 25 Mar 1995 20:02:08 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) says: (snip) >I will continue trying to reach him and determine what direction he wishes to >take. Thank you Marshall, this is this medium working at it't best! Tom Droege > > Marshall > cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Tom Droege / Re: Reward Offer: Extend to X-rays Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Reward Offer: Extend to X-rays Date: 25 Mar 1995 20:06:48 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <3l1obd$eps@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl) says: > Incidentally, I appreciate Dr. Jones' humor here. Clearly there is >much more at stake than $700, and no experiment capable of resolving the >differences between advocates and skeptics can be performed for that >amount of money. Man powered flight was not achieved for the prize that was available - I remember $25,000. It is not the prize, but the glory of winning it that drives man. Tom Droege >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Tom Droege / Re: Bottom line? Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bottom line? Date: 25 Mar 1995 20:23:16 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <3l1i3q$p71@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) says: > >Tom, what is the bottom line with your evaluation of the Griggs >thingy? I think the scientific community created a much stronger postion for P&F by attacking them. Better to just sit back and let them do experiments and publish. Then the quality of the experiments speaks for the quality of the work. If some one makes a fantastic claim, I say let them produce a fantastic experiment to demonstrate it. Otherwise we should just yawn and turn our attention elsewhere. Note that Griggs is not yet at the fantastic claim stage. So we should just ignore him completely. When he makes a fantastic claim, then I will look at the quality of the experiment that backs it up. I think a big claim take a big experiment. Something that we all look at and say, Wow!! Isn't that clever. How neatly he produces a convincing result! Actually, as it was presented, the P&F work looked like that type of experiment. If it had worked, it certainly would have been. But none of us could make it work. Sigh!! > >In your opinion: Is it worthwhile enough for us to care? Should we >even bother with trying to get Hydrodynamics to do a better experiment? I think the big mistake made with P&F was in not giving them access to the accepted scientific literature. We should have let them publish there and accept the consequences (whatever they are) to their reputation. That is why I promote exposure of the Griggs work. The quality of the experiment will tell the tale. Judging from the stuff that is read here, publishing Griggs will not affect the over all scientific quality level of this group. So I say give him free acces to present his ideas and experiments here. Tom Droege > >matt > cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Tom Droege / Re: Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: 25 Mar 1995 20:29:22 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , js_vetrano@ nl.gov (John Vetrano) says: > >In article <3kstu2$p6e@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) >wrote: > >> Now that Marshall Dudley has offered to put Griggs on line for >> free, thank you Marshall, we still have the question of what to >> do with the left over money. Steve Jones has said he could get >> an addition to the money as a prize. I too would add to it if >> we can think up something that we can judge and test. The real >> problem is judgeing and testing. I vote for gamma rays or charged >> particle producer as that I know how to test in a way that there >> is not much room for agrument. What do you all think? >> >> Remember man powered flight. A small prize can bring a big >> result! >> >> Tom Droege > >As a suggestion: The claim is often the production of T and He. If no >one can think of another way that these elements would be enriched apart >from some exotic reaction that is not currently known, maybe there should >be a prize for some given level of either or both of these two. I think >all of us would be equally excited if there was something unknown going >on, whether it is fusion or something else. The production of "excess >heat" seems to be a sticking point, what with calorimetry disputes and >all. However, excess T (or He) levels should be easy to detect, and would I guess you have not been reading this group very long. About the only thing really easy is charged particles above 10 Mev or so. Anything else has many problems. You can get a positive helium result because someone next door got baloons for their birthday. At the Sante Fe meeting Steve Jones gave a press conference and among other things told all of us where to get just enough tritium to "salt" an experiment. I have it on video tape. I can personally tell you that heat is hard. Tom Droege >perhaps be a better "acid test" as to whether or not SOMETHING is going >on. So, if there are no neutrons, but there IS tritium production, that >should be of interest in itself, eh? So, maybe a poster could be placed >at ICCF-5 stating the reward for X amount of tritium in a given time frame >produced by one of these cells under rigorous conditions (I know, the idea >needs a fair amount of refinement, but what the heck). Since it appears >that neutron (and x-ray) production is what the fusioneers want to see to >believe, but the claim by the CFers tends towards other things, let's make >some lemonade (if life gives you lemons...). > >Justa thought. > >JV >js_vetrano@pnl.gov > >-- >The above opinions are mine, all mine. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Frank Pitt / Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop) Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 95 05:19:39 GMT Organization: Munden's Bar In article <950319170638_54345688@aol.com> Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com writes: >PS - 'adjudicated' or 'peer-reviewed' lists really, really, really >really, really, really suck. Even if you HATE nutcases on the >lists you read, I ENCOURAGE those who are whining and wanting >an adjuducated list sci-physics list, to RECONSIDER. I've NOTICED >that in every field of interest on the net, whether 4x4 suspension >discussion or chinese politics or technical or petit-point, >adjudicated lists are simply NEVER popular. This is not universally true. You should try comp.dcom.telecom as an example. It's almost busier than this group. PS. Loose the capitals, makes you sound like a poor advert. Frankie cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / Frank Pitt / Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop) Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 95 05:42:12 GMT Organization: Munden's Bar In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > >Jim Carr writes: > >>That is not what Tom's report or Griggs comments suggest. Anyway, if >>you do not understand the inherent contradiction between the two things >>I underlined above (Windows was not developed for real-time data >>acquisition) then it is no wonder you take violent exception to things >>that seem eminently sensible to physicists. > >This is such BULLSHIT! I cannot believe that you scientists sit there >typing this kind of thing, without ever >checking any references or asking any vendors anything! It is such Some of us don't need to, we know more about these things than the "vendors" >*nonsense* to declare that Windows cannot be used for real time data> collection. >Of course it can! It works fine. Look, we are not arging about some obscure >physics question. We are not arguing about calorimetry. This question is >not open to debate. Just get a damn catalog, open it up, and check your >facts. It is as easy as looking up Sears in the telephone book. Look here: >I have the 1992 issue of Keithly Metrabyte's "Data Acquisition Catalog >and Reference Guide." Right here on page 170 and 171 it describes their >"LABTECH (TM) NOTEBOOK integrated menu-driven data acquisition and >analysis software" which "runs under Microsoft Windows." Okay? Page 175 >describes some of their other Windows software. Read what he said. He said "Windows was not developed for real time data accqusition" He _didn't_ say it wasn't posible, just that it was developed for that purpose. There is a difference between "data accquisition" and "real-time data accquisition" Combined with specific hardware and a DOS device driver a Windows program could act as the front end for a reliable data collector >For Crying Out Loud! Don't dispute facts that any fool on a vendor's mailing >list can instantly prove. For Fuck's Sake stop putting words into other peoples mouths. And BTW, vendor's mailing lists are hardly a reliable reference. Is that where you get all your info from ? That would explain a few things. >As for your speculation about Griggs, and Droege's speculation, it is absurd >and without foundation. Droege went there yes, but he failed to write down >the name of the software, he did not look closely at it, and he does not know >a damn thing about it. Neither he nor you is qualified to make any statements >about it. And you are ? OK what is the name of the software, who wrote it , and what is it doing (exactly, down to the opcode level ) ? If _you_ can't answer these questions then _you're_ not qualified to complain about these speculations. And why the hell are you are worried about it anyway ? As you say, it's speculation, so either add something constructive to the speculation or piss off. Frankie cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.25 / mitchell swartz / Now what to do with $700 Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Now what to do with $700 Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 23:44:30 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <3l1uf2$436@fnnews.fnal.gov> Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700 Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) writes: = I guess you have not been reading this group very long. About the only = thing really easy is charged particles above 10 Mev or so. Anything else = has many problems. You can get a positive helium result because someone = next door got baloons for their birthday. Since those in the field who perform the helium generation measurements often measure the leakage rate, frequently maintain metallic containers, and on occasion also control with argon, as well as use other controls, and since helium is in the ambient anyway, do you have a single reference to confirm this conjectured baloon (sic) hypothesis? = At the Sante Fe meeting Steve = Jones gave a press conference and among other things told all of us where = to get just enough tritium to "salt" an experiment. I have it on video = tape. I can personally tell you that heat is hard. = Tom Droege How did Steve Jones know to "salt" an experiment? How did he suggest to circumvent scientific integrity and controls? And exactly how much was "just enough"? Would that be for an F+P level or JONES level? Thanks in advance, Tom. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Mar 26 04:37:03 EST 1995 ------------------------------